WHY is Iran a threat to the US?

There have been rumblings about this Oil Bourse all year. At the moment, the Wikipedia entry seems to think it'll open next month, but that the Euro has not yet been finalised as the currency of choice.

Saddam swapped to the Euro and got invaded. Venezuela were talking about it and the US backed a coup (which failed). There seems to be a lot of brinkmanship going on wrt Iran and I'm not sure that the real reasons relate to its nuclear plans.

The opening of the bourse has been rumoured to be "next month" since about June.

Iran poses a threat not just to the U.S. but to the whole world. When WWII started, the U.S. stayed out of it because there was no real threat to the U.S. Meanwhile Hitler was taking over country after country and destabilizing the entire European theater. After the U.S. was attacked by Japan, then war was declared and the rest is history.

In learning from that experience, the US cannot allow an Islamic/extremist lead government of any country to have a nuclear weapon. Iran wants Israel wiped off the map. A previous poster stated that Israel may have as many as 200 nuclear warheads. The difference is that Israel does not want to wipe any one off of a map. They simply want to be recognized and respected by their neigbors.

If Iran had 200 nuclear warheads, the thought of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) would be meaningless. Iran would love to solve the Israeli/Palestine conflict with a nuke or two even if it meant that they all die as martyrs when the retalition ensued.

People willing to die for and kill for any religious deity cannot and should not be allowed access to something like a nuclear bomb.

We all survived the coldwar because common sense dictated our actions. This common sense seems to be lost when dealing with religious fanatical extremists groups.

And Iran is lead by such a group.

[edit on 8/28/2006 by Jeddyhi]

Originally posted by rich23

For all posters on this thread:

I'd like people to be posting evidence that shows that Iran poses a genuine, not imaginary, military threat to the US that justifies military action against them.

Could you give an example of what you would consider to be proof. I want a specific example now, something so descriptive that I have an idea of what you are talking about.

You use the phrase, "justifies military action against them.", why do you assume that military action needs to be taken. Iran as a threat can still be solved diplomatically and through incentives/sanctions.

I'd like to address two parts of realanswers' post.

Originally posted by realanswers
Don't expect it to be in any of America's major news networks since the secret government controls the visible government which controls the media.

While I am not a adherent of the idea of a vast secret government, I am willing to accept that there are veritable armadas of lobbyists, special interest groups, corporate entities, and individual agendas. All of these groups/people exert pressure upon elected and appointed officials to garner support for their projects / efforts / points of view. So let's stipulate that, while our opinions might differ on the "how" or the "who", the result is still essentially the same.

Originally posted by realanswersPeople talk about conspiracy being here and there, but the truth on many subjects are being covered up on a daily basis. Much of it has to do with control and money.

"Control and money", truer words were never spoken. That is the ultimate bottom line on why America is engaging in any sort of action in Iraq, and why it is involved in pressuring Iran: Economic superiority.

Allow me to explain further. I do not subscribe to the ideas that this is some sort of grand preconcieved construct of the US government to support American Imperial Expansion or some such. I do think the current scenarios playing out in the middle east are, shall we say, preventative measures, or at least they started out as such after the attack in 2001. the Afghan War was in direct response to 9/11, but Iraq was an ill concieved attempt to exert pressure on middle eastern nations, specifically the House of Saud and Iran. Iraq was the "keystone" nation in the region, bordering Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, and allowing easy access to any nation within the region. From there, the administration believes that it's might could dissuade threats from soverign nations (which they may well have), act as a lightening rod drawing in non-conventional combatants and away from attacks on US soil (relatively successful in this, I'd say), and menace and hostile actors from The Med to the Sub Continent.

All of it to insure Western, and specifically American, economic dominance, and prevent a different culture from attempting to wrest the crown of economic superiority. The thoughts behind the idea were sound, the preparation, execution, and post-action scenarios aere abyssmal, at best.


[edit on 28-8-2006 by Reality Hurts]

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
Iran poses a threat not just to the U.S. but to the whole world.

Riiight... military machine like Nazi Germany? Check. Plans for world domination? Check. Allies on other continents? Check.

No, I was being sarcastic. Comparing Iran with Nazi Germany is nonsensical.

You then refer to the statement about "wiping Israel off the map, which we have already demonstrated is a misleading mistranslation.

If Iran had 200 nuclear warheads, the thought of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) would be meaningless. Iran would love to solve the Israeli/Palestine conflict with a nuke or two even if it meant that they all die as martyrs when the retalition ensued.

Please supply a direct, reliably translated quotation from ANYONE within the Iranian government to show that your statement above is grounded in reality rather than in propaganda.

People willing to die for and kill for any religious deity cannot and should not be allowed access to something like a nuclear bomb.

Which is why I'm quite sure that the Iranian government will only supply them with hand-held rockets.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
Could you give an example of what you would consider to be proof. I want a specific example now, something so descriptive that I have an idea of what you are talking about.

You use the phrase, "justifies military action against them.", why do you assume that military action needs to be taken. Iran as a threat can still be solved diplomatically and through incentives/sanctions.

To take the second part first: I assume that military action is being planned and will be taken, not that it needs to be taken. I've already linked to the Bush administration's investigation of the "bunker buster" option. The US has demonstrated its untrustworthiness at the negotiating table time and time again.

Actually, to clarify, I'm assuming that the current administration is itching to start another war, but they face opposition, not least from within the Pentagon, who have a good idea of what damage is being done to the military and are marginally less ideologically-driven.

Some things I would consider, not proof exactly, but at least evidence pointing towards the idea that Iran really is a threat:

a) A genuine speech, properly translated, showing the willingness of one of Iran's senior leaders to plunge his country into armageddon just to strike at America. Defensive posturing is not acceptable: a country with its back against the wall will say, and even do, things that suggest that aggression against it is not a good idea.

b) some concrete evidence that Iran actually has nuclear weapons capability now, not in ten years' time.

I'm sure there are other examples, but I can't think of any for the moment.

Originally posted by rich23

Actually, to clarify, I'm assuming that the current administration is itching to start another war, but they face opposition, not least from within the Pentagon, who have a good idea of what damage is being done to the military and are marginally less ideologically-driven

Why are you assuming as such? You state that Iran is sane enough to know not to attack the US because of the backlash, well the US is sane enough to know that their military is stretched too thin to attack Iran.

Originally posted by rich23

a) A genuine speech, properly translated, showing the willingness of one of Iran's senior leaders to plunge his country into armageddon just to strike at America. Defensive posturing is not acceptable: a country with its back against the wall will say, and even do, things that suggest that aggression against it is not a good idea.

memri.org...

The whole thing is filled with implied threats but here is my favorite.

"'Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.'"

Iran identifies the Oppressive US government as its enemy.

Originally posted by rich23
Given that Israel has with impunity invaded Lebanon, isn't it more plausible that the Iranians want a bomb - even if they are trying to create weapons-grade material, which I doubt - simply to deter Israeli aggression?

Main Entry: im·pu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: im-'pyü-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French impunité, from Latin impunitat-, impunitas, from impune without punishment, from in- + poena punishment -- more at PAIN
: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

I would like to begin by saying that I am by no means a supporter of Israel, and I feel that the U.S should pull its troops out from everywhere in the world and let everyone kill each other.

But, perhaps I am mistaken, but how is Israel the agressor and without loss in this situation with Lebanon?

Were there not missles coming into Israel from Lebanon for some time before the Israeli "aggression"? Did Isreal not suffer casualties from these attacks staged from Lebanon?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
memri.org...

The whole thing is filled with implied threats but here is my favorite.

"'Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.'"

Iran identifies the Oppressive US government as its enemy.

As you correctly posted, I asked for

Originally posted by rich23
a) A genuine speech, properly translated

.

However, I think you must have missed all the parts about Ahmedinejad being wilfully mistranslated by MEMRI. They're scattered throughout the thread, and I hope go some way to explaining why I reject the source and stipulated as quoted above. Sorry.

Plus, actually, what you've quoted is rather vague. I'd like to see a genuine and independent translation and even then it might just be rhetoric. It still doesn't say anything like "we're prepared to make martyrs out of our entire country to nuke one US city."

And of course Iran identifies the oppressive USG as its enemy. The US are the ones who turned them from a democracy into a police state where disappearances and torture were the norm, and facilitated the multinationals' theft of their oil.

