Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
"since the end of the Cold War."
Published on January 24, 2006 By Dr Guy In International

The Situation in Iran seems to be gathering a lot of steam, and nations are now starting to saber rattle. The title and subtitle of this article is a Quote from John McCain in a Fox News Interview, and was probably precipitated by a recent statement by Israel's Defense Minister: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/1/21/215128.shtml?s=et

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

Israel is not alone as we have seen.  France already alluded to using Nukes against terrorist nations (and they were not talking about North Korea), and Germany has even started rattling its saber as well:

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

While all this bluster is good, it will not mean a thing if the European community is just that, bluster.  But there are indications that indeed, Europe has finally found a threat they cannot tolerate.  For while it is unlikely an Iranian Scud will hit France or Germany, the likelihood of one hitting Israel is very great, and Israel has made its intentions known.

The biggest difference between North Korea and Iran seems to be the mental stability of its leaders.  While there is no question that Kim Jung Il is a whack job, no one has yet said his trolley has left the tracks.  Nor have they been overtly threatening their neighbors.  For the most part, they are just playing the UN game.  Blustering.

Not so Iran.  They have already called for the eradication of another sovereign state.  And not just a regime change, but the actual extermination of the entire nation.  They may be playing a game of chicken, but the rest of the world does not seem to be buying that.  They are taking the threat seriously.

Nothing may come of this, but it is apparent with 2 broken promises to date, Iran is not going to agree to do anything short of arming themselves with nuclear weapons.  And while their missile technology is in its infancy, so they do not really pose a threat now to nations outside the Middle East, it is good enough to take out a few neighboring Arab and Jewish states.  And I dont think any of those countries are too keen on having a Persian threat on their borders either.

So the die is being cast.  The US is playing it very coy, making it plain that they fully support the European initiative, while holding their own options close to the vest.  Will the Europeans step up and get tough with Iran?  Or will they cave again as they have so many times in the last 50 years?

Time will tell.  But one thing is very interesting.  For all the rhetoric of Europe and their hatred of Bush, when the chips are on the table, they do not seem to be too worried about a Cowboy lobbing a nuke across the ocean.  But they sure seem afraid that a loony tunes Muslim just might try some stupid stunt like that.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 24, 2006
At the present time Iran does not have a delivery system capable of delivering a nuke to any of these countries. However that does "not" mean that they could not aquire a system.
on Jan 24, 2006

At the present time Iran does not have a delivery system capable of delivering a nuke to any of these countries. However that does "not" mean that they could not aquire a system.

Israel is on the outside edge of their range right now.  And I dont think they are going to wait for the Iranis to get the next generation Missile from North Korea.

on Jan 24, 2006
It all comes down to two questions:

1: Are the nations of the world willing to accept Iran into the Nuclear Club?

If the answer is no then...

2: What are the nations of the world willing to do to stop them from joining?
on Jan 24, 2006
Saw this story Link. I don't know anything about the Globalist and what their spin is, but it was an interesting read. A little naive, especially given Iran's comments to date regarding Isreal.

on Jan 24, 2006

2: What are the nations of the world willing to do to stop them from joining?

The second question is the critical one.  We have seen what they were 'willing' to do before.  But this time, the US does not seem to be jumping up and saying it is going to fix it.  So the other nations are going to have to decide if they are all mouth, or do they have a spine as well.

on Jan 24, 2006

A little naive, especially given Iran's comments to date regarding Isreal.

It seems to be a lot naive.  The major fallacy the article portrays is they want someone to "give" Iran the power.  One cannot give power, one can only take it.  And Iran has been content, so far, to just saber rattle and not take the power.  I do think that given the current state of the leadership, should they try, the US would be there to try and stop them.

on Jan 24, 2006
should they try, the US would be there to try and stop them.


Offtopic, but do you think the US has the resources to do that at the present time? Given that we're tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure we could open up another front in Iran.

OnTopic: If it comes to armed conflict, I would hope that the EU countries would see that it is in their interests to get involved and show some "spine".
One thing I read is that if the EU countries turn this to the UN Security Council that China would most likely veto any action since they have a deal with Iran to develop one of their Oil fields.
on Jan 24, 2006

Offtopic, but do you think the US has the resources to do that at the present time? Given that we're tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure we could open up another front in Iran.

Yes.  Containment is not as resource intensive as invasion.  I do not believe we would invade, just contain.

One thing I read is that if the EU countries turn this to the UN Security Council that China would most likely veto any action since they have a deal with Iran to develop one of their Oil fields.

I agree.  China has a vested interest to keep Iran being a thorn in the side of Europe and America, even beyond their economic interest.

on Jan 24, 2006

Europe has finally found a threat they cannot tolerate.


Yes, because this time the threat is not by an ally of whom France and Germany make a lot of money. China is in that situation this time. Iran is their friend and ally much like fascist Iraq was Germany's and France's.
on Jan 24, 2006
China has a vested interested, but only to a point. If their tactics delay UN action while Iran continues to be agressive eventually Isreal will react. China will get no value out of the Yadavaran oilfield if Isreal turns it into a glass parking lot.
on Jan 24, 2006

China is in that situation this time. Iran is their friend and ally much like fascist Iraq was Germany's and France's.

I agree but think it goes beyond that.  With some new Missiles from NK, France and Germany will find themselves in range of Iran, and I dont think they want a mad Mullah with his finger on the switch.

on Jan 24, 2006

China will get no value out of the Yadavaran oilfield if Isreal turns it into a glass parking lot.

Ah, but they will!  They will get a lot of economic Chaos in the west, and that is one of their goals.

on Jan 24, 2006
should they try, the US would be there to try and stop them.


Offtopic, but do you think the US has the resources to do that at the present time? Given that we're tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure we could open up another front in Iran.


Sure they do...can you say "glass parking lot"? "If" the Israeli's stike first that is what Iran will get. I'd be willing to bet we'll give'em the same.
on Jan 24, 2006
WE have few options in Iran and every military member I have heard has said there is no military solution. The situation in Iran demonstrates how we have misused our military power against Iraq that was NO threat and now we have very few options in Iran which was and is a far more REAL threat to both the U S and Israel.
on Jan 24, 2006
Yes, because this time the threat is not by an ally of whom France and Germany make a lot of money.


To me that statement sounds really, really stupid. Why should France and Germany turn on one ally for the sake of another? Particularly when good strategy would suggest weakening a stronger power is a very good idea? Of course that's all just theoretical; we all know Iraq was never an ally of France and Germany. in which case, why make such a ridiculously unlikely claim in the first place?
2 Pages1 2