Iran: Strike or no strike?

[FFPCogs 863]

Since I believe this is one of the major issues confronting our nation as the 2012 election approaches and I work in a part of the world that would most likely feel the immediate effect of any preemptory strike, I was just curious as to what the consensus of those at home is to the situation with Iran and it's nuclear weapons program. Here's some questions on the subject.

Do you think this situation is a threat to us at home?

Do you think that you as an emergency responder here at home face the possibility of another 9/11 type asasault due to our or our allies actions or lack of them regarding Iran?

Do you think sanctions and an oil embargo will prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons?

Do you think we should return to the negotiating table with an openly hostile and traditionally dishonest regime? If so do we trust them to fulfill any agreements reached?

Do yo think we should strike unilaterally and destroy their facilities and means of production before a weapon is produced?

Do you think we should encourage and/or support Israel (or other allies) in that type of operation?

Do you think we should engage in covert operations such as sabotage of Iran's nuclear facilities and sources of funding?

Do you think we should engage in the assasination of Iran's nuclear scientists?

Do you think we should encourage our allies to engage in such covert actions on our behalf?

Do you think we should engage in open hostilities or even declare war should they close the Strait of Hormuz? If not then how about if they do indeed build the bomb?

Do you think we should just leave it alone and insist our allies do the same to prevent a war?

Do you believe there is another option or options? If so what are they?

Cogs

Edited February 18, 2012 by FFPCogs

[calhobs 110]

Cogs

Some very important questions you bring up. IMO I think Israel will do a premptive strike before we do, I do think we should back them. I also think we should sit down and talk with Iran. I am a frim believer that you keep all channels of communaction open at all times to prevent a war. I do not think another 9/11 type attack will happen in the near future, I see more of smaller attacks happening such as the plot that was spoiled yesterday on the Captial, the Times Sq incident etc.but nothing on the scale of 9/11 anytime soon.

Now the big question. Is it a threat to us here at home? At this very moment no, what it can lead to down the line where the serious threat comes in.

IMO if we do any thing it will be Covert Ops with assasinations of scientist and sabotage of facilities. If we do bombing strikes I think that will be a result of Covert Ops failing. I dont think we should encourge our allies to do Covert Ops on our behalf but I do think they should be encourged to help us in them.

Very interesting topic .

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Cogs

Some very important questions you bring up. IMO I think Israel will do a premptive strike before we do, I do think we should back them. I also think we should sit down and talk with Iran. I am a frim believer that you keep all channels of communaction open at all times to prevent a war. I do not think another 9/11 type attack will happen in the near future, I see more of smaller attacks happening such as the plot that was spoiled yesterday on the Captial, the Times Sq incident etc.but nothing on the scale of 9/11 anytime soon.

Now the big question. Is it a threat to us here at home? At this very moment no, what it can lead to down the line where the serious threat comes in.

IMO if we do any thing it will be Covert Ops with assasinations of scientist and sabotage of facilities. If we do bombing strikes I think that will be a result of Covert Ops failing. I dont think we should encourge our allies to do Covert Ops on our behalf but I do think they should be encourged to help us in them.

Very interesting topic .

History has proven that communication does nothing but buy such regimes more time to complete their overall agendas or move the majority of it to other facilities that intelligence agencies then have to go searching for which gives more time to further the agenda. It also has shown...for example North Korea that it cannot be trusted and just causes more issues when the UN gets involved for the inspection process.

I'm not sure what gives you the idea of "covert ops" but historically this is not the type of situation that they are generally used for. If you are going to "sabotage" the facility...there is no greater sabotage then that of 2000 lbs bombs destroying the place...and you will get most people inside. The U.S. is not generally in the business of killing civilians but collateral damage is inevitable. It would be time consuming and a logistical nightmare to attempt to "assasinate" scientists involved in the process as most would be then guarded or go into hiding to protect themselves. Not to mention a PR storm as they are civilians and its not like they exactly have a choice or not for what they're doing. The final point of allies doing covert ops...for one it was proven with the operation Last Chance that spec ops teams work better in their numbers they train at. Adding to them or adding multiple teams creates more logistical issues in regard to communication, coordination etc. So if Israel decides to take action..like they did in Iraq...that's on them..after all they are the ally we trust the least. They are under a direct and clear threat at a higher scale then we are. So I wouldn't call any action they take as encouraged...but independent. We should stay out of their business just like they have ours with both Iraq incidents.

Otherwise...if Israel doesn't...either use your stealth aircraft to their fullest abilities...or if they fit the operational spectrum...rain Tomahawks on that facility like the grand finale of the Macy's 4th of July fireworks show. Take no chances...pre emption always costs less then reaction....hence...WW 1, WW 2 and Korea

[ex-commish 490]

This is a tough situation for all involved. I believe Iran is a threat to both Isreal and to us but I also believe anything that is to happen to Isreal may impact the U.S. so I don't think we have a choice but to back Isreal however we lost thousands of Americans with two wars and I feel enough American blood has been shed on a region that has been a hot button for years but I do sense some political grandstanding down the road on this issue as we get closer to November.

I truly hope peaceful resolutions can be accomplished. I often hear send in our troops or just nuke the region but that's easy to say if you don't have family members in the military risking thier lives. I feel we need to focus more on our own borders and stop the influx of illegal aliens and drugs into this country which is a war we seem to lose everyday. We also need to strengthen our economy because a weak economy will weaken us overall.

[DRF 5]

To keep it simple and to the point. Strike or no strike?

Strike Now!

Strike Hard!

Strike Fast!

There are assets in the area that can be used that would pose little if any danger to our armed forces.

This is just my opinion.

[calhobs 110]

History has proven that communication does nothing but buy such regimes more time to complete their overall agendas or move the majority of it to other facilities that intelligence agencies then have to go searching for which gives more time to further the agenda. It also has shown...for example North Korea that it cannot be trusted and just causes more issues when the UN gets involved for the inspection process.

I'm not sure what gives you the idea of "covert ops" but historically this is not the type of situation that they are generally used for. If you are going to "sabotage" the facility...there is no greater sabotage then that of 2000 lbs bombs destroying the place...and you will get most people inside. The U.S. is not generally in the business of killing civilians but collateral damage is inevitable. It would be time consuming and a logistical nightmare to attempt to "assasinate" scientists involved in the process as most would be then guarded or go into hiding to protect themselves. Not to mention a PR storm as they are civilians and its not like they exactly have a choice or not for what they're doing. The final point of allies doing covert ops...for one it was proven with the operation Last Chance that spec ops teams work better in their numbers they train at. Adding to them or adding multiple teams creates more logistical issues in regard to communication, coordination etc. So if Israel decides to take action..like they did in Iraq...that's on them..after all they are the ally we trust the least. They are under a direct and clear threat at a higher scale then we are. So I wouldn't call any action they take as encouraged...but independent. We should stay out of their business just like they have ours with both Iraq incidents.

Otherwise...if Israel doesn't...either use your stealth aircraft to their fullest abilities...or if they fit the operational spectrum...rain Tomahawks on that facility like the grand finale of the Macy's 4th of July fireworks show. Take no chances...pre emption always costs less then reaction....hence...WW 1, WW 2 and Korea

As far as "covert ops" it was just what I thought I knew just from some basic knowledege and my opinion, but knowing your knowleged from being in the Marines I get what you are saying and understand it better now. As far as communacation goes Talk, talk until your blue in the face then talk some more, that does not mean we also dont prepare to strike. Never hurts to keep that line open never could tell it may save thousands of lives. Keep talking until you drop that first bomb.

I do agree with you on Israel being at a higher scale of threat then us, since most likely will be the frist to taste a nucler missile from Iran, that is also why I feel they will do a prememptive strike first before we do, which most likely lead us into a full out war again because now Israel will be at war with all of the middle east, and this country will not let Israel fight alone this time. Will this happen? I do not know. But if Isreal stikes them first there are many countries there that want a piece of them and it gives them reason to attack with Iran.

If we stike first what do you think will happen? Does that lead us into war? Does Iran attack Isreal becasue the are an allie to us? From public prospective can next or this President afford possibly another unpopular war? Can this country economically afford another war? Will it just end with the US or Isreal doing a premtive strike? These answers are determined by people way above my pay grade where mu opinion most likely does not matter. but these are the questions facing this and the next Adminastration coming in.

[SECTMB 612]

Since I believe this is one of the major issues confronting our nation as the 2012 election approaches and I work in a part of the world that would most likely feel the immediate effect of any preemptory strike, I was just curious as to what the consensus of those at home is to the situation with Iran and it's nuclear weapons program. Here's some questions on the subject.

Do you think this situation is a threat to us at home?

Yes, Iranian aggression is a threat to this country's interests, domestically and internationally.

Do you think that you as an emergency responder here at home face the possibility of another 9/11 type asasault due to our or our allies actions or lack of them regarding Iran?

