Could CM:SF happen for real?

[Erik Springelkamp]

I feel very empathetic for the Syrian people, and somewhat angry what they and Iran is getting away with.

That is very good of you.

Of course Syria is a dictatorship, that is acting very harshly against protests.

Iran is not exactly a dictatorship, but a limited democracy were the ruling party has a marginal majority, and is also rather intolerant against protests from the opposition.

Now, these are conditions that exist in a very large number of states, like Russia, China, almost all Arab states, but the attitude of the West towards these regimes is very much driven by different motivations, namely whether those states are allies or important trading partners of the West or whether they follow an independent policy.

So, while Iran has a political configuration that comparatively democratic in Middle East terms, they get an extremely negative press in the West.

Message is, that when you are a friend of the USA/West, you can get away with all kinds of mistreatment of people (look at treatment of foreign workers in the Gulf states), but if you don't bow to the masters, you will be treated quite differently.

So with all the reports of events in the Middle East, one has to be aware of the propaganda factor in those reports.

Killing is generally bad, but our anger is very selective: how much was made of the recent protests by farmers in China?

[Sgt Joch]

Iran is not a democracy, if it was, the religious leaders would have been turfed out of power.

Iran gets bad press because it is pursuing nuclear weapons, promoting terrorism in the region and aggressively seeking to extend its influence in the region.

Its not just the West which is worried, Saudi Arabia, Syria and every country with a Sunni majority in the region wants to contain Iran.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Iran is not a democracy, if it was, the religious leaders would have been turfed out of power.

Half of the population supports the theocracy, and vote for it.

Iran gets bad press because it is pursuing nuclear weapons, promoting terrorism in the region and aggressively seeking to extend its influence in the region.

All these things apply exactly the same to the USA.

Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, they have all developed nuclear weapons.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

NATO supports an uprising in Libya.

Your judgement is completely biased. Of course you have the right to take sides, but your arguments why Iran would be bad are not objective.

About Iran being aggressive in the region: Iran hasn't started an offensive war in centuries, but has been attacked and meddled with intensively.

Their 1950's democracy was killed by the CIA.

The West supported terrible aggression by Saddam Hussein against Iran.

The country has suffered terribly by the West.

And you call it aggressive?

Its not just the West which is worried, Saudi Arabia, Syria and every country with a Sunni majority in the region wants to contain Iran.

Nonsense, Turkey and Pakistan have pretty normal relationships with Iran.

The Sunni dictatorships however have every reason to badmouth Iran in support of the USA and Israel.

[vincere]

I don't have so much of a problem with Realpolitik up to a point.

Iran is engaging in activity that stirs up unrest and terrorism as a policy.

It supported the IED campaign in Iraq, and is supplying fighters in Afghanistan.

It's very close to attaining the Nuke.

China is a problem too. It protects it's markets, attacks the wests, and is routinely conducting cyber attacks on the West. In some ways they are mirroring the Wests Imperialism.

Both countries have a flakey legal system and no toleration of oppression. Fee free to respond but I'm going to let other have last words because we're headed into politics and away from CMSF. If a discussion springs in the General area then I pop in.

Edited- Syria is unlikely but not impossible. What's going to happen if pogroms go up a level.

And when SF was conceived events could have played out very differently.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Iran is engaging in activity that stirs up unrest and terrorism as a policy.

It supported the IED campaign in Iraq, and is supplying fighters in Afghanistan.

It's very close to attaining the Nuke.

Think about what you say.

Who has stirred up the region, by starting a full size war and invading a neighbour country of Iran?

Anything Iran did in Iraq is a feint shadow compared to the amount of violence the USA and UK applied there.

Iran has tried to influence the political outcome there towards their goals in the aftermath, yes violence was involved, but it was Western violence that started all that.

And shouldn't they? The majority of Iraqi citizens are related to Iran by their religion, and they are now in a good relation with them.

It seems that you don't like that people in other places make up their own mind.

In Afghanistan Iran has for a very long time played a very constructive role. They supported non-aggressive factions in the West of the Country, and were actively fighting Al-Qaeda.

[Sgt Joch]

Half of the population supports the theocracy, and vote for it.

I dont know what the definition of "democracy" is in the Netherlands, but in the last election in Iran, all the candidates had to be approved by the government and most reform candidates were shut out, only pro government candidates received air time on national TV, opposition party workers were intimidated, beat up and arrested. Hardly a democracy by any reasonable definition.

The religious leaders have little popular support, they will probably be replaced by moderate leaders during the next 10 years, but until then their actions could destabilise the region.

Your judgement is completely biased. Of course you have the right to take

sides, but your arguments why Iran would be bad are not objective.

Oh? And you are objective? Your anti-US bias is pretty evident. The situation in the ME is a bit more complicated than USA/Israel:bad, Arabs: good.

