Sensible Article on US-Iran tensions

[De Selby]

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1173695065225&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout

Despite the verbal war between the United States and Iran, it can be argued that neither of them is willing to resort to the military option. Instead, the two sides are using the power of the threat to maximize their ability to negotiate better outcomes. Both parties are fully aware of each other's military capabilities, which makes them less ready to bear the consequences of a military confrontation. 
For the United States' part, there are enough problems on the Iraqi front, which makes it difficult to endure more casualties and losses on another battlefield. An attack against Tehran will add more burdens on the US treasury and the US tax payers. Also, the US administration is fully aware that an attack against Iran  a major player in the region  might drag the whole region towards a cliff's edge.

Furthermore, the victory of the Democrats in the last congressional elections has created enough problems at home. Also, with the presidential elections approaching, domestic files become more important and require more attention from candidates.
 
For Iran's part, despite the great deal of unity among Iranians on the nuclear program being a matter of national dignity, there is no consensus on the need for using the strong language adopted by President Ahmadinejad.

Many statements made by Ayatollah Khamenei and ex-presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani stressed the importance of a diplomatic settlement for the crisis. Hence, the discourse of defiance embraced by the newly elected president can be perceived as part of a process of role distribution: The President adopts a firm stance on the nuclear program issue while the Supreme Leader expresses rather moderate views about the issue. It is important to note that, according to the Islamic Republic's constitution, when it comes to major domestic issues and foreign policy, the stance of the Supreme Leader is what counts.

The Iranian leadership is fully aware of the US situation; however, the Iranians know well that there is a chance of Israel acting as a proxy for the United States by launching a military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. Therefore, they are not willing to push things to the edge.

A détente between the two states is probable provided that certain developments take place during the next few months. First, an improvement on the Iraqi front achieved through Iranian help can save the Americans' face, paving the way for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear program issue. Second, an acknowledgment of the Iranian role in the region as the leadership in Tehran sees it, together with an international recognition of the Islamic Republic's right to have a peaceful nuclear program, might help improve the situation. Third, adopting a less confrontational tone by both sides will make it easier to reach an agreement.

[Antibubba]

Wow!  That is sensible!  Has the author been thrown in jail yet?

[Perd Hapley]

The author and everyone else connected with www.IslamOnline.net were recently executed for being Muslim.   

[The Rabbi]

So after a brief look I think the author is saying that the U.S. won't go to war against Iran and therefore any threats arent to be taken seriously. Also if we give the Iranians whatever they want, they will help us out and make things better.
Wow.
Let's try this: the Iranians are behaving in increasingly irrational ways, like detaining British sailors.  They have an ability to influence events in Iraq but not to determine them.  The U.S. had better get the revolve in place to drop a ton of bombs on the mullahs if certain barriers are breached.

[Sergeant Bob]

First, an improvement on the Iraqi front achieved through Iranian help can save the Americans' face,

They are already "helping" in Iraq. I don't think we need any more "help" from them.

Second, an acknowledgment of the Iranian role in the region as the leadership in Tehran sees it

Ohhhhh, thats a great idea!! As the "leadership in Tehran sees it" Israel should be wiped off the map.

[De Selby]

Rabbi,

It seems to say the opposite: That the risk of attack is great enough for Iran, and the damage would be severe enough, to give Iran the incentive to offer something to the US in exchange for de-escalation.  It also, rightly I think, points out that whatever the situation, Iran will not do this in exchange for nothing...and so the US has a role to play in negotiating as well.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Iran wants de-escalation?!   

You're nuts, pal.

[De Selby]

Why is that so nuts? What does Iran have to gain from a war right now?

[cosine]

Why is that so nuts? What does Iran have to gain from a war right now?

Probably nothing, but the nutjobs running the country have a personal vendetta against the United States. All sorts of irrational behavior is then possible. 

[De Selby]

cosine,

Well, that's one view...I'd say take a read of the article.  It's an analysis that doesn't require you to believe that the whole world except for the USofA is nuts.

[Sindawe]

Probably nothing, but the nutjobs running the country have a personal vendetta against the United States.

As do the nutjobs running this country apparently.  I say we have Bush along with the top ten of his administration, and Ahmadinejad along with the top ten of his administration get together on some neutral ground and fight the issue out one and for all.  Accession Island would be perfect.

Then, while they rumble France nukes the island and the world is rid of the pestulant lot of them.

[cosine]

cosine,

Well, that's one view...I'd say take a read of the article.  It's an analysis that doesn't require you to believe that the whole world except for the USofA is nuts.

I read it. The entire premise basically states that as long as the United States keeps compromising, the governmental leadership of Iran will act in a rational manner. Forgive me for being a bit jaded and not believing that it will be necessarily so. 

And where did I say that I believed the entire world except for the United States in nuts?


Edit: Of course, Sindawe's got a point. I've always heard the average Joe-on-the-street in Iran isn't that fanatical, so with the fanatical leadership out of the way I'll bet the U.S. and Iran could possibly get along.

[De Selby]

cosine,

No, that's definitely not all that it says.  I quoted the part that says the opposite-that Iran needs to offer something to the US.

It's not a stretch to say that most of the world, at this point, is not on the side of the US against Iran.  So to believe the Iranians are behaving irrationally would require believing that the whole rest of the world is nuts for not recognizing that the Iranians are at fault for all of these problems.

[Sergeant Bob]

cosine,

It's not a stretch to say that most of the world, at this point, is not on the side of the US against Iran. So to believe the Iranians are behaving irrationally would require believing that the whole rest of the world is nuts for not recognizing that the Iranians are at fault for all of these problems.

