Does the US want diplomacy to work with Iran?

BillieTheBot

There was an interesting programme on Radio 4 about relations between Iran and America on Monday which you can listen to on their website.

It gives a really interesting perspective on the issue of whether America really wants peace with them at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/uncoveringiran/pip/mwr3q/

Former Member

They'd probably prefer diplomacy - they're embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan and war with Iran would be a difficulty the US could do without. That said i think they've got a line in the sand (Iran can't develop nukes) where if tough diplomacy fails they will take military action (I suspect more along airstrikes and limited ground forces, rather than a full scale invasion)

Former Member

Interesting piece. One things for sure. America can never claim to use war as a last resort if they go to war with a country that they've never attempted to have diplomatic relations with. I'm somewhat beyond giving a shit to be honest. America can fuck itself up if it wants, as long as none of my money is going towards helping them.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Interesting piece. One things for sure. America can never claim to use war as a last resort if they go to war with a country that they've never attempted to have diplomatic relations with.

The offer the Iranians made might have been just a starting point, and they might not have been serious about it all, but where was the harm in trying to talk?

Former Member

lol i think that's kind of like asking if they ever wanted diplomacy with iraq.......sure they will pursue UN resolutions and whatnot for a while to appear diplomatic, issuing stupid ultimatums like 'surrender your WMDs', and then when the country in question inevitably fails to meet them (somebody please tell me how can iran ever prove that they're not developing nukes), then they might send weapons inspectors in, when the fail to find anything and the international community doesn't go along with it, they'll pull them out (just like iraq), fabricate some theory based on flimsy evidence, scare the crap out of people through the media etc that we're all in danger, and bingo you have a reason to go in and start blowing things up......it's a predicable pattern really, diplomacy is just a formality the US has to get out of the way first.

Former Member

I'm not sure but they'd be fucking daft to invade Iran, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan. It's going to fuel Islamic Extremism even more, de-stable the middle east, increase oil prices, and probably be a war they can't win (in the long term)

Former Member

Had the Iraq war gone as they thought it would (quick victory over Saddam's forces, which happened, and peace and harmony from a grateful and united population, which didn't quite) it is quite possible they would have gone for Iran even before Bush won the re-election in November 2004- or shortly afterwards.

But after the way things have turned up on Iraq, fast becoming Vietnam Mk. II, a full scale occupation is highly unlikely.

Like others have said the US might still try to destroy infrastructure and nuclear plants, or even assassinate Ahmadinejad. Which would be a grave error.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Like others have said the US might still try to destroy infrastructure and nuclear plants, or even assassinate Ahmadinejad. Which would be a grave error.

I wouldn't object to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iran succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe Israel off the map' unleashing nuclear war?

As desirable as dismantling Ahmandinejad vile regime would be it's not going to happen. A full-scale invasion is not possible but nobody interested in securing peace and stability in the region could possibly tolerate such a barbarous and dangerous regime getting its hand on a nuke. Should diplomacy and the UN bureaucracy fail to stop the Iranian threat the US and its allies should not rule out force.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Should diplomacy and the UN bureaucracy fail to stop the Iranian threat the US and its allies should not rule out force.

How can diplomacy possibly succeed when the US has flat out refused to talk to Iran?

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote:

How can diplomacy possibly succeed when the US has flat out refused to talk to Iran?

Well since Iran has made it's hatred of the US pretty clear and given that the EU has not really got anywhere with Iran the US would probably be wasting its time...And Iran hasn't exactly expressed any sincere willingness to talk to the US.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I wouldn't object to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iran succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe Israel off the map' unleashing nuclear war?.

If anyone used Nuclear weapons on Israel the radiation would harm their neighbours as well, I doubt anyone would want to nuke them and knowling harm the states next door.

The US government was really stupid to think they could go half way across the world, bomb another country which had been ruled so strictly for so many years - capture their leader and expect everyone to live happily everafter.

They probabaly thought it would go more like it did in Afganistan where they removed the Taliban rulers ...

If the US and UK forces leave Iraq now they'll for certain have taken a fairly stable but oppressed country (under Saddam's rule) and leave millions of people in a state of total civil war.

I doubt the US wants anything other then to have a miltary advantage in every single region of the world.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I wouldn't object to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iran succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe Israel off the map' unleashing nuclear war?

Of course I wouldn't. Then again I don't believe for a 1/1000th of a second that he intends or would want to attempt to attack Israel, let alone wipe it off the map.

It's all propaganda playing to the masses.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I wouldn't object to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iran succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe Israel off the map' unleashing nuclear war?

As desirable as dismantling Ahmandinejad vile regime would be it's not going to happen. A full-scale invasion is not possible but nobody interested in securing peace and stability in the region could possibly tolerate such a barbarous and dangerous regime getting its hand on a nuke. Should diplomacy and the UN bureaucracy fail to stop the Iranian threat the US and its allies should not rule out force.

If one's getting wiped off the map i'd pick israel over Iran.

Also it's good how you call it the "Iranian threat", I'm pretty sure they just want nukes so america can't fuck them around like they have done with the rest of the middle east.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

I wouldn't object to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iran succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe Israel off the map' unleashing nuclear war?

As desirable as dismantling Ahmandinejad vile regime would be it's not going to happen. A full-scale invasion is not possible but nobody interested in securing peace and stability in the region could possibly tolerate such a barbarous and dangerous regime getting its hand on a nuke. Should diplomacy and the UN bureaucracy fail to stop the Iranian threat the US and its allies should not rule out force.

I wouldn't object to destroying Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iraq succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe the West off the map' unleashing nuclear war?

As desirable as dismantling Hussein's vile regime would be it's not going to happen. A full-scale invasion is not possible but nobody interested in securing peace and stability in the region could possibly tolerate such a barbarous and dangerous regime getting its hand on a nuke. Should diplomacy and the UN bureaucracy fail to stop the Iraqi threat the US and its allies should not rule out force.

Heard it all before! :rolleyes:

Former Member

i'd be interested to know where all the 'quotes' in this thread are coming from

Former Member

Yerascrote wrote:

I wouldn't object to destroying Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Would you rather Iraq succeeded in her attempt to 'wipe the West off the map' unleashing nuclear war?

As desirable as dismantling Hussein's vile regime would be it's not going to happen. A full-scale invasion is not possible but nobody interested in securing peace and stability in the region could possibly tolerate such a barbarous and dangerous regime getting its hand on a nuke. Should diplomacy and the UN bureaucracy fail to stop the Iraqi threat the US and its allies should not rule out force.

Heard it all before! :rolleyes:

classic

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote:

Well since Iran has made it's hatred of the US pretty clear and given that the EU has not really got anywhere with Iran the US would probably be wasting its time...And Iran hasn't exactly expressed any sincere willingness to talk to the US.

I'm guessing you didnt listen to the show then, they offered a deal to the US just after the invasion of Iraq, offering to stop nuclear, stop funding Hamas and sending rockets to Lebanon....

Its a show worth listening to.

Teh_Gerbil

Of course the US doesn't want it to work.

It can't invade and take thier resources nad use it as a military base in the reigon if diplomacy WORKS, can it?

I mean, Saddam provided video evidence of his WMD's beiung decomissioned and destroyed. Didn't stop us invading him, did it?