|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: America vs. Iran |
 |
|
I want to know from the people out there (be objective and know some facts) possible scenarios for a war between the U.S. and Iran.....how would the U.S. attack?(assuming they did) Would a war with Iran greatly destabilize the middle east even more?....what are some possible outcomes of such a war? Would this war spread beyond Iran's borders? I know a few of you will have something to say about this, and I'll add my two cents after a few posts.....
GAME ON |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No cause for war at the moment. And the military has, for all intents and purposes, explained to the W. Bush Administration that it would not fight such a war. Indeed, SecDef Gates answered them in the press when he clarified that the Administration has no plans for war against Iran.
Please also note that the President failed to entice any four-star to accept the new war minister position he attempted to create a few weeks back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EXTERMINATE everyone and everything opposed to nuclear energy. The Middle East, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, fossil fuel industries....make them suffer!!
The Nuclear Industry Association |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can not see any war between the US and Iran in the near future..HOWEVER.. a week or two of US/Israeli air raids.. a different story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not so sure about anything regarding "war" with the team in place in Washington. They are about "crisis" creation and not "crisis management".....their specialty it seems.
Read this damaging indictment about how they rejected a proposal by the Iranians, a very thorough peace proposal which would have dealt with the issues of nuclear energy, terrorism, rapproachment fully, diplomatically , before all this bluster got started. Totally rejected by Washington and not even replied to by George who was rushing off to spend another 3 weeks of crisis management at his ranch and golf course...
Please see the real master documents. revealing how Washington only will hear what it wants to hear....tone deaf.
| Quote: |
Bush administration scuttled effort for negotiations with Iran
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Article Launched: 05/01/2007 01:33:06 AM PDT
In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the United States for settling our mutual disputes in a "grand bargain."
It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I've placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ ontheground.
Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war.
Scattered reports of the Iranian proposal have emerged previously, but if you read the full documentary record you'll see that what the hard-liners killed wasn't just one faxed Iranian proposal but an entire peace process. The record indicates that officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush administration officials - which makes me ache for my country.
Pursuit of peace
The process began with Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. Iran and the United States, both opponents of the Taliban, cooperated closely in stabilizing Afghanistan and providing aid, and unofficial "track two" processes grew to explore opportunities for improved relations.
On the U.S. side, track two involved well-connected former U.S. ambassadors, including Thomas Pickering, Frank Wisner and Nicholas
Platt. The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, was a central player, as was an Iranian-American professor at Rutgers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who heads a friendship group called the American Iranian Council.
At a dinner the council sponsored for its board at Zarif's home in September 2002, the group met Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi. According to the notes of Amirahmadi, the foreign minister told the group, "Yes, we are ready to normalize relations," provided the United States made the first move.
This was shaping into a historic opportunity to heal U.S.-Iranian relations, and the track two participants discussed further steps, including joint U.S.-Iranian cooperation against Saddam Hussein. The State Department and National Security Council were fully briefed, and in 2003 Zarif met with two U.S. officials, Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad, in a series of meetings in Paris and Geneva.
Encouraged, Iran transmitted its "grand bargain" proposals to the United States. One version was apparently a paraphrase by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran; that was published this year in the Washington Post.
Iran's proposal
But Iran also sent its own master text of the proposal to the State Department and, through an intermediary, to the White House. I've also posted that document, which Iran regards as the definitive one.
In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency" and other measures to assure the United States that it will not develop nuclear weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a "mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Iran also demanded a lot, including "mutual respect," abolition of sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement that Iran did not belong in the "axis of evil." Many crucial issues, including verification of Iran's nuclear program, needed to be hammered out. It's not clear to me that a grand bargain was reachable, but it was definitely worth pursuing - and still is today.
Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Zarif showed up - but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.
A U.S.-Iranian rapprochement could have saved lives in Iraq, isolated Palestinian terrorists and encouraged civil society groups in Iran. But instead the U.S. hard-liners chose to hammer plowshares into swords. |
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And then let's remember Rice, who like Bush, can tell a dead faced lie. Horrific and she should be thrown on her tush for it...... proven , categorical lie by a person entrusted with the highest possible amount of "trust" by the American people....
Rice Denies Seeing Iranian Proposal in '03
Remark Adds to Debate on Whether U.S. Missed Chance to Improve Ties With Tehran
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 8, 2007; Page A18
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was pressed yesterday on whether the Bush administration missed an opportunity to improve relations with Iran in 2003, when Tehran issued a proposal calling for a broad dialogue with the United States, on matters including cooperation on nuclear safeguards, action against terrorists and possible recognition of Israel.
Although former administration officials have said the proposal was discussed and ultimately rejected by top U.S. officials, Rice, who was then national security adviser, said she never saw it.
| Quote: |
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tells a House committee that she never saw "this so-called proposal from Iran" seeking talks with the United States on nuclear safeguards, counterterrorism and possible recognition of Israel. (By Susan Walsh -- Associated Press)
"I have read about this so-called proposal from Iran," Rice told the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, referring to reports in The Washington Post and other publications last year. "We had people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you,' lots of people who said, 'The Iranians want to talk to you.' But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, 'We're ready to recognize Israel.' . . . I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing." |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020702408.html
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran rejects US delegation plan
| Quote: |
Iran rejects US delegation plan
Iran has turned down the US offer of a high-level humanitarian delegation to deliver earthquake relief.
US officials planned to send Senator Elizabeth Dole, a former head of the American Red Cross, on the mission.
But the state department said the Iranians were holding the visit "in abeyance" and the US had decided not to pursue it for the moment.
Earlier an Iranian cleric accused the US of trying to exploit the disaster, which killed more than 30,000 people.
The US authorities have already eased sanctions on Iran to allow Americans to make financial donations for disaster relief. An American medical and disaster relief team is also working in the country. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3364345.stm
The US has had for years a standing offer that if Iran changed its behavior that the US would normalize relations with Iran.
| Quote: |
In response, President Clinton and I welcomed the new Iranian's President's call for a dialogue between our people. We encouraged academic, cultural and athletic content. We updated our advisory to Americans wishing to travel to Iran. We reiterated our willingness to engage in officially authorized discussions with Iran regarding each others principle concerns, and said we would monitor future developments in that country closely, which is what we have done. Now we have concluded the time is right to broaden our perspective even further. |
| Quote: |
s a step towards bringing down that wall of mistrust, I want today to discuss the question of economic sanctions. The United States imposed sanctions against Iran because of our concerns about proliferation, and because the authorities exercising control in Tehran financed and supported terrorist groups, including those violently opposed to the Middle East Peace Process.
To date, the political developments in Iran have not caused its military to cease its determined effort to acquire technology, materials and assistance needed to develop nuclear weapons, nor have those developments caused Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or its Ministry of Intelligence and Security to get out of the terrorism business. Until these policies change, fully normal ties between our governments will not be possible, and our principle sanctions will remain.
The purpose of our sanctions, however, is to spur changes in policy. They are not an end in themselves, nor do they seek to target innocent civilians.
And so for this reason, last year I authorized the sale of spare parts needed to ensure the safety of civilian passenger aircraft previously sold to Iran, aircraft often used by Iranian-Americans transiting to or from that country. And President Clinton eased restrictions on the export of food, medicine and medical equipment to sanctioned countries including Iran. This means that Iran can purchase products such as corn and wheat from America.
And today, I am announcing a step that will enable Americans to purchase and import carpets and food products such as dried fruits, nuts and caviar from Iran.
This step is a logical extension of the adjustments we made last year. It also designed to show the millions of Iranian craftsmen, farmers and fisherman who work in these industries, and the Iranian people as a whole, that the United States bears them no ill will.
Second, the United States will explore ways to remove unnecessary impediments to increase contact between American and Iranian scholars, professional artists, athletes, and non-governmental organizations. We believe this will serve to deepen bonds of mutual understanding and trust.
Third, the United States is prepared to increase efforts with Iran aimed at eventually concluding a global settlement of outstanding legal claims between our two countries.
This is not simply a matter of unfreezing assets. After the fall of the Shah the United States and Iran agreed on a process to resolve existing claims through an arbitral tribunal in The Hague. In 1981, the vast majority of Iranian assets seized during the hostage crisis were returned to Iran. Since then, nearly all of the private claims have been resolved through The Hague Tribunal process. |
http://www.fas.org/news/iran/2000/000317.htm
Of course the question remains does Iran keep agreements?
| Quote: |
On 24 September 1998, as a precondition to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Britain, Iran gave a public commitment that it would do nothing to harm Rushdie.[7] But soon after restoration of diplomatic relations, Iranian authorities reversed themselves and reaffirmed the death threats.[8] In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwa was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.[9] Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid.[10] Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it.[9] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie
This is how the US ought to deal with Iran.
Dealing with Iranian nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons and high oil prices could very lead to a far more aggressive and emboldened Iran. Good for the US ? No.
If Iran is developing nuclear weapons the US has two options one is to destroy them with the best military option the US can come up with . But we need to consider that Iran's population is probably more pro US than any other country. There is a chance that in a few years that after Iran's supreme leader dies that a far moderate government will come to power. A military strike would likely turn Iran's population against the US for decades and for that reason and that reason alone a military strike is a very unattractive option.
