Ed Ofama... On Iran

[Virus]

Some more of Iran's famous peaceful overtures:



Let's not forget their recent peaceful overture to Britain which they conducted by peacefully smashing the embassy up and setting peaceful fires.

 

[bit_pattern]

Did you notice the part where I specifically mention Khamenei, who actually controls foreign policy in Iran and is much more moderate that Ahmedinijad, who plays largely to a domestic audience?

 

[Virus]

Did you notice the part where I specifically mention Khamenei, who actually controls foreign policy in Iran and is much more moderate that Ahmedinijad, who plays largely to a domestic audience?

So he's responsible for exporting terrorism?

 

[bit_pattern]

So he's responsible for exporting terrorism?

Sure. Just like the American CiC is responsible for exporting terror to wherever they choose to fight proxy wars. Currently, one of those places happens to be Iran. Funny that.

 

[Virus]

So you admit Iran is sponsoring terrorist organizations yet you also claim they just want to be friends?

 

[bit_pattern]

I "admit" that Iran has involved itself in regional conflicts like Iraq and Lebanon.

 

[citizenzen]

Great that you can use bold and color sequences, but I'm asking you personally, because all I see is this supposed indisputeable perpetual meatshield of using Iraq and the 2003 war when addressing issues like nuclear weapons and their proliferation.

A while back in this thread the question was asked "Do you acknowledge the authority if the International Atomic Energy Agency?"

Before answering the question I took the time to look up how the IAEA was formed, the power that it works under—the United Nations. I then looked up the statute that was signed by its 151 members and posted excerpts from that statute. A link back to that post can be found here.

After all that I finally answered the question ... yes, I do accept the authority of the IAEA and the process outlined in the statute for dealing with non-compliant nations.

So now I ask you (and everybody else) ... do YOU accept the authority of the IAEA?

If you don't, then please specify how you'd solve this problem.

I'm far less interested in listening to complaints than I am solutions.

 

[IDB87]

Sure. Just like the American CiC is responsible for exporting terror to wherever they choose to fight proxy wars. Currently, one of those places happens to be Iran. Funny that.

Please elaborate?

Also I think you're thinking of INSCOM. CiC was gobbled up in the 60s.

 

[IDB87]

I "admit" that Iran has involved itself in regional conflicts like Iraq and Lebanon.

You'll find most Shia Muslims support Hezbollah, where the Sunnis will always condemn them.

It's also interesting to note that in places touched by the Arab Spring - Egypt, Bahrain, Syria - Hezbollah has been condemned as a terrorist organization.

I guess support for Iran's intervention in those countries is just as divided as American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Pardalis]

How can we "forge a meaningful, lasting peace" with them?

 

[bit_pattern]

You'll find most Shia Muslims support Hezbollah, where the Sunnis will always condemn them.

It's also interesting to note that in places touched by the Arab Spring - Egypt, Bahrain, Syria - Hezbollah has been condemned as a terrorist organization.

I guess support for Iran's intervention in those countries is just as divided as American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure. I'm not here to argue the morals of the Iranian regime, any more than I am the American regime or any other regime, I just remarked that I don't buy into the idea of a secret weapons programme and that Iran doesn't want conflict with the West, it wants dialogue, something a wily American foreign policy could actually take advantage of, if it was clever enough. People don't like my realpolitik so so try to distract from it by framing emotive arguments that exploit the apparent barbarity of the regime. I don't doubt the barbarity but I also acknowledge the nature of international relations, we ain't so snow-white ourselves, but sometimes it makes sense to work with people you disagree with rather than wporking against. But that doesn't fit into the triumphalist neocon narrative nor the goals of the Israeli foreign policy, unfortunately, so instead we have these childish power games.

 

[Pardalis]

They had a secret plant in Qom. Did they just forget to mention it to the IAEA?

 

[IDB87]

and that Iran doesn't want conflict with the West

The leaders of Iran and the mullahs are just scaring their citizens into supporting the regime for a little while longer. I would agree that they don't want conflict with the U.S. (I hate using that term 'The West'), as it would end in their defeat. Much against the idea of martyrdom on a whole, I think those in power in Iran would like to remain alive and in power. Nukes won't be used against the United States.

However, whose to say they won't use Nuclear weapons to threaten or blackmail the other gulf states? Considering Saudi Arabia's opinion of Iran, I'd think Iran would use Nuclear leverage/deterrence to somehow meddle in the Saudi's affairs.

Speculation, but valid I would say.

it wants dialogue

To what end?

People don't like my realpolitik so so try to distract from it by framing emotive arguments that exploit the apparent barbarity of the regime. I don't doubt the barbarity but I also acknowledge the nature of international relations, we ain't so snow-white ourselves

I do not like this tu quoque argument. The nature of the Iranian regime is very barbaric, and very authoritarian - it has to be dealt with eventually. If you think authoritarians typically concede power after open dialogue (with no military or economic action taken by its enemy), I would like you to support that position with examples.

I guess the question I have for you is this:

What would you like to see in Iran, insofar as a change in regime, and how do you propose it is accomplished?

 

[bit_pattern]

The leaders of Iran and the mullahs are just scaring their citizens into supporting the regime for a little while longer. I would agree that they don't want conflict with the U.S. (I hate using that term 'The West'), as it would end in their defeat. Much against the idea of martyrdom on a whole, I think those in power in Iran would like to remain alive and in power. Nukes won't be used against the United States.

I agree completely except for the last bit. Iran doesn't have nukes and there is very little evidence to support the idea that they are trying to develop them. This is another intelligence cook-up, as per Iraq.

However, whose to say they won't use Nuclear weapons to threaten or blackmail the other gulf states? Considering Saudi Arabia's opinion of Iran, I'd think Iran would use Nuclear leverage/deterrence to somehow meddle in the Saudi's affairs.

