New Sanctions, Old Postures as U.S.-Israel-Iran Stalemate Drags On

  • Share
  • Read Later
AY-COLLECTION / SIPA

Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, voiced confidence on July 24, 2012, that the Islamic Republic can beat the latest punitive measures aimed at blocking the country's vital oil and banking industries over the disputed program

Did Mitt Romney’s hawkish posture in Israel last weekend increase the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran? Unlikely. Will Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s visit to Israel to discuss “various contingencies and how we would respond” hasten the prospect of confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program? Probably not. And will Iran capitulate in response to the increasingly painful economic sanctions tightened by the Obama Administration on Tuesday? Don’t bet on it. Although surprises are always possible given the cast of characters involved, all indications are that the Iran nuclear standoff is set to remain locked in an increasingly tense stalemate, at least through November’s U.S. presidential election.

Panetta’s visit coincides with an executive order signed Tuesday by President Barack Obama imposing punishments on any entities and countries that help Tehran circumvent sanctions imposed over the past year that are driving down living standards in Iran. A new raft of sanctions have also been approved by Congress this week to block Iran from receiving the proceeds of its oil sales, further tightening the economic stranglehold that U.S. officials hope will compel Iran’s leaders to accept Western terms for resolving the nuclear dispute.

(MORE: Long-Term Uncertainty Remains in Nuclear Talks with Iran)

There’s no sign of that happening at the negotiating table, however, as the bottom lines of the two sides remain so far apart that they’ve agreed only to keep a perfunctory channel of communication open. But the Administration’s emphasis is clearly on sanctions rather than diplomacy, having made clear to the Iranians that there’ll be no easing of the most painful pressure until Tehran is willing to heed all demands being put to it — something Iran stresses it has no intention of doing, even if it was willing to consider compromise options. Sanctions, of course, are a waiting game.

Obama’s new executive order may have been timed to help Panetta’s mission, which appears to be restraining the Israelis from taking unilateral military action by reassuring them not only that Iran faces the toughest economic sanctions ever imposed on any nation during peacetime, but also that the chokehold is being constantly tightened. It also appears intended to show that the Obama Administration is willing and ready to take military action to stop Iran building a nuclear weapon if the Islamic Republic proceeds down that path.

In a ritual that is familiar by now, U.S. officials plead that Israel allows more time for sanctions to inflict the economic pain that will compel the Iranian leadership to reconsider its defiance of Western demands, while Israeli leaders express public skepticism that sanctions will be enough to change the mind of the leadership in Tehran and question the value of further talks. Their skepticism and implied readiness to take unilateral military action combine to create pressure for still more sanctions and pressure.

(MORE: For Israel, the Problem with Iran Diplomacy Is the Prospect of Nuclear Compromise)

While the U.S. is closely coordinating with Israel on all its Iran activities, including the negotiations via the European Union–led P5+1 group, there’s an unmistakable gap — at least publicly — between the two sides when it comes to redlines that would trigger military action. President Obama has made clear that he would be willing to bomb Iran to prevent it from building nuclear weapons. Of course, the international consensus is that Iran is using the cover of its nuclear-energy program to steadily assemble the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons but has not moved to weaponize nuclear material, or even taken a strategic decision to do so. Thus President Obama’s insistence that there’s still plenty of time for sanctions to make the difference.

Israeli leaders, however, have publicly laid out a different redline, based on Israel’s more limited military capabilities. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, for example, has insisted that Iran’s nuclear program can’t be allowed to enter a “zone of immunity,” where, even if it hasn’t moved to weaponize nuclear material, it has placed enough of its nuclear infrastructure inside the hardened facility at Fordow, buried deep in a mountainside near Qom, to put it beyond the reach of Israel’s aerial-bombardment capabilities. Although the “zone of immunity” is a fuzzy indicator with no time line attached, the implication is that Israel will have to strike before Iran reaches that point or else forfeit its own military option for dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program.

That may be why, at least according to reports in the Israeli media, that U.S. officials have begun briefing the Israelis in considerable detail on operational plans that would be implemented should Iran move to weaponize. (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office denies this.) The purpose of these alleged briefings, reportedly, is to demonstrate to the Israelis that the U.S. has the will, the plans and the capacity to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities should Iran cross U.S. red lines for military action. Asked about the agenda for his discussions with senior Israeli leaders in the course of his visit, Panetta told reporters that “it is the wrong characterization to say we’re going to be discussing potential attack plans. What we’re discussing are various contingencies and how we would respond.” Well, yes. And President Obama, soon after taking office, replaced the term global war on terror with overseas contingency operations. In practical terms, that may be a distinction without a difference.

(MORE: Deadlocked, Iran and Western Nuclear Negotiators Agree Only to Keep Talking)

Romney, for his part, took a hard line on the question of nuclear compromise with Iran, insisting that Tehran could not be trusted with any nuclear material, meaning that — like the Israeli leadership — the only diplomatic outcome he would accept would be one in which Iran gave up the right to all uranium enrichment. (For Iran, that would be tantamount to surrender, and it remains a highly unlikely scenario.) A top Romney aide, Dan Senor, also indicated that Romney would “respect” an Israeli decision to take unilateral military action against Iran.

But none of that changes anyone’s calculations. Israel is not looking for the U.S. to respect a decision to unilaterally strike Iran; it needs the U.S. to do the job. Asked about the issue in a TV interview on Tuesday, Netanyahu answered as follows:

“I would love it if the world and the United States carry out this task. I’ve gathered quite a bit of support in the international community to pressure Iran. This pressure affects the Iranian economy, but hasn’t moved their nuclear program even one meter backwards,” he said. “If they [the international community] do it — all the better. We do not entrust in others things concerning our destiny and our existence, not even in the best of our friends. Obama and Romney said that Israel has a right to defend itself against any threat — and we must be the ones to make the decisions about our fate and our future.”

(MORE: Can Israel Stop Iran’s Nuke Effort?)

Israel’s military capacities, however, are substantially more limited than those of the U.S., and the sustained barrage that would be required to delay Iran’s nuclear program for even a couple of years might be beyond Israel’s capacities. Even with U.S. support, Israel would be isolated diplomatically if it launched a war with Iran, and the sanctions and other follow-up mechanisms required to prevent Iran building nuclear weapons following a strike would likely crumble. Israeli public opinion, moreover, is opposed to a strike on Iran unless Washington was taking the lead. And Israel’s military chiefs reportedly also view taking military action at this stage as a mistake.

Obama himself appears unable to entertain any compromise on the enrichment issue in an election year, which is why there is little prospect of any nuclear deal before November. The sanctions are certainly having a painful effect in Iran, but what’s less clear is whether or not this economic pain will force Iran to capitulate on the nuclear issue — and that’s a question unlikely to be answered this year.

That said, there’s also the possibility that Iran declines to bite the bullet, and instead tries to escalate the crisis through measures of its own. Mindful of the precarious state of the world economy, for example, it might decide that its most effective response to the sanctions and the failure of Western powers to offer what Tehran considers to be acceptable terms at the negotiating table would be to take actions, open or covert, that threaten global oil supplies. Or it could get its nuclear program closer to weapons capability by enriching uranium to higher grades, perhaps on the pretext of powering naval vessels, but aware all the while of the provocative nature of such moves. If the Iranians, instead of crying uncle, choose some more belligerent utterances and actions, all bets could be off.

MORE: 5 Tips for President Obama on Nuclear Negotiations with Iran

44 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Albert  Zaripow
Albert Zaripow

It will be the historical epoch when the USA will turn their back upon Israel. Because Israel more and more becomes agressor. It will be.

JohnWV
JohnWV

However did we get it all so backwards? As a signatory to the Non

Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an internationally recognized right to

develop and implement nuclear technology. Israel rejected the NPT and

has no such right. Yet, the Jewish state has ICBM nukes and openly

threatens Iran; actually campaigns for war against Iran. Israel, not

Iran, should be sanctioned and forced to reveal its nuclear

machinations to IAEA inspection. However did we get it all so

backwards?

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

  John (Jewish Israeli name), Iran started threatening Israel, not

the other way around.  It is a matter of religion / obsession.  They worship Jews (100% of the "prophets" in the Koran, from a people today less than 0,2% of the world population) and the

Jewish capital city, Jerusalem while Judaism owes nothing to Islam.

JohnWV
JohnWV

Iran is only Israel's current fixation. America's entire electoral system

has been corrupted by Netanyahu's Israel, AIPAC, Israel Firsters and

ingenious distribution of enormous amounts of Jewish money. Our

representative democracy is nearly defeated and the destruction of

America as we know it well underway. Termination of the criminal

treachery and treason demands immediate priority. The Government of

the United States must again serve American interests, not the Jewish

state's relentless pursuit of invulnerability, territorial conquest

and apartheid supremacist empire in, and beyond, the Mideast.

JohnWV
JohnWV

However did we get it all so backwards? As a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an internationally recognized right to develop and implement nuclear technology. Israel rejected the NPT and has no such right. Yet, the Jewish state has ICBM nukes and openly threatens Iran; actually campaigns for war against Iran. Israel, not Iran, should be sanctioned and forced to reveal its nuclear

machinations to IAEA inspection. However did we get it all so backwards?

JohnWV
JohnWV

Iran is only Israel's current fixation. America's entire electoral system has been corrupted by Netanyahu's Israel, AIPAC, Israel Firsters and ingenious distribution of enormous amounts of Jewish money. Our representative democracy is nearly defeated and the destruction of America as we know it well underway. Termination of the criminal treachery and treason demands immediate priority. The Government of the United States must again serve American interests, not the Jewish state's relentless pursuit of invulnerability, territorial conquest and apartheid supremacist empire in, and beyond, the Mideast.

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

Iran is a theocracy, but why is Iran a Muslim?  Whatever

happened to their original religion, the one they followed before converted by

the Arabs?

 

Iran is ruled by medieval Muslim clerics. Do they hate Israel out of love

for the Arabs, the same Arabs that they killed half a million of them during their war against Iraq?  Is it

because Arabs "only" have 22 countries (they lost Iberia a few

centuries ago and Southern Sudan recently, not before murdering 300,000 black Christians), one in Palestine (Jordan, 80% of the

region).  Why can't Arabs be a minority with full rights in Israel

(0,000000000000000...1% of the ME, 20% of Palestine)?  And what about

the Kurds, for example?  They have no country, theirs being under

 Syrian, Iraqui, Turkish and IRANIAN occupation.  

 

 An Arab invented a new religion 1,500 years after Judaism and 650 after

Jesus "based" (no copyright at that time) on Judaism and

Christianism.  All "prophets" in the Koran are Jewish prophets,

patriarchs, kings and rabbis, like Isaiah, Moses, Solomon and Jesus, for

example.  From a small people (less than 0,2% of the word population

today), one of the thousands of peoples / religions at that time (every people,

every family had their own religion and gods).  

 

The Ayatollahs are obsessed with us Jews, they think we can't have our own

country in our historical homeland, while 57 countries can call themselves

Islamic.

Mohammad Al-Dabbas
Mohammad Al-Dabbas

Iran is about one-fifth the size of the continental United States, while Israel is about the size of Oakland, CA.

trading rockets in a full on military war will not favor Israel.

and the US doesn't need another Iraq/ trillion dollar war disaster.

Israel will help ignite World war 3.. America needs no part in that

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

  Quite the opposite.  Iran wants to ignite World War III.  They are ruled by medieval Muslim clerics.  Islam was invented out of an obsession of one Arab with Jews and the Arabs later converted

the Persians.  Now they want to show that are 

"holier than thou

" .  Iranians sould go back to their original religion and the problem (obsession with Jews and their country) would go away.

Firozali A.Mulla
Firozali A.Mulla

When the two

bulls fight the grass gets trashed or if Arthur barks at John I have no idea

who is right. I see only hear lots of shouts and that is it. To be honest the

noise pollution is so much that it is difficult to listen any these days. I do

not want to listen to all barking. Period Add the topic will can be the same

all the years The British were offended, the Palestinians

accused him of racism and even in friendlier Poland, Mitt Romney's union policies drew criticism from the current leaders of the

movement that toppled communism. Romney's visit to Britain, Israel and Poland was never expected to produce

the same media frenzy as then-candidate Barack Obama's extravagant,

eight-country tour of 2008. Obama received rock star treatment from

international media and world leaders as he travelled from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to the glittering chancelleries of

Europe. Nevertheless, comparisons were inevitable and much of it was less than favourable

to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "The designated

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wanted to demonstrate foreign

policy expertise and diplomatic skills with his trip to Britain, Israel and Poland," the

Swiss newspaper Tages-Zeitung said Tuesday. "Today, on the last day of the

tour, he must be made to admit that he clearly missed this target." Romney

supporters insisted that much of the criticism was unfair and overblown,

especially in countries of Europe where the political culture tends to be left

of contemporary America. Back in 2008, commentators attributed much of the

public adulation that candidate Obama received in Europe to the simple fact

that he was not George W. Bush, whose image had sunk because of widespread

opposition to the Iraq war. Likewise, the warm reception Romney received in Poland was due in part to the fact that he is

not Barack Obama, whose overtures to Russia and other policies have not gone down

well among Poles. Whatever the differences, the contrast between the two

candidates' foreign tours has been striking. In 2008, more than 200,000 people

turned out in Berlin to hear Obama speak of a world without nuclear weapons and

promise to counter climate change. It is

election season, after all, so sharing one's political views -- however

outlandish they may be -- is to be expected. But how about from a 6-year-old? Isaac Anthony counts down the 10 reasons why he

thinks you should not vote for Barack Obama in a YouTube video posted by the conservative website Patriot

Update. His list of reasons includes the fact that, in his opinion, Obama is

"taking money from people who work hard" and "keeping people on

welfare and food stamps." After Anthony delivers reason No. 4, "He

wants to take guns away from good guys," he shoots his mock pistol at the

camera. When kids talk,

they talk sense as they want to see the future Since my house burned down / I now own a better view / of

the rising moon. -Mizuta Masahide, poet and samurai (1657-1723) . I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

franfetch
franfetch

my

classmate's sister-in-law brought home $13491 a month ago. she makes

money on the internet and moved in a $439900 home. All she did was get

lucky and work up the information explained on this web site http://www.LazyCash49.com

Gary McCray
Gary McCray

We can talk about this all we want.

But the bottom line is that the Israelis face what they consider to be an untenable problem if Iran has the means to make an Atomic bomb.

Yes the Israelis have the bomb, in fact lots of bombs.

No they won't give them up.

As far as they are concerned it is only because they have the bomb and the rest of the Middle East doesn't that they are still there at all.

Pretty much views expressed in the Middle East tend to support that view.

After the US presidential elections, the Israelis with or without US help will eliminate the problem, by any means they deem necessary.

Israel is hoping and expecting that after the election the US will help them solve this problem in a way that does not require them to deploy nuclear weapons.

Iran is hoping that, that is not the case and figures it wins if either Israel backs down (totally unlikely) or if they use a nuke on Fodor.

Because that would immediately thrust Iran into the position of an oppressed nuked (by the Jews) nation giving them total status in Arab world.

This is the reality of the situation, any other appraisal is simply naive.

Jerry Ram
Jerry Ram

As is the case, time is on the side of Iran.  Scenario,  what would the US. do, given that its vowed enemy was next door and stated that it would wipe the US. off the map?

Is this a no brainer question?

And for military capabilities, bigger is not best. Israel's military forces are probably the best in the world.  They do not have a choice , their neighbors are not exactly

lovey dovey.

Sid sridhar
Sid sridhar

On Iran, the West cannot win. The reality is that the US has tipped its hand in favour of Sunni Saudi Arabia and therefore, Iran will rally all non -Sunni groups to support its cause. The overthrow of Saddam was seen as a move that reinforced the Shia side in Iraq. The immediate effect of this was a shrill scream from  the Saudis, and the US has now moved into their camp mainly because Israel too has an issue with Iran. Whichever way the World looks at the problem, the middle east will be the theater of conflict that the West cannot win. Simply bombing Iran will only produce more Jihadis

Chinga_Tu_Madre
Chinga_Tu_Madre

Here's a thought: LEAVE IRAN ALONE.

"But they said they will destroy Israel!"

No, go back and read the entire quote. And even IF they did say it, they do so in the face of Israel and the U.S making real plans and preparations for war against them. As for America, we really have no business in this fight since:

1) We shot their civilian airliner.

2) We help overthrow their democratically elected official and installed a complete idiot.

3) We armed Iraq with WMDs, which Iraq used against Iran, and which, incidentally, were the ones we were looking for 8 years ago.

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

  Iran is already at war wit Israel, via proxis, te Muslim terrorist roups ezbola in Lebanon and Islamic Jiad in aza.

   Iran is a theocracy, but why is Iran a Muslim country?

 Whatever happened to their original religion, the one they followed

before converted by the Arabs?

 

Iran is ruled by medieval Muslim clerics. Do they hate Israel out of love for

the Arabs, the same Arabs that they killed half a million of them during their war

against Iraq?  Is it because Arabs "only" have 22 countries

(they lost Iberia a few centuries ago and Southern Sudan recently, not before murdering 300,000 black Christians), one in

Palestine (Jordan, 80% of the region).  Why can't Arabs be a minority with

full rights in Israel (0,000000000000000...1% of the ME, 20% of

Palestine)?  And how about the Kurds, for example?  They have no

country, theirs being under  Syrian, Iraqui, Turkish and Iranian

occupation.  

 

 An Arab invented a new religion 1,500 years after Judaism and 650 after

Jesus "based" (no copyright at that time) on Judaism and

Christianism.  All "prophets" in the Koran are Jewish prophets,

patriarchs, kings and rabbis, like Isaiah, Moses, Solomon and Jesus, for

example.  From a small, small people (less than 0,2% of the word

population today), one of the thousands of peoples / religions at that time

(every people, every family had their own religion and gods).  

 

The Ayatollahs are obsessed with us Jews, that they think can't have our own

country in our historical homeland, while 57 countries can call themselves

Islamic.

 

drorbenami
drorbenami

leave iran alone  ???  you are a real idiot "chinga".  iran supplies both syria and gaza with weapons, they have carried out attacks in iraq and even argentina, but you seem to be implying this is an innocent nation who has never bothered anyone and won't do so if we just left them alone....

but tell me chinga, why is this issue so important to you??? why doesn't the 50,000 dead in mexico bother you ???

Chinga_Tu_Madre
Chinga_Tu_Madre

Boy, you can't post a response or render an argument without projecting or gross assumptions. You meander around the issues while never addressing the topic. You are without integrity and it reflects in your arguments.

So here, let me explain it to you once again. It matters not who's involved with what, when, and who got who to do it. Israel and the U.S need to cut ties and go their separate ways like  Sonny and Cher.

We don't have to hate Israel, because they're not to blame for our subservience to them. The way we allow their political proxies to lobby and interfere in our foreign and military policy is a flagrant sign of our weakness. 

So you're right, there's nothing good that can be said about the U.S, that's why we need to end this dysfunctional relationship and genuflect.

drorbenami
drorbenami

Well that is certainly an option, but that would not improve the situation in the USA. You would still be left with other dysfunctional allies like great Britain who ran a network of concentration camps in Kenya, Germany (no need to explain), Argentina and Chile who throw their own citizens out of helicopters and Saudi Arabia which routinely tortures and executes people who it considers to be a threat.

In short, neither the USA or Israel are perfect, but you seem to be implying that the other members in the American alliance are better...perhaps new Zealand is indeed better, but new Zealand is not a world class power like Israel. For example: New Zealand has no space program or hi tech industry....

Chinga_Tu_Madre
Chinga_Tu_Madre

I have no "interest" in this problem. Other than the U.S Military Industrial Complex (and their paid representatives), nobody, and I mean nobody wants us to do Israel's bidding. 

Hey, Israel, take over the entire Middle East (or stick with what you have) if you want. Just lose our phone number. Thanks.

drorbenami
drorbenami

poor little united states being forced to act against its will by the powerful and greedy israelis....

tell me chinga, did israel "force" the usa to enter viet nam? did israel force the usa to invade mexico and steal 60% of that country ?

at the moment, the interests of israel and the usa coincide. furthermore, the usa considers israel to be an "un-sinkable" aircraft carrier and will do what it feels is necessary to maintain that asset. finally, all partnerships require compromise.

what i find repugnant in your comments, and especially in the articlles of tony baloney and karl vick, is the attitude that americans are nice people who only act honorably and that israel has corrupted their values.

it is like me telling my wife i could have been successful if i hadn't married her. i married my wife because we had certain things in common and she fullfilled certain needs i had. possibly, i can do better with out her, but for me to blame all my weaknesses on her is in itself a weakness.

the root cause of america's problems can be found in america...possibly israel has aggravated these problems and brought out the worst in the usa, but i don't think so. if anything, israel functions like a mirror and americans, like yourself, don't like what you see.....

Chinga_Tu_Madre
Chinga_Tu_Madre

Because we're talking about Iran and Israel: see above article.

The idiot is the one that can see past our hypocrisy enough to warrant hostilities with another nation. I care not if Iran is "innocent." I don't know which nation fits that description, but I know that we need to be done with this erstwhile and troubling "ally" and mind our own business.

You got that?

drorbenami
drorbenami

no i don't got that...

what i see is you are living in a country that has been at war for 25 years since israel was founded in 1948 and has killed millions of people from at least 10 different nations....

yet for some reason you are obsessed with a little country that you cannot even locate on a google world map....

israel is fighting for its defense, the usa is fighting for ideals....

iran, like you, is not even involved in this issue. israel has a peace treaty with egypt for 30 years, with jordan for 17 years, and has been negoitiating with the PLO for almost 20 years...

what is iran's interest in this problem ??? what's your interest ???

Jacob Blues
Jacob Blues

That's a great line Chinga, and it works too . . . .

Provided you ignore the rest of the comments made by Iran's government over the past 33 years.

Your argument has even less credibility when we throw in the deeds of Iran during the same time period. 

Chinga_Tu_Madre
Chinga_Tu_Madre

And yet we still have no moral warrant to interfere in this conflict between Israel and Iran. There's both sovereign nations that can handle their own hostilities.

Kyle
Kyle

my

co-worker's ex-wife makes $73/hour on the laptop. She has been out of

work for 10 months but last month her payment was $16286 just working on

the laptop for a few hours. Read more here

http://www.LazyCash49.com

db49
db49

I think we all know that in the end it comes down to whatever Israel chooses to do. The rest is window-dressing. Iran is not about to cave in, and the USA wants nothing to do with another mid-east war. Of course, when Israel does choose, depending on the choice they make, the US may have no alternative left but to follow, and support their chosen ally.

Richard_SM
Richard_SM

You didn't consider whether Iran might choose pre-emptive action. Most people don't. Which says a lot about this supposed war-mongering nation.

db49
db49

 I come from the supposed peace-loving nation to your North, and as I've already stated earlier, Iran has cried wolf far too often lately to be taken seriously at this late date. I am curious, however, exactly what kind of pre-emptive action could Iran take that wouldn't end with their total destruction?

