Iran Invasion soon ?

[Equinox]

...

If I am twisting your words I can assure you it's not intentional.

It's not as simple as the US being able to do whatever it wants. Because it can't. But this has everything to do with other factors, and very little to do with legality. The problem here is that you keep viewing it in the context of it being legal or illegal. Simply, the US has the power, Iran doesn't. Which is why the US has no need to make concessions etcetera, beyond what it feels like to expedite the solution of the issue.

Once again on the evidence or proof: all the proof they need is that it's believed Iran's nuclear industry may pose a threat to their people or their interests in the future. It isn't a matter of 'they haven't done the crime yet', it's a matter of whether they may or may not be a threat in the future. And it has nothing to do with committing a crime, I would seriously suggest you step as far as you can away from anything legal when trying to understand what they are doing.

And yes, the Iranians are just as justified at defending themselves as the US or Israel, even if this means building nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for them however, they are on the wrong side of the dominant world power, without the strength to back that up.

And perhaps I used the wrong phrase, but you have been applying a double-standard to Iran and the US/Israel in regards to their actions, while I can understand trying to be fair and not automatically siding with the US, if you are going to be fair to one you should be fair to all. Granted, it may just be the way you have been posting that has given me that impression.

As to the cost of any possible war... that is entirely dependent as to how it plays out. I seriously doubt that it will be anything like Iraq or Afghanistan unless the US takes leave of it's senses. No doubt they'll avoid putting troops on the ground as much as possible. And really, how can the US be wrong if it attacks Iran based upon the risk-assessment that Iran and it's nuclear industry will be a credible threat in the future?

That doesn't make the US right, and Iran wrong. But morality is subjective, as are state interests...

 

[Beatmaster]

If I am twisting your words I can assure you it's not intentional.

It's not as simple as the US being able to do whatever it wants. Because it can't. But this has everything to do with other factors, and very little to do with legality. The problem here is that you keep viewing it in the context of it being legal or illegal. Simply, the US has the power, Iran doesn't. Which is why the US has no need to make concessions etcetera, beyond what it feels like to expedite the solution of the issue.

Once again on the evidence or proof: all the proof they need is that it's believed Iran's nuclear industry may pose a threat to their people or their interests in the future. It isn't a matter of 'they haven't done the crime yet', it's a matter of whether they may or may not be a threat in the future. And it has nothing to do with committing a crime, I would seriously suggest you step as far as you can away from anything legal when trying to understand what they are doing.

And yes, the Iranians are just as justified at defending themselves as the US or Israel, even if this means building nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for them however, they are on the wrong side of the dominant world power, without the strength to back that up.

And perhaps I used the wrong phrase, but you have been applying a double-standard to Iran and the US/Israel in regards to their actions, while I can understand trying to be fair and not automatically siding with the US, if you are going to be fair to one you should be fair to all. Granted, it may just be the way you have been posting that has given me that impression.

As to the cost of any possible war... that is entirely dependent as to how it plays out. I seriously doubt that it will be anything like Iraq or Afghanistan unless the US takes leave of it's senses. No doubt they'll avoid putting troops on the ground as much as possible. And really, how can the US be wrong if it attacks Iran based upon the risk-assessment that Iran and it's nuclear industry will be a credible threat in the future?

That doesn't make the US right, and Iran wrong. But morality is subjective, as are state interests...

It's not as simple as the US being able to do whatever it wants. Because it can't. But this has everything to do with other factors, and very little to do with legality. The problem here is that you keep viewing it in the context of it being legal or illegal. Simply, the US has the power, Iran doesn't. Which is why the US has no need to make concessions etcetera, beyond what it feels like to expedite the solution of the issue.

While i do understand your reply i ask you to read my reply to 2cents.

As you said:

How can the US be wrong if it attacks Iran based upon the risk-assessment that Iran and it's nuclear industry will be a credible threat in the future?

So if this is true what you are saying that for example (Hypothetical speaking) The US has the right under the increasing risk-assessment to for example attack China, Russia, Pakistan, India to name a few who are being considered as a VERY credible threat now and in the future.

What you seem to forget there is a HUGE difference between national security and oversees interests.
And Iran is not in the direct sphere of the US, so to speak its not like the Cuba crisis where Russia did place weapons in direct striking range of the US mainland.
So the whole national security thing does not fly here.

So if you say that i have been applying double standards then everyone on this forum has in his topic.

The US has very little say in a foreign region 15000 miles away.
US does not have any say, power or legit reason to attack a foreign nation.
Even economic interests can be thrown away, as the international community has even bigger interests and perhaps even more legit reasons to claim regional influence,
Act first ask questions later is not going to work in this situation.
Lets forget the moral thing for a second....
Sovereignty of a nation MUST be respected at all times.
And if ANY nation does not honor that then you are in for some really serious problems.
And regardless if you are a small nation like Luxembourg, or a big ass nation as US, Russia and China the UN security council will come down hard on you.
So on one hand it just or unjust does not matter but international agreements have way more weight then you think.

