# How should the US approach Iran?



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

in your opinion


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jun 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> in your opinion



Mind our business.  The Iranian people don't need our approval to do what they're doing, and the Iranian government won't listen to us regardless and they'll simply hold anything we do or say against us.


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 20, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > in your opinion
> ...


 
I agree.  I think that even if the current regime remains in power, they are weakened and tarnished, and the more violent they are in response, the less support they will have going forward.

Plus, significant and time/resource consuming internal strife may make Iran less of a threat worldwide.


----------



## ReillyT (Jun 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> in your opinion



First, I wouldn't label our current course of action as supporting the "existing powers."

Otherwise, as the course of events and outcomes are very much uncertain, and we are not clear what effect any action on our part would have anyway, we should hold our tongue, except for the usual platitudes about importance of democracy, restraint, peace, etc.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 20, 2009)

Hard to say, given the rather dubious reputation -at best- of the American gubmint in Iran.

A good place to start would probably be to do no further harm to that reputation...If that's even possible.


----------



## Kalam (Jun 20, 2009)

Expressing our support for the reformist movement would stigmatize it and cause it to lose much of what popularity it still has. As in most situations, we'd be best off minding our own business.


----------



## Soaring (Jun 20, 2009)

We don't have the troops or money to wage a  ground war with Iran, so I say just shut the fuck up and let the young Iranians handle the situation there.  We have no business interfering in their political process anyway since it doesn't directly affect us with the exception of the current regime wanting to build an A bomb.  We can however, place sanctions on them if they continue to build the A bomb.  We can also monitor the shipping lanes into and out of Iran just like we are doing with N Korea to stop trafficking of materiels to build those bombs.  Yes, blockadeing is an act of war, but then they would have to declare war on us, and attack us.  That would be a bad mistake on their part knowing the awesome airpower we have.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

Yea... sanctions... because that works


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 20, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Expressing our support for the reformist movement would stigmatize it and cause it to lose much of what popularity it still has. As in most situations, we'd be best off minding our own business.



Kalam....i work with a guy who was born and raised in Iran....and 90% of his family are still there....after their last elections he told me and a few other guys....leave them alone,the people in Iran will take care of the leaders there....he said they want exactly what any person would want for themselves and their families,and the FREEDOMS that we have here, AND THEY KNOW IT EXISTS.....and given time...they will get it.....it may take a few elections,but after each election,things will start getting closer and closer to what they want.....compared to the aftermath of the last election, this is much different.....


----------



## Paulie (Jun 20, 2009)

We should speak softly, and carry a big stick.  

They know they're toast if they do anything stupid.  I don't understand why some think they'd be dumb enough to attack the US or an ally.  They're pretty much surrounded by the most awesome military power on the earth.  Realistically speaking, what are their options?  NOTHING.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Today's statement from the President on Iran, good but about three days late:

_The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said -- "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness._

Should have been, within hours after the "victory" was announced:

_"I umm.... call into uhh-question.... Umm, the ability of any nation...... Ahh.. to count 30 million..... Ahh-handwritten votes, by hand. Ahhh-without machines or computers... in just two hours. Or even twelve. Ummm-my concern... is the physical impossibility of that...... Ahh.. unless they had about a half million...... Umm-people doing the counting.... Ahh-and started counting..... Umm... right when the polls opened. Not even our friends the Japanese..... Umm-are that efficient."_

Oh and:





> must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.


He should take his own words to heart.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> We don't have the troops or money to wage a  ground war with Iran, so I say just shut the fuck up and let the young Iranians handle the situation there.  We have no business interfering in their political process anyway since it doesn't directly affect us with the exception of the current regime wanting to build an A bomb.  We can however, place sanctions on them if they continue to build the A bomb.  We can also monitor the shipping lanes into and out of Iran just like we are doing with N Korea to stop trafficking of materiels to build those bombs.  Yes, blockadeing is an act of war, but then they would have to declare war on us, and attack us.  That would be a bad mistake on their part knowing the awesome airpower we have.



Very simplistic thinking.  

As far as the current political situation, we need to keep our eyes and ears open and mouths shut.  Iranians are uber-nationals.  ANY outside support for EITHER side could as easily lead to both sides turning on the ones try to interfere.  Throwing our support behind the reformists would just be bad PR for them.  Nobody likes us, and surprise surprise, even Bush being out of office and Obama's apology tour didn't change that a damned bit.  

The embargo thingy is naive.  Iran is getting it's technology from Russia.  They share a land border last I looked.  Your answer to that is to place an embargo on their shipping?


----------



## Soaring (Jun 20, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Yea... sanctions... because that works


Sanctions against allowing A-bomb materiels to enter the country will work to stop the building of an A-bomb.  As far as I know, Uranium and other A-Bomb materiels are not readily available in Iran.  If you are building widgets, and all of a sudden the materiels for building your widgets is cut off, you can no longer build widgets.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Yea... sanctions... because that works
> ...


