Joe, who are you responding to?

I think joe is referring to mine. I admit the world is too globalist now for it to be realistic. Sometimes I feel like we should act like the super power we are. Let's at least invade Canada

So you are assuming that if take out Iran's current regime that it will become a true democratic country? Given the history of western intervention in Iran that is a small to none probability. What is more likely to happen is that rouge Revolutionary Guard soldiers will step up terrorism in the region and on the west if we intervene and the population will get behind an even more extreme government.

Unless you want to go trillions of dollars even more in debt and invade Iran, facing even more resistance than Iraq or Afghanistan on a endeavor that is certain to fail. Sounds like a cakewalk


Agreed.

take out? i thought you where talking about an internal revolution. my guess is that right now the oposition in iran is a democratic one, one that is pissed at what happened at the last "elections" and got disilusioned.

actually taking down the trade sunctions is likely going to make it much harder for the iranian government to control its people, including everything from information access to home made firepower. that's the best western intervention i think the US can do.

I was talking about an internal revolution that is sparked by external forces. If there was a purely internal Iranian revolution, referencing other Arab Spring countries in the Middle East, especially Egypt, there is no guarantee that a democratic government will arise even when a regime is overthrown by democratic protestors. The clerics and revolutionary guard in Iran are not going to give up their power easily.

If the internal revolution is sparked by external forces, considering the history of western intervention in Iran (Operation Ajax, etc), there is a good chance the resulting regime could be even more anti-western and more nuclear prone than the current. I'm sure Iran is convinced that once they get a nuclear weapon they will have much more power and be safer from attack and sparking a revolution from external forces when they do not have the bomb will only solidify that view, making their drive for nuclear weapons even stronger.


I'm not sure taking down trade sanctions would help start a revolution in Iran. Many Iranians are unhappy with the current regime, but many others are happy as well. Also, assuming the clerics in Iran are rational, they will most likely liberalize before allowing a revolution to happen.

Oh hell, lets throw this into the mix as well
Iran Sentences U.S. 'Spy' to Death
ABC

He has been sentenced to death by hanging and his sentence should be carried out within a week.

Last time we save their fisherman from pirates. :rolleyes:

Not fucking likely. Kid's as good as dead. And this is why my aunt can never go back to Iran, and why her sister had to literally kidnap her mother to get her out of there a few years ago. Honestly, I don't know what the hell the parents were thinking, taking their son there. Almost makes me think he is a spy.

I'm thinking that I don't want to leave my country. In fact, I don't really want to go to some parts of my country.

I'm REALLY beginning to wonder about their threat to close the Strait with sailors like this :eyebrow:

Death to another nuke scientist. They are slowly picking them off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45953703.../#.Tw1npphLLHN

FTFY

Nobody knows whodunnit.

zacalactly...

Here's another article on it.
Its Bush's fau... wai what?
link

Don't be silly. Nothing is Bush's fault.:rolleyes:

I vow to kill you, but this gun I'm buying is merely for target shooting.

We really don't know who is behind this. Yes, it's in our interests to cripple Iran's nuke program, so we have motive. But it's also in Iran's interests to make us look bad. Perhaps this person is not really a nuke scientist. May it was just some guy who worked in the program and was not essential. And Iran killed him to blame it on us.

Maybe we did it.
Maybe Israel did it.
Maybe Iran did it.

Maybe some other Western nation did it.

Who knows?

I'm going for the plausible deniability scenario: Israel did it, but we eagerly looked the other way, and maybe even accidentally left some magnetic bombs in a cabinet with the door unlocked.

And it's all very effective at getting the gas prices up again.

Which hurts the workers who have less to spend which affects the economy and this is the house that Bush...I mean Jack... built. :p:

This. And the same thing applies to torture.

I think this is the most likely as well. In fact we are probably denying it with a wink.

Hmmm.

I assumed it was Israelis, or a stunt by the Iranians.

The style is a bit too hands-on / man-on-the-ground for the US. Just my perception.

Israelis, with a wink from the US, is quite possible.

Next time you guys hand Iranian sailors back, give one of them SARS first. :D

Probably Israel but no it can't be terrorism™ cuz that is only for bad guys.

My guess as well. But I bet they have their own magnetic bomb department.

The U.S. military said on Wednesday that a new aircraft carrier strike group had arrived in the Arabian Sea and that another was on its way to the region, but denied any link to recent tensions with Iran and portrayed the movements as routine.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80A29L20120111

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._flag?page=0,0


WTF. This needs to stop.

Beyond this current headline about sending a msg to Iran, the rest of this article has some interesting discussion of the history and politics of the upcoming military budget.

