FOX News: German Government Would Welcome US Bombing of Iran
Posted by Joerg Wolf in German Politics, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, September 14. 2007
James Rosen starts his FOX News article with: "A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday."
Rosen claims to have obtained some highly sensitive information from a meeting in Berlin of German officials with the Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council:
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.So... the German economy would suffer from further sanctions against Iran, but not from a war with Iran? That's the logic of Faux News... See the full article at FOX News (via: tapmag).
UPDATE: Perhaps one reason, why Fox News beats the drums of war, can be found in a United Press International article: "Faced with U.S. economic sanctions and a weak dollar, Tehran is demanding foreign energy companies do business in yen and euros, despite increasingly desperate need for investment. In a deal announced last week, Japans Nippon Oil agreed to buy oil from Iran using yen instead of the traditional U.S. dollars." And I thought Japan was such a close US ally.
UPPERDATE: Regarding the plausibility of the information provided by Fox News, check out Detlef's comment.
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis by four young professionals from Germany, the Netherlands and the United States. More about us.
The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.You (in EU) are in the process of imposing more official and non-official sanctions on us. As time goes on, you will loose your economic leverage as our trade is elsewhere. Already China has become our largest trading partner followed by Italy and Spain. I expect Italian and Spanish involvement in Iran also to decrease over the next decade.
Soo, you will be just like US, having sanctioned yourselves out of influence with Iran.
You might as well pack your embassies now and go home.
Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Bush Administration and not a legitimate news outlet.
Are you saying that the Bush Admin considers a war with Iran to be the exit strategy for Iraq?
I mean, why else would they want to bomb Iran? The US is more than busy with Iraq...
They won't get approval from Congress anyway...
Democrats in the Congress of the United States will do nothing - they are aiming or control of Congress and the Presidency for the next 30 years. They want Bush to create more disasters and are not going to stand in his way. They (the Democrats) think that they can live with the consequences of a US attack on Iran after 2009.
Joerg says "I mean, why else would they want to bomb Iran? The US is more than busy with Iraq...
They won't get approval from Congress anyway..."
The US may be busy in Iraq but that is the perfect place for the military to be stationed to attack Iran. Same thing is true for Afghanistan. Add in the naval assets in the Persian Gulf, logistics and bomer support from Diego Garcia and the US military has over the past 6 years postioned itself to take on Iran. If Bush does attack Iran the US will quickly achieve it's destructive goals against the Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure. Israel will probably be attacked by Iranian proxies and will quickly destroy it's enemies unlike last years half-hearted attacks. The big question is will Iran be able to make good on their threat to destroy Arab oil infrastructure in rsponse.
Bush does not need Congressional approval to go to war with Iran. Theoretically Bush needs permission. In reality however, all he needs to do is call his Generals. Anyone familiar with US history knows that Presidents have often gone to war without Congressional approval. Teddy Roosevelt went to war with Columbia even after Congress specifically said he couldn't.
This non-dollar retaliation sounds good on paper but what exactly is Iran going to be buying with yen from Japan, Russian military hardware(who deals in dollars), Pakistani parts for old F16's(who deals in dollars or even most laughably, refined gas and oil from Japan? Maybe some mosque needs refurbishing and Iran can pay a group or restorers and NHK to restore and film for a eventual Saturday afternoon PBS special? But at least Iran will have the yen to hire the restorration crews.
Weren't the same groups decrying sanctions against Cuba and Iraq also claiming that these sanctions were starving babies and destroying the economies of these respective nations?
I still don't really think that it will come to any large scale military adventure on the part of the US. But one must consider that there are still two carrier groups in the Gulf with tactical missiles plus the USAF can hit, with aircraft and strategic missiles, any target in the world. The US will not need an Abrams or a Bradley on the Iranian border to deal with this problem.
We are buying what we need and what we can from China, Korea, Russia, and others.
We will manage.
In a way, I am glad that for US & EU sanctions - it is causing us to stand on our own two feet and learn how to do things.
Peter the Great kept fighting Sweden and kept getting defeated. He frequently observed: "Eventually they will teach us how to fight."
I am glad that you are teaching us.
