Time For Patience With Iran Finished

[Adrian MacNair]

[imgal="left"]http://www.thespeculatingmaverick.com/media/Post Images/mahmoud.jpg[/imgal]The deadline for Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council resolution 1696 came and went without incident last Thursday, and now the European Union is granting Iran "two more weeks" in some kind of misguided threat to force Iran to reconsider their stance. Sanctions, the main threat against Iran, seems meaningless. Countries like China, Russia, and Japan see the Islamic Fundamentalist state as a key resource in their future economic plans, and it seems the world cannot come together to work on a plan for dealing with this threat of uranium enrichment.

That Iran is developing weapons-grade uranium is undebatable. The question is whether the world can step in and change things before it is too late. The appeasement policies of Hitler come to mind in dealing with Iran, and no country wanted to take charge and deal with the issue (France, Britain, United States) until it was almost too late. If Iran was candid about their reasons for uranium enrichment they would haven no problems with the IAEA coming into the country and monitoring the safe and peaceful production of nuclear power. Iran has even been offered lucrative energy deals, advanced nuclear technology, and fuel assurances for their reactors, in exchange for the promise of adhering to the NPT. But Iran refuses, all the while supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, denying the halocaust, blaming the "Zionists" in Israel, and threatening "great harm" if the United States moves to prevent Iran from acquiring their aims.

Clearly it is time for world leaders to come together, put aside economic investments and ties with Iran, and deal with the militant Islamic threat before it becomes greater than they can deal with. To ignore the issue, or to hope that Iran will not pursue a hostile nuclear agenda is as naive as those who believed Hitler would not invade Poland after ceding Czechoslovakia.

 

[l99999us]

And what turn Iran into the next Iraq. The government may be extreme in some areas but does anything even indicate that they are a threat to anyone else or anything near the equivelent of Hitler? I do not see a case for war here and think that a genuine dialoge would be the best bet.

peace

-Todd

 

[tater03]

I just don't understand why those other countries don't want to have harsher sanctions againest Iran? All the economic values they may receive from Iran are going to be meaningless if they do get nuclear weapons. I seen on the news last night that the U.S might decide to do a strategic bombing campaign if they cannot get harsher sanctions inplemented. I know sanctions might not even work, but it sure beats the alternative of letting this guy think we will just sit back and let him develop nuclear weapons that you know will eventually be used to start another conflict. I guess we will see how this all plays out in the near future.

 

[Jim]

If I were the head of state of Iran, I certainly would not acquiesce to any American demands, especially regarding the capability to defend the country. The situation has become a complete standoff, and it would be total folly for Iran to lower its defense capabilities, including nuclear. To do so would be to invite an American takeover.

And don't forget that Iran was watching, along with every other country in the region, while the United States and Britain falsely accused Iraq of stockpiling prohibited weapons (and supporting terrorists and participating in the Sept. 11 attacks and pursuing nuclear arms and killing civilians and violating UN mandates, ad nauseam), then proceeded to invade and occupy that country. They have no reason to trust that information from IAEA inspections wouldn't be used by the U.S. to map out bombing plans, or that the U.S. would cease to be a threat to Iran even if it completely gave up all of its nuclear technology.

The individuals currently in power in the United States have been planning to launch attacks against many Middle Eastern countries—including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Jordan—since long before Sept. 11 and into the Clinton era. They finally got their excuse to act and are now carrying out the scheme they've been itching to put into action for years. It doesn't really matter what Iran does, because the United States will find a reason to take over anyway.

 

[Adrian MacNair]

Jim,

There is no evidence to suggest the United States would benefit in any way from Iran pursuing an open window enrichment programme supported by the IAEA. I do not see the corelation between Iran allowing full disclosure and American invasion. Military intervention is the last thing the U.S. wants at the moment, and it is this that the Iranian regime is playing on.

That Iraq complied with American demands for disclosure and cooperation is not relevant to the Iranian standoff. Iraq was compliant with the IAEA and only through massive intelligence falsehoods could the Americans convince the world that Iraq was a danger to the world. Unlike Iraq in 2003, Iran posing a very real and present danger as evidenced by the fact that the European Union, United Nations, IAEA, and 6 most powerful nations in the world, have all pleaded with Iran to negotiate into a rather lucrative NPT agreement which would see benefit financially for decades to come. That Iran refuses such a generous offer (the offer is made because of Iran's luscious oil supply) is suspicious enough that the Islamic state is trying to create an Islamic Nuclear power that can wreak havoc on Israel and forever hold a power over the Jewish state that would never be relinquished.

You seem to think this is only about America, but in fact unlike Iraq, Iran has been chirped about quite a bit by a number of countries in the past few years. The state has become far more dangerous in the past year with new President hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waxing rhetoric about destroying Israel, denying the halocaust, and open support for Islamic militancy. There is nothing attractive about an American invasion of Iran, which is why the Americans have had to lose so much face trying diplomatic measures to counter the fierce hostility from Iran. But it goes beyond America. Iran threatened the European Union with harsh measures if it imposes sanctions, and has acted in every way like a rogue state of late. Censorship and crackdowns in Iran are on the rise, as the moderate youth movement is being shut down.

I do not believe your dream of American conquest is economically feasible. Even the Bush regime can hardly call Iraq anything but an utter failure as civil war has all but taken over the region, leaving American soldiers as little more than road blocks that are taken out two, five, or ten a day by IED's and suicide bombings. The Taliban are on the rise in Afghanistan, while Iran has a strong grip on Hezbollah and Syria. Terrorism has never been stronger in the Middle East, and even Republicans are beginning to see it through rose-coloured glasses. An invasion of Iran would be economic ruin for America unless they plan a scorched earth policy. Unfortunately for Bush, the wars fought in the 21st Century are about "hearts and minds". It would be so much easier to kill all the muslims in the Middle East, take their oil, and go home. The fact that America has tried to occupy millions of angry Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq does not bode well for a Shia Iran that would easily swell support from the region who would see an invasion as an attack on Islam itself.

What is left then? Questions and few answers. For my opinion, you can read the Sunday Debate between Joseph and I on populardoctrine.com.

 

[l99999us]

i am on jim's side here. personally i think the leader of iran is certainly extreme in many places but i guess I can't blame him considering the US foreign policies. In any case i do think that it would be possible to negotiate and deal with him. I saw that 60 minutes episode and do think that a genuine negotiation combined with a less billigerent forign policy would be of benifit. Ultimatly we need moderation on all sides here I think. Unfortunatly i don't see much being created

peace

-Todd

 

[supersheep]

Nuclear weapons aren't the big deal here, it's still all about ensuring the US's strategic dominance in the region. If America can impose its will upon Iran now, then in future it will become easier and easier for it to do so. It'll also cause Iran to lose some status in the eyes of groups like Hezbollah.
As for Ahmadinejad's crazy talk, it's just that - talk. He needs to maintain popular support, and, strangely enough, Israel isn't all that popular in that neck of the woods. So, talking tough on Israel gets him a boost in the popularity stakes, just like talking tough on Northern Ireland used to be enough to get your government elected in Ireland. The British knew nothing was ever going to happen - they knew that even if Ireland did have the military manpower to retake Northern Ireland, the politicians didn't want to mess things up that much. Ahmadinejad knows that messing with Israel means that he messes with the US, and he can't handle that kind of strength.
Let's face it, if nuclear weapons were the concern, there wouldn't be any sort of problem here. The UN would send in IAEA inspectors, they'd check everything out, and all would be well. Then the US would lean on Israel, and get them to get rid of their nukes, and then they'd fulfil their obligations under the NPT...