[Janos]

Of course it does exist. Once everything bigger than cockroaches dies in a nuclear fire, we will finally achieve world peace.

But what about the struggle of life?

Seriously, though, nuclear peace relies on the following facts.
1. USA and USSR did not shoot each other to pieces
2. Ergo, nuclear peace
3. You are not supposed to pay attention to all the situations where incomplete information, false analysis of the perceived enemy and inbalance of force almost caused them to shoot each other to pieces

[NGTM-1R]

Of course it does exist. Once everything bigger than cockroaches dies in a nuclear fire, we will finally achieve world peace.

Ants wage war. We'll have to kill the ants too.

Have to work down to microbes, it appears.

[SpardaSon21]

Which ants do we kill though, the red ants or black ants?

[NGTM-1R]

Which ants do we kill though, the red ants or black ants?

All of them. Even the really tiny ones are actually one of the few species to ever practice slavery.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Iran feels threatened as part of a covert war because they are funding a covert war, and everyone else knows it.  This is not grounds for them to develop a nuclear weapons program.  They keep getting hammered with sanctions because they keep making progress on their nuclear weapons program, and they keep funding lovely people like Hezebollah, Al-Qaeda, and Assad.  They are being denied nuclear power generation because all of their actions and rhetoric show that they will never be content to limit themselves to NOT develop a weapons program.

If Iran:
1.  Quit funding terrorist groups against nearby nations states;
2.  Quit supporting dictators busily murdering civilians by the hundreds or thousands;
3.  Quit trying to develop a nuclear weapons program;
4.  Quit torturing and murdering their own citizenry for nothing more than simple journalism or democratic protest;
5.  Allowed meaningful democratic processes;
6.  Quit using fundamentalist arguments to suppress half their population and torture or kill them when they break fundamentalist Islamic principles (that would be women)
7.  Quit doing their damndest to subvert and destabilize their neighbours.

then maybe, just maybe, the states legitimately criticizing them for all of the above would no longer have a leg to stand on.

How you can be an apologist for all of this nonsense and think Iran is being picked on and all they want to do is develop nuclear power is beyond me.  Given that all of the above abuses are documented facts, the idea that we can take the Iranian government at its word that it won't seek to develop nuclear weapons is absolutely laughable.

[Grizzly]

1.  Quit funding terrorist groups against nearby nations states;
2.  Quit supporting dictators busily murdering civilians by the hundreds or thousands;
3.  Quit trying to develop a nuclear weapons program;
4.  Quit torturing and murdering their own citizenry for nothing more than simple journalism or democratic protest;
5.  Allowed meaningful democratic processes;
6.  Quit using fundamentalist arguments to suppress half their population and torture or kill them when they break fundamentalist Islamic principles (that would be women)
7.  Quit doing their damndest to subvert and destabilize their neighbours.

I get the nagging feeling that all the states that are critizing them are actually guilty of most of the things on that list (except mabye 4 or 5...). Which kinda makes things more difficult.

[BloodEagle]

You can include 5., actually. 

[Janos]

Iran feels threatened as part of a covert war because they are funding a covert war, and everyone else knows it.

... and they are also a target in a such war?

This is not grounds for them to develop a nuclear weapons program.  They keep getting hammered with sanctions because they keep making progress on their nuclear weapons program

prove this

...and they keep funding lovely people like Hezebollah, Al-Qaeda, and Assad.

Al Quaeda? You mean the latest news in Britain?

They are being denied nuclear power generation because all of their actions and rhetoric show that they will never be content to limit themselves to NOT develop a weapons program.

They have been cooperating with IAEA since 2003 and have consistently communicated with the West to try to defuse the situation. They have even approached EU/BRIC/US in terms of external refining and fuel processing. If the stated goal is to prevent Iran to ever become a nation that can develop nuclear weapons, the goal is practically "keep them from becoming a developed and normal nation in European standards - forever".

1.  Quit funding terrorist groups against nearby nations states;
2.  Quit supporting dictators busily murdering civilians by the hundreds or thousands;
3.  Quit trying to develop a nuclear weapons program;
4.  Quit torturing and murdering their own citizenry for nothing more than simple journalism or democratic protest;
5.  Allowed meaningful democratic processes;
6.  Quit using fundamentalist arguments to suppress half their population and torture or kill them when they break fundamentalist Islamic principles (that would be women)
7.  Quit doing their damndest to subvert and destabilize their neighbours.

This is getting ridiculous. You do realize that you are essentially stating that Iran is OK if the regime voluntarily steps down, they stop peaceful nuclear power program and they do not even respond to foreign-funded assasinations on their own soil - THEN they are ok? Your criteria is not unique. You have came up with this sort of arbitrary list which is essentially "IRAN IS BAD" and you then dare to tell me that I am an apologist?

How you can be an apologist for all of this nonsense and think Iran is being picked on and all they want to do is develop nuclear power is beyond me.  Given that all of the above abuses are documented facts, the idea that we can take the Iranian government at its word that it won't seek to develop nuclear weapons is absolutely laughable.

No they are not. The first problem, the one that your entire assumption and argument lies on, is the fact that there is no concrete proof of Iranian nuclear weapons program and acting as such a thing was a certainity is naive and completely similar to run-up to Iraq War in 2003. Your failure to grasp the meaning of your rhetorics and your obviously highly biased solutions for peace - which amount to pretty much "Iran should roll over because someone suspects them of something" - are completely similar to pundit talk before Iraq was invaded.

If you fail to see the similarities in here I feel that I really cannot help you.

edit: I hate to sound angry, but I think you 1. take the rhetoric about Iran on face value and 2. are unable to consider their situation. Therefor, your analysis has parallels to neocon school of thought and is ill-informed. I do not think this is what you really want to think.

For example, 1. You state that Iran should stop co-operating with Al-Quaeda. This is funny. Iran offered USA help in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009, had almost went to war with Taliban in 1990s and has good relations and lots of influence with Karzai government. Iran is a Shia state and as such will obviously have huge ideological differences with Saudi-funded (Saudi and Iran are hostile to each other) nebulous terrorist  network. Even Saddam was blamed for AQ connections - that ultimately proved to be false, by the way - in a completely similar way.

Even if Iran DOES have connections and cooperation with AQ, consider why this could be? I mean, they have been quite hostile to them for almost two decades. What might possibly prompt cooperation in 2012? Is the cooperation even real?

We can continue this as long as we want, but you are oversimplifying the conflict and approaching it from a highly suspect direction.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

You might want to actually read what the IAEA keeps saying about Iran:

The diplomats' recent comments came as International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are scheduled to visit Tehran on Sunday. Their trip — the second this month — is another attempt to break more than three years of Iranian stonewalling about allegations that Tehran has — or is — secretly working on nuclear weapons that would be armed with uranium enriched to 90 percent or more.

Diplomats accredited to the IAEA expect little from that visit. They told the AP that — as before — Iran was refusing to allow the agency experts to visit Parchin, the suspected site of explosives testing for a nuclear weapon and had turned down other key requests made by the experts.
Iranian officials deny nuclear weapons aspirations, saying the claims are based on bogus intelligence from the U.S. and Israel.

But IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has said there are increasing indications of such activity. His concerns were outlined in 13-page summary late last year listing clandestine activities that either can be used in civilian or military nuclear programs, or “are specific to nuclear weapons.”

Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead. The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test and development of a nuclear payload for Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile — a weapon that could reach Israel.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-boosting-equipment-could-quicken-nuke-production-diplomats/article2343186/

So no, Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA, and there are indications that they are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

This is getting ridiculous. You do realize that you are essentially stating that Iran is OK if the regime voluntarily steps down, they stop peaceful nuclear power program and they do not even respond to foreign-funded assasinations on their own soil - THEN they are ok? Your criteria is not unique. You have came up with this sort of arbitrary list which is essentially "IRAN IS BAD" and you then dare to tell me that I am an apologist?

Absolutely your stance is apologist.  How is there a single thing on that list that is not a desirable outcome?  The list isn't an arbitrary invention, it's a list of the things that are generally considered bad when it comes to human rights and international diplomacy that Iran has been documented as doing.

