The Iran Story
Right now, it seems that Iran and the US aren’t really on speaking terms. The US, the big bully of the world, is pressuring Iran to stop developing nuclear technology. Iran, the poor underdog, seems to think that it should. For energy, not for weapons.
Hmm, we have a conundrum.
Here’s my take on things: Iran is a regime. No doubt about it. It’s got an oppressive government. The people are probably good people, but they are led to believe that the zionists are out to get them. That makes them mad. And since they don’t have anything else to do, they rally and protest. They make bombs. They say mean things. You’d probably do the same thing if you were them.
But I don’t understand why the US has to stir up so much trouble. It’s obvious our presence in Iraq is detrimental to our relations with other countries in the area. If the Iranian president wants to run his mouth and say things about the US, why do we have to say anything back? Why do we need to constantly use negative words and tones when talking about Iran? Why not just say what we want and talk only to the UN? State facts, not negative ad campaigns.
I think Iran wants a war. Even if they are developing nuclear technology for energy, once they had it it’s not much further development to make a weapon out of it. Understandably, we don’t want someone like that having that kind of a weapon. Because it’s evident they don’t like us and would want to use it on us.
Why can’t Iran and the US hold face to face talks? Why do they have to doublespeak to other people about all of their differences?
I think that the Bush Administration needs to open their arms to some form of diplomacy, and I’m not talking the kind where they go around and tell other countries that Iran is bad and that that they (the other countries) need to get on board with the US. No, the US needs to reach out to Iran and be warm and show reasons why we don’t want them having the bomb. Open up talks. Be nice to each other. Stop all of this bickering.
Failure to do that, and I think we’re going to have another war on our hands. And this one is going to go much more miserably than the last…if that’s even thinkable.
Thoughts?
May 12th, 2006 at 2:57 am
Well, if you indeed are so interested in modern world politics I’d suggest taking a close look at this site/blog:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/04/collapsing_iran.html
The link is actually on a specific story on Iran, although this whole blog is well worth following. It has a good perspective on recent developments in world situation/warfare, especially the discussions after the articles..
George
May 12th, 2006 at 3:58 am
One should not base military engagement only on suspicion of intent. All other options should be exhausted before turning to war. Furthermore, the evil generated by war should be less than the evil of not interfering in the situation.
It appears to me that the Bush Administration is fixated on Iran, and Iran knows this. There’s just too many similarities to how Iraq was handled for me not to be suspicious. The whole matter makes me think of that Hersh article in The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
I honestly hope this situation can somehow be resolved diplomatically. I also hope that “the nuclear option” will not be used. It’s bad enough having the metaphoric blood of Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians on our collective hands, but to add another city to the list, especially in a situation where cooler heads could have prevailed?
May 12th, 2006 at 5:29 am
that’s a great article!
May 12th, 2006 at 9:22 am
> If the Iranian president wants to run his mouth and say things about
> the US, why do we have to say anything back? Why do we need to
> constantly use negative words and tones when talking about Iran? Why
> not just say what we want and talk only to the UN? State facts, not
> negative ad campaigns.
You give Iran and the UN too much credit. Sitting down at a table with an entity that consistently funds and pays lip service to terrorists seeking your annihilation is not constructive. Jabbering on to an ineffectual bunch of ninnies will not help either.
Iran’s leadership does not really, truly want war. They’re jockying for street cred in the Muslim world. The more we engage them, the more they suceed.
> I also hope that “the nuclear option” will not be used. It’s bad enough
> having the metaphoric blood of Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians on our
> collective hands, but to add another city to the list, especially in a
> situation where cooler heads could have prevailed?
The nuclear weapons “on the table” are not above ground, death and destruction-type weapons. They are designed to penetrate the hardened underground structures where the nuclear development is purported to be taking place. These structures are designed to be immune to conventional weapons ie bunker busters. Controversial, yes. Fallout, radiation sickness, mass casualties, etc, no.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:39 am
> You give Iran and the UN too much credit. Sitting down at a table with an entity that
> consistently funds and pays lip service to terrorists seeking your annihilation is not
> constructive. Jabbering on to an ineffectual bunch of ninnies will not help either.
Perhaps. But sooner or later some zealot is going to get a dirty bomb or avian flu or something and is going to unleash it on America. And why? Why do they hate America so much? Because we’re Christian? Because we hurt them somehow? Why?
Who cares if we let them think they won? Why not try to pacify the tense situation in a smart way to minimize our exposure to this risk?
May 12th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I agree with m1.
Also, I agree that America should not directly deal with foreign governments or regimes like this because the support of the entire international community is critical here. We can’t look like we’re the only country dealing with a very controversial regime.
Also, I think the fact that the Iranian president has essentially promised to wipe Isreal off the face of the world could be considered grounds for a preemptive strike (at least by Isreal). Whether anyone likes it or not, the US is committed to supporting Isreal - good, bad, or ugly.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Why is the US committed to supporting Israel? I know we have close relations, but why?
The only reason I can think of is because of the large populous of Jewish voters in the north east.
Note that I’m not saying we shouldn’t support Israel, I’m just curious why there’s always been so much support for it historically.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
My opinion about israel…
The world felt guilty about the holocaust after WWII. This guilt led to the formation of a jewish homeland, Israel. We were like, sure, whatever, just don’t bring up that holocaust thing.
I’m sure at the tim teh arabs were like, whosajiggawhat? But we didn’t care because they are just a bunch of camel jockies, who gives a fuck about them.
Then we ran ote of oil and the arabs found a shitload of it.
Now their like, suck it trebek and we’re like, god DAMN it!
May 12th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
“The nuclear weapons “on the table” are not above ground, death and destruction-type weapons. They are designed to penetrate the hardened underground structures where the nuclear development is purported to be taking place. These structures are designed to be immune to conventional weapons ie bunker busters. Controversial, yes. Fallout, radiation sickness, mass casualties, etc, no.”
So either the nuclear payload magically gets inside the underground facility, or the other half of the explosion is going to be above ground? I’m not seeing the ideal Physics work out here.