Iran - was a golden opportunity pissed away?

Intresting post on StrategyPage

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/ar ... 60324.aspx

March 24, 2006: The current "crisis" between the U.S. and Iran has complex and deep roots. While past American "meddling" in Iranian affairs and U.S. support for the Shah's repressive regime still irk many Iranians, most of them also oppose the conservative religious regime that dominates the country.



Surprisingly, despite efforts to brand the Iranian regime as "authoritarian" or even "totalitarian" there's an amazing amount of public dissent, ranging from newspaper and television criticism (usually carefully tailored to focus on obvious abuses). There is also massive resistance to attempts to abolish traditional pre-Islamic practices, such as the annual new year's observances (just completed), which are marked by public bon fires and partying in keeping with a custom that reaches back into the times when Iranians followed the Zoroastrian faith. America and Americans are generally viewed quite favorably by most Iranians, and trendier people open flaunt American cultural icons; Iran was the only Moslem country in which there were spontaneous mass public demonstrations of sympathy for the U.S. following the 911 attacks.



But even many pro-American Iranians are "disappointed" with the U.S. During Operation Enduring Freedom, Iran played an important, if covert, role in the successful American effort to overthrow the Taliban. There were both religious and political reasons for this. The Taliban's ultra-Sunni sectarianism was inherently hostile to Iran's Shiite brand of Islam. Not only was Afghanistan's small Shia minority prosecuted by the Taliban, but the Taliban even attempted to stir up trouble among Iran's Sunni minority.



Iran was one of the main sources of funding for the warlords who were fighting the Taliban during the 1990s. When the U.S. jumped into Afghanistan in late 2001, Iran encouraged its pet warlords to cooperate with American efforts and supported the formation of the Karzai government. Relief supplies were permitted to move across Iranian territory. And, most surprisingly, Iran raised no objections when American aircraft occasionally (or not so occasionally) violated its airspace. At the time, many Iranian leaders apparently believed the effort in Afghanistan would lead to some improvement in ties with the U.S. Instead, Iran found itself included in "The Axis of Evil." This had a major effect on the following elections; political and religious leaders who had been urging a rapprochement with the U.S. were discredited and barred from running for office, which led to a resurgence of ultra-conservatives in the religious leadership, which in turn led to the election of the nearly maniacal Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



Making matters worse, is the issue of Iran's efforts to develop nuclear power. This actually began under the Shah, and seems to be viewed very favorably by most Iranians, even those staunchly opposed to the regime. The effort by the ultra-conservative leadership to piggy-back a nuclear weapons program on top of the nuclear power program is not so widely supported.

While nuclear arms might bring Iran some prestige, their possession would not necessarily greatly enhance the country's overall power and influence. Indeed, reportedly some Iranian military leaders have argued against acquiring nuclear weapons, on the grounds that they would handicap Iranian strategic flexibility and security. Among their arguments, they cite the probability that, confronted by a nuclear-armed Iran, the Gulf Arab states would be driven even further into the American orbit, and while several other adjacent countries (e.g., Turkey, Pakistan, and Russia, as an ally of the Central Asian "Stans") would probably become much less friendlier than they already are.



Some generals have even argued that nuclear weapons will probably not be of much use against Israel. While being able to annihilate Israel with a couple of bombs might make some arch-conservative religious leaders happy, it would certainly open the country to massive retaliation by Israel, and would lead to the destruction of the Moslem holy places in the country, not to mention a couple of million Brothers-in-Allah. In addition, they are apparently terrified that if Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group were to employ a nuclear device or even a radiological weapon, Iran would suffer immediate consequences, whether or not it had any ties to the incident. Surprisingly, some important religious leaders are apparently backing these military arguments with the claim that the late Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution, issued a fatwa condemning nuclear arms. Despite this, of course, the country is moving forward. Just how "imminent" possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon is difficult to assess. Nevertheless, despite often hysterical predictions, it seems unlikely to happen within the next couple of years.`



This should leave plenty of room for diplomatic jawing. A great many nations have nuclear power industries. Some – perhaps as many as 25 – are even known to have adopted what is known in some circles as the "Japan Option"; that is, they don't have nuclear weapons, but could get them pretty quickly, a category that includes several surprising candidates, including Sweden, Germany, and many other European Union nations, as well as Switzerland, and, of course, Japan. Russia has been pursuing a diplomatic approach that leaves Iran with a nuclear power capability and controls on weapons development, but the U.S. has so far been holding out for the complete elimination of the country's nuclear research program for any purposes.



The alternative to a diplomatic solution is an attempt to find a "military" one. There aren't too many military options open to the U.S. Large scale air strikes could set back the Iranian program, but would certainly not end it. They would also be greatly resented by the mass of Iranians. Nor would Iran be without retaliatory capability. Iran has apparently been holding back some of the more radical Shia factions in Iraq, and could, in retaliation unleash these against government and U.S. forces in the country, plunging it into further chaos.

 

mostly correct..

The US and Iran have been doing business for years..

Maybe the upcoming face to face talks will be of value..

People seem to forget Israel has subs with nuclear tipped cruise missles..