No they are not. The first problem, the one that your entire assumption and argument lies on, is the fact that there is no concrete proof of Iranian nuclear weapons program and acting as such a thing was a certainity is naive and completely similar to run-up to Iraq War in 2003. Your failure to grasp the meaning of your rhetorics and your obviously highly biased solutions for peace - which amount to pretty much "Iran should roll over because someone suspects them of something" - are completely similar to pundit talk before Iraq was invaded.

My "highly-biased solutions" are a list for Iran to cease human rights violations, allow their own citizenry a voice in governance, and cessation of covert hostilities against its neighbours.  That's not exactly a biased list.  I'm quite able to consider their situation - religious fundamentalists subverted a democracy-oriented revolution to impose a fundamentalist rights-violating theocracy that routinely tortures and kills their own citizenry while fostering unrest among neighbouring states in order to retain their own status among their neighbours and keep their population from actually achieving the republic they sought in 1979.  Everything the Iranian government has done since has been designed to keep them in power and the population in line - including support for the insurgent forces (like Al-Qaeda) that have been actively combating NATO in Afghanistan.  The Iranian government does not want a NATO-friendly neighbour, particularly after the Iran-Iraq War.  As you mentioned, the Karzai regime and the Iranian government now have enough similarities that the support for hostile forces in Afghanistan from Iran has dropped because their objectives are being achieved by the political structures that NATO is supporting.

You can disagree with me all you like, but the history is a matter of record.  Iran has repeatedly shown that their nuclear aspirations may include weaponry, and given the geopolitical situation in the Middle East they absolutely should be prevented from gaining them.  Nobody - here - is advocating for military invasion like the joint debacle's of Afghanistan and Iraq, but there are a number of other effective measures that can be taken.

[MP-Ryan]

1.  Quit funding terrorist groups against nearby nations states;
2.  Quit supporting dictators busily murdering civilians by the hundreds or thousands;
3.  Quit trying to develop a nuclear weapons program;
4.  Quit torturing and murdering their own citizenry for nothing more than simple journalism or democratic protest;
5.  Allowed meaningful democratic processes;
6.  Quit using fundamentalist arguments to suppress half their population and torture or kill them when they break fundamentalist Islamic principles (that would be women)
7.  Quit doing their damndest to subvert and destabilize their neighbours.

I get the nagging feeling that all the states that are critizing them are actually guilty of most of the things on that list (except mabye 4 or 5...). Which kinda makes things more difficult.

While there's an argument that some NATO members are guilty by association of a few things on that list (1-3, 7), it doesn't mean that criticism of other nation states for doing these things is any more difficult, it just means those states should also put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

[MP-Ryan]

In case anyone actually wants to read about the IAEA and Iran, the main page is here:  http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml

The most recent board report (Nov 2011) is here:  http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

The board report is relatively short (total document size is 25 pages) and details Iran's current status with regard to the various UN resolutions regarding their nuclear activities.  The short version is that they're in violation of many of them.

[samiam]

Oh, I'm not discounting the old adage of "Economy not performing and unpopular at home?  Start a war."  I'm just saying there were a lot more compelling strategic reasons for invading Iraq than anything as simplistic as an old daddy-complex grudge or the need to win the election.

I still can't believe you think there has to have been compelling geostrategic reasons to invade Iraq. There never were. Bush had to forge evidence to come up with reasons to invade Iraq. Why are you so opposed to the idea that special interests and personalities run politics? I mean, if Nero wants to burn down Rome or sacrifice virgins, there's not always the national interest involved.

are a number of other effective measures that can be taken.

Sanctions went on for a decade in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of children died for lack of imported medicine. And it accomplished nothing. That's a terrible option.

[MP-Ryan]

I still can't believe you think there has to have been compelling geostrategic reasons to invade Iraq. There never were. Bush had to forge evidence to come up with reasons to invade Iraq. Why are you so opposed to the idea that special interests and personalities run politics? I mean, if Nero wants to burn down Rome or sacrifice virgins, there's not always the national interest involved.

