Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is the best treatment of the Iranian issue I have ever read, at least in public media.

In my opinion any measures seen to be punitive, such as economic embargoes, run the risk that they may generate support for the regime.

That depends on the embargo. Refusing to allow refined foreign petroleum into Iran would likely generate questions as to why the equivalent Iranian industries are so woefully underdeveloped.

Here is an article on Afghanistan which is also quite insightful.

We can never have too much FP discussion.

It also depends on the attitude of the population and how the government handles the situation.

My opinion on Iran is that the younger generation will grow up and take control given time. They are a lot less anti-western than their parents, so all we need to do is avoid annoying them or any disasters happening for 10-20 years and Iran's international relations will thaw naturally.

The IHT has the right ideas on Afghanistan.

Kilkrazy wrote:It also depends on the attitude of the population and how the government handles the situation.

My opinion on Iran is that the younger generation will grow up and take control given time. They are a lot less anti-western than their parents, so all we need to do is avoid annoying them or any disasters happening for 10-20 years and Iran's international relations will thaw naturally.

In some sense I agree, but I have a lot of faith in the capacity for the Council of Guardians to police its own membership. I suspect that it will take at least some outside intervention to push that body by the wayside. Though I in no way advocate a generalized embargo. Not only would that be ineffective, but it would strengthen China's current position as the 'permissive' world power. Though, as China becomes more of a world power, I expect it will be harder for any dissident state to classify them as a lesser evil.

We need to decide whether Iraq or Afghanishan is the more important goal, since it is obvious that trying to deal with both situations at the same time is not working. The U.S. might have been able to fight a war on two fronts at one time, but the spirit of unbridled optimism and massive industrial base that made that possible is gone.

That presumes that the west needs to be interfering at all in those countries and that military solutions are possible.

The strategic goal of attacking Afghanistan was to shut down the Taleban and Al Quaeda. While successful at first, that has now failed and we are destabilising Pakistan by pushing the extremists into their border areas. The solution to this is to get Afghanistan set up as a stable country with an operating economy, the full rule of law, etc. and this looks like a very long term goal that is not achieveable by military.

The strategic purpose of attacking Iraq was never clear, however we find ourselves again in a position which is a bigger or smaller mess and looks likely to take years to sort out.

Iraq needs the same kind of nation building as Afghanistan. It starts from a higher baseline but arguably has worse problems in terms of ethnic/religious faultines dividing the country.

The real problem is not Iran's nuclear program - Its ours!

If western nations had properly invested in nuclear power (and more recently renewables), then Iran would never have had the money to develop its own nuclear program in the first place!

The lack of money flowing into the middle east would have forced the region to either change their political and cultural outlook (as is increasingly happening in north Africa) or it would have become a hellish backwater (much of central and eastern Africa). In either case, they would not be a threat.

We are merely paying the price for our own inability to take the decisions needed to extricate ourselves from entaglement in the region.

Sorry, but North Africa is becoming increasingly Salafist: a derivative of Wahabism. If anything places like Egypt are becoming more conservative. This hostile ideology, combined with the military's dependence on fossile fuels (find me an alternative to the turbine engine) pretty much binds us to the ME.

I admit that for aircraft (only), there is no current option that beats the turbine. I don't agree that its the military need for fuel that's at issue, though. Military consumption is tiny compared to the civilian uses in transport, power generation and heating.

As for north Africa, hostile ideologies thrive on causes-celebre. A more determined approach to solve the Israeli and Kashmiri crises would dampen down enthusiasm for extremist views.

Your post seems to assume (and I apologise if I am wrong) that the movement towards Wahabism/Salafism is endogenous in origin, destined to grow, irrevocably hostile to western interests, and amenable only to military intervention, which supposedly depends on widespread use of jet aircraft.

I think all of these assumptions can be challenged, offering a variety of different approaches to the problem.

1. Endogeny
By which I mean that Arabs just decided to become extremist anti-westerners out of their own head. There is no doubt that previous western intervention in Arab countries -- the establishment and support of Israel, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the placement of western troops in Saudi Arabia and other interventions -- has helped fuel Arab extremism.

2. Inevitable growth
It seems unlikely that one creed of Islam, especially an extreme one, can overwhelm all others. Recent BBC reports from Afghanistan and Iraq indicate that the moderate populace, who are the majority, are increasingly hostile to the extremist elements carrying on the insurgency against the CotW allies.

3. Irrevocable hostility
Arab nations have been pro and anti west before now. International affairs goes through slow changes. Relations can be thawed between enemies if the right kind of diplomacy is carried out.

4. Amenable only to military intervention
I think the progress of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to the improved relations with Libya show that to be wrong.

