Before Iran has the bomb it was willing to invade a soverign nation, the United States. Because Carter(the worst prez ever) was feckless and had no heart Iran has been sticking it to the west ever since. Iran under komenei was willing to send childern(around 10 years old) to walk through a Iraqi mine field. Iran (the government and mullahs) has big ideas about the entire region. Getting control of the areas oil fields will change our economy more than even 9/11 did.

Can anyone on this thread who is saying that Iran isn't a threat to the US sincerely think that Irans leader won't use a nuke on Israel? After Iran delivers that nuke on tel aviv what will Israel do???? Nuke Iran and proably a few other middle eastern nations into the stone age. What happens to the cost of oil? Our entire economy is based on oil. You don't think that even if the situation dosen't get worse with other nations in a war that the worlds economy won't be destroyed?

Irans leader more than a few times has said that wiping Israel off of the world map is his goal. Should Israel just depend on the worlds good will towards jews and let the UN handle iran???

Iran has been a threat to the United States since their radical Islamofascist government replaced The Shah in 1979 and their "students" took over our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. They went on to sponsor (and in my opinion- ordered, planned and helped execute) Hezbollah's bombing of our barracks in Lebanon in the 1980's. That's just for starters.

Some counterterrorism officials believe that Hezbollah, under the orders and financing of Iran, have more terror cells in the United States than any other terrorist group- including al Qaida- combined. They've blended into our society for the better part of 25+ years, just waiting for the day when they get their marching orders. I've even heard that they already have some 200+ vital US targets planned out. Of course, this is all just speculation which I've heard in recent years and don't have the time and energy to "Google" and give you sources for. But if you're interested enough I'm sure it can all be easily found.

Should we get into Iran's alleged WMD? Their constant preaching of "Death to America" at weekly rallies? Their meddling in Iraq's affairs and their funding and arming of insurgents/terrorists that has DIRECTLY lead to the deaths of American soldiers and civilians abroad?

Or is Iran not a real threat to America until they finally have nuclear weapons? Should we really wait until that point to do something and just hope for the best? I mean, why do today what we can put off until tomorrow, right? Give me a break. Now is the time to do something about it- while this threat gathers and before it groes. While we have the bulk of the international community behind us.

If you do not see Iran as a threat then you must think we live in a wonderful, peaceful world. In my opinion, Iran poses the gravest threat to the security of the United States and the rest of the free world. So if you don't even consider Iran to be a threat, then that must mean there are no other threats, if everything is relative. Wow, now I'm wondering why we even waste all this money on having a military! They're completely useless in this Utopia we live in where terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships, who continuously preach our death, such as Iran, are completely harmless!

As much as I love ATS, some of you guys honestly scare the heck out of me sometimes...

The whole situation , in part , has been caused by medling in affairs which ppl have limited understanding.

not only russia and germany tried to build a reactor for iran , but so has american - btw , did you actually know that in 2001 the USA welcomed Iranian support for the WoT? and here we are in 2006 and now they are the `bad guy` - that is why there is massive distrust of the USA in the middle east

Originally posted by Harlequin
The whole situation , in part , has been caused by medling in affairs which ppl have limited understanding.

not only russia and germany tried to build a reactor for iran , but so has american - btw , did you actually know that in 2001 the USA welcomed Iranian support for the WoT? and here we are in 2006 and now they are the `bad guy` - that is why there is massive distrust of the USA in the middle east

Again, how does this relate to the topic of Iran being a threat to the United States. Any nation that attempts to develop nuclear weapons in this day and age is a threat to world safety.

Harlequin

The middle east has been messed up by many others not just the US. Mohammed knocked off how many middle eastern states/kingdoms? the ottoman turkish empire ruled the area for over 5 centurys until right after WW1. It wasn't until after WW1 that the nations Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan came to be. Britain controlled Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar until after WW2. In 1948 Israel became a nation only a few decades younger than most of the countrys wanting to deny it statehood. So with around 14 centurys of hate and war the US must be the biggest reason the middle east has problems.

Because Iran has a leader that could possibly be as evil as Hitler.

I believe that they already have a nuclear weapn and the first chance they get they will launch it .

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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.

That is the exact same thing that Iran is thinking, they've just had their neighbours invaded and they are next on the list. No wonder they are pursuing nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Again, how does this relate to the topic of Iran being a threat to the United States. Any nation that attempts to develop nuclear weapons in this day and age is a threat to world safety.

As is the country with the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world with a president that says god tells him what to do.

My thoughts:

Iran is part of the Oil control effort / united states interests.... to gain and occupy control of the middle east is part of the geo-political control the united states must have to maintain and continue world domination. its all about fossil fuels, and if there is a rouge among the geographical territories in which the natural gas/oil/coal regions, this threatens the United States geo-political domination of this vast asset base, hence they must be exterminated.

This is why North Korea is not deemed as urgent of a matter as Iran. Or the Sudan...

I don't agree with this philosophy of continuing a shtty policy, but I believe this is why Iran is such a big deal to the people in charge of our country. Isn't North Korea a mentally unstable nuclear power? Haven't they demonstrated resistance to comply with proposals from the EU and the west? Have they not demonstrated practicing missle launches?

And speaking of NK missle tests, I have this thought:

I believe that the missle tests were purposely carried out to make Nk look like they don't know what they are doing - the premature downing of the missles made them look like they were faulty or malfunctional... this could be a strategy of NK to give disinfo to the rest of the world that they are not really a threat... when the reality was that they completed the tests as they wanted, setting the missles down prematurely for whatever reason.

Bottom line is that Iran is part of the middle east that does not comply with US and EU policy. and that translates into less than 100% control over the regions which house the bulk of the asset base which the US thinks it needs to maintain world wide supremacy. Again this is a destabilizing agenda which needs to be seriously overhauled because the US needs to be focusing on Zero point/ quantum energy which we have the technological capabilities to develop which will divert us from global and ecological collapse.

I think I'll have another martini

Originally posted by Flyer

As is the country with the biggest nuclear stockpile in the world with a president that says god tells him what to do.

You have just proven my point. In this statement you have declared that theocratic nations with nuclear weapons are a threat to world safety. I don't know if you know this but Bush isn't king or anything, we do have things called elections here in the Colonies. On my list of worries I hold the government of Iran higher than the government of the United States.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by Nihilist Fiend]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Last time I checked if an ally asks for help, you give it to them.

The US already gives billions of dollars in direct gift and through military material to Israel. As I've said, they have over 200 nukes. It really looks to me as if Iran wants nuclear power for generating purposes only, but even if they didn't, it would be only a deterrent against Israel. As soon as Israel started the invasion of Lebanon (again) the US increased its export of material to help them in this effort.

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?

I didn't say I couldn't see the problems: I said I didn't have much sympathy. Iraq was not a threat. No-one was holding a gun to the US' head, saying, you have to invade. My point about the US is that it's an empire, and it's therefore all about maintaining other countries' economic subservience to itself. All this guff about freedom and democracy is strictly for Joe Public, as the slightest familiarity with the history of US foreign policy demonstrates all too clearly.

Do you think that people around the world really WANT US bases on their soil? Would you want military bases of another power on yours?

This statement ["protecting our interests" is vague] 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?

Actually, you haven't "explained" your point at all, you have merely restated it, which is not the same thing. You're saying that Israel occupies a strategic location. What is the aim behind the strategy? Why are you interested in controlling the area? As a matter of fact, what business have you meddling in the affairs of other countries? It is, after all, that kind of meddling that caused the Iranian revolution in the first place. Please check my previous post about Kermit Roosevelt and the US subversion of democracy in Iran, and the support for, and training of, the murderous and extremely anti-democratic SAVAK secret police.

So I'll say it again. What is the aim behind this strategy? What are the goals? Strategy is pointless if there are no goals behind it. Is the US really just there because it wants to be there? It's a circular argument, can you not see that?

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.

Does that include born-again Christians like Bush?

I think I've already dealt in other posts with the idea that Iran's aggressiveness is being overstated to provide an excuse for intervention in the area. The US is the most powerful country on the planet, at least until China gets its act together, and that absolute power has corrupted absolutely the PNAC cabal who are currently in charge, and the overwhelming majority of whom have extremely close ties to Israel. Not only did they write Rebuilding America's Defenses, the same people were involved in writing a paper for the Israeli government which basically advocated the same plan: rebuild the ME to make it "safe" for Israel.

This plan is currently being put into effect. The propaganda push we're currently seeing to make Iran the new bad boy on the block is just part of it.

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.

As I have stated, this is NOT an answer. What is the purpose of the strategy. Without addressing this central question, you are being intellectually dishonest, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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?

No, I expect you to get your foreign policy from its history. As I've already said, the US - this is a matter of historical record and you can check it in a variety of sources - overthrew the democratically elected regime of President Mossadegh to allow the multinationals to take Iranian oil at minimal cost. They installed a vicious secret police to help the Shah stay in power. Are you seriously telling me that the Iranians have no right to call the influence of the US oppressive in view of these undoubted facts?

Now, on to this Nazis business. Nice to see a link, pity it's to the state department which I trust about as far as I'd throw an aircraft carrier but let it pass. Let's say Iran does support Hamas... how is this a threat to the US? Hamas has attacked US military targets in the past, but its focus is on Israel; and it could be argued that if the US military throws its weight about in the region - as it has done for many years - it should expect to be a target of the occasional pissed-off local. It's not really a reason for invading Iran. If it were, the UK should have invaded the US years ago or at least bombed Boston for supporting the IRA.

I see now the relevance of your reference to the Nazis. You're comparing a small force of people who see themselves as freedom fighters with a regime which conquered and oppressed most of Europe. I think you'll find that part of the problem with Hizballah is that they actually perform useful functions within Lebanon and are rather more popular in the region than the Nazis were in Europe. It's kind of tricky to equate anyone who opposes the Israeli regime to Nazis, frankly... I'm really against the regime, I find it nauseating in the extreme, but as I've already said it's because the Israelis themselves are acting like Nazis.

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

See my point above about the US supporting the IRA. Which also goes to show that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Originally posted by deltaboy
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.

Israel = 200+ nukes.

Iran = 0, none, bupkis, nada, zilch.

You think they're going to catch up any time soon?

And.... someone must have forgotten that the US overthrew the democratic regime in Iran and replaced it with a death-squad-backed monarchy which viciously oppressed its people.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
It depends on what you believe to be true about the Iranian regime.

....

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 have to say that I think the above quoted option is what I believe.

Rocking post, AceWombat.

Originally posted by dave_54
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..... 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.

Where has Iran made this clear?

Can you give a reference for this that actually points to a speech by an Iranian politician rather than an Israeli or US source that is seeking to justify imminent military action against that country? I'd really like to see it. I'd just like to see some real evidence, any evidence, that Iran is the threat it's being made out to be. All I see is a lot of vague and rather paranoid assertions.

Iran's world view is frighteningly similar to the Japanese "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" in the 1930's and Hitler's "Liebensraum".

Can you actually point to an Iranian source to back up this assertion? Please, please do. If I can accept that Iran really is the boogeyman people make out, I might sleep easier. At the moment it still looks like the US and Israel are manipulating the translations of speeches and just making stuff up to try and persuade us about this.

The U.N is satisfied to play the role of Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference.

Actually here I'd agree. But there is one power that recently invaded two countries and has its eyes on another that really reminds me of the Germans in that example...

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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.

Yeah, I mean... look at all the other countries that have used nuclear weapons!

Whaddya mean, there aren't any?

Oh.

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.

Who... Mexico? Canada?

Actually... more to the point... BRAZIL, who do seem to be developing their own independent deterrent.

My, proliferation really is getting out of hand, isn't it?

Iran cannot get the bomb!

I will admit that yes the US government did falter on its past history when dealing with Iran. We did install a pro-west oppressive regime in Iran, but how does this relate to Iran's quest for a nuclear device. You have to look at the issue in todays world, not in the past. Also when is it appropriate for one oppressive regime to replace another, ie the shah and the Islamic Republic.

Here is my question, what right does Iran have to developed a nuclear weapon?

rich23

The advantage is a location form which you can launch many different operations in the region. These can range from military ops to humanitarian aid missions.

Thats the answer. Deal with it.