What to do about Iran?

[PsychoSerenity]

LOL - Apparently, the Obama Administration thinks it's fine to violate Iranian air space. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43819984/ns ... _n_africa/

No problem whatsoever. International law issues: only apply to the Bush administration.....

Fuck, they really don't care, do they? I mean, it would almost have been understandable in Pakistan, if they'd admitted they we there to assassinate bin Laden, who they though Pakistan might have been protecting. But if they're just going to do what they like, what's the point in pretending there is any "International law"?

[Cormac]

Researcher: Iran can produce nuke within 2 months
Airstrikes can no longer stop nuclear program, US can do nothing short of military occupation, says report

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 78,00.html

Same as when Pakistan and India got theirs. There'll be a pretence that it is all fine.

Regime change in Iran would be a hell of a lot different to Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. They have the ability to sink US warships, having developed missiles for that specific purpose.

Besides which, the last time then US carried out a regime change in Iran, they installed the Shah, which led directly to the Islamic Revolution, and this current regime. This caused a cultural volte face against democracy, towards which Iranian society had been previously well disposed.

[Ian]

This story may or may not be correct, but may I ask why people seem perfectly happy to take a report from the Iranian media at face value?

[PsychoSerenity]

This story may or may not be correct, but may I ask why people seem perfectly happy to take a report from the Iranian media at face value?

in my case, alcohol

[Coito ergo sum]

Researcher: Iran can produce nuke within 2 months
Airstrikes can no longer stop nuclear program, US can do nothing short of military occupation, says report

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 78,00.html

Same as when Pakistan and India got theirs. There'll be a pretence that it is all fine.

Regime change in Iran would be a hell of a lot different to Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. They have the ability to sink US warships, having developed missiles for that specific purpose.

Besides which, the last time then US carried out a regime change in Iran, they installed the Shah, which led directly to the Islamic Revolution, and this current regime. This caused a cultural volte face against democracy, towards which Iranian society had been previously well disposed.

Point of fact: The installation of the Shah was largely a British thing. The big dog in the region at the time was Britain, which had essentially run roughshod over the middle east and Iran for the previous century.

Iran is certainly a different animal than Iraq was - bigger country, less "softened up" and less "hemmed in." Their capabilities are better - they don't have the capacity to do the US much damage yet, though. They do have some missiles that could conceivably sink US ships, but we also have the capacity to shoot those missiles down, and the US capacity to "kick in the door" with massive air strikes taking down Command, Control and Communication, and destroying Iranian missile sites is, for the time being, overwhelming.

[Coito ergo sum]

This story may or may not be correct, but may I ask why people seem perfectly happy to take a report from the Iranian media at face value?

It's not being taken at face value. Like almost anything posted around here, it can be fully vetted as the discussion proceeds.

[Cormac]

"Like" should be a word that we eliminate from discussions about politics and foreign policy, IMHO. It is almost never about being liked. It's about power. None of them "like" each other, and even if they do that affinity is dependent on what they each can do for each other and get from each other. As soon as someone becomes a liability or loses usefulness, they're gone - like, or no like.

Saddam Hussein certainly did not take power in Iraq because he was "liked." Most likely, those in his "inner circle" didn't "like" him. They respected him and he enforced that respect. They feared him, and he enforced that fear.

Whether Ahmadinejad is "liked" is completely irrelevant. Now, the degree of power he has is certainly relevant, but I see no reason to think he is devoid of power. He may not be an absolute dictator, but whoever said he was?

Saddam took power because he was chosen as the best option by the CIA, who backed the coup that brought him to power.

[Cormac]

Researcher: Iran can produce nuke within 2 months
Airstrikes can no longer stop nuclear program, US can do nothing short of military occupation, says report

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 78,00.html

Same as when Pakistan and India got theirs. There'll be a pretence that it is all fine.

Regime change in Iran would be a hell of a lot different to Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. They have the ability to sink US warships, having developed missiles for that specific purpose.

Besides which, the last time then US carried out a regime change in Iran, they installed the Shah, which led directly to the Islamic Revolution, and this current regime. This caused a cultural volte face against democracy, towards which Iranian society had been previously well disposed.

.

Point of fact: The installation of the Shah was largely a British thing. The big dog in the region at the time was Britain, which had essentially run roughshod over the middle east and Iran for the previous century.

Iran is certainly a different animal than Iraq was - bigger country, less "softened up" and less "hemmed in." Their capabilities are better - they don't have the capacity to do the US much damage yet, though. They do have some missiles that could conceivably sink US ships, but we also have the capacity to shoot those missiles down, and the US capacity to "kick in the door" with massive air strikes taking down Command, Control and Communication, and destroying Iranian missile sites is, for the time being, overwhelming.

Point of information. The plot started as a British led initiative in defence of gulf oil. They didn't have the wherewithal to complete it. The operation was then taken over by the CIA.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs ... ns-on-iran