WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

Originally posted by iori_komei
It's not that there a threat to us right this very second.

It's that there government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots.
And that they could by the middle of the next decade,
have nuclear weapons capabilities.

Well I see the US as a far bigger threat to world peace in the future, lets hope the Russians and Chinese nuked them to solve problems for the future eh? After all, its the exact same idea with Iran.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by Flyer]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
First yes I have seen many other weapons tests, other than the two atomic weapons dropped on Japan.

Tests? Ok, I thought you were talking about real destruction rather than testing which, correct me if I'm wrong, takes place in remote areas out of harm's way. I guess this makes you US military of some sort, which explains much about your posts.

It is a threat to us because a massive war between Israel and Iran would eventually draw the United States into the conflict. The US cannot sit by while that type of battle rages on. When this happens the United State's military forces will be stretched even thinner than they are now, which destabilizes ongoing operations around the world.

This is not a direct threat to the US. If the US can't stop itself from meddling in the affairs of other nations, then that's its own lookout. You might like to ponder the question why the US cannot sit by? It's certainly sitting on its hands* while Israel invades another country and bombs civilian targets there. As I said before, Israel has roughly 200 nuclear weapons - probably more: Arab nations in the region have, er, none. If the Iranians were stupid enough to attack Israel directly they would certainly find themselves in trouble.

As for the US military being stretched thinner than ever, I can't say I have much sympathy. Why does the US still have military bases all over the world in over 100 countries? To protect its access to resources. That is the reality behind the pompous rhetoric about freedom and democracy, which the historical record shows the US is, in fact, opposes in the majority of cases.

I did not say a darn thing about economic resources in my statement. At this point in time Israel is an ally to the United States, thus it is in our interest to protect them. Israel has a strategic location in that region and it would be unwise to give up that advantage.

OK. You see this phrase, "protecting our interests", is useful because it's comforting and vague. "We're only protecting our interests". And yet you go on to state that Israel has a strategic location in that region... so WHY would it be unwise to give up that advantage, precisely? How would the US lose out if Israel were attacked by Iran? - which I have already said is, in my opinion, highly unlikely due to Israel's possession of a massive nuclear deterrent?

You may not have said a thing about economic resources in your statement. I shall be interested to see how you define US interests without mentioning some kind of economic advantage.

*Actually, on reading this back I realise that "sitting on its hands" is NOT what the US is doing. It's trying to inflame the conflict further and arming the major military power in the region still further. All using US taxpayers' money.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
He states that a long term goal is a world without the United States. How is this not a threat to the US.

When you look at the whole speech in context, you find that he's talking about the US' oppressive influence. He talks about the tyranny of the West and the East. Remember (or discover for the first time if you haven't previously heard this) that Iran used to be a democracy. They elected a guy called Mossadegh who carried out the platform on which he was elected, to kick out the multinationals and use Iran's oil profits for the benefit of all Iranians. Oh dear. We couldn't have that, so Kermit Roosevelt (yes, one of those Roosevelts) CIA agent, threw money around, organised a rent-a-mob, and successfully fomented a coup. The US brought the Shah back and gave him a shiny new all-torturing all-disappearing secret police called the SAVAK who kept the populace in line with vicious brutality for two decades.

This made the Imams look pretty good and they were the ones who could organise a successful revolt. By the time it came, the US embassy was widely known as "the nest of spies". That's what they called it.

From the independent translation of the speech, already linked in another post:

All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end...

They just want freedom - a word the US likes to bandy about - but from the US.

Also, do you really believe that if given the power there would be a simple election, in which everyone in the state of Israel could vote and elect representation. There would be a regime change and no civilian blood would be spilled?!?

No. I believe that Ahmedinebad is saying things for domestic consumption and setting forth his ideal world, and I believe that his power to attain the actual destruction of the US is exactly zero. He's not a danger and the US is readying itself to go to war against him by portraying him (with Israel's help) as the baddest boogeyman since Saddam. As for being a danger to Israel, ditto.

Iran supports groups that call for the destruction of Israel. Now if I said that I support the Nazis, would I not be guilty of supporting their crimes. Iran's actions speak louder than its words.

