Stoking the Coals?

[coolhand]

Stratfor says much the same thing. Although lamestream media isn't talking about it much, this bears watching.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574410672271269390.html

 

[JTH]

Here here, it's about time we "didn't" do anything in the middle east. :cheesy:

 

[Buster]

Here here, it's about time we "didn't" do anything in the middle east. :cheesy:

But according to the article below..we are doing something..by proxy:suspicious:

 

[coolhand]

Here here, it's about time we "didn't" do anything in the middle east. :cheesy:

I can understand that sentiment. But we may not like the after effects in a worse case scenario.

 

[coolhand]

I'm getting intel from stratfor that says the Iranian nuclear issue is more volatile than mainstream media is reporting. This situation has not gone away. The leaks of the past few days send a message that things may be moving much faster than previously thought, putting our administration in a tough spot between Iran, Israel, and Russia.

In essence:

The New York Times reported that the IAEA had a secret report claiming that the Iranians had accumulated all of the data needed to build an atomic bomb. The report also stated that U.S. intelligence is now re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate that deemed Iran was not actively working on a nuclear weapon.

It appear the leak to the New York Times did not come from the White House, which means that a battle is starting over the intelligence analysis of Iran’s nuclear capability. Whoever wins that battle defines the parameters of U.S. policy toward Iran.

If these leaks are confirmed, it would deepen the crisis.

The London Times also reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s not-particularly-secret visit to Moscow was undertaken to deliver a list of Russian scientists and engineers who were working with Iran on a nuclear weapons program. If true, this would move that collaboration to a pretty extreme point.

 

[phil]

The question might also be: "'What makes the Iranians feel so threatened that they would feel it necessary to need nuclear weapons?" The answer isn't really that complex. They have troops on both their borders. Truly, we are gradually leaving Iraq, but let's not forget that the Iranians had fought a long and bitter war with the Iraqis for many years.

I think that the best answer is to pursue diplomatic means at this stage. The current administration has a tough row to hoe on this one, as they've inherited the almost unilateral attack on a neighboring foreign country, plus 8 years of failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's cost us tremendously on the diplomatic arena.

 

[nnuut]

http://www.nwotruth.com/gop-senators-us-not-israel-should-attack-iran-‘if-necessary’/

 

[coolhand]

The question might also be: "'What makes the Iranians feel so threatened that they would feel it necessary to need nuclear weapons?" The answer isn't really that complex. They have troops on both their borders. Truly, we are gradually leaving Iraq, but let's not forget that the Iranians had fought a long and bitter war with the Iraqis for many years.

I think that the best answer is to pursue diplomatic means at this stage. The current administration has a tough row to hoe on this one, as they've inherited the almost unilateral attack on a neighboring foreign country, plus 8 years of failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's cost us tremendously on the diplomatic arena.

phil, I'm only calling attention to events that are out of our control. The Iranians would seek these weapons anyway based on religious zealotry against Israel. Diplomacy at this point is probably not going to appease either Iran or Israel. Sometimes the end result is something history tells us is all too common in situations like this.

This situation has been long in making, decades before the events of the past 8 years.

 

[James48843]

... I think that the best answer is to pursue diplomatic means at this stage. Afghanistan and Iraq... cost us tremendously on the diplomatic arena.

We have no other choice but diplomacy at this exact moment. Our armed forces are a might stretched already, don't cha think?


Govexec.com ran an article last week that pretty much lays it out- everything we've got, is either already deployed, on it's way to being deployed, or just got back from being deployed, and needs time to recover.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1009/100109kp1.htm

There once was a time when we had the Armed Forces to fight on two major fronts at once. Then we downsized-- it was on major front, and one "holding action". Then we downsized again and it was two minor conflicts both at once, but not both at full strength (can you say Iraq and Afghanistan simultaniously).

Anybody who thinks we can do anything other than a quick lightning-style airstrike to deal with Iran is kidding themselves, and that wouldn't go over very well in the rest of the world. If we were to do that, just about everybody would be up in arms, including pulling their support in our other missions, leaving us twisting out there.

