Envoy: Iran poses no threat to Israel Iran refuses to give up nuclear program Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Baghdad by Iraqis with official IDGates: Iran-Iraq link gets clearer

The United States and Israel claim that the Iranians have been misleading the IAEA inspectors about the intention of Iran's nuclear program. The Secretary of State Condoleeze Rice has said publicly that Iran can have nuclear energy. Yet, there is a growing suspicion within the Bush Administration that the Iranians nuclear program is a clandestine attempt to develop nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Iranians claim that they have no intentions of building a nuclear weapon.

There have also been claims by the United States that Iran is supplying the Iraqi insurgents with the necessary weaponry to fight the U.S. Forces in Iraq. The U.S. Forces have been authorized to shoot at Iranians but cannot pursue them across the border into Iran.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?
(Threat being relative to our nation at home, our troops abroad, and/or the Global War of Terror.)

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?
(Intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear ambition, ties to terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.)

3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?

4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

1 - Iran is a fairly credible, if covert, threat to US Troops abroad and the GWoT. Clearly they have some hatred for our allies as well.
2 & 3 - This is basically the same question - I think the intelligence we're gathering against Iran is pretty damning. It seems very odd that Iran should want to go nuclear for energy but anything is possible. However, it's much more likely that they're looking to build the bomb. If they're just trying to build a power plant they sure are enriching a lot of uranium.
4 - The US has a weird we won't talk to Iran stance at the moment. In a perverse I gotta see what this looks like way I'd like to see the "There was no Holocaust, let's push Israel into the sea" guy trying to be diplomatic with the "You're either with us or against us, Axis of Evil" guy. However, at this point it will be difficult to try to diplomatically deal with Iran. The reason being that any attempt now is from a standpoint of diplomatic weakness. The ONLY reason we'd consider talking to them now is to avoid killing a lot of Iranians. I'm not certain the Iranians aren't willing to lose a few tens of thousands Iranians to further their goals. Clearly the US is squeamish about killing anyone despite claims otherwise.

Iran is a threat to us at home and abroad. With nuclear weapons they will destabilieze the ME and threaten ½ the world’s oil. Our 12 trillion $$$ economy is highly dependant on a stable oil market – even one with the OPEC oligopoly. Iran may also pass nuclear material (when they get it) to other countries or terrorists.



Yes. The intel is from various sources including the UN. One thing you cannot easily hide, because of the equipment required and the radiation released, is a nuclear weapons program.



WMD clearly.



WE HAVE for many years, and with predictable results. We have done everything including offer to give them the nuclear fuel.

I think one of the first major incentives would be to re-offer Iran the option of having its nuclear fuel supplied by a guaranteed, outside source. It could be Russia; it could be some other consortium through the [European Union]. You could use Urenco, a Dutch, British, German consortium. On the one hand, it is a successful operation because it shows that three countries can combine their resources and have a multinational uranium enrichment corporation.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10840/ferguson.html

Diplomats said the incentives include a previously undisclosed offer of some U.S. nuclear technology on top of European help in building light-water nuclear reactors. Other incentives include allowing Iran to buy spare airplane parts and support for joining the World Trade Organization.

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said the proposals had “positive steps” but that talks were needed to clear up ambiguities. Iran promised to study the proposals seriously but gave no timeframe for a response.
And Bush, using the same language, said Iran’s initial response “sounds like a positive step.”
“We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously,” the president said in Laredo, Texas. “The choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way.”
Access to ‘dual use’ technology
One diplomat in Vienna described the U.S. offer of nuclear technology as particularly significant because it would, in effect, loosen a decades-long American embargo on giving Iran access to “dual use” technologies — equipment with both civilian and military use.
Crucially, the deal does not demand that Iran outright give up its uranium enrichment program — only suspend it, although likely for a long time. Two earlier diplomatic initiatives by Europe and Russia crumbled over the past year because each demanded Iran scrap enrichment completely — a stumbling block because of the program’s wide popularity with the Iranian public.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165152/

Ted, put other people's words in quotations. It's dishonest not to give others credit for their opinions.

I disagree with your assessment of Iran's ability to threaten the United States or the region. The Middle East is already unstable. You claim that an Iranian nuclear weapon would destabilize the region. How can you make such a claim about a region in constant conflict? The Palestinians are in fighting with the Israelis. Hamas and Fatah are two Palestinian factions at war with each other. Lebanon is in conflict with Israel. The Syrians and Lebanese are alternating assassinations. Iraqis are killing Americans. Americans are killing Iraqis. Sunnis are killing Shiite. The Afghani government is under siege as well. The stable nations are outnumbered by the unstable ones. The one nation with relative stability is Iran.

The United States does not get most of our oil imports from the Middle East. According to a recent report by the Energy Information Administration we get less than 25% of our IMPORTED oil from the Middle East. In comparison we get almost 20% of our imported oil from Africa. This report is on imported oil, and does not include our domestic usage, so the impact would be much smaller.
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
The importance of Middle East oil to our economy is overstated. We would suffer far more hardships if our oft-insulted French speaking northern neighbor wanted to adjust prices, not to mention our southern neighbor that we are trying to wall out of our country.

Your suggestion that Iran may pass their nuclear technology to other countries or terrorists is the same misleading logic that got us into the Iraq War. You would have to link Iran to al-Qaida in a substantial way which nobody has been able to do. The only thing the Administration has done is get the American people thinking that all terrorist organizations are the same, which they most certainly are not.