Thank you.
Peter the Great over that two decades long war had multiple allies, Denmark-Norway, Saxony, Hanover, Poland and most notably Prussia. What allies is Iran counting on to sustain a two decade struggle with the West?
"Russian military hardware(who deals in dollars),"
I would not bet on this for the medium and long-term.
Russia is not America's friend either.
Russia is willing to sell but would probably not settle to be paid in anything but dollars or Euros(maybe) not because they are great friends of the US but because the dollar can be spent everywhere in the world. And the yen can be spent...? The only country to benefit in such a relationship would be the Japanese as Iran would be forced to spend its oil money on Japanese goods and the Japanese will not sell them military hardware.
Also what is to stop the US and the EU to place sanctions on banks that deal with Iran when it uses any currency regardless of the national source?
One needs no crystal ball to know that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Know it, or don't.
Useless, I know, for people who have known of the imminent collapse of America any second now for the last 40 years.
Any second now though....
As for European governments secretly approving what they publically condemn, so what else is new? That has been going on for 50 years.
BTW, some of this stuff is really getting to be a stretch. Who are you trying to convince with it?
And you should be careful with the word "faux."
The power to undo the nuclear-capable Iran does not exist in the international arena.
All dealings with Iran must start from that fact.
pen Name says "The power to undo the nuclear-capable Iran does not exist in the international arena."
This is obvious to all except the Europeans. Only the US military can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
@ Bill
"Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons."
This is the sort of arrogance that makes the West so unpopular in the Middle East.
It sounds to many people as if the US is God's chosen country to rule the world and decide what smaller countries are allowed to do or not allowed to do.
I agree with you that we should try to prevent Iran from developing nukes. I just want to point out the importance of language! Respect is sooo important in the Middle East.
If the US and Iran had resolved their bilateral problems which result from the US support for the Shah and the CIA coup on the one hand and the embassy hostage situation on the other hand, then Iran would be more compromising now. Just like Libya or North Korea. Sort of. Perhaps...
Iran wants nukes as an insurance against US interventions like in the past or in neighboring countries.
So, guys, make peace, damn it. Iran is not worse than Saudi Arabia.
>"Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons." This is the sort of arrogance that makes the West so unpopular in the Middle East.<
You just name-call a remark and consider that an answer? Well, then I namecall your reply ridiculous. How's that for an answer?
What arrogance? It's a fact, not arrogance. You are making it a sin of "arrogance" to prevent a sworn enemy from acquiring a weapon that they threaten to use? Where do you get your morality from? Stalin? No country with the power to prevent a sworn and threatening enemy who daily vomits evil death-wishes on them from acquiring devstating weapons has ever feared to do so because some holier-than-thous would call it "arrogant." That is farcical.
Stick that word "arrogant" back where it came from.
You holier-than-thou Euros will not morally persecute us into letting Iran get and use nuclear weapons. Go confess their sins to somebody else: what you arrogant Euros think of us ain't worth a million lives.
And your governments are surely hoping that, if necessary, we in the end resort to force, while publically condemning the very thought. Your two-faced governments did the same thing throughout the Cold War.
Not to mention the "renditions".
>It sounds to many people as if the US is God's chosen country to rule the world and decide what smaller countries are allowed to do or not allowed to do.<
Yeah, well, when it comes to nuclear weapons - YES!!! Are you crazy? Do you think we are morally obligated to let these clown dictators all over the world get them? Then you must allow children to carry firearms. Why don't you?
Does Germany allow ANYONE to carry firearms? How "arrogant." But you say that America must allow unelected, psychopathic dictators acquire nuclear weapons. It's their "right," eh?
And I wonder where the world gets the idea that America is so bad. You are constantly throwing that up in our faces here, J. "Ha, ha Americans! The whole world hates you."
How kind of you. I'd say you have a problem with empathy. And you call this "dialog" good for transatlantic relations?
If everybody hates Person A, you assume Person A is hateful. That's stupid. Look at Person B going around telling everyone that Person A is hateful. They're the one responsible for all the hatred of Person A. The character asssassin. It's the European media who have speading anti-Americanism throughout the world for decades who are responsible for most of it.