I believe another 9-11 incident will happen and that our own or our allies action abroad have little influence on the inevitable actions of those that oppose our way of life.

Do you think sanctions and an oil embargo will prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons?

No, its a big world and there are plenty of nations willing to trade with Iran. No one cares about our sanctions and the tougher sanctions are vetoed by either Russia or China, who trade with Iran.

Do you think we should return to the negotiating table with an openly hostile and traditionally dishonest regime? If so do we trust them to fulfill any agreements reached?

No and No

Do yo think we should strike unilaterally and destroy their facilities and means of production before a weapon is produced?

Yes

Do you think we should encourage and/or support Israel (or other allies) in that type of operation?

Israel should do what it decides is in its best interest and we should support whatever that decision may be.

Do you think we should engage in covert operations such as sabotage of Iran's nuclear facilities and sources of funding?

Yes

Do you think we should engage in the assasination of Iran's nuclear scientists?

Yes

Do you think we should encourage our allies to engage in such covert actions on our behalf?

No, we should do what is in our best interest regardless of others interests.

Do you think we should engage in open hostilities or even declare war should they close the Strait of Hormuz? If not then how about if they do indeed build the bomb?

Closing the straits is an international act of war. Hit back with everything we have, quickly and decisively.

Do you think we should just leave it alone and insist our allies do the same to prevent a war?

Again, do what is in our best interest.

Do you believe there is another option or options? If so what are they?

If I have an option that hasn't been thought of by our 'leaders', we're in bigger trouble than any of us realize.

Cogs

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Will a first strike possibly lead us into war? Again I defer to history...historically for the most part strikes we have taken in retaliation has not. Reagan with Libya, Clinton with several among Africa and Afghanistan. If there is one thing that we do have...whether other countries verbalize it or not..is the fact that we are the super power of the world and do not (99% of the time as of today) go and provoke incidents in the world without valid reason, and that's not even mentioning that we are the premier armed forces of the world.

Could Iran attack Israel in the wake of something we do? Sure but so could every other arab nation that surrounds it with any other action we take in the world. But anyone who dares..knows 1. Israel will attack..and while we have the premier military...they have the premier intelligence community...if they want you..they will reach and touch you. Irans military is not much to write home about and when pushed I believe they will fold under the intense pressure we would put on them with our technology and tactics. If they were to mess with Israel...it would bring down more from the world down on them and those in power now...won't be very long. They're not as dumb as you think....narcissism is much different then ignorance and stupidity.

Sanctions will only slow the progress. Russia, France, China and North Korea will all do business with those willing to pay. France was against sanctions imposed on Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. Why? They owed France millions in weapons purchases from aircraft to mines, etc. In the end the only ones that suffer at the hands of sanctions sadly is the people...the leaders will always live fat while the people suffer.

As far as us at home...we are always at risk regardless of what is going on in the world. Sometimes things elevate that threat...it would be no more then threat while we've been operating in 2 major muslim countries. The difference now is many in the world know..we will find out the details..and we will be coming for you. Unlike the Clinton years where they wanted to capture and convict people. That worked out really well didn't it.

I am for negotiations if it limits the loss of life. But I'm also a realist that sometimes things are what they are and that those who train for their jobs...know they didn't join the boy scouts and no who have we ever negotiated with that stuck to it. Where you're on to something with spec ops teams is the possibility of their involvement in what their truest mission often is. Reconnaissance and actions which increase probability of target acquisition and percentage of accurate hits.

Finally...I'm not sure when you mention a declaration of war. There has been nothing of the sort since World War 2, so no matter what happens I wouldn't hold your breath to ever see that in our lifetime. They can attempt to close whatever they like. But again..the same can be said that we can shut down almost everything coming into that country.

[MoFire390 118]

Good questions Cogs. In my personal opinion the US should have made that country a parking lot a long time ago. But, with the recent actions by that crazy man they call a leader, sit and wait. play the ally of a country who starts the attack.

[FFPCogs 863]

Thanks all for the input thus far.

SECTMB has answered the questions almost verbatim to my own views. Thats said I think there are variables here that expand the situation from the political to the geopolitical. Both Russia and China have vested interests in Iran, not the least of which being weapons sales. Added to that is the fact that both Russia and China have become more bellicose in their dealing with us recently. Now of course the risk to China in terms of losing it's primary trading partner are enormous, but as in times past a costly war in terms of lives and money can bring new powers to the forefront....think the U.S. after WW I as the European empires started to crumble or go bankrupt. And of course the vast majority of the products we rely on now come from China thanks to those who sold out our manufacturing base to line their own pockets. When push comes to shove the risks may be viewed as acceptable if it causes a retreat of American influence and power around the world, leaving a vacuum that both China and Russia would be more than happy to fill. So much so that they may view direct involvement as in their best interest. But far more likely I think would be either Russia, China or both using Iran as a proxy to drag us into a long, costly war unlike anything we've seen since WW2 opening the door for them to pursue their own geopolitical aims without our interference.

