Is Iran a threat to the US?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Hamas, Hezbollah :whoknows:1983 Lebanon bombing? Its not new that this regime in Tehran is in the terror business, they have been in it since 1979 (a good book on this is See No Evil by Bob Baer)

Saying Saudi Arabia produces terrorists is like saying the US does because of Tim McViegh

Sorry, you're right. I guess my point was more to the disposition of the Iranian people (and the rest of the people in the region).

[Smoot Point Really]

Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been incredible backdoor (and sometimes frontdoor) financiers of terrorism. Both are somewhat subtle about it, but there is a ton of money and energy being devoted to terrorist efforts and activities.

Besides, there are a lot more ways to be a terrorist than "suicide" terrorism.

In some ways, I think Iraq helps our Saudi problem... We were so dependent on Saudi Arabia for their military bases that we had to negotiate with them whenever we wanted to attack. They didn't even allow us to fly missions in Persian Gulf I from their air space. Now they are just one of three military bases we have in the Middle East. We can attack Iran from Iraq or Afghanistan if we have to.

I think people minimize the strategic advantage we have militarily in the region by removing Sadaam Hussein. It also isn't a coincidence that Libya gave up its chemical weapons program the day after we pulled Sadaam Hussein out of that spider hole.

[Sarge]

Come on now, your schtick is tired, old and done. Just because you spray paint a pile of crap gold doesn't make it gold Sarge.

BTW, how has that worked so far? What have we done other than make Iran more powerful, us weaker in the region and allow them to get nukes???

Iran is more powerful than before Bush came to office? :laugh: You more than highlight the difference between people that realize an emerging threat and kids that think they know foreign policy. We are in a position now to bring Iran to their knees one way or another, thanks to current policy. Kids and liberals believe that talking to someone that really and truely believes that a 1000 year dead iman is going to climb up a well and bring islamic supremacy to the planet is a good idea

THose same libs and college kids seem to think that allowing someone with such delusions to have nuclear weapons is swell idea as well

[Burgold]

Burgold, I'd still like you to answer the above question if you can (sorry, i mean "would like". Came off sounding rude)... Check out what Senator Obama said on Meet the Press last year:

1) No ability to create nuclear weapons

2) Acknowledge the Holocaust and stop talking about the destruction of Israel

3) Stop supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations

Yeah, I either missed it or didn't get there yet.

On the purest level I sometimes wonder why it's cool for us to have nukes and WMD's and other nations aren't. On a practical level I'd answer it's because I trust me and don't trust them.

2) I don't think Iran should have to acknowledge the Holocaust for us to talk with them. I think they are idiots for denying it. There's too much evidence and too much reality for them to pretend history never happened. Still, if they want to pretend I wouldn't make that a back-breaker.

As to the value of talking before pre-conditions are met... this is sort of what I think.

People have very different conversations face to face. It's just human nature to be more reasonable in person than on paper or through any one way medium. We gain cues in body language, tone and manner. Most of us, including them are trained to be polite. We're much tougher on paper. I think face to face, you'd have a slightly easier time getting them to bend.

For example, it seems recently that a number of my attempts at humor are being taken as angry political statements. See the Media hero poll. I think some of these confusions disappear simply by having direct communication.

Now, I think the value of these talks is very, very limited. I would expect no accomplishments from the talks other than perhaps building a relationship. But by talking directly away from cameras and the press, our leaders will not need to sound Presidential or need to say things in a way to impress/calm their populations. Again, I don't expect any talks would be fruitful, but I would be hopeful that it would at least allow us to become humans again versus strictly enemies or antagonists.

That's not much, but it couldn't do much harm and might have benefits down the road.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Sorry, you're right. I guess my point was more to the disposition of the Iranian people (and the rest of the people in the region).

I agree with that

[Smoot Point Really]

For example, it seems recently that a number of my attempts at humor are being taken as angry political statements. See the Media hero poll. I think some of these confusions disappear simply by having direct communication.

Thanks for taking the time to formulate a very good response. I may not agree, but I appreciate the candor. I like disagreement when people brandish their sense of humor. I'd rather see people throw around high-brow insults with a smile on their face than angry and dull half-wit responses.

