• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thinking About the Unthinkable: A U.S.-Iranian Deal

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Thinking About the Unthinkable: A U.S.-Iranian Deal | STRATFOR

Great article written by Stratfor's editor, George Friedman, discusses possibilities for redefining the US-Iranian problem and seeks to establish common ground and objectives. At the very least it'll get your mind going.

 
excellent, well reasoned article
here is the only aspect of it with which i disagree: i don't see turkey as more powerful that iran, nor do i view turkish intervention into iraq as a positive result. i do believe the turks would offer a counterbalance to the disproportionate iranian influence on the new shiia leadership in iraq

we should go one step further and take the prospect of first strike out of israel's hands. i do not put it past the reich wing israelis now heading its government to provoke an incident to force America's hand in the region. the USA should provide iran with one deliverable nuclear weapon:
instant iranian-israeli stalemate
 
It certainly has! That's powerful stuff, and really clear.

Three options:
  1. A nuclear Iran
  2. American or Israeli military intervention
  3. An accommodation with Iran that allows the US to reduce its involvement in the region, keeps the Straits open and counterbalances Iranian influence in Iraq with Turkey

Sanctions are a non-starter due to Russian and Chinese certain refusal to comply.

I suspect many on DP would urge option 2, but that would lead to a major disruption in World oil supply and the inevitable financial crisis that would follow.

Whether US public opinion would ever allow option 3 to be considered, I have no idea.

If one discounts the military or diplomatic options as being, respectively, economically catastrophic or practically ineffective then you have to consider which would be the worse of the remaining two.

A nuclear Iran would not necessarily be a guaranteed threat to World peace...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8570842.stm

...and that's from one of Iran's main regional rivals.

But, if you do believe a nuclear Iran to be unconscienable, then you need to devise a whole new option as per the article.

Can anyone think of what an alternative strategy might be?
 
Last edited:

Ithink you have misunderstood the people you are dealing with.Irans rulers are not run through logic.You cant use game theory under the assumption in Iran will act like the soviet union.
 
Ya I think the Kurds play a unique role in separating to an extent Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Not to say that neither of these three countries could move forces around in their Kurdish areas but that the unfriendly relations the Kurds have for these three plus their distance from the three's central areas and the poor terrain make it a challenge. However in the future if Kurds could be brought more into the fold and feel less isolated that might change, already process in that direction has been made in Iraq, not a lot but some.

Also I do see Turkey has being interested in regional peace and may bulk up to check Iran if needed and I see Turkey has being on par or greater than Iran in many respects, economically not being least among them. Its military too, while smaller, is technologically more advanced than Iran's and it has western backing. I see Turkey involvement in Iraq, not militarily but political/economically as positive. If a Muslim country such as Iraq were to have a "role model" so to speak Turkey is a much better choice than Iran.
 
mikhail said:
Ithink you have misunderstood the people you are dealing with.Irans rulers are not run through logic.You cant use game theory under the assumption in Iran will act like the soviet union.
Click to expand...

I don't think you give them enough credit. Iran is smarter than all its rhetoric might point to, just as the article points out that the Soviets and Chinese were smarter and acted differently than their rhetoric suggested. The people in power got there for a reason, and they have stayed in power for good reasons too, because they act slowly and cautiously, one thing you can always count on from dictatorships and despots is that they value self-preservation over everything else, regardless of rhetoric.
 
bhkad said:
That's insane.
Click to expand...

please explain why you are opposed to the mutually assured destruction concept

and be sane in your reply
 
mikhail said:
Ithink you have misunderstood the people you are dealing with.Irans rulers are not run through logic.You cant use game theory under the assumption in Iran will act like the soviet union.
Click to expand...

what i do understand is that the persian people have not been an aggressive nation since the early 1800's. for the better part of 200 years, their only wars have been defensive measures

only wish that we could say the same about israel
 
justabubba said:
excellent, well reasoned article
here is the only aspect of it with which i disagree:
i don't see turkey as more powerful that iran, nor do i view turkish intervention into iraq as a positive result.
Click to expand...

That Turkey is a stronger military power than Iran is hardly debatable. Although Iran has more troop numbers, their levels of equipment and training are considerably inferior.

The article isn't suggesting Turkish intervention or incursion, merely the threat of such would limit Iran's ability to do likewise.
 
justabubba said:
please explain why you are opposed to the mutually assured destruction concept

and be sane in your reply
Click to expand...

I think other than violating all kinds of non-proliferation treaties, and that one nuke doesn't ensure MAD, there's the issue of Iran's international paramilitaries which could be smuggled a nuke and use it. Plus there's the issue that they could backward engineer parts of it.
 
justabubba said:
what i do understand is that the persian people have not been an aggressive nation since the early 1800's. for the better part of 200 years, their only wars have been defensive measures

only wish that we could say the same about israel
Click to expand...

Well as you may of noticed from the sham election the persian people arent in control of their country.We are talking about those who govern them who have killed their own innocent civilians for protesting.
 

bet it's hard for you to sleep at nite then, pondering the greater likelihood that osama bin forgotten's pakistani buddies are probably plotting this very moment to appropriate some of the pakistani nuclear arsenal for their nefarious purposes
 
justabubba said:
please explain why you are opposed to the mutually assured destruction concept

and be sane in your reply
Click to expand...

It needs sanity to work if you dont care about your own destruction its no threat to you.

Its more Hitler than Stalin we are dealing with.
 
justabubba said:
what i do understand is that the persian people have not been an aggressive nation since the early 1800's. for the better part of 200 years, their only wars have been defensive measures
Click to expand...

This is a fair point. Even the Iran-Iraq war was largely Iraqi triggered. The likelihood of a nuclear Iran actually using their weapons is as remote as Pakistan, India or Israel using theirs.

Whilst I loathe Ahmadinejad with a passion and Khamenei even more, they are not irrational lunatics, just VERY unpleasant despots. The principle of M.A.D. would apply to them as much as it ever applied to the rest of the nuclear club.
 
mikhail said:
Well as you may of noticed from the sham election the persian people arent in control of their country.We are talking about those who govern them who have killed their own innocent civilians for protesting.
Click to expand...

please offer documentation that the result of that iranian election was not legitimate


i find the first shrub electon to be more rife with corruption than that one in iran ... at least ours was less bloody, tho much more tragic
 
justabubba said:
please offer documentation that the result of that iranian election was not legitimate


i find the first shrub electon to be more rife with corruption than that one in iran ... at least ours was less bloody, tho much more tragic
Click to expand...

This is pretty much beside the point.
 
justabubba said:
please offer documentation that the result of that iranian election was not legitimate


i find the first shrub electon to be more rife with corruption than that one in iran ... at least ours was less bloody, tho much more tragic
Click to expand...

So your position is the election in Iran was free and fair and the protesters where just what a bunch of uppity hippies?
 
This topic is about looking at the US-Iranian problem in a new way, lets stick with that other than talking about Israel there's plenty of topics about that. I wanted to see what people thought about the article and its outline of a new possible route.
 
justabubba said:
please explain why you are opposed to the mutually assured destruction concept

and be sane in your reply
Click to expand...

The Soviets cared about the here and now.

The Iranians live for the hereafter.
 
bhkad said:
The Soviets cared about the here and now.

The Iranians live for the hereafter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all of them. They all want to die.

Please stay on topic.

What options should the US consider in relation to future US-Iranian relations?
 

i can appreciate a desire to remain on topic

but believing that any iranian-USA rapprochement would not necessarily have to factor in the israeli response would be beyond naive

we could only wish that israel would not be part of any USA-iran dynamic

re-read your cited article for this thread and you will find israel prominent within it
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
please explain why you are opposed to the mutually assured destruction concept

and be sane in your reply
Click to expand...

One nuke is not enough for MAD. The only way America and Russia were able to keep up MAD was by having Dozens of (moving, either like us, with B52s, or like Russia, with Subs off of our coast) nukes within firing distance of major population hubs. One nuke is not enough for MAD.

Also, I wouldn't see Iran having some more control over their region being a complete loss. Iran and Al-Queda HATE each other. Best to let them fight it out.
 

so then, you believe iran's ownership of a nuclear weapon capable of being delivered to tel aviv would not be sufficient to dissuade the present isreali regime from acting on its threats of bombing iran's nuclear facilities

absurd
 
justabubba said:
so then, you believe iran's ownership of a nuclear weapon capable of being delivered to tel aviv would not be sufficient to dissuade the present isreali regime from acting on its threats of bombing iran's nuclear facilities

absurd
Click to expand...
Here we are again.
Another board, you Foisting the same Nonsensical arguments.
What do you call it when someone keeps saying 2 + 2 = 5 even after it's been demonstrated otherwise.

Israel is a country with 1/60th the amount of people on 1/500th the Land mass as it's Hostile neighbors.

It's Israel that could be wiped out in an eyelash. And wiped out even by a Conventional Missile attack launched by Syria and Iran.
Missiles from Syria arriving in 5 minutes.

It's Israel who is the poster boy, if there ever was one, for needing Nukes/MAD.
Certainly a far better justification the the US or USSR in the Cold War whose forces were nearly equal.

Iran is under threat from Israel ONLY BECAUSE it Is developing Nukes and they are making Noises about how they're going to use them, not because Israel has any designs on Iran or wiping it out.

Israel, as I've shown you before, has had Nukes for 40 years and 1, maybe 2 wars and NOT used them.
-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…