No doubt personalities played a role, but "we want to meddle in the regional politics to our strategic benefit" doesn't work as a legitimate excuse, so of course that reason is buried in the dozens of other arguments.  (I particularly love the people who claim Iraq was invaded because the US wants Iraqi oil... ha).  I don't think its a coincidence that the country that Bush Jr. got hung up on due to his daddy complex was also believed to be the ideal domino for the region at the same time.  Maybe I'm giving US strategists more credit than is due, but the argument for geostrategic policy is a compelling one.

Sanctions went on for a decade in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of children died for lack of imported medicine. And it accomplished nothing. That's a terrible option.

I think you'd best find a source for that statistic.  Iraq's population in 2009 was ~31 000 000 people, and I don't see a large downward spike that would indicate a few hundred thousand dead kids in the 1960-2009 data.

Sanctions are also not the [only] measure I'd advocate for in Iran's case.

[samiam]

Maybe I'm giving US strategists more credit than is due, but the argument for geostrategic policy is a compelling one.

Nobody in 1991 thought occupying Iraq was a good idea, and besides WMDs that didn't suddenly change. There is just about zero evidence for any kind of geostrategic discussions at high levels of government like what you're implying. It's not a compelling explanation at all in the first place when 1)Saddam was already groveling at his knees for whatever we asked him for and 2) the cost of the initial invasion alone probably cost around the entire GDP of Iraq, anyway.

I think you'd best find a source for that statistic.  Iraq's population in 2009 was ~31 000 000 people, and I don't see a large downward spike that would indicate a few hundred thousand dead kids in the 1960-2009 data.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22159382

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10866440

Infant mortality doubled after sanctions and fell greatly when they were lifted. About fifty thousand infants died per year from 91 to 03. Yes, it was very clearly visible in the statistics. Sanctions kill a lot of people.

[MP-Ryan]

Nobody in 1991 thought occupying Iraq was a good idea, and besides WMDs that didn't suddenly change. There is just about zero evidence for any kind of geostrategic discussions at high levels of government like what you're implying. It's not a compelling explanation at all in the first place when 1)Saddam was already groveling at his knees for whatever we asked him for and 2) the cost of the initial invasion alone probably cost around the entire GDP of Iraq, anyway.

I think you'd better go read my posts on page 4 again.  It's pretty clear from the historical record and geopolitical situation in the Middle East that invasion of Iraq was conducted in part out of strategic interest concerning Western policy toward Iran and Iraq's trade relationships, and in order to exercise greater consolidation of controls on strategic energy resources (seeing China's lucrative arrangements with the Iranians).  Not to give the US in particular access to resources, but to enable control of them.  I've touched on this in threads before your HLP debut, but Iran really is a nation whose populace wants a democratic form of government (although not necessarily pro-US).  Intervention to topple totalitarian and/or fundamentalist structures on either side of them is a tactic straight out of the Cold War revolution-generating playbook - the simplistic thinking is/was to generate democratic states on either side of Iran, and let the Iranian people topple their own government.  Endgame is that you no longer have dictators in that part of their world happily selling their souls (and oil) to the Chinese and other potential threats to Western political supremacy.  It's also pretty clear that the scenario was badly misread by strategists who didn't realize exactly what a mess they were dropping into.  Cost doesn't really factor into this - net benefit does not and would not have been planned to come from development of Iraqi resources, it comes from control of whom they sell too.  Which, going back to an earlier point - Western nations are happy to sell all kinds of resources, not excluding oil, to China, but only if they control the process (and when and how it could be cut off).  Changing the regime in Iran is one step along that road (if you think about it, Iran is the only major oil producer in the Middle East that Western nations don't have their fingers in manipulation of their energy sector).

Calling Iraq a daddy-complex mess that resulted from the actions of a single misguided President fails to give credit to the spectacular egocentricity in the strategists of the US State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and Pentagon.  There's this notion that Reagan-era diplomacy and foreign policy used to work and still does, which is absolute garbage.  Unfortunately, Bush Jr comes from the GOP school that Reagan had godlike foreign policy planning.

Infant mortality doubled after sanctions and fell greatly when they were lifted. About fifty thousand infants died per year from 91 to 03. Yes, it was very clearly visible in the statistics. Sanctions kill a lot of people.