Anyway, I asked for your opinion because I respect your ability to respond respectfully and can appreciate honest disagreement, even if a few harsh criticisms are exchanged with the smirks we all occasionally deserve.

[Burgold]

I was talking to some Extremers I know and we had all felt that some of the cordiality had disappeared recently. Maybe we're just entering that Sargasso Sea part of the offseason and all our tempers are short. Still, recently I think I've noticed a slightly angrier and grimmer tone. Especially, in political threads.

That being said, I've enjoyed our exchanges and the fact that have been wrong most of the time is very comforting and reassuring in such a screwy and unsure world.

[chomerics]

Iran is more powerful than before Bush came to office? :laugh: You more than highlight the difference between people that realize an emerging threat and kids that think they know foreign policy. We are in a position now to bring Iran to their knees one way or another, thanks to current policy.

Oh really? And why have we not yet Sarge? Because of the debil libwals?

Kids and liberals believe that talking to someone that really and truely believes that a 1000 year dead iman is going to climb up a well and bring islamic supremacy to the planet is a good idea

THose same libs and college kids seem to think that allowing someone with such delusions to have nuclear weapons is swell idea as well

Who said I think it is a good idea they have nukes? i never said it, never even implied it, but don't let the truth get in the way of your typical ignorant rant where you say I believe something that is not true, then prove how ludicrous it is. . . oh wait, you're doing that again :doh:

Doesn't it ever bother you that you are always wrong Sarge? BTW, where are the WMDs you promised us? Still in Syria? :laugh:

[MDRedskinsFan]

I was talking to some Extremers I know and we had all felt that some of the cordiality had disappeared recently. Maybe we're just entering that Sargasso Sea part of the offseason and all our tempers are short. Still, recently I think I've noticed a slightly angrier and grimmer tone. Especially, in political threads.

That being said, I've enjoyed our exchanges and the fact that have been wrong most of the time is very comforting and reassuring in such a screwy and unsure world.

I agree completely. I think both sides of the table on this board have the ability to learn from the other side on these issues. The point is to debate and learn more about each other's point of view. I know I learn on a daily basis, whether I agree with someone or I want to beat their face in.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I was talking to some Extremers I know and we had all felt that some of the cordiality had disappeared recently. Maybe we're just entering that Sargasso Sea part of the offseason and all our tempers are short. Still, recently I think I've noticed a slightly angrier and grimmer tone. Especially, in political threads.

That being said, I've enjoyed our exchanges and the fact that have been wrong most of the time is very comforting and reassuring in such a screwy and unsure world.

**** you Burgold, how dare you call me short tempered you piece of ****

:tantrum::redpunch::tantrum:

[Burgold]

I love the temper tantrum smiley. Good job.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I love the temper tantrum smiley. Good job.

But seriously, you do have a good point, ESers have been a bit short lately.

Kumbaya..

:grouphug:

[twa]

However, there is an honest argument that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia were all more dangerous and more real bases for terrorism and their supporters than Iraq in 2002-3.

I agree with this(I especially wish Syria would have been addressed,but they feel isolation will work ),of course SA is basically a no go as it is a rather special situation in that military action would provoke severe reactions unlike any we have seen... Ol Saud made himself a hell of a deal there.

Which leaves us with Iran,who it is hoped will see reason and be bought off.(I doubt it)

Iraq does have a effect on all of the above though(long term) and Saddam was rapidly expanding in covert ops and possible alliances...besides,ya gotta start somewhere.

[jpyaks3]

I would have to say not directly, their growing influence in the region is disconcerting but I wouldnt call them a threat.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Just remember that Iran is shi'ite, about 70% of Iraq is shi'ite. The shi'ites were oppressed under Saddam who was a Sunni.

Iran doesn't have many allies in the region because they are a Shi'ite state and Sunni's and Shi'ites don't really get along.

Someone correct me if im wrong but I don't think Iran has a single "friend" in the region. Soon they will probably have Iraq.

[twa]

Someone correct me if im wrong but I don't think Iran has a single "friend" in the region. Soon they will probably have Iraq.

Syria is allied with them,I don't know that I would call them friends though,more like partners in crime

They are not really making a lot of friends in Iraq lately.

