Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?

[russ_watters]

Also there is a really fine line between what is 'potentially' a cause for concern vs something that is based on unfounded paranoia.

As posters like BobbyWhy have shown, there is not sufficient evidence to say that Iran is engaging in a military related program with their enrichment.

You're missing the point/have it backwards. The NPT includes with it an affirmative burden of proof: Iran must openly prove they are not using their nuclear research to develop nuclear weapons. Failure to do so is itself a violation of the NPT. So the fact that we don't have a clear idea either way is indicative of a violation: we don't have a clear idea because Iran is violating the NPT by not being open.

As you have pointed out, because of the dangers of nuclear power, the IAEA and other associated entities was formed to enforce some of the basic guidelines with regard to using nuclear energy and enrichment guidelines amongst other things. They've followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors.

You're contradicting yourself. If Iran followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors, there'd be no question that Iran was using the technology for peaceful purposes (assuming they are).

That's a nice utopian viewpoint, but not everyone follows 'rules' even the people that make them and sign them.

Um...ok, so is that your way of conceding that Iran is violating the rules [the NPT]?

 

[russ_watters]

Iran does not cooperate with IAEA, that's why. Don't you get it? Do you not see the obvious...the non-spoken fact that Israel always refuses to admit to their possession of nuclear weapons through complete obfuscation. While Israel maintains a stock of hundreds of nuclear weapons the Western world winks and nods. Now, what's OK for Israel is not OK for Iran?

Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Jewish state’s official non-declaration.
Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Iranian state's official non-declaration.

Israel did not sign the NPT, so does not have the same obligations Iran has.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now, what's OK for Israel is not OK for Iran?

Correct. If there were any possible way to do it I think we would remove everyone's nuclear capability but our own. Clamping down on the spread is about the only realistic option at this point.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not talking about the end of the world, world war 3, mayan prophecy type thing: I'm just talking about the danger of the precedent that it sets.

The precedent has already been set in Syria, so that bridge is crossed. You're right that a repeat may not go the same way because each situation has its own idiosyncratic risks. The best solution would be diplomatic. I hope the US is studying up on how to allow the current Iranian leader to save face while giving up nuclear weapons, because this seems to be the problem: he can't look like he's backing down without losing his status there.

 

[chiro]

You're missing the point/have it backwards. The NPT includes with it an affirmative burden of proof: Iran must openly prove they are not using their nuclear research to develop nuclear weapons. Failure to do so is itself a violation of the NPT. So the fact that we don't have a clear idea either way is indicative of a violation: we don't have a clear idea because Iran is violating the NPT by not being open. You're contradicting yourself. If Iran followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors, there'd be no question that Iran was using the technology for peaceful purposes (assuming they are). Um...ok, so is that your way of conceding that Iran is violating the rules [the NPT]?

Iran has let them in the inspectors. What more do you want them to do? You want to play daddy for the entire world? Want to play superman and save us all?

Let me ask you a direct question: Why is it ok for Pakistan, France, Israel, Russia, the US, the UK, India and China to have nuclear weapons but not anybody else?

You show me in any IAEA report specifically where they have identified any kind of dangerous process or characteristic as a part of their inspections, including for the military bases.

With all the sanctions that the US and other so called allies have placed under Iran with trade sanctions, they've basically done a highly offensive move against Iran. Crippling trade and economic activity to a country is basically an act of war in a financial and economic sense.

So let me get this straight: the IAEA has inspected the plants dozens of times, but you guys still want to save the world by finding the bad guys with their supposed weapons of which you have thousands. So not only do you do this specifically for Iran and forget situations like ohh say North Korea, you impose trade sanctions that cripple their economy knowingly and then you want Iran to 'co-operate'.

The least you guys can do is if you really want to enforce this kind of checking, then enforce it across the board and treat everyone equally. When you do it with the Iranians, then you should let the Iranians go to your nuclear sites and wherever else they might wish to check. Would that be OK with you? Is that a breach of 'national security'? What about letting Iranian inspectors within Israel to do some checking of their own?

The double standard is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[mheslep]

Enrichment is not proof of a military weapons program, nor is it evidence of one. 20% U-235 is used at the Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP) at Esfahan.
...

Uranium enrichment to 20% is evidence. To deny this is to be immune to evidence, and to instead embrace some kind of apologist dogma.

 

[daveb]

Uranium enrichment to 20% is evidence. To deny this is to be immune to evidence, and to instead embrace some kind of apologist dogma.

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

 

[thorium1010]

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

It would indicate intention for further enrichment. However, I am quite sure another war in the middle east is a recipe for disaster not only for U.S. also for the world. War or any strike on Iran is a provocative act and i suspect this time around russia and china will get involved.

 

[ThomasT]

... you guys still want to save the world by finding the bad guys with their supposed weapons of which you have thousands.

I don't think it's about that. Iran's location and expressed animosity toward Israel are important factors, imo. I currently agree with Zooby that all parties involved would like to get to some sort of agreement that would avoid Israeli air strikes (and the unforeseeable consequences that that might entail), with everybody benefitting in some way. The problem is that it's impossible to ascertain with any reasonable certainty that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons ... and Iranian nuclear capability has obvious benefits for Iran, while presenting a real and present threat to Israel, and perhaps to US interests in the region (I'm guessing).

The double standard is absolutely ridiculous.

Double standards aren't ridiculous ... insofar as they benefit those with the power to impose and enforce them.

The situation for Israel (and, by association, the US) is a difficult one. But the situation is even more difficult for Iran. I certainly hope that the administrations of the countries involved find a way to work this out, but I'm not overly optimistic because of what I read about the Israeli administration's apprehensions.

 

[mheslep]

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

1. I did not say U 20% was weapons grade.
2. Obviously, U 20% enriched could be further enriched using much the same equipment to be made into a highly effective weapon.
3. I said U 20% enriched was *not* proof, but evidence of a weapons program. This is because the possible valid reasons for going beyond 7% for reactor grade are very thin.

You are arguing against a straw man.

 

[Hurkyl]

That's a nice utopian viewpoint, but not everyone follows 'rules' even the people that make them and sign them. Rules are nice, but only when everyone follows them uniformly without exception, and quite frankly I'm not holding my breath for this to change overnight.

I think you completely missed the point. In the U.S. legal system, the rules are set out so that when the police arrest you, it is because they can point to a law you violated, rather than making one up on the spot because they felt you deserved it.

e.g. it has been made a crime to threaten people, because e.g. it shows that you have enough 'potential' to follow through that it warrants legal action.

Another aspect is that police don't arrest people because they commit crimes. Police arrest people because they have sufficient probable cause to suggest that you may have committed / be about to commit a crime.

Also there is a really fine line between what is 'potentially' a cause for concern vs something that is based on unfounded paranoia.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, the point is that we don't (and should not!) draw the line between "has already happened" and "hasn't already happened" like you were trying to assert. Nor is the line between "we are absolutely certain" and "we are not certain".

It's far too naïve to think that one should always wait until you see a smoking gun before you take any action. You are making a fallacy of the excluded middle -- you are trying to justify your naïve viewpoint by pretending the only alternative is its polar opposite, and neglecting the fact that the actual reasonable positions exist somewhere in the middle.

 

[ThomasT]

@ chiro,
I think I share your sense of justice, and therefore understand your outrage at what might be considered unjust demands by the US regarding Iran's development of nuclear weapons. But international relations, just as human interpersonal relations, at least in the extreme, aren't a matter of justice or fairness. It's a matter of power. It would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have the power to actually bargain, imo. Therefore, it would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, imho.

 

[mheslep]

AKA False Dilemma fallacy.

 

[ThomasT]

AKA False Dilemma fallacy.

What, in this thread, does this refer to?

 

[mheslep]

What, in this thread, does this refer to?

Sorry you slipped in ahead of my post. Referring to 81, excluded middle fallacy reference.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3925351&postcount=81

 

[ThomasT]

Sorry you slipped in ahead of my post. Referring to 81, excluded middle fallacy reference.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3925351&postcount=81

Ok, I was just hoping it wasn't me, as I have only an intuitive grasp of logical ... stuff.

 

[daveb]

1. I did not say U 20% was weapons grade.
2. Obviously, U 20% enriched could be further enriched using much the same equipment to be made into a highly effective weapon.
3. I said U 20% enriched was *not* proof, but evidence of a weapons program. This is because the possible valid reasons for going beyond 7% for reactor grade are very thin.

You are arguing against a straw man.

Point taken about the evidence vs proof, but I do not see it as evidence.

LWR uses LEU which is enriched up to 20% (source), but is usually around 3%-5% (source1, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.html). Research reactors need around 20% (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.html). Research reactors are those needed as a neutron source (i.e., for making radioisotopes). Thus, (imo) your claim that it is evidence is weak, since Iran has specifically stated they intend to manufacture radioisotopes.

 

[Andre]

Just for the record, I agree with chiro and daveb and I think that the tendency to believe that Iran is working on WMD's is explained here.

Diplomacy! Just get the guys over for a talk and buy them a beer at the bar.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Diplomacy! Just get the guys over for a talk and buy them a beer at the bar.

Don't know if you read this article I linked to earlier, but the situation in Iran is WAY complicated. The "Supreme Leader" is being undercut by lower level people who have publicly asked that the sanctions be lifted. They were supposed to act as if the sanctions were making no difference, that Iran could care less about them. Revealing that they are causing distress put Iran in a bad negotiating positing vis a vis the US/Israel.

It states that by insistently asking for the removal of Western sanctions, they have indeed revealed that pressures have worked on the government and that the country has become vulnerable to the sanctions.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is in a separate political struggle against President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. I don't know what those two titles mean, but infer from the article that the Supreme Leader is the official top man, the President a lesser, but formidable power. The President is riding the Supreme Leader, criticizing every perceived faux pas or questionable action.

The US may be miscalculating, the authors posit, that the whole Iranian government is about to cave to sanctions. The Supreme Leader is the one we're negotiating with, not the President or the lower downs who are asking the sanctions be lifted.

The danger of a US miscalculation becomes apparent if it is noted that for the first time, Jalili, Iran's top negotiator, is representing not just Iran but the Supreme Leader as well. Indeed his new appointment letter as Iran's negotiator also identifies him as the "personal representative of the Supreme Leader". In this context, any demand that would be considered humiliating and disrespectful of Iran's national pride would have no chance of success. Khamenei has relentlessly linked the nuclear issue to ezzat-e melli (national dignity).

For example, in a speech to nuclear scientists he said: "They [that is, the 'arrogant powers'] tried to discourage our nation on many occasions. They tried to convince our people that they were incompetent ... You cannot make progress ... [Yet] every scientific advance is a testimony to the competence of our nation ... Your work ... instilled a sense of national dignity into this nation and this country."

Disregarding Iran's sense of dignity and pride, Western policymakers and analysts alike believe that Khamenei is now in a tough position and will accept the full suspension of uranium enrichment. They do not realize that accepting such a defeat would be the beginning of the end of his authority and stature among his followers, not to speak of the general public, as a symbol of resistance against the "global arrogance".

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NE16Ak02.html

Wanting nuclear weapons is not about wanting to use them, it's about "National Dignity". Everyone wants to prove they're technologically advanced, and also powerful and important enough to be counted among the Major Powers, the big, dangerous powers who have to be listened to when they speak, because they have nuclear weapons. It's about face.

 

[Tosh5457]

@ chiro,
I think I share your sense of justice, and therefore understand your outrage at what might be considered unjust demands by the US regarding Iran's development of nuclear weapons. But international relations, just as human interpersonal relations, at least in the extreme, aren't a matter of justice or fairness. It's a matter of power.

International relations being a matter of power doesn't exclude fairness. Even if a country is powerful, it can still choose to be fair in international relations.

It would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have the power to actually bargain, imo.

Why? I think you're assuming Iran having a nuclear weapon is bad for US, but why is that?

Wanting nuclear weapons is not about wanting to use them, it's about "National Dignity". Everyone wants to prove they're technologically advanced, and also powerful and important enough to be counted among the Major Powers, the big, dangerous powers who have to be listened to when they speak, because they have nuclear weapons. It's about face.

I agree, but I think the core reason for wanting nuclear weapons (especially for a country in the Middle East) is that it gives a big boost in defense, because it'll make other countries hesitant to attack them.

 

[ThomasT]

International relations being a matter of power doesn't exclude fairness.

If it's a matter of power, then that necessarily obviates considerations of fairness. Which is not to say that the more powerful party might not try to appear to be acting out of fairness (it might even want to be fair in some sort of best case scenario, and hold the ideals of fairness and justice in high esteem). Just that, if push comes to shove, then all the fairness and justice considerations are secondary to the fact that one party is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful party can, and often does, impose its will on the less powerful party. If it's a matter of power, that is ... and I think it mostly is.

