Ahmadinejad vs Obama: biting the hand that feeds

Talk about your ingrates. If this guy doesn't watch it, Obama will open his first can of presidential whoop ass on him:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.073ba2ee2f1f00668848a4655420fedc.411&show_article=1

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed,"

Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

 

I say further isolate Iran until we see better leadership. Ahmadinejad is clearly not respectable enough to sit down with; he's only interested in conducting a circus with the U.S. as the main attraction.

 

But that's the thing, we cannot continue to isolate Iran anymore. You really cannot dictate to a country with more than 70 million people and possessing of so much geopolitical capital. We continue to do so at our own detriment. Iran, in many ways, are like Russia; they do not have to formally declare war on a particular entity to engage in conflict with them. They just use their might to do so. And we don't have that many allies in the Middle East.

Military confrontation alone cannot cut it because Iran has so many allies, many of which are not friendly with us i.e. Russia, China and North Korea. Getting involved with Iran means getting involved with said parties, and we don't really want that on our plate now, do we?

 

This is an overestimation. Other than its oil industry, Iran has nothing in terms of economic power and is not a significant military power.

The relationships you mentioned are based upon expediency, I doubt that China and Russia "like" Iran and even if they do, they're unwilling to place their national security under the threat of warfare with the United States. Iran is a petulant little child with no real friends.

 

If Netanyahu becomes the next leader of Israel, Obama will only have to stand by him because he has a plan for Iran:

JERUSALEM - Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's leading candidate for prime minister, said Saturday that Iran "will not be armed with a nuclear weapon."

Netanyahu said if elected prime minister his first mission will be to thwart the Iranian nuclear threat. Netanyahu...called Iran the greatest danger to Israel and to all humanity.

When asked if stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions included a military strike, he replied: "It includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true."

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20090201/twl-ml-israel-politics-38359fb.html

 

Okay, you've clearly exposed your lack of knowledge when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs. Iran is in many ways, the most powerful nation in the Persian Gulf. Most of the US foreign policy "experts" will have you believe that Iran is ruled by a bunch of knuckle dragging, blood-thirsty theocrats, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, less than 10% of the powerful politicians in the Iranian parliament are less theocratic than they are pragmatic. As i previously stated, Iran is like Russia in that they do not need to engage in direct warfare. That is because they have mastered the game of placing entities under their sphere of influence. Now tell me, since the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, can you recall Iran getting involved in any military operations? I didn't think so. Because they can get others to do their dirty work for them. Hamas and Hezbollah are funded by Iran and no amount of airstrikes from Israel will change that.

Let me tell you, Ahmadinejad does not run shit in Iran, despite what most people in the West believe. Ali Khamenei and the mullahs are the ones really in charge, and they have control in that region now that Iraq is unstable.

Iran has flexed its muscles geopolitically and more or less controls Jordan, some parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and even Egypt. Even the states in the Arabian peninsula are aware of the influence of Iran and some have been co-opted as well. Whats more, Iranians have masterminded the art of assymetrical warfare such as guerilla tactics, insurgency and smart bombs. A full blown invasion of the country will not easily destroy them. Think about this: why was Iraq on the brink of civil war from the fall of 2005 till about 2007? Because many foreign fighters - many trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps - had crossed into Iraq and caused severe damage with the guerilla tactics they learned from Iran. The same is going on in Afghanistan as we speak.

If you really think Iran has no allies, then you are either naive or misinformed about foreign policy. If for any reason the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, we're talking about 55% of the world's oil reserves been removed from the market. Do you really think the US would be dumb enough to cause that?

C'mon.

 

Nope. It's the nations who have formed diplomatic relations with the United States (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt) that are the most powerful in the region. Without the firm backing of a nuclear power, Iran cannot more effectively maneuver against Western interests. If they could, they would've done more than train guerilla fighters to fight American troops in Iraq. As a stronger regional power, Iran would be able to successfully lower, if not shut off, energy shipments to the West and reek as much havoc to our economies as UN sanctions have to theirs. There is a difference between doing what you can and getting it done.