5. Turbines fuelled by kerosene as opposed to an alternative fuel such as hydrogen are only really necessary for high performance aircraft, in other words jet fighters, and helicopters. Most aircraft and vehicles can be run on alternative fuels or can be substituted by different technologies such as light unmanned drones or zeppelin type craft.

Jet fighters are the least useful kind of aircraft for the sort of low-intensity, insurgency warfare that the west mostly finds itself in nowadays.

The needs of the military for fuel could be much more easily met if more attention was paid to reducing civilian demand for fuel by improvements in public transport and energy efficiency in the home and in cars.

Kilkrazy wrote:Your post seems to assume (and I apologise if I am wrong) that the movement towards Wahabism/Salafism is endogenous in origin, destined to grow, irrevocably hostile to western interests, and amenable only to military intervention, which supposedly depends on widespread use of jet aircraft.

Ah, I see your point. I did not mean to infer that Islamist extremism (as shorthand for wahabi/salafi thought) was somehow endemically opposed to Western ideology.

Kilkrazy wrote:
1. Endogeny
By which I mean that Arabs just decided to become extremist anti-westerners out of their own head. There is no doubt that previous western intervention in Arab countries -- the establishment and support of Israel, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the placement of western troops in Saudi Arabia and other interventions -- has helped fuel Arab extremism.

I agree. However, it is very problematic to assume that some retraction from the global system might remove the US from culpability.

Kilkrazy wrote:
2. Inevitable growth
It seems unlikely that one creed of Islam, especially an extreme one, can overwhelm all others. Recent BBC reports from Afghanistan and Iraq indicate that the moderate populace, who are the majority, are increasingly hostile to the extremist elements carrying on the insurgency against the CotW allies.

True. But it often does not matter who has majority, but who has control. The last 8 years in US politics were not categorized by majority support for Neocon projects, yet they went forward. This is even more pronounced in places like Iran, with their trust in institutions like the Council of Guardians.

Kilkrazy wrote:
3. Irrevocable hostility
Arab nations have been pro and anti west before now. International affairs goes through slow changes. Relations can be thawed between enemies if the right kind of diplomacy is carried out.

I agree.

Kilkrazy wrote:
4. Amenable only to military intervention
I think the progress of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to the improved relations with Libya show that to be wrong.

I agree, again.

Kilkrazy wrote:
5. Turbines fuelled by kerosene as opposed to an alternative fuel such as hydrogen are only really necessary for high performance aircraft, in other words jet fighters, and helicopters. Most aircraft and vehicles can be run on alternative fuels or can be substituted by different technologies such as light unmanned drones or zeppelin type craft.

Jet fighters are the least useful kind of aircraft for the sort of low-intensity, insurgency warfare that the west mostly finds itself in nowadays.

This is true, in part. High performance aircraft might be useless in fighting asymmetric conflicts, but they are VERY useful in preventing conventional combat. Indeed, much of the reason behind America's ability to avoid pitched battles with nations like Iran lies in our massive conventional superiority.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The needs of the military for fuel could be much more easily met if more attention was paid to reducing civilian demand for fuel by improvements in public transport and energy efficiency in the home and in cars.

True, but when military concerns become divorced from economic ones there is little reason for dissident governments to stray away from embargo tactics. Seriously impeding military capacity.

I think of his bullet points, the following two were the strongest;

Support Iran's democratic opposition. Expand covert assistance to responsible Iranian dissident groups that seek to contest the clerics' authority.

Use Baghdad to challenge Teheran. Should Iraq stabilize, use this Shi'ite-dominated state to challenge Iran's model of political and economic development to promote regime change.



The baby boom-erang (Hitchens) is all we need to wait for. Keep encouraging the youth with pressure from a self-ruled democratic muslim country next door...

AgeOfEgos wrote:I think of his bullet points, the following two were the strongest;

Support Iran's democratic opposition. Expand covert assistance to responsible Iranian dissident groups that seek to contest the clerics' authority.

Use Baghdad to challenge Teheran. Should Iraq stabilize, use this Shi'ite-dominated state to challenge Iran's model of political and economic development to promote regime change.



The baby boom-erang (Hitchens) is all we need to wait for. Keep encouraging the youth with pressure from a self-ruled democratic muslim country next door...

Maybe I'm the one idiot who doesn't catch your referrence or the meaning of that chart, but I think some explanation is due. Thanks in advance.

Iranian “baby boomerang”, or the children born in replacement of the 80s massacres, are now in the majority and largely pro-Western. It's well documented that Iranian youth as a majority largely detest the cleric regime. The chart simply shows how large of an opinion they will soon have.

Thanks. If what you say is true, it would be really good news but I'll withold judgement until it comes true. Muslims, especially Arabs tend to change there minds at a moment's notice for no clear reason.

The only reason that Muslim/Arab/Other motivation is unclear is that we (the West) have not given it proper consideration. There is a logic to everything, even if that logic is not immediately comparable to your own.

Or the logic is something you desire. Quite often we mistake perfectly clear logic because it is unbelievable to ourselves/our worldview.

True, though I tend to think there is more commonality in cross-civilization thinking than difference.

We all have the same core psychological makeup.

Its like the post bemoaning the borders of nations defined almost always by conquest. To a Christian or those in current Western Civilization, this is a bad thing-writing across the globe Man’s penchant to kill Man.

However, to a Roman, this is not only the Right Way, but also the Natural and only way these things could be decided. The strong conquer the weak. Always.

Two different world views.

dogma wrote:This is the best treatment of the Iranian issue I have ever read, at least in public media.

Hmm , with such 'solutions' as quote "sowing nuclear fear" and "Squeeze Iran's economy" and "Use Baghdad to challenge Teheran" I am glad the monkey who wrote that article is a former advisor rather than a current one.

For a start you dont deal with a militant government by making its populace poor, empoverished Arabs are a fertile recruiting ground. The US should not be 'using' Baghdad to destabilise further Arab nations, it will only backfire and proxy discord between neighbouring regimes. One of the benefits of removing Saddam to all surrounding nations (except Israel) is that the senseless hostilities between Iran and Iraq can be adressed. Before Sadddams gambits the Iranian-Iraqi borders were not overtly hostile.

As far as "Reinforce this point with a US/NATO security guarantee to Israel: A nuclear attack on the Jewish state will result in Iran's extinction." Yeh, nuclear war, great idea. Dragging NATO in on Middle East nuclear escalation is even worse idea. The Uk France and Germany are not part of this misadventure thankyou.

Iran wants nukes because it is already a nuclear bullseye, not to become one, it has been one since Dimona started producing nukes , if not before. I wonder which newspaper comes up with these vile doctrines ahh: Jerusalem post.

Iran , if it is a nuclear bulls-eye, is so because of its constant threats to bomb Israel back to the Stone Age. Ahmadabbadoobadonijhad won't go five minutes without spouting something about nuking Israel or espousing the genocide of "western zionists". They're in a bad position by their own doing.

True that. Its like Chavez constantly harping about the US and our supposed plans to attack him. Its like, "er..what...who..Venezuela? don't we buy oil and hats from them what are they foaming at the mouth about? We want to attack them..er why what country again?"

Frazzled wrote:True that. Its like Chavez constantly harping about the US and our suposed plans to attack him. Its like, "er..what...who..Venezuela? don't we buy oil and hats from them what are they foaming at the mouth about...?"

Is that a sarcastic joke?

The US government has financially backed at least one coup against him.

That is Chavez's statement anyway.

Generally we're successful in our Latin American coups.

Keep in mind that I specified public media. Major press publications have almost no grounding in the realities of FP. As such, many of his points are misplaced. Some, however, are not too far off base.

Orlanth wrote:
Hmm , with such 'solutions' as quote "sowing nuclear fear" and "Squeeze Iran's economy" and "Use Baghdad to challenge Teheran" I am glad the monkey who wrote that article is a former advisor rather than a current one.

'Sowing nuclear fear' as he puts it isn't nearly so bad as the unfortunate nomenclature. He's essentially advocating a negative PR campaign on nuclear energy. His approach to the campaign is somewhat odd, but certain issues like the incredibly low reserves of easily mined Uranium, could be brought to light. Similarly, using Baghdad to challenge Tehran isn't so bad an idea as it might seem. Certainly there should be no aggression between the two states, but having a prosperous pro-America government right next door will certainly ferment some political discord. Economic sanctions, however, will be increasingly ineffective. China, Russia, and India will make certain of that.

Orlanth wrote:
For a start you dont deal with a militant government by making its populace poor, empoverished Arabs are a fertile recruiting ground. The US should not be 'using' Baghdad to destabilise further Arab nations, it will only backfire and proxy discord between neighbouring regimes. One of the benefits of removing Saddam to all surrounding nations (except Israel) is that the senseless hostilities between Iran and Iraq can be adressed. Before Sadddams gambits the Iranian-Iraqi borders were not overtly hostile.

Again, to my mind the author was advocating the use of a prosperous Iraq as a means of sowing discord. Not some kind of direct militarist policy.

