If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Keep Iran military option, says Rifkind
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Comments
They'll get everything that Rifkind is offering, just by getting the weapons, and that would be guaranteed.
"We won't destroy you if you promise not to defend yourself"
If I were "Iran" I would be getting nukes ASAP, it's the only way that the US will be kept out of there. Even the fuckwit "Israeli's" would climbdown with another nuclear option in the region, their imaginary and ludicrous "promised land" isn't much use if it's irradiated.
Now that is pretty obviosuly bullshit, but thats how the Israeli military and political strategists were thinking only a few years ago.
Good point though, I'd do the same. Although as I have said, you are France. What stance do you take on this?
Indeed.
Israeli military strategists I doubt it, a few neocon loons in America perhaps. The Israelis themselves, Likud and Labor have always been fairly pragmatic and practically understood realities on the ground. Israel is a tiny state, it’s surrounded by hostile forces and plausible potential enemies. Perhaps with the exception of the odd nutter and some lunatic fringe far-right Zionist groups nobody in the Israeli military or mainstream Israeli politics is going to advocate unnecessarily inflaming the Arab world with such incitement. Admittedly, a few neo-cons 'more familiar with the inside of Washington think tanks than Abrams tanks' have made a few ridiculous suggestions but they’re no more than hypothetical suggestions.
This is the correct long term nuclear strategy. Look at how the USA treated North Korea in comparison to Iraq. Nukes are the only way to secure themselves against aggression, unless the USA and Israel are willing to make a better offer (which they aren't).
Bollocks. The US public is now thought to oppose the Iraq War and more are having uncertainties over Afghanistan. Aside from the US not having the resources to launch a third war the public support is not there. A US president wouldn’t get the funds off Congress for a war with Iran. – That’s assuming Iran doesn’t pursue a nuclear weapons programme. But when the barbarous Iranian ‘president’ promises to wipe other countries ‘off the map’ and denies the Holocaust but pledges a new Middle Eastern Holocaust he’s not the sort of guy people trust with nukes. The Iranian president through his desire for nuclear weapons and constant threats is himself making the case for war against Iran. If Iran followed Libya’s example there could easily be a full resumption of diplomatic relations and talk about military action against Iran would be completely off the cards.
Why are nukes the 'only way'? Gaddafi doesn’t have any and the US has no plans to invade. Relations between the West and Gaddafi have flourished in recent years since Libya abandoned its programme.
Oh and North Korea and Iraq are two completely different situations. The US would never have invaded North Korea unprovoked anyway, with or without nukes it wouldn’t happen. The only circumstance that the US would have invaded NK would be if it invaded South Korea – but I don’t think that’s particularly likely.
I think it is just Iran's contingency plan, though the way my lecturer explained it, as he was a NATO advisor for several decades, was that the only thing holding Israel back was the USA and UK.
Confirming my view that NATO employed some pretty weird fruitcakes.
If the Soviets had invaded we'd have been fucked with some of the plans some of the NATO advisors came out with. The only thing which saved us was the Warsaw pact couldn't get their tanks to start....
:thumb:
The US is already preparing an Effects Based Operation, a mix of airstrikes, special forces raids and ground attacks by armed insurgents (Kurds and Balochs) to disable the Iranian government/military/economy and promote an uprising. It probably wont work, because the ethnic problems of Iran are far lesser than Iraq, but the main belief of the US policymakers is that democracy is wanted more than the current government and that given the chance people will throw off an autoractic leader.
That’s assuming Iran doesn’t pursue a nuclear weapons programme. But when the barbarous Iranian ‘president’ promises to wipe other countries ‘off the map’ and denies the Holocaust but pledges a new Middle Eastern Holocaust he’s not the sort of guy people trust with nukes.[/QUOTE]
He's keeping the mullahs happy. You mean you didn't know? Thats internal propaganda, so he looks good for the Imams. Its an old Israeli trick of using Middle Eastern internal propaganda to frighten the shit out of the USA into giving them more weapons. If he wanted to destroy Israel, he has the terrorist connections and enough VX to kill every living creature in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. He hasn't done that because Israel would turn Iran into the worlds largest parking lot, if the USA hasn't already got a Trident in the Gulf, ready to strike. Its called deterrence, it works very well, especially against Iran. America proved that in linking terrorist attacks to their government and threatening retaliation. They stopped using terrorism as an overt method of foreign policy, after the Khobar Tower bombings. Sure, they have connections, but they dont give orders, just cash.
The USA dont want to talk. He sent a letter, they refused. He'd also want assurances from Israel, which are going to happen when hell freezes over
Because Iran aspires to be a regional hegemon. Libya was always a joke, from the moment they invaded Chad. They aren't a player on the international scene and so they cozied up with a superpower to get back in. The bandwagon effect. Libya's days of agitation were after the OPEC cartel were formed and in the days that Iran was using terrorism to great effect in pushing the US influence out of the Shia Crescent. He tried to emulate them, and failed. Iran are looking for leadership of the Muslim world, in a theological, cultural and military sense. That means eclisping other powers in the region and since these are Israel and the USA, that means nukes.
Its only different because of the weapons and presence of China. Sooner or later China are going to get tired of their psychotic little attack dog and pull out their material support for them. However, nuclear weapons flying over SE Asia was most certainly a consideration that any sane policy maker would consider. And even if its not true, its certainly how Iran are thinking, as their Ambassdor to Turkey has made clear on several occasions.
haha. spot on mate.
That is the truth.