Originally posted by craig732

Main Entry: im·pu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: im-'pyü-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French impunité, from Latin impunitat-, impunitas, from impune without punishment, from in- + poena punishment -- more at PAIN
: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

Craig. I know perfectly well what impunity means, thank you, and indeed its etymology, as I studied Latin for many years. I used the word correctly. Israel invaded another country and collectively punished its population without a word of censure from that rather selective and indeed stunted body "the international community". No sanctions or other punishment were imposed. They waged war on a neighbouring country, therefore, with impunity.

The idea of punishment is to do with the aftermath of committing a crime, which Israel may justifiably be argued to have done under international law. No punishment has been meted out to Israel by the UN (who've had their positions shelled and their soldiers killed. The loss of civilian life, last time I looked, was running at something over ten Lebanese for every Israeli. There is also the fact that Israel had been conducting operations across the Lebanese border, including the kidnapping and torture of civilians, long before the kidnapping of the soldiers carried out by Hizballah that touched off the current atrocities. There had been a tit-for-tat conflict for some time before Israel decide to launch a major war and destroy civilian lives and infrastructure.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

Originally posted by rich23
Actually, to clarify, I'm assuming that the current administration is itching to start another war...

Why are you assuming as such? You state that Iran is sane enough to know not to attack the US because of the backlash, well the US is sane enough to know that their military is stretched too thin to attack Iran.

I don't think of the US as this monolithic entity. I think of the PNAC group as being way more ideologically driven (and hence prone to ignore inconvenient realities) than many of their civil and military servants. That's why they had to have a bit of a purge at the Pentagon and in the State Department to carry out their policies thus far. For a perspective on this, you could google Karen Kwiatowski and see what she has to say. You might find it illuminating.

The Administration were perfectly prepared to distort intelligence to get their way over Iraq: they're prepared to do the same thing over Iran. They want to rebuild the Middle East, and I think their "blueprint" will look something like that advanced in A Clean Break - Securing The Realm, a position paper written for the Israeli government by many of the same people (Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser) who went on to form PNAC.

Rumsfeld has already shown his willingness to fly in the face of his generals' advice when he planned the Iraq invasion: having been told he wasn't committing enough troops, he told them to go back and plan for doing it with the troops he was committing. One of the stated aims of Rebuilding America's Defenses (which I sincerely hope you've read as it's the leading position paper which defines the Administration's posture very well) is that the US military should be able to carry forward military operations in several theatres at once.

This is also why I said there is conflict between the White House and the Pentagon: the military know they're stretched thin, but the White House doesn't want to be told. Didn't you notice all the complaints from retired generals a few months ago? This tension is the source of all of that.

Originally posted by rich23Riiight... military machine like Nazi Germany? Check. Plans for world domination? Check. Allies on other continents? Check.

No, I was being sarcastic. Comparing Iran with Nazi Germany is nonsensical.

Not so nonsensical. Yes they do have a military machine like Nazi Germany and strangely enough wish to wipe Israel off the map.

You then refer to the statement about "wiping Israel off the map, which we have already demonstrated is a misleading mistranslation.

Referencing a Pro-Palestinian Blog for a correct translation is not very solid. Please be aware that Iran is the sworn enemy of the Zionist Regime in Israel. And according to this article, his statements were condemned by many world leaders. I suppose all these world leaders received a bad translation. Here is a quote from the above linked article.

Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world.

He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel.

Please supply a direct, reliably translated quotation from ANYONE within the Iranian government to show that your statement above is grounded in reality rather than in propaganda.

Can you provide one that says the President of Iran doesn't want Israel wiped off the map.

Which is why I'm quite sure that the Iranian government will only supply them with hand-held rockets.

Now its your turn. I can only answer this with what you requested of me. Please supply a direct, reliably translated quotation from ANYONE within the Iranian government to show that your statement above is grounded in reality rather than in propaganda.

In closing, anyone who thinks that it's OK for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons is looking at the world through rose colored glasses. One nuke launched by Iran could trigger Nuclear armegeddon. That is not a risk worth allowing, at all.






[edit on 8/28/2006 by Jeddyhi]

You have voted rich23 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



Had to do it. Props for relentlessly denying ignorance, and stupidity as some of these cases may be.

Jeddyhi

One question . . . who has Iran attacked lately?

Has Iran attacked any other country in the middle east? invaded them? destroy their infrastructure? created Chaos and mayhem withing its population? decided to use the nation it liberated in false pretenses to fight terrorism?

No? I tell you who did that, the present administration in Iraq. . . talking about dangerous regimes.

Tell me when was the last time that Israel wagged war?

I guess Lebanon was not a war. right?

So comparing Iran to US and Israel I guess when it comes to wars we know who are the ones on the top of the list when it comes to attacking other sovereign nations.

Originally posted by rich23
Israel invaded another country and collectively punished its population ... They waged war on a neighbouring country, therefore, with impunity.

Well, technically that is correct I suppose, but you're you're leaving out the catalyst, and there fore, an important point. You've put the burden for all of this on the wrong shoulders.

Lets wipe the slate clean for all nations and forgive all of their transgressions. We could argue the "Israel this..." and "Hizbullah that..." and "Syria this..." topics for months. So lets just look at this one scenario for a minute.

A sovereign nation allowed a portion of its territory to be over run and occupied by an armed militia. The militia was a known terrorist organization, having previously attacked civilian and military targets from many nations. The sovereign nation did not attempt to evict them, nor did they put safeguards in place to prevent the militia from antagonizing neiboring nations. The militia, on its own, entered a neighboring country, engaged in armed combat, captured citizens, and held them hostage. The sovereign nation did not intervene, nor did they make significant attempts to liberate the hostages held in their own territory.

Hizbullah, at any time, could have ended the conflict by returning the hostages. The government of Lebanon could have taken action to ensure their release.

Neither happened, therefore they faced the consequence for their action, or inaction.

(Note- I am not taking Israel's side, just making a factual clarification)

Originally posted by Jeddyhi

Originally posted by rich23Riiight... military machine like Nazi Germany? Check. Plans for world domination? Check. Allies on other continents? Check.

No, I was being sarcastic. Comparing Iran with Nazi Germany is nonsensical.

Not so nonsensical. Yes they do have a military machine like Nazi Germany and strangely enough wish to wipe Israel off the map.

From the Wikipedia entry on Iran's military:

Iran's defence budget for 2005 is estimated to be $6.2 billion by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies. This is $91 per capita, less than other Persian Gulf nations. Iran also spends less as a percentage of gross national product than any other Persian Gulf nation, except the United Arab Emirates.

While the Shah was around, Iran was buying all its weapons from abroad. Sanctions forced it to develop its own manufacturing facilities, and this is the only parallel I can find between the regime's military and that of Nazi Germany. If there is a parallel with the mighty Nazi military machine... well, the US spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world put together, and that's without referencing the black budget projects which are off the books. Some analysts consider those projects to take almost as much money again to maintain.

Referencing a Pro-Palestinian Blog for a correct translation is not very solid.

Well, at least we can assume (unlike with MEMRI) it's their first language.

However, one of my close friends speaks Arabic rather well, has travelled extensively through the region, and confirmed the translation for me himself. That's enough to satisfy me.

...according to this article, his statements were condemned by many world leaders. I suppose all these world leaders received a bad translation.

I'm quite sure that MEMRI provided the translation that was used, yes. They're rather well-connected and, once you note the name, you'll be surprised at how often they come up. Only the other night I was listening to a BBC radio debate and they were credited with much information about Iran and its intentions.

In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel.

Check that word, "speculated". And you'll find in his Wikipedia entry that

He served as President of Iran from 1989 to 1997. In 2005 he tried to win a third term in office, but lost on the second ballot to Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2005 Iranian presidential election. Most Iranians believe that Rafsanjani was placed on the ballot because of the near universal disdain for him in the Iranian proletariat, ensuring the election of Ahmadinejad.

This really describes someone who is yesterday's man. One of the reasons MEMRI finds they have to distort Ahmedinejad's speeches is that he's not quite the extremist of Khomenei's or Khamenei's days.

Can you provide one that says the President of Iran doesn't want Israel wiped off the map.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative. I've already demonstrated that Ahmedinejad wants regime change rather than armageddon. The words "wiped off the map" were nowhere on the Arabic text of his speech. Can you provide a link that shows that the US doesn't want to invade Iran? Last time I checked, I think Bush was saying that all options were on the table.

There is no evidence to suggest that Iran either has nukes or is going to give them to terrorists. No-one so far has come up with any, at any rate. The burden of proof lies with people who make the accusations, especially if military action is on the table. I'm saying it's all smoke and mirrors, and no-one yet has cited anything to prove me wrong.

