Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Question on Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 12:54 PM
Original message
A Question on Iran
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 01:04 PM by Texas Explorer
CBS News and the Associated Press is reporting that:

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/20/world/main191...


<snip>

"We won't suspend (uranium enrichment). Everything has to come out of negotiations. Suspension is not on our agenda," Asefi told a press conference Sunday.

<snip>

Iran has repeatedly stated it would ignore it, but the heightening of regional tensions after weeks of war in Lebanon seemed to have led the Islamic Republic to harden its position.

Iranians appeared to consider that the U.S. and Israel the leading proponents of a tough stance against Tehran's nuclear program have lost ground in the Middle East after the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrilla resisted Israeli air and ground assaults during the 34-day war that ended last Monday.

"Hezbollah is the front line for any attack against Iran," said Hamid Reza Shokouhi, the political editor at the conservative Rah-e-Mardom newspaper in Tehran.

"After Hezbollah's victory, Iran can stand up stronger in defending its nuclear rights," the journalist said, voicing a widespread opinion in the Iranian capital.

Iran helped create Hezbollah and is the Shiite Muslim group's main backer. It has nonetheless denied repeated Israeli claims that it armed the militia with sophisticated missiles and trained its fighters.


And, there of course in the big military war games exercised going on in Iran right now:

"We have to be prepared against any threat and we should be a role model for other countries," local newspapers quoted an Iranian Army spokesman, General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, as saying last week.


My question is this:

Is Iran truly just practicing for the possibility it will be attacked or do you think they are conducting war games in anticipation that there WILL BE an attack?

Also, if Iran believes an attack is imminent, is it possible that they could prepare a pre-emptive strike "against any threat" they perceive? (On edit: It seems to be OK for the US to launch a pre-emptive strike on what it perceives to be its enemies, why not for Iran?)


And, let's not forget the Shiite factor in Iraq with regard to Iran's disposition in the overall picture.

Link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/20/news/iran.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. saw a rep from the American Enterprise Institute on Tv
They advise Bush on M.E. policy, basically they said that Bush will probably launch a nuclear
strike against Iran in 12-16 months; by that time there would be a solified enemy in the M.E.
to attack. (and don't forget that the run up to the 08 elections will be starting in 11/07). I
think that it's the Us vs the evil Them Strategy. I don't think Iran expects an attack now
but is posturing after the Hezbollah victory. To every point that was made the answer from
AEI was more bombs, troops, etc. I don't think that the American people want an all out war
with the Middle East.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Of course the American people don't want
all out war, but that's not point.

You even said that the AEI says nuclear strikes and more weapons and more troops. If the AEI is basically "recommending" more violence, then why wouldn't Iran consider the imminent threat and launch their own pre-emptive strike, just as the US has done, rather than just having Ahmedinijhad waving his weeny at us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Because they are winning
They are using their money to help rebuild homes in Lebanon, their are already helping Turkey
in Kurdistan with tanks and troops. They don't need the all out strike we do, because they
have 141 million islamic peoples in the Middle East to back them up. Nukes are the best option
for someone w/o the boots on the ground to accomplish their aims. And who are they going to nuke, they don't have the firepower now to reach further than Israel and that would only increase US support of an Israeli offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlavaKreemSnak Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Even if people don't want it, they have to act like they do

If you act like you don't want it, that is like saying you are against the war on terror which would mean you are a terror sympathizer. And nobody wants people saying that about them, they could lose their jobs, they could get kicked out of school, nobody would want to have anything to do with you, and you might even get detained, depending on what people say. I mean probably not but not many people will want to take the chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. We cannot fight terrorism with Neocon strategies
Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, there are now terrorists
in 40-60 countries across the world, what do we do, pull a John Wayne on those countries too?
Bush started the war in Iraq, it is a fiasco and that is not the fault of some peace loving
hippie, him and Mr. 5 deferments are responsible and Rumsfailed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Who would Iran launch a preemptive strike against?
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 01:26 PM by Jim__
The US or Israel? I don't think so; either one could overpower Iran; and by striking first, Iran provides cover for the "retaliatory" attack. Even though both the Us and Israel can overpower Iran, I don't think either can easily knock out their nuclear facilities, and by trying, they give Iran the moral highground and the support of the world. If Israel or the US attacks Iran, I think Iran wins - not the war, but the political game and that will probably count for more than any attack will cost.

I also think the Iranian admin uses the threats from Israel and the US to domestic political advantage, and so, wants the US and Israel to keep the pressure up. The war games may be more for domestic political consumption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Iraq
Big Shiite population, unrest ripe to be exploited, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Why would they do that?
Iraq is already moving the way they want it to. And once again, if they strike Iraq, they legitimize the retaliatory strike that would then definitely come against them. Besides, our 130,000 soldiers sitting in Iraq is Iran's ace in the hole. If we strike Iran, Iran strikes our military in Iraq.

If we began to fortify the Green Zone with anti-missile defenses, and fortify the Iraq/Iran border, then Iran would probably threaten a preemptive strike. But right now, Iran striking in Iraq doesn't make much sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 25th 2014, 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC