Invade Iran - Commit Suicide?

[Liquor Dealer]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88535,00.html

TEHRAN, Iran — Anyone who invades Iran would be committing suicide, Iran's supreme leader said Wednesday, following the G-8 summit's warning that the world would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of harboring senior Al Qaeda figures and strongly suspect it is secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, raising fears in Iran of punitive measures.

"U.S. threats are not new," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told tens of thousands of people who had assembled for the 14th anniversary of the death of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founding father of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Iran says its nuclear development is solely to produce electricity and that its uranium enrichment is to provide fuel for reactors, not bombs.

Leaders of the world's eight industrialized nations ended a meeting in Evian, France, on Monday with a statement that said: "We will not ignore the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program."

The statement said the world could work to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons with tools such as inspections and "other measures ... in accordance with international law."

"Anyone who invades Iran would be committing suicide"

Does anyone remember someone named Saddam promising the "Mother of all Wars"?

[Daval]

Iran will give a much bigger fight than Saddam ever did.

It would be horrible for the middle east.

[Lebell]

Not that much bigger.

[seretogis]

Well, now we know where the Iraqi Information Minister disappeared off to.

I think that we would simply topple Iran from the inside, diplomatically, than with a typical assault as we did with Iraq.

[The_Dude]

doubt US is ever going to invade.

iran has allies, unlike iraq, whom everyone in the region hated.

[Dragonlich]

Who would those allies be, pray tell? Some terror groups? I would think that the leaders of most of the countries there would hate Iran's guts - Iran's support for extreme Islam poses a direct threat to their power...

...but I could be wrong of course.

However, do not assume all Iranians are going to volunteer to die in the Jihad against the invading US - there will be many Iranians welcoming the liberators. Only the extremists (with most to lose) will fight to the death.

[4thTimeLucky]

I am just curious as to why Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon?

I know wht you're going to say: they are a crackpot regime and may fire it irresponsibly.

That isn't my point.
My point is that Iran is a sovereign state and there is no law or legitimate authority that the G8 is using to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon (unless, they have signed an anti-nuclear treaty in which case they could wait till it expires). The G8 are using pure muscle power and fear to tell Iran not to build one. It is the rule of the mighty.

In the US there are plenty of people who you probably don't want to be armed, but have the right to buy guns. You can do nothing about it and you respect the law - you do not try to disarm them.
On a global scale there is no such international law about nuclear weapons. Every state is sovereign and has the right to build what they like. The only exceptions are states which have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons (e.g. the US, who nonetheless try and circumvent the treaties by 'refining' old nukes not 'designing' new ones) and those that have done something outrageous to require UN interention in the past (e.g. invading Kuwait).

Isn't it the case that we in the West got to the nuclear-prize first and now we're just pulling up the ladder after us with the threat of force against countries who don't behave as we tell them to?


--------
RETRACTION

I have sought legal advice and I am wrong.
Apparently it would be against customary international law for Iran to build nukes. This is law based upon:
a) customary (usual) state practice [states don't build nukes...]
b) opinio juris [...because they feel they have a legal obligation to]

A country breaking such law would be taken to the International Court of Justice and whilst no country has been taken there over nukes (I think) the ICJ write 'what if...' papers of legal opinion and has covered such a scenario.

The other types of international law are:
- Conventional (any international treaty is legal binding for the signatories).
- General principles common to all legal systems.

[Liquor Dealer]

I guess then that it will boil down to testing the resolve of those who told them they could not have them - Is the resolve "committing suicide"? Or another of those "Mother of all battles"? The current Iranian government is weak and rules only through a handful of religious zealots.

[mirevolver]

Didn't the information minister in Iraq say that anyone invading Iraq would be committing suicide?

Nice to know they all have the same way of thinking in that part of the world. Especially since Iran currently has the US on three fronts. Troops to the west in Iraq, Troops to the east in Afghanistan, and we still have a significant part of the navy parked to the south of Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Oh, and Iran also has a fourth front which could blindside them. There's much political and popular dissent in Iran. So really all we need to do is start a civil war in that country and then come in to help the side trying to overthrow the clerics.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Hopefully the students will start an uprising from the inside similar to what happened in China.

[Frowning Budah]

Here we go again. The question shouldn't be can we invade Iraq ooops I mean Iran and win. The question is do we have the right to do this. And don't trot out the old arguments that they are evil and they are plotting against us and that they are working with Al
Qaeda and they have weapons of Mass destruction and all the rest of it. We have heard it before. And where does that logic lead us? World domination?

[Jizzosh]

doubt US is ever going to invade.

Read up on the "Project for a New American Century". If you can find the full text, there is a great deal of information contained within that would give you a very different outlook. I strongly believe that the US will find a way to battle with Iran. Whether its BS excuses, a truely corrupt regime, etc. Whatever the circumstances, the US will be leading a war soon. Think of it in pure economic interest. Consider the top oil producing countries. Saudi Arabia, ally... Iraq, toppled... Kuwait, ally... Iran, threatened.

Our government recognizes that we, as a nation, have a great dependancy on oil. Granted, so does the rest of the world, but our 'think tanks' figure that if we can maintain our supply, which is much larger that the rest of the worlds', we can use the coming time to develop better ways of producing energy. Also, if we can control the oil supply, and then the new energy, we can maintain our super power status for another century.

The reason the document was requested and written, was that the government understands how difficult it is to be a superpower, and especially, how difficult it is to maintain that status, now that there is no USSR (Evil Empire) to look good against comparitively. So they needed to devise a plan to keep that power, hopefully as long as possible.

We'll invade Iraq, not for the right reasons: to free a people from oppression, overthrow a corrupt government out of the goodness of our hearts, or because the world is rallying behind a just cause. No. We'll invade Iran because its in our best interests economically, and it will help us to continue to be strong, in control, and ahead of the rest of the world.

[smooth]

Originally posted by Jizzosh
Read up on the "Project for a New American Century". If you can find the full text, there is a great deal of information contained within that would give you a very different outlook.

I didn't dig around but my understanding is that the information isn't being hidden.

Project For The New American Century

[KillerYoda]

Invading Iran would be an idiotic idea, since so far we've found more sand than WMD in the Iraqi desert. Invading another country for no reason isn't going to make the US look any better in the world view, so we might as well just admit we're imperialists, declare war on the world, conquer everyone, and force them to all watch American Idol.

[Sun Tzu]

Captain Tripps where are you?

[Nad Adam]

Economic suicide perhaps, no matter what you learned in boot camp blood isn't gonna make the grass grow this time.

[Dilbert1234567]

http://www.newamericancentury.info/

[Publius]

[i].... We'll invade Iran because its in our best interests economically, and it will help us to continue to be strong, in control, and ahead of the rest of the world. [/B]

Just wanted to commit directly on this part of your post. What pray tell would those 'economic' reason be??? Iran has very little oil compared to its southern neighbors, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qutar, Yemen. If its oil we are after don't you think we would go after them first? Given Iran does have alot of natural gas but we havent exactly converted to natural gas cars yet so it wouldnt be that advantages yet. Also I wouldn't expect Iran to just roll over like Iraq if the US was to launch an invasion. Although the people there are not particulary found of their government, it is their government and not a puppet government like what we are installing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also concerning international law about the spread of Nuclear Weapons, Iran is not a signatory to any of the binding laws, convintions, or treaties. Also, even if they were who is going to do what now? International Court of Justice? Who are they again? What power do they have? Last I checked they didn't have a military or a police force so how are they going to enforce laws that Iran is not a willing party too? And who makes these laws anyway if not the countries? And what right does this body have to impose laws upon sovreign states? Since when did we have a world government? Why wasn't I informed?

I dont really see how exactly the US would justify invasion without proof that Iran has done something wrong. Also, according to US estimations, Iran will be a nuclear power by the end of 2005 if not sooner. And who is helping them gain this technology? China, Russia, France, and Germany. Does the list sound familier? It should because its the same peps who were against the US invasion of Iraq who they were also helping. And why does Iran need nukes? To defend against Iraq and Israel of course. Now that Iraq is out of the picture that just leaves Israel. So why are we concerned? You make the call .....

[RaGe2012]

If you read between the lines, Bush said it himself when we "liberated" Iraq - he doesn't want the Iraqis to choose their government. It's either our way or the highway...American-style democracy, or else.