 

[Equinox]

...

Yes, the US does have the right to attack any of those nations you mentioned... except that you'd get different results because each has different circumstances attached. China is most certainly a greater potential risk than Iran in the long run, but there are also much greater costs attached to any preventative strike. Probably not worth it. It may not be worth the US's time to attack Iran either, but that's up to them to decide.

And the world is the US's sphere of influence. The middle-east is certainly an important area of concern, how much of the world's oil supply comes from there again? National security is whatever a government feels inclined to identify as important to their national security, whether that is terrorism, conventional attack, climate change or pink bunny-rabbits it doesn't really matter.

Would the UNSC do anything? The US can veto them. Problem solved. Russia probably wouldn't care too much. After all, increased oil prices are only going to benefit them. China would probably be rather annoyed, but it'd be more concerned with getting/keeping oil shipments heading it's way, as cheap as possible. France and the UK? Well, chances are they'd be helping the US.

I'm aware of how much weight international agreements can have... but I am also quite aware of how little any country is going to care if doing the opposite is going to better serve their interests. Especially the US, who can and have shrugged aside agreements if it has felt the need. Has consequences, definitively, but obviously accepting those are better than the alternative. If they decide to do so.

On that note: I have no idea what we are arguing about anymore.

 

[My2Cents]

Points taken...
Forgive me that i do not comment on everything you said, and for the most part you come up with very valid points.
But personally i believe that i brought up some valid points as well.
But short said i think we both can agree on a simple thing.
The whole situation is a very big mess and we should expect from those in power that they have their act together and use their brains, however it seems that none is keen to do so.

What do you feel would constitute ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ proof to confirm an Iranian weapons program?

Was there supposed to be a reply here? All that shows up is a quote from paragraph 50 of gov2012-9. Don’t see how that answers the question “What do you feel would constitute ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ proof to confirm an Iranian weapons program?”

Please read this and specially the summary section
Source IAEA 2012:

Summary of Summary (section L)
Para 50. – Cannot conclude the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful because Iran refuses to cooperate.
Para 51. – Cannot resolve previous issues [relative to weapons related research] (see http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf) because Iran refuse to cooperate.
Para 52. and 53. Are just complaints about Iran not shutting down their enrichment and heavy water programs.
Para 54 – is the Director General complaining that Iran will not cooperate in resolving the issues.
Para 55. – is just a closing

What right does the US have and what right does Israel have to question the IAEA?
IF there is any proof to be found then the IAEA is the only legit way of doing so.
This all can be done without bombing Iran, Without creating a regional war and without all the sanctions.

So refusal to cooperate with the IAEA is the equivalent of proof of innocence?

However Israel insists (And by force if needed) upon the demand that Iran must halt the whole program peaceful or not, and for that Israel has NO authority.

Actually the demand is in the form of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions.

regardless if there is a double agenda or not and regardless if one side is wrong or right there is a key role for the international community here, they have the legal power to force Israel to halt any military strike options as a attack upon Iran is infact a act of war, and according to UN regulations this can be stopped by law.
And Israel will have to honor that.

So why on earth would the US allow Israel to attack Iran if it wishes to do so?

Well, the US has not allowed Israel to do so yet, so there is no proof that the US would do so. And frankly, I doubt that Israel can without at least some Arab assistance. US assistance would be nice, but if allowed to use airbases in one of the Gulf states, is not necessary.

And why would the US be put into the direct danger of becoming involved into this war?

Iran has declared that if the facilities are attacked that they would close the Gulf to shipping. The US will not permit that, so there is a potential for conflict. ‘War’ might be a little excessive as a description unless the US deploys conventional ground forces. There will, of course, be some Special Forces in Iran hunting for the cruise missile launchers, like the SCUD hunts in Desert Storm.

The US can just call Israel and tell them to stand down, regardless how strong the Israeli lobby in the US is it will stand down if Obama insists on it.
They even can demand a Non Aggression Promise from Israel to have them remain under the protection of the US. (If played down hard)

Israel does not trust the protection of the US, and with good reason. Push them to hard and they may decide that they have to go it alone, then you have no control at all.

Doing so means that Iran is more willing to discuss things.
Not saying its good or right but you cannot expect to have Iran jump on commando with a virtual gun pointed at them.....so to speak.
Iran has said it would follow the IAEA if Israel backs off,

Iran has been using the North Korean model for negotiations. Agree to something, then ignore, repudiate, or backtrack. Then they demand more concessions as a price to return to negotiations. And repeat the process. Other countries got fed up with North Korea’s behavior, and then Iran. Neither is seen as a credible negotiator anymore.

and it said it would halt its enrichment efforts if the international community is willing to provide them with the fuel they need for civilian applications.
And as i said in my previous post thats a hell of a lot better deal then going into a armed conflict.

