Iran

[monster_mom]

In case you haven't noticed, Iran has been in the news a bit lately, and it looks like it will be staying there for a while so I thought a thread discussing Iran might be interesting.

Some topics for discussion include....

Iran's Nuclear Program. Iran has had a nuclear program since the Shah's era. Recent reports have suggested that Iran may be close to developing a nuclear weapon. Iranian authorities dispute these reports and insist that their nuclear intentions are solely for power generation.

Iran / Isreali Relations. In the past Iran and Israel have enjoyed close international relations. Those relations have cooled since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 but appeared to be thawing during President Khatami's term. Tensions between the two countries have cooled since the election of President Ahmadinejad who has openly called to the "destruction of Israel" though recent public statements indicate that Ahmadinejad is backing away from those assertions.

Iranian / American Relations. In the past Iran and the United States have enjoyed close relations. As with Isreal, following hte Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the taking of the American Embassy in 1980, relations between the two nations have cooled considerably. In recent months American forces in Iraq has detained several Iranian citizens on the suspicion that they were seeking to incite sectarin violence in Iraq. The US has sent a carrier task group into the Persian Gulf. Iran contends that this is a precursor to war, thr US contends that it is not.

Iran's Economic Situation Iran's economy appears to be in trouble. Rising unemployment and skyrocketing inflation have lead to concerns that Iran's economy is on the brink of collapse.

[Hes]

Ahmadinejad has a big mouth, he has to satisfy the extreme conservatives in Iran. That's why he is rather actively attacking Israel with words. But he and his party have lost rather heavily to the more progressive party of the former president Khatami in local election. This could force him to focus more on national problems.

I can't imagine Iran, if they are really able to use nuclear weapons in the near future, would be as stupid to attack Israel. Israel will be able to strike back with nuclear force and will do it regarding of the consequences. They are surrounded by American troops who are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is an ally of the US and will always be supported by them.

I do think that the UN security council should use more pressure on Iran, but negotiations seem not to help a lot at the moment. However I don't think anyone wants another war in that region. The US can't afford it with the current situation in American politics and the costly Iraq War. No other ally would consider getting involved... although you never know with Blair obviously...I don't see any solution for now.

[Ali]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Iranian / American Relations. In the past Iran and the United States have enjoyed close relations.

Mainly because they were in control of Iran. Shah was pretty much a puppet of the US.

Iran had a chance to gain control of its own destiny back during Mossadeq's era. The west saw him as a direct threat to their own national interest so they decided to do what they do best, remove him from power. (see Operation Ajax )

That pretty much set the course for the major events that followed.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by Ali

That pretty much set the course for the major events that followed.

Indeed it did. In 1953, the U.S. (under Eisenhower) helped overthrow the democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, with the idea of achieving a more pro-U.S. government. I remember, as a young girl, following the story of Reza Pahlevi's courtship of Farah Dibah and the national Iranian quest for a male heir in American magazines. Nice story and all, but our meddling created tensions in that country that led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 and - God forbid! - the rise of mullahs with nuclear dreams. If it weren’t for our own policies, Iran might well now have a pro-American government.

[WarriorEowyn]

Iran's Nuclear Program
I don't think anyone honestly believes that they only want nuclear power for peaceful purposes. However, I don't think a nuclear Iran is as dire a threat as it is often considered. It wouldn't be a good thing, certainly, but it also wouldn't cause nuclear war - the idea of deterrence is as present now as it was in the Cold War. Particularly in the case of Israel, Ahmadinejad must know that if he sent missiles at Israel, his country would very likely be destroyed. It is more likely that he wants them for deterrence, to ensure that the US can't invade Iran. One thing we have to remember here is that Ahmadinejad is probably as worried about the US as they are about him - or more so.

Ahmedinejad's comments about Israel are disgusting and, coupled with Iranian support for Hezbollah, suggest that Iran is actively seeking to prevent any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

One thing we have to remember here is that Ahmadinejad is probably as worried about the US as they are about him - or more so.

Trying to look at things from his horizon he certainly has very good reasons for that. Take the infamous Axis of Evil speech and compare it with Iraq's destiny. Cooperation with UN didn't help.

So, the only conclusion must be that cooperation and diplomacy will not help avoiding an attack from US. Does that leave him any other choise than to create a nuke?

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Alastor D

Trying to look at things from his horizon he certainly has very good reasons for that. Take the infamous Axis of Evil speech and compare it with Iraq's destiny. Cooperation with UN didn't help.

