Best News I have heard out of Iraq in a long time

[Evermore]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25585978

[Arlos]

Heh, wonder how the republicans are going to spin this one, after they swore up and down that US troops would leave if the Iraqi's asked us to go, and at the same time ranted that setting a timetable for leaving was "letting the terrorists win"....

-Arlos

[Evermore]

[Lueyen]

This is fantastic.

[Harrison]

It sounds like they're ready.

[KaiineTN]

Ready, you say?

Commence pull out! Then proceed to blow our load all over Iran?

[Harrison]

Afghanistan, foreplay...

Iraq, anal rape...

Iran, money shot...

[Lueyen]

I suspect Israel would hit Iran long before we do, if that even comes to pass. Although Ahmadinejad is still spewing his anti US, anti Israeli rhetoric, he's recently started dismissing the notion that Iran would have a military conflict with either the US or Israel, qualifying that by saying Iran need not take any action against Israel, as it would implode on it's self.

[Arlos]

Attacking Iran would be one of the stupidest things we could possibly do. Period.

Stupider than invading Iraq, even, and that one is at least a 95/100 on the monumental stupidity chart.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

I suspect Israel would hit Iran long before we do, if that even comes to pass.

I said that last year, I think.

[Narrock]

Attacking Iran would be one of the stupidest things we could possibly do. Period.

Stupider than invading Iraq, even, and that one is at least a 95/100 on the monumental stupidity chart.

-Arlos

Why do you say that? I'm interested in your perspective on this.

[Ginzburgh]

Narrock is totally down with invading Iran, so much so that he is even willing to go over and fight!

[Foutty]

He'd have to go it alone, the military is not ready for another war.

[Narrock]

Narrock is totally down with invading Iran, so much so that he is even willing to go over and fight!

I just hope Israel grows a sack and decimates Iran's nuclear facilities.

[Kramer]

right, and if they don't succeed the rest of the world would be totally for that whole excursion

[Lueyen]

I just hope Israel grows a sack and decimates Iran's nuclear facilities.

I suspect it has very little to do with "growing a sack" and a lot more to do with waiting for the optimal time if it's necessary.

right, and if they don't succeed the rest of the world would be totally for that whole excursion

Publicly it will be condemned, privately a sigh of relief.

[Arlos]

That would also be monumentally idiotic if Israel were to do it, as it would be seen as almost no different than if we did it. This is because Israel is seen largely as a satellite state of the US, and very few believe that Israel would do any such thing without at least covert permission by the US.

To answer your earlier question, Mindia, if we were to do such a thing, the Middle East would basically explode. We think we've seen terrorism and unrest in the region... What we've seen would be nothing compared to what would happen. Iraq would explode again, and we would almost certainly lose the support of most of the more moderate arab regimes. Not to mention, Gas prices would probably just about double, due to the explosion of violence and instability. $8/gallon gas at least.

One of the biggest reasons for that, is that it would be seen as an unprovoked attack upon a sovereign nation which had done nothing wrong but stick up for its rights. The key here is the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (aka NNTP), which both the US and Iran are signatories to. Indeed, almost every nation in the world is a signatory to that treaty, with notable exceptions being Israel, India and Pakistan.

By the 3rd provision of that treaty, Iran has every right to build and operate nuclear reactors. By the terms of the treaty, this right ALSO includes the right to enrich uranium. Now, there is obviously significant other politics involved in that latter issue, but do be aware that when the government of Iran speaks about being within their rights in what they are doing, at least publicly, they very much have a leg to stand on.

The larger issue is, of course, that the US (and others) believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapon technology. The problem there is that the US has absolutely no credibility in the world left, after we so publicly ranted and raved about Saddam's "Massive Stockpiles" of WMDs, when it turns out he had none whatsoever. The thinking goes, of course, "If the US was so wrong about Iraq, why should we even begin to believe them when they say the same thing about Iran"? Which, you must admit, is a valid point. As a result, without absolute, cast-iron, incontrovertable PROOF that can be displayed publicly, we simply won't be believed, and last I checked, we had no such thing.

One of the things you need to understand in all this is the mindset and makeup of the Iranian people. WE may see them as a 3rd world backwater, but that is NOT how they see themselves. They are a VERY proud nation, which traces its roots back to the days of Xerxes, and thinks of itself as a country that SHOULD be a 1st tier power, but that has been held back by the actions of other nations, most especially the US. A lot of people in Iran remember quite well that the US once backed Saddam while he was in the process of killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons.

Importantly, though, Iran is also largely a nation of young people. With massive amounts of the previous generation having gotten wiped out in the Iran/Iraq war, the vast majority of the population is 30 and younger. THAT generation does NOT hate the US like the elderly generation does. A friend of mine is from Iran, and goes back every summer, and by his accounts, the average young person in Iran likes the US, overall. Notice all the flaming rhetoric comes from those older generations, who were around for the Shah, etc. If we attack them, suddenly that huge youth population has REASON to hate us, which would have dire consequences.

In any case, we have a real opportunity with Iran over the next 20 years or so, honestly. If we tread carefully, we could end up with them as a very useful ally. Remember, they already have one of the most democratic societies in the entire middle east already. True, the religious leadership has to authorize candidates to run, but the elections themselves are democratic. They certainly have a far more representative form of government than Saudi Arabia does. They're already experiencing internal pressures for more open elections, with more reform-minded politicians. Give them 20 years for the last ancient hard-liners to die, and you may very well see a true democracy take hold, without the religious vetting.

