Lebell

I agree that the current situation there is partly a by-product of past American actions as well as the history of European colonialism in the region and that in a sense, we are reaping what we sowed. Be that as it may, neither you or I or the current administration supported the Shah, nor did many of those currently in power in Iran suffer under him. Vietnam and America, two bitter enemies, have moved on and are experiencing diplomatic if not cordial relations. Former arch enemies Japan and Germany are now close allies. But it is in the Middle East that they still talk about the glories of Saladan and the Christian crusaders as if they themselves suffered the indignaties. In the middle east they issue death warrants for authors who have insulted their prophet (I can only imagine the number of corpses if we at TFP issued fatwas on members who've insulted Jesus). And that leads to my second response.

Arab (ok ok, Persian as well) culture is certainly different from Western culture even as is Eastern culture (read: North Korea) in how rhetoric is used. I remember a special (Bill Moyers?) on modern Iran in which those on the street regularly denounced the "Great Satan" and called for "Death to America" while privately expressing no hate or even a liking of western and American culture. Such rhetoric is a tool even as brinksmanship is a tool for North Korea.

And yet.

"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you."

Once again, the history of the region shows that not all rhetoric is just that.

Tensions in the 1920's between Palistinian Arabs and Jewish land owners lead to riots and a slaughter of the local Jews.

Consider the 6 day war:

(http://www.ourtimelines.com/zsixdaywar.html)

The Iranian president is not the first one to call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Nassar and a string of other Middle Eastern leaders have called for the same thing and have proceeded to try exactly that.

Finally there is the point that I have made repeatedly: Why on earth does Iran, who sits on billions and billions of gallons of crude oil, suddenly need a nuclear plant for energy?

Nuclear technology is expensive to do safely, requires a huge infrastructure and has a high cost associated with waste disposal.

Yet they need nuclear energy.

Seriously, I think the North Koreans, with their poor natural energy resources have a better argument.

So I agree that what you say is possible, that it might just be saber rattling, that the nuclear program might be peaceful, but even if it's just a 10% chance that it's not, do you want to take a 10% chance on world war 3?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Elphaba

Ummm...

Willravel

I thought it was "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Oh well.

Xazy

Yes, how many suicide bombers have come from Iran? And money for terrorists, etc.. Sure that is the most stable country I can think of, with no concern for any type of violence coming out from there.

Willravel

I think what he was trying to say is that the Iranian government hasn't overthrown any governments lately. Sure they use suicide bombers, but how many battleships loaded with missles do they have poised to take out a government? How many times in the past have they used nuclear arms in a war?

The problem isn't that there are or aren't violent people in the country. There ARE VIOLENT PEOPLE IN every country (except Canada, as far as I can figure), but that does not mean every country is a nuclear terror threat. The question is, based on history, who is REALLY the more dangerous nation? Iran or the United States of America?

highthief

I don't know, how many suicide bombers have come from Iran? Perhaps you could tell us.

I have never said that Iran has not supported terrorists be they in Palestine or elsewhere. However, as a nation, Iran hasn't gone off an invaded anyone nor even started a war with anyone that I recall, despite being one of the powers in the region. I mean, who do you think has sparked more violence and wars in the last century? The US? Germany? Japan? Iraq? China? Korea? Vietnam? Isreal? Iran is well down the list.

Do I want anyone to have the bomb (least of all the US or China or other nations who think they own the world?) - hell, no. But as long as force majeur exists, Iran is not going to drop a nuke on Washington or London or even Tel Aviv. They'd be turned into glass within 15 minutes.

If the question is: "What do about Iran seeking the bomb"?, I'd be after a diplomatic/economic solution, not a military one. The US invading Iran or bombing them would be the last straw, IMO, for the entire region.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

highthief

Actually, I'm a violent Canadian.

Grrr!

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

roachboy

i dont know what to tell you, lebell: your position works at a level of generality that i find bewildering, and amounts to a kind of arbitrary "history" that would appear to have been constructed around a political position you decided was correct before the history entered into it.

first, i do not understand why you would invoke the history of israel and its conflicts with palestinians and allies to demonstrate your concern about iran without mentioning anything about the shifting position israel has occupied---the israel of the 6 day war is not that of 2005--israel is a regional superpower--no combination of surrounding countries would be in a position to destroy it militarily.
i dont know what sense it makes to see israel as a victimized state at this point.
i also do nto understand how your politics relative to israel manages to erase the plight of the palestinians from the equation.
it seems that you would prefer israel be understood as the victim of irrational hatred rather than being a state whose policies toward the palestinans are the primary driver of continued conflict in the region.

one of the arguments iran has floated to justify their demand for nuclear weapons is that they feel threatened by israel. because of the israeli nuclear weapons programmes. why is that fear erased from your assessment of the situation?


yours is basically samuel huntington's position--the "clash of civilizations" line---grafted onto a general history of arab-israeli conflicts that treat those conflicts in a completely ahistorical manner.
and i think that the problems you seem to have in mapping your historical argument onto the case at hand (iran) follow from this general logic--so your position amounts to a demonstration of what is wrong with this huntingtonesque logic.

for the record, let me repeat: i would treat iran with some caution were i in a position of some power, but i see nothing to justify hysteria and its evil twin, saber rattling, on the part of the united states.

but i think contemplating an invasion is crazy: useless strategically (the americans could not do it right now if there was a real need for it even, given the brilliant success of their iraq fiasco), ridiculous politically (even if the underlying motive for considering such an invasion is to make a second-order argument for the necessity of george w. bush style policy and the mayberry machiavellian assumptions that underpin it), based on a readings of the present and of the past so arbitrary as to almost not be readings at all of either the present or the past.

i suspect this talk of invading iraq is more coherent when passed through the lens of american domestic politics at the moment--a kind of displaced revenge fantasy indulged by conservatives who find themselves in a curious place as they watch their boy bush and his administration crash into walls of its own making, functions of deceit, arrogance and incompetence...maybe within this somewhere is a grain of accurate analysis as well: things are so bad for bush and his adminstration that only another war would save them...

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite