Iran: Obama's hand about to be forced?

[Deckard]

I've been expecting this, with the new right-wing leadership in Israel no doubt deeply unhappy about Obama's carefully-does-it approach to Iran.

[from The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece)]
The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

The jailed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8005660.stm) Iranian-American journalist/spy already presented a hurdle in the path forward. Now, with Iranian elections just around the corner, few things would galvanize support for Ahmedinajad like an Israeli strike.

<cynic>Get ready for an angry Left as Obama sits on his hands until the Israeli strikes end, then refuses to condemn them.</cynic>

[BeautifulBurnout]

Read this too yesterday evening and decided to stick my fingers in my ears and go "la la la" as the prospect of it is too despicable for words.

Surely Obama can't afford to allow this to happen? It hasn't been reported anywhere else and The Times being a very pro-Israel paper, I wonder if it isn't just a bit of scare-mongering to keep the rest of us toeing the Love Israel Hate Iran party line? I sure hope that is all it is... :(

[Future Proof]

At times I seem to have noticed that Israel can be as bat-shit crazy as anyone else in the Middle East. Unequivocal support for Israel is asinine and foolish, though up until now that's where America has been. It's just a shame that if they step out of line AND we condemn the action that it won't prevent Iran from retaliating and in general, keeping things barbaric and unfathomably psychotic. My general concern however is that I don't think Obama has the ability to stop an Israeli-led strike, not without abandoning peace talks with Iran. America's going to be forced to come down on one side or the other and frankly I hope it's Iran if Israel commits a first strike.

I mean, I get it -- Ahmedinajad is a pretty crazy guy. On the flipside, I had neighbors who were Iranian for a number of years. Leaving Iran isn't out of the question if you live there and you're fed up with the nonsense. I'm sure it's not easy but the complacent none-the-less will stay, and those who don't buy into it, if they're motivated to, will leave. Bearing this in mind, careful diplomacy should be encouraged because all that Iran has been is rhetoric thus far.

I seriously wish that most of the Middle East could just be moved to a different planet. It gets exhausting to watch the unbridled hate year in and year out, while a simpleton like myself ponders what effect, if any, it will all have on my life.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

...Bearing this in mind, careful diplomacy should be encouraged because all that Iran has been is rhetoric thus far...



Roxana Saberi isn't rhetoric.



...while a simpleton like myself ponders what effect, if any, it will all have on my life.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought you were female. Again, Roxana Saberi.

[Future Proof]

Roxana Saberi isn't rhetoric.

You're right, she's not. She is a terrible and glaring example of the backwards, extremist psyche of Iran, and her situation is highly unfortunate.

However, banging the drums of war and stiff talk is not going to fix anything. Not to say that the drums of war and stiff talk don't have their uses but we have to be mindful of the fact that what we do in/with Iran will resonate to every corner of the Middle East and perhaps the Muslim world as it is today. If we do not try the avenue of diplomacy then Roxana doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning her appeal, she doesn't stand a chance in hell of extradition from Iran and she certainly doesn't stand a chance of even serving 8 years that aren't marred with physical and psychological terror in Iran's penal system. The war drums are only going to galvanize Iran against the U.S. and any chance they have to dig at us, Roxana Saberi included, will be incorporated into their retaliation.

Looking at the bigger picture, Roxana included though not emphasized, the optimal outcome over the long haul with Iran would be some sort of paradigm shift on their part. As it stands now, everything about Iran's viewpoints are absolutely whack and this galvanization that I alluded to will only guarantee that their off-kilter ways be further embraced. If we are however able to enter into open and constructive dialog with Iran, that is the best hope for Iran to turn the corner and not be so crazy with everything they do. Diplomacy means that Iran is willing to listen and ponder various alternatives to the things that they do. And if we can get there with them and if (big if) we are able to get them to mellow out a bit, consider trying different ways of governance and even become a friendlier player on the world stage, that could and likely would be an absolute watershed moment for the Middle East and our relation to it.

People are angry over the Saberi situation, still sore over Ahmedinajad's comments about Israel and the holocaust, heck many people are probably still sore over the 444 day hostage crisis from 1979. I don't blame people for this and it's quite understandable, but lining up once again to bang their heads against the same unyielding wall by now should be a lesson in futility. Without change, this broken cycle will just continue to play itself out over and over. Tomorrow is another journalist, another hostage, another crazy batch of rhetoric. Roxana Saberi is unfortunate, but what is really sad is how without fundamental change that she won't be the last display of insanity from Iran. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we should just go drop some more bombs in the Middle East. The success rate on that so far has been remarkable.

Last thing, about my gender... I'm male, though I fail to see how that matters. Why do you ask?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I wasn't asking, just seems lately the only human beings who write with such common sense (& intelligence) are female. j/k. I think.

I do believe Saberi's being used as some sort of leverage* though. To what means, I have no idea at this point. We'll just have to wait and see.


*My god, I just looked up the definition of "tool" and it means nothing as I thought it did. eeeek.

[Rog]

:pyou tool!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

AAAAND, once again, I rest my case bitches*.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30405155/



*them, not you girls. :D !