Speculation, but valid I would say.

Sure. But there are better ways to prevent proliferation than trying to menace states into submission. That's what the NPT is all about. And there is no credible evidence that they are in violation of the NPT.

I do not like this tu quoque argument. The nature of the Iranian regime is very barbaric, and very authoritarian - it has to be dealt with eventually. If you think authoritarians typically concede power after open dialogue (with no military or economic action taken by its enemy), I would like you to support that position with examples.

Fair point re: the tu quoque. I guess what I'm getting at is that international relations are largely amoral, in the same way they are anarchic. Yes, Iran is an objectionable regime but does that mean we should forgoe any chance at détente, the chance at NOT going to war with them? I think world security is better served by the world engaging states like Iran - who might be objectionable but are stable, prosperous and are not active aggressors - not isolating and threatening them to the point where they decide that being armed with nukes is the only rational way to prevent outside aggression.

An Iran that feels safe, that isn't being threatened with attack periodically by Israel and America, who is allowed to peaceably and lawfully go about its nuclear programme under the strict auspices of the IAEA and the NPT (more than we can say about our ally in the region ) then there need not be this fear of conflict, we could actually have stability of sorts in the region.

I guess the question I have for you is this:

What would you like to see in Iran, insofar as a change in regime, and how do you propose it is accomplished?

That's a question for the Iranian people, not me.

 

[IDB87]

Iran doesn't have nukes and there is very little evidence to support the idea that they are trying to develop them.

Iran would have to convince the world that the Heavy Water plant in Arak is for a new type of reactor they will be building, then. The only other use for such a facility is for the production of plutonium.

But there are better ways to prevent proliferation than trying to menace states into submission. That's what the NPT is all about.

And when peaceful discussions fail? Yes, in hind site, it may have been more prudent to reach out to the Iranians in good faith. Military action cannot be removed from the equation, however.

I think world security is better served by the world engaging states like Iran - who might be objectionable but are stable, prosperous and are not active aggressors

Define your terms. Half of the Arab world sees Iran's proxy group as being a terrorist group. By your own standards, Iran's action in Lebanon and Iraq violates the sovereignty of those countries. Would that not be a good definition of 'active aggressor'?

not isolating and threatening them to the point where they decide that being armed with nukes is the only rational way to prevent outside aggression.

I think the Saudis had a bigger hand in isolating Iran.

 

[citizenzen]

They had a secret plant in Qom. Did they just forget to mention it to the IAEA?

I guess you're just venting here. So I should probably just ignore it.

However, I will point out that criminals who act with intent don't lose their right to due process. Likewise, even if Iran acted out of malicious intent, the process to correct their non-compliance is outlined in the IAEA statute.

 

[bit_pattern]

Iran would have to convince the world that the Heavy Water plant in Arak is for a new type of reactor they will be building, then. The only other use for such a facility is for the production of plutonium.

So? There is no evidence that any of the material is being diverted to a weapons programme and the level of enrichment is far too low for weapons grade anyway.

And when peaceful discussions fail? Yes, in hind site, it may have been more prudent to reach out to the Iranians in good faith. Military action cannot be removed from the equation, however.

What military ation? Why do we need military action? Why do we need "peaceful negotiations"? We just need Iran to do what it has been doing for the past decade which is comply with the IAEA.

Define your terms. Half of the Arab world sees Iran's proxy group as being a terrorist group. By your own standards, Iran's action in Lebanon and Iraq violates the sovereignty of those countries. Would that not be a good definition of 'active aggressor'?

Half the Arab world sees America as a terrorist group and a military aggressor but they still manage to have stable and productive diplomatic relations.

I think the Saudis had a bigger hand in isolating Iran.

I think that the Saudi's don't do **** without being told to by their masters in Washington.

 

[Virus]

If Iran are complying, why does the IAEA say they aren't complying?

 

[bit_pattern]

If Iran are complying, why does the IAEA say they aren't complying?

Because the independent El Baradei got shafted and the American lackey Yukiya Amano was installed, Wikileaks released cables that showed he was installed by America for America. who's first act was to simply take years of work by El Baradei, evidence that had been looked at and dismissed, and simply regurgitated. Internally, people within the IAEA are very, very sceptical of the report.



The Hersh interview starts about 2.5 mins in.

Longtime investigative journalist Seymour Hersh questions the growing consensus on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. International pressure has been mounting on Iran since the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency revealed in a report the "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear activities, citing "credible" evidence that "indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In his latest article for The New Yorker blog, titled "Iran and the IAEA," Hersh argues the recent report is a "political document," not a scientific study, in an interview with Democracy Now! Nov. 21. "They [JSOC] found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization," Hersh says. "In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build a bomb. This is simply a fact."

 

[bit_pattern]

Is Iran actively trying to develop nuclear weapons? Members of the Obama Administration often talk as if this were a foregone conclusion, as did their predecessors under George W. Bush. There is a large body of evidence, however, including some of America’s most highly classified intelligence assessments, suggesting that the United States could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq eight years ago––allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimations of the state’s military capacities and intentions. The two most recent National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.s) on Iranian nuclear progress, representing the best judgment of the senior officers from all the major American intelligence agencies, have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003.

Despite years of covert operations inside Iran, extensive satellite imagery, and the recruitment of many Iranian intelligence assets, the United States and its allies, including Israel, have been unable to find irrefutable evidence of an ongoing hidden nuclear-weapons program in Iran, according to intelligence and diplomatic officials here and abroad. One American defense consultant told me that as yet there is “no smoking calutron,” although, like many Western government officials, he is convinced that Iran is intent on becoming a nuclear state sometime in the future.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh#ixzz1iYaz4de2