You might keep in mind Iraq might just have larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia,plus the ethnic majority is Arab(which makes the Shia 60% less uniform in alliances )

Do you think they will give over control of hundreds of billions of $???

If so you don't know Arabs well

There is of course going to be a close relationship and trade(which already exists) and hopefully a moderating influence.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

You might keep in mind Iraq might just have larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia,plus the ethnic majority is Arab(which makes the Shia 60% less uniform in alliances )

Im not quite sure what you are saying.

Iran is Shi'ite, but there ethnicity is Persian. Iraq's majority is Shi'ite but they are Arab. Am I wrong on this?

Saudi Arabia has twice as much Oil as Iraq does. Its got the most in the world with Russia 2nd and Iraq 3rd. Its called the oil kingdom for a reason

Interesting article

the US must accommodate Iran as a new Middle East leader and deal with the new Shiite bloc which is beginning to flex its muscles. Scott Sullivan takes issue with Nasr in this article, copied below, arguing that Nasrallah, Asad, and Muqtadda al-Sadr will emerge as a new Arab bloc within the Shiite alliance to counter-balance Iran's drive for leadership in the region.

The implication is that Arab nationalism remains a galvanizing force, even in the face of religion. If Bashar al-Asad emerges as the leader of such an alliance (he is the only one who heads a state among them), Syria would gain important leverage in mediating the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It would also potentially make him a key player in mediating the conflict between Israel and Iran.

This is very provocative, but little suggests that either Washington or Israel has the foresight to assist the emergence of such an Arab-Shiite bloc, not to mention the diplomatic skill to then accommodate it sufficiently in order to dull the force of Iranian meddling in the region. Two headlines in today's papers make it clear that Israel is heading in the opposite direction: Israeli Foreign Minister Rules Out Peace Talks With Syria and the London Times article this Sunday entitled, "Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria," suggesting Israeli leaders are coming up with contingency plans for attacking both Syria and Iran.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have to take the lead in feeling out Asad and Nasrallah to see what possibility exists for their trimming Iran's sails. That will be the only way to preserve a modicum of Arab unity in the region. Massoud Derhally argues in his article, "The Rise of Shiites" that Saudi Arabia has been reforming its anti-Shiite, Wahhabi doctrine in order to ensure that its Shiite citizens remain loyal to the monarchy and resist Iranian temptations. Is it possible that Riyadh may generalize this policy to the rest of the Arab World in order to keep Arab nationalism a more powerful loyalty than religion?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Iran and Pakistan have very good relations, and have had that since partition and the Mossadagh era

[twa]

Im not quite sure what you are saying.

Iran is Shi'ite, but there ethnicity is Persian. Iraq's majority is Shi'ite but they are Arab. Am I wrong on this?

Saudi Arabia has twice as much Oil as Iraq does. Its got the most in the world with Russia 2nd and Iraq 3rd. Its called the oil kingdom for a reason

Interesting article

Iran is barely over 50% Persian,but yes Iraq is largely Arab.

As to the oil,you must mean 'proven' reserves,there is quite a bit of speculation on just how much is in Iraq

Iraq has ‘more crude oil’ than Saudi Arabia

By Agencies on Friday, February 29 , 2008

http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/2008/03/02/some-claim-iraqi-oil-potential-is-enormous/

You have a link to that article?...it sounds like some Syrian wishful thinking.

[twa]

Iran and Pakistan have very good relations, and have had that since partition and the Mossadagh era

Yep, and China,Venezuela and Russia do as well...not sure it is to the friend level,but certainly friendly.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Iran is barely over 50% Persian,but yes Iraq is largely Arab.

As to the oil,you must mean 'proven' reserves,there is quite a bit of speculation on just how much is in Iraq

Iraq has ‘more crude oil’ than Saudi Arabia

By Agencies on Friday, February 29 , 2008

http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/2008/03/02/some-claim-iraqi-oil-potential-is-enormous/

You have a link to that article?...it sounds like some Syrian wishful thinking.

Article: Your right about the Syrian wishfulness

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2006/09/whither-arab-shiites.htm

Yes I was talking about reserves. I don't pretend to know much about crude oil and reserves. I don't really even know what that means really:D

I think it is a State secret as to how much Saudi Arabia has. I am pretty sure know one outside Saudi Arabia knows exactly how much.