WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

Wheeeee! This one is fun!

Originally posted by i4cu2
Before Iran has the bomb it was willing to invade a soverign nation, the United States.

WHAAT? Er, did I fall asleep and suddenly Iran developed a huge army and a massive naval fleet so they could go transAtlantic and invade Key West? What the hell happened?

I'm sorry, I'd really like some corroboration of this startling statement. INVADE? This, I have to say, is a new one on me. (You'd better not be thinking that taking the US embassy is equivalent to invading the US... just... don't be thinking that. Please. It's just too... dreary.)

Getting control of the areas oil fields will change our economy more than even 9/11 did.

AHA. It's about the oil, then, is it?

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?

ME. But apparently you think that the Iranian government is nuts enough to go up against Israel despite the fact that Israel has nukes...

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.

So what would be the point of their nuking Israel? On the other hand, if the Iranians have a nuke or two, doesn't it mean that it might make Israel less likely to invade them? Welcome to the wonderful Cold War-era policy of deterrence.

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?

So... have I got this right? Your solution to this admittedly vexing dilemma is not to move towards other resources and reduce your own absurd consumption levels in a responsible manner... it's to launch an attack on another country that hasn't - despite the imaginative start to your post - actually invaded or even directly threatened the US.

Still, at least you've got the idea that oil is somehow involved, which is rather more than some posters here are prepared to admit.

Around sixty years ago, a highly influential US planner called George Kennan wrote a Policy Planning Document which contained a passage something like this (I'm quoting from memory, but I rather think I'm doing a better job than the average MEMRI translator does on Ahmedinabad):

The US has five percent of the world's population, and uses fifty percent of the world's resources. If we wish this state of affairs to continue, we have to disabuse ourselves of such romantic notions as democracy or self-determination for those nations whose resources we covet.

This, I would submit, is the real driver of US foreign policy for the past sixty or so years - and indeed long before that, in fact - and might even go some way to explaining why they hate us. They do not, in fact, "hate us for our freedoms": they hate the US because it routinely overthrows their governments and rips off their resources.

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???

Please actually read the previous posts which demonstrate quite conclusively that Iran's leader has said no such thing.

This entire debate can come down to this. Nuclear weapons are bad. We need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I don't care what the government is, we need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Simple.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
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.

Does history really begin in 1979? Does the CIA overthrow of their democratic government and imposition of vicious death-squad secret police the SAVAK really count for nothing? Did it just not happen, or did you just not know about it? Or does it just not count?

I've said this in another post but perhaps you'll read it this time: the US embassy was known to Iranians as "the NEST OF SPIES". They were fully aware that the US overthrew their government, imposed a massively unpopular monarchy (mmm, democracy... nice thought, but no, we'll go for an absolute hereditary monarch for this country, so much easier to handle!) and trained and equipped vicious death squads that "disappeared" easily as many people as Saddam's goons (who were, coincidentally - or not - also supplied and trained by the US).

The US actually oppressed the country so much that Islamofascism (love that term!) looked good compared to what the Iranians had. The CIA even has a term for this kind of "When Coups Go Bad" scenario - it's called "blowback".

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.

Why aren't you interested enough? You're interested enough to post here: please do us the courtesy of backing up your allegations - which frankly sound like disinfo to me - with some sources. I'm asking people to bring me some evidence, not the vague impressions they've picked up somehow.

Does anyone remember how most of the US thought that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? And only last week Bush finally admitted he had nothing to do with it at all? I want to get away from the vague, windy and frankly improbable propaganda bombarding us all and get down to some REAL EVIDENCE.

No-one on this thread has given me anything other than "Israel says" or "the US says"... and that doesn't count. The US said that Saddam had WMD. The US said Saddam was evil because they gassed the Kurds, while conveniently leaving out its own role in these matters. The US said that the Taliban were dealing in opium, when in fact they'd pretty much eradicated opium production in Afghanistan, which only began again AFTER the US invasion. I'm afraid that the US is now, officially, The Superpower That Cried Wolf.

A message to all posters on this thread:

People, I'm begging you here. I want to see some serious evidence that Iran is a threat to the US. Not just rumours, or propagandistic assertions: I'd like maybe a speech showing that they really do want to invade the US and take its oil, or actual evidence that they're training an army of squirrels to spread rabies and fear throughout the continental US.

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?

Whew, thank goodness for that "alleged"! Iran's WMD are at least as chimerical as Saddam's. And frankly, there are a couple of differences between Iranians calling for "death to America", these being:

• unlike Iran, America really has the power to cause massive civilian casualties
  
• it is quite likely to do just that in the near future. and
  
• the US imposed vicious death squads on the Iranian population, which gives them far more reason to hate the US than vice versa.
  

As for Iran's meddling in Iraq, are you saying that all intervention by foreign powers in another country is wrong? If so, where does that put the US, which has just invaded Iraq and imposed a puppet government? Do they have some sort of "get out of jail free" card on this issue because they're just, oh, I don't know, the good guys? Please.

Or is Iran not a real threat to America until they finally have nuclear weapons?

NO! They're not a real threat to America even after they have nuclear weapons. This is because the US knows where they live and can nuke them right back. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban were accused of "providing shelter" to OBL. He was - allegedly - in the country, but that's not necessarily the same thing. The Taliban failed to produce him, having made the crucial mistake of actually asking the US to provide evidence linking him to 9/11 - and that kind of back-talk just cannot be allowed. Cue "bombing back to the stone age", invasion, chaos, free-fire zones, the fall of the Taliban, the rise of opium production, and the lack of any viable government whatsoever.

Do you think this graphic lesson has been lost on the Iranians? Especially after what was done to them before for two decades?

Ok. Iran, let's face it, have a genuine beef against the US. But their leaders, whatever else, are not suicidal, as far as I can tell. Everything I read indicates that they're quite pissed with the US, but not stupid enough even to be terribly undiplomatic: Ahmedinabad's letter to Bush was not threatening, though it was way too candid for US tastes.

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.

Who is this "bulk of the international community"? There are a handful of governments that can be bullied or suborned into supporting the US in the international arena, and there's Tony Blair, who is despised by his populace (marking him out as "courageous" rather than "undemocratic") for being a toad-eater where Bush is concerned... and that's it, really. I really wouldn't kid yourself that the whole world is behind the US on this one.

If you do not see Iran as a threat then you must think we live in a wonderful, peaceful world.

Hardly. The real threat to world peace is the US and Israel. That's what most people outside the US believe at any rate. The perceived threat varies... at the time of the invasion of Iraq, it was the US, more recently it's been Israel for obvious reasons.

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.

No, it just means I don't think the Iranian government is either stupid or suicidal enough to use nukes except as a deterrent.

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!

The point is not that they are harmless. The point is that to justify an invasion there must be a clear and present danger, which has yet to be demonstrated. The US has sponsored terrorism in the past. Should the UK invade the US for sponsoring the IRA?

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

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?

Gosh, well done for admitting that the US "faltered"... except it's not exactly, whoops, I lost my footing, oh dear, trod on a democracy. There was rather a lot of planning and intent involved in siccing a secret police on the population - which is, of course, quite a feature of US foreign policy and has been used to great effect in Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, Greece, and many other countries round the world.

How does this relate to Iran's quest for a nuclear device? It doesn't. It relates to Iran's anti-US rhetoric and for me at least fully justifies it. It doesn't justify any actual violence, which is something different - I think you have (or at least had, before Bush used the constitution as toilet paper) a First Amendment that protects speech - there is no similar protection of violence. Just getting that one QUITE straight.

Anyway, back to the issue of Iran and nukes. Firstly, Iran - according to them - is not developing a nuclear weapon. The US says they are. Apart from the US having something of a track record of lying in this kind of matter, the technological pointers seem to indicate that Iran is years - perhaps decades - from getting a workable nuclear device.

Nukes are bad. Proliferation is bad. But once Israel has nukes, the pressure on its neighbours to acquire some for deterrent purposes rises immensely.

Why should Israel have the bomb?

Given that Israel has with impunity invaded Lebanon

REPLY: Yep, they invaded, but not with impunity. You seem to forget that Hezbollah tunneled under the "border", killed three soldiers and kidnapped more. Hezbollah is wholly owned and operated by Iran, both of which (including Hamas) want to complete Hitlers work and wipe all Jews off the face of the earth.

Iran then wants to rid the earth of Zionism and all infidels.

"The US has five percent of the world's population, and uses fifty percent of the world's resources"

REPLY: Yep ..... and we help feed 2/3rds of the world. By the way, it's "energy", NOT all resources.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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.

Ooh, testy.

Sorry. It's still a vague answer and simply will not do. "Many different operatons"? Why "many different operations"? To what end? I think we can leave the "humanitarian aid missions" aside for the moment, that's not usually why you have military bases in a region.

You just won't walk up to the obvious one, which is that it's about controlling the region's oil. Go on. Admit it to yourself. That's what armies are FOR; that's what wars are FOR: controlling territory and the resources it contains. The territory cannot be an issue - it's not like you're looking to establish a buffer zone like the old Soviet Union - and therefore it must be the resources.

Go on... admit it. You'll feel SO much better

I don't care if Iran wants a nuclear device to deter Israel. We need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons! Israel is not using their nuclear arsenal in an offensive manner, in fact it is that arsenal that has deterred Israel's neighbors from invading.