Shame on you Europeans. That is a hostile act. European people have blood on their mouths for it.
BTW I don't consider this a "news digest" either. I consider this an apologia for anti-Americanism that throws an occassional token scrap America's way by admitting that an instance of it here or there is going a little too far.
Your wild accusations take start from any little thing and grotesquely distort them to (a) exaggerate them out of all porportion or (b) declare some kind mind-reading condemnation of our divined motives and intents.
For example, of the thousands of nuclear weapons in our arsenal that we have taken good care of daily over a half a century with almost no screw ups, you find nothing short of INCOMPETENCE in the the entire US Air Force over one accidentally being loaded on the wrong flight.
You just wildly stretch anything to the outer limits of deep space. And you expect us to take it seriously?
And BTW sir, it is YOUR air force that is incompetent, not ours.
Read George Orwell's answers to your kind during WWII. Everything that happens you seize upon and twist or stretch into proof of a preconcieved socialist belief that your hated rival, America, is tottering to a fall. Negative nationalism. There isn't anything you can't twist or exaggerate into proof that America is weak and about to fall.
Guess what? This vision of yours isn't real: it's a delusion. The more awesome America's power grows, the more certain you are that it's impotent.
Now you say that America can't stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What planet are you living on? You always say that America can't do anything. And America doing it never enlightens you, because you just believe whatever fantasy you want about it that raised the bar afterwards to make it seem as though America failed.
But have no fear. Iran will not get nuclear weapons, because one way or another America will stop them. Yes, even if it means bombing Iran. So you can sleep safe, and without even losing your beloved delusion that America didn't prevent the dread event.
Hey Bill, put your flag down for a second, take a deep breath and listen to some of the voices here. You might learn something...
@Bill
"what you arrogant Euros think of us ain't worth a million lives."
And I consider that a good thing. Because, looking at the mess in Iraq, what 'you arrogant Americans' think (I don't mean this to be a ridiculous generalization - I'm just using the phrase to throw your words right back at you) was actually worth a million lives... lost lives in this case.
Great achievement - you may be proud now!
As always: consider the source!
Quoting Fox Spews and taking it seriously is like passing on gossip heard by a panhandler. I like your site and you're on my reader, but please: don't waste our time with Fox.
I guess I have not been clear enough.
I am NOT treating the information provided by Fox as news.
Rather the Fox story is the news.
In other words: This blog post was meant to be about Fox News rather than about this meeting of government officials.
Atlantic Review reviews Fox news.... Something like that...
"I am NOT treating the information provided by Fox as news."
Why not, Joerg? Do you find it necessary somehow to help perpetuate the form of apartheid that some American leftwingers (DailyKos and Moveon.com) are trying to impose upon the world? And if so, why?
Why not judge it the way you would any other news source - inclusing Al-Jazera and obviously biased German news organisations?
Because it´s difficult to believe.
I read that article on Fox News, but there wasn´t one single article on any German media website yesterday. Not a single leak here in Germany that the German government allegedly "would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities."
That is hard to believe.
Remember that the German government is a coalition government. Christian-Democrats plus Social-Democrats. Merkel´s foreign secretary Steinmeier is a Social-Democrat, formerly chief of staff for Schroeder. Given the fact that the Social-Democrats are a bit anxious about the next federal election, they probably would eagerly leak such a statement to the German press. Trying to profile Merkel as war-mongering and themselves as the peace party like in 2002.
Not to mention that it´s a little hard to believe that Merkel would spend so much time and effort to improve relations with the Bush administration only to endanger that now? By flatly refusing "to support the imposition of any further sanctions"?
Unless further sanction proposals were totally outlandish from a German Point of view, I find it highly unlikely that the German government would make such absolute statements.
As an aside I´m not quite sure why even the alleged refusal "to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran" would leave "most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead"?
Germany isn´t a member of the UN Security Council any longer. It wouldn´t have a vote on any resolution about sanctions.
I would be more concerned about permanent members Russia or China.