To BaphometsAdvocate,

I don't understand your claim that we are in a position of weakness. If a position of weakness means we won't invade, then I disagree with your claim. The President has said all options are on the table. He does not have the political support to invade Iran, but he also doesn't care. I had hoped that the President, after the election defeat, would bring an end to the conflict in the region. I have to keep reminding myself that this is not a democracy, we only think it is. Now that the bellicose rhetoric has increased toward Iran and we seem to be provoking them as well, it seems that the exit strategy for Iraq is going to be through Iran, just as in Vietnam when we carried the war into Laos and Cambodia.

You also make equally perplexing claims about the intentions of Iran. You wrote:What exactly makes you think that Iranians want to die by the tens of thousands? And what are their goals as you see them?

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?

"Few today trust "intelligence reports," War Party propagandists, or the word of exiles anxious to have us fight their wars. Congress should thus hold hearings on how close Tehran is to a nuclear weapon and whether this represents an intolerable threat, justifying a preventive war that would mean a Middle East cataclysm and a worldwide depression. Then it should vote to declare war, or to deny Bush the power to go to war."

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8405

I certainly do not usually agree with Pat Buchanan, but his latest column, "Another Undeclared War?" pretty well lays it out for us!

The position of weakness is, as I wrote, that the only reason we'll begin diplomatic conversations is to AVOID a war with Iran. So if we go to the table Iran knows we don't want to have a war with them. This will give them far greater leverage in barganing with us.

I didn't make a claim about Iranian intentions. I said I wasn't sure they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a few thousand Iranians to further their goals. Their goals would appear to be furthering Islam, making more insane money from oil, Calphilate, pushing Israel into the sea - all that good stuff. The Iranian "in the streets" doesn't want to die for any of this - but the leaders of Iran might be willing to let some of "those" people die.

Barnaby I put a link below every quote. Try following it and see the complete story. I sometimes forget the quotes.




Well Iran says the holocaust never happened and Israel has no right to exist. They have missiles that can reach Israel. All they need is a nuclear warhead. How on earth can you compare them to the Palestinians? They are now supporting Hammas in and effort to take Lebanon. Sao ultimately we could see 2 countries with nukes.





Totally irrelevant where we happen to buy oil. The “market” has only a few % of excess capacity. If, for example, 25% of the oil capacity in the ME goes off lone for ANY reason the price of oil would go to 200/barrel overnight. Our 12 trillion $ economy would suffer far more than any war costs we see now.

1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?

I don’t think of them as a direct threat. If a gloves off war occurred between Iran and the U.S we would level them in days. If Iran wants to push the nuclear agenda I don’t see how to U.S could work the issue unless of course it could be proved beyond doubt its for getting nuclear weapons. No one really supports this, that matters in the term of money and military in the western world. So I could see a joint effort against them, more so after being starved out by sanctions. I don’t think the Iranian people will hold to this issue either to much, but again I pretty much view Iranian culture with a degree of ignorance, meaning I don’t know a whole lot about them. I know that a brain drain occurred, along with religious rule and of course a growing and constant attempt to destroy secular thinkers or anything that could be liberal from right wing Islamic fundamentalist thought. Again this could be more from a specific percent of the populous and government rather then the whole.

Iran to me is more of a direct threat in regards to involvement I Iraq. I doubt the idea though of U.S nation building sounds very good period to middle east leaders though, but I cant be specific on whom or how many or more so about popular reactions in Muslim cultures, though I would say overall the U.S action in Iraq has not helped as much as many claim it has.

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?

Neo con and intelligence, that’s a big leap for me. I mean we knew Iraq had wad’s remember, then again we acted preemptively on something we knew for sure so I am a bit confused on that also. I mean why act to prevent something from occurring if it already has?

Our political system needs to put the iron to our intelligence community to make sure that accurate, and honest intelligence on worlds issues is maintained for the purpose of issues like Iraq wars, though you could blame hysteria and the media for Iraq just as much as you could blame Cheney, bush and neo cons in general.

We don’t need another half baked death machine of an environment that produces only negatives for us currently.

3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?


I don’t see why they would want nukes. It takes so much to make a functional nuclear program overall that they would never be able to hide its existence, and the ramifications of such a program would surely harm Iran more then it would aid them. The other avenue is that a lawful nuclear program if I remember correctly is not illegal. They might want it for the purpose to increase revenue by selling more oil. France if I remember is dependent mainly on nuclear power so in that light it frees up other resources. I mean do you think a massive weapons program could stay hushed up or hidden from observation over any length of time. I don’t think any nation has pulled that off to date.

4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

No, we should ignore each other and act if neither of us existed, it’s the best way to policy overall.

Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?

I don't believe Iran is a threat to the United State's existence although I do believe they are a threat to our national interests, our population and our military personnel. Iran, that is the persons in power, are almost an opposite mirror to our values. Oppression of women, silencing those that oppose the govt., basically conservative Islamic laws.

Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?

I don't know, I have never been to Iran or have actually seen any of the nuclear facilities. I don't even have the knowledge to know the difference between a weapons grade plant and an electric plant even if I did see them. All I know is what the media tells me so that makes for a very narrow discussion but thats all we have. From that I know that Iran wants to eliminate Israel, has many of the "evil" things described above, has killed US soldiers, has made open threats against the US (as we have them). Also we should move from the open killing in battlefields mentality, those days are long gone. Wars with enemies such as this are more covert and sneaking around. I'm not going to attempt to connect them with AQ or terrorist organizations however they know they cannot defeat the US military in open battle. Small operations of slowly bleeding away our resolve are the tactics of the new age of enemies.

Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

Militarily mainly, but not in open battle. Beat them at their own game. I don't see the day their main military strikes out against us unifying us. Their tactic is to keep us split and keep us guessing which they are good at doing.

Why is it "insane money" if the Iranians want it and not insane money if an American corporation wants it? Around six months ago Lee Raymond, the retiring CEO of Exxon received a retirement package that was estimated between $98 million and $400 million. This was right after it was reported that Exxon set a record for annual profit at $36 billion dollars; annual profits, not revenues, and billions of dollars, not millions. That's insane.

You claim Pres. Ahmadinejad wants Israel "pushed into the sea." This is the transcript from his speech at the World Without Zionism conference in Tehran. Text
Read the full text and not the snippets given by our media outlets, most of which are owned by Jews. Pres. Ahmadinejad believes the regime, not the people, need to be removed. Pres. Ahmadinejad was echoing the Ayatollah Khomeni's position toward Israel. In case you are not aware, the land that the nation of Israel encompasses has shifted control many times. Starting in the 4th century, Jerusalem was a Christian city under the Roman Empire, then in 638 the Muslims took control. In 1099, the Christian Crusaders took control again. Around 1200 Kurdish Muslims ruled. Between 1228 and 1260 control alternated between Christians, Kurdish Muslims, and Muslims, until the Ottoman Turks ruled. The Ottoman Turks, who were Muslims, ruled until 1917 when the British conquered the city. After World War II the Jews were given a country of their own. Don't think that for a second, that the Ayatollah Khomeni, who was a young teenager during Jerusalem's fall to the British was just going to passively accept one of the Muslim's most holiest cities falling into the hands of Christians, much less a Jewish state created in 1948.

These words accurately portray Pres. Ahmadinejad's position on Israel:
For clarification Pres. Ahmadinejad defined bridgehead .His belief is that the West is trying to control the entire region and Israel is the starting point for this conquest. Whether you agree with him is debatable, but consider our history in the region, and you must conclude he has valid concerns. The United States has invaded twice and is currently occupying Iraq, we have attempted to control Iran's regime post-World War II, we have bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey, we have had troops in Lebanon, we overthrew the Taliban, and we are the closest ally of Israel.

Pres. Ahmadinejad has said this about Jews. Source

I meant insane in the amounts made. I agree with you on the other dollars you wrote about.

Read the full text and not the snippets given by our media outlets, most of which are owned by Jews. Pres.

I have nothing to say to you on this topic at all. I think you've said plenty on it.

We need to make careful distinction here. Any commentary about threats here "at home" are unwarranted and unfounded as what has been found thus far has occurred over there, in Iran's backyard. Further commentary on that should not be discussed until we find a shipment of arms from Iran into Los Angeles or the ferreting in of agents into NYC is discovered.

They are not a threat in the global war on terror, as that would mean they would have to work against us in every theater of operation. I don't believe they have worked to oppose us in Afghanistan, though I'm certainly open minded to any evidence that suggests otherwise. They are a threat in Iraq as they've supplied Shiite militants with explosively formed penetrators or EFPs. The hyperlinked New York Times article also has an interesting graphic which shows the weapons, along with mortar rounds that contain Iranian markings. They are actively providing equipment that is a threat to our troops.




The intelligence has yet to be problematic in regards to the New York Times articles that I hyperlinked, and the previous one used to create this thread. Patrick Cockburn, writing in the U.K. Independent made a disjointed argument that the Iranians are not funding the Sunni insurgency. In his article,he makes the argument again and again. The only problem?, the article says the Iranians are arming Shiites and no where does it contend that the Sunnis are being supported by them.



To them, it's a win-win situation. They find an alternative power source which most certainly helps. On top of that, it gives them a good platform from which to launch a nuclear weapons program. There has been some notable silence on this on the part of the Iranian leadership. They are either having some wild success or they are bluffing.




It is to our advantage to hold off on Iran as long as possible. We are maintaining a presence in Afghanistan, a region that is hardly under control with Al-Qaeda still in charge of rural areas. We also have an obvious and larger presence in Iraq. We don't need involvement militarily in another nation that could serve to be a Lilliputian strategy of tying us down and sapping our resources. On top of that, no one exactly knows where the Iranians are in terms of their nuclear program. We must also recognize that any country would try and influence things around them to suit their interest, we did it with Nicaragua and Panama, it would be naive to expect other nations in that region to sit idly back and allow another power to have their way in the region. We need to engage them diplomatically and to see what if any, progress can be made. I don't believe the Iranian leadership is hell-bent on war, perhaps talks involving their European friends could be attempted to thwart an escalation, one that could be just as needless as the one that created the Iraq conflict in the first place.

1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?

Absolutely they are a threat. Iran is a major sponsor of terror groups, particularly those fighting against Israel. Iran wants to become the dominant player in the area, which works contrary to our interests. Iran is also actively working against us in Iraq.

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?

Depends on the intelligence. I feel the information on Iran's ambitions in the area and its nuclear program developement are accurate, as are the reports on its ties with various terrorist groups.

3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?

Iran is clearly developing a nuclear weapons program. The number of centrifuges they are building is completely out of proportion for any energy only needs, and is only necessary for enrichment to weapons grade materials. Why Also, Iran has no need to develop a nuclear energy program--they are sitting on top of a vast amount of fossil fuels. Therefore, spending the money to develop a nuclear energy program makes no economic sense, either. I personally don't believe there's any reason to question Iran's intentions in this regard--they are clearly working towards building nuclear weapons. For me, the central question isn't are they trying to build a nuclear weapon, but rather what exactly would they do with one if they had it?

4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

None of the military options seem desirable. Iran has carefully built its facilities to make them resistant to a bombing campaign (more proof that they're not there for energy purposes). Therefore, it would take a full-scale military invasion to successfully remove them. I don't think that's a workable option currently. Therefore, I think diplomatic options should be pursued. However, I also think none of them will prove fruitful--we don't have a big enough carrot or stick to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear weapon. So, diplomatic efforts should concentrate on what happens after they get such a weapon. I don't think Iran wants to actually use such a weapon, but prefers to just have it as a threat. That threat only has power if we give it any. I think the solution is pretty simple...let Iran know that if it ever uses such a weapon, we will find out where it came from and the consequences will be catastrophic. Then, proceed as if they didn't have it. If the threat of retaliation is greater than the threat of Iran using the weapon, Iran's threat has no power.

Darn good point sir. Why did the USSR never use a nuke? Reprisal.

If Iran ever nuked anyone, we should let them know that it's the end of their nation and all that ever lived close enough to see the light of day in Iran. Then we position nukes within minutes' striking distance. Game over.

Also, if there were ever to be a land-based invasion, it would be a UN and/or NATO effort. We CANNOT currently fight on two fronts under current military levels, but doubt we'd have to. I'm sure it would be a multi-national effort and see a large scale move of troops from Iraq.

1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?
(Threat being relative to our nation at home, our troops abroad, and/or the Global War of Terror.)

Not really- we are the instigators- we wouldn't even have a history with them if we didn't steal thier oil back in the Shah days and pretty much attempt to subjegate them in the first place. They are defensive- WE are the invaders and oppressors of the world, pretty much have been since Korea.

I see pretty much the whole world arming up to defend against the US at this point- I mean, we have overthrown goverments so banana companies profits are protected- and killed over 600k Iraqis for no damn reason at all- why shouldn't the whole world be arming against us? AT this point- pretty much everything we touch turns to liquid fecal material in a span of a few months. If I were ANY country on the planet today- I would be arming against US invasion constantly- remember WE are the only country in the world to actually USE nukes on another country.

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?
(Intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear ambition, ties to terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.)

Intelligence reports today are roughly as believable as any supermarket tabloid. They have 0 credibility, obviously.

3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?

Probably- I would if I were them. I mean- Iran has never invaded the US, however- the US has installed a brutal regime (shah of Iran) and subjegated the poeple of Iran and literally stolen thier resources (as in- not even bother to pay anything to them) - We ARE NOT the good guys, or even a stabilizing force in the ME, WE as a nation- are the single most dangerous, and usually stupidly dangerous, entity on the planet right now.

4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

IN a perfect world- we would just hand over GW and Cheney and Rumsfeld etc to the Sunnis in Iraq, and let them have thier way with them- then apologize to the Iranians for our interference for the last 60 years with thier country- and then follow the ISG from there.

Iran was one of the unspoken reasons for the war in Iraq from the very beginning IMO. Iran will have to be dealt with at some point. Radical muslems simply can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Why anyone would think they should have them after 9-11 is beyond me. If they get them, they will use them.



oh, and hi everyone. new to the board and looking forward to some good debate.

Our enemy is al-Qaida and Iran does not support al-Qaida. I don't see how support of anti-Israeli terrorist organizations makes Iran a threat to the United States. Israel is not the United States. Israel is fully capable of defending itself. Just take the Six Day War as an example of Israel's ability to defend itself.
While I do not like the fact that Iran is assisting in the death of American soldiers, they do have a right to engage in the conflict.

Your assessment of Iran just does not make sense. First of all, we have nuclear energy and vast amounts of fossil fuels. And it makes perfect economic sense that is why the United States is trying to get everyone to believe they are developing nuclear weapons. If they have nuclear energy, then they don't need oil, the demand goes down and so does the price, the global economy must adjust to Iran's prices and now all of a sudden Exxon isn't pulling in the massive profits anymore. To suggest that nuclear energy makes no economic sense for Iran leads me to believe you don't understand economics. As far as what is Iran going to do with a weapon when they get it, well that's simple; once they get their one singular nuclear missile, they are going to wage nuclear war against the United States and our vast nuclear arsenal, because that's a good idea right. Or maybe they will sell their nuclear weapons in a package deal with Saddam's stockpile of WMDs to terrorists.

Iran has built their nuclear facilities to resist a bombing campaign because they learned from their neighbor Iraq. Israel bombed Osirak nuclear facility because it was suspected that Iraq wanted to develop nuclear weapons. It's the same lie today as it was back then. Iran learned from Iraq, that doesn't mean Iran is going to make a nuclear weapon, it means they expect an Israeli air raid.