Iran shares land borders with who? Quick!

Yeah, we'll really make sanctions work.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Yea... sanctions... because that works
> ...



Read my previous post.  Iran shares a land border with Russia and Russia is supplying the technology and undoubtedly material to Iran.  A naval blockade would be worthless.

How do you propose to enforce sanctions in all of Iran's land borders?


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> We don't have the troops or money to wage a  ground war with Iran, so I say just shut the fuck up and let the young Iranians handle the situation there.  We have no business interfering in their political process anyway since it doesn't directly affect us with the exception of the current regime wanting to build an A bomb.  We can however, place sanctions on them if they continue to build the A bomb.  We can also monitor the shipping lanes into and out of Iran just like we are doing with N Korea to stop trafficking of materiels to build those bombs.  Yes, blockadeing is an act of war, but then they would have to declare war on us, and attack us.  That would be a bad mistake on their part knowing the awesome airpower we have.



It's worked great with NK.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have the troops or money to wage a  ground war with Iran, so I say just shut the fuck up and let the young Iranians handle the situation there.  We have no business interfering in their political process anyway since it doesn't directly affect us with the exception of the current regime wanting to build an A bomb.  We can however, place sanctions on them if they continue to build the A bomb.  We can also monitor the shipping lanes into and out of Iran just like we are doing with N Korea to stop trafficking of materiels to build those bombs.  Yes, blockadeing is an act of war, but then they would have to declare war on us, and attack us.  That would be a bad mistake on their part knowing the awesome airpower we have.
> ...



Hasn't it though?


----------



## Soaring (Jun 20, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Russia may be sharing the technology to Iran, but not the Material.  Russia does not have any material they can share anymore.  Those materials they used back during the cold war came from former Soviet Bloc Countries.  So, Russia no longer has control of Nuclear bomb yellow cake to sell or give away.  The other countries involved in having it are Austrailia, Niger, and Canada.  The only way those countries can get that to Iran is by sea or air.  Both of which can be blockaded.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Soaring said:
> ...



All the challenges right now. Following the NK boat, that we are NOT going to board or force to port. The July 4th 'threat' reported by Japan intel. 

Now it appears that one way or another, without a revolution in Iran, any hope for diplomacy is gone. If the regime keeps force at the level of today and 'win', they cannot be talked with. If the regime falls? Who knows? 

Not even mentioning Iraq, Iran, Palestinians, Syria, and that Israel may well act unilaterally.

Good news, Iran troops and Guards are now tied up internally.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Soaring said:
> ...



You cannot blockade the air unless you want to shoot foreign nationals out of the sky.  You also cannot blockade submarines.  

Iran is getting uranium from somewhere.  It's as simple as that.  They could even have their own.

You got a link to that info on Russian fissile material?  I can't say I'm willing to buy off on that.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Today's statement from the President on Iran, good but about three days late:
> _The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
> 
> As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
> ...



That is exactly how I feel.  In his own 'at war with the English language way', Bush would have very directly and very understandably made it known that people who strive for liberty and freedom are the brothers of Americans who wish them well.  Governments that strive to remove liberty freedom are at odds with our beliefs.

Obama's first statement left me embarrased to be an American.  

It's tough to define what a wimpy statement from the most powerful man in world is, but I know it when I hear it.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jun 20, 2009)

Annie said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have the troops or money to wage a  ground war with Iran, so I say just shut the fuck up and let the young Iranians handle the situation there.  We have no business interfering in their political process anyway since it doesn't directly affect us with the exception of the current regime wanting to build an A bomb.  We can however, place sanctions on them if they continue to build the A bomb.  We can also monitor the shipping lanes into and out of Iran just like we are doing with N Korea to stop trafficking of materiels to build those bombs.  Yes, blockadeing is an act of war, but then they would have to declare war on us, and attack us.  That would be a bad mistake on their part knowing the awesome airpower we have.
> ...



The problem with stopping NK from acquiring a working nuclear weapon (if they haven't already) is one of knowledge/technology, not potentially fissile material.  North Korea has uranium as a natural resource. Stopping the technology from coming into Iran is damn near impossible. All they need are the precise and accurate manufacturing processes that the knowledge/technology would deliver in order to enrich their uranium and then plant it on the head of a missile.

And with a nutbar as their head of state, it looks more and more likely that military action, from somebody, will be the only way to stop said nutbar from acquiring ballistic nuclear weapons.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 20, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Expressing our support for the reformist movement would stigmatize it and cause it to lose much of what popularity it still has. As in most situations, we'd be best off minding our own business.



This is a revealing moment for the people of Iran.  The election was a show, obviously, and the cat's out of the bag.

About half of Iran's population is younger than 25.  There are idealists there who feel like they have been lied to and they are pissed off.  The demonstrations in the streets following the sham elections reveal that this is not a theocratic democracy, but is rather a theocratic police state and this will not sit well with those who want progress.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the current regime fell and a truly democratic one replaced it?

Democracy in Iraq.  Hezbollah just lost an election in Lebanon.  If Iran turns democratic, it could be the continuation of something very, very big.  One can almost see the legacy of GWB turning very positive.

Oh, God!  The horror.


----------



## Annie (Jun 20, 2009)

code1211 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Today's statement from the President on Iran, good but about three days late:
> ...



US should always stand for more freedom. For some reason many are saying that claiming solidarity with those risking their lives for the right to a fair vote, well that's what it started as, is the equivalency of sending in the marines. It's not. 

Sunni claimed 'we would arrest protestors', not quite:

Washington DC:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMI4Wgp1J7U&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Iranian protest at White House[/ame]

LA:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Qjtm1aj38]YouTube - Iranian protest. june 20,2009. los angeles[/ame]

NY/UN:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udFQ96V8P6U]YouTube - NYC Iran united nations protest[/ame]

Paris:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN8MiGWD1cw]YouTube - 90.000 Iranians in Paris for Democracy and Free Election in Iran[/ame]


----------



## asaratis (Jun 20, 2009)

...we should work covertly to undermine racist, dictatorial, oppressive governments in all countries, including Iran.  The legacy of global humanity should someday be that all peoples have been granted  the freedoms to express their views, be governed locally by those they choose in recurring, fair, free elections, pursue their legal goals without political harassment, peacefully coexist with all neighbors and to do all these things with as little government intervention as can be attained without anarchy.

If we can ever get away from the harmful side effects of organized religion, over zealous leaders, racism, political greed, hatred and sadism, we'll be one step closer to the goal of establishing a comfortable peace throughout the planet.

I know. I know.



.....fat chance!


----------



## oreo (Jun 20, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




You're right to get to Iran we need Russia on board.  REASON:  Iran has oil, but they have no refineries.  They ship it up to Russia to refine for them.

But again--the only people that would hurt would be the people out in the streets fighting against this oppressive regime.  The Mullahs would still get all the oil they needed.


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> We don't have the troops or money to wage a  ground war with Iran, so I say just shut the fuck up and let the young Iranians handle the situation there.  We have no business interfering in their political process anyway since it doesn't directly affect us with the exception of the current regime wanting to build an A bomb.  We can however, place sanctions on them if they continue to build the A bomb.  We can also monitor the shipping lanes into and out of Iran just like we are doing with N Korea to stop trafficking of materiels to build those bombs.  Yes, blockadeing is an act of war, but then they would have to declare war on us, and attack us.  That would be a bad mistake on their part knowing the awesome airpower we have.



2 battalions of the last ones I was attached to, with aid from the 3rd mechanized and some air sup from 12 warts and iran's government is yesterday.

At first I supported non-interference, but after today's frontal of the government shock troops and that was that.

Rwanda and srebrenica happened while I wore the uniform, and that is a guilt I will take beyond the grave...if it can be prevented I don't want another massacre like that to occur.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 20, 2009)

the problem with that is, we have had a history of supporting one group over another, only to end up with another group that was just as bad if not worse
as far as covertly helping, i dont believe that to be needed so much as letting them know we support their attempts are freedom, should they actually ASK us for assistance, i might change my position
lacking them sending that request, i will say we can do no more than what we are doing at this moment

besides, when Obama said he would meet with them with no preconditions, it blew any shred of credibility he could have had


----------



## L.K.Eder (Jun 20, 2009)

iran does not share a border with russia.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 20, 2009)

L.K.Eder said:


> iran does not share a border with russia.


nice catch

not since the break up of the USSR


----------



## Missourian (Jun 20, 2009)

The "supreme leader" is going to accuse us of covertly supporting the resistance regardless...so we should...while maintaining as loudly as possible we are doing no such thing.


Whether we support them covertly or not, no one will believe we aren't anyway.


----------



## garyd (Jun 20, 2009)

Okay first half the current population has never lived under any government but the current one.  

2nd in the end the only real difffrences between the Shah and Mossadiq was that the Shah lasted 20 years Mossadiq was unlikely to have lasted 5 even if the US does not become complicit in the Bristish over throw of the Mossadiq government.

3rd US support for the Shah was instrumental in establishing an Iran in which - unlike most of the Middle East - both women and men both got decent - even by Western standards - educations and it is the women pushing this rebillion even more so than the men.

4th What should we do? As much as it pains me to say it Obama's doing just about exactly the right thing.


