When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#161  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 17, 2010 2:31 am

andyx1205 wrote:
So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.

With no clue as to how US meddling in Iranian affairs ultimately led to the takeover of the US Embassy, the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the setting up of the present Shia dictatorship in Iran, not one fucking clue. And no idea about how if the US had behaved itself a bit differently the whole thing might have been avoided and instead, the US handed Iran to the Mullahs on a platter, the fuckin' dopes. :yuk:
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 87
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#162  Postby AndreD » Jun 17, 2010 4:53 am

andyx1205 wrote:

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.


:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#163  Postby andyx1205 » Jun 17, 2010 1:26 pm

The International Institute for Strategic Studies, described as "the world’s leading authority on political-military conflict," releases an annual report (since 1958) that gives an analysis of the global military situation. They had a piece on Iran in April 2010.

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-t ... bout-iran/

Foreign Policy - More hype about Iran?
Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored.

One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition of The Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

GDP: United States -- 13.8 trillion
Iran --$ 359 billion (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran's)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. -- $692 billion
Iran -- $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.--1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran-- 525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. -- 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran -- 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. -- 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran -- 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. -- 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran -- 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons:
U.S. -- 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran -- Zero

One might add that Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action. The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.
By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same toal of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizeable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It's a pretty unloveable regime, to be sure, but given Iran's actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren't going to work) or devising strategies to "contain" an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor "threat" in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and SecDef Gates understand this. I hope I'm right. But I'm still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn't tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the "last resort" that Mullen referred to last weekend.
“I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.” - Trotsky
User avatar
andyx1205
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 6651
Age: 28
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#164  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 17, 2010 2:53 pm

andyx1205 wrote:The International Institute for Strategic Studies, described as "the world’s leading authority on political-military conflict," releases an annual report (since 1958) that gives an analysis of the global military situation. They had a piece on Iran in April 2010.

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-t ... bout-iran/

Foreign Policy - More hype about Iran?
Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored. (snipped)

Damn, at last a little common sense is brought to the issue of Iran! Mighty refreshing!
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 87
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#165  Postby Dr. Kwaltz » Jun 17, 2010 4:04 pm

AndreD wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Mayak wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:Name me the last war that Iran started. So far the last one was in 1946.

You missed a biggie. The current government of Iran started a war in the form of the Iranian revolution in 1979. They attacked the U.S. embassy, which is legally an attack on a foreign country.

The U.S. and Iran have been in a low level war ever since. It's one that was started by Iran, not by the U.S.


That's his mistake? :lol:

How about thinking that past actions determine future ones? Or not providing any evidence? :smug:

Of course the CIA's removal of the duly elected Mossadegh and installation of the Dictator the Shah and basing US forces in Iran for 20 years had nothing to do with the 1979 Iranian "revolution" and taking of the US Embassy and 450 hostages. Oh no. :yuk:


They didn't really 'install' the Shah, he was already there as emperor but just increased his powers to that of an absolute monarch after he kicked Mossadegh out at the behest of MI6/CIA. I really don't know why Mossadegh thought he could actually survive politically after telling the British to fuck off and stripping the Shah of most of his power and wealth - he was just asking to be overthrown or assassinated.

Ok, there is so much wrong being said about Iran and what the west has done in the area it needs to be corrected and I have just the right thing.

BBC aired a 3 part documentary called "Iran and the West" which goes through the history, including interviews with many of the involved parties.

If you have a decent USENET server and account, fire up your newsreader, then download and import the following NZB-files, then let the newsreader download the documentary.

http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433894
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433893
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433892

It's one of the best documentaries I have ever seen in any category!
Coworker on food:
We have 4 basic food groups: alcohol, fat, chocolate and caffeine... Get them all in a Mudslide!
Me:
I'm a tea lover - Long Island Ice Tea to be specific.
Dr. Kwaltz
 
Posts: 1364
Age: 61
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#166  Postby AndreD » Jun 17, 2010 7:14 pm

Dr. Kwaltz wrote:
Ok, there is so much wrong being said about Iran and what the west has done in the area it needs to be corrected and I have just the right thing.