Let's go back to what Iran would do if they had a nuclear weapon. Come up with a scenario that Iran could use a nuclear weapon and not get utterly destroyed. I can't think of one, so unless you truly believe everyone in the Iranian administration along with the Supreme Leader and all his followers are suicidal, it just doesn't make any sense.

our enemy is Islamic terrorists. If you are under some kind of delusion that forces you to believe that AQ is the only terrorist organization to ever attack America or American intrests, you need to do some more research.



And America has a right to defend its military men and women.



why must Iran first be allowed to us a nuclear weapon, causing the deaths of thousands, before something is done?

I am constantly baffled at the reasoning that says first, America must lose civilians in order for something to be done about the problem. This line of thought is completely foriegn to me. Did America not have a right.....and even an ABSOLUTE DUTY......to prevent the 9-11 attacks and save 3,000 innocent lives. Or were we somehow obligated to allow those people to die before we did something?

Iran supports Hezbollah. Hezbollah has directly attacked American troops and civilians. Iran has links with al-Qaeda. You were saying?



See, that's the problem. Everybody argued that Saddam wasn't suicidal either, that he'd back down and let the inspectors in, etc. You do know that they hanged him last month, right? These people (i.e. "the bearded nutters") have given little indication that they don't believe their own rhetoric, and that rhetoric includes matrydom. We knew that the Soviet leadership wasn't suicidal, so convincing them that they would die was the key to MAD. Sorry, but the bearded nutters don't seem to be playing with the same deck. If they can only develop one nuke, maybe two, then no, we probably won't be the target, Israel will, probably. Aside from the dismay at seeing Holocaust II, the Nuclear Ovens, its just bad form to allow your allies to get nuked. heck, we'd probably even try to stop anybody from nuking Paris, and everybody knows how annoying the French are. (The fact that both the French and the Israelis would be likely to obliterate large areas of those suspected of the attack may also be a factor.)

Technically, they have. The United States Embassy in Tehran is American soil, and last time I checked, the Islamic Republic of Iran hasn't bothered to return it. The rest of your rant isn't worth a response.

It wouldn't be a two front war, not in the sense you're indicating. However, if we did go into Iran, it would definitely change the dynamics of how our troops are dealing with Iraq. The "kid gloves" would come off, meaning there'd be a shift in perspective from aiding the locals in putting down an insurgency to eliminating partisans operating against the rear areas of a combat theater. In short, being in or connected to the Iraqi gov't wouldn't be much protection. On the flip side, most US ground forces would leave Iraq for Iran, reducing our exposure there. Be a cool wargame, hope it doesn't come to that.

I guess the question would be, how do you define theaters of operation in regards to terrorism? Where we choose to strike at them, or where they choose to strike us? Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, have attacked us in Beirut, in the air (TWA 857), and in Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers). All these occurred prior to OIF, so clearly considering Iran a threat in the GWoT is reasonable. Their past usage and suspected current stockpiles of WMD only increases their threat level.

The complaint made regarding the dishonesty and the use of others' comments is almost laughable.

Here we are asked to give our assessment of the Iranian threat where all questions for consideration of this threat are preluded with quotes, comments and language intended to present not Iran as the threat but instead the US.

Well then I have my own collection Iranian quotes I too would like to share, for the sake of honesty, before a give my own assessment.


link


link


link


link


link

link



1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?

Yes absolutely the Islamic Republic represents, encourages and is a manifestation of a threat to the United States, in every form. I used some quotes above that show that this govt does not really define between American civilians and/or American soldiers and is more than ready to strike out at Americans where ever they can be found and seems more fond of the weaker of us.

Those here who express doubt of this and make the usual claims that the US is the aggressor I have to ask...is Salman Rushdie the aggressor? When you claim the US do you also include all American citizens as aggressors towards Iran..how about those living in South America or Europe? Is humanism the IRI's aggressor? Is democracy and pluralism? If you define aggression like the IRI does then yes we are always the aggressors and I would argue rightfully so.

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?
(Intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear ambition, ties to terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.)
Yes I believe it is all accurate enough. Most of it is openly admitted to or put on display but IRI itself. Their love for “martyrdom” their hatred towards us and our allies, their anti-semitic views, their nuclear ambitions, their support for terrorism in the region..all of this is celebrated by the IRI. Look to the recent celebration of Iran's Islamic “revolution” and the images you will most commonly see are images of hate.
3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?
Does it matter both go against the current stand by the UN, this is an IRI talking point you have just used. Nuclear energy or weapons is not the point of contention, because Iran agreed to have neither unless under the strict control and supervision of the IAEA.



4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?
Well we already engage Iran diplomatically, altho our engagements are very limited and most often through the vehicle of another govt body other than our own. Do I believe we should further engage them, no. I think our most current engagements, and our dimplomatic wrangling regarding UN sanctions is exactly what we should be pursuing right now. Militarily wise, well the US claims Iran is already engaging our military.

1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?
Of course not. Just like Iraq wasn't a threat unlike what Rice and Powell were saying in 2002. However, in 2001 they were saying Iraq was contained, not a threat to anyone including their immediate neighbours, and his forces including WMD were not rebuilt.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
So when you hear Rice talking about scary Iran and their evil intentions, maybe take it with a grain of salt since she was, in fact, been proven a bigtime liar when she speaks about middle eastern countries and their capabilities and intentions.
I think "to the US" should be changed to "to Israel", because it's known that Israel is the prime beneficiary of the slaughter in Iraq. Iranian shiites don't cross borders to murder fellow Shiites.
As a side note, what does it mean to people that Israel admitted they have nuclear weapons, clandestine nuclear weapons. Is that a threat as well?