Our government wants friendly governments installed everywhere around the globe. It will make them easy trading parteners. Also, having trade agreements will make it easier to leverage their governments into political deals (using money made from trade) and forcing other countries to adopt polices we like. Its global domination and yes, it is imperialism, but on a sneakier, more slimey scale.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by RaGe2012
Its global domination and yes, it is imperialism, but on a sneakier, more slimey scale.

Would you rather have a world full of homicidal dictator-run countries, or full of USAs and Canadas?

[crumbbum]

The talk about international law- that Iran is an autonomous country and that we have no right to interfere is nice- but suicidal. No one wants nukes in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. States also have the right to self-defense.

That said, I doubt that we would invade Iran. I think that we'll continue doing what we are doing now- trying to tip the regime from the inside- as long as possible. I'm sure the CIA is monitoring their nuclear program very closely. If the regime is still standing and they are about to produce the nukes, we will probably go in and bomb the reactors, and continue waiting for the government to fall (which will happen eventually, inevitably). Almost all young Iranians love the US and want a new government, so time is on our side.

[XenuHubbard]

Originally posted by seretogis
Would you rather have a world full of homicidal dictator-run countries, or full of USAs and Canadas?

The USA does not want a world full of USAs and Canadas.
Paul Wolfowitz viewpoint is that the USA is so far ahead when it comes to the military and economy that the main task of the USA should be to prevent other countries from challenging USA in these areas. According to Newsweek, this was all part of one of his policys in Pentagon 1992. George Bush accepted it, but toned down the language in it to become less offensive to other countries.

The USA does not want a challenger. Your govenment would rather have a world full of dictator-run countries, than a world full of USA's and Canadas.

And I don't see what Canada has to do with this.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by XenuHubbard
The USA does not want a challenger. Your govenment would rather have a world full of dictator-run countries, than a world full of USA's and Canadas.

I think you're wrong. In the past, dictators have shown themselves irresponsible, and their rule unsustainable, even with US help. Democracies are relatively stable and open. That makes installing democracies much better for the USA in the long term. I think they've learned their lesson after the last decades.

In fact, I think the USA as a whole, deep down, *wants* someone to challenge them; they love a good fight and honest competition...

[4thTimeLucky]

Lets reach a compromise here.

The US would be very happy with a world full of Canadas - nice, docile, medium sized economies that it can trade with.

The US would be quite happy with a world with a few friendly, strategically-placed dictatorships that can prevent communism, keep neighbouring countries in check and and permit the free and full export of the countries natural resources.

The US would not be happy with a world full of dictatorships, because that would mean the end of the world economy as we know it and be a hassle all round.

The US would not be happy with a world with another US in it. Monopoly power is always nicer than either oligopoly power or a bipolar standoff.

[geep]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
I think you're wrong. In the past, dictators have shown themselves irresponsible, and their rule unsustainable, even with US help. Democracies are relatively stable and open. That makes installing democracies much better for the USA in the long term. I think they've learned their lesson after the last decades.

In fact, I think the USA as a whole, deep down, *wants* someone to challenge them; they love a good fight and honest competition...

I think this post really nails it down. I think the world as a whole would be better off without dictators murdering innocent people. Honest and wholesome competition would be very good for it indeed. Three cheers for the new domino theory.

[The Bolshevist]

US invade Iran? This sounds like mission creep...anybody remember Cambodia?

"You may kill ten of us, and we only one of you, but we will win, for we are stronger."

Ho Chi Mihn

[RaGe2012]

The US is a military and economic superpower, but I still think that Iran will be a much harder fight. They manufacture their own weapons, armored vehicles, and ammunition. Plus, they haven't been under siege for 12 years.

[RaGe2012]

Would you rather have a world full of homicidal dictator-run countries, or full of USAs and Canadas?

For starters, I'd rather live in a world where countries are free to govern themselves as they see fit. If the people want a dictator, so be it. If the people want a democracy, so be it. I'd rather live in a world where everyone minds their own business and does whats best for themselves domestically instead of governments wasting their time in overseas policy and forgetting about their own populations. Let different peoples with different cultures make their own decisions, fight their own battles, and choose their own destinies. Not my country, not my problem. Its up to individuals to make peace with each other, not governments. You could throw a thousand peace accords at some warring factions, and the second they signed them, they'd start killing each other again. So what's the damn point of us getting involved in socially backward nations??? Look at Somalia or Vietnam. It was just another waste of our time, and more and more Americans die for people who either hate us or don't give a shit. We would have more luck trying to initiate a peace accord with a brick wall - at least you KNOW the wall won't start killing people.

