[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

And yet they could have formed an alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria to attack Israel and didn't. You don't have to border a country to declare war on it. Iran could have just as well send troops with the Egyptians/Jordanians/Syrians. Offered logistical support, intelligence and who knows what else.
But they didn't.

Wrong. Special commandos, instructors and other kinds of experts are supporting various anti-Western and terror groupos thorughout the area. On this level, Iran already is engaged in ongoing active warfare against Israel. Iran plays a big hand in Lebanon politics, and delivers money and weapons, explosives and ammunition to Hezbollah, as well as to palestinian Hamas. They do their best to spread destabilisation and violence in the region. not to mention Iraq, and who knows to what degree they have their hands, like Pakistan, in Afghanistan as well.

Of course, the first thing the Iranians will do is launch a nuclear strike on Israel oblivious to the fact that Israel would counterstrike back and most assuredley destroy Iran. Lets be realistic here. Iran wants to be a regional power as much as Israel is. And India and Pakistan.

They want a dominant position from which they also can blackmail Wetsern policy-making. Their most prominent rival is probably is Turkey. as much as they want immunity from US miliztary attacks by waving the nuclear spear, which is a form of defensive strat6egy, they also want to expand their influence in the region, kick back Saudi influence (the sunni-Shia thing), and bless the region and beyond with the fortune of shia islam. Persians are no Arabs, and the animosity between Shia and sunni very much manifestates along this ethnic borderline. the mutual hostility is many centuries old.

Maybe you find it acceptable to give such a country the option to become dominant and to intimidate and blackmail others, incolduing the West. Maybe you are also accepting to pay a price for this: proliferation to non-goivernmental Islamic groups, and nations hostile to the West. And maybe you also think that the additonal price of a nuclear arms race and the high danger of nuclear war coming from it also is acceptable.

But I would like to know what you think we have gained by making these "investements". Is there anything - beyond the result of not having confronted Iran while there was time? I get the impression that avoiding confrontation with Iran is a self-purpose for you that alone alrerady justfiies all the risks and disadvantages mentioned here, even higher longterm costs than such a confrontation would be in itself. You put a lot of effort into arguing why it is okay for Iran moving into this position thta is so very favourable for it. But I want to know what positives the West do gain by accepting that. Very big risks and a high blood toll from increasing Iran-sponsores terror you burden onto our and the world's shoulder - for what? What positive you think you do gain by that?

Its incredibile, you all think that Iran = Ahmadinejad. Its like me saying that the american president could do whatever he wants oblivous to the different check and balances that permeat the US government.
You may not like Iran because its an islamic republic, that there are checks and balances over there as well. Just because you think they are all some kind of brain washed potentially suicide bombers doesn't make it so. And the events after the last Iranian election shows this quite well.

I think I have expressed quite a more differentiated view of mine on Iran in the past.

The survival of the world, you are talking about the survival of the world.
Then lets start by dismantling the thousands of nuclear warheads that Russia and the US still have. Then the hundreds of warheads the French, British and Cinese have. Israel to follow and of course India and Pakistan. And then we can start to be preocupied by NK that has 2 little atomic bombs and Iran that has nothing at all.

Now you start to mistake emotional arousal with argument. the aboe makes no sense in itself. Dismantling russian and American nuclear arsenals does not make world peace safer in the face of challengers like iran, north korea, Islam in general. It only makes opponents of russia and America stronger. In how far that should help world peace, escapes me. negotiating and arguing from a psotion of weakness, is no virtue, and never allowes for strong results in your favour. It means you are weak and the other must not take oyu that serious, and nothing else. the world is a grim place. One can regret it or not, but that does not chnage it. Never has good will alone prevented the rogues going to war if it served their interest. Its better to hack off their hand they swing their sword with. Or even better: deny them access to any sword or spear or knife from the beginning on, and cutting off theirt tongue so that they cannot command others to do the killing in their place.

That is what serves world peace: not to tolerate but to confront evil.

But of course this will never happen since most countries that have gained entrance into the nuclear club realise just how much power and prestige it is to have them. And another reason much more important, countries that have nuclear weapons are not invaded. The US launched a massive war on Iraq on the basis of nuclear weapons that were inexistant, and yet they can't do squat to North Korea that has 2 puny little bombs. It goes a long way in showing that to keep the US off your country you better have working weapons of mass destruction.

Nice to see being quoted like that. You are absolutely correct here. But in how far does this change what I criticise you for? That Iran wants more prestige, is natural, every nation wnats that. But why is it favourable for us in this case to allow it happening by letting them gain nuclear weapons?

You're right, we have to believe that our leaders are in some way graced by a higher intuition in the affairs of the world. Unfortunately I don't have this optimism as history has shown time and time again just how screwed up our democratic leaders can be.

Not to mention how screwed the intermingling of politics and religion can be. You correctly question the reaosn of western "democracies". But why you take the reason of theocratic regimes as granted, I do not understand.

Sen. M. Gravel said something during his campaigning for the pöresidency, a remark he published on the theme of growing religious resistance to secularism in the US. Originally deriving from that context, the following quote also remains true in a different, wider context. He said:

" (...) otherwise you are taking the oppressive nature of the state, marrying it with the oppressive nature of religion - and that is the ultimate opression on human beings."

This is what you have in countries like Saudi Arabia and iran, where you see the opressive nature of religion not only being an optional choice, but a collective duty.

And such a constellation you want to put your trust into...?You are right, Ahmadinejadh is not all of Iran, in fact he is relatively unimportant, in fact the theocracy even keeps him on a short line, because his aggressive rehtorics draw unwanted attention towards the Iranian nuclear program. the rela power lies with the mullahs.

Again my question - this is what you want to put your trust into...? Religious fanatics preaching the most totalitarian, aggressive, supremacist world ideology there is...?