We constantly get dragged into the Israeli-Arab conflicts, and are constantly perceived as being on Israel's side. This creates much of the sentiment against us in the Middle East, which is an area that is central to our security. Therefore, Iran's support of terrorism in the area (and intent to dominate there politically) does indeed directly conflict with our national security interests, and make them a threat to us. You are correct in that they're not a supported of Al Qaida, and I agree that that is a point in their favor that should be taken into consideration. However, I think you are severely glossing over their support of other terrorist groups, and the implications of that against us. Iran was a strong supporter of the PLO, and also of Hezbollah, and significantly undermined our efforts at creating a stable government in Iraq. There is a very real possibility that if it weren't for these actions, we would already have peace in the Middle East...and we would certainly be much closer to it if it weren't for such actions.



No, it is your stance that clearly seems to be lacking in economic sense, IMHO. Developing nuclear energy costs billions and billions of dollars. To do so when you have an abundance of fossil fuels at your disposal is not economically viable. Name me one other country that had sufficient fossil fuels at its disposal that developed nuclear technology for energy purposes? Hint: there aren't any. Also, while you're examing the economics of the situation, please try to explain the massive number of centrifuges Iran is building. Here's another hint: that number of centrifuges is only necessary to enrich material to weapons grade and makes no economic sense for an energy program. One final economic issue--If Iran is only developing its nuclear program for energy purposes, why disperse the sites all over the country, and bury many of them in bomb-proof chambers? Hint: again, this clearly detracts from an already impractical energy use, and ONLY makes sense for a weapons program. So, we have nuclear energy and also have fossil fuels? Here's another hint: we don't have enough fossil fuels to be self-sufficient, leading to economic distress. As for the Exxon scenario, take off your Big Oil blinders for a second, and examine the oil usage by Iran compared to global demand, and then please explain the economics of the situation, especially considering the supply and demand of oil and its relative price inelasticity. Iran doesn't consume enough oil to make any significant impact on its global supply. As for the Exxon conspiracy, responding significantly to that would sidetrack this discussion. I'll simply point out the we ALL enjoy the benefits of the product Exxon supplies, and our economic well being depends on it, and further note that Exxon spent far more than its profits on R&D and Exploration, thereby extending our ability to enjoy those benefits. Anyone against that is for massive price increases in everything we buy, and an ensuing economic depression, which is precisely why the Middle East (and Big Oil) is indeed considered so central to our national security and economic well being, and by administrations from both political parties.



Ahh, and you probably believe Iraq's intentions were purely peaceful too, eh? Why would Isreal care if Iraq were developing a nuclear energy program? They wouldn't. They would have dire concerns about a nuclear weapons program, though, wouldn't they?



OK. Iran can get very aggressive its stance with any of the other Middle Eastern countries, and threaten to nuke Israel (or somewhere else, the U.S. even with a transported warhead). This creates a serious impediment to our ability to respond to their aggressiveness. Why do you think N. Korea went through all the trouble to create their nuclear weapons, when we could also eliminate them quite easily also? Because it gives them a considerabel amount of power. Does the United States benefit at all from Iran having a considerable increase in power in the area? Not at all. Ahmadinejad is a very smart person. He wouldn't be spending all this money developing a nuclear program if he didn't see Iran (or himself, maybe) benefitting from it. Also, being very intelligent, he is carefully crafting an image where some might question his grasp of reality (the denial of the Holocaust, for example)...giving his future nuclear threat more credibility, and hence more power. Hussein played this game with us for years without having a nuclear threat. I think Ahmadinejad is smarter than Hussein, and will have even more power. If you're not worried about that, then I think you should research the area, its politics, and their global implications more thoroughly.



It was that very containment that created the sentiment against us, and made Iraq a threat to our security. We just didn't realize that until after 9-11.

I'll have to keep this short as I don't have much time and I'm not sure I care anymore.



Then why do we allow ourselves to get dragged in to a Israeli-Arab conflicts? And how is this area central to our security other than oil?



So giving the PLO & Hezbollah money is a cause for invasion? I guess we should invade Israel for their support of Hamas in its early years?


You're saying that Iran's meddling in the affairs of Iraq and the Middle East is the only thing keeping Iraq from having a functioning government and the whole Middle East from peace? That's a pretty bold statement, too bad you didn't back it up.

First, we get dragged in by default. Even if we do nothing...that will be seen as being anti-Arab. Goes back to whole thing about our perceived role as world cop in too many issues. As to the second point...it doesn't take anything more than oil to make this area vital to our security. This is also why we keep getting dragged into Arab-Isreali conflicts...Israel being our main ally in the area, and therefore central to our security.



Who said anything about invasion? In my opening post, I stated I was against such action. However, neither should their support of such groups be glossed over--to which I would think you would agree?



Only thing? No. Significant factor? Yes. Not going to link the sources, as they're not conclusive, and therefore don't seem worth the time to cite. However, it does all seem to make common sense. The reports were that Iran played a major role in convincing the Shia's in Iraq not to go along with the proposed central government, which they were on the verge of signing off on. This seems very plausible....it works for Iran by getting the Iraqi Shia's on their side, and also in continuing the conflict on their border, and increasing their influence in the area. Given their similar roles with the PLO and Hezbollah, is there any reason to think such reports aren't true? Clearly, their prominent role in funding/guiding the PLO and then Hezbollah has contributed significantly in continuing that conflict. It goes with saying that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been the major stumbling block to peace in the Middle East, and Iran has been the main supporter of that conflict continuing. So, you can say that my stating this is a bold statement, but I tend to doubt that you can prove me wrong, either. Iran is setting themselves up to the primary influencer in the Middle East..we should all be aware of this, and worried about its implications.

OR with more information people change their views.




No they cross to kill Americans and Iraqi security forces in an attempt to create a Shiite theocracy in Iraq rather than a democracy.

CAIRO, Egypt — Iran's secretive Quds Force, accused by the United States of arming Iraqi militants with deadly bomb-making material, has built up an extensive network in the war-torn country, recruiting Iraqis and supporting not only Shiite militias but also Shiites allied with Washington, experts say.
Still unclear, however, is how closely Iran's top leadership is directing the Quds Force's operations — and whether Iran has intended for its help to Shiite militias to be turned against U.S. forces.
Iran likely does not want a direct confrontation with American troops in Iraq but is backing militiamen to ensure Shiites win any future civil war with Iraqi Sunnis after the Americans leave, several experts said Thursday.
The Quds Force's role underlines how deeply enmeshed Iran is in its neighbor — and how the U.S. could face resistance even from its allies in Iraq if it tries to uproot Iran's influence in Iraq.
The Quds Force — the name means "Jerusalem" in Farsi and Arabic — is the most elite and covert of Iran's military branches. Over the past two decades, the corps is believed to have helped arm and train the Hezbollah guerrilla group in Lebanon, Islamic fighters in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and even Sudanese troops fighting in south Sudan.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252212...=fnc.world/iraq
“

You have to be watching FOX news to make broad generalizations like this without backing up your statements with sources.

First, billions and billions of dollars? How do you come up with this number? You need to put up a source. You don't just make statements and think they are valid, they are not. Do you have any idea how much building a nuclear facility costs? You don't. You just made up a large number to make a point. For argument's sake, let's say it does take billions and billions of dollars, how much of Iran's economy does this represent? I know you don't know that. There is a cost analysis that must be done to determine whether investing in nuclear energy is a worthy endeavor. So don't try to explain the economics of this situation when you don't know the economics of Iran. And if you do know, cite your sources, until then it's all FOX News.

I suspect the reason Iran is dispersing the nuclear sites and building them in bomb-proof chambers is because they know Israel will bomb them. We went over this already. Iran learned from Iraq that Israel will attack your nuclear facility if it is left out in the open. To suggest that Iran is bomb-proofing these facilities because they want to build bombs is a conclusion without facts or precedents. Every nation that has attained nuclear weapons has done so outside the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. N. Korea is the most recent example. N. Korea left the NPT then proceeded to build a nuclear weapon.

I don't suggest there is an Exxon conspiracy. My comments about Exxon were a reference to the massive profits they have made. If Iran reduces the need for oil the price will drop and those massive profits will not be as massive. But for you to defend Exxon is quite amazing. You realize they made a record profit last year. Now, you FOX-replied with the amount they spent on R&D, but you don't seem to understand English because the word Profit means the monetary surplus, R&D would fall under Costs in the Revenue - Costs = Profit/Loss economic equation. Please provide the information on their R&D expenditures too. Am I just supposed to accept this information as well? Please don't bother responding in the future if you can't back up your statements, or at least add a disclaimer that everything you post is made up.

1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?

I do not think that Iran as a state actor is a threat to the United States. If we match up military strength side to side...Iran could hardly be mentioned in the same breath. We could use just the 30 something F-22 Raptors we have and pretty much wipe out their entire military infrastructure without them even knowing it. The only manner in which Iran is a threat is in the context of non-state actors. Iran finances terrorists and insurgencies and if given the opportunity may provide technology (even nuclear) to these groups with intentions of hurtin the US. Now, the question is how we deal with that threat. Well, the course we are currently on is certainly not the right one. I think we should engage the Iranians in actual diplomacy and see if we can reach some sort of agreement. The Shiite Iran has no love for Bin Laden or Al Qaeda and we could use that to reach common ground on fighting those groups. Rattling our sabres will only lead to an inevitable showdown.

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?
(Intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear ambition, ties to terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.)

I believe that the intelligence is accurate because a lot of the evidence comes from the mouths of the Iranian government. They see nuclear weapons as a matter of status, recognition. They want one not necessarily to use it but just to have it. They believe that it would grant them the respect they feel they deserve.

3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?

Oh i am sure that they are developing a nuclear program for energy, but are fully prepared to create a weapon. I mean, i would.

4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

Diplomatically. The history of international relations rests on an important principle. When the talking stops, the bullets start. Its difficult to understand the years of ridiculous foreign policy by our Presidents who have decided that breaking off ties solves anything. Something to chew on- Would we be so worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons if they were our allies? Of course not. Interdependence is the single greatest deterrent to war. Why we choose to ignore that baffles me.

I hear that point a lot, and for the life of me, cannot see how that is even remotely possible. For that to happen, you would have to beleive terrorists that would massacre millions of innocent people are trustworthy enough to carry this plan out.

