Obama: Iran Not a Threat

[BPSCG]

Do you think Iran could conquer the US? Yes, they could hurt us. Maybe hurt us badly, but there is no serious threat of being defeated by Iran.

And where did Obama use those last five words? Here's what he said in his Oregon speech:

If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world."

In the end, Iran could cause us severe discomfort, even genuine hardship. It is not to be taken lightly. On the other hand it should not provoke a Chicken Little response that the sky is falling.

Let's see. They're trying to get nuclear weapons. They're testing long-range ballistic missiles. They surely cold not defeat us in a war, but are you serious when you say such a country would not pose a serious threat? A country can only be a serious threat if it can defeat the U.S. in a war?

I suppose, by that measure, you wouldn't consider al Qaeda to be a serious threat, either.

 

[T.A.M.]

was the wording "not a serious threat" used as a comparative, to the threat posed by Russia or China in the past?

Or did he just say, "in general, Iran is not a serious threat?"

TAM

 

[Pookster]

And where did Obama use those last five words? Here's what he said in his Oregon speech:

Well, Obama did say "they wouldn't stand a chance" when it comes to posing a serious threat to us. I don't believe it would be a leap in logic to assume he believes the same regarding actually defeating the United States carrying out that threat. It could just be me though.

 

[Pookster]

was the wording "not a serious threat" used as a comparative, to the threat posed by Russia or China in the past?

Or did he just say, "in general, Iran is not a serious threat?"

TAM

This whole thing is sillier than trying to define what the definition of "is" is.

 

[ZouPrime]

I suppose, by that measure, you wouldn't consider al Qaeda to be a serious threat, either.

Al Qaeda isn't a serious threat. It's not because the current american government has been saying otherwise for the last 8 years that it is actually true.

 

[WildCat]

And Wildcat, is really your best argument against a sit-down because you are afraid of being laughed at? Or are you claiming that Rosevelt's request to respect national borders in some way caused or helped Hitler to invade those countries?

No, the argument is that an enemy who not only thinks you're a fool but also plays you as such isn't going to negotiate with you.

 

[joobz]

No, the argument is that an enemy who not only thinks you're a fool but also plays you as such isn't going to negotiate with you.

Certainly a regime bent on a destructionist path won't negotiate. But does that mean you don't at least attempt nogotiations? Can we be certain which regimes are hell bent for confrontations vs. those which can be reasoned with without nogotiations?

Also, I do not understand your claim of "playing you a fool". I am ignorant to this part of world history, but was Rosevelt somehow tricked into helping Hitler as a result of the letter? Do you believe the clip you showed presents the US in a bad light or Hitler's regime in a bad light?

it seems to me that it does more to show Hitler's contempt of peace than any weakness in the US, but that could be merely my opinion.

 

[varwoche]

There I would disagree. Sure, they don't pose the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but they seem to pose a much greater chance of doing something very serious.

What Tricky said. And...

Of course risk assessment must take into account probabilities. The probabilities are debatable when you consider how close the USSR came to launching a nuke. link

That said, I'm way queezy with the concept of religious fanatics possessing nukes. Makes me wistful for commies.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I assume you remember the European lefts reaction to the deployment of the Trident Missiles in Europe? To SDI? The British "Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament" the organisation that demanded unilateral disarmament. The one that pioneered the famous peace sign? My point that when it comes to the left, the message is nothing if not consistent.

That would be Pershing missiles, the Tridents were on boomers (SSBNs) and thus not deployed to Europe. (If you want to quibble about SSBNs calling in Holy Loch for repairs and refit, go ahead, it was Pershing that was the core issue on deploying medium range nuclear cruise missiles to Europe in a counter to the SS series (20 IIRC, forget) in the Eastern Bloc. )

The Trident's were deep underwater, far from land.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why is it that it seems some here do not see the elephant in the room?

He's wearing sunglasses.