BBC aired a 3 part documentary called "Iran and the West" which goes through the history, including interviews with many of the involved parties.

If you have a decent USENET server and account, fire up your newsreader, then download and import the following NZB-files, then let the newsreader download the documentary.

http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433894
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433893
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433892

It's one of the best documentaries I have ever seen in any category!


I'll have a look. In the meantime, do you mind telling me what I got wrong?
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#167  Postby Dr. Kwaltz » Jun 17, 2010 7:20 pm

AndreD wrote:
Dr. Kwaltz wrote:
Ok, there is so much wrong being said about Iran and what the west has done in the area it needs to be corrected and I have just the right thing.

BBC aired a 3 part documentary called "Iran and the West" which goes through the history, including interviews with many of the involved parties.

If you have a decent USENET server and account, fire up your newsreader, then download and import the following NZB-files, then let the newsreader download the documentary.

http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433894
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433893
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433892

It's one of the best documentaries I have ever seen in any category!


I'll have a look. In the meantime, do you mind telling me what I got wrong?

The Shah.
Coworker on food:
We have 4 basic food groups: alcohol, fat, chocolate and caffeine... Get them all in a Mudslide!
Me:
I'm a tea lover - Long Island Ice Tea to be specific.
Dr. Kwaltz
 
Posts: 1364
Age: 61
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#168  Postby AndreD » Jun 17, 2010 7:36 pm

Dr. Kwaltz wrote:
AndreD wrote:
Dr. Kwaltz wrote:
Ok, there is so much wrong being said about Iran and what the west has done in the area it needs to be corrected and I have just the right thing.

BBC aired a 3 part documentary called "Iran and the West" which goes through the history, including interviews with many of the involved parties.

If you have a decent USENET server and account, fire up your newsreader, then download and import the following NZB-files, then let the newsreader download the documentary.

http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433894
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433893
http://www.nzbclub.com/nzb_view.aspx?mid=1433892

It's one of the best documentaries I have ever seen in any category!


I'll have a look. In the meantime, do you mind telling me what I got wrong?

The Shah.


That he didn't already run the country? Or that he wasn't against Mossadegh? :eh:
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#169  Postby Barry Cade » Jun 17, 2010 8:47 pm

AndreD wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.


:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.


Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.
User avatar
Barry Cade
 
Posts: 824

Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#170  Postby sys » Jun 17, 2010 8:56 pm

Dr. Kwaltz wrote:
BBC aired a 3 part documentary called "Iran and the West" which goes through the history, including interviews with many of the involved parties.


I've grouped together 18 parts into a youtube playlist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iar_1OK ... playnext=1

All videos originally uploaded by http://www.youtube.com/user/AliSanaei83
sys
 
Posts: 450

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#171  Postby AndreD » Jun 17, 2010 9:15 pm

Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.


:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.


Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.


I wasn't comparing the policies of Mossadegh to the policies of Hitler. It was just the first example that came to mind of a well known action which resulted in the downfall of the one who instigated it. Agreeing with Mossadegh's policies has no bearing on the fact that they were entirely foolish and naively idealistic, and would obviously result in a backlash by other interested parties like the British government and the Shah.

Dr. Kwaltz, I've watched the first episode of that documentary and so far there hasn't been any mention of Mossadegh and the '53 coup, all content has been on the Islamic revolution. Is the relevant bit you wanted me to see in later episodes?
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#172  Postby Barry Cade » Jun 17, 2010 10:53 pm

AndreD wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.


:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.


Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.


I wasn't comparing the policies of Mossadegh to the policies of Hitler. It was just the first example that came to mind of a well known action which resulted in the downfall of the one who instigated it. Agreeing with Mossadegh's policies has no bearing on the fact that they were entirely foolish and naively idealistic, and would obviously result in a backlash by other interested parties like the British government and the Shah.