Think on this. What if Iran supplied a terrorist group with the tech to build a nuclear device. Iran in that case would not directly attack the US or Israel, but it is still responsible for it.

Originally posted by rich23

Ooh, testy.

Sorry. It's still a vague answer and simply will not do. "Many different operatons"? Why "many different operations"? To what end? I think we can leave the "humanitarian aid missions" aside for the moment, that's not usually why you have military bases in a region.

You apparently have started from the answer you want and worked backwards. You asked me why the US would want this strategic location, and I have answered this. If this is not good enough for you then I would bother to try to explain it to you further.

Might I add that you seem to have a very anti-American slant. Is this intentional?

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

Some others hit on this, but I think it’s important enough to reiterate. It seems like we've gone through all of these arguments before, about 3-4 years ago in the run up to the Iraq war. Notice the following general parallels in the rhetoric used by the hawks...

When Iraq was the enemy-du-jour in the lead up to the Iraqi war, the rhetoric was:
-Iraq was a threat because it had/was developing WMDs.
-Iraq was a threat because it supported terrorism.
-Iraq was a threat because its leader was a madman.
-Iraq was a threat because it was de-stabilizing the region.
-Iraq was a threat because it ignored the will of the international community.
-Iraq was a threat because it suppressed/oppressed its people.
-Iraq was a threat because it was anti-democratic.
These points led the hawks to the conclusion that Iraq was a threat to the USA and, thus, we had to invade Iraq.

Now that Iran is the enemy-du-jour, notice the parallels in rhetoric:
-Iran is a threat because it is developing nuclear weapons.
-Iran is a threat because it is supporting terrorism.
-Iran is a threat because its leader is a mad man.
-Iran is a threat because it's de-stabilizing the region.
-Iran is a threat because it's ignoring the will of the international community.
-Iran is a threat because it suppresses/oppresses its people.
-Iran is a threat because it’s anti-democratic.
These points lead the hawks to the conclusion that Iran is a thread to the USA and, thus, we have to… !?!

I’m not trying to argue that these points or conclusions are right or wrong (that’s a whole other thread). I’m just saying that I believe that we did go through this same type of rhetoric three years ago, and such rhetoric prepped the US populace for the “inevitable” Iraq war. Could the media-government war machine be prepping us for something or does history repeat itself every three to five years?

It's all about energy resources and who controls them ... of course the United States of Oilmerica, with it's capital located in the good 'ol boy State of Texass wants to control as much as they can so that they can continue to drive around in stretch limoosines and 4X4 supertrucks and do so for the next hunert years by golly, whoooo haa!

Rich23:

I was hesitant to join in on this thread, as I fear I may just be your typical ignorant American without enough knowledge to truly contribute However, after reading through the posts here, I have noticed you are playing both sides of the coin. You ask us for evidence showing that Iran will be aggressive while claiming that our source of world events isn't credible and you want nothing to do with our opinions/speculation. At the same time you are telling us that "you believe" Iran would not use nuclear weapons if so developed, is that not just your speculation as well? As far as the Ahmadinejad miss translation, today is the first I have heard of that, and all you have presented us with evidence of such is an individual's blog page. We have sources informing us that Iran is a potential threat, but you are not willing to accept them in the least. So I would like to ask you, can you provide more evidence that Iran is NOT a potential threat, other than just your opinion? Oh and I am not speaking of a direct threat to US soil (as that can be nothing but speculation of the somewhat distant future), I am responding to your claim that Iran would not be stupid enough to use nukes period.

Iran is not, at its present stage a threat directly to the US..... but to it's interests.

Iran has repeatedly stated that it wants Israel "wiped of the map" and "pushed into the sea" etc.

Iran is pushing nuclear technological development at full steam ahead...

Iran controls Hezbollah....

Hezbollah and its sleeper cells being nuclear equiped is UNACCEPTABLE!

Israel, supported primarily by only the USA, would have been wiped out or destroyed had they not been supplied by the US. Ther are many nations (and people) who would love to see Israel no more and its people killed.

They are struggling in a hostile part of the world where a tremendous amount of force is growing against them.

the USA will not sit by and let an ally be destroyed!

all other goals are secondary.....

stoping nuclear proliferation........everyone on earth does not need a nuclear weapon we have too many as it is!

the government of Iran is RADICAL! and they are Islamofacists....

It is bad enough Pakistan has nuclear weapons...they started a regional cold war because of it. (that war nearly went hot by the way in just the few years they have had nukes)

Eventually one of these nations is going to cause a catastrophe because they were playing with nuclear weapons.

Iran will eventually threaten europe. I think they will not hesitate to threaten europe to gain what it wants.