Thank you for the info and your arguments! I have written an "upperdate"
If the Iranians start demanding payment in yen that will increase the value of the yen vs the dollar which will help out our balance of trade, make our exports more competative in the Japanese market, and maybe bring a few jobs back to the US. I wonder if we could get them to demand payment in yuan?
The reasoning for in your last comment seems just a little wak, Joerg. 'ugo Chavez is doing the same thing in Venezuela - are the drums beating for war with Venezuela?
Or is there another factor here. Hmmm, differences between Iran and Venezuela. Both are oil 'superpowers'. Both have mouthy leaders with dubious judgement. One has an A-bomb program.....
Joerg forgot Echelon and the industrial spying of the Amis. How else could a nation of degenerates and consanguinous mutts every make anything? Yep, FOX with Bushy McHalliburton are plotting to attack Iran and potentially start WWIV over a few hundred million yen contracts? The weak dollar is inconvenient when travelling. That is the extent of popular fixation with our currency.
What do I prefer "cheeze-eating surrender monkeys" or "strudel-sucking globenheimer monkeys" ?
uh, is this sory true ? I rejoice already what Fox news would have said if it was Sarko who was in the colimator
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
maybe german gov is seeking for some reconstruction contract and supply german nuclear tech and hardware as iran gets rid of russian scrap
All:
Iran is a sovereign state that is not at war with any other state nor is seeking a war with any other state.
This discussion thread, and similar such US & European ones, are read by Iranians - I am not the only one.
Our reactions, regardless of how we feel about the Islamic order, are very similar: "How dare they threaten us so cavlierly. Let us take all means necessary to defend and protect ourselves."
You are not fightening us by such talk, only making us more angry and more determined.
When US started threathening us in 2002, you in EU could have made an emphatic statement that you are not for war with Iran. You did not.
The only person, to my knowledge, that tried to explicitly reassure Iran was Mr. Jack Straw and he was removed from his post.
So, yes we will do our damnest to thwart you guys.
pen Name says "So, yes we will do our damnest to thwart you guys."
You say the Iranian people will do their best to thwart the US. But your only response to US attacks on the Iranian military, a legitmate military target, will be attacks on your Arab neighboors and terror attacks on the West in places like Germany. That's not a response that your German and Arab friends will find acceptable.
It's time to drop the pretensions that your nuclear program is not a threat to both the world and yourselves. Most of all yourselves because the couple of Hiroshima size nukes you produce can't destroy Israel but will guarantee the nuclear destruction of Tehran and many millions of Iranians if used. Anyone who trusts a Shiite fascist theocracy with nuclear weapons is a deluded fool.
Look son, we are not at war with your country. Once we do, you will hit us and we will hit you and not Germany.
Some Arabs states might become legitimate military tragets since US forces are based there. We have already warned them that.
As I have said before, the power to undo a nuclear-capable Iran does not exist.
And your war against us will not improve your situation in the Middle East.
And we are not Fascists because you call us, you do not know us.
And yes, we are proud to be a government of God, as opposed to your godless country.
"we are proud to be a government of God, as opposed to your godless country."
I get queazy when one side or the other invokes the name of God. That is usually a prelude to barbarism...
The ancient Rabbis, at the time of Rome, rejected Rome in all her glory and might since it was without GOd. You see, the Rabbis were not barbaric, it was Rome.
Now, you in EU are in post-Christian phase and deny the relevance of the Word of God [Jesus in your case] but your entire ethical edifice is based on the Scriptures.
It is not me or us in Iran who are barbaric, it is those who have left God behind and are now walking in a dark wood like lost children.
I fail to understand how a nuclear-armed Iran is in the best long term strategic interests of Germany. All indications are that it is.
Since this one of a continuing ever longer list of foreign policy disagreements between the US and Germany, it is time for the US to withdraw from NATO. It is obvious by the actions taken in Berlin that this would be well received. The security of Germany can be met within the context of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) and the overarching policies of the UN.
The US would continue to provide both for its own defense and like thinking allies through collations of the willing who share a common threat assessment.
A collation of the willing? Yum, I'll be there.
Seriously, though, you put it very well. I agree entirely.