So, the only conclusion must be that cooperation and diplomacy will not help avoiding an attack from US. Does that leave him any other choise than to create a nuke?

Iran has learnt the lesson of Iraq and North Korea -- a country with nukes is far less likely to be invaded than one without.

If anyone can be called a winner from the wars in Iraq and last year's skirmish in Lebanon, it's Iran. It is well on the way to being the pre-eminent country in the Gulf again and Lebanon did wonders to revitalise her ally (Hizballah).

[Ali]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

One thing we have to remember here is that Ahmadinejad is probably as worried about the US as they are about him - or more so.

I wouldn't count on that. Considering his mentality and twisted belief system, he has nothing to worry about. (You might find this article helpful).

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

...coupled with Iranian support for Hezbollah, suggest that Iran is actively seeking to prevent any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.

Agreed, but that's only one of the many reasons. The US should also end its support for Israel. Every year, they send millions of dollars worth of US tax money to Israel and that's excluding the continuous military support. They are actively vetoing any resolution against Israel. And let's not forget how washington rejected Iran's offers back in 2003 during the reformist Khatami's presidency.

Originally Posted by from the bbc article

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.


But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Alastor D

Trying to look at things from his horizon he certainly has very good reasons for that. Take the infamous Axis of Evil speech and compare it with Iraq's destiny. Cooperation with UN didn't help.

So, the only conclusion must be that cooperation and diplomacy will not help avoiding an attack from US. Does that leave him any other choise than to create a nuke?

Iran is not uniformly fundamentalist. Some of the current administration's fear is that a western style government in Iraq might incite progressive sympathists in Iran who have periodically had to be surpressed by the sitting government and could possibly be aided by the U.S. and other western powerhouses. I don't think anyone actually believes the U.S. will invade Iran militarily, but a stabilized Iraq allied with the U.S. would not only represent a way too close staging area for military forces, but would be leveragable to further depleat Iran's economy which is already shakey. This is why Iran has a vested interest in keeping Iraq in disarray and disauding western influence in Iraqi government. It is also motivation to become a nuclear power as has been pointed out, you can't just invade a nuclear power with impunity, the possible consequences raise the stakes too high.

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

I don't think anyone actually believes the U.S. will invade Iran militarily

I find it unlikely, but the Iranians probably don't.

but a stabilized Iraq allied with the U.S. would not only represent a way too close staging area for military forces, but would be leveragable to further depleat Iran's economy which is already shakey. This is why Iran has a vested interest in keeping Iraq in disarray and disauding western influence in Iraqi government.

A stable Iraq that was allied with Iran, though, would be somthing the Iranians would much prefer to having Hussein next door. Unstable governments are good for no-one in the vicinity, so that's what I would expect Iran to try to achieve.

[Overdose]

I thought I'd bump this thread due to recent events.

For those who do not know Iran has recently captured several British marines and is attempting to hold them trial on the grounds that the marines were in Iranian waters.

The British initially took a harder stance on this, claiming that the marines were in Iraqi waters, not Iranian, demanded the troops be returned and asked the EU to freeze exports to Iran. However, the EU, whilst they agree with Britain have refused to freeze exports. Iran have stated that they fully intend to try and punish these soldiers and claim that they have not been mistreated yet refuse to reveal their wearabouts.

Links:
Iran Detains Sailors

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6502947.stm]

[Discordia]

When the 300 came out Iran was upset because the Persians were depicted as a deranged army of pyschotic and twisted. First off How many Americans could even FIND Persia on a map?


I doubt diplomacy will work unless either the US or Iran gives in a little which I don't think will happen in the near future.

[NYCwitch920]

Originally Posted by Discordia

First off How many Americans could even FIND Persia on a map?

What kind of person can't find Persia on a map?

Every single American student's learned about the great Persian civilization and if someone can't find it on a map, it just goes to show how uneducated people are. We're talking about basic knowledge here.

[Discordia]

Every single American student's learned about the great Persian civilization and if someone can't find it on a map, it just goes to show how uneducated people are. We're talking about basic knowledge here.

Not to get too off topic here, but every time on tv when they broadcast someone asking several random Americans the first 5 presidents half the time they can't even name the first! Where as other kids in foreign countries could practically name them all in order. So ancient Persia might be something everyone is supposed to learn in basic history 101 but not everyone actually remembers it much less pays attention.

Why is Iran holding those British marines hostage? Irna claims they were in their waters but Britain claims they were in Iraqi waters. So who is wrong than? I don't think Iran has the right to punish British marines. Its not like they were murdering children on the streets. Shouldn't they just be turned over to Britain?

[WarriorEowyn]

Originally Posted by Discordia

Not to get too off topic here, but every time on tv when they broadcast someone asking several random Americans the first 5 presidents half the time they can't even name the first! Where as other kids in foreign countries could practically name them all in order.

They've got to be reporting selectively. I've been an academic nerd all my life and until halfway through high school I didn't even know what years the US Civil War occurred. In Canada we learn the causes of the American Revolution and that's about it for US history until we cover the 20th century, and I expect most countries further from the US would cover even less.

Why is Iran holding those British marines hostage? Iran claims they were in their waters but Britain claims they were in Iraqi waters. So who is wrong than? I don't think Iran has the right to punish British marines. Its not like they were murdering children on the streets. Shouldn't they just be turned over to Britain?

Unless they're trying to goad the western nations into attacking them, I can't imagine what they're thinking. It's a pointless actions where Iran is clearly in the wrong, and it's not the first time they've done it. They seem to enjoy baiting us.

[Sugabeen]

If it really is a question of who was in the right and who was in the wrong, then a neutral country should be allowed to have access to all the relevant information ( surely there is satellite positioning data and documents that outline what the Iranians believe is there water ) and determine what exactly hapened.
I don't want to leap to any conclusions of who is or isn't telling the truth, but without something like that happening, I can't see how this is going to be resolved. It's clear that neither side are readily going to back down about what they believe.

What I'd like to see reported in the news is more about why Iran cares if the British forces did stray into their waters or did so deliberately. I don't really understand the Iranian involvement and don't have time to research what's going on there. It's hard enough to keep up with the events in Iraq as they move so fast.

It is a very difficult and delicate situation obviously.
If Britain does apologise (whether they need to or not) then that could be seen as admitting fault which could lead to retaliation by Iran.
If they don't then the situation could escalate (they can't and won't want to hold the personnel indefinitely)

I can't see a way out of this and don't feel that we, as public really know enough about the full extent of what is behind these actions (even if we did research all available information, I assume there would be some that was classified)

All we can do is hope and pray that a peaceful resolution is found that will see the release of the people and no repercussions.

[Overdose]

If it really is a question of who was in the right and who was in the wrong, then a neutral country should be allowed to have access to all the relevant information ( surely there is satellite positioning data and documents that outline what the Iranians believe is there water ) and determine what exactly hapened.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing as a neutral country to a situation this politically charged.

[Discordia]

Unless they're trying to goad the western nations into attacking them, I can't imagine what they're thinking. It's a pointless actions where Iran is clearly in the wrong, and it's not the first time they've done it. They seem to enjoy baiting us.

I think that Iran just feels the need to act like the "big man" and be totally uncompromising. I feel that they are trying to show that they aren't some pushover nation that can't be intimidated by the likes of say, the US. This just in: British sailors confess to being in IRanian waters illegally: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17909589/ Whether they confessed by their own accord or if they were forced remains to be see.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Discordia

I think that Iran just feels the need to act like the "big man" and be totally uncompromising. I feel that they are trying to show that they aren't some pushover nation that can't be intimidated by the likes of say, the US. This just in: British sailors confess to being in IRanian waters illegally: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17909589/ Whether they confessed by their own accord or if they were forced remains to be see.

GPS tracking, coupled with initial admissions by the Iranian forces of their location that has been edited later, would lead me to assume that the "confession" is pretty orchestrated and means very little except that Iran currently doesn't feel that Britain is covered under the Geneva Conventions. I don't think British troops would intentionally come out and say those types of things on camera without some coercion, even if they were true.
I don't see how illegally detaining British subjects sends any message to the U.S., except that maybe the overt dissention in the coalition nation’s population and Government has made Iran feel more at liberty to kidnap coalition forces at will. They are already overtly supporting carnage and criminal activity in Iraq and having their involvement either ignored or tolerated. It may be that they are under the impression that we are completely fearful of Iran. This could be an opportunity to see whether these and similar tactics on their part will further dishearten coalition nations or if it will re-invigorate desire to fight in Iraq. Tactically this would give a good indication of which way the wind would blow if they stepped up overt involvement in actions against coalition nations.

[Wab]

Like a great many situations of this ilk there will be much beating of chests and rattling of swords while the diplomats nut out a solution (the most likely in this case being a swap of the RN crew for the Iranian diplomats detained in Iraq).