War against Iran
 

My latest blog post is at The Daily Chronolog , but just so I don't get banned for spam, I've included my article below. (But, you're going to have to visit the blog for the links, sorry).

I'm a little torn on the issue. While I think any kind of military action against Iran is a bad idea, I don't believe that they should be allowed to become a nuclear power.

Yea, war against Iran, would be a terrible idea, but what other options are on the table?

Besides heavy sanctions, which are only so effective since Iran is an oil rich nation and Russia has stated they will continue to buy Iranian oil regardless, there are probably few other options.

The good news is that there is still plenty of time to act since Iran are still years behind developing an actual nuclear warhead.

Yeah, thats exactly the way I feel.

Maybe a surgical strike is the answer, without putting boots on the ground??

Such fear hurts me to hear. :(

I wouldn't say that I feel hurt, but I am troubled by this fatalistic attitude. So long as we keep operating from a Win-Lose perspective, will we not basically fulfill our own prophecies? It is my understanding the the Iranian government wants nuclear warheads as a political deterrent towards antagonist foreign powers (the U.S, Israel).

The world doesnt need more nukes though, it needs less of them

Indeed. Few people realize that the United States remains the only power to use nuclear weapons as an act of war (i.e., Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII), and so other countries of the world have a valid reason to be fearful, as well as view the U.S. as a nation of hypocrits.

This is not to say that I think that Iran should have nuclear weapons, but only that when the Western powers say, "we can have nukes, but you can't," then it is no surprise that those who can't might simply flip them the bird.

I agree. But is operating from a 'win-lose' perspective the best way to achieve this? The way I see it is that you can discourage nuclear weapons either by operating from a 'win-win' perspective or by flat out intervening with other sovereign powers through military and economic might.

Western powers (not just the U.S - I'm talking about Britain, France, Russia, Israel) have a long history of interfering with other sovereign states economically and militarily. There is a very good reason why a lot of the heads of states in Latin American don't particularly like the U.S. So long as you keep giving your neighbours cause to despise you, you will have to keep up economic and military dominance, and what will you do when you finally cannot do this any longer? How are you going to protect your self?

There is a difference between thinking in the short term and thinking long term. Even if the US chooses to interfere with Iran militarily in order to solve the nuke problem, I think that decision will come back to bite them in the ass.

I'm afraid we only have 2 choices however. Either let Iran develop nukes, or prevent them from getting nukes through military action.

What other choices do we have?? Iran has already said they wont allow inspectors inside their nuclear facilities

Sigh. So mankind still finds itself here..... imposing his will on his fellow man, using violence against violence. Who prevails has the best violence. Ultimately this is what it keeps coming back to for us ....we kid ourselves we are fighting for democracy or freedom or fill in the blank. But we continue to suppress and kill or fellow man through the motivation of fear. Stick a fork in us..... we're done.

I edited my reply.

I am really sad to see the paranoia, I just hope things don't get out of hand like in the previous cases.

It's discouraging that people are even considering swallowing the "WMD card" again. It's a perfect example, though, of the culprit pointing a finger outward toward the "terrorist".

Let us remember back to the Bush Administration: Iran was being set up for this very play. How convenient it comes directly after the Iraq oil pipeline was completed (and thus we can end the war). And what was said back then?

"Iran sits on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world".

Was the public given a chance to read Ahmadinejad's letter? No: Condi Rice called it "ridiculous" and the media played it down.

Read the letter for yourself. Come to your own conclussion. And when one considers the attrocities israel has committed, why wouldn't neighboring countries want to arm themselves, particularly when they know they're on the hit list?! Review the WHOLE build up to the Iraq conflict. This is Act II.

Fool me once: shame on me. Fool me TWICE...

The Letter of May 2006 from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush

Yea, too bad it's bit more complicated than that. Beside treaties Iran signed, waiving their right to nuclear weapons, imagine what would happen if they get them. Saudi Arabia is already publicly considering getting them as well. Next is Turkey, then Syria. Then what? Imagine Balkan in the 1990s if everyone had nukes.

They were saying the same thing about Pakistan. Everyone was afraid they'd use them against India. Well, the last time I saw, India was still standing.

This is all the fear that's hard for me to hear.

The difference is that Iran is a violent theocracy that considers human rights to be subservient to adhering to an extremist and backward interpretation of the religion of Islam.

By its very existence as an Islamic Republic it is waging jihad, which is an aggressive stance, not a defensive one. Therefore they should definitely be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, there has not been any direct war between India and Pakistan since they got Nukes. This also shows the double standard of US foreign policy. They will not stop Pakistan from acquiring nukes, they will keep on gifting them with loans, most of which goes into terrorist activities.

The question to ask here is - is the US really interested in stopping terrorists or is there a hidden agenda?

As a historian, cache, I can tell you that, historically, especially in the United States, there's always a hidden agenda.

Sad, but true.

Who do you mean when you say "the US"?

Hey. I don't agree with you. That is the story of Fox News, but the reality is that Pakistan has been fighting guerilla groups for years. Of course, a small number of the ISI will be turning a blind eye or supporting the Taliban, and of course, some of the Taliban will be Pakistani. But it is false that "most" of the money "goes into terrorist activities". Most of it probably goes into funding the military to fight guerilla groups, and in whatever else the government of Pakistan spends its money on.

I question why the U.S. is giving anyone any money for any purposes, while it faces a $15 trillion debt crisis.

If Iran, or Pakistan, or India, or anyone else want to fight each other, let them go ahead, I say, to their own ultimate destruction, if that is their whim. But why make me pay for it?

Because there is oil involved... thats what all of this is about.. that plus currency relating to oil..

That is a good question. Ultimately, I value foreign aid if it is correctly distributed, because there are so many suffering people in the world, for example over a billion living on less than $1 dollar a day.

However, you are right in that a lot of aid to foreign governments (in particular) is put in the pockets of corrupt individuals, or is spent on arms. I think the rationale is that by funding the Pakistani military it means their soldiers get to die and fight, and there is less fighting over in Afghanistan as a result. But yeah, I would definitely stop funding to a lot of governments and take a more peaceful, non-interfering role in the world.

I would like to see more money given, but specifically and cleverly targeted. Ultimately, I'd like to see an operation like in Iraq, where all the trumpets and the urgency and the big talk is coming, but with Chinooks and aircraft carriers going out to places of famine to save 100,000's of thousands of lives.

I meant the United States. Maybe I should have put it as U.S.

For Pakistan, the answer lies in history. When Russia was in Afganistan, U.S. wanted an ally which they found in Pakistan. In return, they were quite generous with money, weapons etc. Later, they made use of Pakistan while fighting the war in Afganistan. But Pakistan is playing a double game, taking help from U.S. and at the same time not doing anything to stop terrorist activities. The latest evidence was Bin Laden.

I don't have the exact figures. But it's difficult to know what goes on in the Pakistani government that is under a strong hold of the military and the ISI.

I'm sorry but why exactly is everyone on this forum talking about going to War with Iran as though its this nonchalant recreational activity?
Iran hasn't poised any serious threat the the United States or any of our military allies. To attack a nation simply because we disagree with how they decide to run their country is both bad manners and incredibly conceded.

We just went through that up in arms belief with invading Iraq, and all we got were hundreds of thousands dead in causalities dead. Yes, we got the dictator. But Saddam was merely one man, what he really worth all we spent and all the lives we lost?

I'm all for war when its necessary, but fear of what maybe might happen is not justification for losing/killings thousands.

This is perhaps THE most sane and intelligent post I've seen on this forum for a while.

THANK YOU.