All that said, I am NOT advocating anything like hands-off and letting them do whatever they feel like, etc. There are quite obvious risks involved, and them wanting a nuclear weapon is a real concern. But we need to handle them DIPLOMATICALLY, period. If we are demanding they give up one of their rights under the NNPT, by demanding they not enrich their own uranium (and we are), then we need to balance that demand with things that benefit them in other areas. Bullying saber rattling of "Do it or else" gets nothing accomplished, and serves no purpose other than make a deal that much less likely.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece

[Tikker]

right, and if they don't succeed the rest of the world would be totally for that whole excursion

Publicly it will be condemned, privately a sigh of relief.

hey, don't lump the rest of the world in with your war mongering

[Kramer]

how could there be a sigh of relief if israel didn't do the job right the first time.... leaving an even more isolated and enraged iran with nuclear capability.... that was recovering from an attack.

it's not like nuclear infrastructure is in a parking lot in the middle of the desert. got to wonder what if an attack didn't take it out.

[Arlos]

Lueyen, that is one of the most depressing and scariest things I have heard in quite some time. I don't think a president could have done more damage to this country and its reputation throughout the world if he had TRIED to do so than Bush has done through his monumental incompetence and his reliance on amoral power-seekers like Cheney.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece

go thru that article and replace israeli with iraqi, subtract 20ish years and you have exactly what happened with saddam

do none of you pay any attention to what happened in the past?

[Evermore]

Tikk the US has been messing in SE asia and the middle east for 60 to 70 years. We only started backing the israelis when the shah was thrown out...

And people wonder why they hate us..

[Lueyen]

Tikk the US has been messing in SE asia and the middle east for 60 to 70 years. We only started backing the israelis when the shah was thrown out...

And people wonder why they hate us..

I'm sorry that is outright wrong. While historically the US has supported Israel vocally we hadn't done much more then that until the Kennedy administration in 1962 when we started selling them major weapons systems starting with the hawk anti aircraft systems. By contrast the Shah was not exiled until 1979.

Tikker when I said "Publicly it will be condemned, privately a sigh of relief." I was predicting that due mainly to the recent world reaction to what happened in Syria last year (frankly there is quite a bit more to that story then was reported imho... I don't pretend to know details, but the relative silence of so many parties involved directly or indirectly points to some huge secrets). There are many nations, some that are not in the least sympathetic to western views who's actions show that they also are concerned about Iran's nuclear development and the possibility that there is a weapons side of the program. Putin would love nothing more then there to be no realistic possibility of a future nuclear armed Iran, by simple virtue of the fact that there would be no justification there for European missile shields which he has been frothing about, and I believe this is reflected by the offer last year to supply Iran with enriched uranium from Russia. It is not war mongering, it's simply fact that a great many nations have justifiable concern over any country developing nuclear weapons, especially when it has a mouth piece like Ahmadinejad, and while they might not condone military action, there is no denying that there will be some relief if a nuclear weapons program is hampered.

Arlos the article I linked scares me also, however I'm not an Israeli who has to live day to day knowing that a nearby country that is capable of hitting my home with ballistic missiles and speaks of wiping my country off the map may well be developing nuclear weapons. For Israel it's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of self preservation. Which would you rather deal with, possibly provoking conventional attacks or being surprised by a nuclear one? I would like to see the situation handled without employing military strikes, but the threshold for me is at the point Israel feels it necessary, for it is the people in Israel who have to live under that dark cloud, not I.

Kramer I should have specified, I don't consider it an if the job is done right the first time. I do not believe Israel will launch any attack unless they are reasonably sure of success. I do believe right now information is being gathered concerning possible targets, especially those that might be hidden throughout the country. The stakes here are very high, and without a virtually insured "pay off" in setting back any (if indeed it exists) nuclear weapons development by many years then I don't believe it will happen.

The good news here and hopefully the light at the end of the tunnel if you will, is that through all this saber rattling Iranian rhetoric is softening, and frankly this may be a direct result of our support for Israel. Likely Iranian nuclear facilities are hardened and to effectively strike them Israel only choice on it's own would be to use nuclear weapons, however there is an option in the US arsenal that will accomplish the same thing but with conventional weapons. Iran may have been willing to take the risk that Israel would be reluctant to use tactical nukes, but that same situation of "protection" does not exists with US support and the possibility of facing having MOABs dropped on them.

[Arlos]

See, Lueyen, the fact that Iran's leadership *KNOWS* that Israel has nuclear weapons is why I seriously doubt that even they're insane enough to try and use one of theirs on Israel, cause they know damn well they'd get it back several times over if they did so.

Honestly, while Iran getting a nuke would be a Very Bad Thing, it's not a worst-case scenario, especially if it's KNOWN they got one. The reason is, they're a nation-state, and as such, they know quite well that if they go nuclear first, there won't be anything left of their country but radioactive glass after Israel and the US is done with them. Even if a "terrorist" bomb goes off and they disavow responsibility, they're still going to take it in the shorts, as no one will believe them.

WORST case scenario, which I think is more plausible, is Al Qaida suborning enough people in Pakistan's nuke agency and stealing one of theirs, at a point when we know damn well Iran DOESN'T have the bomb yet. (like, now). Who then would we retaliate against?

In all honesty, though, I cannot blame them for going for nukes, if indeed they are. They have seen in great detail how the US deals with nations it doesn't like, and how that response varies depending on whether that nation is nuke-capable. 3 nations in Bush's infantile "Axis of Evil". Iraq: No nukes. We invade and topple the regime, put in a puppet government. North Korea: Has nukes. We treat them largely with kid gloves, and basically beg and plead with China to please, please, make naughty North Korea play nice. Iran: They're the 3rd, and gee, can you blame them for wanting to be handled with kid gloves, like nuke-capable NK, rather than the US bombing the crap out of them and invading like Iraq?

-Arlos