Rational evaluation on the threat of Iran to the Middle-East and America

[Undesired Walrus]

Departing from the thread that has decended into complete anarchy, I wish to create a rational, critical debate on President Ahmadinejad's true feelings towards Israel, and if he really wishes to 'wipe it off the map'. And if we can allow him to possess these means to an end.

Is he is a raging Islamist or simply a ambitious man who wishes to build Iran into the epitome of a Shia state that can reside over the Middle East?

Would he be willing to risk nuclear war, and the destruction of everything that has been built, for the destruction of Israel?

Or is a more likely threat handing a WMD to a stateless Islamist group?

Is the current ayatollah serious when he condems the 9/11 attacks and the suicide attacks in Israel? Is he simply a very conservative and old-fashioned man who is only interested in the preservation of Islamic values within Iran?

I currently do not want Iran to have weapons, but I wish to flesh out my answer more with more information and insight you can give me.

Please, I urge everyone, to leave behind Anti-American, or Pro-Freedom rhetoric and focus on what the true aims of Iran and the spiritual leaders are.

[Molinaro]

... and focus on what the true aims of Iran and the spiritual leaders are.

Would you believe anyone here who claimed to know? I most certainly would not.

[jsiv]

Personally I think Ahmadinejad wants to set himself up as a regional leader, with Iran as the dominant superpower of the Middle East. A new and pure Islamic reign without western interference.

Even though Israel and the US are in a sense a barrier to this goal, I also think much of his rhetoric is designed simply to gather public support and divert attention away from the negative aspects of his (and the religious leaders above him) rule by giving the people a common outside enemy to focus on. With enough support, he doesn't actually have to declare war to drive the west out -- independent groups will do that for him.

Do I think Iran is really planning on nuking Israel or anyone else? No, I don't.

Do I think they want advanced weapons to deter outsiders from interfering in his plans for regional hegemony? Yes, I do.

Do I think they should have them? No, I don't. As long as things are going well for him, he's no real threat, but if he were to get desperate, there is no telling what could happen.

[Darth Rotor]

Departing from the thread that has decended into complete anarchy, I wish to create a rational, critical debate on President Ahmadinejad's true feelings towards Israel, and if he really wishes to 'wipe it off the map'. And if we can allow him to possess these means to an end.

Mahmoud the Mouth can be replaced. He's a bit like W, with more charm and talent as a speaker, in that he's a front man for a particular interest group more than he is a leader who people follow for his own vision and merits.

I would worry, if I were to worry, a lot more about the Iranian version of the "NeoCons," being a group of clerics, some corporate types, and Revolutionary Guards leaders and vets who, like Mahmoud, have been swinging the pendulum away from "reform" a la Khatami and Rafsinjani toward a more reactionary form of clerical/military/corporate complex. A very interesting piece in The Economist on Iran pointed to the Revolutionary Guards doing what some of the old Chinese generals did as China moved toward a market economy: they are getting their hands on some of the banks, companies and corporations. (Picture of an Iranian woman on the cover, last week's edition ) That points to a bit of a MIC complex developing that wasn't there before. Perhaps.

It is very hard to tell from the outside what the real impact of the last two years move further right/conservative has had on the nation. The real power, the mullahs, and Supreme leader, and Rev Guard still have to deal with the majis and the elected representatives, but they don't have an accountability to them as our President does to Congress, or a PM has to his party and to Parliament.
Is he is a raging Islamist or simply a ambitious man who wishes to build Iran into the epitome of a Shia state that can reside over the Middle East?
He's the front man for the real power brokers who want Iran's relative power in the region to grow as a Shia Islamic Republic. They want to be a bigger fish in their pond, at the least, perhaps more.
Would he be willing to risk nuclear war, and the destruction of everything that has been built, for the destruction of Israel?
I don't think so, based on Israel's deterrent capability. Iran and its leadership has a lot to lose. Israel also has BMD, which permits a definite second strike capability with some chance of mitigating or lessening any attempted first strike. I am going to guess that Israel has been wired into the US and NATO satellite based Early Warning system for BMD. Given the current administration's fondness for Israel, I think that's a safe bet.
Or is a more likely threat handing a WMD to a stateless Islamist group?
Could be, but the problem is once you give it to them, do you really know who they will use it against? As mad as the Mullahs are, I don't think they necessarily trust any Islamist group, save maybe Hezbollah, to get it right. Hezbollah getting it right would probably point a finger too easily at Teheran.
Is the current ayatollah serious when he condems the 9/11 attacks and the suicide attacks in Israel? Is he simply a very conservative and old-fashioned man who is only interested in the preservation of Islamic values within Iran?
I think he is serious. He's also serious that Palestine needs to be reborn. :p That makes for a difficult position to deal with if you consider Israel a legitimate nation state.
I currently do not want Iran to have weapons, but I wish to flesh out my answer more with more information and insight you can give me.
If you mean nuclear weapons, then the estimates of them being able to put one together in 2009 means that a better deal than currently offered needs to be made, or, harsher sanctions than are currently enforced must be applied to get a change of policy from Iran. They seem to do stubborn rather well.
Please, I urge everyone, to leave behind Anti-American, or Pro-Freedom rhetoric and focus on what the true aims of Iran and the spiritual leaders are.
Spreading the model of Islamic Republic, leading the Shia movement, making Iran a wealthier, more powerful player in the region, dismantling Israel and restoring Palestine, politically if not physically. Not appearing to give in to America is an important political theme in all of the above. Another goal that seems obvious to me is to ensurevia whatever means are at hand that Iraq, as it transforms, evolves as a neighbor friendly to Iran, and not as an American client.

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

I often focus on the domestic side when I agree that Iran cannot have Nuclear Weapons. A country that has no qualms with a host of human rights abuses, IMHO, needs to be stood up to, if they wish to enter 'the big league', simply for an example to the rest of the world.