So, you're saying, the whole rest of the world is on the side of a country which advocates the genocide of an entire country? Nooooooo! They couldn't be at fault!

Then, I guess we don't need the whole rest of the world on our side.

[De Selby]

Sgt Bob,

yeah well, like I said...if you want to declare everyone but you nuts, then of course any thing you say is right and all opposing positions are wrong.  But if you start from the assumption that other people know something too, well...

[cosine]

cosine,

No, that's definitely not all that it says.  I quoted the part that says the opposite-that Iran needs to offer something to the US.

Oh yes, they're offering much.

I quote the last paragraph from the opening post:

A détente between the two states is probable provided that certain developments take place during the next few months. First, an improvement on the Iraqi front achieved through Iranian help can save the Americans' face, paving the way for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear program issue. Second, an acknowledgment of the Iranian role in the region as the leadership in Tehran sees it, together with an international recognition of the Islamic Republic's right to have a peaceful nuclear program, might help improve the situation. Third, adopting a less confrontational tone by both sides will make it easier to reach an agreement.

1) More help in Iraq-could work, probably not. How about Iran just controls the bombers and material flowing from their country into the hands of the guerrillas in Iraq?
2) I don't see Iran offering anything there, just taking the stance they want.
3) How about if Iran takes the lead on that one? Although, it might take a bit of work to make up for all the ground lost when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that the Holocaust didn't actually happen, or when he stated that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.


So, realistically I don't see Iran offering the U.S. anything, except a token gesture that has no assurance of actually working (No.1).

Still jaded.


P.S. I'm done here. Last post in this thread. I'm not going to run around in circles arguing all day.

[Antibubba]

but the nutjobs running the country have a personal vendetta against the United States.

But the Persian people do not.  The Mullahs are mostly in their sixties and seventies, but something like 75% of the population was born after the Revolution.  A war initiated by Iran could very well lead to civil war at home.

The President adopts a firm stance on the nuclear program issue while the Supreme Leader expresses rather moderate views about the issue. It is important to note that, according to the Islamic Republic's constitution, when it comes to major domestic issues and foreign policy, the stance of the Supreme Leader is what counts.
 

Ahminajad (sp), well, it's as if we had elected Ann Coulter as Secretary of State.  He certainly rallies Iranian nationalism, but in a Parlimentary "democracy" he wields a lot less power than Americans would think.

It seems as if both sides are "talking trash", and are playing the "I'm crazier than you" card--as in "I don't know karate, by I do know kar-azy"--in order to make the other side back down by making them think they would attack against all logic.

In other words, it's just diplomacy as usual.

[Art Eatman]

See why I call it a chess game?

Ahmadinejad has already threatened to use nukes against Israel, whenever they're available.  Iran is the prime sponsor of Hezbollah, and via this surrogate has already attacked Israel.  Iran is the primary money/materiel/training source for almost all of the various terrorist groups in Palestine and the mideast.

Ahmadinejad--and, I assume, the Ayatollahs--have the goal of a *expletive deleted*it Crescent, from Egypt around to Iran.  It would include Saudi Arabia.  Israel would become a footnote in history, post-genocide.

Why do I believe these to be true goals?  Simple:  All this has been publicly stated or made known, by the Iranians and several different intelligence agencies.  Nothing hidden or mysterious at all.

The more time that Iran can buy via obfuscation and their own version of diplomacy, the more time to complete their nuke-bomb efforts.  The more time to re-arm Hezbollah and increase the control over Lebanon.  The more time to undermine the Saudi rulers, and the more time to undermine our efforts in Iraq.

Art

 

[Perd Hapley]

Did anyone else notice how Antibubba managed to quote the Godfather of Funk in a conversation about Iran?  Wow.  We need some APS awards to recognize such amazing feats.   

[MechAg94]

At this point, I think Iran lost the chance to take the high road of diplomacy by their own actions and words.  It seems to me the leadership in Iran wants to act like radicals yet have the world see them as a leader of nations.

[roo_ster]

Civilized governments can be dealt with and agreements made with.

Barbarous governments are not worth wasting the time and breath to talk with, unless some short-term advantage can be gained by the civilized country.

Iran is in the latter, barbarous, category.  They can not be relied on to keep commitments.  They have shown that talking is just a means of gaining time or extortion monies. 

The internal dynamics of Iran are kind of irrelevant to those who deal with them from the outside.  So, power is diffused and the holder of power are contentious.  Just one more reason that anyone we talk to may not be able to deliver on commitments.

Concessions on our part will not be viewed as signs of our good intentions, but as weaknesses to be exploited.

[De Selby]

jfruser,

When has Iran "shown that talking is just a means of gaining time"?

Any specific examples of that?

[Art Eatman]

"When has Iran "shown that talking is just a means of gaining time"?"

At least since they got going on their nuke program.  I doubt anybody should ever doubt their intelligence, no matter how irrational any of us think their views are.  It's just like lawyers and civil suits; the more you can delay anybody's action, the better off you are.

Iran has goals.  Iran has the opposition from much of the rest of the world about those goals.  Since the goals cannot be achieved overnight, any delays of action from opponents are Good Things.  Doesn't matter if the action is a UN resolution, a trade embargo or an assault of some sort.  So, obfuscation is Iran's friend. 

Most state departments are made up of people who believe that talky-talk of whatever sort is better than shooting.  The Chamberlain deal, with the usual trust in agreements and treaties on paper.  So, part of the chess strategy is to play into this proclivity.

Hey, "Peace in our time."

Art