Hamas fires a few pissant rockets into Isreal, so what? Isreal's response is always ten times more devastating. Where does the balance of power in the region reside?

You go from Russia and China (nuclear powers and permanent UN Security Council members) as allies with Iran to Lebanon and Syria, slumming aren't we? Yes, guerilla tactics, assymetrical warfare . . . very cute in a King Leonidas sort of way and, once again, so what?

Besides, I didn't mention anything about invading Iran. I want them to place a respectable person as the head of state before we open talks on any grounds.

 

Iran's done nothing to the US. They haven't harmed us in any way. I don't know why we keep badgering them. They are allowed to have a defense, the same as any country. When will we learn that we cannot dictate to other nations?

 

Well the head of state has explicitly said that he'd like to wipe Isreal off the face of the Earth. None of the other nuclear powers, including North Korea, has uttered anything that crazy. I don't trust Iran when they say their reactors are exclusively for energy purposes and believe that a nuclear weapon in their hands would only increase instability in one of the most unstable regions of the planet.

 

Well, it's not our duty to provide for Israel's defense. That's the responsibility of the Israelis. If they want to fight Iran, that's up to them

 

Well you earn an A for parroting libertarian philosophy, but your response does not properly address the volatility of Iran possessing a nuclear warhead. In a world of interlinking economic and security interests, taking an isolationist position would be nothing short of naive.

 

Maybe when we have completely isolated even Great Britain.

By the way, Satyricon, you talked about having Iran not having a "firm" nuclear ally. It may not have occured to you that Russia is currently the 5th largest trading partner with Iran, with their trade relations exceeding $3 billion as late as the fourth quarter of 2007. Russia have been helping Iran with their nuclear project since the 1990s, and has been a valuable asset in Iran's mission to bolster its defense programs. Most notable are the amount of surface-to-air missiles and fighter aircrafts Iran has purchased from Russia, as well as air defense systems, perhaps out of fear of a U.S. attack. Similarly, China has sold anti-shipping missiles and mining technnology to Iran. North Korea has also played a part in the Iranian defense programs.

Now if all of that is not "firm" backing by a nuclear ally, then I implore you to provide me with more substance because that, to me, is as firm a diplomatic relations as can be. Also, keep in mind that Iran gives some of these foreign weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, as documented by the Israeli Defense Forces in the 34 day war with the aforementioned group in 2006.

Once again, you've exposed your rookie knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs. You say Iran could have done more than train guerillas in Iraq, well hello! Iran has been involved with the US since the Revolution. Who the hell do you think was behind the 1983 bombing of the Beirut barracks? The Islamic Jihad Organization, a front for Hezbollah. And who is the main supporter of Hezbollah? (hint: it's a country whose capital is Tehran).

And please do not tell me that you believe for one second that these "sanctions" against Iran have worked one bit. If you do, then you need to pull that log outta your eyes. First of all, Iran's vast borders ensure that they will fail. Its open northern borders with former soviet states like Armenia and its land routes to Afghanistan, Pakistan and even China means that goods will come into the country easily. Hell, its been happening in Iraq since the 1970s.

Moreover, every attempt by the US to goad Russia to sanction Iran has failed woefully. Bush tried to get Putin to sign on, but he wasnt buying any of it and justifiably so - Iran poses no threat to Russia, so why should they punish them? China has not been cheerleading the US on the whole thing either.

Iran does indeed "maneuver" against Western interests. Many Europeans countries do not like the idea of sanctioning one of the world's largest suppliers of oil, especially given the fact that most of Europe is dependent upon foreign oil. Moreover, with Iran threatening to bolt the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty especially at this crucial period, it might not be the wisest idea to antagonize Tehran. They have also stated that if they are attacked by the US or Israel, they will launch Chinese silkworm missiles on tankers in the strait of hormuz, as well as other Gulf oil facilities. And most Western intelligence agencies have certified it possible, so dont even try to question that logic. We're talking about more than 15 million barrels of oil instantly wiped off the markets? Now certainly, we cant be dumb enough to allow that to happen now, can we? If anything, it is they, and not us, that can reek havoc on Western economies. Again, if that is not maneuvering, then you tell me what is.