The other problem is not making this come across as yet more 'With us, or against us' polarisation towards the Islamist of the Middle-East, and more anti-American hostility.. Is the damage already done?

And yet another problem is the balance of diplomacy. As you say Darth, you agree that the Ayatollah is serious in his condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. However, we have a delicate struggle, as that peaceful message from the head ruler of Iran plays into some of our German friends here (:rolleyes: ) as how Iran is not as bad as they all say and thus 'we are wrong to impose our views and ideals on someone we portray as violent and evil when really blah blah blah'. It is a delicate balance because on the one hand we have to follow Ghandi's example that simply because the ocean is full of s**t (I'm paraphrasing here!) it does not mean the other half is not cleaner and clearer. On the other hand we cannot ignore such s**t that can contaminate the rest.

Which is it?

Also, Darth, what are your views on the gaining of nuclear weapons in Iran? And if you are opposed, why? I wish you to go into more detail!

[Beerina]

Could be, but the problem is once you give it to them, do you really know who they will use it against? As mad as the Mullahs are, I don't think they necessarily trust any Islamist group, save maybe Hezbollah, to get it right. Hezbollah getting it right would probably point a finger too easily at Teheran.

Remember also they [various Middle East leaders] realize how shallow their own intra-Muslim peace actually is, with the power hungry of each state or region or tribe or whatever, currently not fighting because Israel, as a "common enemy", is far too useful to their own maintenance of power.

But handing a nuke over to another Islamic group would be like, I don't know, Protestants in Northern Ireland handing a nuke over to Catholics there because they're both pissed at Japanese imports.

Could be useful on the surface of it, but might very well come back to haunt you directly, as the other group's leader ain't in it just for the love of their religion.

[Darth Rotor]

Also, Darth, what are your views on the gaining of nuclear weapons in Iran? And if you are opposed, why? I wish you to go into more detail!
While I wish the NPT was in better shape and compliance, I ruefully observe that it is in tatters. I am not a fan of Iran building nuclear weapons. I wish they'd trust us and Russia and China to keep a lid on that sort of thing, but I see why they don't.

India and Pakistan are near neighbors, and they have nukes. The politics in that part of the world are fluid. Can Iran trust that those nukes will never threaten them?

See also Israel. they have them, though I am pretty certain that Israel's nukes are for two purposes alone:

1. As a deterrent
2. As Gotterdamerung if they get over run.

I would like to believe Iran would use any nukes they make as a deterrent, but it is a huge risk. I find it troubling that they need nuclear weapons to feel they can lead in the Muslim world, that they need the penis enlarger weapons to be the cock of the walk in the Persian Gulf region.

But if I sat in their shoes, I suspect I might want the nukes as a "just in case" weapon.

I'd really rather they did as the Japanese, and stick with nukes for electrical power. Funny, they don't return my calls. :(

DR

[Undesired Walrus]

While I wish the NPT was in better shape and compliance, I ruefully observe that it is in tatters. I am not a fan of Iran building nuclear weapons. I wish they'd trust us and Russia and China to keep a lid on that sort of thing, but I see why they don't.

India and Pakistan are near neighbors, and they have nukes. The politics in that part of the world are fluid. Can Iran trust that those nukes will never threaten them?

See also Israel. they have them, though I am pretty certain that Israel's nukes are for two purposes alone:

1. As a deterrent
2. As Gotterdamerung if they get over run.

I would like to believe Iran would use any nukes they make as a deterrent, but it is a huge risk. I find it troubling that they need nuclear weapons to feel they can lead in the Muslim world, that they need the penis enlarger weapons to be the cock of the walk in the Persian Gulf region.

But if I sat in their shoes, I suspect I might want the nukes as a "just in case" weapon.

I'd really rather they did as the Japanese, and stick with nukes for electrical power. Funny, they don't return my calls. :(

DR

But what diplomacy can be created to achieve less of a 'them V us' mentality? As, at the moment, this hardlined condemnation of them gaining nuclear weapons simply is increasing Uncle Mahmoud's determination to build them. I can completly understand. I think for the vast majority, it simply comes across in a very negative fashion as the US being a bully and a policeman, without anyone going into detail about why this is not acceptable. What can be done here?

When Obama, Hillary, McCain and so on go on about 'Iran being the largest state sponser of terror, and nukes can not be allowed' are they simply spouting the party line, or do they have a point? Is it a grave mistake to set an example that a state sponser of Hezbollah should be allowed these WMD's?

If you guys were president, what would your rational reasons be for not allowing Iran to have weapons, without further increasing their determination?

I mean, isn't North Korea a bigger threat? They dont even have an ideology, they would potentially sell it to the highest bidder.

P.S, I am ashamed to be speaking about politics when I could be out watching Transformers.. wait, I'm actually relieved!

[Darth Rotor]

But what diplomacy can be created to achieve less of a 'them V us' mentality?
If I knew that, I'd be on the phone to Condi as fast as I could dial.

Is it a grave mistake to set an example that a state sponser of Hezbollah should be allowed these WMD's?
Most governments in the West seem to think so, not just Americans. I note that others in the EU are also supporting some sanctions.
If you guys were president, what would your rational reasons be for not allowing Iran to have weapons, without further increasing their determination?
They are not listening to reason from the US, or much of anything else. They have a face saving issue with the US, and cannot be seen to back down from the US, in any way. There is an element of that coming from Washington as well, though I think Foggy Bottom wants to be more flexible.
I mean, isn't North Korea a bigger threat? They dont even have an ideology, they would potentially sell it to the highest bidder.
Red Herring. North Korea is its own case, with its own variables, and being treated in parallel with, not instead of, Iran.

DR