Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ending some myths about Iran
Herc the Merc    2/3/2007 10:15:30 PM
THE IRAN-U.S. CONFLICT A not-so-strange bedfellow DAVOS, Switzerland Here's a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries -- "Country A" and "Country B" -- and you tell me which one is America's ally and which one is not. Let's start: Country A actively helped the United States defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A's women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force. On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A's radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened -- to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it's a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East. The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects al-Qaida's nihilism. Now Country B: Country B gave us 14 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 . Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban. Country B's private charities help sustain al-Qaida. Young men from Country B's mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B's leaders are pro-United States, polls show many of its people are hostile to America -- some of them celebrated on 9/11 . The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths. Question: Which country is America's natural ally: A or B? Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia. Don't worry. I know that Iran has also engaged in terrorism against the United States and that the Saudis have supported America at key times in some areas. The point I'm trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the United States since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran's people. And I am not the only one to notice that. Because the United States has destroyed Iran's two biggest enemies -- the Taliban and Saddam -- "there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans," Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran's former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. "There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States." More important, when people say, "The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict," they are wrong. It's second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran- U.S. conflict. That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran's active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq. This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro's Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran's Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage. How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can't push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the iness of Iran's hardline leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the United States is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the United States wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities. Just do that -- and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it. THE NEW YORK TIMES Last modified: February 01. 2007 12:00AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
sentinel28a       2/5/2007 6:48:18 AM
I'm all for it.  The fly in the ointment is Iran's leadership.  They're not exactly running scared from their populace yet.  And sadly, us trying to play nice with them is just going to be taken as a sign of weakness. 
 
Absolutely we should drive down the price of oil (which the Saudis are doing, BTW). Bush has said he won't invade Iran (which is wise; one war at a time).  But asking for Iran's help in Iraq? Sure, they'll help--help drive a knife in our backs.
 
The rank and file Iranian is probably an all right dude.  It's their mullahs and their crazed leaders that neither of us like.  The Iranians should get rid of them and save everybody the trouble.
 
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       2/10/2007 4:01:16 PM
Lessons from the Swiss on how to quickly resolve a conflict by choosing and defining allies................allrightythen.......
What would possibly solve this "US-Iran Conflict" of his more quickly than nuking Iran?
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc       2/11/2007 8:10:08 PM
From
February 12, 2007

We pose no threat to Israel, says Iran

President Ahmadinejad celebrated the 28th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution yesterday by defiantly vowing to pursue his country’s nuclear programme.

But he confounded expectations that he would unveil new developments on the nuclear front that would have stoked tensions with the West. Analysts saw it as a sign that the establishment in Tehran was reining in the firebrand leader. In Germany, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator sought to assure the world that Tehran wanted to ease regional tensions and that its nuclear programme was not a threat to Israel.

Ali Larijani told a meeting of the world’s senior security officials that Iran wanted to return to negotiations to reach an agreement within three weeks. “That Iran is willing to threaten Israel is wrong,” he told the Munich Conference on Security Policy. “If we are conducting nuclear research and development we are no threat to Israel. We have no intention of aggression against any country.” His words were a far cry from Mr Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

Mr Ahmadinejad told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would never surrender to the West’s key demand to stop enriching uranium. But he also expressed readiness to negotiate an end to the nuclear crisis.

There had been expectations that Mr Ahmadinejad would use the anniversary to declare that Iran had begun installing 3,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Instead he promised news of “great progress” by April 9. It was seen as evidence that pragmatists in the Iranian establishment had persuaded him against provoking the West, weeks after President Bush sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. As Mr Ahmadinejad spoke, the huge crowd in Azadi square, Tehran, chanted slogans such as “Death to America” and “Nuclear energy is our inalienable right”.

A UN Security Council resolution for Iran to halt uranium enrichment or face further sanctions expires in nine days. Iran is relying on Russia to shield it from further sanctions, but President Putin said he failed to understand why Iran had not answered all the questions about its nuclear programme from the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Iran was ready for concessions such as running centrifuges that enrich uranium only to 4 per cent, Mr Larijani told a German newspaper. Uranium must be enriched to at least 80 per cent for nuclear bombs.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, said after meeting Mr Larijani that no deal had been reached but possible solutions were being explored.

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       2/13/2007 5:40:53 AM
And all that "Death to Israel" stuff and Holocaust denying for the past 30 years is just fluff?
 
When a man is holding a club over your head but says he's just kidding about wanting to stave your skull in, do you believe him, Herc?
 
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       2/13/2007 7:32:25 AM
In Herc's defense, what if said man is claiming that said club is actually a boquet of daffodils?
Every intel community on Earth saying it's a club doesn't mean it's so....
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       2/13/2007 8:28:56 AM

In Herc's defense, what if said man is claiming that said club is actually a boquet of daffodils?

Every intel community on Earth saying it's a club doesn't mean it's so....



Fine, then how about the guy with his hand in his pocket threatening you with a "gun."  The answer is to draw your own and shoot him in the head.  If it turns out his hand was empty, all that means is the guy wasn't just a thug, he was a stupid thug.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc       2/13/2007 6:14:56 PM

And all that "Death to Israel" stuff and Holocaust denying for the past 30 years is just fluff?

 

When a man is holding a club over your head but says he's just kidding about wanting to stave your skull in, do you believe him, Herc?

 


Obviously its an article written by someone--its not my view. I should have stated that, it was Thomas Friedman
seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/thomas-friedman-iran-is-not-our-enemy
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       2/15/2007 2:27:02 AM
Fair enough, but it sounded like you were agreeing with him.
 
Friedman may be able to sleep better at night, and I would argue that the average Iranian indeed isn't my enemy.  However, since their leadership has stated since 1979 that they would like to see people like me dead for the crime of being American, I tend to take them at their word.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics