Is Romney's War Threat Against Iran Just a Political Move?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nano-Passion
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Mitt Romney's threats of military action against Iran regarding its nuclear program. Participants explore the implications of such threats, the potential for war, and the political motivations behind these statements. The conversation touches on historical contexts, comparisons with past conflicts, and the geopolitical landscape involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the seriousness of Romney's threats, suggesting they may be politically motivated rather than genuine calls for action.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential consequences of a war with Iran, particularly regarding civilian safety and the differences between Iran and previous conflict zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Participants note that both Romney and Obama have indicated that military options remain on the table, but the implications of such statements are debated.
  • There is a suggestion that the situation resembles a cold war dynamic, with rising tensions and the possibility of conflict escalating over time.
  • Some argue that the narrative surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities is misleading, asserting that Iran is pursuing nuclear energy rather than weapons, while others question the trustworthiness of Iran in this context.
  • The potential involvement of other nations, such as Russia and China, in the event of a conflict with Iran is discussed, highlighting the geopolitical ramifications of military action.
  • Participants question the clarity of statements made by political figures regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and the implications for international relations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the motivations behind Romney's statements, the nature of the threat posed by Iran, and the potential consequences of military action. The discussion remains unresolved with differing opinions on the seriousness and implications of the situation.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on assumptions about the motivations of political figures and the nature of international relations, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on a complex geopolitical issue without definitive conclusions.

  • #31
Andre said:
:smile: secretly I'm hoping that this is one of the very rare threads here that has lead to peaceful understanding rather than the usual flaming wars.

It should be that way. All debates should be taken from a humble perspective with a degree of uncertainty.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell

But that is only part of the problem of course.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
ThinkToday said:
How?

Iran is a wholly different animal than Iraq or Afghanistan. For one, it has about 3.75 times the surface area of Iraq and over twice the population. And unlike Saddam Hussein's military, which had already been decimated from the Gulf War, Iran has a much more capable military. The other problem is that it would be very difficult to place troops in the areas needed in order to invade Iran. None of the countries bordering Iran, with maybe the exception of Afghanistan or Azerbaijan, would allow the U.S. to set up an invasion force. And getting forces to Afghanistan or Azerbaijan would require going through some tough areas, such as the straits between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea that are controlled by Turkey, or through Pakistan. Iran has a lot more support around the world then Iraq had, especially from China and Russia, who see Iran as a check on Western power in the area. And they also might see a U.S. invasion as a national security threat considering that Iran supplies a sizeable amount of oil and natural gas to them, or at least to China.
 
  • #33
Nano-Passion said:
The thing that I fear is another country intervening such as China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China–Iran_relations I think other countries are probably growing weary of the US's foreign policy and its bully-like attitude of foreign resources such as oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Russia_relations

Where has the U.S. been "bully-like" regarding foreign resources like oil? The U.S. could have turned Iraq into a colony and monopolized the oil there, but it did no such thing. The countries that are being bully-like are Russia and China (Russia with its former satellite countries, China with areas like the Phillipines); part of the reason Russia invaded Georgia was to gain control over the energy pipelines in that region so as to bully additional nations.
 
  • #34
CAC1001 said:
Where has the U.S. been "bully-like" regarding foreign resources like oil? The U.S. could have turned Iraq into a colony and monopolized the oil there, but it did no such thing. The countries that are being bully-like are Russia and China (Russia with its former satellite countries, China with areas like the Phillipines); part of the reason Russia invaded Georgia was to gain control over the energy pipelines in that region so as to bully additional nations.

Thanks for your posts, I'm getting a good perspective on all of this since I don't regularly keep up with politics and world affairs.
Russia has a lot of satellite countries. http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com/maps-of-russia.html I read that satellite countries are ones that are under a lot influence. Does this mean that they are also essentially allies?

What do you mean by "China with areas like the Phillipines." Can you include a source please.
 
  • #35
Nano-Passion said:
Thanks for your posts, I'm getting a good perspective on all of this since I don't regularly keep up with politics and world affairs.
Russia has a lot of satellite countries. http://www.russia-ukraine-travel.com/maps-of-russia.html I read that satellite countries are ones that are under a lot influence. Does this mean that they are also essentially allies?

Nope, the former Soviet satellite states are not necessarilly allies of Russia, but Russia wants to control them. It sees their allying with the Western countries like the United States as a threat to its sphere of influence. It is very wary for example of allowing countries like Ukraine into NATO for example as then that means if Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO would have to respond militarily. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic that lean much more towards the United States the Russians want leaning to them.

What do you mean by "China with areas like the Phillipines." Can you include a source please.

China wants to be the hegemon in that region of the world. A country they have been especially bullying of as of late are the Phillippines, which after having told us to leave years back, are now asking the U.S. to come back into that area as a military presence. The U.S. is responding by re-opening the bases of Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base.

For some links:
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/top-news/26804-exclusive-adviser-to-un-cautions-china-vs-bullying-phl
http://www.zamboangatoday.ph/index....11286-which-option-will-the-bullied-take.html

One big problem is that China asserts a whole lot of areas around that region as belonging to them, which a lot of other countries in the region disagree with. The most famous example is Taiwan, which China asserts is really a rogue Chinese state that they at some point want to re-take by force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
CAC1001 said:
Iran is a wholly different animal than Iraq or Afghanistan. For one, it has about 3.75 times the surface area of Iraq and over twice the population. And unlike Saddam Hussein's military, which had already been decimated from the Gulf War, Iran has a much more capable military. The other problem is that it would be very difficult to place troops in the areas needed in order to invade Iran. None of the countries bordering Iran, with maybe the exception of Afghanistan or Azerbaijan, would allow the U.S. to set up an invasion force. And getting forces to Afghanistan or Azerbaijan would require going through some tough areas, such as the straits between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea that are controlled by Turkey, or through Pakistan. Iran has a lot more support around the world then Iraq had, especially from China and Russia, who see Iran as a check on Western power in the area. And they also might see a U.S. invasion as a national security threat considering that Iran supplies a sizeable amount of oil and natural gas to them, or at least to China.

You seem to concentrate on conventional war "solutions", which I think are unlikely scenarios. IMO, "war" in Iran would be like dropping a bomb to kill a roach. The more likely solution, IMO, is a return to what has worked in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh , http://romneymanassa.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/blowback-the-coup-of-mohammad-mosaddegh/ , using the CIA’s plan http://web.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/published/one-main/main.html . IMO, the past elections have shown the Persian people wanting to be free of the religious rulers.

The Persians I know seem to be very Nationalist and want relations with the West, but without the old controls the US had. Back in the 70s, the Persians I knew were here because the Shah paid them to get an education in the US. My friends seemed to all have the same general deal; education paid, travel to and from home paid (cost them $100/trip, which they got back if they returned), and the only “string” attached was that they come home afterwards and help Iran. IMO, these are educated people, they don’t want their country bombed out like Iraq and Afghanistan, but they do want to have a free country like before the 1979 revolution. Most of my Persian friends don’t give a rip about a Palestinian state, they grew up in Iran around peacefully practicing Christians and Jews, and in my experience, are generally very peaceful friendly people.
 
  • #37
Nano-Passion said:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-visits-western-wall-ahead-tough-speech-iran-134303549.html

It is said that Romney will give war threats if Iran does not give up its nuclear program. What do you guys think? I think he is a buffoon, and we definitely should not participate in a war with Iran. Iran is a lot different than Iraq, what makes you think that they won't be able to hurt civilians here in the US as a retaliation. Fighting Afghanistan or Iraq is much different than going into war with Iran.

I'm not sure if Romney is a buffoon or he is trying to get more votes -- either way this is ludicrous. The scary part is that Obama also recognizes that a war is eminent. Neither parties have stood against the possibility of war.

I think it's election season.
 
