Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. needs to back off Iran

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. needs to back off Iran

    This is an opinion piece. I am reaching a tipping point with the American government.

    Once again the Bush Administration is heading down the wrong diplomatic path. Backing off of Iran right now is the most effective, cheap and quick way to cool the oil market as well as Iran's stick jabbing. The only argument against this (foolish pride is not an argument) is that it would somehow signal a green light for Iran's nuclear ambitions. My answer to that (aside from mentioning the recent U.S./E.U. freeze on all Iranian money abroad) would be - do you think Iran's leadership cares what color the light is? If anything, they are enjoying defying our repeated demands. Keeping our collective diplomatic mouths shut for a few months would cool the oil market and at the same time deny Iran's leadership exactly what it wants the most - higher oil revenues and political propaganda. If there ever was a time to sit down and shut up, that time is now. At least go back to berating them about their involvement in Iraq. Nothing is going to make them want to accelerate their nuclear programs more than the U.S. and E.U. saying that they can't.

    If the U.S. was in fact responsible for therecent leaked story involving IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) air excercises - and really, who else would be - they made a grave mistake. The IDF/IAF has a proven track record of destroying nuclear facilities - they did it last year in Syria, and they did it in Iraq in 1981. It's nothing new. According to a recent statement, they've been running long-distance excercises in the Mediterrenean for at least five years. So this story is absolutely nothing new. Given that fact, why on Earth would a Pentagon source feed this to the New York Times as if it were a new development? The Times shouldn't have even printed it, even though the purpose of the story was less about the information and more about the U.S. government's 'leaking' of it.

    Enough already. The tough talk doesn't work, it instead produces the opposite effect when launched against an ignorant and defiant Iranian government. Israel has already declared that it will destroy any Iranian nuclear asset before it is strike-ready, and the world has every reason to believe this. But no - the U.S. will keep up the tough talk, drive oil prices even higher, and opt to start drilling in its already distressed coastal waters without talk of alternative energy. Congress, despite some rancor, will once again pass a tens-of-billion dollar emergency spending bill to fund a six-year old war without any oversight or conditions. The famed two party system is once again delivering two Presidential candidates who are quickly jello molding away from real men into party-line stooges. Instead of flip-flop, it's just flip. The Mississippi, which the government claimed would be tamed following devastating flooding in the early 90's, did it again, washing through over 30 makeshift and worn-down levees that the government had over ten years to address. Couple an energy crisis, its impact on food costs and the exponentially rising middle classes in China and India and you might start to realize that America really needs a government that watches out for its people right now, and based on what I see, you do not have one.

    By the way - where's Cheney's 2001 energy policy now? While not visionary by any means, hardly any of it was followed - especially the big ones - funding alternative sources of energy. Failure of leadership doesn't even begin to describe what the U.S. has endured for eight (or more) years. 'Heckuva job' comes to mind, though.
    Last edited by Mosely; 06-23-2008, 02:14 PM. Reason: Iran->Iraq 1981

  • #2
    Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

    You got Iraq and Iran confused in your comment about 1981.

    Why are you only aiming this opinion at the US? The Security Council's unanimous actions have all been pretty tough. Now that Obama has a different opinion than the rest of the world, we're supposed to go off in our own unpopular direction because of a unilateral decision on his part?
    ---
    Sources say the Dow Jones' decline is directly related to Dethklok front-man Nathan Explosion's constant deleting of potential new albums.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

      The same never read a history book dim wits who made a mess of Iraq now have their sites on Iran. It's almost beyond belief that this same group of know nothings is yet again being taken seriously on the Iranian issue: AEI, Heritage Foundation, National Review, President Bush, VP Cheney, John Bolton, Max Boot, Fox News, CNN, and the list goes on and on. Sadly, the opposition party in this country is full of the same hysterical brain less rhetoric that Iran is a danger to the world. Deva Ju.
      |TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
      "Born to Party, Forced to Work."
      - Check me out on The Onion
      - I'm on the local news!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

        If Cain is elected, mark my words...

        We are going to Iran to remove their nuclear power.

        If one president can go after another leader for an attempt on his father's life what do you think a president who was a hostage will do to another country that supports terrorism and was also responsible for over 400 days of US hostages in our own embassy.

        Can you spell paybacks?


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

          Originally posted by Switchcraft View Post
          You got Iraq and Iran confused in your comment about 1981.
          Indeed. One letter off!

          Why are you only aiming this opinion at the US? The Security Council's unanimous actions have all been pretty tough. Now that Obama has a different opinion than the rest of the world, we're supposed to go off in our own unpopular direction because of a unilateral decision on his part?
          Because I am an American citizen. I have an opinion about the UN and EU as well in this matter, but to some degree am less outraged by their actions despite the fact that they aren't any more helpful than those of the U.S. (in fact the sanctions and financial seizures). It was the 'leaked' IDF/IAF story over the weekend that pushed me over the edge on this - totally unnecessary, as are any other public comments regarding Iran at this point in time.

