The Security Council and Iran (1 Viewer)

[LogicalReason]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194827,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/09/iran.deadlock/index.html

Britain, France and Germany are cobbling together a United Nations incentives package to induce Iran to halt its nuclear program, a European diplomat said Tuesday.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- have agreed to the idea of a "package that sets out for Iran a choice of benefits as well as sanctions," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Read the two articles about this. Does anyone else think this sounds like the appeasement policy that the league of nations used before ww2 that allowed ww2 to happen?

Incentives, benefits, bonuses, aid, etc etc in order to keep the peace. Kinda rings a bell to when they gave incentives, benefits, bonuses, to hitler in order to keep the peace does it not? And look at how that one blew up in their faces.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to appropriate forum

 

[Volker]

This comparison is total nonsense, because Iran is not an aggressor.

However, I am sceptical about this package. The Paris agreement actually led to a stop of enrichment activities a while ago. The incentive package made by the EU 3 later was not good. It was too woolly and I wonder, if they really expected for Iran to accept it. Partially it felt back behind Paris agreement. To much porcelain is broken meanwhile, so it will be the best, the UN Security Council gives the case back to IAEO or let it go at all.

 

[oldreliable67]

This comparison is total nonsense, because Iran is not an aggressor.

Neither was Germany, right up until they began invading neighboring countries.

How does Iranian sponsorship of Hizbollah and other terrorists groups square with your characterization of Iran as 'not an aggressor'?

 

[Volker]

Neither was Germany, right up until they began invading neighboring countries.

Well, in my opinion this appeasement politics actually started, when it was clear, that Germany wanted to have territories of neighbor countries. So maybe it was like an expective aggressor. If one sees the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 as a part of appeasement policy, than maybe at this time it was not clear. But actually obvious signs were there from from the early 1930-ies.

How does Iranian sponsorship of Hizbollah and other terrorists groups square with your characterization of Iran as 'not an aggressor'?

Difficult topic. The Hezbollah today it is more a political movement. The European Union and Lebanon do not list them as terrorist organization. They have a lot of seats in the parliament and two ministers in the government of Lebanon. I hope, they are in a transition process.

 

[LogicalReason]

Well, in my opinion this appeasement politics actually started, when it was clear, that Germany wanted to have territories of neighbor countries. So maybe it was like an expective aggressor. If one sees the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 as a part of appeasement policy, than maybe at this time it was not clear. But actually obvious signs were there from from the early 1930-ies.

Ya if you look back with the advantage of 70 years their were obvious signs of agression. Back before world war 2 though the signs of agression were not obvious at all. Germany just wanted this and just wanted that. And the League of Nations gave each of those things to Germany in order to keep it happy and peaceful.

 

[Volker]

Ya if you look back with the advantage of 70 years their were obvious signs of agression. Back before world war 2 though the signs of agression were not obvious at all. Germany just wanted this and just wanted that. And the League of Nations gave each of those things to Germany in order to keep it happy and peaceful.

The meaning of the appeasement policy is overrated. Actually, the war was planned, appeasement did not make it possible and it did not prevent it. It's speculative, but another policy probably would not have prevented the war, too. So, even if appeasement policy failed in this case, this does not mean, that it is generally a bad idea.

 

[LogicalReason]

The meaning of the appeasement policy is overrated. Actually, the war was planned, appeasement did not make it possible and it did not prevent it. It's speculative, but another policy probably would not have prevented the war, too. So, even if appeasement policy failed in this case, this does not mean, that it is generally a bad idea.

Appeasement made it possible. It gave Hitler the belief that he could do as he pleased without fearing reprisals. It gave Germany the time to re-arm where as if Hitler had been faced down it is quite probable that factions within the German Army would have lost faith in him and removed him.

 

[Volker]

Appeasement made it possible. It gave Hitler the belief that he could do as he pleased without fearing reprisals. It gave Germany the time to re-arm where as if Hitler had been faced down it is quite probable that factions within the German Army would have lost faith in him and removed him.

If someone starts a war, he takes reprisals into account. The factions of the German Army you talk about started to oppose him at a time, when the war was practically lost.

If the European powers would have stood together, maybe there would have been a way to stop the war before it begun.

 

[oldreliable67]

Well, in my opinion this appeasement politics actually started, when it was clear, that Germany wanted to have territories of neighbor countries. So maybe it was like an expective aggressor. If one sees the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 as a part of appeasement policy, than maybe at this time it was not clear. But actually obvious signs were there from from the early 1930-ies.