Ok, first, the reason these groups call for the destruction of Israel, if they do (this is at the moment in the realm of vague assertion, is it not? Until you can provide some specific examples with links that is where it will remain, I'm afraid) is because of the Palestinian issue. Israel supports a brutal and oppressive occupation of Palestinian lands, operates an apartheid regime, and pursues policies of ethnic cleansing. Your point above, I'm afraid, is a textbook example of sloppy thinking. Bringing the Nazis into it is relevant how, exactly? It's actually interesting because Israel is adopting tactics that were used by the Nazis in occupied Europe - collective punishment, assassination sanitized by the phrase "targeted killing" - and their use of propaganda could not have been bettered by Goebbels himself. To equate criticism of Israel with support of the Nazis is false logic. I loathe the Nazi ideology but notice close parallels between the Nazis' actions in occupied Europe and the way Israel is behaving right now, which makes me rather critical of the Israeli regime and its frothing supporters.

As for "Iran's actions speak[ing] louder than its words" could you give an example of this so I can figure out what you're referring to?

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well I don't know where I'd get copies of the Iranian presidents speeches.
But what I was saying was just what he says "We will destroy the Israel and the United States and Zionism".

Yes, and I'm Leprechaum living with my family in a Magic Pumpkin.

If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, it will be given to some islamic cowards and it will end up going off in NYC or some other big city. And that is why the US dosen't want Iran to have a nuclear weapons. And the US goverment is not going to nuke one of their own cities to start a war with Iran, when someone supplies real proof on this site that the goverment is planning this, you can take off the tin hats and stop drinking the kool aid and come back to the real world not the ATS made up world.

Iran is not in any realistic sense a direct threat to the US.

They may be a threat to Israel, a foreign country that effectively has control of US foreign policy.

The "Iran threat" is being hyped by the very same people that brought us the supposed "Iraq threat" and the Iraq War, and for much the same reasons. To start a war to a) prevent the emergence of any Islamic power capable of equaling Israel by plunging the region into chaos and intercene warfare and to b) ensure that the region's oil reserves end up in friendly hands.

I have no love for the government of Iran: it's a thuggish theocracy that opresses it's own people. But portraying it as an expansionistic military threat is simply false, and generally is evidence if intentional deception. Iran has no means of power projection beyond it's borders, it's military is geared to the defense of Iran, not agression against neighboring countries.

As for the "wipe Israel off the map" canard: it's an intentional mistranslation for propaganda purposes. The actual traslation is more specific, and is essentially a call for "regime change", there has been no threat of extermination against the Israeli people, despite all the hype to that effect. And if calls for "regime change" constitute a hostile act, then the US has already commenced hostilities against Iran and presented it with an"existential threat."

As for Iran's nuclear program, while it's pretty clear Iran seeks the technological capacity to develop nuclear weapons, it's not at all clear they have any intent to develop nuclear weaponry. Many countries have the capability to produce nuclear weapons yet have not: Japan, Australia, Sweden, Germany, etc etc... However by constantly threatening "preemptive" war against Iran, we are essentially forcing them to build a nuclear arsenal - and I do not think this is at all accidental.

Iran's nuclear program is also (and this is key to understanding the situation) very popular domestically. Many Iranians who have little use for the theocracy support the nuclear program on the basis of nationalist pride. So long as the mullahs stir up international controversy over the nuclear program, they can count on wide support from an otherwise disaffected public.

The "threat" of Iran launching some kind of nuclear first strike is unrealistic, and I doubt it's believed even among many that promote the idea. Again, intentional deception is behind this, it's purely to spread fear and garner political support for offensive action Iran disguised as a defensive "preemptive" attack. The real threat is that Iran will bust Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region, something the Israeli's consider strategically unacceptable. The nuclear unbrella has made Israel dominant in the region and able to operate unhindered. Any country capable of establishing a MAD-style deterrence situation vs. Israel is a threat to Israel's freedom of action.

And the "threat" to the US that Iran might develop the means to deter US plans for forced "regime change" in Iran. IE the "threat" is that Iran might be able to defend itself successfully, exposing the US to real danger, should the US decide it needs control of Iran's oil.

We are being manuevered into an unnecessary war, once again.
And this one will make Iraq look like a tea party.



[edit on 8/26/06 by xmotex]

You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month

Rich. Your points are all spot on. Iran really is no direct threat to the US. Will they ever be? Who knows. Maybe China will be...maybe Russia will be... We can play the What If game until Elvis comes back but that doesnt mean that we should destroy every country that may be a threat to us one day.
And if that is our attitude, what right do we have to say that others cannot think that way when thinking about the US. I mean, with the way we love to insitute "regime changes" how safe would you feel if you knew that at any moment the US may determine your country is a "threat?"
Its no secret that most countries listen to us out of fear...not the best policy in my book. Sooner or later people will resent that.