It simply isn't a pretty picture.

Now, if only we can get China and Russia to help with Iranian pressure, we might be able to make some progress......

 

[James48843]

http://www.nwotruth.com/gop-senators-us-not-israel-should-attack-iran-‘if-necessary’/

Thank goodness neither Saxby Chambliss nor Phil Graham have their fingers on the button.

If we were to light up Iran right now, it would not be a pretty picture.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/saxby-chambliss-thinks-iranian-people-dont-remember

 

[coolhand]

We have no other choice but diplomacy at this exact moment. Our armed forces are a might stretched already, don't cha think?


Govexec.com ran an article last week that pretty much lays it out- everything we've got, is either already deployed, on it's way to being deployed, or just got back from being deployed, and needs time to recover.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1009/100109kp1.htm

There once was a time when we had the Armed Forces to fight on two major fronts at once. Then we downsized-- it was on major front, and one "holding action". Then we downsized again and it was two minor conflicts both at once, but not both at full strength (can you say Iraq and Afghanistan simultaniously).

Anybody who thinks we can do anything other than a quick lightning-style airstrike to deal with Iran is kidding themselves, and that wouldn't go over very well in the rest of the world. If we were to do that, just about everybody would be up in arms, including pulling their support in our other missions, leaving us twisting out there.

It simply isn't a pretty picture.

Now, if only we can get China and Russia to help with Iranian pressure, we might be able to make some progress......

The wild card is Israel. They are the ones who feel threatened and can force our hand whether we are ready or not. You are correct. It is not a pretty picture. Russia will not help us unless we give up a lot of concessions with respect to their geopolitical periphery. This is a chess game on a grand scale. This situation is beyond delicate.

 

[phil]

Whoa. I'm not on the attack. I'm also just stating the obvious. We can't think to act unilaterally in this situation. We can't even think to attack at all, though I note that it hasn't been discounted.


An Iran with a nuclear arsenal bothers a lot of people in the region. However, their reasons for having these weapons stem from their own paranoia......which they have in spades.

An interesting story is what happened when we changed their government, meddled in their internal affairs. The one thing that I remembered was the real fear people felt in the intelligence establishment. Someone said....."it scared me, it was just too easy to do".

The Iranians have a real axe to grind with us.

 

[coolhand]

The Iranians have a real axe to grind with us.

There is a tremendous amount of history here with respect to who meddled with who and it goes back centuries. Even the Russians have occupied Iran in recent history. We are hardly a novelty in that regard.

 

[James48843]

The Iranians have a real axe to grind with us.

The Iranian people have a much bigger axe to grind with their own sitting government, after the last "elections".

The shock still running through the people there is that many thought they actually had fair elections, until this time proved them to be not the case.

I predict we haven't seen the end of the fallout from that yet. Keep watching Iran. Keep watching the people of Iran, for big things are yet to happen there, without us having anything at all to do with it.

Remember Neda.

They will.

For a long, long time.

 

[phil]

Let's get some background. We OVERTHREW the legitimate government of Iran in the 1950's. Yes, in the 1970's they took over our embassy, an act of war. However, we were causing a great deal of instability in their country. Say whatever you want about the Shi'ite clerics.....they have the moral authority in the country.

There are conservative and liberal clerics in the country. Some of them actually protested during the last election. They have served in certain ways to liberalize the country. Bizarre, isn't it.

Prior to the Islamic revolution, illiteracy was rampant in the country. Now, they have over 90% literacy, both men and women.

It's difficult to like them these days, but I think we have to accept them. In Afghanistan, their influence has been culturally moderate, compared to the Taliban. Dari and Farsi are very close together, and probably most of the literature in Afghanistan is being printed in Iran. The Taliban were burning a lot of the Farsi literature as "impure".

There's a lot of pro-western feeling in Iran, largely from the European countries that have contact. They would like some contact, I believe.