Ordinarily I'd place discussion of increased infant mortality rates and "hundreds of thousands of dead kids" in two separate and distinct categories based on message tone alone, but technically speaking I guess I can't argue with your reasoning there.

I will point out that sanctions are actually designed to cause social and political unrest in order to pressure governments.  It's just misguided to use them in a way that doesn't produce that result.  In Iran, sanctions on oil could economically cripple the country, and as we've already discussed, the Iranian population is not exactly happy with their government to begin with.  This is a case where sanctions could actually be an effective foreign policy tool (though as you've noted, they are going to kill people as a result).

[samiam]

I think you'd better go read my posts on page 4 again.  It's pretty clear from the historical record and geopolitical situation in the Middle East that invasion of Iraq was conducted in part out of strategic interest concerning Western policy toward Iran and Iraq's trade relationships, and in order to exercise greater consolidation of controls on strategic energy resources (seeing China's lucrative arrangements with the Iranians).

Saddam was offering America oil concessions practically for free. Invading would give only a marginally greater degree of control to the US. As it happens, China has been able to import huge amounts of oil from Iraq since sanctions were lifted, and this has helped them a lot more than hurt them. How is giving your opponent more options and resources supposed to cripple them?

Even if that's so, if America was properly mercantilist, it would be doing a lot more to avoid cutting tariffs while taking China to task about its currency policies. But the US rarely acts that way. If the US was into economic realpolitik there are far, far more actions that it could be taking that are far, far more cheaper and effective than a highly expensive invasion that weakened the country economically while doing nothing to harm China. But it hasn't done anything of the sort, and there's a powerful importer lobby that has blocked most attempts to push trade policy legislation through Congress to check China (like the currency bill last year).

Finally, I really want to see transcripts of some kind of strategy discussion regarding this. Because I haven't seen anything to corroborate this kind of strategizing. At this point it's kind of like a conspiracy theory, except one that is probably not at all in the interests of the conspirators. What you're saying is slightly plausible if not a single one of those transcripts ever leaked, and having a slightly increased ability to deny Iraqi oil to others was perceived as hurting China more than opening up a whole new oil supplier for them. But it's not compelling at all when everyone, including the administration in 1991, knew that an invasion would result in shooting oneself in the foot. Apart from the WMD rationale, of course.

  Not to give the US in particular access to resources, but to enable control of them.  I've touched on this in threads before your HLP debut, but Iran really is a nation whose populace wants a democratic form of government (although not necessarily pro-US).  Intervention to topple totalitarian and/or fundamentalist structures on either side of them is a tactic straight out of the Cold War revolution-generating playbook - the simplistic thinking is/was to generate democratic states on either side of Iran, and let the Iranian people topple their own government.  Endgame is that you no longer have dictators in that part of their world happily selling their souls (and oil) to the Chinese and other potential threats to Western political supremacy.

The US has done nothing at all to prevent China from importing oil; you know that. The least it could do is place the slightest taxes or restrictions on selling vast amounts of American to oil and biofuels to China; that would at least be start, I think. Economic embargoes on China were mostly lifted after 1979 and haven't been put back up since. I don't get where you're coming from. China, with its low technology level and heavy industry dependence, is even more dependent on oil for its industrialization than the US is.

It's also pretty clear that the scenario was badly misread by strategists who didn't realize exactly what a mess they were dropping into.  Cost doesn't really factor into this - net benefit does not and would not have been planned to come from development of Iraqi resources, it comes from control of whom they sell too.

Cost certainly does factor into this when you pay far more to secure oil fields (which Saddam is already willing to hand you for free, practically) and the cost to the US just to invade the country is greater than whatever damage we could hypothetically do to China by offering them access to oil. China's state oil company has been pretty happy to sign contracts with the Iraqi government, for what that's worth, so I don't think much was expected to be accomplished there.

Which, going back to an earlier point - Western nations are happy to sell all kinds of resources, not excluding oil, to China, but only if they control the process (and when and how it could be cut off).  Changing the regime in Iran is one step along that road (if you think about it, Iran is the only major oil producer in the Middle East that Western nations don't have their fingers in manipulation of their energy sector).

