I'm getting a lot of mixed messages from Iran's actions. Originally I believed the theory that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a religous nutcase who wanted to pick a fight with the west in hopes of bringing the "12th Iman" back to earth. However, if this was the case then why return the British sailors?

It seems now that he was just testing the west to see how they would respond to such a provication. The response: Europe hides under a pillow and refuses to help (big shock there).

Side effect: oil prices shoot up which helps keep Iran weak economy afloat a bit longer. If oil prices drop he is SCREWED. Will he pull stunts like this every 4-6 weeks to keep oil prices up?

So, what is next? He has confirmed no one will stop him (hmmm, Hitler/Poland?) so what's next? Full-scale invasion into Iraq or more little puddle splashes? Is Iran actively planning with Syria/lebanon to attack Israel?

Thoughts anyone?

-Blast

Iran and Iraq are the only dominately Shiite nations in the middle east the rest are predominately Sunni, including Syria. Likewise, Syria is a relatively secular nation, in the same way Iraq was, Iran is a Theocracy. Therefore, Iran and Syria aren't exactly prime material for bosum buddies. Lebanon is an extremely weak state, the government hardly controls its own territory, if at all. The idea of Lebanon invading another country in any meaningful way is impossible. Meanwhile, Israel's defensive forces and air power have been demonstrated to be far superior to other countries in the region. I doubt we'll see a large scale war erupt between Iran, Syria or Israel. Most likely we'll see a continuation of funding for groups like Hezbollah and suicide attacks on relatively soft targets.

Now escalation to the point where a war between the United States and Iran seem inevitable is possible. But thats a war we don't really want to enter, the armed forces are just far to stressed from the war in Iraq as it is. Entering into another large scale conflict just isn't currently sustainable.

Extremely religious, but not a nut. By our standards, "crazy" becuase his wold view is fairly alien to our own in the West, but consistant. This gives him good PR at home and abroad, but I think he blinked. Three carrier groups within a few days steaming time and some of the boys from Whitman are playing games at Diego again. The Brits are moving ships in as well. And they torqued off everyone with that stunt, even the Russians and ChiComs. He doesn't think like we do, but he's not stupid, now is not the time to play rough.

Remember, Hitler was Time's "Man of the Year" once for not only pulling Germany out of a thier part of the depression, but for being "reasonable" by backing Chamberlain into a corner and winning the staring contest.

As for Iran's connection to the Lebenon/Hezbollahstan mess and Syria, there are layers upon layers and could fill volumes.

Keep in mind that Iran is still being needlessly backed into a corner by the US. Most informed sources believe the reason for taking the brits was to send the US/UK a message that they can push back and to possibly work out a trade for the 5 Iranians captured (inside a diplomatic mission within Iraq) by US forces. Not necessarily an immediate trade mind you, that would make it too obvious. But I wouldn't be surprised if the captured Iranians are released (with little media attention) in the coming weeks or maybe a month or two. It was also a well manuvered publicity event to make the Iranian government look benevolent, flexible, etc. In contrast to the secret prisons and rendition program run by the US, this capture and release makes the Iranians look like the red cross. There's a lot more to even this story i'm sure, but the complexity of this one event is a great example that nothing happening in the middle east right now is simple. And it surely can't be summed up in a 5 minute sound bite on CNN, Fox, ABC, etc. The US mainstream media is atrocious. In my opinion the story getting the most attention recently shouldn't have been about the 15 sailors, but about the head of Iran's central bank announcing that they are planning to stop pricing their oil in US dollars. They would be the first major oil producing country to do so in over 30 years (besides Iraq in 2003). Thats what we should really be worried about.

Actually, Syria and Iran have a possitive working relationship. Now, that isn't to say that if the the US and much of Europe were to fall off the face Earth they might not be looking to stab eachother in the back, right now, they are very cozy with each, to the point of exchange programs for their war colleges and no-visa-needed for visiting.

Not as strong a connection as the US and most of NATO or Japan, but similiar to say US and the Saudis or the French. They do have mutual defense treaties- I guess that many US troops in Iraq sorta spooked them. Oh, the stuff the western media (US AND Europe) just sorta glossed over about 20, 24 months ago.

A couple of points/counterpoints:

* I dont think Iran's economy is all that weak. They are the 3rd or 4th largest oil producer in the world, and have Russia and China as their biggest customers.

* Yes, they do look like the Red Cross after handing back the British soldiers, and that was certainly their intent on that issue.

* The Brits may very well have been in Iran's territorial waters. This border area has been an issue of contention for a long time.