And before I'm ostricsized for saying this, allow me to make one point clear - YES, I KNOW THERE ARE BAD PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. YES, THERE WILL STILL BE HOSTILITY. AND THAT IS WHAT THE MILITARY IS FOR, DEFENDING YOUR COUNTRY'S BORDERS, NOT YOUR BUSINESS INTERESTS IN OTHER NATIONS HALFWAY AROUND THE GLOBE. AND NO, I AM NOT AGAINST FOREIGN POLICY OR HAVING ALLIES TO AID YOUR DEFENSE.

[rainheart]

At best, there will be a tough government reform in Iran without any u.s. intervention. However everybody must understand the underlying motives of the Bush administration for wanting to invade Iran.

No, it's not just. Get real, seriously. What WMD's did they find in Iraq? Oh, they COULD have made WMD's and biological weapons.. so could the US, and they already have loads of nuclear warheads. Wow. Who the hell can't?

Want a justified war to go to? Invade North Korea, they HAVE nuclear weapons, they BOAST it too. They THREATEN countries as well!

What exactly did happen after the Iraq war? They found oil. First they went to find and destroy WMD's, that didn't work for them, so they changed it halfway through to liberating Iraq so people would have something to argue about if they were told it wasn't a just war.

And that's what's so great about America, the western world. The amount of rhetoric and false logic that gets spewed from all the sides puts everyone into a state of confusion while the Bush administration goes ahead with it's plans.

And I don't believe "deep down" the u.s. wants competition. That is a rather shortsighted suggestion, no offense. Imagine if 75% of those troops the US sent to Iraq died. Is that a good fight? No, it's a massacre. The US is not one physical entity that engages in a Rocky IV style boxing fight in some sort of ring looking for a good fight.

The US is destroying what it is by forcing itself onto other nations. That is what I like to call true American suicide, not in the spirit of democracy at all. How democratic is an invasion that isn't sanctioned by the UN, you tell me.

And Iran will conscript loads of soldiers, for sure. I am Iranian myself, I lived there untill I was 7 and immigrated to Canada, and I am not a refugee. Trust me when I say that Iranians will not be fond of America at all if they decide to invade. It's ridiculous, it's blasphemous to my homeland, and it makes me sick, to think that the people who I descended from are dying for unjust reasons. Yes, if a war sparked between the US and Iran, I would want to cry out of despair.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by RaGe2012
For starters, I'd rather live in a world where countries are free to govern themselves as they see fit. If the people want a dictator, so be it.

Are you joking?

I'm sure that the thousands that Saddam had gassed were perfectly happy having him run the country. The people whose corpses we found piled together in mass-graves obviously had no objection to Saddam's regime.

No matter what way you slice it, the US is currently the world super-power, and foreign policy will be dictated by what is in our best interest. What is not in our best interest, is having terrorist-supporting nations with flimsy extremist governments that massacre their own population running around with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Is it nice? No, but the security of our nation and that of our allies is more important than the political freedom of an enemy state. The world is not a democracy, and the UN is not an effective means of resolution anymore.

I doubt that we will formally invade Iran, there is enough dissent among their own people to cause a change of power. If a Tienamen-Square-like slaughter of peaceful protestors occurs, though, I think we should offer military support to the dissidents.

As for North Korea, China, Japan, and South Korea can pummel it if necessary and we have troops and ships parked nearby and diplomatic talks ongoing.

[Peetster]

I'm not sure I agree with the "install Democracy" line of reasoning going on here. I think "uninstall Dictatorships" works better.

[rainheart]

Originally posted by seretogis
No matter what way you slice it, the US is currently the world super-power, and foreign policy will be dictated by what is in our best interest. What is not in our best interest, is having terrorist-supporting nations with flimsy extremist governments that massacre their own population running around with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

Then you wonder why people from other countries don't like America all that much, but I guess that's another debate.

What is in the Bush administrations best interest is not necessarily getting rid of governments that massacre their own population etc.

That is untrue, because it was actually America who sold weapons and tech to develop biological weapons to Iraq in the 80s, because at that time it was beneficial to America. Now it's not, now it's time for a regime change.

Take a look, I just googled this up:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
Or just what I typed up in google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...pons+sold+iraq

International Police is not the right concept behind what America is becoming.

[seretogis]

Originally posted by rainheart
Then you wonder why people from other countries don't like America all that much, but I guess that's another debate.

I don't wonder.

Originally posted by rainheart
What is in the Bush administrations best interest is not necessarily getting rid of governments that massacre their own population etc.

That is untrue, because it was actually America who sold weapons and tech to develop biological weapons to Iraq in the 80s, because at that time it was beneficial to America. Now it's not, now it's time for a regime change.

It was beneficial to us, and now it's not. I don't see the problem with that logic, taking into consideration that the US claims a moral high-ground. That, if nothing else, gives us justification for regime change under the idea that we are simply cleaning up our own mess. Also, it's funny to see that some people who say so certainly that we sold them WMDs now claim that there aren't any in Iraq. If they aren't in Iraq, but we sold them to Iraq, where are they?

[rainheart]

So you think it was okay for the US to sell biological weapons to Saddam Hussein and make sure he stayed in power, despite the number of people he killed later on? And after all this time, why clean that mess up just now?

Doesn't sound like moral high ground to me.

As for where the WMDs are now, honestly, I don't know. Somebody does tho', things don't just disappear.

[RaGe2012]

No, really. Are YOU kidding?


I don't see how toying with people's lives and governments can be seen a matter of "convienient benefit". That is a sick and scary thought. What our government is trying to do is play God with the world. Yeah, it may be like that in the real world, but it doesn't mean I have to like it, agree with it, or go along with continuing to support it, for that matter. Yeah, you can keep telling me that nothing will change with the way things are in politics and such, but don't ever tell me that there isn't a better way to do things. And I know what our country is doing isn't the best thing.

[Alan]

There is not a unified neo-capitalistic governing system (like the one governing most of market-friendly places), economic and military or otherwise in the middle east and asia. Getting Iraq was a simple step in the enculturation process. In order for the efficient flow of resource out of the middle east, and western asia (including many chaotic former Russian states), there must be access to a whole capitalistic infroastructure that goes beyond national boundaries. One major reason for taking over Iraq is for beginning access to this. Iran is a much more powerful country than Iraq.
It is ironic that the US places and supported Saddam for so many years (until he "got out of hand"). He was backed by the US in the war against Iran, which consequentally fucked the growth and promise that Iran was showing in the seventies.
It's unfortunate that the powerful of the world must become greedy, and seek more power. This is why a change of governance is mandatory in the United States' governmental plan. With the neocapitallistic revolution that has built in the last 50 years, the power structure of days gone by is now superceded by a governance of unknown corporate, banking, and multinational entities - entities that are above the rule of national and international law. Because this is a new system, checks and balances are not yet in place, and the majority of people are not even aware of it's existence, even though they operate within it every day.
Placing mock dictatorships is what the US does to overthrow various countries, at least it has been their business in the past. I don't see why they won't continue doing it.

As to the question of whether the US would rather have dictators or US/Canada-like governences, I would agree with the posters who argue that the ruling bodies do not want other challenging rulers of equal merit; that monopoly is best for those with the monopoly . . . dictators are much easier to control than whole countries or, as the US is finding out in Iraq right now, in comparison to Saddam's earlier years.

[XenuHubbard]

A dictatorship can be kept US-friendly. A democracy means no guarantees.

[gonadman]

A dictatorship can be kept US friendly, but by definition, a dictatorial government is usually limited to the lifespan of one man. If the despot is especially repressive, and relies on US support to prop him up, it would forment anti- US sentiment in the population at large, giving rise to organized terrorism.

So, over the short term, a friendly dictatorial government would be more responsive to US interests, but more damaging over the long term.

In this light, democratic governments would tend to lend more stability to other democracies the world over. In addition, internal discontent would have more avenues of expression rather than violence.

[papermachesatan]

the "mother of all battles", eh? where did I hear that last?