Hogwash. Mossadegh was a remarkably moderate reformer. He nationalised the Iranian oil industry and insisted that the prerogatives of the Shah be curbed. He pushed for reforms of the voting system. Hardly Vladimir Ilyich bleeding Lenin. I'm not sure how piss-poor a reformer would have to be to avoid being labelled "entirely foolish and naively idealistic" by you. The villains of the piece were not Mossadegh and his associates, but rather the GB and US states and the interests they served — dressing up your apologetics as some sort of 'tough but true' real-politik entirely overlooks the necessity of Mossadegh responding to massive popular pressure. If anything, Mossadegh's moderate reformism was the least that could have been proposed under the circumstances — conservative forces directly opposed his policies on electoral reform and Mossadegh's constitutionalism prevented him from rallying the kind of mass, popular movement that could have effectively stopped foreign intervention. Like many reformers, Mossadegh learned the dangers of carrying out only half a revolution. If anything, he wasn't radical enough.
User avatar
Barry Cade
 
Posts: 824

Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#173  Postby Virus » Jun 18, 2010 12:13 am

Barry Cade wrote:
Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.


He wasn't really elected prime minister. He was appointed by the parliament.
Rotox Records Youtube Channel.
Electronic, Drum & Bass.
http://www.youtube.com/user/rotoxrecords
Image
Image
User avatar
Virus
 
Posts: 1029
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#174  Postby Dr. Kwaltz » Jun 18, 2010 12:15 am

AndreD wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.


:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.


Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.


I wasn't comparing the policies of Mossadegh to the policies of Hitler. It was just the first example that came to mind of a well known action which resulted in the downfall of the one who instigated it. Agreeing with Mossadegh's policies has no bearing on the fact that they were entirely foolish and naively idealistic, and would obviously result in a backlash by other interested parties like the British government and the Shah.

Dr. Kwaltz, I've watched the first episode of that documentary and so far there hasn't been any mention of Mossadegh and the '53 coup, all content has been on the Islamic revolution. Is the relevant bit you wanted me to see in later episodes?


Ahhh man now you are going to have me watch it call over again, I have all three episodes and yes, I think it is in 2.
Coworker on food:
We have 4 basic food groups: alcohol, fat, chocolate and caffeine... Get them all in a Mudslide!
Me:
I'm a tea lover - Long Island Ice Tea to be specific.
Dr. Kwaltz
 
Posts: 1364
Age: 61
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#175  Postby andyx1205 » Jun 18, 2010 12:32 am

To add onto my previous post, in the article it noted:

Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).


I will post a letter by Philipp Bleek in the Wall-Street Journal that was a response to the following op-ed by John Bolton, the former US Ambassador to the UN under George Bush (so that we can evaluate both sides).

Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will surely follow suit.
John Bolton wrote:Negotiations grind on toward a fourth U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran's nuclear weapons program, even as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York to address the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference. Sanctions advocates acknowledge that the Security Council's ultimate product will do no more than marginally impede Iran's progress.

In Congress, sanctions legislation also creaks along, but that too is simply going through the motions. Russia and China have already rejected key proposals to restrict Iran's access to international financial markets and choke off its importation of refined petroleum products, which domestically are in short supply. Any new U.S. legislation will be ignored and evaded, thus rendering it largely symbolic. Even so, President Obama has opposed the legislation, arguing that unilateral U.S. action could derail his Security Council efforts.

The further pursuit of sanctions is tantamount to doing nothing. Advocating such policies only benefits Iran by providing it cover for continued progress toward its nuclear objective. It creates the comforting illusion of "doing something." Just as "diplomacy" previously afforded Iran the time and legitimacy it needed, sanctions talk now does the same.

Speculating about regime change stopping Iran's nuclear program in time is also a distraction. The Islamic Revolution's iron fist, and willingness to use it against dissenters (who are currently in disarray), means we cannot know whether or when the regime may fall. Long-term efforts at regime change, desirable as they are, will not soon enough prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons with the ensuing risk of further regional proliferation.