In closing, anyone who thinks that it's OK for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons is looking at the world through rose colored glasses. One nuke launched by Iran could trigger Nuclear armegeddon. That is not a risk worth allowing, at all.

You could substitute any country in the world for the word "Iran" in the above-quoted paragraph. One country in the world has already used nuclear weapons and has littered the middle east with depleted uranium, a radioactive and highly toxic metal that causes birth defects. I would submit that that nation is the real threat to world peace, not a small country with no nukes... but rather a lot of oil.






[edit on 8/28/2006 by Jeddyhi]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by rich23
Israel invaded another country and collectively punished its population ... They waged war on a neighbouring country, therefore, with impunity.

Well, technically that is correct I suppose,

Hooray! I get technical ponts.

I didn't want to go too far back along the chain, because you get bogged down in accusation and counter-accusation. Allegedly, Israeli soldiers had been kidnapping and torturing Lebanese citizens and violating the border for some time before the outbreak of hostilities. And let's not forget that the invasion was prompted by the kidnapping of two SOLDIERS who were alleged to be in Lebanon at the time. The exact location of the soldiers at the time they were captured is in dispute, which is why I didn't bring it up - it just seemed to cloud things unnecessarily.

but you're you're leaving out the catalyst, and there fore, an important point. You've put the burden for all of this on the wrong shoulders.

OK... I don't want to get too far into this because it's off topic but it seems to me quite clear that Israel's invasion was a) a disproportionate response and b) planned in advance. They were just waiting for a casus belli which Hizballah were kind enough to give them.

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

memri.org...

The whole thing is filled with implied threats but here is my favorite.

"'Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.'"

Iran identifies the Oppressive US government as its enemy.

Yah Iran identifiying America as it's enemy probably has something to do with the following :

The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

www.nytimes.com...

As you can clearly see that America attacked Iran in 1953 and the Islamic revolution came in 1979 so America attacked Iran almost 26 years before the Islamic movements even started.

You lived in the ME: did you meet any suicide bombers or jihadists yourself? Did you actually meet anyone who would be prepared to see their loved ones incinerated for a suicide mission they had undertaken?

Actually, yes, I have met such individuals (and sometimes in a bad way...being a teenager and having a few swords (yes some bedouins actually still carry them) thrust at you menacingly is not a cool thing...but then, I shouldn't have snuck over the wall, huh?). And I lived in a pretty moderate place, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia...but back in the early 80's... It all has to do with the level of religious devotion. The only thing that matters in life is devotion to Allah. Devotion will be rewarded in the afterlife. For most, this is no different than many others and their views (Christians, Jews, Hindus, whatever). However, for some (and I'm talking about the fanatics here, not Arabs in general), they feel that the deaths of their family members, etc. would make them martyrs as well, and that such acts would actually help those innocents secure a place in the afterlife. It is a warped interpretation of the Koran, just as other sects warp other religions (dancing with rattlesnakes comes to mind)....

Arabs have gotten a pretty bad rap as a people, especially in cinema. However, they've done nothing pro-actively to downplay that image either. Those of us who know better, you from your friends, me from living there, have a better frame of reference, and are not fooled into thinking every Muslim is bomb-weilding lunatic looking to be a martyr. However, had I not had that experience, and grown up solely in the US or even parts of Europe, I might too share that idea. The fanatics are actually the vast minority...however they are a loud and vocal minority that seek to speak for the rest of their people, while the moderate ones simply stay silent.

I'm only glad my worst fears weren't realized. I had visions of the Japanese camps after Pearl Harbor, but for Muslims after 9/11. Thankfully, history didn't repeat itself, but one more such attack, and I'd wager we'd see it....and that's an awful realization. The moderates need to rise up and shatter this stereotype, or they're going to see the entire public at large, of the world's most powerful military, cheer on any idea of "getting them"....and that is exactly what Bush and his cronies are counting on.

P.S. - Don't let the title fool you, I'm a member first, mod second. That just means I'm a member who cares about the board and spends way too much time here, hehe... The title does not make my opinion any more valid or invalid than any other member. Members' posts should speak for themselves, and their validity... Unless dealing with board policy, the posts of any mod are pretty much their opinions just as they'd post as regular members.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Gazrok]