Then of course there is the spectre of jihad that would undoubtedly be called as the major supporter and sponsor of Islamic fundamentalist groups comes under attack by the "Great Satan" or our "lackey" Israel. It is almost assured that whether Israel is directly involved or not they will be a target just as they were in the first Gulf war. Except this time the enemy is far larger than Iraq and has it's tentacles firmly pulling the puppet strings of the myriad of terrorist groups operating in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon...all of whom want to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. This also leads to my question about a 9/11 type attack here at home. It may not be the Iranians themselves, but more likely their proxies that plan and try to carry out massive terrorist acts on our soil to help their benefactor.

What we must also remember is that as far as Iran is concerned a de facto state of war already exists between us. They may soon find themselve more alienated and going broke and thus becoming more desperate and reckless as their options dwindle. As a student of history I can see that although very different this situation does bear more than a passing similarity to the state of the our relations with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor...and it was oil then too that was the catalyst for war.

I do not advocate war as the first means to resolve the crisis, but I do support entering into it to protect ourselves or prevent attacks against us. Should Iran aquire nuclear weapons, how long do you think it would be before a terror group got hold of a bomb, put it on small boat and eradicated southern Manhattan? IMO a nuclear armed regime in Iran that has called for the extermination of Israel, denies the Holocaust, and is a sponsor of worldwide terrorist activities, of which we are the main target, is an unacceptable alternative....even if that means war.

Cogs

Edited February 19, 2012 by FFPCogs

[signal30 22]

Those with the ability to take action, have the responsibility to take action...

Lets pray the actions that are needed are those of words....

[ckroll 101]

Do you know why Iran has such a poor opinion of the US?

Maybe it's because when Iran wanted freedom from tyranny and the right to control their own oil that the US moved against Iran and overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and installed the Shah which led to the uprising that allowed religious fundementalists to take over the country.

What we have in Iran right now is a disaster that we the United States was instrumental in creating.

I think there has already been enough bloodshed in Iran thanks to the US interventions and that we owe the Iranian people a non violent solution to a problem we created.

[FFPCogs 863]

Do you know why Iran has such a poor opinion of the US?

Maybe it's because when Iran wanted freedom from tyranny and the right to control their own oil that the US moved against Iran and overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and installed the Shah which led to the uprising that allowed religious fundementalists to take over the country.

What we have in Iran right now is a disaster that we the United States was instrumental in creating.

I think there has already been enough bloodshed in Iran thanks to the US interventions and that we owe the Iranian people a non violent solution to a problem we created.

With all due respect I'm not at all of the opinion we owe the Iranian people or their rabid dog regime anything other than our condemnation. Installing and supporting the Shah does not justify taking American citizens hostage for 444 days and trying to use them as pawns to extort concessions from us. They could have and should have just kicked all Americans out of their country back in 1979, but they chose to pursue a government sponsored criminal act instead. And that mentatlity of resorting to criminal behavior and terror as a means of "defending" themselves has continued unabated since. Add to that their avowed mission to spead the "Islamic Revolution" regardless of whether or not anyone else wants to be party to it and that further exemplifies just how much of a danger they are in this world. Countless lives have been lost or ruined due to their actions in support of jihadist terrorists far beyond their own borders and their own "freedom from tyranny". A freedom by the way which they do not offer their own people and would happily take from others as well given the chance. And aquiring nuclear weapons will give them that chance.

I too wish for a non violent solution, just as I'm sure any sane person does, but as history amply demonstrates appeasement doesn't work...just ask the 50+ million killed in WW 2 after Hitler was appeased. The blood of those 50 million is on the hands of those who sought to accomadate Hitler and his criminal regime in an effort to prevent bloodshed, but which in the end cost far more in blood and genocide than a firmer stand ever would have. As the saying goes "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" and with the potential for a nuclear holocaust causing bloodshed on a scale far beyond that of even WW 2, IMO that quote holds true no more so than in this case.

Cogs

[ckroll 101]

As the saying goes "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" and with the potential for a nuclear holocaust causing bloodshed on a scale far beyond that of even WW 2, IMO that quote holds true no more so than in this case.

Cogs

Ah, one of my favorite quotes and we can agree it applies here. The situation in Iran is of our own making. If we forget that, we will end up buying ourselves a world of trouble and hurt that will cost us countless American lives. What happened in Iran was perhaps one of the saddest moments in American history. We were a brand new super power, the choice was to side with a fledgling democracy who wanted control over their natural resources... which is exactly what we were when we rose up against Great Britain... or we could be a super power and step on their throats and take the oil because we could.

We chose to be a bully and take the oil and beat down what would have been a democracy. I'm not saying it was a bad choice. The cheap oil that flowed made American greatness possible. It was a deal with the devil we made. We sacrificed principle.

That said, Iran is Persian, not Arab, something so many people do not appreciate. We have been picking fights with Arabs up until now. Before you decide it would be great fun to get into a spitting match with Persians, you really need to read that history you do not want to repeat.

[sueg 77]

Since I believe this is one of the major issues confronting our nation as the 2012 election approaches and I work in a part of the world that would most likely feel the immediate effect of any preemptory strike, I was just curious as to what the consensus of those at home is to the situation with Iran and it's nuclear weapons program. Here's some questions on the subject.

Do you think this situation is a threat to us at home?

Do you think that you as an emergency responder here at home face the possibility of another 9/11 type asasault due to our or our allies actions or lack of them regarding Iran?

Do you think sanctions and an oil embargo will prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons?

Do you think we should return to the negotiating table with an openly hostile and traditionally dishonest regime? If so do we trust them to fulfill any agreements reached?

Do yo think we should strike unilaterally and destroy their facilities and means of production before a weapon is produced?

Do you think we should encourage and/or support Israel (or other allies) in that type of operation?

Do you think we should engage in covert operations such as sabotage of Iran's nuclear facilities and sources of funding?

Do you think we should engage in the assasination of Iran's nuclear scientists?

Do you think we should encourage our allies to engage in such covert actions on our behalf?

Do you think we should engage in open hostilities or even declare war should they close the Strait of Hormuz? If not then how about if they do indeed build the bomb?

Do you think we should just leave it alone and insist our allies do the same to prevent a war?

Do you believe there is another option or options? If so what are they?

Cogs

Yes; yes; no; no, no; very tempting; very tempting; isn't that already happening?; same as previous; same as previous; absolutely yes to reopen strait and remove threat, whole 'nother ball game (they lie so much, do not know where they are in production status); absolutely not; maybe, not sure - you hit most options.

England and France kept "appeasing" Hitler - oh, you accidentally invaded Czechoslovakia, don't do it again; my, oh my, Poland just got overtaken, bad bad boy, now stop that; oops, you say France was just run over in three days - let's rethink our stance... Plus, we have a major problem that Iranian operatives are being caught or successfully operating with "sticking bombs" against targets in Israel, Bangkok, Thailand, Indonesia. Last year they were stopped before striking here against a Turkish target, and they are aiming at attempting European assassinations even now. Iran has a lovely government shadow-run run by hard-line clergy council with an elected public "secular" President who helped lead the overrun of the American embassy during Carter's administration. Do not let bullies get away with anything, or they keep taking, but have to approach it so the problem is resolved once and for all. Hard to say how if do not have support of other countries, and a waffling leader here saying "I was in favor of it" even when standing way back until the outcome pretty much certain, or not even lending a hand so the people standing up to them have a chance. Thanks for bringing this up, because the assassination groups being sent out do not care about collateral damage, just public results - sound too familiar????

Edited February 21, 2012 by sueg

[FFPCogs 863]

Ah, one of my favorite quotes and we can agree it applies here. The situation in Iran is of our own making. If we forget that, we will end up buying ourselves a world of trouble and hurt that will cost us countless American lives. What happened in Iran was perhaps one of the saddest moments in American history. We were a brand new super power, the choice was to side with a fledgling democracy who wanted control over their natural resources... which is exactly what we were when we rose up against Great Britain... or we could be a super power and step on their throats and take the oil because we could.

We chose to be a bully and take the oil and beat down what would have been a democracy. I'm not saying it was a bad choice. The cheap oil that flowed made American greatness possible. It was a deal with the devil we made. We sacrificed principle.

While we were definitely not angels in regards to our support of the Shah, there are reason why the support was given besides just oil.

For any who may not know here's a bit of history on the subject:

Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi (Persian: محمدرضاشاه پهلوی, [mohæmˈmæd reˈzɒː ˈʃɒːhe pæhlæˈviː]; 26 October 1919 – 27 July 1980) was The last Shah of Iran who ruled from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by theIranian Revolution on 11 February 1979. He was the second and last monarch of the House of Pahlavi of the Iranian monarchy. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi held several titles: His Imperial Majesty, Shahanshah (King of Kings, Emperor), Aryamehr, (Light of the Aryans) and Bozorg Arteshtārān (Head of the Warriors, Persian: بزرگ ارتشتاران).

Mohammad Reza came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During his reign, the Iranian oil industry was nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh and Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. The Shah's White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources, and extending sufferage to women.

A secular Muslim himself, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran'sintelligence agency, SAVAK, Amnesty International reported that in 1978 Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.

Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most notable of which were the U.S. and UK backed coup d'etat against Mosaddegh in 1953, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 16 January, forced the Shah to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic . Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose President, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum.

In the 1990s and the decade following 2000, the Shah's reputation has staged something of a revival, with many Iranians looking back on his era as a time when Iran was more prosperous and the government less oppressive. Journalist Ashfin Molavi reports even members of the uneducated poor - traditionally core supporters of the revolution that overthrew the Shah - making remarks such as 'God bless the Shah's soul, the economy was better then;' and finds that "books about the former Shah (even censored ones) sell briskly," while "books of the Rightly Guided Path sit idle

That said, Iran is Persian, not Arab, something so many people do not appreciate. We have been picking fights with Arabs up until now. Before you decide it would be great fun to get into a spitting match with Persians, you really need to read that history you do not want to repeat.

I am fully aware that Iranians are the descendents of the great Persian Empire, one of if not the, longest lasting Empire of the ancient world. This fact is not lost on Ahmadenejad either, in fact he often references the past glories of that Empire and the Iranian "right" to their place in the sun because of it. This too is a very familar rhetorical ploy used by dictators, despots and tyrants to justify the actions of their regimes...again a look back a mere 79 years shows how easily well educated and cultured people can be seduced by the notion they are superior by virtue of their ancient past and made to pay for it by us, the inferior races. Aryan or Persian, the name doesn't matter, it's the mentality behind it that does. On top of that, and even though Iran is not an Arab country, it is a State dominated by the Shiite sect of Islam (90% of the population). Now this sect, being the major minority within that religion, has carried a feeling of persecution and revenge since it was founded upon the death by assasination of their leader Hussien ibn Ali, Muhammeds successor, at the hands of the Sunni majority in 632 . All of this contributes to Iran's collective seige mentality in how they view their place in the world and how they relate in it. If history has shown us nothing else it is that propaganda and tightly controlled media can be the most useful tools in molding a population to accept the excesses of their regime...and the Iranians have been fed a steady diet of a resurgent Persian greatness and anti-American, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian fodder since their "revolution".

I will reiterate that this is not about a spitting match but more so about taking active and unmistakable action to prevent a radical, criminal and clearly aggressive regime from aquiring nuclear weapons with which they can blackmail the world or worse unleash them upon it to achieve their aims.

Cogs

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Do you know why Iran has such a poor opinion of the US?

Maybe it's because when Iran wanted freedom from tyranny and the right to control their own oil that the US moved against Iran and overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and installed the Shah which led to the uprising that allowed religious fundementalists to take over the country.

What we have in Iran right now is a disaster that we the United States was instrumental in creating.

I think there has already been enough bloodshed in Iran thanks to the US interventions and that we owe the Iranian people a non violent solution to a problem we created.

Yeah...somehow I'm still thinking that things would have gone in a similar direction regardless of who intervened where. If the U.S. was so instrumental in creating that disaster..why then has it not turned around since the U.S. has not been a major player internally with them in years.

[SECTMB 612]

With all due respect to anyone trying to attach historical actions, particularly those of the United States, with the current climate pervasive throughout the Middle East and the rise and expansion of radical Islam, please keep in mind that the United States is 232 years old and only engaged in extended international intervention with our involvement in WWI 95 years ago.

The players in the Middle East have been at this for thousands of years. There are relationships and rivalries that we can't possibly get our heads around. What do we have for historical reference, the Hatfields and McCoys? Now throw in righteous religiosity and it goes to levels that are incomprehensible.

Don't forget, maybe we 'installed' the Shah, ( the same can be said of most of the Middle East countries whose 'leaders'/royal families/potentates were put/helped into place post WWII) but what was the quality of life for the Iranian populace then vs. now and remember, we did not support the Shah either when the revolution took place. We allowed his government to fall, Carter hung him out to dry.