Even if a country is powerful, it can still choose to be fair in international relations.

It could. But, imho, fairness and justice are secondary to maintaining a dominant position. The international stage isn't the nice middle class American situation that many of us grew up in and still enjoy. There's no doubt in my mind that if Iran or any other Islamic Middle East country could destroy Israel and get away with it, then it would. The US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there. Israel is an integral part of that. Just my current opinion.

 

[Andre]

..., but the situation in Iran is WAY complicated.

Absolutely, and that's not my point, the point is to break through the mutual enemy creation process. Talking about attacking is only going to confirm their enemy image to the population. "The west is indeed that bad". And you may win the battle like in Irak and Afghanistan but not the war, since the population regards you as confirmed enemy.

Moreover, how firm is the support of the citizens, after the many casualties in the name of non existing weapons of mass destruction as Turbo pointed out earlier in this thread.

So if the problem is Iran's successful terror merchants and moral entrepeneurs, stopping them should be the aim and that's a matter of the Iranian population, who can use our support. The last they need is an enemy from the west.

more people should read this.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[Astronuc]

For consideration: Iran navy saves US freighter from pirates: report
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-navy-saves-us-freighter-pirates-report-110142224.html

Iran's navy said Thursday it saved an American-flagged cargo ship that was being attacked by pirates in the Gulf of Oman.

Of course, this needs verification.


Regarding enriched UO₂. The smaller the reactor the higher the enrichment requirement for a given power density/flux and burnup capability.

There are special high-flux reactors, one of which I have seen in person, which have cores about the size of a typical household washing machine, and which use 93%-enriched UO₂. That is a legitimate research tool. On the other hand, that raises the issue of nuclear weapons capability. There are alternatives so such types of reactors. Since the 1980s, fuel for TRIGA reactors (pool type systems used at universities) has been replaced with fuel of much lower (~20%) enrichments.

 

[Tosh5457]

If it's a matter of power, then that necessarily obviates considerations of fairness. Which is not to say that the more powerful party might not try to appear to be acting out of fairness (it might even want to be fair in some sort of best case scenario, and hold the ideals of fairness and justice in high esteem). Just that, if push comes to shove, then all the fairness and justice considerations are secondary to the fact that one party is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful party can, and often does, impose its will on the less powerful party. If it's a matter of power, that is ... and I think it mostly is.

It could. But, imho, fairness and justice are secondary to maintaining a dominant position. The international stage isn't the nice middle class American situation that many of us grew up in and still enjoy. There's no doubt in my mind that if Iran or any other Islamic Middle East country could destroy Israel and get away with it, then it would. The US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there. Israel is an integral part of that. Just my current opinion.

The main point is why should US use its power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? It's not a threat to USA, it's only a threat to Israel's power in the region. So the question is whether it's worth defending Israel's interests or not:
You argue that US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there, and that Israel is an integral part of that. I'd like to understand this, so could you be more specific? What exactly does US want from there? They never took oil from the Middle East, and they never will, unless they destroy a country or 2 there.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Iran is not a friend to the USA. It is a friend to some terrorist groups. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then it could possibly give those weapons to terrorists. Right?

The USA is a global power, and the entire world affects it and vice versa. Oil is a big part of the world economy, and a lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Therefore, anyone who has influence in that area, has influence in the rest of the world. Nothing big and grandiose, just influence.

 

[Tosh5457]

Iran is not a friend to the USA. It is a friend to some terrorist groups. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then it could possibly give those weapons to terrorists. Right?

How is Iran friend to terrorists? I know that's a daily discourse in US media, but that doesn't make it true. I've seen a lot of accusations that Iran is associated with terrorists made by USA and Israel (only accusations, and they should be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons) but I've never seen anything concrete.
The truth is that US actions on the Middle East and its aid to Israel built the hatred against US, and that should be taken into account when thinking of continuing the same policies of the past in regards to the Middle East.

The USA is a global power, and the entire world affects it and vice versa. Oil is a big part of the world economy, and a lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Therefore, anyone who has influence in that area, has influence in the rest of the world. Nothing big and grandiose, just influence.