[edit on 26-8-2006 by xEphon]

Originally posted by rich23

This is not a direct threat to the US. If the US can't stop itself from meddling in the affairs of other nations, then that's its own lookout.

Last time I checked if an ally asks for help, you give it to them.

As for the US military being stretched thinner than ever, I can't say I have much sympathy. Why does the US still have military bases all over the world in over 100 countries?

If you can't see the problems with an over-exerted military then you need to read up on some history. As for the bases, yes we have bases. How is that an issue?

OK. You see this phrase, "protecting our interests", is useful because it's comforting and vague. "We're only protecting our interests". And yet you go on to state that Israel has a strategic location in that region... so WHY would it be unwise to give up that advantage, precisely? How would the US lose out if Israel were attacked by Iran? - which I have already said is, in my opinion, highly unlikely due to Israel's possession of a massive nuclear deterrent?

This statement needs to be addressed. Yes that statement can be vague, but the fact that I explained my point solves this problem. Israel is in strategic location in that region. They are a friendly nation to the US and are a wonderful stepping stone to the rest of the region. Why would you want to hinder yourself strategically?

You say that it is unlikely that Israel would be attacked by Iran, I don't agree. The whole situation changes when religion is injected into the conflict. I would say anyone is capable of doing anything when they are religiously charged.

You may not have said a thing about economic resources in your statement. I shall be interested to see how you define US interests without mentioning some kind of economic advantage.

As I stated, the strategic location.

Taking off my tin-foil hat for a second, I consider it an example of my own ignorance that I never thought that Ahmadinejad's speeches were being incorrectly translated by certain Western interests interested in making him look a homicidal suicidal genocidal kook.

And while I like to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, I still stand by my eariler comment that a conflict between Iran/Isreal/USA seems to be on the table in the next year. It would be some kind of miraculous diplomacy that would diffuse the ancient tensions going on here, not only in the government offices, but also the streets of Tehran, Gaza, Tel Aviv, London, Amsterdam, NYC, and Baghdad.

The war between the Western and the Muslim world is already underway on a very commonplace scale. At this point, it is largely a war of rhetoric, but bullets and missiles will always make the point quicker and clearer.

Originally posted by rich23

When you look at the whole speech in context, you find that he's talking about the US' oppressive influence.

I don't think that Iran has the right to call any influence of the US oppressive. Not to say that the US isn't, but come on you expect me to get my foreign policy from a theocracy?

Ok, first, the reason these groups call for the destruction of Israel, if they do (this is at the moment in the realm of vague assertion, is it not? Until you can provide some specific examples with links that is where it will remain, I'm afraid) is because of the Palestinian issue.

To cite a source: www.state.gov...

Bringing the Nazis into it is relevant how, exactly?

It is a simple question. If I stated that I was in support of the Nazis, or the Stalinists for that matter, would I not be guilty of supporting their crimes? Please answer.

As for "Iran's actions speak[ing] louder than its words" could you give an example of this so I can figure out what you're referring

Their support for terrorist groups is the "actions". If you want peace then supporting violence is a funny way of obtaining it in this situation.

Iran is not a threat for the USA but for the whole world peace and stability of the planet. and if our planet is at risk of there radical islamitic thoughts than the planets stability can destabilize the whole sector in the galaxy.

It's that there government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots.
And that they could by the middle of the next decade,
have nuclear weapons capabilities.

replace Islamic zealots with Zionist Christians and you have the United states. Just a lot of hype to scare up support for future world domination on our part IMHO.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by kleverone]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend


Last time I checked if an ally asks for help, you give it to them.

Israel has attacked a U.S. warship before. The U.S. shut up and took it. A true friend and ally indeed.

You say that it is unlikely that Israel would be attacked by Iran, I don't agree. The whole situation changes when religion is injected into the conflict. I would say anyone is capable of doing anything when they are religiously charged.

So what about Israeli government then? Aren't they as religious and theocratic as the Irani government??

It depends on what you believe to be true about the Iranian regime.

If you believe they are zealots willing to risk their own demise, the loss of their power, the destruction of their country, the use of nuclear weapons, and the deaths of millions simply to bring about the fulfillment of a debatable religious prophecy or Armageddon, then they are clearly a viable threat to the security and stability of the region, which constitutes a threat to the strategic interests of the United States and its allies.

If you believe they are politicians skilled in the art of manipulating their people through fear and popular movements (like most governments in general,) and that they want nuclear weapons or nuclear power as a deterrent and/or to ensure the long term survival of their regime in order to leverage their wealth and military dominance (in contrast to most of their neighbors, that is) to position themselves as regional leaders against the long term strategic goals of the west, then they are not an immediate danger but instead pose a severe inconvenience to those who pursue those long term strategic goals.

I try not to assume either one because I recognize that I live in but one region of the world, and have a limited vantage point from which to view other cultures and their decision making bodies. Personally, I doubt they are insane enough to nuke Israel or do any of the other equally suicidal things some people believe they are fanatical enough to do, because I believe appearing "fanatical" is simply a domestic political tool. However, I'm not sure I would wager money - let alone lives - on that belief. I don’t know nearly enough to make that assumption.

That said, I still would not support war with Iran under any circumstances.

This is how Iran is a threat to the US. Iran is seeking nuclear technology for a weapon. If you believe otherwise you are naive. Nuclear weapons are a cancer, a disease on this planet. The very existence of these weapons endangers the world. A nation that wants to develop these weapons is threatening the safety of all nations. So my question is why would anyone want to spread this danger even more?

Somebody must have forgotten Iran's Islamic Revolution and trying to spread their brand of Islam to other countries, especially countries allied with the U.S. A nuclear powered Iran would force those countries to have second thoughts about allying with the U.S. Not to mention it would give Iran the capability to destroy Israel once and for all after decades of failure.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
This is how Iran is a threat to the US. Iran is seeking nuclear technology for a weapon. If you believe otherwise you are naive. Nuclear weapons are a cancer, a disease on this planet. The very existence of these weapons endangers the world. A nation that wants to develop these weapons is threatening the safety of all nations. So my question is why would anyone want to spread this danger even more?

Fair enough so when is the US giving up all its nuclear weapons, not to mention biological and chemical?

You might have a point if the US gave up those but in fact they are the fore runner in all weapons leaving the other countries to play catchup, then the dumbass politicians whine that the other countries are threats when they pursue advanced weaponry in order to catch up. Hypocrisy on the highest scale.

It's pretty much clear that the main winners in this game are those that make the weapons, whether they are American, Chinese, Russian, or home-grown.

You can't blame Iran for increasing their military technology and output, even if that also involves becoming a nuclear power for purposes of domestic and military power. It doesn't mean its correct geo-politics, nor does it comfortably jive with whatever interpretations of Islam the Iranian leadership adhere to.

They are just playing the same game everyone else is playing. No one country is capable or has the right to police the world. Not even the USA.

Indeed, nuclear weapons are a cancer on humanity.

This is not to say that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons any further that they already have. But we have to move beyond who should and shouldn't have them, and return to the idea of global disarmament.

I don't see that happening without a few terrible miscues

Originally posted by Misfit
...It doesn't take an ICBM to get a nuke to Isreal from Iran...

Misfit

No. It only takes a nuclear device in the hold of a cargo ship sailing into NY harbor. Or a bomb in a van driven 3 blocks from the White House (you don't have to be parked on the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue).

Iran has made quite clear it's intention to be the dominant power not only in the oil-rich gulf region but across the entire Muslim and Arabic world. That is about 1/3 of the globe. From there they intend to use oil or nuclear blackmail to get whatever they want not only from the U.S. but everyone else in the world. Regardless of what the current neo-lib buzzwords are about the U.S. foreign policy (American hegemony? I stopped paying attention to the drivel, so insert your own politically correct propaganda here), a world with Iran as even a minor power player is pretty scary.

Iran's world view is frighteningly similar to the Japanese "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" in the 1930's and Hitler's "Liebensraum". It also frightening that so many in the West fail to recognize that. The U.N is satisfied to play the role of Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference. Russia is replaying its pre-1939 actions of ignoring the direct threat on their border. And the 'American Peace Movement' that hampered Roosevelt during the 30's is also reprised in the media.

The old adage about those who fail to remember the past is quite appropriate.

Originally posted by Flyer
Fair enough so when is the US giving up all its nuclear weapons, not to mention biological and chemical?

Why would we give up our nuclear weapons. I would never endorse a program to disarm America because there are nations out there who will never voluntarily disarm, North Korea for example.

So say the US gets rid of its nukes, and a foreign power secretly develops their own bomb, we are now held hostage to this regime. We need to stop the spread of nukes, first and foremost. For anyone to contend that the US should disarm is dangerously ill-informed.