 

the bad relations between the U.S.of A. and the iranian republic have
deep roots , going back to the 50's , to the shah , to the support for
saddam , to the hostage crisis .

it seems than every time thing will get back to normal something go turttle
and neither wants to look weak and mushy .

last but not least , the present crisis

A TV grab taken off Iran TV 02 April 2006 shows the test-firing in Gulf waters of a new Iranian high-speed

underwater missile capable of destroying huge warships and submarines. Photo courtesy of AFP and Iranian

TV.
by Staff Writers
Tehran (AFP) Apr 03, 2006
Iran successfully test-fired on Sunday a new high-speed underwater missile capable of destroying huge

warships and submarines, a top military commander announced.
"Today we have successfully test-fired a high-speed underwater missile with a speed of 100 meters per second,

which is able to overcome the enemy's sonar and radar," Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, the deputy commander of

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards naval force, told state television.

Fadavi claimed the underwater missile was the fastest in the world, with the exception of a missile developed in another country.
He did not provide the other nation's name.


:-? this is freaky

the iranians are having war manoeuvers , one wrong move by an excited
subordinate and the manure would hit the fan , i'm not much of a believer
but I pray than the U.S. navy has the good sense to keep well aways of
the iranians .

 

Hmmm, an interesting development. I wonder what the range of this wonder-weapon is, and how it can be delivered. Unless it has a very long range, and a wide set of delivery methods (sub, plane, boat, etc) then the USN could frankly swat any possible delivery mechanism before it comes in range.

But if the manouvers went pear-shaped, as you suggest...

Now that made me giggle... :lol:

 

I'm not worried for the navy ..they are big enought to cope
I'm worried for the iranians.............. false move , al quaeida
provocation , gulf of tonkin stuff , mossad hanky panky , plain pig
headed stuff up
anything you can think off could get really ugly :kill:

as for the "other country "

" The 6,000-pound Shkval rocket torpedo has a range of about 7,500 yards and can fly through the water at more than 230 miles an hour. The solid-rocket-propelled "torpedo" achieves this high speed by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the weapon in a thin layer of gas. The Shkval flies underwater inside a giant "envelope" of gas bubbles in a process called "supercavitation."

The Russian Pacific Fleet held the first tests of the Shkval torpedo in the spring of 1998. In early 1999, Russia began marketing a conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi. "


that got to be it I guess

 

I didn't want to start a new topic for this, but it is extremely interesting, Mike Wallace from 60 minutes interviews Iran's President Ahmadinejad:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/ ... 9867.shtml

At one point Mike Wallace mentions that he is honoured to be sitting with Ahmadinejad, and I know I would feel the same.

 

The " Iran must be stopped " campaign is reaching a critical point at the end
of august . with Iran playing defensive and the bush administration probably
puting enforcable sanctions and / or some kin of naval embargoe on Iran
either through the U.N.under or more probably unilateraly :-?



.

 

Things are getting dangerous. I hope America doesn't engage in war with Iran. If it does, then it'll have to fight two countries-Iraq and Iran. Iran's kinda' close to Israel, so if they defend Iran, then, here come the Merkavas! Either the M1A3 gets on the drawing board, or America doesn't fight, or America's army is sort of, doomed.

 

That statement is unimaginably ridiculous in both geographical and sociopolitical contexts

First of all, Iraq is CLOSER to Israel than Iran
Second of all the concept of Iran, Iraq or Israel (the three I's ) ever allying with any one of each other is preposterous... All three countries HATE each other with a 2000 year old passion
And thirdly, Israel is America's staunch ally... The Merkavas are never going to 'come and get us'. If anything they are going to help the USA in a war on Iraq/Iran

Here have a map with big red cirlces

 

Note that the big red circle for Israel is in fact centred on the Sinai peninsula - only the 'L' of Israel is actually in Israel.

However, yes, there is no way that Israel would ally with Iran - especially not against America.

 

Iran's relationship with the US has been under strain since the Revolution of 1979 and the subconsequent kidnapping of American citizens in which the current president of Iran was involved. The invasion of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), and the fact that Pakistan and Turkey are American allies gave the Iran people and politicians the idea that they are surrounded by the enemy, the Great Satan (i.e. America).

Iran has the feeling it is being treated unfairly, because the local superpowers Pakistan and Israel can develop nuclear technology and weapons, and Iran is not allowed to do so. It feels that America only wants one superpower in the region, its most important 'ally' Israel, the jewish state which is the mortal enemy of surrounding Arab/muslim world.

Now Iran is flexing its mussels and trying to show that it is the champion of the muslim world after the downfall of Saddam Hussain/Iraq.

 

There is no complexity in the relations between Iran and the United States, Iran simply wants to destroy the US, it made that clear from the start.

The Shah's human rights record is inifinitely better then that of the current regime to start with.

The Mullahs mean it they are out to conquer the world for Islam and that is what all of their policies are geared towards.

 

Really? I was not aware of this, what has Iran done to display a desire to destroy the USA?

 

[/quote]

Well, they are there for almost 30 years now, but how many wars of conquest have they started yet....?

 

the current leader of iran has it seems has two sets of speeches, one for mike wallace and 60 minutes and one delivered in farsi...the persian version makes no bones about what he intends to do to isreal once he has the bomb ,nor is it uncertain about the new muslim world order...pity there is no one at 60 minutes that reads farsi (lord knows there are plenty of iranians in the usa that could help out the western press with the transcripts)...also ,remember ,blaster is only 10 years old ...he is strong on current weapons systems but not well versed in geography ,current events or history...