That's a very vague argument. I don't know what influence US has in the Middle East right now, if you could be more specific... And what is that influence you speak about supposed to do? Control oil prices? And if that influence you speak about is so important, then why aren't other countries doing the same?

 

[ThomasT]

The main point is why should US use its power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

I don't know, or have any solid opinion on it. I was just presenting some possible ways of approaching the question in the form of opinions.

It's not a threat to USA, it's only a threat to Israel's power in the region.

It's not a threat to the US in terms of physical violence. But maybe to certain US interests.

So the question is whether it's worth defending Israel's interests or not:

Maybe the US defending Israel isn't so much a matter of defending Israel's interests as defending US interests.

You argue that US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there, and that Israel is an integral part of that. I'd like to understand this, so could you be more specific? What exactly does US want from there? They never took oil from the Middle East, and they never will, unless they destroy a country or 2 there.

I'm just speculating. I'm wondering, with others, why Iran having nuclear weapons is so important to the US. Exactly what sort of threat does it pose? How might a nuclear-armed Iran change the game (for that matter, what is the game)? Why is the security of Israel so important to the US (not that Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which seems quite unlikely, even ridiculous)? Why is the US in effect drawing a line in the sand and trumpeting that it is ready and willing to back an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets? Why did the US invade Iraq?

The continuation of US dominance (not just the US government, but US corporate and financial interests)? What does the oil trade have to do with US dominance? If it has nothing to do with oil, then why is the US bothering with the Middle East?

Any discussion of these and associated questions is beyond the scope of this thread, and, I think, beyond the allowable scope of discussions at PF.

I assume that the truth, or at least certain evidence of it, is out there on the internet, but I can't say that I think I've found it yet.

Wrt the OP, I think the consensus opinion is that the US is prepared to attack Iran in a combined effort with Israel to prevent Iran from developing any sort of substantial nuclear weapons capability, but would prefer not to do that. That is, striking Iranian targets isn't inevitable. Exactly why the US wants to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons remains an open question, for me.

 

[Curious3141]

How is Iran friend to terrorists?

Iran supports Hezbollah. This is unarguable. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It's not simply a matter of political affiliation to consider Hezbollah terrorists - members of this group have even hijacked a civilian airliner (TWA 847) and tortured/killed one of the passengers onboard.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program as a signatory to the NPT. But Iran has not fulfilled the requirements of the treaty by restricting access and other suspicious activities. The international community has the right to demand transparency from Iran so as to verify their nuclear program is peaceful. This must include total cooperation with inspectors and complete transparency so there can be no doubt that Iran is not building weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. Congress has attempted to interfere in this process through legislation demanding political and other internal changes before the sanctions can be removed. But U.S. politicians mixing controls on the Iranian nuclear program with demands over human rights issues, for example, guarantee Iran will not accept any deal at all. These issues should be kept separate.

Meanwhile, instead of military attacks on Iranian facilities that some are demanding, the United Nations has approved sanctions in an attempt to change Iranian behavior without resorting to violent military force. Attempting to resolve this conflict based on the strategy of both sides winning is the prudent choice.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Excerpts from the Camp David Declaration, March 18 & 19, 2012

“We call on Iran to comply with all of its obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions.” One of the resolutions referred to is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on 9 June 2010.

“…after recalling resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008) and 1887 (2009) concerning the topics of Iran and non-proliferation, the Council noted that Iran had failed to comply with previous Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program and imposed further sanctions on the country.[1]

In the preamble of the resolution, the Council reaffirmed its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its provisions therein and obligations on parties to the Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors had adopted a resolution stating that a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction.”

What causes me to wonder is this last statement… “a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction.”

How is the Middle East region free of WMDs when Israel maintains hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal and has the means to deliver them? And thanks to one of our members who, here in this thread, reminded us that Israel does not need to conform to the NPT because it has not signed it.

 

[Tosh5457]

Maybe the US defending Israel isn't so much a matter of defending Israel's interests as defending US interests.

I agree, but then we're back to: what are the US interests in the Middle East?

I'm just speculating. I'm wondering, with others, why Iran having nuclear weapons is so important to the US. Exactly what sort of threat does it pose? How might a nuclear-armed Iran change the game (for that matter, what is the game)? Why is the security of Israel so important to the US (not that Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which seems quite unlikely, even ridiculous)? Why is the US in effect drawing a line in the sand and trumpeting that it is ready and willing to back an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets? Why did the US invade Iraq?