I think I shouldn't care about whatever took place to get us to this point. I just care about what we're going to do moving forward and how are we going to prevent those who want our demise from achieving it. And make no mistake, there are many individuals out there with Napoleon complexes that want to see our way of life consigned to the scrap heap of humanity.

I think some of these people are counting on a perceived pacifism on our part following two wars to advance their agenda to our detriment.

[ckroll 101]

Yeah...somehow I'm still thinking that things would have gone in a similar direction regardless of who intervened where. If the U.S. was so instrumental in creating that disaster..why then has it not turned around since the U.S. has not been a major player internally with them in years.

Good point. One might also ask why a glass won't hold water once it's been dropped. Democracy is a fragile construct and there was a moment there where it could have happened. Once a totalitarian theocracy has the reins, it's pretty much over democracy-wise for centuries. Religious extremists, here or there, have little tolerance for free choice.

My concern is that America has had limited success managing countries in the Middle East. It is a different mindset over there and they have a tolerance for bloodshed that most of us cannot even imagine. I can only claim to have read part of the history because invariably there comes a point where it is so brutal that I can't make my eyes keep reading it. Dropping bombs on civilizations capable of that kind of hatred isn't going to make them any more interested in considering our way of life, or trading with us. It's going to prove we are the great satan they have been told we are and it will fuel generations of young people to even greater hatred and acts of violence towards us.

Someone needs to step up and find ways to solve problems without bloodshed. It's not likely to be them, so it needs to be us. Iran is not Germany. It's neighbors are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Turkey. There are mountains between here and there that make 'Sound of Music' look like a walk in the park. The greater threat is that they will export their fear and hatred, displacing reason and informed discourse. A violent regime wants more violence, because that is confrontation they understand.

Sanctions and computer viruses don't light up the night sky or make for great moments on TV. It takes time. There is a difference between patience and appeasement.

[NoWestFF 21]

Given current events and this discussion thread, here's a timely article from today's New York Times about some of the difficulties Israel will have to overcome if it decides to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear program:

NYT: Iran Raid Seen as Huge Task for Israeli Jets

While a U.S. led attack has a better chance of destroying Iran's technical pursuit of nuclear weapons, we can't lose sight of the difficulties our military would face and the many ramifications of an attack. Iran has prepared for an attack against its nuclear program by locating anti-aircraft systems near facilities, distributing the facilities across the country and hardening the facilities against an aerial assault. We have the best military in the world, but we should not under estimate the difficulty of knocking out the Iranian nuclear program. Don't take my word for it, listen to someone who knows a thing or two about such campaigns:

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.

I agree the time for an aerial assault against Iran's nuclear program will arrive one day, I just don't believe that day is today, tomorrow or later this week. I also don't think it's three years from now. As mentioned above "there's a different between patience and appeasement" and I think it's fair to say we're engaged in a multi-faceted campaign against Iran with a fair number of activities not even known to us.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Given current events and this discussion thread, here's a timely article from today's New York Times about some of the difficulties Israel will have to overcome if it decides to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear program:

NYT: Iran Raid Seen as Huge Task for Israeli Jets

While a U.S. led attack has a better chance of destroying Iran's technical pursuit of nuclear weapons, we can't lose sight of the difficulties our military would face and the many ramifications of an attack. Iran has prepared for an attack against its nuclear program by locating anti-aircraft systems near facilities, distributing the facilities across the country and hardening the facilities against an aerial assault. We have the best military in the world, but we should not under estimate the difficulty of knocking out the Iranian nuclear program. Don't take my word for it, listen to someone who knows a thing or two about such campaigns:

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.

I agree the time for an aerial assault against Iran's nuclear program will arrive one day, I just don't believe that day is today, tomorrow or later this week. I also don't think it's three years from now. As mentioned above "there's a different between patience and appeasement" and I think it's fair to say we're engaged in a multi-faceted campaign against Iran with a fair number of activities not even known to us.

Very thought out and well articulated post. As with all operations I'm sure there is a plan already sitting there being poured over, revised, poured over, revised, etc. Much of the military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq were born from plans already constructed by some of our greatest young military minds many years prior for the vast educational schools available and taken by military officers. Just as we are involved in a multi faceted approach to the situation, any military action will have to be a systamatic approach to best protect our assets and offer the highest percentage of success for the objectives. One thing I can say...you can harden anything you like...but there are always weaknesses and armnaments that are designed to attack and defeat it.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Remember Iran is ancient Persia, and the Arabs are ancestoral enemies of Persia. Persia was a pain in the rear 3000+ years ago and they still are. Everyone in the area has knocked them down time and time again thoughout history. They are trying to become a world power once again like they once were. Just look how Persia was back then and compare it to modern day Iran, not much difference in the way the leadership and oppression is utilized.