The scandals, the Plame thing, and a whole slew of Bush biographies shed light on what was going on during the planning for the invasion. Very little of what you're talking about is mentioned. If it was a primary consideration, it certainly would have been talked about. The CIA in particular was strongly skeptical of the evidence for the invasion- it was presidential pressure, not the other way around, that got them on board. Relevant (although very long) article.

Calling Iraq a daddy-complex mess that resulted from the actions of a single misguided President fails to give credit to the spectacular egocentricity in the strategists of the US State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and Pentagon.  There's this notion that Reagan-era diplomacy and foreign policy used to work and still does, which is absolute garbage.  Unfortunately, Bush Jr comes from the GOP school that Reagan had godlike foreign policy planning.

There's two different tracks in that paragraph; the Republicans are responsible for these strategies, and the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department are. If you have specific evidence of the formation of any of these strategies, do please present it.

Greenspan did believe that oil was a good reason to invade Iraq. But only because, in his opinion, it would secure world oil supplies rather than somehow restrain China.

Ordinarily I'd place discussion of increased infant mortality rates and "hundreds of thousands of dead kids" in two separate and distinct categories based on message tone alone, but technically speaking I guess I can't argue with your reasoning there.

I've made my case. You haven't proved that sanctions are likely to force the Iranians to change course, let alone completely overhaul their government. It is probable, though, that a humanitarian disaster would result from sanctions. I'm glad for your sake that this is all an internet debate and neither of us will be responsible for the consequences.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

You're missing my point.  Cutting China's oil supply off is in no one's strategic interest.  It would in fact be in NATO's strategic interest to increase Chinese use of resources from loosely-controlled states (as China has indeed done) and deepen their reliance on foreign resource reserves.  The point is to allow China unfettered access to economic growth while simultaneously retaining strategic control over the resources that enable that growth.  This is a really old foreign policy principle, and an effective one.  There's nothing wrong with allowing other potential competitors to prosper, just make sure they can only continue to do so if they play nice with you.

As for the current status of Iraq, I've pointed out from the outset that if this indeed was the strategy it has failed quite spectacularly in some regards/

Lastly - I'm not aware of any publicly released outlines of the strategic interests at play in these decisions.  Usually that sort of information is only released well after it is no longer sensitive.  My informed conjecture is based on a reading of the history in the region, known public strategic goals of NATO and the US in particular, and current reporting.  The only thing keeping my point out of the abysmal depths of poorly-conceived conspiracy theory is the fact that it is grounded solidly in both history and long-term strategic planning.  In order for NATO countries to retain their status in global politics, they must have the strategic key to China.  That, at present, is being able to control Chinese energy access if ever it became necessary, for which intervention in the Middle East is necessary (although the US does not itself need Middle Eastern hydrocarbons).  With the Afghan regime ousted and Iraq's leader weaker than ever, Iraq probably looked like a pretty ripe target by which to go sideways at Iran as well, and what's more, the justification could be easily fabricated from multiple angles.

Take that for what you will.  I think there's a lot of information available that points at long-term strategic goals behind the ultimate invasion of Iraq that go well beyond the stated short-term reasoning.  Maybe history will bear me out, maybe it won't =)

There's two different tracks in that paragraph; the Republicans are responsible for these strategies, and the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department are.

None of the agencies in question operate purely independently of the executive arm of government.  Reaganesque thinking has been an influence in all US foreign policy basically until Obama, but more predominantly among Republicans.  Regardless, when you take policy planners that firmly believe in proxy or direct interventionist policy oriented at resolving strategic goals, where the players are defined in two polarized categories, with simultaneous use of the freedom-paradigm propaganda justification and throw in a President that believes the same bull****, you get a recipe for disaster - i.e. a war for the freedom of the people of Iraq because their leader is using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!111SHIFTONE! on them.

Alas, I have no documents to point you to, other than a read over the history of US foreign policy, 1979-2008.

Greenspan did believe that oil was a good reason to invade Iraq. But only because, in his opinion, it would secure world oil supplies rather than somehow restrain China.

It's not that securing world oil supplies does restrain China, it's that it could restrain China if necessary.  Important distinction.