          I'm not sure what you mean by Obama's comment, as I didn't mention him in the first place. The actions of the American administration at this point have nothing to do with him other than the fact that he disagrees. His opinions on Iran are actually good ones, in my view, because they are in effect a blurry curve ball. Iran has had diplomacy on the table for quite some time now - how could they complain if the U.S. were to agree? In my opinion there is no real danger in suggesting some kind of dialogue - it eases tensions that at this point are doing neither side any good.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

            We are having diplomacy with them. Iran has an ambassador to the UN that gets to make speeches and sit in on the discussions of measures agaisnt Iran. Lines of communication are open. We just aren't sending the President of the US to go sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for lunch.

            Granted, communication isn't accomplishing much because we have fundamental disagreements on the results we want. The US is interested in an Iran that doesn't include nukes. Iran is interested in a Middle East that doesn't include Israel. So I'm not sure exactly what sort of agreement we can reach on those premises...perhaps we should suggest they invade on foot instead?

            The IDF story is relevant because while Iran may or may not prove to be a danger to the world at large, they are most definately a danger to Israel. The leaders of Israel believe, with good cause, that the first thing Iran would do with a completed nuke is to aim it at them. So while we in the US have the luxury of spending lots of time in detailed negotiations looking for a peaceful solution, Israel may not have that option. If they determine among themselves that negotiations are failing, they will go ahead with a preemptive attack whether or not we agree to support them. I'm sure they would love to have our blessing on any such attack, but withholding that blessing won't actually stop them from acting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

              Withholding that blessing would involve not permitting Israeli planes through Iraq, thereby making any air attack more or less impossible. The US will be highly complicit (permitting overflight of Israeli aircraft) in any Israeli strike. Might as well do it ourselves.

              Israel has submarines with nuclear cruise missiles floating around. Israel is estimated to have about 150 nuclear weapons total. Any attack by Iran on Israel will be result in the destruction of both nations. Of course Israel would prefer the status quo, but you can't always get what you want. Or so they say.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...livery_systems

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho...le#Jericho_III - Jericho missile allows Israel to his Africa, Europe, Middle East, and much of Asia.
              A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

              "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                Suppose Israel asked us for approval of a strike on Iran, and suppose we turned them down. Suppose that Israel then launched the strike anyway, sending stealth planes over northern Iraq at night. Exactly how much effort do you think we would put into shooting them down? We don't precisely have sovereignty over Iraqi airspace to begin with.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                  Originally posted by Kerostasis View Post
                  We just aren't sending the President of the US to go sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for lunch.
                  Do think that's what Senator Obama literally meant when he said he would talk with Iran? You know full well that there are many levels of diplomatic engagement, ranging from direct high-level talks (the "red phone" to Moscow), to abject indifference (kind of what we have now). Talks are just one tactic in a larger strategy - Senator McCain in his endless web ads is quibbling over a tactic while saying nothing about actual strategy positions.

                  I don't think it's so outrageous to suggest that, as a strategy, we might want to move away from the current belligerent stance toward more normal relations. Or at least defuse the current situation by stepping back and giving all parties a chance to breathe (cue ticking time bomb argument, etc). But whatever the decison, it has to be actively made by the president, and should involve the president's continuing efforts and attention.

                  No matter who becomes the next president, that person is going to inherit a diminished and dysfunctional State Department and diplomatic corps. Wrapping that institution around a coherent foreign policy is going to require a firm hand.
                  In game handle: Steel Scion
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                    All mostly valid points, but so far as I can tell no one has offered any reasons for the U.S. to continue its 'loudmouth' diplomacy with Iran - like why 'leak' the IAF drill story? Granted, we don't know the circumstances, but it seems to be in keeping with the U.S. administration wanting to chide the press every few weeks in keeping Iran on the 'threat' list. My point is this is not only unnecessary (we all get it already), but harmful both in terms of long term hope of peace as well as oil prices. I'm arguing that quieting down would be a smart move right now. Do you agree or disagree?

                    Kero and others - make no mistake, Israel will destroy any Iranian nuclear weaponry before it is active. They have said they will seek American input, but not permission. After all, American officials apparently didn't condone the Syrian strike, yet it went ahead regardless.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                      At least we're not IED'ing them on the streets of Tehran. We've got some wiggle room yet from my perspective.
                      New to TG?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                        I'm sorry but you guys have completely lost your minds if you think that applying ANY pressure to Iran to prevent their acquiring nukes is unreasonable. Seriously. How about Hezbollah? Would it be unreasonable for us to "bully" them if they seemed close to getting nukes? Chavez? Sudan?

                        Is there no nation on earth whose side you will not take in any dispute (about Nuclear Weapons!!!) against your own?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                          Originally posted by Kerostasis View Post
                          Suppose Israel asked us for approval of a strike on Iran, and suppose we turned them down. Suppose that Israel then launched the strike anyway, sending stealth planes over northern Iraq at night. Exactly how much effort do you think we would put into shooting them down? We don't precisely have sovereignty over Iraqi airspace to begin with.
                          Not to mention that Israel has superior planes and pilots so engaging in an air battle might not be wise.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                            How so? According to Wikipedia they currently fly the F-15 and F-16, both of which they get from us. Nor do they appear to have the more current models or the stealth fighters mentioned in an earlier post.
                            |TG|Melee
                            Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: U.S. needs to back off Iran

                              Israel may have more experienced pilots, but the US has the best planes (F22 FTW, baby) and the best trained pilots.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X