We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran's nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.

There is no possibility the Obama administration will use force, despite its confused and ever-changing formulation about the military option always being "on the table." That leaves Israel, which the administration is implicitly threatening not to resupply with airplanes and weapons lost in attacking Iran—thereby rendering Israel vulnerable to potential retaliation from Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is hard to conclude anything except that the Obama administration is resigned to Iran possessing nuclear weapons. While U.S. policy makers will not welcome that outcome, they certainly hope as a corollary that Iran can be contained and deterred. Since they have ruled out the only immediate alternative, military force, they are doubtless now busy preparing to make lemonade out of this pile of lemons.

President Obama's likely containment/deterrence strategy will feature security assurances to neighboring countries and promises of American retaliation if Iran uses its nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for this seemingly muscular rhetoric, the simple fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons would alone dramatically and irreparably alter the Middle East balance of power. Iran does not actually have to use its capabilities to enhance either its regional or global leverage.

Facile analogies to Cold War deterrence rest on the dubious, unproven belief that Iran's nuclear calculus will approximate the Soviet Union's. Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption.

Even if containment and deterrence might be more successful against Iran than just suggested, nuclear proliferation doesn't stop with Tehran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others will surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons in response. Thus, we would imminently face a multipolar nuclear Middle East waiting only for someone to launch first or transfer weapons to terrorists. Ironically, such an attack might well involve Israel only as an innocent bystander, at least initially.

We should recognize that an Israeli use of military force would be neither precipitate nor disproportionate, but only a last resort in anticipatory self-defense. Arab governments already understand that logic and largely share it themselves. Such a strike would advance both Israel's and America's security interests, and also those of the Arab states.

Nonetheless, the intellectual case for that strike must be better understood in advance by the American public and Congress in order to ensure a sympathetic reaction by Washington. Absent Israeli action, no one should base their future plans on anything except coping with a nuclear Iran.


Here is Professor Bleek's response:

Maybe Iran Isn't the Domino So Many Think It to Be
Philipp C. Bleek wrote:In "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran" (op-ed, May 3), John Bolton repeats the conventional wisdom that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, or at least a weapons option, will prompt Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps others to "surely seek, and very swiftly, their own nuclear weapons." These concerns are widely shared across the political spectrum, but they have little basis in either historical experience or analysis of the specific countries alleged to be on the cusp of launching their own nuclear weapons programs.

Similar arguments were made when Israel and Mao's China—both in highly antagonistic relationships with multiple other states—obtained nuclear weapons, but few if any nuclear dominoes toppled then. One could imagine Saudi Arabia desiring nuclear weapons if intense rival Iran obtained them, and the Saudis have the required financial resources, if not the nuclear infrastructure at present. But U.S. security guarantees will be a politically and economically far less costly alternative. Egypt and Turkey both have less overtly antagonistic relationships with Iran, and pursuing nuclear weapons would entail huge political costs. Both countries would risk undermining crucial relationships with Washington.

Mr. Bolton, alongside others including President Barack Obama, may be exaggerating the likelihood of a nuclear cascade to try to motivate action to prevent it, a worthwhile goal. But the fears of nuclear cascades should not blind us to the fact that we have significant levers to prevent proliferation, nor should they goad us to take precipitous actions, such as bombing Iran, that are likely to backfire.


It's only fair to present both sides of the case. Make your own judgement.
“I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.” - Trotsky
User avatar
andyx1205
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 6651
Age: 28
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#176  Postby andyx1205 » Jun 18, 2010 12:35 am

Virus wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:
Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.


He wasn't really elected prime minister. He was appointed by the parliament.


Gordon Brown wasn't an elected Prime Minister either. He was however elected by his party. Not every country directly elects their leader, many instead vote for the party.

Iran's Prime Minister Mosaddegh was elected by the Parliament of Iran.

By your analogy, Canada and the U.K. are not "democracies."

