Petraeus works to halt foreign fighters. (2 Viewers)

[champ76]

I don't buy it, BA. The greatest threat to Iran is a free, democratic Iraq. Using a Sunni extremist group(who would be an equal threat to Iraq's fragile government) in Iran to kill an anti- Wahhab imman makes no sense, even for a clumsy government that frequently makes mistakes. Kurdish extremists attack Turkish forces as well; certainly that isn't part of a master plan. Is there some instigation of anti- government fervor inside Iran? Hopefully so. Their government is dangerous and a threat and using force to take it out is an option no one seems to want. But active support for groups that could turn in an instant on Iraq or Turkey? I don't think so; I certainly hope not.

 

[wamland]

Great, more satellite images. They worked so well the first time.

 

[blackadder]

I don't buy it, BA. The greatest threat to Iran is a free, democratic Iraq. Using a Sunni extremist group(who would be an equal threat to Iraq's fragile government) in Iran to kill an anti- Wahhab imman makes no sense, even for a clumsy government that frequently makes mistakes. Kurdish extremists attack Turkish forces as well; certainly that isn't part of a master plan. Is there some instigation of anti- government fervor inside Iran? Hopefully so. Their government is dangerous and a threat and using force to take it out is an option no one seems to want. But active support for groups that could turn in an instant on Iraq or Turkey? I don't think so; I certainly hope not.

We don't have to order it or have command and control. We are connected through finance and information sharing though.

I would imagine the Iranians are walking the same type of tight rope with their own proxies. How much support can they give them and how much can they really control them?

It's a dangerous game we are both playing.

As for the greatest threat to Iran...

Well, a non-democratic Iraq attacked Iran, tried to annex Khuzestan (its oil) and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranains.

I would say the jury is still out as to whether "democracy" in the Western sense is even appropriate to, or desired by, Iran or Iraq. A natural adaptation of a democratic form of government in either country is likely to look quite different to anything our standards or sensibilities approve of.

Therefore we are likely to keep up the meddling and the social engineering to try to establish an American way of life in Iraq in Iran when at some point you have to let internal forces hold sway.

As for who's supporting whom, we already have behind the scenes problems with the Turks regarding American weapons in Kurdish hands:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/07/turkish_ambassador_kurdish_gue.html

Are we giving them to Kurdish guerrillas directly? Are they using cash that we give them to buy them on the black market? These are good questions.

The same questions apply to Shiite militias in Iran.

Based on past covert follies I don't understand how anyone expects us to suddenly get competent at these games.

 

[varanook]

Cold, hard facts and reality vs rhetoric and conjecture. Stark and sobering. Thanks, Bulldawg.

I have to wonder that if we weren't in Iraq if Iran would bother much with us?

 

[RebSaint]

I have to wonder that if we weren't in Iraq if Iran would bother much with us?

Of course not. I think BA has stated as much; along with the oil, it was phase I of the neoconservative agenda of attempting to remake the middle east in America's image--supplanting a democracy in Iraq was supposed to rile up the Iranians, and from many perhaps hasten a showdown.

Nevermind the fact that Iran has no navy, no real large standing army which could invade its neighbors without getting clobbered. The same individuals who are trumping up this Iranian "threat" were talking about how much of a threat Hussein was before invading Iraq.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.

 

[varanook]

Of course not. I think BA has stated as much; along with the oil, it was phase I of the neoconservative agenda of attempting to remake the middle east in America's image--supplanting a democracy in Iraq was supposed to rile up the Iranians, and from many perhaps hasten a showdown.

Nevermind the fact that Iran has no navy, no real large standing army which could invade its neighbors without getting clobbered. The same individuals who are trumping up this Iranian "threat" were talking about how much of a threat Hussein was before invading Iraq.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.

I was hinting that if we weren't on some hair brained scheme in Iraq that this soldier with 5 kids would not have died needlessly.
When discussing things like this I think "boots on the ground" has no business being brought into the picture. It may be sobering but it doesn't do much in an argument imo.

In fact, it should be so sobering to people that changes are made to stop things like that from happening.

Cue...But we need a big huge military presence worldwide for our protection supporters.
Or the people who just say-go America, Kick some ***.

 

[varanook]

Plus this blaming Iran for everything is just foolishness.
Reb, you are right, what threat do they pose?

Aren't these foreign fighters similar to the ones fighting the Soviet union in Afghanistan in the 80's? if so, I seem to recall them being from everywhere not just one nation.

 

[RebSaint]

I was hinting that if we weren't on some hair brained scheme in Iraq that this soldier with 5 kids would not have died needlessly.
When discussing things like this I think "boots on the ground" has no business being brought into the picture. It may be sobering but it doesn't do much in an argument imo.

In fact, it should be so sobering to people that changes are made to stop things like that from happening.