Obvious signs of German intent were there from the early 1930's. Chamberlain thought he had gained "peace in our time" with his Munich agreement. But all the while, German re-armament was accelerating in plain view (and clear violation of the Versaille Treaty) along with German nationalism. It was clearly a refusal to recognize the true character of the Nazi aims and aspirations.

Failure to recognize the true character and aims and aspirations of the Iranian regime specifically but radical Islam in general places us at risk.

Difficult topic. The Hezbollah today it is more a political movement. The European Union and Lebanon do not list them as terrorist organization. They have a lot of seats in the parliament and two ministers in the government of Lebanon. I hope, they are in a transition process.

Wishin' and hopin' has lead to many a disappointment. Trust but verify is a much more sensible policy. The history of Iranian involvement in terrorism, going all the way back to the Abu Nidal organization, is replete with example after example of Iranian sponsorship.

 

[oldreliable67]

If someone starts a war, he takes reprisals into account. The factions of the German Army you talk about started to oppose him at a time, when the war was practically lost.

There was also a faction of the Wermacht that opposed Hitler very early on, but Hitler discovered the plot and hung them all.

 

[LogicalReason]

If someone starts a war, he takes reprisals into account. The factions of the German Army you talk about started to oppose him at a time, when the war was practically lost.

If the European powers would have stood together, maybe there would have been a way to stop the war before it begun.

I'm referring to the factions in the German Army that existed pre-war.

On your second statement. I agree. If they had stood togethor instead of trying to appease Hitler... there probably would not have been a war. Or there would have been one on a much smaller scale.

 

[cascadian]

So is the point of this thread to discuss appropriateness of an analogy (germany+wwII = Iran+today), to discuss whether incentives are simply appeasement, or to say that incentives won't work?

Debating an analogy can go around and around forever unless you show specifically why the apparent similarities will cause the same effects. If your point is to show that incentives won't work, your case would actually be simpler if you left WWII out of the matter since it just gives you another statement to justify.

My understanding of appeasement is that it's meant only to keep the peace. In this case, its actually meant to keep Iran from developing a weapon, which is a step above and beyond simply not attacking.

Now if you want to say that incentives won't work, I don't necessarily agree, since these incentives were offered with a means to assure us that they are not in fact developing a bomb. Of course, the Iranians may have made this moot since they don't seem to like the package.

 

[Volker]

Obvious signs of German intent were there from the early 1930's. Chamberlain thought he had gained "peace in our time" with his Munich agreement. But all the while, German re-armament was accelerating in plain view (and clear violation of the Versaille Treaty) along with German nationalism. It was clearly a refusal to recognize the true character of the Nazi aims and aspirations.

Failure to recognize the true character and aims and aspirations of the Iranian regime specifically but radical Islam in general places us at risk.

Look, and here we have the difference. Even though there are threats to Iran, there does not seem to be a lot of armament. Iran raised the manpower in armed forces. This level sunk during the First Gulf War. There are some technological developments, especially in rocket technology. To me there are no obvious signs for Iran preparing for starting a war.

 

[Volker]

There was also a faction of the Wermacht that opposed Hitler very early on, but Hitler discovered the plot and hung them all.

So you're not talking about the July 20 Plot?

 

[Volker]

On your second statement. I agree. If they had stood togethor instead of trying to appease Hitler... there probably would not have been a war. Or there would have been one on a much smaller scale.

Yes, I think so.

 

[oldreliable67]

Look, and here we have the difference. Even though there are threats to Iran, there does not seem to be a lot of armament. Iran raised the manpower in armed forces. This level sunk during the First Gulf War. There are some technological developments, especially in rocket technology. To me there are no obvious signs for Iran preparing for starting a war.

Maybe the signs are too subtle for you? Did you not follow the commentary surrounding the recent Iranian military exercises? Your comment re: rocket technology suggests that you did. But perhaps you didn't see the comments by the Iranian military threatening the US Navy with destruction, etc, etc, etc?

An interesting article on the topic; here is a portion:

Iran: Military Exercise near the US borders
Apr 9, 2006
Winston @ The Spirit Of Man

An Iranian hardliner party which controls both the Islamic parliament and the government, named Abadgaran, has suggested that Iran should conduct a military exercise with Cuba, Venezuela and other anti-America countries in that region of the world to send a message to the United States of America.

Aftab News, the mouthpiece of the Abadgaran party (also here) writes about this on its web site in Persian language.

It reads (It's in Persian & I'll translate):

The head of the Abadgaran political party "Hasan Bayadi" (He is the Vice President of the city council of Tehran) has suggested to the Iranian Ministry of defense to conduct war games near the borders of the America to show the strength of the Iranian military.