Actually, Iran has said repeatedly that they will not agree to halt enrichment under any circumstance.

There have been agreements to stop enrichment in return for fuel before, Iran went back on at least one after signing. But if Iran will agree to stop enrichment immediately, with full access by the IAEA to check of course, a new one could be crafted quickly, or more likely the old one for a new signature. Iran rejects the condition of an immediate stop to their enrichment, but based on past performance, without that condition Iran will just be talking to kill time.

 

[Beatmaster]

....

Jup those little lines you posted about the Atomic agency not being able to see if the whole program is peacefull.

However the summary:

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear
facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary
cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude
that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

Is clear enough....
And so far its simple the US has nothing, Israel has even less and they know it.
Without a clear report from A-Agency they have nothing.

So refusal to cooperate with the IAEA is the equivalent of proof of innocence?

No but its not proving anything else either.
But you seem to forget what i said earlier:

And regardless if Iran is not 100% working with IAEA demands what Israel is doing and demanding at this point is by all means criminal to the bone.
So if Israel would back off it would open the window for Iran to comply with IAEA as they stopped complying due the fact that if a NON NPT member (Israel) can demand by force that a program must be stopped while that same nation has a program on its own and a 400 nukes big stockpile, then Iran does not have to follow the IAEA inspections either.

Iran did allow the IAEA from the start to investigate everything.
Till Israel started to act funny.,

So you are right and no you are wrong at the same time.

Actually the demand is in the form of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions.

True, however next to the UN Israel has its own demands....

Well, the US has not allowed Israel to do so yet, so there is no proof that the US would do so. And frankly, I doubt that Israel can without at least some Arab assistance. US assistance would be nice, but if allowed to use airbases in one of the Gulf states, is not necessary.

Who said that Israel would even want the US to allow it? Israel made clear that it would mean little difference to them if the US agrees or not.
If they deem in necessary they will hit Iran and as has been pointed out the US will back it either way.
The only way Israel can be stopped from attacking is by putting the protection umbrella for them on pauze...

Israel does not trust the protection of the US, and with good reason. Push them to hard and they may decide that they have to go it alone, then you have no control at all.

They have used the US in the past against Iraq as well and now they are doing it against Iran and we both know it.

Actually let me say this, i do not care who is right or wrong here as the situation is beyond our control anyway...just watch CNN and see what the end result is going to be lol.
But fact remains and i said this many times before Israel needs to tone down and if they want to go in alone, then ok....go for it but if it starts raining missiles see how well they can dodge it.
With Syria, Hezzbolah and Iran being hostile towards them its going to be very busy times for Israel and they will remember their actions against Iran.
Not saying they would lose not saying they would win, but if there was ever a remote change that Iran would make a bomb then Israel has just created that moment, and then everything we both talked about does not matter anymore.
And thats the core of the problem.
Let the AIEA do its job let the international community play their part and see whats next.
But the constant pushing by Israel and their daily newspapers chanting WAR destruction and evil Iran is imo just as BS as a mullah who says that Israel should be wiped of the map....

 

[the concerned]

But isn't Iran suspected of stiring trouble with demonstrations in bahrain and would love to bring down the saudi royal's,so israel is not the only target we need to worry about. Also doesn't Saudi arabia have chinese built IRBM's with conventional warheads if you let Iran develop nuclear Saudi's will definetly follow.

 

[RobWilliams]

But as long as Iran refuses to give in the IAEC inspectors that access no one believes them, not even the Russians and Chinese.

That's the baseline, in my eyes they cannot justify that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes until they give the IAEA that access.

@theconcerned

Also doesn't Saudi arabia have chinese built IRBM's with conventional warheads if you let Iran develop nuclear Saudi's will definetly follow.

AFAIK that's another big issue, fears regarding if Iran does get nuclear weapons then it will begin a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

 

[My2Cents]

Without a clear report from A-Agency they have nothing.

[sarc]No problem. The US can just invade, and massacre every living Iranian. Then as long as they don’t allow an official ICC investigation team to poke around no one can ever prove charges of genocide, or anything else. The oil companies will love it.

Sweet …[/sarc]

But you seem to forget what i said earlier:

And regardless if Iran is not 100% working with IAEA demands what Israel is doing and demanding at this point is by all means criminal to the bone.
So if Israel would back off it would open the window for Iran to comply with IAEA as they stopped complying due the fact that if a NON NPT member (Israel) can demand by force that a program must be stopped while that same nation has a program on its own and a 400 nukes big stockpile, then Iran does not have to follow the IAEA inspections either.

