Like I said above, maybe didn’t deny it, but refused to address it, which I took as the same as denying it.
But my question still stands…was it a good thing to unfreeze their money if they could become a leading middle eastern power without nukes using the money to fund terrorism and buy superior conventional weapons?
Is this why Israel was against the treaty?
No one ever addressed this, so I assumed it was believed that they would not spend their money this way, but rather use the money to build up their economy.
Is what I stated above not a concern?
Or is everyone so happy Iran will NEVER become a nuclear power (according to this treaty) they are not concerned about it?
I find it extremely hard to believe that with all the detailed responses that Bismark, smh and others have given related to the treaty, that they did not address this issue.
I posted several articles condemning the treaty and the burden of proof was passed on to me: “show me an article which states a nuclear Iran is a lesser threat than a non-nuclear Iran” which was an issue they brought up…not addressing my point which was reiterated above.
But it’s just like them to dance around an issue.
Yet once again…my question still stands…was it a good thing to unfreeze their money if they could become a leading middle eastern power without nukes using the money to fund terrorism and buy superior conventional weapons?
The Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in acts of international terrorism, financed, trained and directed terrorist groups. 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires is one of the more nefarious incidents:
No one in their right mind would question this statement.
However, I would argue that it is far easier to handle a more conventional threat like Iran than the apocalyptic death cult that is salafi islam, run by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, official US allies.
Iran is first and foremost a country ruled by an oppressive regime interested in self-preservation. They’ve seen what happened to Saddam and Qaddafi and they realize that a noose or a metal rod up your ass for them personally is a possible scenario. When Iranians take to the streets, as they have the during the Green Revolution and other isolated instances, they don’t chant “peace”, “democracy” but “death to the mullahs”. And the ruling class are not exactly keen to play martyrs.
I’ve elaborated before on the USSR-Iran comparison and the self-preservation instinct of the dictators and the dictatorial class. That’s the difference between evil, amoral and sane vs. insane.
Take the quasi-shia Assad. He’s a ruthless murderer who has no problem gassing his own people or dropping barrel bombs on besieged Aleppo. If he was a stark-raving lunatic why didn’t he decide to strike Israel with this formidable arsenal? The answer is simple - the London-educated ophthalmologist wanted to stay alive. No martyrdom for him. The same thing with the Iranian Council of Guardians. Amoral, cynical people, but interested in their of self preservation. And you can coerce such people into constructive behavior using a carrot-and-stick approach.
Also, note that like in the USSR of old, all decisions are made on the very top in the Iranian Politburo to use the USSR analogy, including support for terrorist groups. This is due the hierarchical nature of shia islam and the Iranian theocratic system of government. Also shia islam is amenable to change, unlike salafi islam which is stuck in the desert raiding world of the 7th century.
This means that a bunch of cynical geriatrics decides all matters, not a bunch of salafi end-of-days preachers. No Persian-Americans are committing terror attacks in California, no ISIS franchise system for shias that enables psychotic dregs of society to commit atrocities in the West.
And with cynical geriatrics you can cut a deal. You cannot cut a deal with some retard who attended a brainwashing course in a Saudi funded mosque in Pakistan and believes all Jews and Christians need to be killed, or a fat Gulf sheikh who funnels millions to ISIS.
All those assholes who committed terror attacks in US and Europe have the same main theme - Saudi Arabia. That San Bernardino shooter attended a “radicalization course” in Saudi Arabia (US ally, let’s not forget), the latest New York bomber was trained in Pakistan (US and Saudi ally), the list goes on and on, back to USS Cole and 9/11. Always Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Where was Bin Laden hiding? In a Pakistan military town.
So when you’re afraid of being “attacked by terrorists”, worry about US allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which by the way has the bomb and Pakistani nuclear scientists have helped Saddam before. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards know that if they tried something against the US they would be bombed instantly, the Saudis know that they can do pretty much whatever they want.
Even Hillary acknowledged in the Wikileaks transcripts that the major purveyor of international terrorism is Saudi Arabia, but we’ve all seen how much power the wield in the US Government with the Obama veto.
The Iranian regime came close to being bombed during the Ahmadinejad presidency, something they’re very keen to avoid in the future, for those self preservation reasons mentioned above .
Ironically, US and Iran’s geopolitical interests in the ME match, and when left to their own devices they naturally drift to each other, as recent example in Iraq shows. That’s before the Saudi lobby starts kicking and screaming.
So we have a bizarre situation where the US is backing and arming an Iranian friendly shia government in Iraq to fight ISIS, the brainchild of their allies.