  • #38
CAC1001 said:
Nope, the former Soviet satellite states are not necessarilly allies of Russia, but Russia wants to control them. It sees their allying with the Western countries like the United States as a threat to its sphere of influence. It is very wary for example of allowing countries like Ukraine into NATO for example as then that means if Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO would have to respond militarily. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic that lean much more towards the United States the Russians want leaning to them.



China wants to be the hegemon in that region of the world. A country they have been especially bullying of as of late are the Phillippines, which after having told us to leave years back, are now asking the U.S. to come back into that area as a military presence. The U.S. is responding by re-opening the bases of Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base.

For some links:
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/top-news/26804-exclusive-adviser-to-un-cautions-china-vs-bullying-phl
http://www.zamboangatoday.ph/index....11286-which-option-will-the-bullied-take.html

One big problem is that China asserts a whole lot of areas around that region as belonging to them, which a lot of other countries in the region disagree with. The most famous example is Taiwan, which China asserts is really a rogue Chinese state that they at some point want to re-take by force.

Thanks for the links once again. I'm surprised the Phillipines hasn't brought attention to this to the United Nations, they should have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Nano-Passion said:
Thanks for the links once again. I'm surprised the Phillipines hasn't brought attention to this to the United Nations, they should have.
To what end?
 
  • #40
So as an american citizen why should I care about Iran? I'm not sure who Romney is trying to attract as a voter because I can't see how the average american would have any interest in Iran or the middle east in general.
 
  • #41
Skrew said:
So as an american citizen why should I care about Iran? I'm not sure who Romney is trying to attract as a voter because I can't see how the average american would have any interest in Iran or the middle east in general.
You buy oil from the Middle East. Iran doesn't sell to the US, but they could.
 
  • #42
russ_watters said:
You buy oil from the Middle East. Iran doesn't sell to the US, but they could.

In general, most of the major oil exporters are third world countries with little infrastructure and wealth (other than oil). In fact, a lack of development (which consumes large amounts of oil) is pretty much a requirement to having enough extra oil to export. The result is that most oil comes from countries that are vulnerable to erratic government.

Conversely, the US is the world's third largest oil producer. Yet we're also the world's largest oil importer. We've done an exceptional job of making the US a favorable place for economic development and all of that development needs something to power it.

And, in one sense, that makes Iran's pursuing nuclear energy make perfect sense. Nuclear energy in the US is expensive because the fear of a nuclear accident results in over regulation, making it extremely difficult to get nuclear energy plants built in the first place. Without those extra costs, a country could have a cheap energy source many countries don't like - and sell the energy source other countries do like. They'd get the best of both worlds - they'd have economic development without reducing their exports.

At least theoretically. Economic development is going to increase oil consumption no matter what other energy sources they have, but at least they could keep their oil consumption in check.
 
  • #43
BobG said:
In fact, a lack of development (which consumes large amounts of oil) is pretty much a requirement to having enough extra oil to export. The result is that most oil comes from countries that are vulnerable to erratic government.
Great insight. Taking the logic further, our efforts to stabilize the region thus actually work against our economic interests since more stable countries will export less oil to us!
 
  • #44
Iran is increasing their military spending by 127% this year. That is a irrational move considering sanctions are really hurting there government spending budget. I feel that sanctions won't work on Iran because Iran is willing to sacrifice the well being of their population for their military.
 
  • #45
CAC1001 said:
Where has the U.S. been "bully-like" regarding foreign resources like oil? The U.S. could have turned Iraq into a colony and monopolized the oil there, but it did no such thing. The countries that are being bully-like are Russia and China (Russia with its former satellite countries, China with areas like the Phillipines); part of the reason Russia invaded Georgia was to gain control over the energy pipelines in that region so as to bully additional nations.

Saddam Hussein wanted to sell oil only in euro back in 2001, the US invaded Iraq and switched the oil exports only in usd:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/That's monopolization imho given that it was carried out in a rather forceful way.Here is another way to look at the events concerning oil exports:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
 
  • #46
You are implying that the US invaded for the purpose of switching the exchange currency in Iraq. That's a pretty extraordinary claim that requires solid evidence.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
Great insight. Taking the logic further, our efforts to stabilize the region thus actually work against our economic interests since more stable countries will export less oil to us!

Our efforts to create liberal democracies around the world can also work against us in this sense, as it means less resources available. Economically, unless it will benefit in a major national security way, it goes completely against the developed Western nations to support other nations in coming to First World status.
 
  • #48
russ_watters said:
You are implying that the US invaded for the purpose of switching the exchange currency in Iraq. That's a pretty extraordinary claim that requires solid evidence.
That could be a reason, given the lack of WMD (and the puported ties to Alqaeda) that they could find in Iraq and for which they(at least officially) started the war in the first place. Whether one believes Collin Powell and G.W.Bush were sincere in their claims of having desire to bring democracy to the Iraqi people is also a subjective decision.
The currency in which oil is traded is an important issue and has always been part of the big political game(here is one more example of a standoff and the same measures taken, obviously deemed important for the exporters and importers of oil):"The IOB is intended as an oil bourse for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various currencies other than the United States dollar, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-US) currencies. The geographical location is at the Persian Gulf island of Kish which is designated by Iran as a free trade zone.[11]

During 2007, Iran asked its petroleum customers to pay in non US dollar currencies. By December 8, 2007, Iran reported to have converted all of its oil export payments to non-dollar currencies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
 
  • #49
chemisttree said:
Remember the 2009-2010 elections in Iran? Remember the election fraud perpetrated by the government? Iranians want to vote the tyrants out of office. I don't think most would rise up against an invasion as you suggest. But I don't believe an invasion is imminent yet either.

As an Iranian I say they do! We don't want US or any other country invade our country. I'm not speaking just for myself that's what I see here in my country. Many people might be so against their politician's decisions but an invasion by a foreign country is a more horrible story and seeing the crimes that US and other countries have been doing in Iraq , Afghanistan,... just make it worse.
 
  • #50
Canada just expelled the Iranian diplomatic mission.

“The Iranian regime has shown blatant disregard for the Vienna Convention and its guarantee of protection for diplomatic personnel,” Mr. Baird said.

Mr. Baird also noted international criticism of Iran over its support of the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria as it violently suppresses a widespread popular uprising. He also cited its human rights record, its assistance to terrorist groups and its noncompliance with United Nations resolutions concerning its nuclear program.

He added that Iran “routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/world/middleeast/canada-closes-its-embassy-in-iran.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/07/pol-baird-canada-iran-embassy.html
 
  • #51
Can we put all pretensions aside for a second?

Romney and Obama both support the exact same policies on Iran (tough sanctions). There is no larger fundamental difference.

Except Romney is appealing to a crowd that hates Iran.
Obama is appealing to an anti-war crowd.
 
  • #52
jduster said:
Can we put all pretensions aside for a second?

Romney and Obama both support the exact same policies on Iran (tough sanctions). There is no larger fundamental difference.

Except Romney is appealing to a crowd that hates Iran.
Obama is appealing to an anti-war crowd.

What sanctions have we placed on Iran by the way?
 
  • #53
jduster said:
Can we put all pretensions aside for a second?

Romney and Obama both support the exact same policies on Iran (tough sanctions). There is no larger fundamental difference.

Except Romney is appealing to a crowd that hates Iran.
Obama is appealing to an anti-war crowd.
If you actually attempt to cite statements from the two on Iran in any kind of thorough way I think you'll find you are grossly mistaken about 'exact same' policies.
 

Similar threads

News Is the US Preparing for War with Iran?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
News Is Iran Developing Nuclear Weapons and What Actions Will the US Take?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Iran's nukes: posturing and playground politics.
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Weapons of Mass Destruction & Proliferation
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
News Rumsfeld's war against the military
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
News Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
News Article : The Shadow War : Euro vs. Dollar
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News War on Terror: Examining the Politics & Morality
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K