@ Joe
Of course, a nuclear-armed Iran is not in the long term strategic interests of Germany.
Majority opinion in Germany, however, seems to be that bombing Iran is not going to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the long term. Air strikes would only delay Tehran.
Air strikes would also increase support for the regime, i.e. make democratic reform or revolution less likely.
It's the rally around the flag effect. Just like after 9/11.
Even talking about air strikes increases support for the mullahs.
Therefore most Germans seem to believe that air strikes now would be stupid.
Because of the dire economic situation, the Iranians might topple their own regime before it develops nukes.
Re my last point: Check out this video about the "Tomato Unrest" in Iran
http://www.current.tv/pods/international/PD06412
You guys live in a dream world, you think our system of government is some sort of dictatorship; it is not. It is an amalgam of the principles of Islam and that of Republicanism derived from Plato. The most you can claim is that our system has restricted elections - that is a valid critisim.
You think that there is a huge gap between the Iranian people and the Iranian Government; that is not so. And while we do not like government harrasing youn g people that does not mean we welcome foreign intereference in our affairs from you.
There is no "dire economic situation" in Iran. Our people are not going to overthrow the government that they defended during those terrible days of War of Sacred Defense now. That is a pipe dream.
The only way you can prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, should our leader choose to do so, is by invdaing and occupying Iran. That is yet another impossibility.
Lack of democracy, opression of women, religious intolerence, dire economic situation are characteristics of your so-called frinds: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen and a few other such places.
You in EU had a golden opportunity to regain the trust of the Iranian people and government after you helped Saddam Husein with his chemical weapons development. You had Khatami and you did not take advantage of that. Now you are day-dreaming about a cost-free solution (Iranian people overthrowing their government).
And the Americans among you are masturbating with the idea of bombing Iran; are the bombs a symbol of phallus that Americans do not have? [Wonder what they do to their women?]
I think the Americans allow their women to wear make-up and shop without being assaulted by policemen. I hear they frequently go about untented. Is there no God to stop this abhominable conduct?
So is that it? Is that what is EU policy is about: bringing freedom to wear makeup to the Iranian women?
I mean, it that why you are going to bomb us and kill the same said Iranian women and their male relatives? So that the survivors can dress like whores? Is this what this is all about?
Majority opinion in Germany, however, seems to be that bombing Iran is not going to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the long term. Air strikes would only delay Tehran.
Havent we seen majority opinion polls in Germany somewhere lately? Oh, right ZDF. Nothing in all likelihood is going to stop Iran going nuclear in the long term, if the Mullahs are committed to it philosophically and ready to disadvantage their people's well-being to arm themselves. Air strikes would only delay Tehran. All true, but the underlying question is whether a delay is worth the risk? I do not think so, but Merkel, Sarko, Brown and Blair have more information about the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure than we do. I wonder what that Iranian Revolutionary Guard general has been saying these last few months? Who knows. It seems a bit risky to the uninformed, but perhaps it might be necessary.
Air strikes would also increase support for the regime, i.e. make democratic reform or revolution less likely.
It's the rally around the flag effect. Just like after 9/11. Even talking about air strikes increases support for the mullahs. Therefore most Germans seem to believe that air strikes now would be stupid. Because of the dire economic situation, the Iranians might topple their own regime before it develops nukes.
'Struth Joerg, do you ever listen to yourself? The presupposition that the Iranian people will someday rise up against the mad Mullahs has been common-place klatsch for a quarter of a century now. Other than the university demos which periodically happen and are brutally repressed is there any indication of an objectionally verifiable sort that Iran is seething with bloody-minded revolutionaries of the non-Shia crazy type? No. Does there still exist a paramilitary organization fanatically dedicated to the Islamic Revolution which would murder thousands upon the Mullahs' command? Seems to be. Apart from the Baluchis in the north and the Arabs in the south, most of the Aryans seem content to wait it out like you propose. The salient point of the discussion is that perhaps the west can not afford the worst case scenarios of this inactivity any longer. Love the hypocrisy in the Marxist economic determinist argument as well; that is what the US has been trying to do for 25 years and Germany has been decidedly unhelpful in this regard (maybe we should have reminded Berlin that Iraqis are a semitic people and redirected your efforts).
The CIA was also surprised by democratic change in the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the USSR.
"that is what the US has been trying to do for 25 years"
Nope, your rhetoric and sanctions and support for Saddam Hussein helped the regime in Tehran. It's the rally around the flag effect.
Regurgitating your last posts conclusions and topping it off with a conclusory statement is not very convincing
"Mad Mullahs" ...?
How touching it is to see the rhetoric has not changed since 1950 when we nationalized the oil industry.
As Khomeini said:" Our sin is that we oppose them". We oppose you Jacobin fantasies and your plunder economics. That will not change.
Now, I say this again and I hope it will sink into your brains:
Iran is a nationalistic country of the Shia Muslims for teh Shia Muslims very jealous or her sovereignity. Accept us the way we are [warts & faults] or leave us alone.
GAreth Poeter on the nefarious plans of US against Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/war-against-iran-and-the-_b_63615.html
Gareth Porter has long and often corrected history as a ploemicist. He argued in print, and before Congress, that the death toll in Hue during the Tet offensive was not the result of actions taken by the Viet Cong but due to aerial bombing and indiscriminate shooting of civilians by the Marines. He was forced to retract when captured NVA documents turned up which showed detailed instructions for the communists on who and how they were to kill South Vietnamese officials.
Later Dr. Porter argued, along with Noam Chomsky, that there were no killing fields in Cambodia and that the Red Cross workers observed forced marchs of civilians into the countryside never occurred. Dr. Porter had to retract this argument when reliable documents and statements from turncoat Khmer Rouge officials, smuggled eyewitness accounts from the French Embassy staff and oddly enough NVA and USSR military observers.
I'm sure that there are articles that David Duke or Walter Duranty that are just as reliable as Gareth Porter and just as useful in an argument to cite.
Plus I do agree with the idea that Iran's government is derived from the writings of Pluto. How else to explain wax coated bombs, 40% of the population in poverty and an inflation rate of over 16%?
Iran is not a rich country.
Our government is doing what it can to alleviate poverty through subsidies on many consumables such as flour, sugar, cooking oil etc.
Any way, our people are willing to endure - what is your concern?
Brazil, India, Pakistan have higher poverty rates and the poor there are poorer than those in Iran.
No my friend, you are upset because we should not exist - you want lackeys like those whoring Arabs.
The reference was to Pluto the dog not Plato the philospher!
Using WHO supplied statistics Brazil's poverty rate is 31% and its unemployment rate is 9.6%. India's poverty rate is at 25% and its unemployment rate is 7.8%. The only Muslim nation pen Name mentioned, Pakistan, also has a lower poverty rate at 24% and a lower unemployment rate at 6.5%. All lower than Iran.
Wouldn't Iran be better off building transmission lines and transformer stations for its peaceful nuclear plants rather than rattling sabers about being a nuclear-armed power. But then I don't really expect an initiative on the next ballot advocating such a position under the current administration. Plus wouldn't it be better that the monopolies granted to the elite be ended and the resulting lower prices end the neccesity of subsidizing basics? That and the windfall prices Iran receives now for its commodities could be used to reinvest in its own economy and at least provide the faithful with security and comfort now rather than in the future?
I understood your silly remark about the sillier Disney character. So you dismiss the intellectual foundations of our form of government by reference to that. Fine & Well. I am grateful that our antagonists are intellectually too lazy to challenge us on the plain of ideas for it indicates that they have no chance of winning against us.
Here is what I know of poverty in Iran:
http://www.unsiap.or.jp/participants_work/cos03_homepages/group1/iran.htm
What you say in regards to a more efficient use of human and material resources in Iran is something that we are all aware of in Iran. All your suggestions are eminently sensible.
But would not it have been better for EU to come out against any military action against Iran? Would it not have been better for EU not to threaten us?
You mentioned "security" for Iran-
We were invaded by Russia and Turkey in WWI although we were neutral.
We were invaded and occupied in WWI by US, USSR, and UK even though we were neutral.
We were invaded by Iraq in 1980 and suffered greatly under your embargo; you wanted to destory us.