----------



## oreo (Jun 21, 2009)

Missourian said:


> The "supreme leader" is going to accuse us of covertly supporting the resistance regardless...so we should...while maintaining as loudly as possible we are doing no such thing.
> 
> 
> Whether we support them covertly or not, no one will believe we aren't anyway.



The Supreme Leader has already accused us of exactly that.  Interferring in the election process--& the route cause of these protests.

_It really doesn't matter if we do, or if we don't--we're going to get blamed for it anyway._


----------



## oreo (Jun 21, 2009)

garyd said:


> Okay first half the current population has never lived under any government but the current one.
> 
> 2nd in the end the only real difffrences between the Shah and Mossadiq was that the Shah lasted 20 years Mossadiq was unlikely to have lasted 5 even if the US does not become complicit in the Bristish over throw of the Mossadiq government.
> 
> ...



Agreed--there is nothing we can do at this time.  There is no clear opposition leader in Iran--like we had in Afganistan against the Taliban.  Both of these Presidential candidates are one in the same.  Their just wanting to replace one bad guy with another--with the Supreme Leader really still in control over everyone else.  It would be the same regime.

_If there was a clear leader--that was in total opposition to the entire regime--including the Supreme Leader--we along with Europe could do covert operations against the regime._


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2009)

oreo said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Okay first half the current population has never lived under any government but the current one.
> ...



Maybe yes, maybe no. He's not been in the gov't for a long time. His daughter is well educated and doesn't wear hajib type garb. His wife too is educated. He's spent his time since the revolution in architecture and teaching. He may be very different than the student he was 30 years ago. 

He's certainly NOT acting as they expected, so perhaps we'll find out.


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 21, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Expressing our support for the reformist movement would stigmatize it and cause it to lose much of what popularity it still has. As in most situations, we'd be best off minding our own business.



So the Great and powerful Wizard of Obama's idea that his words matter really does not matter when one looks behind that curtain with all the levers?

What else does he have?


----------



## JW Frogen (Jun 21, 2009)

oreo said:


> The Supreme Leader.[/I]



Supreme Leader?

Fuck me what we apes will believe in order to believe something, anything?


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2009)

Hasn't all hit 'the right note'. From 'the office of', notice that:

What Does Mousavi Think? - Michael Ledeen - The Corner on National Review Online



> Saturday, June 20, 2009
> 
> What Does Mousavi Think?   [Michael Ledeen]
> 
> ...


----------



## Soaring (Jun 21, 2009)

It is pretty obvious that Obama fucked up royally in his speech.  The idiot does not know the history of Iran or the surrounding nations.  I think it is obvious he knows he fucked up because he hasn't said shit since then.


----------



## DiveCon (Jun 21, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > The Supreme Leader.[/I]
> ...


thats the title of the REAL leader of the Iranian government


----------



## Kalam (Jun 21, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Expressing our support for the reformist movement would stigmatize it and cause it to lose much of what popularity it still has. As in most situations, we'd be best off minding our own business.
> ...



I don't doubt it. While I don't believe that these events will culminate in any sort of revolution, Iran's urban youth has sent a clear message that the regime will have to take seriously if it expects to remain in power. I think change in Iran will be gradual but definite.


----------



## garyd (Jun 21, 2009)

I hope sir that you are correct.  Iran increasingly seems to resemble China demographically where in the government is run mostly by old men while the majority of the opulation is much younger and the young are increasingly, and with good reason, restive.


----------



## Annie (Jun 21, 2009)

garyd said:


> I hope sir that you are correct.  Iran increasingly seems to resemble China demographically where in the government is run mostly by old men while the majority of the opulation is much younger and the young are increasingly, and with good reason, restive.



Not that I wish to undermine your point, but the Iranian population is way more 'balanced' than Chinese. There are enough women to men. Not so in China. Problems there.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 21, 2009)

We can at the very least send them a million of these:







But I don't think this story will have a Hollywood ending, unless it's Reservoir Dogs.​


----------



## Kalam (Jun 21, 2009)

Missourian said:


> We can at the very least send them a million of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who gets to be Steve Buscemi?


----------



## rhodescholar (Jun 21, 2009)

Kalam said:


> [Who gets to be Steve Buscemi?



Don't you mean Mr. White?


----------



## Kalam (Jun 22, 2009)

rhodescholar said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > [Who gets to be Steve Buscemi?
> ...



I thought he was Pink.

"Why am I Mr. Pink?"
"Because you're a faggot, alright?"


----------



## Kalam (Jun 22, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Expressing our support for the reformist movement would stigmatize it and cause it to lose much of what popularity it still has. As in most situations, we'd be best off minding our own business.
> ...


Obama? A funny name and trite slogans. If he has more, I hope he decides to use it soon.


----------