Why do you keep flogging this dead horse. Israel is not the one demanding compliance, the UN Security Council is.

Iran did allow the IAEA from the start to investigate everything.
Till Israel started to act funny.,

Well, if it took Israel acting funny to get Iran to allow the IAEA in, maybe if Israel acts real nasty Iran will let the IAEA do their job?

Who said that Israel would even want the US to allow it? Israel made clear that it would mean little difference to them if the US agrees or not.
If they deem in necessary they will hit Iran and as has been pointed out the US will back it either way.

Could you come up with a specific quote where the US announced that they would back up Israel militarily if they attacked Iran? All I can find is general words of support, like “the US supports the existence of the state of Israel”.

Let the AIEA do its job let the international community play their part and see whats next.

Sorry, but Iran is not allowing the IAEA to do their job. So what do you do about that?

But the constant pushing by Israel and their daily newspapers chanting WAR destruction and evil Iran is imo just as BS as a mullah who says that Israel should be wiped of the map....

Israel’s daily newspapers? Are you claiming that Israelis control all the world’s press organizations?

p.s. News organizations always push for war because it is easier to sell stories that way. Bad news sells, good news does not.

 

[My2Cents]

But isn't Iran suspected of stiring trouble with demonstrations in bahrain and would love to bring down the saudi royal's,so israel is not the only target we need to worry about. Also doesn't Saudi arabia have chinese built IRBM's with conventional warheads if you let Iran develop nuclear Saudi's will definetly follow.

It is rumored that Saudi Arabia underwrote the Pakistani nuclear program with a promise that they could get warheads if they ever needed them. Makes a lot more sense than creating a whole program from scratch. If so, Saudi Arabia will probably buy the missiles to carry the warheads from Pakistan as well, to avoid integration issues from attaching Pakistani warheads to Chinese missiles.

Those Chinese IRBM must be over 20 years old, liquid fueled, and probably not had much maintenance. They are also reported to be very inaccurate when new.

 

[the concerned]

the US should have continued developing the kenetic energy warhead they where going to put on the Trident missiles .The speed and size of those missiles would have created one hell of a bunker buster

 

[STURM]

The Iranians are certainly not to be trusted to provide their own, and short of that you'd need your own people with unfettered access to be certain what was going on.

And the Americans and Israelis can be trusted to provide an objective report? The only other organisation is the IAEA, and what happens if the facts they provide don't fit in with what Israel and the U.S. wants, as has been the case before?

Once again I will point out that you are eager to portray Iran as a rational actor, but are ignoring that Israel and the US are too. Also ignoring that whatever justification the Iranians may have, the US and Israeli's have too. They also happen to have the bigger stick.

I would like to add here that based on a number of self serving disastrous policies in the Middle East, neither the U.S. and Israel can be described as rational actors, in fact no country can. Nations will act in their bests interests regardless of whether it's contrary to what they preach or whether its smacks of hypocrisy double standards or logic. Justification aside, it is not Iran that is imposing its will or pressing its demands on another country.

Russia probably wouldn't care too much. After all, increased oil prices are only going to benefit them.

On the contrary, Russia would care a hell of a lot, because it is extremely disturbed with the way the West is having its way in the Middle East, which is effecting Russia's interests. Russia's use of the veto over Syria and the way it is handling Syria, which is completely at odds with how the West would want it to react, is a major indication that it intends to play a more assertive role in the Middle East, maintaining its core interests, irrespective of what the West thinks.

I just want to ask... why would the world be furious? A large majority of the world (essentially all the important parts, bar Russia/China) have in some way or other denounced Iran, and some such as the EU have issues sanctions.

And that does not mean that the 'large majority of the world' would welcome another blindly led Western war on yet another country in the Middle East, which has the potential to to create a bigger mess in the Middle East with global consequences.

Israel does not trust the protection of the US, and with good reason. Push them to hard and they may decide that they have to go it alone, then you have no control at all.

It is highly doubtful that if Israel thought it would not have the support of the U.S., if things turned out badly, that it would launch strikes on its own. Israel indeed does not trust anyone with its security, but it does enjoy the unconditional support of the U.S. - and as a result it knows it can get way with a lot of things.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-will-drag-us-into-war-with-iran-7579420.html

And let me ask you, from a U.S. perspective, whose interests should come first, that of the U.S. or Israel's or will anyone claim that they are intertwined? I ask you this because a number of policies that the U.S. has adopted in support of Israel has not been in the interests of the U.S., it has damaged American interests and its standing in the region.

And is it in America's interest to support or launch strikes against Iran or to continue to rely on diplomacy to reach a rapprochement with Iran, to seek a solution that would benefit both countries in the long term? I hope someone will not suggest next that no deal can be worked out with Iran as it is 'irrational' and 'evil' and is only waiting for the day when it can launch nukes at Israel and threaten the free world.

