News Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?

[Tosh5457]

Maybe the US defending Israel isn't so much a matter of defending Israel's interests as defending US interests.

I agree, but then we're back to: what are the US interests in the Middle East?

I'm just speculating. I'm wondering, with others, why Iran having nuclear weapons is so important to the US. Exactly what sort of threat does it pose? How might a nuclear-armed Iran change the game (for that matter, what is the game)? Why is the security of Israel so important to the US (not that Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which seems quite unlikely, even ridiculous)? Why is the US in effect drawing a line in the sand and trumpeting that it is ready and willing to back an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets? Why did the US invade Iraq?

The continuation of US dominance (not just the US government, but US corporate and financial interests)? What does the oil trade have to do with US dominance? If it has nothing to do with oil, then why is the US bothering with the Middle East?

You asked nice questions there. I think the answer will be a combination of:

- will of continuation of US dominance (mainly by the GOP)
- interest of certain corporations
- interest of the zionists, who have the 2nd richest lobby in US.

Oil? I don't see how it fits in the picture. US does nothing about OPEC controling oil prices and they never took oil from the Middle East, so saying this has to do with oil is ridiculous. And fighting terrorism? US actions over the past decades have caused the terrorism against US (the terrorist groups don't hate US only because it's a "free" country), so US ought to stop this aggression if they want to stop terrorism. And I don't think there is a secret that US government knows and the people don't, that is making US stay involved with Middle East affairs. I guess the 3 reasons I wrote above are pretty reasonable, so IMO it's not in the interest of US continuing to interfere in the Middle East affairs.

Iran supports Hezbollah. This is unarguable. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It's not simply a matter of political affiliation to consider Hezbollah terrorists - members of this group have even hijacked a civilian airliner (TWA 847) and tortured/killed one of the passengers onboard.

Like I said before, continuining the same policies isn't the answer to fight terrorism. Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there, and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel. I watched a documentary about it, I'll post it here when I find it.
So I guess US should force Israel to dismantle their nuclear weapons too?

 

[tiny-tim]

Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there

no, you look it up, and provide a reference to support your bizarre claim

… and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel.

are you putting words together at random?

israel was not founded until immediately after we (the british) left

 

[SHISHKABOB]

How is Iran friend to terrorists? I know that's a daily discourse in US media, but that doesn't make it true. I've seen a lot of accusations that Iran is associated with terrorists made by USA and Israel (only accusations, and they should be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons) but I've never seen anything concrete.
The truth is that US actions on the Middle East and its aid to Israel built the hatred against US, and that should be taken into account when thinking of continuing the same policies of the past in regards to the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism

I'm not the USA, and I'm not going to argue whether Iran is *actually* a friend to terrorists, but the USA thinks so. I guess I should have qualified that to say that "the USA thinks that Iran is a friend to terrorists". And therefore, that is a reason *for the USA* to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

That's a very vague argument. I don't know what influence US has in the Middle East right now, if you could be more specific... And what is that influence you speak about supposed to do? Control oil prices? And if that influence you speak about is so important, then why aren't other countries doing the same?

I'm not sure why that was a vague argument... Are you asking these as sincere questions, or are you being a bit of a jerk?

 

[Tosh5457]

no, you look it up, and provide a reference to support your bizarre claim

There you go, it's a very informative documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk&feature=fvwrel

You can also see the work of academics such as Norman Finkelstein and Ilan Pappé (who appears in that documentary, specifically speaking of the ethnic cleansing of palestinians the Israel government did in 1948).

As for it being a bizarre claim, it depends on the point of view. In the point of view of USA and UK it is bizarre, because Israel is very rarely or never criticized in the media, so it's easy to have an unrealistic idea of Israel.

are you putting words together at random?

israel was not founded until immediately after we (the british) left

My mistake, I meant before. No need for personal attacks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
I'm not sure why that was a vague argument... Are you asking these as sincere questions, or are you being a bit of a jerk?

Not being a jerk, it was a vague answer. You speak of influence in that part of the world, I only asked what exactly is the influence of US in the Middle East and what that influence is supposed to do, and how is that related to oil. Sorry if I looked aggressive, but you were just repeating what was already said over and over (since 2001 maybe?) without anything to back it up.

 

[tiny-tim]

There you go, it's a very informative documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk&feature=fvwrel

i'm not watching a 74-minute racist propaganda film!

i take it you've found nothing to link to (to support your allegation) that we can read?

Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look … how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel.

My mistake, I meant before. No need for personal attacks...

(it wasn't a personal attack, it was attack on what you wrote … which you now admit was wrong )

so you're trying to prove israel is a terrorist state by relying on something before israel existed?

are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

 

[Tosh5457]

i'm not watching a 74-minute racist propaganda film!

Sorry, you're going to have to explain what made you think that's a racist propaganda film.

i take it you've found nothing to link to (to support your allegation) that we can read?

It's in the content of that video, Ilan Pappé says clearly the Israeli government did an ethnic cleansing in 1948. Everything ever wrote or said isn't on the internet you know?

so you're trying to prove israel is a terrorist state by relying on something before israel existed?

First, that's not the only argument I presented, so don't pretend it is. Second, the Jewish Resistance Movement (who carried out the terrorist attacks against the British), was established by the Jewish Agency in 1945. The first prime minister of Israel, Ben Gurion, was the president of the Jewish Agency since 1935 to 1948. So there is a direct tie between Ben Gurion and the terrorist organization JRM, and I can only imagine the number of other people from the Jewish Agency who later went to Israel's government. This doesn't imply Israel is a terrorist state (although the ethnic cleansing they did on the palestinians shows that), but you can see that since the beginning, Israel had ties with terrorists.

A quote from wikipedia (about JRM attacks):

Notable among these were the release of 200 members of Aliyah Bet from the detention camp in Atlit, bombing of railroads and train stations on the Night of the Trains, attacks on British police stations, bombing of dozens of bridges around the country in the night of the bridges and the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

In August 1946, because of Operation Agatha and the King David Hotel bombing (which shocked the public because of the deaths of many innocent civilians), Chaim Weizmann, president of the WZO appealed to the movement to cease all further military activity until a decision would be reached by the Jewish Agency. The Jewish Agency backed Weizmann's recommendation to cease activities

Notice that the Jewish Agency only made JRM cease activities when their attacks shocked the public. The Jewish Agency had power over JRM (after all, they created it), it must have known about its terrorist activities. So, Ben Gurion supported terrorists. Ironic, because that's a common criticism that Israeli's government makes about Iran's president

 

[tiny-tim]

It's in the content of that video, Ilan Pappé says clearly the Israeli government did an ethnic cleansing in 1948. Everything ever wrote or said isn't on the internet you know?

(ah, i see from the edit bar that you added pappe to your last post as i was answering )

pappe is trotted out for propaganda films

no reputable historian agrees with his "conclusions"

… the Jewish Resistance Movement (who carried out the terrorist attacks against the British), was established by the Jewish Agency in 1945.

most people (myself included, up till now) have never heard of this obscure organisation

since you've obviously studied it, you know perfectly well it was disbanded in 1946! …

"In August 1946 … The JRM was dismantled …"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Resistance_Movement)

… you can see that since the beginning, Israel had ties with terrorists.

no, you can see that before the (1948) beginning, the palestinian jewish leaders broke ties with terrorists.

Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know …

This doesn't imply Israel is a terrorist state (although the ethnic cleansing they did on the palestinians shows that)

far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 19%) proportion of arabs as full citizens

in any case, you're stlll trying to prove your racist allegation that israel is a terrorist state by relying on matters in or before 1948

i repeat … are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

I'm working on it. But thanks to you I'm now au fait with the meaning of au fait.

 

[ThomasT]

I agree, but then we're back to: what are the US interests in the Middle East?

Yes, but this is a question for another thread.

You asked nice questions there. I think the answer will be a combination of:

- will of continuation of US dominance (mainly by the GOP)
- interest of certain corporations
- interest of the zionists, who have the 2nd richest lobby in US.

Again, questions that can be asked in the OP of another thread, because they're beyond the scope of the OP of this thread. But keep in mind that any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian situation is off limits at PF. I'll just say at this time that I don't think that the desire to continue US dominance is mainly a GOP consideration. I do think that certain US corporate interests are a factor. I do think that the power of the zionist lobby is a factor insofar as it's in accord with the US corporate/financial interests.

Oil? I don't see how it fits in the picture.

Not the ME oil itself, but how the details of the trading of it fit into the larger global economic picture, possibly affecting US global economic and political domination. Again, considerations for another thread.

US does nothing about OPEC controling oil prices and they never took oil from the Middle East, so saying this has to do with oil is ridiculous.

I'm not so sure. I think it's correct to say that the US doesn't need ME oil. But the way global oil commerce is done might affect US domination, and the ME has vast oil reserves. If US involvement in ME affairs doesn't have anything to do with ME oil, then I have no idea why the US would attack Iraq, establish a presence there, and sign an agreement to remain there for, it seems, the indefinite future -- or why the US would care about Iran having nuclear weapons, because in any scenario that I've considered it would be prima facie idiotic for Iran to attack Israel. So, the nuclear thing, wrt to an Iranian preemptive strike on Israel, is a red herring, imho. But military nuclear capability would give Iran a bargaining chip that it doesn't now have. Like I said, I'm not really sure what the encompassing game is.

And fighting terrorism? US actions over the past decades have caused the terrorism against US (the terrorist groups don't hate US only because it's a "free" country), so US ought to stop this aggression if they want to stop terrorism.

It's not about terrorism, imo. Terrorism in its many forms is just a byproduct of large scale conflict. All countries engage in terrorism insofar as they deem it necessary wrt their best interests.

And I don't think there is a secret that US government knows and the people don't, that is making US stay involved with Middle East affairs.

I think there are lots of things that those running the US know that the mass populace doesn't. But, as I mentioned, I suppose that there's enough info accessible via the internet that the average citizen can piece together a reasonable picture of why the US is so interested in the ME. And I think it has mainly to do with the trading, commerce, economics, distribution, etc., of oil.

I guess the 3 reasons I wrote above are pretty reasonable, so IMO it's not in the interest of US continuing to interfere in the Middle East affairs.

Well, apparently, the people running the US see it differently. Us common folks understanding why they're doing what they're doing will involve a level of research that most people just aren't willing to do, and a level of organization that, I suppose, most people just aren't capable of. Given historical events, it certainly seems that the US is extremely interested in ME affairs. In my view, if it has to do with ME oil, and global oil economics, then US involvement in the ME makes sense -- if not, then ... why.

Note: A friendly caution to you Tosh, and any others. Try to refrain from making negative comments about Israeli policies and actions in PF forums. Especially wrt the Palestinian situation. You might get infractions. The thread might get locked. This is just a suggestion from one who is not necessarily in agreement with some Israeli policies and actions.

 

[Curious3141]

Like I said before, continuining the same policies isn't the answer to fight terrorism. Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there, and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel. I watched a documentary about it, I'll post it here when I find it.
So I guess US should force Israel to dismantle their nuclear weapons too?

And how is this a proper reply to my post? You challenged the assertion that Iran was a "friend to terrorists". I've made points that show exactly that. And you've veered off on a tangent.

 

[mheslep]

Just for the record, I agree with chiro and daveb and ...

which is to agree with what? Confusion?

 

[Tosh5457]

tiny-tim, I noticed you didn't answer me why do you think that's a racist documentary. You just made that criticism to see if it sticks, and now moved on?

pappe is trotted out for propaganda films

no reputable historian agrees with his "conclusions"

Let me correct that: no reputable historian agrees with conclusions that are against zionism, because that destroys the reputation.

most people (myself included, up till now) have never heard of this obscure organisation

since you've obviously studied it, you know perfectly well it was disbanded in 1946! …

You aren't reading my posts in entirety. I know fully well JRM was disbanded before Israel's foundation, you wouldn't make that reply if you read my entire post and not just the parts that look appealing to you at a first glance.
I said Israel had ties with terrorists since the beginning because Ben Gurion (who later was appointed Israel's first prime-minister) was associated with these terrorists as the president of the Jewish Agency. The disbandment of JRM (yes, before Israel's foundation) doesn't erase the fact that Ben Gurion associated with terrorists just before Israel's foundation, and I don't think that breaks the ties of Ben Gurion with terrorists. If Osama Bin Laden, when he was alive, left Al-Qaeda, would you say he didn't have ties with terrorists anymore?

far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 19%) proportion of arabs as full citizens

in any case, you're stlll trying to prove your racist allegation that israel is a terrorist state by relying on matters in or before 1948

i repeat … are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?

First, you're going to have to tell me what's racist in saying Israel is a terrorist state. Israel's state is a race?

Ethnic cleansing happened in 1948 after Israel's foundation (this is even worse than terrorism), since then they resorted to less violent measures, but still with the intent of getting rid of the arabs from Israel by force. Well, for an area that had almost 100% arab population a few decades ago, 19% doesn't look like a very high number, it looks very small. It happened in the past, but nonetheless Israel was under control of the zionists like it is today, so I consider Israel a terrorist state.

Let me just say this to put things in context - we're speaking about a country that whose first prime-minister associated himself with terrorists, a country that did ethnic cleansing in the past, and a country that forced arabs who lived there out of Palestine. Country which has been under the same political control since its foundation.

And how is this a proper reply to my post? You challenged the assertion that Iran was a "friend to terrorists". I've made points that show exactly that. And you've veered off on a tangent.

I wasn't trying to counter-argument what you said. Because of your reply to that post I made, I assumed (maybe wrongly) you were supporting a certain stance on this issue.

Some new interesting things I've found from my research:

The founder of Likud (the current party in power in Israel) was Menachem Begin, who was also the sixth prime-minister of Israel. He was also one of the commanders of Irgun, a terrorist organization.

 

[ThomasT]

@Tosh5457,
You've communicated your points. Now I suggest you let it go unless you want to get banned from PF. I'll only say that I interpret at least some of the historical events in much the same way that you seem to.

But calling Israel, or any other country, a terrorist state can be misleading. As I mentioned, all countries involved in serious (life or death) conflicts use terrorist tactics when deemed necessary.

 

[tiny-tim]

First, you're going to have to tell me what's racist in saying Israel is a terrorist state. Israel's state is a race?

israelis are a race

you can be an anti-israeli racist in the same way as you can be an anti-paraguayan racist or an anti-american racist

Well, for an area that had almost 100% arab population a few decades ago, 19% doesn't look like a very high number, it looks very small.

(my 19% figure is out-of-date … apparently, it's now 18.5%)

in 1947, it was roughly 45% (and in 1920, 80-90%), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_division (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#British_control_1918-1948)

1n 1949, it was probably about 33% (i haven't been able to find a correct figure )

the decrease since then, to 18.5%, is largely due to massive jewish immigration

(of all palestinians, the proportion now living in israel with full citizenship is just over 25% …

compare that the proportion of jews in the west bank or gaza, approximately 0%, as in iraq etc )

i repeat … far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 18%) proportion of arabs as full citizens …

this is because the jews/israelis did not want to expel the arabs, and tried to persuade most arabs (with some exceptions) to stay in their homes

it is the jews (a roughly equal number) that were deliberately ethnically cleansed, from the west bank and most (not all) arab countries ​

 

[Tosh5457]

israelis are a race

you can be an anti-israeli racist in the same way as you can be an anti-paraguayan racist or an anti-american racist

You're confounding race with nationality. And I'm not criticizing the population of Israel, I'm just criticizing their government actions and political ideology behind it (zionism).

i repeat … far from ethnic cleansing, israel has a very high (over 18%) proportion of arabs as full citizens …

I don't know what that has to do with the fact that an ethnic cleansing policy took place in the past.

this is because the jews/israelis did not want to expel the arabs, and tried to persuade most arabs (with some exceptions) to stay in their homes

Israelis wanted to expel the arabs. Please show evidence that they tried to persuade most arabs to stay in their homes...

it is the jews (a roughly equal number) that were deliberately ethnically cleansed, from the west bank and most (not all) arab countries

What does that have to do with anything? Seems like you're trying to justify Israel's actions by the fact that jews were persecuted in the past by arabs (I don't know much about it, if you could give some links...).

 

[ThomasT]

israelis are a race

That's just silly.

you can be an anti-israeli racist in the same way as you can be an anti-paraguayan racist or an anti-american racist

Again, just silly.

Judaism is a theistic religion. Jewishness is associated with that religion. It isn't a race.

One might disagree with the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, and disagree with certain policies and practices of the Israeli administration, without being in any way a racist.

It's a fact that a rather large percentage of the Israeli populace disagrees with the policies and practices of their federal administration. Are they racists?

I suggest you and Tosh abandon your current contentious interchange. Afaik, this sort of discussion isn't allowed at PF.

 

[Hurkyl]

Too true:

Due to the emotionally charged issues concerning Israel/Palestine conflicts, discussions on this topic are banned until further notice.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Back on topic, from today's news:

The higher the enrichment, the easier it becomes to re-enrich uranium to the 90 percent needed for weapons grade. As a result, the finding of traces at 27 percent at the Fordo enrichment plant in central Iran sparked international interest.
Iran denies any plans to develop nuclear weapons, but has for years declined offers of reactor fuel from abroad, including more recent inducements of 20-percent material if it stops producing at that level. The Islamic Republic says it wants to continue producing 20 percent uranium to fuel its research reactor and for medical purposes.
But its refusal to accept foreign offers has increased fears Tehran may want to turn its enrichment activities toward producing such arms. The concerns have been fed by IAEA suspicions that Iran has experimented on components of an atomic arms program — suspicions Tehran also denies.
The report cited a May 9 letter from Iranian officials suggesting any enrichment at 27 percent was inadvertent. The letter said the particles were produced "above the target value" and could have been for "technical reasons beyond the operator's control."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jS0mXKpoUQ5sc3bFuQRAQWYvc4Og?docId=0ab606d5dd254e74a3ae79bb07e8e2f6

 

[ThomasT]

Back on topic, from today's news:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jS0mXKpoUQ5sc3bFuQRAQWYvc4Og?docId=0ab606d5dd254e74a3ae79bb07e8e2f6

Thanks for getting back on topic. My current view is that Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't it?