Orlanth wrote:
As far as "Reinforce this point with a US/NATO security guarantee to Israel: A nuclear attack on the Jewish state will result in Iran's extinction." Yeh, nuclear war, great idea. Dragging NATO in on Middle East nuclear escalation is even worse idea. The Uk France and Germany are not part of this misadventure thankyou.

Agreed. This point is essentially on the table by default regardless of any additional effort to place it there. There is no need to push it farther towards the center of negotiations.

Orlanth wrote:
Iran wants nukes because it is already a nuclear bullseye, not to become one, it has been one since Dimona started producing nukes , if not before. I wonder which newspaper comes up with these vile doctrines ahh: Jerusalem post.

Actually I was surprised at how mild the article's call for force was, given its origins.

dogma wrote:Keep in mind that I specified public media. Major press publications have almost no grounding in the realities of FP. As such, many of his points are misplaced. Some, however, are not too far off base.

Disclaimer noted, but to be 'as intelligent as this man' you have to account for all his doctrines.

Orlanth wrote:
Hmm , with such 'solutions' as quote "sowing nuclear fear" and "Squeeze Iran's economy" and "Use Baghdad to challenge Teheran" I am glad the monkey who wrote that article is a former advisor rather than a current one.

dogma wrote:
'Sowing nuclear fear' as he puts it isn't nearly so bad as the unfortunate nomenclature. He's essentially advocating a negative PR campaign on nuclear energy.

Understood, but the idea that Arabs should be told all the dangers of having a nuclear program, but other nations should not. if nuclear energy is inherently unsafe, it is unsafe to all. Does the article writer envision mounting an 'awareness' campaign in other countries with nuclear programs? In the USA, Europe, Russia, or in israel? If not why not, because only Arabs need be told to fear nuclear energy?

Now propoganda is a valuable tool, but US backed propoganda stating that nuclear energy is unsafe is idiotic, due to the source. This strategy can only backfire.

dogma wrote:Similarly, using Baghdad to challenge Tehran isn't so bad an idea as it might seem. Certainly there should be no aggression between the two states, but having a prosperous pro-America government right next door will certainly ferment some political discord.

Ok. So Iraq is prosperous and pro-american. I see two problems right there.
Also the countries have been involved in a drawn out and brutal war in living memory. No using Baghdad to challenge vTehran can only mean one thing, divide and rule. The US government knows tihs is no way forward, only one nation profits from trying to get the US government to adopt a divide and rule strategy for the Middle East. Any guesses?

dogma wrote:
Economic sanctions, however, will be increasingly ineffective. China, Russia, and India will make certain of that.

I remember how Iran declared its nuclear program the same week Bush promised pre-emptive strikes against countries producing WMD's as a matter of public policy. There were also some noises from beijing at the time. I cannot find the links immediately but I remember noting all three at the same time, not all with equal billing in the press.
I strongly suspect that China supported Tehran on this issue, mainly on the principle of directly challenging Washington on an issue where they had been blatantly hawkish.
The USA reacts as if it were the only superpower, this might have been true in 1990, it is not true today. From time to time Beijing shows its muscle, but it finds itself in a better postion by not being so overt about it. They are no fools.
It looked to me like a message.
Russian and India might cooperate over Iran, they might not. But don't think China will dance to your tune.

dogma wrote:
Again, to my mind the author was advocating the use of a prosperous Iraq as a means of sowing discord. Not some kind of direct militarist policy.

Ok, what is this idiot smoking.

dogma wrote:
Actually I was surprised at how mild the article's call for force was, given its origins.

If that was mild maybe I am not cynical enough regarding my opinions of Zionist press.

The main problem is that all politics is local.

Barack Obama went great guns about how he would resolve the Iranian crisis by meeting with Ahmedinajid without pre-conditions - yet funnily when he addressed a major Jewish lobby group on the campaign trail this turned into 'not taking military options off the table'.

Ahmedinajid has similar issues - he's many things (and more than a little crazy is probably one of them) but he's not stupid. He remains in power as long as he doesn't piss off the hard line clerics, so he has to keep railing against Israel and the West whether he genuinely believes its in his and Iran's best interest or not.

What it needs is for someone to ignore the posturing. Iran isn't going to sit down and reasonably negotiate with anyone who comes out with comments about military action and why would they? America wouldn't bargain under threat and rightly so. Similarly its too easy for people to listen to anti-western rhetoric and say 'oh well, there's no point negotiating'.

The only way that we'll get anywhere is to be the reasonable one. To make the first move. To go to Iran and say "Let's talk, let's be grown up about it. Let's try and resolve our differences."

But then, both candidates know that nothing short of instant world peace and they would be destroyed domestically by idiots and rabble rousers from the political right and the religious nutballs - so I'm not holding my breath that reason will prevail...