However after thinking about about there seems to be another course in which the US can put off a military strike for now, where things still turn out very good for the US and where Iran ends up being a lot weaker than they are now.
There are several actions over the next few years the US can undertake in order to change the strategic balance back in the US favor.
There are three things I can think of right away
1) Alternative Energy � If you bring down the price of oil you weaken the Iranian regime. Nuff said.
2)Space weapons. The US should make a massive investment in space weapons particularly Hyper Velocity Rods (HVR) which will negate any strategic advantage that Iran gets from nukes. With ( HVR) the US will be able to have a non nuclear means to destroy Iran�s nuclear program and their missiles - any time, any place, for any reason. The US could also threaten to destroy much of Iran�s military capability if Iran engages in another terror strike like Khobar against US forces or citizens or even if they help Al Qaeda. In short Iran will no longer have the option to threaten massive retaliation (like North Korea does ) if the US hits them .
3)A diplomatic offensive against Hezbollah. The US needs to put this to Europe either declares Hezbollah a terrorist group and cut of their money or we won�t consider you to be close allies. If you are serious about the war on terror then you will do something to cut off Hizzbollah�s money. Why is Hezbollah so important here? Iran will be in a position to make use of Hezbollah more aggressively once it has a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon will be Tehran�s insurance that it is not held responsible for the acts of Hezbollah. This is my best guess as to why Iran wants nuclear weapons. Artillery and nuclear weapons allow North Korea to get away with a lot. Iran has seen this.
If the US can put all of the above than Iran's strategic position will no better than it was at the before the Iraq war. Such would be a good thing for the US.
Iran can have nuclear weapons but they can not be allowed the strategic benefits of having nuclear weapons.
This doesn't mean the US ought to not talk to Iran , just that the US will find Iran a lot easier to deal with if the US has regained the upper hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
Please quit the cut and paste of your regular and very old and "non contextual" talking points/articles/scrap book pieces......
You are returning to your stuck record and put another dime in the Joobox baby, routine.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Joo,
Please quit the cut and paste of your regular and very old and "non contextual" talking points/articles/scrap book pieces......
You are returning to your stuck record and put another dime in the Joobox baby, routine.
DD |
Didn't you cut and paste up articles to make your case?
Anyway.
1.Iran has rebuffed US offers to improve relations many times. 2004 wasn't the first time but it is indicative of Iran's actions. If Iran was really looking to improve relations why did the turn down the US in 2004?
2.The US has had a standing offer to Iran that the US will normalize relations IF Iran changes their actions.
3. About the offer - at the time high level Iranian and US officials were meeting in Afghanistan - If Iran really had meaningful offer why not make it there? Also both the US and Iran deny such an offer was ever made.
4. Iran's government doesn't keep agreements anyway. See Salmon Rushide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
About the cut and paste. !) they aren't current 2) they are something you've filed away 3) you fail to show how this has relevance. Yes, they may be one example but they are a small speck in the sky.
Salmon Rushdie is a case in point. Rushdie himself is adamant that the U.S. engage Iran constructively. About his own case, read 1,000 days in a balloon. Great essay on foreign affairs but from a personal perspective. Yes, he doesn't want religion in politics but he doesn't believe we should just write off whole nations.....
All your points are just sad statements if indeed that is the case of how the U.S. undertakes diplomacy. You don't say IF IF when talking with nations. You don't make ultimatums, you don't just say -- you did it once, so we will never believe you again. Why? Because the same can be done from the other end (and all your points are equally valid against the U.S. if we turn the tables. )
You can still be strong while respecting others and engaging them in diplomacy. The Bush stance is just pig headed, red necked. Period.
DD
PS. Did you read the document the Iranian govt sent and posted for the world to know about....many pages and thorough. I will send you a link as soon as I find it. Times Select you need for the one I have but I'll find away around the subscription service... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| About the cut and paste. !) they aren't current 2) they are something you've filed away 3) you fail to show how this has relevance. Yes, they may be one example but they are a small speck in the sky. |
They show that the US has reached out to Iran.
| Quote: |
| Salmon Rushdie is a case in point. Rushdie himself is adamant that the U.S. engage Iran constructively. About his own case, read 1,000 days in a balloon. Great essay on foreign affairs but from a personal perspective. Yes, he doesn't want religion in politics but he doesn't believe we should just write off whole nations..... |
I agree that the US ought to talk to Iran. Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamani is a very bad guy , on par with Robert Mugabe but he won't be around forever.
| Quote: |
| All your points are just sad statements if indeed that is the case of how the U.S. undertakes diplomacy. You don't say IF IF when talking with nations. You don't make ultimatums, you don't just say -- you did it once, so we will never believe you again. Why? Because the same can be done from the other end (and all your points are equally valid against the U.S. if we turn the tables. ) |
I think the US ought to talk to Iran but I don't think the US has good reason to trust Iran's government. While the US ought to talk to Iran it ought not to let down its guard. There is nothing wrong with talking just like there is nothing wrong with making sure you have what it takes to prevail overwhelmingly if there is a conflict. The two need not be mutually exclusive.
| Quote: |
| You can still be strong while respecting others and engaging them in diplomacy. The Bush stance is just pig headed, red necked. Period. |
The Bush administration has in fact tried to reach out to Iran. As for the rest I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I'm not so sure about anything regarding "war" with the team in place in Washington. They are about "crisis" creation and not "crisis management".....their specialty it seems.
Read this damaging indictment about how they rejected a proposal by the Iranians, a very thorough peace proposal which would have dealt with the issues of nuclear energy, terrorism, rapproachment fully, diplomatically , before all this bluster got started. Totally rejected by Washington and not even replied to by George who was rushing off to spend another 3 weeks of crisis management at his ranch and golf course...
Please see the real master documents. revealing how Washington only will hear what it wants to hear....tone deaf.
| Quote: |
Bush administration scuttled effort for negotiations with Iran
By Nicholas D. Kristof
Article Launched: 05/01/2007 01:33:06 AM PDT
In May 2003, Iran sent a secret proposal to the United States for settling our mutual disputes in a "grand bargain."
It is an astonishing document, for it tries to address a range of U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons, terrorism and Iraq. I've placed it and related documents (including multiple drafts of it) on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ ontheground.
Hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussions of a deal, and interviews with key players suggest that was an appalling mistake. There was a real hope for peace; now there is a real danger of war.
Scattered reports of the Iranian proposal have emerged previously, but if you read the full documentary record you'll see that what the hard-liners killed wasn't just one faxed Iranian proposal but an entire peace process. The record indicates that officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush administration officials - which makes me ache for my country.
Pursuit of peace
The process began with Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. Iran and the United States, both opponents of the Taliban, cooperated closely in stabilizing Afghanistan and providing aid, and unofficial "track two" processes grew to explore opportunities for improved relations.
On the U.S. side, track two involved well-connected former U.S. ambassadors, including Thomas Pickering, Frank Wisner and Nicholas
Platt. The Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, was a central player, as was an Iranian-American professor at Rutgers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who heads a friendship group called the American Iranian Council.
At a dinner the council sponsored for its board at Zarif's home in September 2002, the group met Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi. According to the notes of Amirahmadi, the foreign minister told the group, "Yes, we are ready to normalize relations," provided the United States made the first move.
This was shaping into a historic opportunity to heal U.S.-Iranian relations, and the track two participants discussed further steps, including joint U.S.-Iranian cooperation against Saddam Hussein. The State Department and National Security Council were fully briefed, and in 2003 Zarif met with two U.S. officials, Ryan Crocker and Zalmay Khalilzad, in a series of meetings in Paris and Geneva.
Encouraged, Iran transmitted its "grand bargain" proposals to the United States. One version was apparently a paraphrase by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran; that was published this year in the Washington Post.
Iran's proposal
But Iran also sent its own master text of the proposal to the State Department and, through an intermediary, to the White House. I've also posted that document, which Iran regards as the definitive one.
In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency" and other measures to assure the United States that it will not develop nuclear weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a "mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Iran also demanded a lot, including "mutual respect," abolition of sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement that Iran did not belong in the "axis of evil." Many crucial issues, including verification of Iran's nuclear program, needed to be hammered out. It's not clear to me that a grand bargain was reachable, but it was definitely worth pursuing - and still is today.
Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Zarif showed up - but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.
A U.S.-Iranian rapprochement could have saved lives in Iraq, isolated Palestinian terrorists and encouraged civil society groups in Iran. But instead the U.S. hard-liners chose to hammer plowshares into swords. |
DD |
nice of you not to explain the whole situation but in 2003 the US was leaving the Iran negotiations to the EU-3, which is why they didnt do the deal, how ever years later when the US did enter Iran was offered a lucrative deal which would have given them what they wanted and more, such as light water nuclear reactors, membership to the WTO, etc etc and they turned it down. But again you want to beat the "blame america" first drums.
Also, can you really trsut a country to be transparent when they spent 2 decades hiding a program whos existence was only found out because of dissidents? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