Gkhan…I must be missing your question. I say that because any Country or group will be much more dangerous with nuclear capability than without. That doesn’t require an article and certainly is not debatable.
Again; I fully admit that I may not be understanding your question.
Yes, I agree. They would be more dangerous with nuclear capabilities, but they can make the same gains in the Middle East using conventional weapons and terrorism and are doing so now.
And they can use the money unfrozen by the treaty to further their gains.
So unfreezing the money could lead to a non-nuclear Iran, but still a dangerous one nonetheless if they use the money to buy conventional weapons and fund terrorism.
That’s my point.
Though loppar thinks we’d be better off fighting the Saudis & Pakistanis and their terrorist allies…and he’s right too.
What America needs to do is pick a side or a principal and stick to it. If we are in a war on terror, then fight it evenly across the board. If Qadaffi was being attacked by terrorists funded by the Saudis, then why did NATO stop him from fighting them and eventually have him killed? If we’re in a war on terror, why criticize China and Russia when they are fighting terrorists in their countries? I think loppar said it best in his last sentence above…Our foreign policy stinks!
So, what’s the solution then? We get involved with overthrowing dictators and create more chaos. We’re in a “War on Terror” and half the time we’re backing the terrorists. No easy answers, but we’re always backing the wrong side, or the side that eventually comes back to bite the hand that feeds it. Maybe we should stay out of it and let the chips fall where they may.
Bad foreign policy:
My take after 9-11: Back ANY government dedicated to eradicating Muslim extremism and Al-Qaeda anywhere in the world regardless of politics. 9-11 was a watershed moment, ruined by the Axis of Evil comments, the invasion of Iraq, NATO bombing of Libya, interference in Syria, and for crying about human rights when certain nations stomp down on their own homegrown terrorists. We have done more to compound the global terrorist problem than any nation other than Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
You are making a logical fallacy regarding “global terrorism” - you’re treating them as some separate entity.
This is understandable coming from a Western background - in your mind there’s a clear definition of terrorism based consciously or unconsciously on moral principles, usually going back to Judeo-Christian moral values.
If someone crosses the clearly marked moral line and joins the Al-Qaeda or whatnot he becomes a “terrorist” and part of the “global terrorism problem”.
In the Middle East and dictatorships around the world, the situation is much murkier. Since GWB and his “War on Terror” everyone realized that the Americans love the buzzword “terror” so they started applying this label du jour in virtually every situation. Calling someone a “terrorist” will at least make the US hesitate before condemning their persecution.
Turkey pretty much considers all socialist Kurds terrorists, China applies the term to most of the muslim ethnic minorities in China proper while Saudi Arabia is mercilessly rooting out with mass executions “the gravest terrorist threat to the Kingdom” - ATHEISTS.
When it comes to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, regardless how many Western politicians say “that they do not represent true Islam”, the opposite is the case - they’re first and foremost sunnis taking the Quran literally, not some separate entity called “terrorists” that sprang up from nothing .
Most of the Saudis tacitly support ISIS - at best they may elicit a “meh” shrug. Sure, for them they are a bit over the top but that is “expected from soldiers fighting on the frontlines” and after all, why should they care some “infidels” are being killed?
If the top Saudi clerics are calling for exterminations of Jews, shias and Christians it’s no wonder that their paramilitaries in Iraq and Syria are following it to the letter… Don’t forget that in schools in ISIS occupied parts of Iraq and Syria Saudi textbooks are used without any changes.
Also, there is pretty much a revolving door policy when it comes to ME terror groups - many fled Al-Qaeda to join rembranded Islamist militias such as JAN in Syria, for example.
Russia pretty much co-opted their “terrorists”. Men who until a few years ago were killing Russian children and chopping off heads of captured Russian conscripts are now running Chechnya and Dagestan. Chechnya itself is being pushed more and more into radical islam, paradoxically with Russian federal money. Former Chechen terrorists can do whatever they want (including kill Russians) as long as they fly the Russian flag and keep Putin’s pictures around.
In videos from the war in Ukraine one can see Chechens torturing and killing Ukrainian POWs with the same methods and iconography as their coreligionists in Iraq and Syria. If they weren’t wearing Red Army uniforms one could mistake them for ISIS footsoldiers.
So to make my point - there is no “global terrorist problem” - there are countries that sponsor and enable terrorists to pursue their agendas their political and religious goals. There is no victory in the “War on Terror” unless these countries and financiers are dealt with one way or the other.