But a nuclear armed Iran doesn't necessarily present any more of a threat to Israel than already exists, imo. Iran would be absolutely stupid to do a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel. It would be national suicide. So, I assume, they just won't do that. But the possession of nuclear weapons, and ability to deliver them long range, would give them a bargaining chip that they apparently don't now have. Why this is important, I don't know. How Iran would use it if it had it, I don't know. I don't understand exactly what's at stake, what the game is. If anybody does, then your input would be most appreciated.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for getting back on topic. My current view is that Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't it?

But a nuclear armed Iran doesn't necessarily present any more of a threat to Israel than already exists, imo. Iran would be absolutely stupid to do a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel. It would be national suicide. So, I assume, they just won't do that. But the possession of nuclear weapons, and ability to deliver them long range, would give them a bargaining chip that they apparently don't now have. Why this is important, I don't know. How Iran would use it if it had it, I don't know. I don't understand exactly what's at stake, what the game is. If anybody does, then your input would be most appreciated.

I'm no Middle East expert but what worries me is that once they get them, if ever, there's no going back. If they get them, 20, 30, 40 years down the road some lunatic might get into power there and start launching, just as Saddam would have done had he had them. The internal power struggles in the Mid-East strike me as more extreme and there's much greater potential for an unstable person to take power. Or, suppose Iran had had them during the Iran/Iraq war. Might they have been tempted to take Baghdad out with a nuke at some point during that struggle when they were really hurting? I think there's an excellent chance Saddam would have nuked Teheran if he could have during that war. He was not a very reasonable person.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm no Middle East expert but what worries me is that once they get them, if ever, there's no going back. If they get them, 20, 30, 40 years down the road some lunatic might get into power there and start launching ...

I don't think that's even remotely likely.

... just as Saddam would have done had he had them.

I don't think he would have.

The internal power struggles in the Mid-East strike me as more extreme and there's much greater potential for an unstable person to take power.

I don't think that's necessarily true. People who are granted power are generally people who are more emotionally stable than the average person, imo.

Or, suppose Iran had had them during the Iran/Iraq war. Might they have been tempted to take Baghdad out with a nuke at some point during that struggle when they were really hurting?

Tempted maybe, but they wouldn't have done it, imho.

I think there's an excellent chance Saddam would have nuked Teheran if he could have during that war. He was not a very reasonable person.

Saddam was both reasonable and emotionally strong. That's part of why he became the boss. Imho, he wouldn't have used nuclear weapons had he had them.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Saddam was both reasonable and emotionally strong. That's part of why he became the boss. Imho, he wouldn't have used nuclear weapons had he had them.

I don't see how you figure he was reasonable. Strong, obviously, but reasonable?

 

[ThomasT]

I don't see how you figure he was reasonable. Strong, obviously, but reasonable?

Well, thankfully, it's off-topic. So, we needn't consider it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, thankfully, it's off-topic. So, we needn't consider it.

You were just yankin' my chain.

 

[ThomasT]

You were just yankin' my chain.

I do that sometimes, but not wrt the considerations presented in this thread. The questions associated with the OP are difficult. I have certain ideas, but can't say that I know the answers.

 

[mheslep]

...

Saddam was both reasonable and emotionally strong...

Saddam was not insane as I understand the term. But reasonable? His reason for gassing a ~peaceful town of thousands? For attacking Iran? For genocide on the Marsh Arabs? For trying to kill a US president between the wars?

Edit: nevermind - see above posts from Zooby

 

[tiny-tim]

Judaism is a theistic religion. Jewishness is associated with that religion. It isn't a race.

jews aren't a race?

antisemitism (meaning hatred of jews) is universally recognised as a form of racism

(why are you denying this?? )

One might disagree with the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel … without being in any way a racist.

"in any way"?

that's very difficult … to call for the elimination of the only jewish state in the world and not to call for the elimination of any other state, is obviously antisemitic

You're confounding race with nationality.

anti-israeli racists sometimes like to claim

"israelis aren't a race, so i can't be accused of anti-israeli racism, becaue it doesn't exist!" ​

And I'm not criticizing the population of Israel, I'm just criticizing their government actions and political ideology behind it (zionism).

but which israeli government?

you're being very disingenuous

if you mean you were criticising the present israeli government, then you did so on the basis of things done over 60 years ago

if you mean you were criticising every israeli government, both left-wing and right-wing, then you were criticising most of the population of israel

 

[Evo]

This thread has continued a bit too long.