During the Iraq War, Iran sent men, funds and weapons to the Shia militias to kill US soldiers and Sunni Iraqis/militias and gain control/influence over the Iraqi government.

Syiria, with funding from Saudi Arabia, provided men, funds and weapons to the Sunni militias to kill US soldiers, but also to fight the Shia militias and to prevent Iran from controlling Iraq.

If Iraq had sunk into a sectarian civil war, Iran would have been on the opposite side from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan.

Iran has also been funding Shia opposition groups in eastern Saudi Arabia to destabilise the Kingdom. That is the reason why Saudi Arabia, after ignoring Israel for 60 years held its first face to face talk 1-2 years ago with Israel and granted to the IDF the right to overfly Saudi territory if it decides to strike at the Iranian nuclear program.

You may not think Iran is aggressive, but the Arab leaders in countries that surround it certainly do.

[DMS]

For at least 40% of Russians life was better under the Soviet era than today.

I would say 90%.

Whats about Syria and Libya, it is sad to see how easily someone can ruin life in any independent state.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I dont know what the definition of "democracy" is in the Netherlands, but in the last election in Iran, all the candidates had to be approved by the government and most reform candidates were shut out, only pro government candidates received air time on national TV, opposition party workers were intimidated, beat up and arrested. Hardly a democracy by any reasonable definition.

I called Iran a semi-democracy. And I said that it was democratic relative to it's Arab neighbours.

It is not the government that approves the candidates, but a religious council, so that makes it a theocracy. And the forces are not government/opposition, but there is a whole spectrum of very conservative to rather moderate.

(In the USA by the way you cannot be a political candidate without being a millionaire and having lots of rich friends. But the Americans seem to think that that is perfectly OK, so democratic values are skewed everywhere)

The religious leaders have little popular support, they will probably be replaced by moderate leaders during the next 10 years, but until then their actions could destabilise the region.

What makes you think that moderates will gain power? There is a balance already, that shifts regularly from one side to the other. Ahmadinejad is regularly corrected by the high council, but he has solid support of half of the population.

Oh? And you are objective? Your anti-US bias is pretty evident. The situation in the ME is a bit more complicated than USA/Israel:bad, Arabs: good.

My anti USA bias? I have just checked if the USA did the things you said that defines Iran as a bad country. And it appears that the USA did all of those things as well. It was you who declared those things bad.

And I have not painted a simplistic USA - Arab dichotomy at all, on the contrary, a lot of Arab countries are allies of the USA on a lot of issues.

During the Iraq War, Iran sent men, funds and weapons to the Shia militias to kill US soldiers and Sunni Iraqis/militias and gain control/influence over the Iraqi government.

Iran had a valid interest in the situation. Here is a neighbour that recently has waged war on them - with full Western support - for 10 years. Of course they played a role. The game there was violent, so violence was used.

Syiria, with funding from Saudi Arabia, provided men, funds and weapons to the Sunni militias to kill US soldiers, but also to fight the Shia militias and to prevent Iran from controlling Iraq.

It seems that nobody really liked the US soldiers there. How come?

I don't have anything against those soldiers personally, I know there are a lot on this board, and I wish them all the best.

But when their political leaders send them to a war, they are shot at, and they can be killed. That fact in itself doesn't make the ones that do it automatically the evil side.

The Iraq war was not evidently justified. Rumsfeld and Cheney can be regarded as pretty evil men, on par with a lot of rulers in the region. That is an opinion that is pretty widespread outside the USA.

If Iraq had sunk into a sectarian civil war, Iran would have been on the opposite side from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan.

There were more than two sides in the conflict.

The very Western notion of always a good side and a bad side doesn't fit reality.

Iran has also been funding Shia opposition groups in eastern Saudi Arabia to destabilise the Kingdom. That is the reason why Saudi Arabia, after ignoring Israel for 60 years held its first face to face talk 1-2 years ago with Israel and granted to the IDF the right to overfly Saudi territory if it decides to strike at the Iranian nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia has spend a lot of money to destabilise Western Europe by funding fundamentalist mosques for the Islamic population, that spread undemocratic ideas, and promote terrorism. F*ck them.

You may not think Iran is aggressive, but the Arab leaders in countries that surround it certainly do.

Yes, dictators always have reasons to be afraid. I don't think their opinion has any moral value though.

I don't think, nor have I said so here, that Iran is a friendly liberal country. But I seriously think that the West doesn't make an effort to understand their position. Which always makes for unpleasant surprises.

[heer witmann]

every country looks after its interests, no country does the right utopia does not exists. all man is corrupt and evil at some level power corrupts the difference is what level.

[Sgt Joch]

I called Iran a semi-democracy. And I said that it was democratic relative to it's Arab neighbours.

It is not the government that approves the candidates, but a religious council, so that makes it a theocracy. And the forces are not government/opposition, but there is a whole spectrum of very conservative to rather moderate.

All the members of the "Council of Guardians" are named directly or indirectly by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Council approves all political candidates and systematically vetoes any "Reform" candidates.

In the other issues I mentioned before, I forget to mention massive voter fraud. In the 2009 election, there more votes cast in some cities that their entire population.

So you have a system where the governement approves the candidates and games the system to make sure their candidates always win. There are certain minimum standards a system must meet before you can say it is democratic. Iran does not meet any of them. It is a Dictatorship, plain and simple.

What makes you think that moderates will gain power?

2/3 of the Iranian population are less than 25. There are many indications that they support a more secular type of system. Of course, we will never really know until Iran holds free and fair elections. All demontrations against the system in 2009 and this spring were ruthlessly suppressed.

Iran had a valid interest in the situation. Here is a neighbour that recently has waged war on them - with full Western support - for 10 years.

Saddam Hussein made the decision to attack Iran on his own (unless you think Jimmy Carter put him up to it). He fought the war exclusively with Russian weapons supplied by the Soviet Union. Ayatollah Khomenei prolonged the war from 1982 to 1988 after Hussein was ready to call it quits, because he wanted to setup a Shiite regime in Baghdad. If Hussein had

"full western support", his army would have gone all the way to Teheran, which no one wanted.

I don't think, nor have I said so here, that Iran is a friendly liberal country. But I seriously think that the West doesn't make an effort to understand their position. Which always makes for unpleasant surprises.

The West understands Iran's position very clearly. It wants to expand its sphere of influence in the region and it is developping nuclear weapons to be able to intimidate its neighbours for that purpose.

[MikeyD]

It wants to expand its sphere of influence in the region and it is developping nuclear weapons to be able to intimidate its neighbours for that purpose.

Odd, I thought Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a certain unnamed belligerant regional hegemonist who persists in threatening to attack it.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Odd, I thought Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a certain unnamed belligerant regional hegemonist who persists in threatening to attack it.

I think you are referring to the blind spot.

[Sgt Joch]

Odd, I thought Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a certain unnamed belligerant regional hegemonist who persists in threatening to attack it.

Israel? They have had the Bomb since at least 1969 and have never used it, I don't see why they would start now.

Iran is the one that has been providing funding, weapons, training and support to Hezbollah and Hamas and pushing them to stage attacks against Israel.

Oddly enough, it is the US which has been restraining Israel from doing anything rash.

I love studying and discussing ME politics. Nothing is as it first seems, no one tells the truth and it is one gigantic puzzle. However, once you understand the "Code", it all starts to fall into place.

Once you start digiging and turning over stones, Iran does not look like an innocent victim.Their actions threaten to upset the entire delicate balance of power in the ME. However, with the upheavals caused by the "Arab Spring", Iran is really on the back burner these days. Everyone is more worried about Egypt and Syria. Israel has been placed in the uncomfortable position of hoping that the Assads will stay in place. :confused:

[Erik Springelkamp]

Once you start digiging and turning over stones, Iran does not look like an innocent victim.Their actions threaten to upset the entire delicate balance of power in the ME. However, with the upheavals caused by the "Arab Spring", Iran is really on the back burner these days. Everyone is more worried about Egypt and Syria. Israel has been placed in the uncomfortable position of hoping that the Assads will stay in place. :confused:

Yes, the balance of power is shifting in the Middle East.

At the same moment the projection of power by the USA is shrinking rapidly, because of monetary reasons.

Russia and China have decided to block any UN movement towards interference by the West.

Turkey and Iran are important players there now.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Status Quo was bad enough.

[Invader_Canuck]

Iran is not a democracy, if it was, the religious leaders would have been turfed out of power.

Iran gets bad press because it is pursuing nuclear weapons, promoting terrorism in the region and aggressively seeking to extend its influence in the region.

Its not just the West which is worried, Saudi Arabia, Syria and every country with a Sunni majority in the region wants to contain Iran.

Iran isn't a major regional threat.

Let's just run through the points detailing why they are not.

1) Myth 1, Iran is a threat to the region. Fact - Surrounded by Sunni majority states whose opinion of Iran range from dislike to hate - End result, any overt hostile action by Iran results in a reaming from every direction.

2) Myth 2, Iran is a threat to the United States. Fact - Iranian defense budget is laughable in comparison. Iran has no ability to project power.

3) Myth 3, Iran is a hostile aggressor nation. Fact - Iran hasn't engaged in a war of aggression for centuries, 3 I believe off the top of my head perhaps even more.

The Iranian threat is vastly blown out of proportion, their ability to project power is limited to whatever support they throw behind "terrorist" organizations and even then what is the difference between Iran supplying arms and the CIA supplying arms. There isn't.

