A Thought on Iran

What ought to give one pause for thought is that Israel was actually rooting for Ahmadinejad.


http://poplicola.blogtownhall.com/2009/06/21/lies_about_ira n.thtml

I could see why. The WSJ editorials made the argument that putting in a supposed "reformer" like Mousavi would allow Iran to take most western attention off them while continuing to pursue their nuclear ambitions. At least while a lunatic like Ahmadinejhad is in office, no one is going to be able to pretend Iran is a nice, stable, modern government.

Not to mention that Mousavi was PM when the nuclear program began. So it is doubtful he will be any less aggressive in pursuing it than Ahmadinejhad.

Acccchhhiminajihad.

A suitable spelling.

Glenn

Thanks, I may try that one.

I can see that. It's politics after all.

But - two questions:

a)If that's the case(that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are basically one and the same), then why the uproar and righteous indignation in the West over the election; and

b)Why this demonization of Iran when - according to our own intelligence agencies - there is no proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons(not to be confused with nuclear power).

My conclusion is that this is much ado about nothing, something akin to the supposed WMD's in Iraq.

Great blog, by the way.

To address B first: The NIE declaring the lack of pursuit of weapons is suspect. Even former CIA heads declared it a politicized document. And, after all, pursuing power is 95% of pursuing weapons, refining is the hard part. So the difference between pursuing weapons and power is hard to distinguish. When combined with their suddenly aggressive space program, it seems likely the NIE was wrong, and Iran is pursuing both weapons and ICBM technology. (I will find links in the morning for my writing on this last year.)

Second, even if Mousavi is close to Ahmadinajhad, the Iranian people do not see him as such, and have rallied around him. I think the support in the west is more for the Iranians' efforts to liberate themselves than for this particular politician. Then again, some in the West may also accept his reformer credentials as well, despite the rather scant evidence in their favor.

Here are the links.

Most recently:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/23/iranian_weapons. thtml

And before that, this one, including links to my original thoughts when the NIE was published last year:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/11/can_everyone_see _it_now.thtml

I believe one older post contains links to many outside sources arguing against the NIE, many less partisan than the group which wrote the NIE itself.

Actually, the link was buried two or three levels down,so to save time, here is one post with several links from the time the NIE came out in late 2007:

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2007/12/11/heads_i_win,_tai ls_you_lose.thtml

Thank you for the links.

However, I am still not convinced. I fail to see how Iran is a threat to the US.

What I see is this:

Iran is surrounded by American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and is constantly threatened with nuclear annihilation by the US and Israel.

Maybe they're just looking for a little...self-defense?

It depends on how you define threat.

No, Iran is not going to conquer and hold territory within the US. Nor are they even likely to take overt action against the US.

However, they have been sponsoring anti-US terrorist since long before we set foot in either Afghanistan or Iraq, so it is not as if their hostility toward us is a recent event brought about by our military actions.

For that matter, their nuclear ambitions predate 9/11 and subsequent military actions.

No, Iran is not going to directly attack us. They may not even directly a neighbor. But they do seem to have three ambitions dangerous to the US.

First, the destruction of Israel. As our only consistent ally in the region (depending on whether we include Turkey in the ME or not), the destruction of Israel would be a major blow.

Second, they hope to gain regional hegemony, which does threaten us with a new OPEC-style energy embargo, or other risks, such as regional destabilization (eg. uprisings of Saudi Arabia's shiite minority). If they obtain the bomb, they will have much more regional influence.

Finally, they can attack the US indirectly through terrorism, both to gain prestige regionally, and to discourage us from interfering with their ambitions. It may not work (see 9/11), but it may (see Lebanon in the 80's or Somalia, we have fled before due to terrorism).

They are not a direct threat in a military sense, but they could be a very real threat in many other senses.

Iran has multiple motives for developing nuclear weapons:

-Becoming a world military power.

-Boosting its geopolitical leverage to the sky.

-The ability to destroy Israel and the US in an EMP attack.

-National pride, etc.

Andthe mullahs indisputably have the technological capability for developing such weapons.

The above is cause enough for alarm.

I am with you, I think it is frightening enough that they are pursuing the technology, especially with the consistent pattern of terrorism and violence since 1979. They may be doing so out of a fear of surrounding nations, or out of a desire for power. Motives doesn't matter. Whether 1939 happened because fo Versailles or Hitler's dreams of conquests, it was just as destructive a war.

Hmm... maybe that is a good topic for a post.

Besides the election, I see them as a huge danger to Israel and possibly the US in other forms if they obtain a nuclear arsenal. Lots of violence in that area and terrorism. Something that I don't trust our administration to really follow, since they're focused more on "change" than foreign affairs.

You both make very cogent arguments.

But please listen to mine: it's all a big lie.

I believe you are offering an argumentum ad populum.

The following account is written word
for word as Congressman George Hansen
related it to Lindsey Williams.

Iran Was A Banking Problem All the
Way Through

The hostage crisis began over a banking
crisis and it ended when the banking crisis
was resolved by the bankers, not the State
Department. That is a matter of public record.
The bankers did the negotiating. The
State Department sat back and watched the
bankers get their satisfaction and then the
crisis was over. Four hundred and fortyfour
days after their capture, the hostages
came home—when the bankers were satisfied
and wanted them released. This is documentable
and not even arguable. I have
letters to the Secretary of State both before
and after the Reagan administration began,
detailing this whole scene. These letters to
Secretary of State Al Haig and to President
Reagan are a matter of public record.
You must remember that I was a senior
member of the Banking Committee at the
time. I was the one who got a study in the
Banking Committee and laid this whole
thing out.

I believe you are offering an argumentum add nihil, adding nothing to the discussion on Islamonazi Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Moshe writes:

"What ought to give one pause for thought is that Israel was actually rooting for Ahmadinejad."

Better that this evil regime wear the face of evil, keeping it's true nature transparent for all to see, than it wear a friendlier face to deceive the world as it did in the 90s when the kind looking killer Mohammed Khatami was president-he was one of Iran's architects in establishing Hezbollah.

I think what you are saying is pretty much what I argued in my first response, that keeping a crazy front man keeps the world aware of just how unstable Iran is, and how dangerous. Though I would also add Banisadr, from the hostage crisis days, to your list of sensible seeming presidents.

First, I have to agree with ApolloSpeaks that this does nto really say anything about the current risk of Iran, nor does it really say whether or not they were a threat then.

Second, regardless of source the quote sounds too much like the conspiracy theories that I so often denounce. Especially as it denounces "bankers", a popular group of villains in such theories.

For that matter, how did bankers benefits form the hostage crisis? And if it was an attempt to collect debts from the Shah's government, taking 444 days seems a long time for such a powerful cabal to wait for satisfaction. It just doesn't make much sense.

I am open to evidence, as there is the possibility I am wrong, but just on the basis of that statement, I am very skeptical.