It is rumored that Saudi Arabia underwrote the Pakistani nuclear program with a promise that they could get warheads if they ever needed them. Makes a lot more sense than creating a whole program from scratch.

Which is not the case anymore following geo-political events of over the years. Saudi Arabia has since distanced itself from Pakistan over the nukes and is reported to have provided funding only at the initial stage of the Pakistan programme. For Saudi Arabia to continue being involved with Pakistan over the nukes would be damage its relations with Uncle Sam, - as you know relations with Uncle Sam form a very key element of Saudi policy, not only for regime survival but to ensure it's position as the leading most influential Arab country in the region, and as part of a cold war being engaged with Iran over the centuries old Sunni/Shia schism.

Those Chinese IRBM must be over 20 years old, liquid fueled, and probably not had much maintenance. They are also reported to be very inaccurate when new.

Prior to the signing of the contract, the Chinese made it absolutely clear that only conventional warheads would be supplied for the missiles that were acquired for possible use against Iran. Further details are in Prince Khalid's Desert Warrior. The U.S. only found out about it after viewing imagery of Chinese missile facilities and fount that they were bearded people at work there, the bearded people being Saudis who were being trained in China.

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/saudi-arabia/delivery-systems/

And what happens when the Sunni nations of the Persian Gulf acquire nuclear weapons because of a fear of a nuclear armed Shia Iran? Then the whole Middle East depends not on the stability of their rulers, but on which is the least stable. Israel is afraid of a nuclear armed Iran, the US is afraid of the whole Middle East (and its oil) going up in a series of nuclear explosions.

We keep hearing repeatedly about how the Iran possession of nukes will lead to the Arabs wanting to do the same. Yet no one has cared to mention who these countries are and more importantly, which of these countries that want nukes can actually afford it?? And given that Pakistan - which is in massive damage control mode following greater instability in the country and U.S. pressure due to the activities of the A.Q. Khan network] - will not export the technology and that North Korea, which now places more importance on regime survival than earning millions from the export of technology] has restarted talks with the U.S., just who exactly do these Sunni countries get their nukes from? The notion that the Iranians will readily hand over their nukes to just about any Islamic country or 'terrorist' for the sake of Islamic solidarity or because of common hatred of Israel [which doesn't exist] is absurd, a myth and only peddled by those who have no understanding of the historical factors behind these countries that still drive their actions today.

I would also like to repeat again, than upon closer, objective scrutiny, it is very obvious why, beyond it stated reason of fearing for its survival, why Israel would have clear, compelling reasons for wanting Iran or any other, even non-'fundamentalist' a 'stable' Arab countries, to have nukes. It has nothing to do with fears the Iranians will engage in the suicidal act of launching a nuclear tipped missile at Haifa or will enlist the help of 'terrorists' in smuggling in a device there for detonation in Israel but of Israel realising that losing its nuclear monopoly will fundamentally effect its foreign and security policy and how it deals with its neighbours, in a drastic manner. To believe that the main reason Israel does not want Iran to have nukes because, it fears a threat to its very existence, is too simplistic and gullible.

But isn't Iran suspected of stiring trouble with demonstrations in bahrain and would love to bring down the saudi royal's,so israel is not the only target we need to worry about. Also doesn't Saudi arabia have chinese built IRBM's with conventional warheads if you let Iran develop nuclear Saudi's will definetly follow.

Iran sees itself as the leader of those who follow the shia faith, and is very concerned about the treatment of its shia brethren in the Gulf States as well as other places such as Iraq and Afganistan. Other countries have also been suspected of ''stiring trouble'' with Iran in supporting Sunni dissident groups. Iran is not keen overthrowing the Saudi monarchy or any other Gulf monarchies, that is Al Qaeda.

Why Would Israel Attack Iran, Really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-chernus/israel-iran-war_b_1261295.html

The Case For Bombing Iran Is Quickly Collapsing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/20123219019858390.html

Iran Risks Playing Into The Hands Of Its Enemies

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ng-into-the-hands-of-its-enemies-6943213.html

 

[My2Cents]

the US should have continued developing the kenetic energy warhead they where going to put on the Trident missiles .The speed and size of those missiles would have created one hell of a bunker buster

Not as good as you would think. Turns out after that above 1kps hydrodynamic effects starts causing penetration to drop off, and by the time you get to 4kps adding velocity just makes the crater wider.

 

[Equinox]

...

That depends, but who said anything about the report being objective? Personally I would be more inclined to trust the US than the Iranians. As for the IAEA, their reports aren't exactly full of glowing praise for the Iranians, what they are saying isn't exactly contrary to supporting the US/Israel if they decide to do something?

