AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Article on Iran
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Had his term reduced by 18 months . Very interesting. I think Iran might be the case we could use diplomacy,looking at the internals of the nation,which includes demographic suicide as bad as Italy and Russia.

The youth are telling the Mullahs something there.



http//www.sundayherald.com/analysis/analysis/display.var.1122079.0.0.php
Palladin Wrote:Had his term reduced by 18 months . Very interesting. I think Iran might be the case we could use diplomacy,looking at the internals of the nation,which includes demographic suicide as bad as Italy and Russia.

The youth are telling the Mullahs something there.



http://www.sundayherald.com/analysis/ana...79.0.0.php

---------------------------------------
Well, Palladin .....

Diplomacy has not much place in Iran.

The Mullahs have other means of decision.

I don't know why Bush is interested in what the Mullah's think.

I would not be that.

/track_snake
track,

I doubt Bush cares what they think,but with the internal fractures in Iran,I think they can be handled short of war. The article indicates Ahmad is losing popularity even with the Mullahs. Certainly he never had any with Iran's youth.
Great news. Thanks Palladin for posting. It seems the moderates are re-taking their government, this particular problem may correct itself. Score one for the democratic process, not all vote for Hezbollah. Maybe other citizens of other oppressive countries will take note.
Palladin Wrote:track,

I doubt Bush cares what they think,but with the internal fractures in Iran,I think they can be handled short of war. The article indicates Ahmad is losing popularity even with the Mullahs. Certainly he never had any with Iran's youth.
------------------
Well. The question is if Rafsanjani is so much better than Ahmadinejad. Maybe marginally then.

/track_snake
Sorry, guys if I pour some cold water on your fuzzy hopes: bricks do not change shape while remaining bricks. They are either fracture (a la SU) or break someone head.
The comparison with bricks and Iran's political fortunes is problematic. Bricks vary from place to place, and from time to time. Supposedly the enslaved Hebrews in Egypt were forbidden from gleaning hay in the day time to use in their brick-making in order to force them to glean at night. Bricks without the right vital constituent parts are fragile and lose their strength. Krazy Kat would not need to fear that little Ahmadinejad if he only threw softball bricks.

The strength in any culture is in its transition from one leader to another. When Nixon resigned, our nation did not collapse. In a nation like Iran, where such a large majority of its people are pro-American, but held down only by fear of those in power, the transition to new leadership offers untold possibilities. Holding power by coercion is impossible over the long-haul.

Alexander died young and his dream of world unity died with him. Napoleon had no worthy successor. All the invaders of China fell under the sway of Chinese culture and became Chinese, themselves. Mullahs may ask for blind obedience - but name one instance where such a plan lasted.
The Iranians being upset with him isn't going to stop him from gaining a nuclear weapon. I don't see mullahs being hanged from corner lights just yet. So the danger is still very much real. He can have a 1% approval rating and still nuke Israel and the United States. We have to sabotage the nuclear program or their ability to maintain the program until the Iranians kick him out.
I see Iran about like Iraq. Even the unpopular Mullahs aren't laying down accepting this man's nonsense and we all know the youth hate the Mullah's and the current constitutional setup.

It's internally weak,giving the aura of strength,Iraq showed the same in the recent past.

Iran's population is 50% Persian,50% everything else under the sun.

They will be easy to harrass if we decide to get serious without declaring war with our own soldiers,IMO or with any open warlike measures. Aerial bombing of Iran might be what Ahmadinejad needs to bring them together against us and for their leader.
I stated it before in another thread, we may have two bad options, face a nuclear attack from a nut case with a 1% approval rating or face a united Iran who can deal death by a thousand cuts but not a nuclear attack. The only third option is to undermine the program and their ability to run it. Economic, covert action, anything that delays it significantly without pissing off the people and also doesn't allow them to get a nuke.

It's a balancing act and time is not on our side. However we can it hard for them to fund their nuclear program but overwhelming them in the region. Taking out their ally in Syria is a good regional strategic move. Whipping out their network in Lebanon is also a good move. Provoking Palestinian civil war would also put pressure on Iran.

They can't afford to back all their allies and fund war against us in Iraq and fund their nuclear program while sanctions are implemented, we provide incentives for companies here to divest business with Iran. We can also stir up trouble inside their country. Screw with their currency, incite civil unrest, really screw them.
Independents4Bush Wrote:I stated it before in another thread, we may have two bad options, face a nuclear attack from a nut case with a 1% approval rating or face a united Iran who can deal death by a thousand cuts but not a nuclear attack. The only third option is to undermine the program and their ability to run it. Economic, covert action, anything that delays it significantly without pissing off the people and also doesn't allow them to get a nuke.

It's a balancing act and time is not on our side. However we can it hard for them to fund their nuclear program but overwhelming them in the region. Taking out their ally in Syria is a good regional strategic move. Whipping out their network in Lebanon is also a good move. Provoking Palestinian civil war would also put pressure on Iran.

They can't afford to back all their allies and fund war against us in Iraq and fund their nuclear program while sanctions are implemented, we provide incentives for companies here to divest business with Iran. We can also stir up trouble inside their country. Screw with their currency, incite civil unrest, really screw them.
----------------------------------------------------
Who was better on going after Iran than Saddam?

But in the present situation, I think the US should try to neutralize the radical Shia and in particular Muqtada Al-Sadr. He is the one behind the friendly ties of the present Iraqi government with Iran. He and his key followers should be taken to Guantanamo. That would be a good solution....

track_snake
Whoever takes power in Iran, or retains power, is considerably less of an issue as what the US is actually trying to prevent. Iran and Iraq have always been an issue, and Iraq, in the past, held Iran at bay. That invisible boundary had now been dissolved by the undermining of the Saddam Regime. There are many arrays of argument: Liberal, Conservative, Moral, and Military. The basics are still there: Politics, terrorism, puritans, separatists, and lunatics. Yet, with all we behold why do we attempt to force an opposition that requires the conflict to sustain itself?
Of course Iran is split over the issue, but Pro-American is going a little far. Perhaps, Anti-Sanctions would be more like it. Unless you are speaking from their perspective of which no one is very pro-American, and thus are pro-American in comparison to their middle-eastern companions, due to personal interests and economic security.
Pro American in the cultural sense not so much political. They want our lifestyle and wealth. Policy approvals come and go and they mean nothing.