Richard_SM
Richard_SM

Iran has more than enough conventional missiles to obliterate Israel, especially in a surprise pre-emptive attack. You didn't consider the possibility in your initial reckoning, which given that Iran is "supposed" to be bent on starting war with Israel isn't logical. You've now explained that it would end with Iran's destruction. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons and launched an attack on Israel, would it not also end with Iran's destruction? The outcomes of attacks by a pre-nuclear Iran and a post-nuclear Iran look pretty much the same, yet you were confident enough not to consider a pre-nuclear Iran attack. As I said, you're not the only one, most people don't. Go figure.

Eric11210
Eric11210

Iran has already engaged in preemtive action. Didn't you hear about all the attacks they launched in India, Bulgaria and the like?

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

  Pre

-emptive action?  But Iran is already at war 

with Israel, via proxis, the Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

.

Eric11210
Eric11210

Resistance groups against invasion and occupation. That's funny. Typical for this troll. Sanitize those who smash the head of a four year old girl against the rocks as a final act while trying to get away and call them "resistance groups." Sick.

Richard_SM
Richard_SM

Not Iran. Resistance groups against invasion and occupation by Israel.

Jacob Blues
Jacob Blues

Actually db, as Tony points out, it really depends on what Iran wants to do. 

It is Iran that is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.  It is Iran that has threatened to destroy Israel.  It is Iran that the Arab-Gulf states are concerned about.  It is Iran that is threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz.

Iran could end this all in a heartbeat.  But instead, its leaders prefer to persue the course of military adventurism. 

 

Bjørn Schultz
Bjørn Schultz

 I believe you are wrong. This is not Iran's doing, but America's.

America has a long history of bombing countries that are of a different political allignment, and look at how things have gone in the past few years:

- Iraq decided to get rid of their MWD's -> Invaded by the US and their government murdered after a show trial.

- Libya, actively collaborated with the west -> Invaded and murdered.

 - North Korea attained nuclear weapons -> Got left alone and was able to reopen negotations after attaining them.

The over-aggresive posture of america in recent years has created a scenario where they have proven that you cannot trust them to not invade you and collaborating offers no secuirity whatsoever, thus the only way a country, from it's own point of view,  can ensure it's safety against the american pirahna is by building nuclear weapons. Especially considering that the rethoric employed by both America and Israel point to an upcoming invasion.

The Iranians are not to blame for this, America is to blame for creating an enviroment where w9rking together with the west equals suicide. Hell, if I was a middle eastern country,  I would work my damnest to get WMD's. Especially as my enemies keep escalating the political aggression.

Iran is as much to blame for wanting nukes, as an american is to blame for wanting to buy a gun in case someone breaks into their home when all their neighboors yell that they are going to beat them up.

db49
db49

 You are correct Jacob, and I appreciate your comment. I think when I made my assessment, I allowed myself to write off Iran because they have cried wolf so often that I no longer expect them to pursue any action other than stall for time. That, of course, is to over-simplify the problem, and even in the matter of stalling, there are at least 2 possible outcomes. If Iran successfully buys the time they are looking for, it may be revealed that they were in fact pursuing only peaceful advances, and simply refused to be dictated to by foreign powers. Of course, given adequate time, it may also be revealed that they were lying the whole time, and the world will have to contend with yet another nuclear power. So in the end, I agree with your assessment, but I really don't expect the rest of the world to gamble on the outcome, choosing rather to influence it while they still can.

jeff_garret
jeff_garret

Dear Jacob, According to Wikipedia it is Persian Gulf. next time be more literate plz. 

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

  When did the US fight any of Israel's war?  Israel fought alone against those Muslim Arab bloody dictatorships, medieval kingdoms and jihadi groups supported by Iran every time they attacked.  Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor alone.

Mohammad Al-Dabbas
Mohammad Al-Dabbas

the six-day war of 1968, do a little research

ricardo lion
ricardo lion

1967.  Israel fought alone against several Muslim Arab bloody dictatorships and medieval kingdoms that declared war back in 1948 and were threatening again.

db49
db49

 I never said anything about the USA fighting Israel's wars. My belief that they might become involved as allies was based on countless recent claims by the USA that they would support (even militarily) Israel, should events come down to that. But thanks for the history lesson. Truly appreciate it.