Charlatan

That's assuming you think the Cold Was was logical.

Iran wasn't communist but it sure was convenient for the US to justify their actions (it really isn't all that different from WMDs as they were used to topple Saddam... at least the US is consistent).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Charlatan

Diplomacy does work. It happens every day and it is successful. Why do you think the US doesn't invade Canada? It's because we have a good diplomatic relations with the US (it certaintly isn't because we have a powerful military poised to repel the US Armed Forces).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Bodyhammer86

Except you can't conduct diplomacy or negotiate with a country whose leadership has a pathological hatred of the US.

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

Charlatan

So you bomb them into submission instead?

1) they have reasons for not liking the US
2) recognize these problems and apologize (for what it's worth)
3) open diplomatic ties and start talking

It may not work but at least it was an avenue explored.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

joshbaumgartner

This sentiment boggles my mind. Never mind that not everyone in Teheran has such feelings, but of course you can conduct diplomacy with those who hate your guts. Heck, that's where diplomacy is needed. Friends don't need it because they already agree, but it is those who are at each other's throats that need diplomacy to avert tearing into each other.

Of course you can conduct diplomacy with your enemies, and in fact unless you just happen to like war, then you'd better learn how. It can be frustrating for the novice diplomat, but trust me, diplomacy with those who consider you the greatest evil in the world is very possible, and even fruitful, when conducted by experienced, level-headed, and capable diplomats.

Generally, the neo-con New American Century group eschews such difficult paths for a more simplistic approach. This may be a wise tactical decision to circumvent their demonstrable weakness in the diplomatic arena, but it does not in the least demonstrate that diplomacy is impossible. Naturally the result of avoiding difficult diplomacy is an increased reliance on military response which is why I say unless you happen to be one of those who just enjoys seeing folks get blown up, diplomacy is absolutely an important arena to be skilled in.

Josh

xepherys

I didn't say that diplomacy doesn't work. I said that diplomacy does not work in the Middle East. And there's a proven track record in history to indicate that I'm correct in that matter. Not just US - Arabic relations, but even Arab - Arab relations don't hold up too well. *shrug* It's just how things are!

xepherys

Disagreed. Or at least partly...

Hate on principal is different than hate via "pathology" as describe above, or rather complete ideal. That would've been like trying to find a diplomatic friendship between 1940's United States and Nazi Germany. Not only is it unlikely, it really would not have been beneficial to either party. Maybe that's the core... diplomacy must be mutually beneficial. Relations between Western countries and Middle Eastern countries are hardly ever mutually beneficial, at least in the grand scheme of things. There may be short-term benefits like cheap oil for arms (Iran Contra anybody?) but those benefits are not lasting, and often create larger problems in the end. Yes, the US is a war nation, as are most middle eastern countries. The difference is that we don't just go to war for shits and giggles like they do. It's really a lot like impoversihed African countries with warlords and such. Replace poor people with people bred into hatred, and replace warlords with sheik, kings and other royalty, and you'll see it's not much different.


No, we don't just bomb them. But we can sanction the bejeebus out of them. I guess technically that's part of diplomacy, but not in the common sense of things. And yes, if need be we bomb the shit out of them. Why? Because they already hate us (mostly) and it does a helluva lot of good sometimes. Look at Afghanistan. Iraq is a poor example. If we'd left right afterwards it'd have been a GREAT example, though.

powerclown

As logical as any other historical clash of ideologies in the history of mankind, no? What was illogical about the Cold War?

You don't think that Iran of the 50's was on Russia's list of countries to absorb into its sphere of influence? The Russians have meddled in just about every country 3,000 miles north-south-east-west of it. Today, Iran is to Russia, what Canada is to America (economically speaking).

silent_jay

How is Afghanistan a good example of bombing working? One city in the country is secured and Karzi is called the president of Kabul. I wouldn't say Afghanistan is a good example either, it is the forgotten country in the war on terror. Once Iraq went to hell, Afghanistan was put on the back burner to fend for themselves, even if the US didn't finish what they started there.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

dksuddeth

The main reason (should be the only reason needed for logical minded people) that Iran can't be allowed to pursue nuclear technology of any sort is their admitted disdain and non-acceptance of Israel and their admitted desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Seems to me that instead of setting up the authoritarian Shah they should have worked to become friends with Iran... a mutual customer. Oil for finished goods. Military support for their growning democracy in the face of Russian aquisitiveness...

Of course this is all hindsight. But I just feel that given the results of those action, perhaps they should try something else...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Mojo_PeiPei

Wasn't the issue with Iran that they were going to nationalize the oil, putting them in Russia's camp? I thought that was our reason for backing the Shah.

Also people who keep saying Iran isn't a theocracy are being willingly ignorant, just last year their democratic elections had nearly 3,000 names wiped off the ballots because the overlord council didn't think they felt in with the Sharian mold. They had a moderate president, but he had no real power, and to make matters worse he was just replaced with a hardliner, a person who was involved in the Embassy situation.

Diplomacy is fine and dandy in some cases. But when you are trying to engage in it with people who have an irrational hate for you (say the like of Hamas militants or Al Qaeda), it's fruitless. For the record I'm not saying that is the situation with Iran, but it's still not a viable option at this point.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

joshbaumgartner

With few exceptions (W. Europe), the United States has consistently chosen to support dictators we thought we could 'manage' over democracies which we could not control or perhaps even predict. Invariably we allow ourselves to be deluded into believing that having 'strong leaders' at the top is in the best interest of the people, more so than allowing them to choose their own way. These layers of deceit can remain for years even after the exposure of the truth.

Democracy doesn't guarantee good decision making, far from it, but dictatorship is about as close as you can get to a guarantee for bad results. At least in a democracy, the people face the consequences of their own choices, instead of merely being forced to accept the brunt of an authoritarian's dictates.

I agree, it's time to try something else...

powerclown

Israel is well aware of this, to be sure. Along with bombing the Iraqi reactor, in 1990 Israel's Mossad Intelligence service killed one Dr. Gerald Bull, a Canadian scientist who developed the infamous "Super Gun" for Iraq -- an artillery gun with a range sufficient to allow Iraq's nuclear shells to reach Israel.

There was no further development of the gun.

powerclown

Therein lies the catch: the Shah didn't resort to authoritarian means until he ran into hardline Islamic fundamentalists opposed to his efforts to modernize Iran. Ataturk ran into the exact same thing in his attempts to modernize Turkey.

For a complex combination of reasons, the Shah was unable to achieve in Iran what Ataturk was able to achieve in Turkey, ie. the successful modernization of an Islamic society. He outlawed the caliphate, established women's rights, the country was at peace with its neigbors, and Islamic extremists were driven from seats of political authority. (Rightly so, imo.)

Today, Turkey is thriving, while Iran remains a troubled, stunted country yet to modernize, on the verge of nukes, with vast fields of oil. Can you hear that ticking sound?

joshbaumgartner

Friendship is not necessary for diplomacy to work. The U.S. did retain diplomatic contacts with Germany up until the declaration of war, even long after we were actively assisting the British. Even during the war, certain contacts remained. The goal was not friendship, but the achievement of specific objectives.

Diplomatic arrangements are never permanent, nor can one expect them to be. Diplomacy is about getting other nations to do what you want them to do without military force. Mutual benefit is nice to make it happen, but not necessary. Of course it all depends on how you quantify 'benefit'.

What the heck is a 'war nation'? One with a history full of war? Okay, but what's the point as that can describe a lot of countries and doesn't really mean anything. War is an omnipresent fact in a nation-state system with no heirarchy of authority.

This sentiment of yours indicates why you may have little hope in diplomacy. You appear to not be able to comprehend the position of the people of Iran or their leaders, and you are projecting a similar lack of comprehension on them, assuming they are closed to any diplomatic potential. I say this not to flame you, trust me, but comments such as thinking they make war just for shits and giggles indicates a distinct lack of understanding of the motivations and views of the people of the region. I have yet to see a war in my studies that was fought for 'shits and giggles'.

I highlight this not to denegrate you or your views, but to demonstrate a sentiment which you reflected which I feel is very much at the heart of why we continue to see the proliferation of military conflict, and that is this sense that war when prosecuted by 'us' is good and just and in a 'just cause', made necessary by our responsibility to justice, good, mercy, and all other virtues of the world, while war when prosecuted by 'them' is bad and evil, and the result of pathology, insanity, cruelty, greed, and all other vices of the world. This is only made possible by a fundamental lack of comprehension of the supposed 'enemy' and their beliefs, situation, and needs. This sentiment is of course feasted upon by those who wish to prosecute war to garner support.

Josh

Charlatan

The fact still remains that the elected govenment was in the process of doing the same sorts of modernization. Sadly the US seems to (historically) think that democracy is only good for them. Everyone else should have a controllable dictator in charge.

Had the US instead decided to support the elected goverment, I wonder how things might have gone.

(this isn't to say that the Russians didn't make a practice of this as well, it's just that it has proven to be a bad policy, time and again).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

xepherys

Hmmm, Iraq had an "elected" government. I wonder why we didn't just support Saddam. *sigh* Democracy is more than an election.

joshbaumgartner

Perhaps a quick recap of history is required here.

The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was originally placed on the throne in 1941 by the British in replacement of his father, whom the British feared was too friendly to Germany. Internal unrest rose from the end of WWII until 1951, when the parliament, under Prime Minister Razmara, nationalized the country's oil resources. Razmara was assassinated by Fadayan-e Islam, and Dr. Mossadegh replaced him. The Shah gave assent to the promotion despite Mossadegh's determination to follow his predecessor in the move to nationalize oil.

The British responded by enforcing a naval blockade preventing oil exports from the country. The people re-elected Mossadegh in 1952, but the Shah refused to support him. He resigned and the Shah appointed Qavam as PM in his place. Qavam immediately announced plans to acquiesce to British demands, and massive national protests resulted, forcing him to resign. The Shah, fearful of the unrest, re-appointed Mossadegh.

Mossadegh was immensly popular due to social reforms and a strong sense of nationalism. He was supported not only by moderates, but also by Communist and Islamist parties. However, he was unpopular with the military, and they built ties with British and American agencies to get assistance in Mossadegh's downfall. CIA operatives exploited the differences between Mossadegh's supporters, painting him as a Communist to inflame the Islamists. Mossadegh assumed increasingly authoratative measures to counter these plots. As he came closer to making Iran a republic in 1953, as opposed to a monarchy, the Shah left Iran.

The nation dissolved into civil strife in 1953, and with the military on side, the Shah's supporters gained the upper hand, installing him at the head of the country. CIA involvement in the event is not questioned, and in fact many supporters praise the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation.

The Shah held power by continuing socialist reforms, including the siezure and dissemination to farmers of several large estates, the institution of women's rights initiatives, and the beginnings of a social security system. He also retained the support of the British and Americans by re-opening Iran's oil to their corporations, and becoming a client for their military hardware and other products. Meanwhile, dissent at home was quelled by the formation in 1957 of the SAVAK, or secret police, which were notorious for their brutal treatment of all perceived enemies of the Shah. Naturally, this led to ever increasing resentment of the Shah's authority, followed by ever more violent reprisals, and ultimately the ground support for the revolution of 1979. This revolution was at first broad based, but ultimately leadership was taken by the Ayatollah and his faction, resulting in the Iran of today.

The Shah follows a pretty typical path for the authoritarian governments we tend to support. He has definite plans to make his nation great, and even does a number of things that needed doing, but does so with a force of will as opposed to building national consensus for actions, and relies heavily on a combination of foreign support and draconian internal policies to maintain authority. In the end the only real difference between the dictators we support and those we demonize are whether or not they rely on foreign support. Those who go it alone or seek support from say Russia or China are going to be demonized, while those who tie their fortunes to American or British support are upheld.

Ultimately, these relationships fail, and any good that the dictator may have done for the country is wiped out by the conflict that inevitably arises out of their authoritarian governance, whether it be a revolution, war, or isolation and stagnation.

Dictators often appear sexy to many. They often begin with a strong will, and present a determination to put an end to the petty struggles of their nation and lead their country to reach for greatness. They often hold out the hope of overcoming old problems with bold dictates. To outsiders, they will often have a modern and moderated appearance, making us think they are elements for change, badly needed to help lift their nation up to into the modern world. But far more often than not, these dreams prove elusive, and ultimately, when they are finally at the end of their reign, their nations are not better off but worse, than when they began.

Josh

joshbaumgartner

Yes, I think most people understand that. Saddam, elected by 99.9% or whatever, didn't constitute democracy. Iran, with actual elections is not as democratic as some countries, but there is no doubt that the election of their latest President reflects to some reasonable degree the real will of the Iranian citizens, and as such, despite the issues of irregularities and limited candidacy (don't forget those are issues in America too), I would have to say that Iran is more democratic than most Americans give it credit for. Not that this isn't understandable; Americans are raised to believe in the sanctity of Democracy (not that all believe it), and so the idea that such a different nation as Iran, a proclaimed member of the Axis of Evil, who considers the US a prime opponent (a feeling that is reciprocated), could also be a democracy is hard to comprehend.

powerclown

That is hardly a foregone conclusion. It could just as easily be hypothesized that Communist Russia was preparing to "negotiate" with Iran to secure its share of oil. Yes, the government was elected, but it's a huuuge stretch to say that modernization was foremost on the agenda of the Iranians in the 50s.

joshbaumgartner

Foremost? Depends on your parsing of the word I guess, but there is no doubt that social reforms were one the key pillars of Mossadegh's support during the period of his PMship (51-53), including ending the fuedal agriculture system that still existed in the country until that time. It was in fact the vast social reforms that were cited by the Army as a primary reason to seek his overthrow (portraying them as Communism to the British and Americans).

To be fair, the Shah continued many of these upon his return to power in 1953. Mossadegh by 1953 was assuming some authoritarian measures, including emergency powers, as a result of the myriad plots gaining momentum against him (fomented by the CIA). Thus it is not fair to present Mossadegh as a mere elected civil servant. He was fairly elected, jbut Iran was not as democratic by the time of his ouster. Of course it was still more so than at any time from 1953-1979. However, his determination to implement progressive social reform is not in question.

Josh

powerclown

This is surreal:

IAEA, ElBaradei share Nobel Peace Prize

All we need now is for Bush to give the head of the US Army Corps of Engineers a Freedom Medal and all will be well.

I mean, most of the levees in New Orleans didn't fail.

During ElBaradei's tenure not every country developed nukes.

roachboy

i do not see where the surreality of this choice resides, powerclown: care to explain?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

What is there to explain? Some things just speak for themselves.