Iran with nuclear weapons is DANGEROUS!!!!!

Is it true that Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush attempted to persuade gentle W to convert to Islam?

If that's true, then that is truly too candid for American tastes

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
When did it change that the United States military and army stopped defending the US? Instead, they are sent all over the place, throughout the years (starting around Vietnam time), to countries that pose no threat to the American people. The army is for defense of our people. That is all.

What about the threats form the Iranian regime that the United States will follow with the same future they have in mind for Israel?....

What about the 2,000+- terrorists who according to Iranian officials are ready to attack the U.S. and U.S. interests when Khomeni gives the go ahead?....

Defending a country includes "stopping, or trying to stop anyone from trying to accomplish some of the things that the Iranian regime says is going to happen to the United States and Israel"...

[edit on 27-8-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
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]

No I haven't proven your point, I have proven why other countries need nuclear weapons, your elections aren't democratic and its widely believed they have been fixed.

Don't know if it's been mentioned, but I recall an event where Iran formally declared its hate for the US and held American hostages, for quite some time.
Maneuvers to obtain the release by extraction were met with Iran's total resistance, by a high percentage of the population.
Not to mention, they tend not to refute the fact of being fingered an enemy.

Originally posted by rich23
So... can anyone answer this question for me?

So what is it that poses such a threat?

Oil

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.

Elections don't count if they're fixed! www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Haha only joking of course!

Anyway, I thought this was a good point:

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.

If terrorists can already get bombs into western cities, i'm sure they could find a way to get a nuke into one. And even if they dont, the rise in our security procedures would cripple us.

Originally posted by zappafan1

Given that Israel has with impunity invaded Lebanon

REPLY: Yep, they invaded, but not with impunity.

No government dared suggest that Israel's response was disproportionate to the injuries that it had suffered. They invaded with impunity.

You seem to forget that Hezbollah tunneled under the "border", killed three soldiers and kidnapped more. Hezbollah is wholly owned and operated by Iran, both of which (including Hamas) want to complete Hitlers work and wipe all Jews off the face of the earth.

Firstly, getting too far into this is off-topic. But if you can provide some evidence that Hizballah is "wholly owned and operated by Iran" I should be interested to see it. That's quite a statement. And remember, propaganda from the US and Israel doesn't count, as they're the ones who are trying to create grounds for war here. i'm talking independent testimony here.

Iran then wants to rid the earth of Zionism and all infidels.

Again, the evidence for this collapses when you actually look at proper translations of the speeches in question. Perhaps you can provide some evidence rather than making these blustery allegations?

"The US has five percent of the world's population, and uses fifty percent of the world's resources"

REPLY: Yep ..... and we help feed 2/3rds of the world. By the way, it's "energy", NOT all resources.

USAID, and the economic factors behind it, are another huge topic, and I don't want to derail this thread: however, USAID is primarily a way for corporations to write-off excess production and make it look like charity, which is why there are instances of companies donating diet pills to famine-stricken countires. It is also the case that US food surpluses can effectively put local suppliers out of business. It's far more complex than you seem to think... but, as I say, this is another topic for another thread.

I didn't misquote Kennen as you suggest - if you'd understood the reference you'd know that. It's not "energy" - it's far wider and complex than that and takes into account many mineral resources, for example coltan, which is used in the manufacture of many hi-tech products.

Can people actually start providing some evidence to back up their assertions, please? Remember, the purpose of this thread is to focus on actual evidence that Iran is a threat to the US, not reiterate propaganda.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I don't care if Iran wants a nuclear device to deter Israel. We need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons! Israel is not using their nuclear arsenal in an offensive manner, in fact it is that arsenal that has deterred Israel's neighbors from invading.

Think on this. What if Iran supplied a terrorist group with the tech to build a nuclear device. Iran in that case would not directly attack the US or Israel, but it is still responsible for it.

There are many, many states out there that could, with far morel plausibility, supply terrorists with a nuclear device right now. They wouldn't have to wait. Plus, if the propaganda is to be believed - which I think unlikely - suitcase nukes are available on the black market.

Iranian leaders must be soiling their underwear because they know that if any other source provides terrorists with a nuke, they're the ones who will get the blame.

Yes, proliferation is a bad thing... so why not invade North Korea? And it's OK for Israel - who have invaded another country quite recently - to have nukes, but not ok for Iran - who have NO similar track record but are the target of a propaganda programme to make them into this year's Iraq - to arm themselves.

All I'm trying to do is discover REAL, not imagined, threats. So far no-one on this forum has pointed out a single thing that Iran or its leaders have done or (genuinely) said that suggests they pose a serious threat to the US, one that's worth a military attack. Israel has not yet used its nuclear arsenal offensively, but who's to say they won't?