Now, I will say it, since no one else seems to be able to: Religious fundamentalists that are hell bent on doing harm with no regard for their own lives (and/or those of their people) pose a greater threat than the Russians did/do.

Yes, but I'd like to know how many national leaders are of that mind state, as opposed to the dupes who are talked into being a suicide bomber. Once in charge, the survival instinct tends to grow, eh?

Yes, for 40 some years we and the Soviets had enough weapons pointed at each other to kill the world many times over. Yet, with all those weapons, and all the tension, just how many hits from them did the US take in all that time?

Zero.

How many buildings in Manhattan did they strike down?

None.

How many US Navy ships were hit?

Are you including the USS Pueblo? The USS Scorpion, thought by some to have been hit by a Crazy Ivan?

How many military buildings/embassies over seas?

Do you want to include the US officials kidnapped in Lebanon? The Airmen dead in the early cold war? (See the book By Any Means Necessary for a look at pre satellite, pre U-2 airborne surveillance and intel collecting, and the dead.)

How much damage was inflicted on the Pentagon?

Not much.

How many innocent civilians here at home were killed?

How many draftees were killed in Viet Nam during that period? In Korea?

Big difference when your enemy doesn't care about living till tomorrow.

Indeed, but see above: how many national leaders adopt that position? The Gotterdamerung is an archaic Germanic/Norse world view, the establishment of the Caliphate, or of Islamic Republics, is the current issue being addressed. You can't establish the Caliphate, nor more Islamic Republics, if you pull the house down on yourself.

Samson was a Hebrew/Jew, not an Arab, and not a Persian/Mede/Aryan/Iranian.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Warning, may be illegal to view in parts of Europe:

You're kidding, eh?

 

[WildCat]

You're kidding, eh?

Yes, I was kidding. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to this thread.

 

[WildCat]

Certainly a regime bent on a destructionist path won't negotiate. But does that mean you don't at least attempt nogotiations? Can we be certain which regimes are hell bent for confrontations vs. those which can be reasoned with without nogotiations?

I don't know how many times I have had to point this out over the various threads on this subject, but of course you keep diplomatic channels open. The danger is compromise your position by sending the POTUS without any sort of initial agreements in which case it becomes purely a propaganda tool. Think Hugo Chavez at the UN, only much worse.

Also, I do not understand your claim of "playing you a fool". I am ignorant to this part of world history, but was Rosevelt somehow tricked into helping Hitler as a result of the letter? Do you believe the clip you showed presents the US in a bad light or Hitler's regime in a bad light?

it seems to me that it does more to show Hitler's contempt of peace than any weakness in the US, but that could be merely my opinion.

Of course it shows Hitler's contempt for peace, and it also shows Roosevelt's babe-in-the-woods naivete. I don't think that room full of Nazis would have had such a hearty belly laugh if Roosevelt had simply demanded that Germany's armies stayed within its borders or else - even if the "or else" was a bluff. But a letter asking them to pretty please don't invade all those countries gets nothing but laughs and Hitler knows Roosevelt won't give him much trouble when he goes ahead with his plans.

It's like showing your hand in poker, ever play poker joobz?

 

[Just thinking]

He's wearing sunglasses.

... and mustache. But you may be right.

Yes, but I'd like to know how many national leaders are of that mind state, as opposed to the dupes who are talked into being a suicide bomber. Once in charge, the survival instinct tends to grow, eh?

Depends ... how's your leaders' health? Is it going to hell? Then send your health to Hades and your soul to Allah!

Zero.

None.

Thanks for answering.

Are you including the USS Pueblo? The USS Scorpion, thought by some to have been hit by a Crazy Ivan?

Is a Crazy Ivan maneuver considered an intentional assault? Anyway, the Pueblo was not attacked by the USSR.

Do you want to include the US officials kidnapped in Lebanon? The Airmen dead in the early cold war? (See the book By Any Means Necessary for a look at pre satellite, pre U-2 airborne surveillance and intel collecting, and the dead.)