By the way, it hasn't stopped us from buying and using their oil on the open market. Something like 15% of their foreign exchange comes from.......us. Also, don't pay too much attention to propaganda. One can always tell when a civilization is starting to fail.....when their leaders actually believe their own propaganda they print.

 

[James48843]

... Say whatever you want about the Shi'ite clerics.....they have the moral authority in the country.

There are conservative and liberal clerics in the country. Some of them actually protested during the last election.

Phil, the clerics and the government are not entirely one in the same there. It's a much more complicated situation than simply that. That kind of trying to put things into neat little cubicles is part of what got us into trouble there in the first place. Iran is much more complex a beast than that.

Moral authority? The government's moral authority was severely shaken as a result of the "recent polling results". Do not be surprised at what unfolds over the next year there. One has to have the pulse of the Iranian people to truly understand what is about to happen there, and why. Remember, the vast majority of the Iranian population wasn't even born yet when the current form of government was put into place.

2/3rd of the population is age 30 or less. A great deal of them yerning for freedom, and they now understand that their current government let them down in the election. They will not forget Neda.

You remember what happened in this country in the 1960's, when the young people found their voice? That's what is about to happen there.

Wait, listen. Watch. Iran is about to have some real change, and it won't be driven from outside.

 

[phil]

James,

I hope that you're right on this one, but I just don't see it happening. The generation that grew up during the Iran/Iraq war and after is very well entrenched. The clerics represent the moral authority of Iran, for better....or worse. I agree that Iran is complicated, I just don't think that there's going to be a revolution just yet. I can't let wishful thinking on my part bring about change. I've spoken to more than a few expat Iranians, and I hope that change does come, but I'm not counting on it.

I think that this current regime in Iran is under some pressure to make an agreement with us, and that's a good thing.

Phil, the clerics and the government are not entirely one in the same there. It's a much more complicated situation than simply that. That kind of trying to put things into neat little cubicles is part of what got us into trouble there in the first place. Iran is much more complex a beast than that.

Moral authority? The government's moral authority was severely shaken as a result of the "recent polling results". Do not be surprised at what unfolds over the next year there. One has to have the pulse of the Iranian people to truly understand what is about to happen there, and why. Remember, the vast majority of the Iranian population wasn't even born yet when the current form of government was put into place.

2/3rd of the population is age 30 or less. A great deal of them yerning for freedom, and they now understand that their current government let them down in the election. They will not forget Neda.

You remember what happened in this country in the 1960's, when the young people found their voice? That's what is about to happen there.

Wait, listen. Watch. Iran is about to have some real change, and it won't be driven from outside.

 

[Show-me]

Just remember the Holocaust did not happen and Iran will wipe Israel off the map.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

I'm getting intel from stratfor that says the Iranian nuclear issue is more volatile than mainstream media is reporting. This situation has not gone away. The leaks of the past few days send a message that things may be moving much faster than previously thought, putting our administration in a tough spot between Iran, Israel, and Russia.

In essence:

The New York Times reported that the IAEA had a secret report claiming that the Iranians had accumulated all of the data needed to build an atomic bomb. The report also stated that U.S. intelligence is now re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate that deemed Iran was not actively working on a nuclear weapon.

It appear the leak to the New York Times did not come from the White House, which means that a battle is starting over the intelligence analysis of Iran’s nuclear capability. Whoever wins that battle defines the parameters of U.S. policy toward Iran.

If these leaks are confirmed, it would deepen the crisis.

The London Times also reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s not-particularly-secret visit to Moscow was undertaken to deliver a list of Russian scientists and engineers who were working with Iran on a nuclear weapons program. If true, this would move that collaboration to a pretty extreme point.

Just like I said about Saddam Hussein, if Iran wants nuclear weapons, let's give them a couple! If they can catch them, they can keep them!

 

[nnuut]

Israel is SCARY, they don't mess around and no telling what they will do about this problem. I know that they will do whatever it takes to keep their country safe and if they think it's necessary to use the NUCLEAR OPTION I think they will if forced into it. This is a tinder box and if the fire starts, which it looks like it will, all hell is going to happen, and we will be right in the middle of it!!