You haven't proved that sanctions are likely to force the Iranians to change course, let alone completely overhaul their government.

Pretty tough to prove any foreign policy result is going to happen before it does - to be fair, I can't ask you to prove that imposing sactions would not force Iran to change course either.   Your point is taken, however.

[Janos]

You might want to actually read what the IAEA keeps saying about Iran:
So no, Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA, and there are indications that they are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

I have read the report. It is tough language. It essentially says that Iran has not had an active nuclear weapons program since 2008 I think, but they are heavily into dual-use technology and IAEA has problems with that.

Absolutely your stance is apologist.  How is there a single thing on that list that is not a desirable outcome?  The list isn't an arbitrary invention, it's a list of the things that are generally considered bad when it comes to human rights and international diplomacy that Iran has been documented as doing.

Human rights are a really bad reason to enact sanctions and beat the wardrums for.

My "highly-biased solutions" are a list for Iran to cease human rights violations, allow their own citizenry a voice in governance, and cessation of covert hostilities against its neighbours.

So it's not about nuclear weapons or nuclear latency, it's about human rights? Why wouldn't you say so! After all, human rights interventions have worked wonders - you can just look at Bahrain, Libya, Kosovo, Abkhazia, Chechnya and Syria to see just what a grand box of worms it is.

How, mind you, would you propose Iran reacted if a terrorist organization would assasinate Iranian scientists - while lead by a hostile intelligence organization? Or are you referring to Hizbollah?

That's not exactly a biased list.  I'm quite able to consider their situation - religious fundamentalists subverted a democracy-oriented revolution to impose a fundamentalist rights-violating theocracy that routinely tortures and kills their own citizenry while fostering unrest among neighbouring states in order to retain their own status among their neighbours and keep their population from actually achieving the republic they sought in 1979.

Come on. That's the most simplistic point of view imaginable. If you are unable to even consider the Iranian POW then I find it pretty laughable that you talk about history that speaks for itself.

Everything the Iranian government has done since has been designed to keep them in power and the population in line - including support for the insurgent forces (like Al-Qaeda) that have been actively combating NATO in Afghanistan.  The Iranian government does not want a NATO-friendly neighbour, particularly after the Iran-Iraq War.  As you mentioned, the Karzai regime and the Iranian government now have enough similarities that the support for hostile forces in Afghanistan from Iran has dropped because their objectives are being achieved by the political structures that NATO is supporting.

The last part is weird. You stated that Iran supports AQ. When? The recent bout of talking points came out just days ago. Iran had a hostile relationship with them for years and the current narrative is that "Iran is desperate and clinging to AQ". So was Iran allied with AQ in the past or right now? You state that Iran's support for hostile forces in Afghanistan has dropped now because their objectives are being achieved by NATO but when did they change to adversary, sometimes between 2003 and 2008 and then back again...

This is frustrating. Nothing in the previous chapter makes any sense, since it ignores what actually happened.

You state that Iranian regime is bad. Does that warrant a athmosphere of threats that vindicates the current regime? Is "a bad regime that neglects human rights" sufficient grounds for intervention in general or just in this case?

You can disagree with me all you like, but the history is a matter of record.  Iran has repeatedly shown that their nuclear aspirations may include weaponry, and given the geopolitical situation in the Middle East they absolutely should be prevented from gaining them.

So it's a question of nuclear latency, then?

I am confused! Is it about nuclear weapons - that they may or may not be pursuing, and apparently aren't, since there's absolutely no concrete proof? Or is it about nuclear latency - capability to become a nation that can put up a nuclear bomb in a short time period? Is it maybe about human rights?

Nobody - here - is advocating for military invasion like the joint debacle's of Afghanistan and Iraq, but there are a number of other effective measures that can be taken.

Effective measures? Which are..? Sanctions? Intervention? A "pre-emptive" strike on their facilities? Or maybe even talks!

And by the way. You:
1. state that Iran is developing nuclear weaponry while there is no concrete proof, only dual-use technology and an inert program from 2003
2. state, that Iranian regime is unstable and unable to be trusted, and unable to learn from history (lol)
3. state that Iranian regime is unpopular and dangerous to it's own citizens,
4. throw out the "human rights" line
5. ...while completely ignoring facts such as Stuxnet, Iranian compliance in foreign refining, last 10 years of IAEA reports, MEK and the general geopolitical situation. People have mentioned these in the thread.