You misunderstood what I was getting at. I was merely commenting that if you are going to portray the Iranians as rational then you need to portray the US/Israel as rational too. And what has imposing your will on something got to do with being rational?

And are you sure? Russia might be inclined to interfere in regards to Syria, but Iran? Sure they would be interested in stalling another Western advance into the Middle-East, but on the whole I don't think they'd do more than make conciliatory gestures on behalf of the Iranians, unless it's advantageous to do otherwise at the time. I seriously doubt they'd want to get into a confrontation over Iran with the West.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean the large majority of the world is going to do anything about it, which was my point. And of course there would be global consequences, but since when do consequences have to be all bad?

 

[Beatmaster]

That depends, but who said anything about the report being objective? Personally I would be more inclined to trust the US than the Iranians. As for the IAEA, their reports aren't exactly full of glowing praise for the Iranians are they, what they are saying isn't exactly contrary to supporting the US/Israel if they decide to do something?

You misunderstood what I was getting at. I was merely commenting that if you are going to portray the Iranians as rational then you need to portray the US/Israel as rational too. And what has imposing your will on something got to do with being rational?

And are you sure? Russia might be inclined to interfere in regards to Syria, but Iran? Sure they would be interested in stalling another Western advance into the Middle-East, but on the whole I don't think they'd do more than make conciliatory gestures on behalf of the Iranians, unless it's advantageous to do otherwise at the time. I seriously doubt they'd want to get into a confrontation over Iran with the West.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean the large majority of the world is going to do anything about it, which was my point. And of course there would be global consequences, but since when do consequences have to be all bad?

That depends, but who said anything about the report being objective? Personally I would be more inclined to trust the US than the Iranians. As for the IAEA, their reports aren't exactly full of glowing praise for the Iranians are they, what they are saying isn't exactly contrary to supporting the US/Israel if they decide to do something?

Who said that the report is not objective? And why would you be inclined to trust the US a bit more then Iran? Remember that you said that the US can do what they want because they got the bigger stick?
Well lets say for one second that you where right ok? And do you also remember what i said about the serious dangers and problems that would come from a preemptive attack by US or Israel upon Iran without having proof?
Just because they deemed it a threat and because they did believe that Iran is using its program as a cover to build the bomb?
I hope you remember because the following news comes directly from Reuters press agency and it does directly contradict everything the US and Israel have said about Iran, it even gives Iran a clean record again:

Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent

On a personal note here a direct quote i personally like ALOT:

The debate over air strikes, supercharged by Israel's anxiety and U.S. election-year politics, has raised the specter of the Iraq war. The White House justified that conflict on the grounds of weapons of mass destruction, as well as significant ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Both proved to be mirages.

Now imagine that those military actions would have taken place, o boy o boy what a diplomatic challenge would that have been for both US and Israel to talk them out of this one.
Not to mention what a million dollar gift it would be for Russia and China.
Ill bet they would VETO the living crap out of anything coming from the US for the next 50 years to come.
Not to mention how bad it would have been for US oversees interests and for their economy as well for the world economy.
So in this regard if this report is saying exactly what is says then the US and Israel have missed the ball AGAIN by miles.....
Now on a personal note, the US as somewhat leader of the world messing up again like this? I would assume that the US with all its power would have done a better job specially with all the lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan.
And this is exactly what i was trying to point out in all my previous posts, it does not matter if you got a bigger stick, it does not matter who is right or wrong, and it does not matter what has been said as evidence is KEY to justify the right to strike foreign nation.
And not honoring that simple international right has more implications then anything Iran could ever accomplish.
So having the bigger stick and having more power and being high ranked on the international scale also directly means the bigger they are the longer the way down when they fall.
And thats the fundamental difference between US/Israel and Iran.
To conclude that i said before proof me wrong, because as i mentioned earlier:
"Grave Concerns" alone under the pretext of national security and global stability is a smoke screen to justify any action and is not being used as a common sense thing but its used as a tool to get things done.

And all the credible evidence that has been presented till date are bits of pieces from a broken puzzle and put together to suit a greater agenda with potentially disastrous results for the receiving end.

And why do i say this? 1 week ago Obama did meet Benjamin N from Israel and during that meeting the evidence was still valid to suit their cause, and by releasing this report it turns out they knew all the way back to 2003 that Iran did not have a bomb program as it has been stopped, they do not want one and they are years away from even build a simple device.

Now my question is: Where was the info based upon when they said 2 weeks ago and one week ago that Iran would have a bomb by the end of this year?
While they knew from the start that this was NOT true.

So much for "grave concerns" and Risks of another cold war scenario...