For example, let's sat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to take out New York City. He calls his favorite terrorist leader and asks him to take a nuke halfway around the world to take out New York City. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be giving a terrorist a tool that could take out Tehran - and him with it. Why would a terrorist take a WMD halfway around the world to blow up an American City when he could use that nuke to get whatever he wanted without going anywhere?

This scenario is absurd on so many levels, I can't see why it continually gets repeated. If a WMD even got traced back to Iran, they'd be vaporized. This is why terrorist cells have not been supplied with WMD by a state sponsor. It's certain suicide.

I agree Iran's a problem. But supplying terrorists with the ability to destroy Tehran or opening up his country to a nuclear respopnse from us is not one of them.

The whole point of using non-state actors is that proving Iran is culpable would be extremely difficult. I mean lets say they dont even give a terrorist group a weapon but merely the technology. Would be even more difficult to prove anything. And even if a link is discovered, using it as a basis for full-scale war would be even more difficult.

Just because you do not see it as possible in no way means its impossible. The scenario seems extremely plausible in my view and actually more likely. If we are to accept your logic that any link to a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group would have Tehran's vaporized, then the same logic would apply if Iran shot one from a missile and Iran wouldn't be much of a threat relatively. The threat comes from the fact that we would have no for sure way of proving anything. Iran could deny the whole thing and without a solid line of culpability, it would be difficult to justify engagement.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?
(Threat being relative to our nation at home, our troops abroad, and/or the Global War of Terror.)

I believe the United States is a threat to Iran

2.) Is the intelligence on Iran accurate, or is this part of the Neo-Con strategy of eliminating the Axis of Evil?
(Intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear ambition, ties to terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.)

100% accurate, They need nukes to defend themselves against the USA, They are funding terrorism because they know there will be no consiquences

3.) Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?

Of course the bomb, you dont need that much electricity to shag camels

4.) Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?
[/quote]

Diplomatically, America doesnt need to get its arse kicked in another war.

Is it so hard to imagine that the components for such a weapon could be dismantled and given to several individuals, none of whom knew each other and who were ignorant as to the overall parameters of their mission? That these people could be members of a terrorist group infiltrated by Iranian intelligence, or even Iranian agents working in secret even from their terrorist friends? That a state run by a religious theocracy that regards holy war as a valid concept is not subject to the same standards of what is considered as rational conduct in the rest of the world or that the prospect of a holy nuclear Holocaust bringing about the end of this world might actually be appealling to such a religious theocracy?

And why would you want to take the risk?

1. Iran is a threat to the United States. We're currently fighting them by proxy in Iraq. Iranians ARE killing
our troops as we speak. As such, they are a threat.

2. Who knows? Intelligence is not perfect. But why not listen to the Iranians themselves on the matter? They've declared that they will destroy Israel. They've declared that they'll kick us out of the middle east. Should we just ignore them and hope that their threat goes away? What do you think the impact on our economy would be if Iran controlled the entire middle east, the Saudi oil fields, and decided to either shut off the supply or raise the price through the roof? Answer. We're about 72 hours away from Katrina-like anarchy if the oil flow shuts off.

3. Of course they are developing the bomb.

4. All of the above and more. It isn't an all or nothing proposition. We need to put our troops in Iraq on the border of Iran in a quick strike potential posture. At the same time, we need to continue the back channel diplomacy. Third, we need to work to undermine the radical Islamic hold on that country via a wide range of cultural and propaganda efforts. We need to essentially subvert radical Islam and get their people westernized as much as possible. Get them hooked on fast food, stupid TV shows like American idol, booze, and porn. It would all be for the greater good of the world.

Do you believe Iran is a threat to the United States? Why or why not?
Iran is a very direct and continuous threat to several countries in the Middle East, and thereby an indirect one to us.


Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or is their nuclear program for energy?

Well, when the EU offered them trade concessions (exactly what they had been asking for in order to halt enrichment before) and a light-water nuclear reactor (a more efficient means to produce "electricity" a less efficient means to produce weapons) they laughed at the deal and announced that Europe was trying to trade them chocolate for gold. What did that mean exactly?

Should we engage Iran militarily or diplomatically?

As in invade or sanction? We need to do much more than just talk, but an airstrike or invasion would be counterproductive. The bottom line is this...there is more evidence that Iran is persuing the bomb than there is of global warming. It's basically a foregone conclusion, every country from Lebanon to Saudi, to France to the US accepts it at this point so why pretend otherwise because Iran hasn't outright announced their capabilities and performed an underground test? When I started out at this debate site about four years ago, this was the stage the DPRK was at.

Assuming they are persuing these weapons, every country in the Middle East that considers Iran to be a threat (Saudi, Lebanon, ect) will likely feel the need to have these weapons also. And they will have no reason to expect consequences for violating their obligations under the NPT if Iran does not encounter severe ones for doing so. Anyone feel that nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East is something to be desired? The more nuclear weapons there are around, the more of a chance there is that they will fall into the hands of someone who will use them. The more nuclear weapons there are around, the less chance there is to trace their origin. If such a weapon gets in the hands of a private entity, retaliation is next to impossible. Hello world of nuclear blackmail. THAT is why we don't want Iran to have these weapons. Don't think next week, think twenty years into the future.

It would take many, many leaps of logic to make this scenario plausible. Of course it's possible. And it's possible the Palestinians will suddenly become peace loving people who not only embrace their Jewish neighbors as friends, but actually start takin