@ Dr. Kwaltz

I've never seen that documentary or even heard of it before. Thanks for posting it though, it's currently downloading.

It's quite unfortunate how British and American greed overthrew Mosaddeq, who was a secular leader.
“I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.” - Trotsky
User avatar
andyx1205
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 6651
Age: 28
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#177  Postby AndreD » Jun 18, 2010 2:56 am

Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:
andyx1205 wrote:

So if you oppose being a puppet of the West and instead want to work for the people of your country, then you are just asking to be overthrown or assassinated?

Spoken like a typical defender of imperialism and oppression.


:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.


Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.


I wasn't comparing the policies of Mossadegh to the policies of Hitler. It was just the first example that came to mind of a well known action which resulted in the downfall of the one who instigated it. Agreeing with Mossadegh's policies has no bearing on the fact that they were entirely foolish and naively idealistic, and would obviously result in a backlash by other interested parties like the British government and the Shah.


Hogwash. Mossadegh was a remarkably moderate reformer. He nationalised the Iranian oil industry and insisted that the prerogatives of the Shah be curbed. He pushed for reforms of the voting system. Hardly Vladimir Ilyich bleeding Lenin. I'm not sure how piss-poor a reformer would have to be to avoid being labelled "entirely foolish and naively idealistic" by you. The villains of the piece were not Mossadegh and his associates, but rather the GB and US states and the interests they served — dressing up your apologetics as some sort of 'tough but true' real-politik entirely overlooks the necessity of Mossadegh responding to massive popular pressure. If anything, Mossadegh's moderate reformism was the least that could have been proposed under the circumstances — conservative forces directly opposed his policies on electoral reform and Mossadegh's constitutionalism prevented him from rallying the kind of mass, popular movement that could have effectively stopped foreign intervention. Like many reformers, Mossadegh learned the dangers of carrying out only half a revolution. If anything, he wasn't radical enough.


I'm an apologist for the Shah now? I don't care who the "villains" are, and I have not made my opinion known on whether I think the coup was a 'good thing' or not. Mossadegh didn't have enough power to institute the reforms without a backlash, and for not realising this I consider him foolish. Whether he was good/just/righteous has nothing to do with it.
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#178  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 18, 2010 3:59 am

AndreD wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:
Barry Cade wrote:
AndreD wrote:

:eh: I wasn't supporting the Shah, I was just making the comment that Mossadegh was rather stupid trying to institute a bunch of reforms all at once - of course a fucked off British government is going to do something. Sort of like how one might say Hitler was foolish invading Russia, but not actually agree with his politics or actions.

Yeah, you're right. A democratically elected reformist prime minister, trying to make social reforms in his own country, is perfectly analogous with a Nazi dictator, ordering the invasion of one of his neighbours. You should write a book about this stuff. You could get Christopher Hitchens to write the foreword.

I wasn't comparing the policies of Mossadegh to the policies of Hitler. It was just the first example that came to mind of a well known action which resulted in the downfall of the one who instigated it. Agreeing with Mossadegh's policies has no bearing on the fact that they were entirely foolish and naively idealistic, and would obviously result in a backlash by other interested parties like the British government and the Shah.

Hogwash. Mossadegh was a remarkably moderate reformer. He nationalised the Iranian oil industry and insisted that the prerogatives of the Shah be curbed. He pushed for reforms of the voting system. Hardly Vladimir Ilyich bleeding Lenin. I'm not sure how piss-poor a reformer would have to be to avoid being labelled "entirely foolish and naively idealistic" by you. The villains of the piece were not Mossadegh and his associates, but rather the GB and US states and the interests they served — dressing up your apologetics as some sort of 'tough but true' real-politik entirely overlooks the necessity of Mossadegh responding to massive popular pressure. If anything, Mossadegh's moderate reformism was the least that could have been proposed under the circumstances — conservative forces directly opposed his policies on electoral reform and Mossadegh's constitutionalism prevented him from rallying the kind of mass, popular movement that could have effectively stopped foreign intervention. Like many reformers, Mossadegh learned the dangers of carrying out only half a revolution. If anything, he wasn't radical enough.

I'm an apologist for the Shah now? I don't care who the "villains" are, and I have not made my opinion known on whether I think the coup was a 'good thing' or not. Mossadegh didn't have enough power to institute the reforms without a backlash, and for not realising this I consider him foolish. Whether he was good/just/righteous has nothing to do with it.

Backlash from whom? England? The USA? Both working in concert? Two entities that had no business meddling in the internal affairs of Iran, as in none, zero, zip, nada?

Mossadegh had a mandate from the Iranian electorate, which he likely could have leveraged into success for the reforms he had in mind.

And don't forget, it is precisely the foreign meddling that led to the Shah's dictatorship and significant US military presence in the country, both of which rubbed Iranian youth the wrong way and produced the 1979 revolution. As I said earlier, the Americans handed Iran to the Mullahs on a silver platter. In their arrogance they were utterly surprised by the revolution and seem still to be so, how could this happen? The dopes can't even see their own folly. And today Iran has them twisted like a pretzel all worried about them. The Mullahs are surely laughing.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 87
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#179  Postby AndreD » Jun 18, 2010 4:29 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Backlash from whom? England? The USA? Both working in concert? Two entities that had no business meddling in the internal affairs of Iran, as in none, zero, zip, nada?


Yes.


Mossadegh had a mandate from the Iranian electorate, which he likely could have leveraged into success for the reforms he had in mind.


True, but irrelevant to my initial comment.

And don't forget, it is precisely the foreign meddling that led to the Shah's dictatorship and significant US military presence in the country, both of which rubbed Iranian youth the wrong way and produced the 1979 revolution. As I said earlier, the Americans handed Iran to the Mullahs on a silver platter. In their arrogance they were utterly surprised by the revolution and seem still to be so, how could this happen? The dopes can't even see their own folly. And today Iran has them twisted like a pretzel all worried about them. The Mullahs are surely laughing.


Yes. Though there's not a whole lot of difference between a secular nationalist government and a religious nationalist government when it comes to global politics (there's some difference with the rationality of leaders, but I'm pretty sure that the Iranian leaders are rational - it's not as though they're insane nutjobs like the Qutbists).
User avatar
AndreD
 
Posts: 1753
Age: 30
Male

Country: Australia
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: When Was The Last Time Iran Started a War?

#180  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 18, 2010 4:37 am

AndreD wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Backlash from whom? England? The USA? Both working in concert? Two entities that had no business meddling in the internal affairs of Iran, as in none, zero, zip, nada?


Yes.


Mossadegh had a mandate from the Iranian electorate, which he likely could have leveraged into success for the reforms he had in mind.


True, but irrelevant to my initial comment.

And don't forget, it is precisely the foreign meddling that led to the Shah's dictatorship and significant US military presence in the country, both of which rubbed Iranian youth the wrong way and produced the 1979 revolution. As I said earlier, the Americans handed Iran to the Mullahs on a silver platter. In their arrogance they were utterly surprised by the revolution and seem still to be so, how could this happen? The dopes can't even see their own folly. And today Iran has them twisted like a pretzel all worried about them. The Mullahs are surely laughing.


Yes. Though there's not a whole lot of difference between a secular nationalist government and a religious nationalist government when it comes to global politics (there's some difference with the rationality of leaders, but I'm pretty sure that the Iranian leaders are rational - it's not as though they're insane nutjobs like the Qutbists).

In order to invoke ideas about what might have been in Iran today had the Brits and the Americans kept their grubby Cold War hands off the country, one has to do a good deal of speculating as to just how developed Iran's democratic system might have become if Mossadegh would have been left alone to serve his term.

My tendency is to come down on the positive side of that and think that today we'd see a rather staunch secular democratic government in Iran with a moderate foreign policy, a notion I distill from what my many Iranian friends have to say on the subject.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 87
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest