Frankly if Iran goes bad in 20 years, assuming we do right and end our dependence on mid-east oil, and get well on our way to being off oil entirely, we can afford to ignore them the same way we ignore Cuba.

America hasn't got to utterly crush every bad guy in the world- we'd never do anything but fight, and never spend a dime on anything but weapons if we were to try.

My proposal for approaching Iran considers
1. That guarding the vulnerability created by our dependence on Mid-East oil is more important than any other concern we might have over Iran.
2. That Radical Islam and violent political radicalism in general is undermined by the passage of time without results and the distractions of cultural and economic advancement. Therefore defeating them may require little more than waiting them out.
Time without direct conflict against our troops will make the war seem less real to their youth, but everytime we present ourselves on a given field for battle we invite more enemies to fill the radical ranks and fight us. Waiting them out may actually take the wind out of their sales far better than defeating them in battle, unless of course we are willing to go to the lengths necessary to uttlerly DESTROY them in battle, which would take everything we've got militarily, and more than we've got financially.


And to the best of my knowledge, North Korea does not have McDonalds, Walmart, or other aspects of cultural subversion which you will find in the nations which are less prone to making trouble for us. It's not so much McDonalds or Walmart itself being there that makes the difference. Those institutions are a symbol of Western cultural influence. When a culture is exposed to and accepts the sometimes materialistic and therefore short-sighted consumer lifestyle that permiate the West, they fall under the power of the same conspiracies which keep we rebellious Americans sitting on our fat butts no matter what outrage we are confronted with. In short, they go soft like many of us have gone soft and lose the will to be poor or to fight just to stand by their values.
If we can wait out the Iranians and deny them a raging battle for their young men to become involved in, the next generation of Iranians isn't going to be thinking about fighting the Great Satan. They're going to be thinking about building an economy so that they can get a job and buy cellular phones, drink pepsi, and all that ridiculous crap that virtually everyone in most first world nations spends all of their time doing instead of fighting for the things they believe in.

I don't want to "teach Iran a lesson". I just want to avoid seeing America get taught a lesson, then once we don't need the Persian Gulf so much we can simply leave Iran to its own devices and see if they don't eventually start acting more like the Kuwaitis, or at the very least like the Saudis, who while they are still a bunch of terrorist jerks, at least don't rock the boat too much on the strategic and political levels.

Vagabond,

What chances to you think of Iran imploding at some point in the near future and do you think it would be advisable for the US to try and push that along?

I would guess that the odds of it just happening are relatively slim, and I wouldn't necessarily advise helping it happen.

The ideal scenario is never to have Iran implode at all, but merely to see a cultural shift over the next 20-30 years as the youth begin to find the Mullah's message increasingly irrelevant.

To achieve that ideal scenario, we need to stay out of the area for the most part so that there is not a war for the Mullah's to send the youth into. In 30 years, when today's teenagers are fathers and the today's Mullahs are corpses, the last of the generation that grew up wanting to fight us will be preaching violence to their children, and the children, as children do, will stare at them blankly and think "Yeah, whatever dad- the Americans aren't even around here anymore. Now why can't I go to the mall like my cousin in Kuwait?"

Seems reasonable to me, but what if the Mullahs stay in power and get nukes? I mean they already are supposed to have a few tactical warheads.

Should we just walk away? Can our economy handle the lack of oil?

Not that it wouldnt be bad idea, but I just cant see the American people paying $6 gas. Can you?

As I've said, I'd attack their nuclear facilities, navy and airforce without invading, and would simply up troop strength and redeploy our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan temporarily to deter any idea they might have of bringing the fight to us.

We need to check Iran's ability to control the Gulf for about 10 years. During that 10 years we need an extremely aggressive campaign to make America more energy efficient and less dependent on oil.

Our budget expenditures are roughly 2.8 TRILLION dollars. That's a lot of money to be reallocated. As our dependence on oil constitutes a national emergency in my view, I'd cut many expenditures to bare bones with the aim of freeing up several trillion dollars over the next 10-20 years which could be used to upgrade our non-oil infrastructure, provide consumer incentives for energy efficient and especially hybrid or non-oil vehicles and other products, and dump an incredible amount of money into tech development and enforcement of new regulations.

If this nation sets itself hell-bent on becoming self-sufficient for energy by harnessing ocean tides and currents, solar power, wind, and perhaps even more exotic forms of energy, and puts the necessary resources behind it, we will accomplish all of the following:
1. A massive boom in employment.
2. A massive leap forward in technology over the rest of the world, which we can profit from nicely.
3. Become a net exporter of enegy.
4. Complete independence from foreign oil, and less need to maintain military presence in the middle east.

