Iran begins installing 6,000 new centrifuges

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Do you seriously think that Iran isn't worried about a potential US invasion, as far-fetched as it sounds to you and me? Apart from a brewing geopolitical struggle with Saudi Arabia/Egypt, that fear is probably teh biggest driving force behind their ambitions.

BTW, how many foreign countries has Iran "converted?" Which ones are even remote possibilities for theocratic Shi'ite governments?

Syria, Lebanon, and possibly Iraq in the future...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
The only reason that the west would attack is if Iran posed a clear and immediate danger to either western interests or western allies.

Iraq, Haiti, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq, Panama, Lybia, Grenada, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic all call bull**** on you

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Iraq, Haiti, Serbia, Somalia, Iraq, Panama, Lybia, Grenada, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic all call bull**** on you

Debatable in the extreme.

[chequita guevara]

None of those counties posed a clear and immediate danger to Western interests or allies.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
None of those counties posed a clear and immediate danger to Western interests or allies.

I almost started to respond, but my last post covers it. Start a different thread on the justification of actions taken against those countries and I'll try to join that party. For now, let's just say that I do not accept your statement and further I find no parallels to eithier an Iranian invasion or the topic being discussed.

But...always good to see ya che!

[LordShiva]

So, you refuse to consider teh possibility that Iran might harbour any kind of fear of a US invasion (because, as you correctly point out, teh US hasn't invaded Saudi Arabia), yet are perfectly OK believing that Iran or its proxies are capable of posing even a semblance of an existential challenge to Israel? And that teh US would tuck its tail between its legs and abandon Iraq after pouring so much blood, money, and political capital into its future teh moment Iran gets a nuke?

If your goal is to confuse me, you're doing an admirable job

[LordShiva]

Do you also refuse to consider that teh Iranian regime realises that teh Iranian people hate it, that it realises that they've failed in spurring teh economic growth that would provide them with political cover, that it knows that making loud, cliched noises about how Israel is teh evil serves as a convenient distraction, and that its realistic enough to recognise that a US invasion would bring to house down? Because if so, I can see why you might view their nuclear program as an outward-looking endeavour to convert teh poor Lebanese rather than an internally-geared means to prolong its survival.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Do you also refuse to consider that teh Iranian regime realises that teh Iranian people hate it, that it realises that they've failed in spurring teh economic growth that would provide them with political cover, that it knows that making loud, cliched noises about how Israel is teh evil serves as a convenient distraction, and that its realistic enough to recognise that a US invasion would bring to house down? Because if so, I can see why you might view their nuclear program as an outward-looking endeavour to convert teh poor Lebanese rather than an internally-geared means to prolong its survival.

No, I fully believe that the Iranian people do not fully support their government. The same way that many Soviets, or Czechs, or Poles, or Romanians, etc...did not support theirs. Given time, a movement in Iran to overthrow the government may gain traction. I sure hope so. Now, do I believe that the nuclear weapons program is geared to Iranian public opinion? No. I believe it is purely an instrument to further their foriegn policy. Any domestic benefit would be secondary to the current regime IMO.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by LordShiva
So, you refuse to consider teh possibility that Iran might harbour any kind of fear of a US invasion (because, as you correctly point out, teh US hasn't invaded Saudi Arabia), yet are perfectly OK believing that Iran or its proxies are capable of posing even a semblance of an existential challenge to Israel? And that teh US would tuck its tail between its legs and abandon Iraq after pouring so much blood, money, and political capital into its future teh moment Iran gets a nuke?

If your goal is to confuse me, you're doing an admirable job

I believe that Iran has capable and knowledgeable people running their foriegn affairs and advising the Theocracy on foriegn policy. Nothing that Iran has done in the public arena seems to indicate anything less. These people are smart enough to understand the realities of if the US would invade or not. It is my belief that they will push the envelope just to the safe side of the brink and no further. Developing nuclear weapons would push that brink farther away. That being said...there is always the possibility that they will go to far and overstep that brink. I doubt it, as they seem pretty good at understanding where it is. However, the further that brink goes away from Actual US direct action against them, then the greater the possibility that they will increase their covert offensive operations.

Am I still being confusing?

[LordShiva]

Well, I agree with that. That teh brink gets pushed further, thereby making certain scenarios not in teh US's best interests possible, is a good reason to oppose teh program. I don't agree that it gets pushed so far out as to make teh destruction of Israel or Syrian/Lebanese/Iraqi theocracies possible.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I don't agree that it gets pushed so far out as to make teh destruction of Israel or Syrian/Lebanese/Iraqi theocracies possible.

The gains in both political and military power that groups like Hizbollah have experienced over the last decade, and the growing importance of the Shiite religious leaders in Iraq (or is that Iran? ) have on Iraqi politics would beg to differ.

The real thing is, however, that Iran makes no bones about what they are trying to do. It is their policy.

Lebanon is very close to being dominated by Hizbollah even now, and it is likely that a US withdrawal from Iraq would see the same situation arise there. Syria is a bit more complicated, but not out of the bounds of reason.

[LordShiva]

I'm pretty sure they can never really threaten Israel's existence, and that they realise that teh best they can do is be a nuisance through proxies. Teh "wipe Israel off teh map" rhetoric seems to be more like a "this is how we'd like things to be in an ideal world, though realistically, if there was a time when we could have done something to achieve it, that time is long past, but it earns us political capital to keep saying it anyway" kind of thing. Sort of like how it's Taiwan's "stated policy" that they are teh rightful rulers of teh "Republic of China."

Their designs on Iraq, and ensuring Shi'ite domination there, come closest to being "legitimate," given how they've suffered at teh hands of Sunni rule and how every country wants a friendly government in its large, potentially powerful neighbours, and while teh closer cultural links between the two countries makes some degree of Iranian influence inevitable, I don't think teh US would ever allow an Iranian-style government there. Same with Israel and Lebanon. Nukes or no nukes.

[Arrian]

As we all know, Israel has nuclear weapons. Further, Israel's closest ally is the most powerful country on the planet, which has the largest nuclear weapons stockpile.

So yeah, Iran's gonna nuke Israel. Right.

The NPT is a fair point, though, PLATO. Iran should withdraw from the NPT if they want nukes. They are currently playing it both ways. Therefore sanctions are appropriate (revoke whatever benifits they get for being a NPT signatory). Not that those are usually all that effective, but they may slow the Iranians down.

However, I still maintain we've no right at all to use force to prevent them from building a nuke - which is what worries me. There are some who want to haul off and bomb Iran. Aside from the moral issue, that would be stupid... which is why I worry our government might do it.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
The real thing is, however, that Iran makes no bones about what they are trying to do. It is their policy.

We made no bones about our policy of pushing for democracy and human rights and for fifty years of that policy we've supported some of the worst dictatorships humanity has had to offer, even the Khmer Rouge!!! What a country says, and what a country does, are two very different things, which are only accidentally related to one another. My god, even after seven years of Bush, you're still going to believe that the outward expressions of a government reflect actual policy?

Iranian support for Hizbollah has more to do with gaining influence in the Muslim world than it has to do with destroying Israel.

[snoopy369]

I nominate the Khmer Rouge for the Mao for "Best Name for an Evil Dictatorship"...