(I still don't know how to do that damn arrow thing pointing down, or up for that matter. Anyway, imagine it pointing down toward Mr. | /\/\/'s or however the hell you do his screen name inserted here): Well no one else has been focusing!

[//\/\/]

focus on iran - let's face it; it's just iraq with a different spelling.

now if saddam/iran had been/were now doing what north korea is...?

ah yes - back to the old 'been there, tried that, got whupped'. so n.k. gets another pass despite going further than saddam's iraq ever did (ie developing a not-secret nuclear programme, combined with a balistic missile programme) sheesh - bet saddam (were he still alive) wished he'd had some difficult terrain in his country...

[Future Proof]

If military and political tactics are to always follow precedents, then I have to say that the precedents set in the first half of this decade were pretty abominable and we're in for a rough stretch to come. I sincerely hope however that higher logic and intelligence are to prevail in this situation. As far as Saddam goes, he controlled Iraq for decades, gassed the Kurds, threw UN inspectors out of the country, and the list goes on and on of his inequities. A marked man in many circles virtually since he took office, he ended up being executed after being found guilty of the execution of 100+ commonfolk, a far cry from the worst of his actions but barbaric and cruel none-the-less.

So yea, Saddam had it coming. The can of karmic worms was sprung very early on and he didn't stand a chance of trying to close it again. The problem with Iraq however is that in spite of Hussein's sins the outcome that prevailed would've never occurred is the U.S. hadn't presented a string of lies on why they had to invade. The U.S. turned its back on the UN, fearmongered on every podium available, and as the lies were refuted and nothing materialized, the lies changed. First it was WMD, then it was Iraq providing shelter to Al-Quaeda, and in the end the Dubya-led White House actually had the gall to say "Yes, we got it wrong on all counts... who cares?" Well, I care and so do many others. I would've been fine invading in 1986 when chemical warfare broke loose, and I would've been fine if we invaded in 1996 after Hussein once again forced UN Inspectors out. I cannot ever be fine though with our country putting at risk of lives of its servicepeople, and the lives of average citizens in the invaded country as if they were acceptable losses. We failed abyssmally to exact justice, compassion and the protection of civil liberties to those being deprived of them.

I don't understand what's kept North Korea from getting blown to bits but if war is inevitable on that front, then let it be a multi-national effort where truth prevails at every turn. Let there be transparency from the first day, until the last bullet has been fired. But please for the love of god, if the truth isn't sufficient evidence then let nothing happen at all. No more concocted stories, no more suspicions of advancement and gain over justice. I can stomach NK making the first strike, I can't stomach however going through another war that I feel should've never happened. Hopefully a first strike on anyone's part will never happen, but the practice of wreaking havoc and bloodshed because we just feel like it has to end.

As for Iran, Iran's seen many changes in it's leadership since 1979, the Iran/Iraq war and so forth. Ahmedinajad, once again, is a frigging nutcase but I'm encouraged with what I'm seeing out of his lately. Willingness to talk, willingness to simmer down a bit. Heck, he even dropped rhetoric of the denial of the holocaust in a recent speech -- now there's some progress. I realize that while Iran's ran by him (and probably anyone else for the foreseeable future that comes from the Iran power model) that Iran's going to continue to go through multiple facets of dysfunction, and they're always going to be a little bit (ok who am I kidding, VERY...) scary. But I feel an obligation to let the people of the region sort out their own mess, rather than us do it. If they want to run around like a crazy train running off the rails, then that's their prerogative. The disenfranchised will either flee the country or they will galvanize and fight, and that's sufficient for me, though I wish that things could be different.

I feel that it's in America's best interest to let new fronts be waged within the borders they originate, and we stop picking fights. Promoting our definition of freedom isn't about forcing it upon people that don't have comparable civil rights, promoting freedom is about allowing other countries to decide how much freedom they wish to have, and allowing the people of these countries to work for the model of civil liberties that they wish to have. One pill that seems tough to swallow is that due to cultural and religious values, most countries in the Middle East desire hard and rigid codes with little personal autonomy and freedom, and fierce consequences for those who step out of line. It's what they want, and I'm ok with that. We just can't win however when we interfere with force. Even if we clean house, everyone else in the world, every major world player, every country with the same thirst for liberty, growth and reasoning, ends up despising us. And even if we were to be right, to be judged negatively by countries that stand little to no chance of turning into the horrific designs of the Middle East's worst entities is a consequence that could one day be too burdensome to bear.

My heart still breaks over the thought of Roxana Saberi, I just feel like I'm done entirely with the Middle East. Once we finally get out of Iraq, I think we just remove ourselves from the region as much as possible, encourage those that value their general welfare to think long and hard about traveling to the Middle East, and let them sort it out amongst ourselves. If we get on fantastic terms with Iran, Syria and Iraq through diplomatic and cooperative efforts then great! I'm just tired of that region's problems becoming our problems, and then watching the rest of the sane world boggle and lambaste our actions. And when we finally figure out a way to teleport people and regions to other planets, I say we offer that service freely to anyone in the Middle East that wants to take us up on the offer!

[Future Proof]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/roxana-saberi-to-be-freed_n_201437.html

I'm really glad that cooler heads have prevailed.