So my view is that we need to check Iran in the short term, make some sacrifices in our budget, and do what Americans have always had a stunning tallent for- build the biggest, best, and newest stuff in the world in virtually no time flat. When the dust settles we'll be seeing outstanding returns on the investment and it won't matter a bit to us if Iran has the bomb. In fact at that point it would almost be good for us if Iran did have the bomb, because that presents a big fat problem for the Europeans to cope with that may well bring them around to our way of thinking as far as dealing with rogue states, missile defense, and the like are concerned.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As I've said, I'd attack their nuclear facilities, navy and airforce without invading, and would simply up troop strength and redeploy our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan temporarily to deter any idea they might have of bringing the fight to us.

We need to check Iran's ability to control the Gulf for about 10 years. During that 10 years we need an extremely aggressive campaign to make America more energy efficient and less dependent on oil.

So my view is that we need to check Iran in the short term, make some sacrifices in our budget, and do what Americans have always had a stunning tallent for- build the biggest, best, and newest stuff in the world in virtually no time flat.

Well we are not that far off, except that I feel that left to the present containment methods, that radical Islam will have a home there and I feel that is a much greater threat than oil supplies.

You are right the US can do without Middle East oil, although painful, it can be done and we should start the process soon.

But I feel that Iran is a threat that needs dealt with....and we CAN NOT rely on Europe to do anything.

Vagabond sorry about slow response.
The only thing Im am going to point out is that it is to ease to confuse western culture with a democratic society they are not one in the same. Western culture isnt always the best thing bear in mind the young people of Iran may want to debate the mertis of womens rights rather then drinking coke and watching TV.

[edit on 25-8-2005 by xpert11]

You're right about that Xpert, but I retain a fair level of confidence in the method I propose. Western Culture is definitely not democratic in and of itself. What it IS is materialistic, short sighted, and sometimes a little slow to fight. I think that's exactly what we want for the middle East.

Whether or not they ever learn to respect their women is secondary, although I think that will be the inevitable result of greed. Women are going to want money too. Men who have women are going to want money. Women have certain ways of obtaining money that men lack. Plus when they GET money, they're going to spend some of it socially. Think roaring 20s. Money, excess, the first hints of sexual liberation- this opens up peoples eyes to whole other way that things could be.

Giving Iran some time to absorb modern culture- even if not entirely Western, but especially if it did happen to be western, is going to direct their attention inward, towards their own lot in life and their own country. That's exactly what is necessary to create change there, and to make them cool their jets on the world stage.

Originally posted by The VagabondGiving Iran some time to absorb modern culture- even if not entirely Western, but especially if it did happen to be western, is going to direct their attention inward, towards their own lot in life and their own country. That's exactly what is necessary to create change there, and to make them cool their jets on the world stage.

In all reality, how much time do we give them? Nukes in the hands of known terrorists? Although I do not think Iran would openly support giving these weapons to anyone else, especially after the hell they will have gone through, but what about some withing the hostile Government? Who is to say that they don't give em just a little?

As I've already said, I wouldn't let them get nukes. We can bomb their nuclear program every couple of years from now till judgement day if need be and never need to set foot inside Iran.
I dont think that kind of an action will do nearly as much towards radicalizing their youth as actually invading. At a certain point people are going to start wondering why it is that the Mullahs' precious nuclear program keeps getting bombed while we leave the rest of the country alone. Any half reasonable person would begin to think "hmm... you know if my government weren't so hell bent on threatening people, maybe the USA would just leave us alone and let us prosper."

Originally posted by The VagabondAs I've already said, I wouldn't let them get nukes. We can bomb their nuclear program every couple of years from now till judgement day if need be and never need to set foot inside Iran.

Agreed.

But can the US stand the political fallout of bombing Iran every 6 months?

Plus they will just hide it better the next time.




[edit on 27-8-2005 by edsinger]

You can only hide so much. Our satellites, and certain reconaisance flights would be able to identify major construction projects such as for a reactor or a refinement facility, or the mining of uranium. All you'd have to do is use aerial recon on their trucking.

We could also blockade any Uranium shipments to them and disrupt any domestic storage or mining that we were able to identify.
Of course if they had a fast reactor they could turn Thorium into Uranium, but first they'd have to rebuild the reactors after we take those out of comission.

They could concievably go deep to conceal them, but it would take them years to construct such a facility, and we may be able to bribe even Russia out of providing them with a reactor. Suppose for example if we made a pledge not to invade Iran and arranged for Russia to be awarded major contracts in Iraq, maybe even promised to put our weight behind getting Israel out of Golan Heights on behalf of Syria.

I'm not blind to the fact that you have to give and take if you want to get things done without kicking everyone's butt. I think it would be worth a little concession if we could weasel our way out of another 3 year, multi-billion dollar war effort that could cost thousands of lives and undermine the viablity of our volunteer military.