[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
hedo wrote:
Interesting article in Strategypage. Iran is on a fools errand. The US will not be deterred by a few nukes and Israel will certainly not hesitate to be proactive…so what’s the point. Noody wants to fight them but at least two nations will not be bullied by them.
Clash of Conservatives in Iran
February 28, 2007:
There seems to be a major political clash developing in Iran. The religious leadership seems to want to avoid an outright clash with the UN/U.S. over the nuclear issue, and appears to prefer not having nukes. Apparently, they believe having nukes makes them more vulnerable to attack than not having them. This is not as unreasonable as it may seem at first ? after all, they’ll never be able to have enough nukes to deter the US, and so their nuclear “threat” will have little impact on American policy. Worse, even if they have just one or two nukes, it will be enough to seriously threaten Israel, which they believe would have no compunctions in taking preemptive action.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, appears to ignore this calculus. He keeps saying the country has a right to do anything it wants in the nuclear field. This is part of the growing power struggle between the more radical Ahmadinejad and the more conservative clergy. The religious leadership has already several times told Ahmadinejad that the country’s nuclear program is their responsibility, not his. That’s because the powers of the Iranian president are restricted to domestic issues, and do not cover the armed forces or foreign policy. Ahmadinejad does have a lot of support among the rural peasantry and national militia. But in a clash with the clerics he’ll almost certainly lose, mainly because the religious conservatives and the social liberals in the country would unite behind the mullahs.
Hedo,
I’d feel alot better if we had some specifics. If the mullahs do indeed have the majority of control over the armed forces, it makes me very angry/nervous to hear about elite iranian units and their activity in Iraq.
Unless we had some specific evidence that the mullahs aren’t openly hostile and/or would be willing to squelch this nuclear buildup, I’m still nervous as hell.
In short, at this point, it’s hard to believe that the mullahs are on the side of peace.
I WOULD LOVE to be wrong.
JeffR
I sincerely doubt the mullahs are “on the side of peace” in any real way, and I also am pretty sure they’re determined to get nuclear weapons. The program predates Ahmedinejad by a long time obviously.
The issue is to what degree they’re willing to confront the West and America over nukes.
I think neither the U.S. nor Israel can really deter Iran from getting nukes in the long run, short of an invasion. This sucks, but again, it’s not the end of the world like so many people seem to think. Israel can look after itself. We will just have a lot more diplomacy and thinking to do with regards to Iran’s threat to the Gulf States.
Pakistan is a much scarier nuclear scenario than Iran, as is North Korea in a lot of ways. Yet all you hear is the drumbeat for war with Iran.[/quote]
gdol,
I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I categorically reject the notion that iran is less dangerous than pakistan or north korea. Please recall that iran is widely regarded as the number one supporter of terrorists. Add that to the fact that when you and I were talking, I posted that quote from ahmedinejad stating that he’s going to transfer nuclear know how.
One more thing, I think you are on the liberal end of things. However, I get the feeling that you at least try to think beyond the dnc platform. Therefore, I take your comment about north korea and pakistan at face value.
If you were bradley, I’d point out the simple fact that whatever bully we are currently dealing with, some dem will come on and say, “if we attack x, then we must attack y or we aren’t REALLY spreading democracy.”
JeffR