- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
And Israel has been murdering Iranian scientists. I don't see war out of it, but then again, Israel has never been one to be rational. I suspect Israel would just up the level of assassination though.
Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.
Again, Iran has a very limited number of tools it can work with, and only a couple have the potential for positive outcomes for the Iranian power structure. Either bait israel into an act that would bring the Arab states together against Israel, which is unlikely, or keep working on diplomacy. The latter is far more likely to work.
Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.
Again, Iran has a very limited number of tools it can work with, and only a couple have the potential for positive outcomes for the Iranian power structure. Either bait israel into an act that would bring the Arab states together against Israel, which is unlikely, or keep working on diplomacy. The latter is far more likely to work.
The way I see it, Iran has painted themselves into a corner. If they trigger war deliberately or accidentally, their military will be destroyed and the leaders killed or ousted. If they open up their doors to the IAEA, this will probably result in their leaders being ousted or discredited so badly they fall from power.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, but that's the way I see it.
Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.
Again, Iran has a very limited number of tools it can work with, and only a couple have the potential for positive outcomes for the Iranian power structure. Either bait israel into an act that would bring the Arab states together against Israel, which is unlikely, or keep working on diplomacy. The latter is far more likely to work.
There is nothing to think about it
What side are you in? Iran and the Ayatoilttes?? or the rest of the western world? It's that simple.
The best thing for everybody, Iranians included, is if the Khomeinis go away. I don't care much how they go away, just that they go away.
The best thing for everybody, Iranians included, is if the Khomeinis go away. I don't care much how they go away, just that they go away.
Those are not the only two ways out of this situation. The sanctions coupled with the current regimes desire to stay in power requires that they open themselves up to diplomatic cooperation with the rest of the world. These sanctions have almost crippled the economy of Iran and it's leaders, whomever they are, must deal with that reality and start to cooperate with those they shunned previously.
Yeah, that's option #2. Going the diplomatic route is by far their best choice. That will include granting the IAEA FULL access. The IAEA will probably uncover something fishy. Perhaps not a full-fledged nuke but certainly a try to build one. I see this resulting in big trouble for the Khomeinis who will probably be discredited and soon after, sacked.
This is how they're painted into a corner. Whatever they do, it won't go well for the Iranian leadership. That's bad for them, good for the rest of the world, especially the Iranian people.
I agree the Ayatoilettes have to go!
Replaced by whom?
Again, who would replace them. Can anyone who supports this position please provide an answer.
Like EagleAye explained
" Whomever the Iranians elect. The Iranian people are very educated and cosmopolitan and worldly-wise, and that's what Democracy needs to succeed. Democracy was(is) a struggle in Iraq, but Iran's populace would do a far better job at installing a new government"
Whomever the Iranians elect. The Iranian people are very educated and cosmopolitan and worldly-wise, and that's what Democracy needs to succeed. Democracy was(is) a struggle in Iraq, but Iran's populace would do a far better job at installing a new government.
The Obama WH ordered that Diego Garcia be loaded with enough smart bombs combined with Carrier Groups assets to hit over 10,000 Iranian targets. They think they should obliterate Iran's military in order to prevent any asymmetrical warfare from developing.
USA to destory Iran with smart bombs from Diego Garcia - English pravda.ru
I kept wondering why we supported so heavy the Arab revolutions in the states surrounding Israel. I think it's because of not having stable regimes that would be able to support pro-Iranian or anti-Israel. That could be a stretch but I sincerely believe that conversation occurred at high levels of geopolitical strategy.
There is nothing to think about it
What side are you in? Iran and the Ayatoilttes?? or the rest of the western world? It's that simple.
Thanks for parroting his words.
Apparently the sanctions that have been imposed against Iran have proven to costly to Iran as they have resorted to bartering to bypass the sanctions. There are many ways to approach this problem and an outright war is not the only or most effective solution.
No it is not that simple. I am on the side of US interests. US interests do not neccessarily require regime change in Iran.
The problem I see with this is a third party much like a foreign government would have to be involved to effectuate a proper democracy. A democracy is my goal as well. However I do not see where this country is ready for a true democracy.
For example, "Current Constitution adopted 2nd-3rd December 1979; significant revisions expanding presidential powers and eliminating prime ministership in 1989. Article 4 provides that all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and any other laws must be based on Islamic criteria" That does not seem to allow for a true democracy where human rights would be respected.
So this is who you suggest would take over once the current thugs and lunatics are removed?
I vast improvement I say!!!!!:thumbs:
Well, what would you suggest? It seems to me that the Supreme Leader views nuclear weapons as assured immunity. Kim Jong Il demonstrated how untouchable an authoritarian can become when sitting on a couple of nukes. Perhaps the arab spring spooked them a bit, especially considering how smoothly Iran's last election went. Kim Jong's demise is probably a bit more appealing than ending up lynched with a steak knife up your ass.
I don't see what you could offer that would convince them to surrender the kind of protection nukes would provide them.
Now, with Iran feeling the pressure, its leaders suddenly seem prepared to talk. Of course, Iran’s government might try to draw out talks while pursuing their nuclear program. But if that is their strategy, they will face even more onerous pressures, when a planned European boycott of their oil begins on July 1.
Moreover, given Mr. Obama’s stated determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran’s leaders may actually be making the use of force against their nuclear facilities more likely by playing for time.
Iran can have civilian nuclear power, but it must not have nuclear weapons. Ultimately, Ayatollah Khamenei will have to decide what poses a greater threat to his rule: ending his quest for nuclear weapons or stubbornly pursuing them as crippling economic pressures mount.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?