Cue...But we need a big huge military presence worldwide for our protection supporters.
Or the people who just say-go America, Kick some ***.

Oho yeah. Some are so shocked, upset and that Iran is meddling in Iraq. Duh. Iraq was just a way to ratchet up the proxy war with Iran; we can't expect Iran to sit on its hands.

Just imagine if China or some other large power invaded Mexico--a country which the U.S. didn't particularly get along with very well--think we wouldn't be meddling behind the scenes? Right.

 

[blackadder]

Of course not. I think BA has stated as much; along with the oil, it was phase I of the neoconservative agenda of attempting to remake the middle east in America's image--supplanting a democracy in Iraq was supposed to rile up the Iranians, and from many perhaps hasten a showdown.

Nevermind the fact that Iran has no navy, no real large standing army which could invade its neighbors without getting clobbered. The same individuals who are trumping up this Iranian "threat" were talking about how much of a threat Hussein was before invading Iraq.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.

I think part of the original calculation on "reshaping the Middle East" was indeed that once we were in Iraq, Iran would certianly fall to the temptation to start allying with Shia militias in Iraq, which would be our pretext for carrying the crusade on to Iran. Kind of like Japan was Roosevelt's back door to war with Germany.

Early on in the "cake walk" phase there was very much a multiphase strategy that envisioned confrontations with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. The various insurgencies in Iraq and the Israeli failure to neutralize Hezbollah threw the timetable off schedule.

Most of this was not shared with the voting public.

At any rate, Iran is hedging its bets across the board. They have aided and had good relations with the Iraqi government as well as the Shiite militias. The extent to which they are in complete control of either is just not proven.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1333861,00.html

 

[blackadder]

Plus this blaming Iran for everything is just foolishness.
Reb, you are right, what threat do they pose?

Aren't these foreign fighters similar to the ones fighting the Soviet union in Afghanistan in the 80's? if so, I seem to recall them being from everywhere not just one nation.

Iran makes the Sunni Middle East nervous because it is a source of Shia pride and solidarity and it aids shia militant groups. Likewise the Sunni majority make the Shia minoroty nervous due to the religious schism and history of conflict.

Iran can be a threat to our "interests" to the extent we choose to take sides in this fight.

They can hit us asymetrically in many places around the world. They also have some dangerous anti-ship missiles that could be deployed in the Persian Gulf: Supersonic "Moskits."

As far as the idea that Iran is going to conquer the United States or present a serious or sustained conventional military threat beyond its immediate border regions, that is propaganda.

 

[mister pc]

I'm very, very strongly opposed to getting into a MAD arrangement with a nation state that subsidizes suicide bombers.

This is a very valid point. The MAD arrangement only works when both sides place a high value on their own survival. The emergence of so-called "martyrs" renders the mutually assured destruction strategy useless because mutual destruction seems to be their objective.

 

[blackadder]

This is a very valid point. The MAD arrangement only works when both sides place a high value on their own survival. The emergence of so-called "martyrs" renders the mutually assured destruction strategy useless because mutual destruction seems to be their objective.

Not necessarily.

In one sense martyrs are a tool to guarantee survival of the regime. Their willingness to die by the bushel is thought to nullify some of the advantages of the adversary in terms of conventional military power.

Resort to martyrdom can also be read as a sign of weakness. Terrorism in general is the weapon of the weak.

Suicide tactics have existed in many places outside the Muslim world for this very reason.

The MAD arrangement is not desireable in general because if something can go wrong, it eventually will. We were closer to destruction than most care to know on a couple of occasions, due to error, with the Soviets.

But it is highly unlikely that the Iranians have any desire to lauch a suicide nuclear attack just for kicks.

But by all means lets make the Middle East verifiably nuclear free. All for it.

 

[mister pc]

But by all means lets make the Middle East verifiably nuclear free. All for it.

Just curious, how would you accomplish this in the face of a determined Iran?



"Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train... which has no brake and no reverse gear" - President Ahmadinejad, quoted by ISNA news agency

 

[blackadder]

Just curious, how would you accomplish this in the face of a determined Iran?



"Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train... which has no brake and no reverse gear" - President Ahmadinejad, quoted by ISNA news agency

He's referring to to nuclear power.

There are proposals out there to provide the fuel or monitor the handling of the nuclear fuel from start to finish to verify that it is not diverted to weapons.

These of course are the words of Ahmadinejad, who is going to be out of office soon.

But the Iranians are not going to accept them without security guarantees or some kind of broad deal, i.e. stop meddling, stop threatening, stop trying to overthrow our government, drop sanctions, monitor Israeli nukes as well and we do the same.

So, we are on a dangerous track.

 

[SaintJ]

Just curious, how would you accomplish this in the face of a determined Iran?

Or a determined Israel?