The fact of the matter is that Iran has become a superpower overnight. With its energy resources and its building of coalitions amongst antagonistic regimes like China and North Korea, there isn't much we can do to stop Tehran from acheiving whatever it wants. But certainly, common sense dictates that diplomacy may be the best way to go about it.

 

Is the world gonna come to an end with Iran having a nuclear weapon? No. Life will go on. But the badgering and hostility by the US towards Iran will not make the world safer. Look at it from Iran's point of view: Here's the US, which overthrew their democratically elected leader over 50 years ago, which still has sanctions against them, which has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, both bordering Iran. Maybe it's the US who's being the belligerent one.

 

Did the world come to an end when Germany was allowed to annex Czechoslovakia? No, but . . .

 

Just a short one. I'm not as educated as the rest of you guys in this question so I'm just gonna babble a little.


I can't say that I'm very thrilled about the idea of a nation like Iran getting their hands on official nukes, and I'm not very thrilled of the idea of Israel trying to kill off Iranian nuclear power-plans. Israel, who has nukes, and are driven by ideological reasons, and Iran who probably can get their hands on nukes or get help from countries who has them, and who also are driven by ideological reasons. (Ideological here means religious)

But I'm not thrilled about US going in and wrecking havoc in another country, it's enough with Iraq, it creates such a huge tension in the area, and just pushes everyone closer to war.

On the other hand, if the iranian goverment are gonna keep acting like that, it will be hard to extend that diplomatic hand. The iranian goverment are using rethorics only, saying words with no connection to their society, and it's hard to know what they actually want.

The country is walking backwards anyhow, allowing children to be hanged (a girl of 16 yrs old was hanged because she was raped by a taxidriver, it's believed she was hanged quicker because the judge raped her as well, while she was in jail.), taking away womens rights, taking away everything. Iran was forward thinking, but now, their whole intellectual and cultural elite lives in london (some in sweden too, just as the iraqis.), if they stayed they would have been killed or put to prison..

Unfortunatly I can't see any way of making them change. The change has to come from the inside of the country, from the people. Untill then, all the rest of the world can do is shake their heads and try to look stern.

 

One can't compare Iran to the power of Nazi Germany 70 years ago. It's not even close.

 

Many conservatives and liberals in US politics are in agreement on this issue. Not only has Iran vowed to destroy one of our staunchest allies, they are also a major sponsor of terrorism worldwide. The EU and UN are also extremely wary.

The question is how does the world community deal with the problem? Pre-emptive strike sounds pretty good to me.

 

So it's our duty to fight and die for Israel? Don't they have a military? And there would never have been a problem with Iran if we didn't force regime change on them 50 years some odd years ago, and try to force more regime change on them for the last 30 years. Do you think they just woke up one day and decided to have a quarrel with Washington? Our government needs to change and learn to live with other nations instead of trying to dominate them

Well the US has used nuclear weapons on other nations before. Should there have been a pre-emptive strike on America?

 

I don't support the US waging a pre-emptive strike, but do believe that Isreal should act accordingly if the intelligence corroborates the claim that Iran is near full development of a nuclear warhead.

For the time being, I would be content to not talk to Iran until their election season has come to an end and see if Ahmadinejad remains in power or is (hopefully) replaced by someone with greater sense.

 

I think the pre-emptive strike should come from Israel, and then the US, UN and EU should have their backs afterwards.

As far as a pre-emptive strike on the US, Dex, the USSR was most capable of doing so but they never did due to our missile defenses, and moreso, due to our ability to withstand and retaliate in spades. It is that kind of calculus that led to the nuclear arms race, which is fortunately over without a test.