Iran has been put down on public display as a very evil nation is has been accused of so called hard facts and they have been punished by heavy embargoes for what?
And i am not talking about the IAEA as they are justified to some degree as Iran refuses to give full acces, but all those other heavy sanctions put down by the US and Israeli diplomatic lobbyists because there was so called hard evidence on Iran is a credible world threat.....

I wonder what they have been smoking.




Cheers

 

[Equinox]

...

And the Americans and Israelis can be trusted to provide an objective report? The only other organisation is the IAEA, and what happens if the facts they provide don't fit in with what Israel and the U.S. wants, as has been the case before?

Er, there? ^ And that report doesn't exactly contradict anything I've said. I've never claimed the Iranians are building or have a nuclear weapon. Merely that the US/Israel are justified in attacking Iran to stop it if they deem it necessary. As that article said, the Israeli's believe a window for effective a preemptive strike is closing.

And yes, intelligence is key to attacking another country. You don't want to be wasting resources after all. And how is acting based upon national security a smoke screen? The Iranians if they are indeed building nuclear weapons are doing it based on their national security. The Israeli's if they attack are doing that based upon their national security.

We are seriously just going around in circles here. Especially because you don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing about the factual information of whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons or is building them, but that the US/Israel is justified in attacking Iran if they think they are a threat. Just as the Iranians are justified in building said weapons if they think they need to, to defend themselves.

 

[STURM]

We are seriously just going around in circles here. Especially because you don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing about the factual information of whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons or is building them, but that the US/Israel is justified in attacking Iran if they think they are a threat. Just as the Iranians are justified in building said weapons if they think they need to, to defend themselves.

We are indeed going around in circles here, but whether it's due to me not understanding at what you're trying to get or vice versa, is the question......

Er, there? ^ And that report doesn't exactly contradict anything I've said. I've never claimed the Iranians are building or have a nuclear weapon. Merely that the US/Israel are justified in attacking Iran to stop it if they deem it necessary. As that article said, the Israeli's believe a window for effective a preemptive strike is closing.

Who's said anything about contradictions? I was merely pointing out a fact that no matter what Iran does or what the IAEA says, if Israel and the U.S. was determined to strike at Iran, they could find ways or a smoking gun to justify their action. There's no argument from me that the U.S. and Israel is justified in attacking Iran - as being the world's only superpower and enjoying the unconditional support of the worlds only superpower give the U.S. and Israel all the justification they need . My argument is that the real reasons for wanting to strike at Iran are not stated publicly and that in attacking Iran, for the wrong reasons, could lead to another long term disaster, at the expense of others.

It is also my contention that rather than attacking Iran or condoning an attack on Iran, [which would be yet again another war waged on a Middle Eastern country for dubious self serving reasons] perhaps the U.S. would be doing itself, and the region, much, much more good by applying its energy and focus, and in engaging in real diplomacy and realpolitik, on trying to deal with the core reasons as to why Iran would feel threatened, as well as other longstanding issues that have plagued its relations with the Muslim world, such as the Palestinian/Israeli problem.

With regards to Russia, I was not implying that Russia would intervene in the strictest sense of the word but that due to Russian displeasure at what it perceives to be Western double standards with regards to Iran and Syria - both of which are countries of prime importance for Russia, not only for economic reasons - which is damaging to Russian interests, it could use other means to show it displeasure.

And of course there would be global consequences, but since when do consequences have to be all bad?

Unfortunately, with regards to the Middle East, the consequences of all wars or mini-wars, whether waged by the regional countries themselves or by out side powers, have proved to be not just bad but devastating for the people who actually live there.

Apart from the Libya/Egypt skirmishes, and maybe the short war fought between Jordan and Syria [Black September], name me one war in the region that did not lead to more instability or have bad consequences....... Or are you suggesting that strikes on Iran could actually have positive consequences - that's what we were told about Iraq in 2003, and see how bad that turn out to be for the locals and the region.

http://ericmargolis.com/2012/03/obama-says-no-to-the-lobby/

 

[Beatmaster]

Er, there? ^ And that report doesn't exactly contradict anything I've said. I've never claimed the Iranians are building or have a nuclear weapon. Merely that the US/Israel are justified in attacking Iran to stop it if they deem it necessary. As that article said, the Israeli's believe a window for effective a preemptive strike is closing.

First of all i did not say that the report contradict you or did contradict what you said.
Again read the post properly and do not twist my words around.
And yes the article says that the window is closing, but so is the window closing to Israel and the US as well.
I am going to repeat one more time that both US and Israel do not have any grounds to attack Iran, they do not have any legitimate reason to do so.
And on top of that your comment about national security and future threat is a clueless statement because there are loads of nations out there who pose a even bigger danger to the national security and they are NOT being attacked.
The one of the biggest reasons for that is that the US (Or any nation for that matter) has to respect the sovereign right of a nation, and attacking a nation without presenting the case to the UN security council and without having legitimate reasons / evidence equals a act of war.
And doing so will have incredible serious implications to in this case the US.
Your motivation to say that a danger to national security is enough to strike and that a bigger stick will justify a attack leads me to believe that you do not have a clue about international law, international politics and it does point out that you do not have considered what might happen if a nation would do such a act.
Everyone on this forum can point out that you are wrong period.