As unfortunate as those deaths were, they were not launched at vessels not engaged in action.

Not much.

Again ... thank you.

How many draftees were killed in Viet Nam during that period? In Korea?

Too many ... much more than the 3000 killed on 9/11 or in all engagements presently in Iraq. But we were fighting regimes supported by the USSR --- there is a difference than if we were engaging them outright as we did the enemies of WWII.

Indeed, but see above: how many national leaders adopt that position? The Gotterdamerung is an archaic Germanic/Norse world view, the establishment of the Caliphate, or of Islamic Republics, is the current issue being addressed. You can't establish the Caliphate, nor more Islamic Republics, if you pull the house down on yourself.

They anticipate the rise of other Muslims to fight to the end. They martyr themselves all over the place ... this is not an exaggeration.

 

[godofpie]

I don't know how many times I have had to point this out over the various threads on this subject, but of course you keep diplomatic channels open. The danger is compromise your position by sending the POTUS without any sort of initial agreements in which case it becomes purely a propaganda tool. elt won't give him much trouble when he goes ahead with his plans.

It's like showing your hand in poker, ever play poker joobz?

Now this is what confuses me. Isn't Palestine being run by so called terrorists? Didn't GW just visit with them and declare there would be a Palestinian state by the end of his presidency? How is that different than keeping open negotiations with Iran or N Korea different? What ever happened to walk softly but carry a big stick? Playing poker requires more than one player. If your not negotiating you're just playing with yourself.

 

[Tricky]

Perhaps conquer is not the goal ... just incurring deaths. Many deaths. Please try and keep my points of this debate focused. I believe that they feel the need to do this as their own religious duty. Win or lose is not their game --- to kill is all that matters. Did the suicide terrorists of 9/11 feel that they were going to conquer anything? Or those that blew a hole in the USS Kohl?

I don't think that even radical Muslims think that they will accomplish anything by killing lots of non-Muslims. I think the goal of each terrorist attack is... well... to sow terror. Yes, they want us to be afraid of them. Some of them want it so much that they will give their lives for it. But to assign suicidal tendencies to every single member of Hamas or Hezbollah or any radical Islamic group is wrong. They want to advance their cause. Their cause will not be advanced if they are all dead. I don't believe this fact eludes them. It shouldn't elude you either.

The threat of total annihilation (USA vs. USSR) loses to a single nuclear bomb actually going off in say, a NY City seaport. (Conclusion: Scale has little to do with it.) The former was held at bay due to the fact that the Russians value their lives, culture and future every bit as much as Americans do. It is much harder to stop someone that doesn't care about dying.

And again, you assume that no Muslim cares about dying. These terrorists consider themselves soldiers. They are soldiers who are willing, maybe even eager to die for their cause. But they are not the totality of Islam. They are the warriors. We have warriors too who are willing to die for their country. Not all Americans behave like soldiers, and no American soldier would want their whole country to die. They are willing to die for their country, not with.

Just where are many of the suicide insurgents in Iraq coming from?

Various places. As you must know, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists. The poor people under the thumb of the Saud family dictatorship rebel against the wealthy class. In Iran, the US propped up the tyrannical Shah, against the wishes of the masses. The US is sending mixed messages. It likes dictatorship just fine when it serves their cause. Maybe you don't see the hypocrisy in that policy, but I'm pretty sure that Arabs and Persians see it.

And they know that. Which is why they are taking their nuclear program to the inevitable conclusion, despite all the efforts to stop it. They know their first major strike will be met with extreme force ... which is why (I believe) they want it to be a biggie.

I doubt that. They are being watched closely. They don't dare do anything big. Hell, the US and Russia both knew where missile silos were. They were mapped and targeted. Do you think Iran could build a "biggie" in secret? Keep in mind that satellite surveillance has improved a lot.