This is kinda familiar, you know! It's almost as if I had seen this before.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Let's back up a moment.

The list of wonderful qualities of the Iranian government that I tossed out above was a list of things that Iran is involved in, which they repeatedly claim they are not involved in, which goes to show just what the word of the Iranian government is worth.  That is relevant to Iran's claims that they are not after nuclear weapons.  I do not claim that a discussion about justification about keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran is due to their human rights record.

A couple quick responses to get it over with before I move on:
-The Iranian revolution was designed to produce a republic.  This was the primary, stated goal of Khomeini himself in public, right up until they didn't do it and the religious bunch took over.  Those facts really aren't in dispute, so I'm not sure what you're on about in terms of simplistic readings.  Iran's government fears its citizenry as a result.

- In terms of Iran and Al-Qaeda's relationship, here's a timely piece on that very subject (no, my name is not Daniel Byman and I'm not a Georgetown professor):  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/21/the_odd_couple_iran_al_qaeda 

You're veering off course (partly my fault) in a thread that is already muddling about in the wrong hemisphere, so let's venture back toward some semblance of the original discussion I got involved in:  Iran + nuclear weapons = bad.

I did not say Iran is developing nuclear weapons, I said they should stop trying to do so.  The IAEA's report provides ample information that Iran may yet have or be seeking the ability to develop them (big question mark, considering they still haven't been given access to all the sites they want to see, if the news is to believed - see previous link posted).  The regime is unstable (protests, active dissident groups, large internal security/military force), can't be trusted (frequently lies about everything from nuclear sites to human rights abuses), and is a subject of considerable concern at the IAEA.  The report is a substantial list of things Iran is doing contrary to various UN resolutions regarding their nuclear sites.  Do you not see this as a problem?

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this anymore.  Have you conjured up some belief that I'm advocating war or invasion with/of Iran?  If so, I assure you that is all in your head.  Here's my position.

If the IAEA substantiates that Iran is both capable of and actively conducting development of nuclear weapons, then the UN or (if vetoed by Russia and/or China) NATO/Israel should take active measures ranging from economic sanctions to limited military and/or intelligence agency strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure and personnel used for that purpose in order to prevent their development.

Agree or disagree with me, I don't particularly care in this instance since its nothing more than opinion.

[samiam]

You're missing my point.  Cutting China's oil supply off is in no one's strategic interest.  It would in fact be in NATO's strategic interest to increase Chinese use of resources from loosely-controlled states (as China has indeed done) and deepen their reliance on foreign resource reserves.  The point is to allow China unfettered access to economic growth while simultaneously retaining strategic control over the resources that enable that growth.  This is a really old foreign policy principle, and an effective one.  There's nothing wrong with allowing other potential competitors to prosper, just make sure they can only continue to do so if they play nice with you.

Okay. Well, that is an interesting perspective. But generally, helping your enemies grow is the opposite of geostrategy. Back in the nineteenth century, you didn't let your colonies trade with the enemy. I still appreciate that you've just developed the first liberal internationalist justification for the Iraq War I've ever seen.

Otherwise, going to war with Iraq to slightly reduce the chance of going to war with China is still a stretch. I think that trying to prevent Iraq from denominating oil trade in euros was a slightly more defensible reason to invade.

Alas, I have no documents to point you to, other than a read over the history of US foreign policy, 1979-2008.

It all seems balls. But that's just me.

It's not that securing world oil supplies does restrain China, it's that it could restrain China if necessary.  Important distinction.

Not what Greenspan was apparently talking about, not in that sense of the term. But that's irrelevant.

Pretty tough to prove any foreign policy result is going to happen before it does - to be fair, I can't ask you to prove that imposing sactions would not force Iran to change course either.   Your point is taken, however.

The sanctions are kind of a joke, anyway. They will make it harder to buy food or medicine, but India has made it clear that it's still going to keep buying Iranian oil.