And yes, intelligence is key to attacking another country. You don't want to be wasting resources after all. And how is acting based upon national security a smoke screen? The Iranians if they are indeed building nuclear weapons are doing it based on their national security. The Israeli's if they attack are doing that based upon their national security.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli"]Casus belli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
But let me make it easy on you:

Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima Ratio) and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so. In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.

Countries need a public justification for attacking another country. This justification is needed to galvanize internal support for the war, as well as gain the support of potential allies.

UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except as a means of defending themselves against aggression, or unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries which embark on wars of aggression. In effect, this means that countries in the modern era must have a plausible casus belli for initiating military action, or risk UN sanctions or intervention

We are seriously just going around in circles here. Especially because you don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing about the factual information of whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons or is building them, but that the US/Israel is justified in attacking Iran if they think they are a threat. Just as the Iranians are justified in building said weapons if they think they need to, to defend themselves.

Then stop running in circles.
There are multiple people explaining you that you are wrong what part don't you understand? omg.
And in regards of STRUM his post i believe he made it made pretty clear to you.

 

[Equinox]

...

STURM, that wasn't directed at you. Your quote was there in answer to Beatmaster.

Seeing as I don't want you to think you've wasted your time replying, I'll bite anyway: I don't disagree with what you are saying. The US and Israel would no doubt be able to make up some reason to attack Iran if they needed, but I don't think they would in this situation; what they have now, in my opinion, would probably be enough to justify strikes on Iran. Not an invasion--but an attack. And yes, the US could no doubt be called selfish... but then states pretty much always are. People are the same. They look after themselves and their own first. Whether that viewpoint is actually what is best is another question.

I can understand Syria, in regards to Russia. But from what I know (and to be honest, I haven't looked too recently or deeply) Iran and Russia have quite a few issues, despite on paper at least, appearing rather close. I just don't see Russia making that much noise over an attack on Iran, especially if the US does have a legitimate reason. I'm sure they'd try and use the situation to their advantage, but I just wonder whether that would be supporting Iran, the US or staying out of it. On the matters of consequences, I wasn't inferring that they'd be positive, just that they don't have to be negative, or without some form of good end.

...

No you didn't but unless I am wrong you did provide it as part of an argument to prove me wrong? Hence my commenting that it didn't contradict what I was saying.

Once again, if Israel or the US attack Iran because they think their nuclear program will be a threat, how is that not a legitimate reason? They probably couldn't justify attacking for the hell of it, but in the name of their lasting interests? Of course, especially if it happens to be true. States have been doing the same for a long, long time.

Anyway, yes, other nations are probably going to be a greater threat to the US in the future than Iran. If I recall correctly, I answered that several posts ago? It is a question of whether it is worth it. You keep mentioning sovereignty, but correct me if I am wrong, don't you yourself consider that a secondary consideration if it came to saving lives? At least that was what I understood from your arguments in the Syria thread. While no doubt not as noble a reason, dismissing the sovereignty of another nation to protect your own interests etc is still a reason to do so. I also believe that the ability for a state to use force as it believes necessary is part of that very same sovereignty, though I might be wrong.

And no, I understand quite well. But I also know that power tends to be the deciding factor. The saying goes something like 'Might is Right', yes? International law and norms are important, and it is generally within a countries best interests to comply with them, but that doesn't mean that they have to, or always will. Powerful nations especially don't have to concern themselves with it so much. A quick search will bring up the many times the US, Russia, China, etc etc, have ignored them when they have felt the need.

And there are only two people telling me I am wrong, and even then you both are putting forth a slightly different view point, rather than facts that invalidate my arguments. Just as what I am saying certainly isn't proving you wrong, just presenting a different perspective. I would rather like to stop arguing about the same points over and over though, I don't know about you, but it is getting rather tiresome. If you do wish to continue however, I shall oblige.

 

[STURM]

Just as what I am saying certainly isn't proving you wrong, just presenting a different perspective. I would rather like to stop arguing about the same points over and over though, I don't know about you, but it is getting rather tiresome. If you do wish to continue however, I shall oblige.

I would like to think that we are not arguing but debating . We seem to agree on a lot of things but perhaps see things from different perspectives?

 

[Equinox]

I would like to think that we are not arguing but debating . We seem to agree on a lot of things but perhaps see things from different perspectives?

Quite. And yes, that seems to be the case. Agree to disagree and all that other wonderful stuff I suppose.