The continuation of US dominance (not just the US government, but US corporate and financial interests)? What does the oil trade have to do with US dominance? If it has nothing to do with oil, then why is the US bothering with the Middle East?

You asked nice questions there. I think the answer will be a combination of:

- will of continuation of US dominance (mainly by the GOP)
- interest of certain corporations
- interest of the zionists, who have the 2nd richest lobby in US.

Oil? I don't see how it fits in the picture. US does nothing about OPEC controling oil prices and they never took oil from the Middle East, so saying this has to do with oil is ridiculous. And fighting terrorism? US actions over the past decades have caused the terrorism against US (the terrorist groups don't hate US only because it's a "free" country), so US ought to stop this aggression if they want to stop terrorism. And I don't think there is a secret that US government knows and the people don't, that is making US stay involved with Middle East affairs. I guess the 3 reasons I wrote above are pretty reasonable, so IMO it's not in the interest of US continuing to interfere in the Middle East affairs.

Iran supports Hezbollah. This is unarguable. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It's not simply a matter of political affiliation to consider Hezbollah terrorists - members of this group have even hijacked a civilian airliner (TWA 847) and tortured/killed one of the passengers onboard.

Like I said before, continuining the same policies isn't the answer to fight terrorism. Oh and Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there, and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel. I watched a documentary about it, I'll post it here when I find it.
So I guess US should force Israel to dismantle their nuclear weapons too?

 

[tiny-tim]

Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look it up on what they did in the 50s and 60s against the arabs who lived there

no, you look it up, and provide a reference to support your bizarre claim

… and how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel.

are you putting words together at random?

israel was not founded until immediately after we (the british) left

 

[SHISHKABOB]

How is Iran friend to terrorists? I know that's a daily discourse in US media, but that doesn't make it true. I've seen a lot of accusations that Iran is associated with terrorists made by USA and Israel (only accusations, and they should be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons) but I've never seen anything concrete.
The truth is that US actions on the Middle East and its aid to Israel built the hatred against US, and that should be taken into account when thinking of continuing the same policies of the past in regards to the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism

I'm not the USA, and I'm not going to argue whether Iran is *actually* a friend to terrorists, but the USA thinks so. I guess I should have qualified that to say that "the USA thinks that Iran is a friend to terrorists". And therefore, that is a reason *for the USA* to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

That's a very vague argument. I don't know what influence US has in the Middle East right now, if you could be more specific... And what is that influence you speak about supposed to do? Control oil prices? And if that influence you speak about is so important, then why aren't other countries doing the same?

I'm not sure why that was a vague argument... Are you asking these as sincere questions, or are you being a bit of a jerk?

 

[Tosh5457]

no, you look it up, and provide a reference to support your bizarre claim

There you go, it's a very informative documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk&feature=fvwrel

You can also see the work of academics such as Norman Finkelstein and Ilan Pappé (who appears in that documentary, specifically speaking of the ethnic cleansing of palestinians the Israel government did in 1948).

As for it being a bizarre claim, it depends on the point of view. In the point of view of USA and UK it is bizarre, because Israel is very rarely or never criticized in the media, so it's easy to have an unrealistic idea of Israel.

are you putting words together at random?

israel was not founded until immediately after we (the british) left

My mistake, I meant before. No need for personal attacks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state_terrorism
I'm not sure why that was a vague argument... Are you asking these as sincere questions, or are you being a bit of a jerk?

Not being a jerk, it was a vague answer. You speak of influence in that part of the world, I only asked what exactly is the influence of US in the Middle East and what that influence is supposed to do, and how is that related to oil. Sorry if I looked aggressive, but you were just repeating what was already said over and over (since 2001 maybe?) without anything to back it up.

 

[tiny-tim]

There you go, it's a very informative documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk&feature=fvwrel

i'm not watching a 74-minute racist propaganda film!

i take it you've found nothing to link to (to support your allegation) that we can read?

Israel is a terrorist state in case you don't know: go look … how they took the british out of there after the foundation of Israel.

My mistake, I meant before. No need for personal attacks...

(it wasn't a personal attack, it was attack on what you wrote … which you now admit was wrong )

so you're trying to prove israel is a terrorist state by relying on something before israel existed?

are you au fait with the meaning of "is"?