Our security concerns are profound and real. You sleep under the blanket of security that US nuclear weapons is providing you and you persune to lecture us on our security situation?
We should have left NPT in 1998 when Pakistan and India exploded their bombs. We were stupid that we did not leave then.
You can sanction us as much as you like and you can get US to bomb us. US, even if she gathers all her fleet of airplanes and rockets from all over the world cannot destroy our nuclear program. They will be causing a few hundreds of billions of damages and killing several tens of thousands of Iranians. But it will not change the situation for them, EU, or us.
We have to consider the possibility of hundreds of thousands of people being killed in a nuclear attack from Pakistan or India on Iranian cities. We have to be able to increase the cost of war to the foreign aggressors including US & NATO.
As I said before, you started on this path of confrontation thinking that we would cave in. We won't because for us the future of our country is at stake.
pen Names tough talk about the invincibility of Iran's nuclear program reminds me of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban before their regimes were destroyed.
We hear all this talk about how the US doesn't understand Iran and needs to accomadate it. I'd say considering the military balance of power the reverse is true. The regime in Tehran needs to accomadate the US or they will join Saddam and the Taliban enjoying 72 virgins in heaven.
Your tough talk and the Bush admin statements remind me of the pre-Iraq war debate.
The regime in Tehran needs to accomadate the US or they will join Saddam and the Taliban enjoying 72 virgins in heaven.
If the US attacks Iran, you will have all of the Iraq war problems multiplied by three.
When will you sign up for military service?
Both the Taliban and Baathist regimes were toppled in 3 weeks. How long do you think the Khomeini regime will last?
Do you think it is enough to topple the regime?
How come the US is still in Iraq?
Because you are concerned about terrorism.
The same with Iran. You will topple the regime in a few days and then you got another civil war and more terrorism to last for years.
Many Iranian-Americans will take revenge for you having killed their families.
I never stated that we are invincible. I am saying that in order for you to make sure that Iran will never build a nuclear bomb you have to occupy Iran. And you do not have that power.
Martin,
Your concerns are minor. The US is still occupying Europe 60+ after the war. In fact the US is currently spending more on NATO than on the Iraq occupation.
Toppling the Iranian regime is the only thing that matters. The US shouldn't attack the nuclear sites since that will create an environmental problem. Once the regime has been eliminated than negotiations over what to do with the nuclear program can commence.
On the other hand, if Israel attacks Iran they will have no choice but to exclusively attack the nuclear sites. So if I were an environmentalist I would be hoping for the US to topple the Iranian regime so Israel doesn't go creating nuclear hot zones all over Iran.
Would you like to read more?
Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers."
More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code:
If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations".
And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
Sponsor
Tips From Our Readers
- Washington Memo - A Handpicked Team for a Foreign Policy Shift - NYTimes.com
- EU Farm Aid: A Permanent Bailout
- The Middle East Will Come to Hate Obama
- Talisman Gate ???? ????????: Good News: Court returns all parliamentary privileges to Mithal al-Alusi
- I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq - washingtonpost.com
- How Ike Saved Europe a Second Time at Thanksgiving, 1945
- A Company Gives the Gift of Cleanliness - NYTimes.com
- Merkel criticises US over crisis
- How to Repair Our Relationship With Europe | The American Prospect
- The American Spectator : European Fantasies
Blogroll
Latest Comments
So do you go to Citgo instead, David? ;) To enrich Hugo Chavez, I mean. Best [...]
Don S about Obama the Atlanticist?
Oops, here is the link to Fred Barnes I mentioned [...]
Don S about Obama the Atlanticist?
Fred Barnes points out that the tilt of Obama' major cabinet appointments thus far is [...]
microgod about Obama the Atlanticist?
General James L. Jones was everywhere: Vietnam, Near East, Iraq, Afghanistan. Very [...]
David about Obama the Atlanticist?
The appointment of Susan Rice as UN ambassador is also significant. Obama has [...]
David about Obama's Wish List for Europe
The northeast is covered with Lukoil filling stations. I try to avoid them since I'm [...]
Google the Site
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.