Did you watch the video? From where are we getting information to say that iran will have a bomb in 8 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc. 30 years passed and we're still 8 months away from the construction of the first bomb. These claims are worthless and history proves it. Thats the only reason why I have doubts.Rifleman62 said:
Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,258
- Points
- 1,160
You are basing your opinion on one YouTube video?
I just stated history facts and asked legitimate questions.Jed said:
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms
Source :http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
It is a normal reaction to be hostile towards iran since usa's shah got kicked out..
Also The USA backed Saddam Hussein during the 8 year war while he was using chemical weapons on Iranians. No questions should be asked there? All I'm saying is that the USA/Iran conflict is way bigger than the question of nuclear weapons.. It's a question of influence in the middle east. Syria/Yemen/Bahrain/Lebanon/Iraq are all conflicts that USA and Iran have differences on.. And I think that those conflicts hide a clash of interests between USA and Iran. I might be all wrong but that's how i see the middle east : A clash of interests between USA/Iran/Russia. Am I stupid to think like that? Maybe....
It is true that iran is hostile towards israel, howerver how can they nuke them? They will wipe out the palestinians that they are protecting at the same time and cause a huge disaster. It is illogical... Unless they are planning to conquer the land regardless of its inhabitants. And anyways if they nuke israel they will get nuked also and Iran will just get wiped out.. So I don't and I can never imagine ANY government starting a nuclear war because it is only madness and suicide. It is in the interests of absolutely no one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,122
- Points
- 1,160
Iran's revolutionary council is nuttish enough to consider nuking Israel, although I suspect nuking the Saudi's might be preferable. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) however may have different ideas, although they used to be subservient to the Revolutionary Council, it appears they march to their own drum and have taken over large swaths of the economy. The IRG is now corrupt and interested in making themselves rich, so they will have no interest in a direct war with Israel, but will happily support proxy wars. The Ayatollah's know their position is weak and dependent on the IRG support. The population demographics is young and unhappy, Iran faces internal stress from the Kurds and the Balachs, which will force Iran to always maintain most of it's forces at home.
Events are forcing the IRG and the US to meet a common enemy, a better President would take advantage of that in secret and use it to get concessions behind closed doors. That will not happen. The Iraqi Shias are wedded to Iran, even though they don't fully trust Iran either, the Kurds look for a partner to help them achieve their nationalistic goals and the ISIS crisis will likely be the vehicle to do that. Turkey and Saudi have been playing two sided games and no one trusts them, same with Pakistan. Iran and the west actually share a similar goal in a stable Afghanistan, but Iran is to wedded to having Kabul or Herat beholden to them at any price.
The west needs to support the Kurds and Israelis, they are without doubt the most reliable people in the region, Iran will not rest till it achieves being a nuclear armed power, more to intimidate it's neighbours than the US and to protect itself from the consequences of it's regional meddling. If the west really wanted to put the screws to Iran, stoking the Balchs to revolt would be the best way and that would threaten it's oil reserves.
Meanwhile Sunni Iraq needs to contained and allowed to wither under ISIS. Letting the Sunni world see what a real caliphate looks like will wean them off that fantasy. Sooner or later the Sunni tribes will stab them in the back and pick a regional strongman to run them, at which point the world can re-engage. Iraq is a failed experiment.
Oh and Force you are selective, Saddam was backed to the hilt by France, China and the Soviets, all whom he owed massive amounts of money to, which is why they did not want him toppled as Iraq would refuse to pay. The US backed Saddam but not with the weapons he used to attack Iran, those were mainly French, Russian and Chinese.
Events are forcing the IRG and the US to meet a common enemy, a better President would take advantage of that in secret and use it to get concessions behind closed doors. That will not happen. The Iraqi Shias are wedded to Iran, even though they don't fully trust Iran either, the Kurds look for a partner to help them achieve their nationalistic goals and the ISIS crisis will likely be the vehicle to do that. Turkey and Saudi have been playing two sided games and no one trusts them, same with Pakistan. Iran and the west actually share a similar goal in a stable Afghanistan, but Iran is to wedded to having Kabul or Herat beholden to them at any price.
The west needs to support the Kurds and Israelis, they are without doubt the most reliable people in the region, Iran will not rest till it achieves being a nuclear armed power, more to intimidate it's neighbours than the US and to protect itself from the consequences of it's regional meddling. If the west really wanted to put the screws to Iran, stoking the Balchs to revolt would be the best way and that would threaten it's oil reserves.
Meanwhile Sunni Iraq needs to contained and allowed to wither under ISIS. Letting the Sunni world see what a real caliphate looks like will wean them off that fantasy. Sooner or later the Sunni tribes will stab them in the back and pick a regional strongman to run them, at which point the world can re-engage. Iraq is a failed experiment.
Oh and Force you are selective, Saddam was backed to the hilt by France, China and the Soviets, all whom he owed massive amounts of money to, which is why they did not want him toppled as Iraq would refuse to pay. The US backed Saddam but not with the weapons he used to attack Iran, those were mainly French, Russian and Chinese.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
For those wondering what ever happened to that Iranian mockup of a US aircraft carrier spotted a year or so ago:
Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Iran's Revolutionary Guard targets mock US aircraft carrier in war games near mouth of Gulf
By Ali Akbar Dareini And Adam Schreck, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – 4 hours ago
TEHRAN, Iran - With rockets roaring and guns blazing, more than a dozen swarming Iranian speedboats assaulted a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier Wednesday during large-scale naval drills near the strategically vital entrance of the Persian Gulf.
The nationally televised show of force by the country's elite Revolutionary Guard comes just weeks ahead of a deadline for Iran and world powers to forge a historic deal on the fate of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
Iranian live-fire war games are not uncommon. But by simulating for the first time an attack on the ultimate symbol of American naval power, hard-liners hoped to send a message that Iran has no intention of backing down to the U.S. — whichever way talks over its contested nuclear program go.
(...SNIPPED)
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
More on Iran's Hollywood spectacular:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/in-mock-attack-iranian-navy-blasts-away-at-replica-us-aircraft-carrier.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/in-mock-attack-iranian-navy-blasts-away-at-replica-us-aircraft-carrier.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
- Reaction score
- 1,258
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-iran-deal/2015/02/26/9186c70e-bde1-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html
The fatal flaw in the Iran deal
By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer February 26 at 8:06 PM
A sunset clause?
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.
Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.
Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.
Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?
It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.
It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.
There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.
Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.
And no sunset.
That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the United States will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.
Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.
Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.
The fatal flaw in the Iran deal
By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer February 26 at 8:06 PM
A sunset clause?
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.
Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.
Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.
Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?
It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.
It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.
There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.
Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.
And no sunset.
That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the United States will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.
Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.
Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 5,521
- Points
- 1,260
There's more than enough blame for everyone to share in the current Israel/US dust-up.
No one should blame Israel for considering a nuclear capable Iran to be an existential threat to Israel ~ it is each nation-state's right and duty to define such threats, and nothing that the US or the UN might say can or should change Israel's 'considered opinion' about what does or does not constitute a threat, existential or otherwise.
It appears, to me, anyway, that president Obama is embarked on a "legacy" issue and I, personally, don't blame Israel/PM Netanyahu for mistrusting Obama. But, and it's a big BUT, considering the importance of bipartisan US political support for Israel, I think Netanyahu is thrashing about like a bull in a china shop - I get that he doesn't like or trust Obama but he appears to be both using the US Congress as a tool in Israeli partisan politics and inserting himself and Israel into US partisan politics: neither is a good idea.
I think President Obama is strategically wrong about Iran; I think PM Netanyahu is equally strategically wrong about America. I doubt wither will escape unscathed.
No one should blame Israel for considering a nuclear capable Iran to be an existential threat to Israel ~ it is each nation-state's right and duty to define such threats, and nothing that the US or the UN might say can or should change Israel's 'considered opinion' about what does or does not constitute a threat, existential or otherwise.
It appears, to me, anyway, that president Obama is embarked on a "legacy" issue and I, personally, don't blame Israel/PM Netanyahu for mistrusting Obama. But, and it's a big BUT, considering the importance of bipartisan US political support for Israel, I think Netanyahu is thrashing about like a bull in a china shop - I get that he doesn't like or trust Obama but he appears to be both using the US Congress as a tool in Israeli partisan politics and inserting himself and Israel into US partisan politics: neither is a good idea.
I think President Obama is strategically wrong about Iran; I think PM Netanyahu is equally strategically wrong about America. I doubt wither will escape unscathed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
This will surely be an interesting week not only for US-Iran relations, but US-Israeli relations, since Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is addressing the US Congress over the Iran issue today (March 3, 2015):
Reuters
Reuters
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
S.M.A. said:
Of course they didn't have to run the gauntlet of escorts and aircraft that protect a carrier, like killer bees protecting their queen.
THAT would be worth watching. ;D
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Yesterday's speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu not only laid out the dangers of a nuclear Iran, but also threw the Democrat party into disarray (which may have been the strategic aim; making it unpaletable for America to give more concessions or ensuring the Senate will vote against any bad treaty).
http://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/234543-fiery-netanyahu-speech-divides-dems
http://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/234543-fiery-netanyahu-speech-divides-dems
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
63 Delta
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
tomahawk6 said:
pros·trate
ˈprästrāt/
adjective
1.
lying stretched out on the ground with one's face downward.
synonyms: prone, lying flat, lying down, stretched out, spread-eagled, sprawling, horizontal, recumbent; rareprocumbent
"the prostrate figure on the ground"
Seems a fitting death ;D
Similar threads