Military.com
January 22, 2012
Associated Press
|by Lolita C. Baldor

US to Keep 11 Aircraft Carriers to Show Sea Power

The US will probably deploy a carrier to the Gulf when ready to draw a clear red line. America did that during Clinton's reign when China needed to learn of America's support of Taiwan. The message probably caused the Communist Party to finally demand their military explain what they were doing. And put a stop to it. Those two carriers were a necessary political message. Since wars happen when politics and politicians fail to understand what is really happening.

Carriers actually have little military significance especially compared to their political purpose.

hmm

Good news today as the EU began sanctions and will not import Iranian oil. Credit may go to Clinton's State Dept, I imagine. Soft power applied...

...backed up with hard power, the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Gulf. (Without incident. And with Brit and French vessels tagging along.)

Russia is lining up stridently with Iran, and says they will veto future UNSC resolutions.

:)

Really? The Iranians didn't have the nerve to attak a US carrier group? Bah, pansies, especially when Allah is clearly on their side.

I guess this just means China can buy Iranian oil cheaper.

This is the second article I've read that gives a completely different perspective on Iran's regional intentions....and how they failed. Very interesting.

Basically, the perspective states Iran's goal is to become a regional power and in order to be a regional power, one must have influence in the surrounding countries (Arab countries in this situation). Iran felt there was two options at hand: side with the US and unpopular Arab dictators or side with the unhappy but powerless Arab population. Iran felt, in time, that other Arab countries would revolt and start their own 'Islamic Revolution' and naturally look to Iran for leadership. So that explains why, along with many other historical and political reasons, Iran would seem irrational in dealing with the west and US.

Now that their prediction somewhat came true, they are finding out that the Arab population in fact does not want to follow Iran but distrusting at their own hypocritical actions. This puts Iran in a very bad spot.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...evant?page=0,0

I've been thinking lately. Has anyone thought of telling the Iranians, "ok, no problem we believe you when you tell us that you are not developing nukes." Let them go on their merry way. Then if they develop nukes we can cut their balls off? I mean cut off their supply of everything else. And Israel can do what ever they feel they need to do.

If they get nukes then it would be extremely difficult to cut their balls off. The rule of thumb is that you don't attack a nuclear armed country.

I'm just making the point that in the open court of public and world opinion even China and Russia would be hard pressed to go against any sanctions and military intervention if Iran someday possessed a nuclear bomb after all of their honest and sincere foot stomping about developing nuclear technology only for their energy grid. They won't crank them out in a quick fashion I'm sure and a couple of JDAMs and cruise missile strikes would surely even the score, and be welcome by most at that point in time.

They know.

At one point an offer was made to Iran: just send your uranium to Turkey, and France and Russia will exchange it for ready-made fuel rods in the same quantity, for free. In return we will end the sanctions.

Iran turned this offer down. So, it was game on at that point. So now China and Russia are playing chess. Maybe they want a different balance of power. Maybe they figure Iran is rational, and will test their first weapon in a bunker in their mountains, and not in Tel Aviv.

They're probably rational enough to do that, but not rational enough to avoid having their second or third weapon fall off a truck in the neighborhood of a non-state actor.

What is this, the Warm War?

Gee, I'd just come to terms with the cold one.

I'm curious where that assumption comes from?

First, both Pakistan and NK are not going to give non-state actors nuclear technology so that quickly limits down the possibilities of where that nuke came from.

Second, which non-state actor would nuke Israel? Hamas? Hezbollah? The West Bank is around 20 miles away from Tel Aviv and Lebanon is maybe 50. If Israel goes, Lebanon, West Bank, and Gaza get radiation poisoning. Hamas wants to destroy the Israeli state, not the land. Hezbollah controls the southern Lebanon. Their problems would exponentially multiply if a nuke went off in Israel.


Honestly, I have great doubts that Iran as a whole will do anything that stupid. They want to become a regional power and are paranoid of being attacked, therefore a nuclear bomb is the perfect solution. What worries me is the chance that some rogue Revolutionary Guard soldier gets control of the bomb.

I worded it too strongly. The "probably" should only apply to the first bit, and a "possibly" should be added to the second. I generally agree with your analysis.

But I think the theocratic side of Iran's government is stronger than in the other countries, and a True Believer can easily throw rationalism to the wind.

toss this into your analysis hats

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010175602

Wife of Assassinated Scientist: Annihilation of Israel "Mostafa's Ultimate Goal"

China wants one thing from this, to corner the worlds market on natural resources, including Iran's oil, and they want first shot at it. Their ability to consume all of the natural resources is unlimited. I would guess that Russia is more interested in the power issue since this is a close neighbor.

Apparently Iran is using other proxies besides Hamas to launch rocket attacks on Israel.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._gaza?page=0,0