Also note the both the US and the USSR, and even France and China have performed nuclear tests. That's the sort of thing that nuclear powers do to scare people. They don't build them in secret and hope they work. Iran is not a "serious" nuclear threat. They are a "country to be watched". You saw what happened the last time we decided a country was a nuclear threat and invaded them. You want the US to embarrass themselves (expensively) again?

Speaking of NK, I feel that the leaders there value their lifestyle too much to risk losing it in a nuclear exchange. Not so with the mullahs.

I think the Mullahs like their lifestyle just fine. Have you ever seen a Mullah strap bombs to himself? They let the "soldiers" do that. Individuals may be suicidal, but governments rarely are. If I'm wrong, please direct me to some examples.

Just for the record ... I never said we would be obliterated ... simply hit. And hit hard if it's nuclear. And I think it's more likely from those that feel it's their religious obligation as opposed to those that simply want to hold someone at bay.

Well I won't dispute the fact that religion will make people do crazy things that politics wouldn't, but I still say that the threat from Iran is not serious, compared to the historical (and maybe even present) threat from the USSR/Russia. Not even close. Obama was right. Yes, they could hurt us. Pick your adjective, "serious", "grave", "dangerous" or whatever pedantic game you want to play. Iran is not in the same league as the USSR is/was. You can deny this if you like, but all the evidence is against you.

Perhaps not all, but ...

Oh yeah. You can find firebrands. You can play recordings of McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." It doesn't mean that this is the policy of our government, or even of McCain. Big picture, JT, big picture. Don't focus on individual incidents.

 

[corplinx]

I just found out that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons in 2005. Yes, there have religious and political leaders this cynical before. However, someone capable of this kind of bluff isn't a madman looking for his 72 virgins either. That fatwa, combined with the recent NIE showing that Iran is not trying to building nuclear weapons, is enough to let me consider that in this Iran is being completely up front.

So which is it? Fatwa or international pressure?

Perhaps you should try reading the NIE instead of repeating spin.

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.

Since you brought up the NIE though:

We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so

We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them

The NIE:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

 

[BeAChooser]

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. THe message never changes.

True.

 

[joobz]

I don't know how many times I have had to point this out over the various threads on this subject, but of course you keep diplomatic channels open. The danger is compromise your position by sending the POTUS without any sort of initial agreements in which case it becomes purely a propaganda tool. Think Hugo Chavez at the UN, only much worse.

Possibly. But that's merely speculation, isn't it? I could claim that even with all the agreements in place you want, the meeting can become purely a propaganda tool.

Of course it shows Hitler's contempt for peace, and it also shows Roosevelt's babe-in-the-woods naivete. I don't think that room full of Nazis would have had such a hearty belly laugh if Roosevelt had simply demanded that Germany's armies stayed within its borders or else - even if the "or else" was a bluff. But a letter asking them to pretty please don't invade all those countries gets nothing but laughs and Hitler knows Roosevelt won't give him much trouble when he goes ahead with his plans.

What makes you think that Obama's talks will be a simple "pretty please?"

It's like showing your hand in poker, ever play poker joobz?

This analogy is poor. Willingness to face your enemies face-to-face is a position of strength and power. Avoidance is easily seen as cowardice.

 

[WildCat]

Possibly. But that's merely speculation, isn't it? I could claim that even with all the agreements in place you want, the meeting can become purely a propaganda tool.

Sure it can. But you have diplomats do the heavy lifting beforehan - the POTUS doesn't just show up and start negotiations out of thin air. With the Soviets it took months or years of diplomats hashing out the details before the POTUS met face-to-face with the Soviet leader. Why is Iran so special these steps should be skipped entirely?

What makes you think that Obama's talks will be a simple "pretty please?"

What makes you think they wouldn't?

This analogy is poor.

So you haven't ever played poker. And it shows.

Willingness to face your enemies face-to-face is a position of strength and power. Avoidance is easily seen as cowardice.

A "position of strength and power" has nothing to do with what you're willing to do. It has to do with actually being in a position of strength and power, and showing up without any groundwork at all is certainly not a position of strength.