The reality is that Iran may buck a little bit, but they cannot take any aggressive actions that would result in the destruction of the regime and the invasion of the country.

Iran getting nuclear weapons does not change this dynamic. The idea that Iran will start supplying terrorist organizations with nukes is a fairy tale. They want nukes as a deterrent against invasion because all the silly rhetoric around them continues to build and it certainly points in the direction of a possible invasion.

Using a nuke directly or indirectly will result in the immediate and final destruction of their regime and most of their people.

The portrayal of Iran is akin to the portrayal of marijuana use in reefer madness. It is silly. The President, nut job or not, has essentially ZERO power. This portrayal is a result of the hostage taking and the embarrassment this caused the United States.

Then we have the Sunni states in the area which also hate them helping to push this agenda along.

[Erwin]

"Turkey invokes article 5 of the NATO treaty, which says that an attack on one member should be considered an attack on all, requiring other signatories of the NATO treaty to come to its aid. In response, NATO quickly organises an expeditionary force to help police the Syrian border..."

Yah. Like the Brits and French rushed to help the Czechs and then Poland in 39?

[Erwin]

"China is a problem too. It protects it's markets, attacks the wests, and is routinely conducting cyber attacks on the West."

Arguably we have been in (a new form of) war with China for a couple decades now. Note how China is moving to control the SE Asian seas - which would include the Malacca straits and presumably a lot of undersea oil. Oil is one of China's big Achilles heels. They aint got it, but the rapid urbanization and car ownership requires more and more.

Look for growing conflict with India, the other growing superpower in the region. The only strategic Bush era move that made sense was to give India a lot of nuclear knowhow - pretty clearly to counterbalance the growing China threat.

[Erwin]

Re Iraq/Iran, also look at trouble brewing in Egypt... The 10% Coptic Christians are getting frightened by violent religious intolerance overtones by the Muslim religious groups taking over the country - the "Brotherhood" and the even more extreme Muslim groups.

[Sgt Joch]

Russia and China have decided to block any UN movement towards interference by the West.

It is just blatant self-interest.

Syria is a major arms customer of both Russia and China. The Russian Navy has a naval base at Tartus, Syria.

Russia and China also do not want a precedent to be established that the UN can investigate or sanction how a government treats its own citizen, since it might be used against them some day.

Russia and China do not care how many Syrians the Assads kill to stay in power.

[Erik Springelkamp]

It is just blatant self-interest.

Syria is a major arms customer of both Russia and China. The Russian Navy has a naval base at Tartus, Syria.

Russia and China also do not want a precedent to be established that the UN can investigate or sanction how a government treats its own citizen, since it might be used against them some day.

A very important factor is that the resolution for the no-fly zone in Libya was interpreted very loosely by NATO to include attacking ground units.

[Sgt Joch]

A very important factor is that the resolution for the no-fly zone in Libya was interpreted very loosely by NATO to include attacking ground units.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here, no one in NATO is advocating military action against Syria.

Second, there was no "loose interpretation" of the Libya resolution, the text provided quite clearly that Libyan ground units could be attacked:

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

My point is that Russia and China are not acting out of a noble principle, they are just looking after their own interest.

[Erik Springelkamp]

My point is that Russia and China are not acting out of a noble principle, they are just looking after their own interest.

That is the basis for all foreign policy of all states.

[Mightypeon]

For most people on this world, enforcing a no fly zone and acting as somebody else ground attack air force are very different things.

I also ask the question about precisly what Air craft Ghadaffis loyalists had at their last stands in Sirte and Beni Walid.

[Boche]

For us that have some idea of how the military works its totally different.

But for the common street people, they cant tell the difference between Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia or Syria. For them it all falls under the samer banner : "War".

For example here, in Spain. People say our president sent us to the Iraq War, when Spanish Troops never participated in the actual hostilities and arrived during the insurgency.

[BlackMoria]

Politics and all aside, in regard to Iran getting nukes, this is one decision that the Western powers HAVE to get right.

It is all fine and well to state that Iran has no interest in giving nukes to jihadists but it that 100% certain? Because all it takes is one nuclear fireball in Israel, Europe or the United States and the Middle East will burn.

Iran can give no assurances that will be accepted by the Western powers that they will secure their nukes from terrorist and jihadists.

Meaning that if Iran persists in pursuing acquiring it own nuclear weapons, there is a virtual 100% chance that someone is going to attack that capacity in some fashion. And the Middle East conflicts will spread as a result.

So, IMO, Iran announcing they have nuclear weapons or the western powers perceiving they have them will be the tipping point for further intervention. And depending what how Iran reacts after the airstrikes/cruise missiles hit the nuclear capacity will decide if the US/Western Powers go 'all in' on Iran.