Quite honestly, its about time we worry about ourselves and fix our own problems on the home front first. If Isreal or any of the other countries in the region what to go ahead and take care of business, fine so be it. We don't need to be in another unpopular war and getting everyone in the world to hate us like they already do. We have to stop being the policeman all the time.

They do something to our people anywhere in the world, then I'm all for blowing them off the face of the map. Until then, they are just a bunch of blowhards that utilize thier interpretation of religion to convince the uneducated in that country and region for thier own means.

Give it time, Iran wil be causing China and Russia problems soon enough. The writing is on the wall, just no one realizes it yet.

Edited February 21, 2012 by IzzyEng4

[ny10570 745]

Here's a timely addition to this thread...

Iran refuses inspections.

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nation’s atomic watchdog said it failed to win access to Iran’s suspected nuclear-related military base, as an Iranian general warned his country may launch a pre-emptive strike to protect its facilities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran refused permission to visit the military site at Parchin during two days of talks that ended yesterday. The meetings were aimed at defusing tensions over a possible military component to the Islamic republic’s atomic program. Israel and the U.S. have said all options are on the table in ensuring Iran doesn’t acquire atomic weapons.

[Stepjam 118]

The Iranian regime has already proven its willingness to export terror. Just look at the attempts recently made on those Israeli diplomats. I'm actually surprised Israel hasn't launched a strike yet, although it may yet.

Although I don't believe that the Iranian people are fully behind the crackpots who are now running the country. However, I do believe that any attack we launch had better achieve 100% of its objectives on the first try, because I think the people will rally behind the regime once an attack is launched. Intelligence gathering and follow-up strikes will be even more difficult to achieve. I think it would be the same for any nation or culture.

In a nutshell, it can't be half-assed.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Stepjam

[ny10570 745]

The Iranian regime has already proven its willingness to export terror. Just look at the attempts recently made on those Israeli diplomats. I'm actually surprised Israel hasn't launched a strike yet, although it may yet.

Although I don't believe that the Iranian people are fully behind the crackpots who are now running the country. However, I do believe that any attack we launch had better achieve 100% of its objectives on the first try, because I think the people will rally behind the regime once an attack is launched. Intelligence gathering and follow-up strikes will be even more difficult to achieve. I think it would be the same for any nation or culture.

In a nutshell, it can't be half-assed.

How is Iran any worse than Israel if it Israel that has been knocking off Iranian scientists?

[FFPCogs 863]

How is Iran any worse than Israel if it Israel that has been knocking off Iranian scientists?

Since Amadenijad and the theocratic Iranian regime has on numerous occasions called for the destruction of the the State of Israel and the extermination of the Jews in the Holy Land I think it's fair to say Israel is acting in self defense.

Kudos to the Mossad and may they find and kill every last one of them before it's too late.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Interesting take on our current world situation. I tend to agree with much of what the author says in the video...how about you?

My link

Cogs

Edited February 23, 2012 by FFPCogs

[Stepjam 118]

How is Iran any worse than Israel if it Israel that has been knocking off Iranian scientists?

You're kidding, right?

[ny10570 745]

I am in no way saying Iran is innocent. I see this as escalation or retribution. Israel has allegedly been attacking Iranian scientists and iran responded. Why is there outrage over this?

[FFPCogs 863]

I am in no way saying Iran is innocent. I see this as escalation or retribution. Israel has allegedly been attacking Iranian scientists and iran responded. Why is there outrage over this?

In answer to your question I can only refer you to my previous post

Since Amadenijad and the theocratic Iranian regime has on numerous occasions called for the destruction of the the State of Israel and the extermination of the Jews in the Holy Land I think it's fair to say Israel is acting in self defense.

Kudos to the Mossad and may they find and kill every last one of them before it's too late.

Quite frankly as far as I'm concerned there should be far more outrage on the part of Americans to the very existence of the current Iranian regime...a regime by the way that has repeatedly called for our destruction and sponsored terrorist activities directed at us and our ALLY Israel since it's founding. They got their theocracy in 1979 and that's fine for them, but it is they who have shunned the live and let live attitude many expect we should adhere to since then.

Cogs