He continues: Every year the US military conducts wargames near countries such as North Korea, Syria or Iran that are not friendly to the USA to show them how mighty the US military is and the Americans have also invaded our air space and interior waters -they say it is not intentional- under the pretext of occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to send us a message and the message these invasions of our airspace have is that "We can attack you and you are never safe from our military threat and the shadow of fear will always cover your countries"...

Therefore, we, recommend to the new Iranian defense minister to take the initiative and prepare a military exercise with the countries of the western hemisphere such as Cuba and Venezuela.

Source.

Here is a snippet or two from a recent Iranian Army Chief of Joint Staff TV interview...

The following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian Army Chief of Joint Staff General Abdorrahim Musavi, which aired on Iranian Channel 2 on April 17, 2006.

"We Make Our Submarines Ourselves... [to] Serve Us in Battle With America"

General Abdorrahim Musavi: "We make our submarines ourselves, and we make them in a way that will serve us in battle with the enemy... with America. In other words, these vessels are not the kind about which the other side gets information even before us. We work on equipment that is locally made, and which is compatible with our own tactics and training."

[...]

"This includes various submarines, assault boats, and unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs], which we can use in naval battles. We manufacture missiles, torpedoes, mines, naval canons, and sonar. We also make ROVs - remotely operated vessels, which are manufactured by the navy for special purposes."

[...]

"Knowing that our number one enemy is the criminal America, we focused on it. We identified its strengths and weaknesses, and prepared the equipment, structures, and tactics necessary to deal with it.

"We studied all the details of America's war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military planning teams simulated American capabilities, based on America's activities in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In this simulation, they predicted the kind of attack the U.S. would employ, if an attack indeed takes place. On the basis of these simulations we developed scenarios, and prepared ourselves for dealing with each one."

Source.

This interview is also at memri.org, which also has clips of the Iranian TV spots celebrating their enrichment of uranium, here.

I suspect that you will suggest that the comments of the Iranian Chief of Staff are couched in terms of the US attacking first, "they predicted the kind of attack the U.S. would employ, if an attack indeed takes place." and therefore do not represent Iran preparing to "start a war". In this narrow sense, I would agree with you. Nonetheless, there are certainly numerous instances of contradictions to your "there does not seem to be a lot of armament." assertion.

 

[Volker]

An interesting article on the topic; here is a portion:
Source.

Military maneuvres in Caribic is an interesting idea :2razz:
If Americans feel they can do maneuvres everywhere, than it's just fair.
However, how do you see the chances, that Iran invades the US? More than 1 %? If this is not a real scenario, then a maneuvre would not make much sense. It would be for impressing Americans only.

I suspect that you will suggest that the comments of the Iranian Chief of Staff are couched in terms of the US attacking first, "they predicted the kind of attack the U.S. would employ, if an attack indeed takes place." and therefore do not represent Iran preparing to "start a war". In this narrow sense, I would agree with you. Nonetheless, there are certainly numerous instances of contradictions to your "there does not seem to be a lot of armament." assertion.

Ok, influent American politicians said, that war against Iran is an option, even though not the one preferred. Do you expect the Iranians to do nothing for their defense? If they are going to develop submarines or underwater-rockets, maybe they can perform effective strikes against American aircraft carriers, if America ever dares to attack them. They don't have to wait until the American jets are over Iran to shoot them down. And they can stop important supply lines of American military, too.

 

[LogicalReason]

Ok, influent American politicians said, that war against Iran is an option, even though not the one preferred. Do you expect the Iranians to do nothing for their defense? If they are going to develop submarines or underwater-rockets, maybe they can perform effective strikes against American aircraft carriers, if America ever dares to attack them. They don't have to wait until the American jets are over Iran to shoot them down. And they can stop important supply lines of American military, too.

Hey they might even last a month.

 

[Volker]

Hey they might even last a month.

You think, the war will last a month and Americans win? Sounds like "We are home again at Christmas" (German army, 1914) or "Mission Accomplished" (American Army, 2003).

 

[python416]

Hey they might even last a month.

This pro-war stance puzzles me. The US (despite Bush's continuous spin that it is "the will of the international community") has virtually no international support for war. This will never get through the UNSC because of China and Russia; and on its face U enrichment isn't illegal. So if the US wants to rush to war again (and that has already been set in motion), they will be doing it with maybe two allys:

1) Isreal
2) Austraila

I doubt the UK/France/Germany trio will even support it. So the US is going to go it alone, without UN backing? It will not be as easy as the impressive defeat over the a weakest of enemies - al la Saddam. It will be less effective, and cost more in lives, money, and world political power.

Unforetunately, Iran has the right under the NPT to a civil program complete with fuel cycle - I wish they didn't, but they do. The Bush administration wants to say "we cannot allow Iran to posses nuclear weapons" enough times to stoke the panic the American public loves to feel - but it is not a weapons program and everyone else knows it. It is true that one day it could become one, but just because the Bush administration thinks Iran should have the NPT-given right to enrich, doesn't mean this media bliz is going to convince anyone outside Israel or the US.

 

[oldreliable67]

Your assertion was...

"Even though there are threats to Iran, there does not seem to be a lot of armament. Iran raised the manpower in armed forces. This level sunk during the First Gulf War. There are some technological developments, especially in rocket technology. To me there are no obvious signs for Iran preparing for starting a war.

[emphasis added]

...to which I supplied evidence to the contrary...then you posted...

Do you expect the Iranians to do nothing for their defense? If they are going to develop submarines or underwater-rockets, maybe they can perform effective strikes against American aircraft carriers, if America ever dares to attack them.

...which seems to be an admission that your assertion was indeed incorrect - there has been a lot of armament. Correct?

 

[LogicalReason]

You think, the war will last a month and Americans win? Sounds like "We are home again at Christmas" (German army, 1914) or "Mission Accomplished" (American Army, 2003).

There is a large difference between nation building and winning a war. Could the US take over Iran and turn it into a peaceful nation in a month.. no way in hell. Could it quite possibly defeat the Iranian military forces and then withdraw... theres a decent enough chance.

This pro-war stance puzzles me.

I don't remember taking a pro-war stance. I do remember pointing out that if a war took place its highly likely it would be a US victory.

The US (despite Bush's continuous spin that it is "the will of the international community") has virtually no international support for war.

I have yet to hear Bush say that it is "the will of the international community" that the US invade Iran. Sources my friend.. sources. Or in fact I've yet to hear him say that he plans to invade Iran.

This will never get through the UNSC because of China and Russia; and on its face U enrichment isn't illegal. So if the US wants to rush to war again (and that has already been set in motion), they will be doing it with maybe two allys:

1) Isreal
2) Austraila

I don't see the US rushing to war. Do you? Seems like Europes spending more time on this issue than the US is so I'm slightly confused.

I doubt the UK/France/Germany trio will even support it. So the US is going to go it alone, without UN backing? It will not be as easy as the impressive defeat over the a weakest of enemies - al la Saddam. It will be less effective, and cost more in lives, money, and world political power.

To defeat the military of Iraq it didn't cost a huge amount in lives, money, and world political power. What cost the US a lot was the Bush administrations short sighted look at the process of turning Iraq into a democratic and functioning nation. I whole heartedly agree with you though that if the US were to be stupid enough to start nation building in Iran it would be far far to costly for even Bush's closest supporters to support.

Unforetunately, Iran has the right under the NPT to a civil program complete with fuel cycle - I wish they didn't, but they do. The Bush administration wants to say "we cannot allow Iran to posses nuclear weapons" enough times to stoke the panic the American public loves to feel - but it is not a weapons program and everyone else knows it. It is true that one day it could become one, but just because the Bush administration thinks Iran should have the NPT-given right to enrich, doesn't mean this media bliz is going to convince anyone outside Israel or the US.

Once again... I've been seeing more outcry from European news sources and goverments than the US.

 

[Volker]

Your assertion was...

This is a statement I made and I consider it a valid statement.

...to which I supplied evidence to the contrary...then you posted...

You supplied a suggestion by an Iranian politician about the location of maneuvers and a citations from a speech of the Iranian Army Chief of Joint Staff General about technological developments in armament. You did not supply evidence to the contrary, you actually added something that it suitable to the topic.

...which seems to be an admission that your assertion was indeed incorrect - there has been a lot of armament. Correct?

No, not correct. I said, "there are are some technological developments, especially in rocket technology". Ok, so these technological developments include submarines and other naval vehicles. I see no signs that Iran prepares to start a war. If they do something to strengthen their defense, this is their good right.

 

[oldreliable67]

Ok, so these technological developments include submarines and other naval vehicles. I see no signs that Iran prepares to start a war. If they do something to strengthen their defense, this is their good right.

"Preparing to start a war" was not the premise that I questioned. "there does not seem to be a lot of armament" seemed incorrect and submarines, rockets and other naval vehicles clearly qualify as "a lot of armament".