* The Iranians have been warning the world for a few years that they are switching their oil exchange over to the Euro, and since then, the US began jumping all over Iran's nuclear program, trying to drum up support in the media, which no longer investigates for themselves, they just regurgitate what the government tells them.

* Iran's president is not a nut case in the sense that Kim Jong Il is a nut case. Why are there no reports that the US is planning to attack N. Korea's nuclear capability? They already have nukes, and have tested them!! They are much more of a threat to our security than Iran, so why would we not attack them? Because they have no resources to exploit once we "free the Korean people" from this regime. AN attack on Iran is much more about money and oil (Iraq war) than it is about security or terrorism. Most experts agree that Iran is 10 years away from producing an nuke anyway. Meanwhile, N. Korea is lobbing missiles into the Sea of Japan, and could possibly hit targets on our west coast.

I dont want to sound like I'm in Iran's corner here, but, as with all political moves made by our government, we have to ask "Who benefits?" from a given conflict. Government contractors and oil companies (who have lots of friends and investors in D.C.)are making money hand over fist in Iraq at the cost of the lives of our soldiers, and the administration has promised that this is going to be a long war, and refuses to pull out. To quote Orwell... "the war isn't meant to be won or lost, it's meant to be continous".

Heroin production in Afghanistan has exploded since we took over, largely because the CIA uses drug money to fund arms sales and covert operations in places they aren't supposed to be doing business, and cannot put these items as a line item on any budget that uses tax dollars or is overseen by any committee.

At the risk of making this more political and personal than is generally welcome here.....


>I dont think Iran's economy is all that weak.

When you can't buy squat on the open market that might have military purposes, any heavy machinery or machine tools and most raw materials have to be homemade or smuggled in. Thier foreign bank accounts are frozen as a result of this and their thumbing their nose to the IAEA. And thier domestic market sucks- thier laws radically restrict legal importation of consumer and commercial goods, putting them in about the same place Cuba is. I don't care how much oil they are sitting on, when the money isn't going around and around inside your borders, and the money you are getting from outside your borders has the black market markup, you aren't healthy.

And Russians are mostly paying in credit and rubles, not Euros, not Dollars.

That being said, I never brought up thier economy.

>* The Brits may very well have been in Iran's territorial

By internationally recognized treaty, the information that the Iranians provided puts them comfortably within Iraqi waters. By all rights, the skipper of the British frigate could have openned fire as per the UN order that authorizes Operation Sea Dragon and those forces that are carrying it out, as the IRGC-N vessels were OUT of thier waters and were interfering with an inspection authorized and mandated by international and Iraqi law.

>Why are there no reports that the US is planning to attack N. >Korea's nuclear capability? They already have nukes, and have

Uhm, that's just because you've not been listening. Such plans do exist, and have existed for over 30 years when Mr. Kim's dad started working on nukes.

Look, I'm about to probably pee in people's cornflakes, but I'll bet any sum of money you'd care to match that somewhere in the bowels of the Defense Department there are plans for targeting places like London, Berlin, Paris and Rihyad with nuclear weapons. Contingency plans are written up, reviewed at a regular interval to be updated, and then put back into the files. And they exist. Big deal. Contingency planning is what most of us do here.

If you want to make hay out of this, then it should be about the news media talking about it like it is a surprise, or the fact that the average person is surprised when it should be obvious.

>Meanwhile, N. Korea is lobbing missiles into the Sea of Japan,
>and could possibly hit targets on our west coast.

North Korea is at least making a pretense of negotiation. Iran isn't. Negotiation looks better on Sheep TV than targeting information does because to the average peon war is a "bad thing" and that's all their little brains can manage. As I said, but will restate a little more clearly, if you don't think we've got plans to reduce Korea a lot of mountains and collection of parking lots despite it being a given that the Japanese will protest the fall out, you're not paying attention.

>I dont want to sound like I'm in Iran's corner here, but, as
>with all political moves made by our government, we have to ask

As opposed to Iran's economic interests and political moves?

>Heroin production in Afghanistan has exploded since we took >over, largely because the CIA uses drug money to fund arms sales

We've been hearing that crock of crap for 40 years in reference to operations on three continents. To anyone who makes that claim, I invite them to bring forth evidence that is capable of passing the requirements for a court of law. And not once have any of the whiners ever been able to trace the CIA to black market sales. Yes, heroine WAS purchased from the hill peoples of South East Asian, and it was sold to European pharma companies. And guess what Skippy, that information has been reported, as per US law, to intelligence committees of the house and senate. Just like the Kennedys and Shrub, too many people watch too many movies while not having enough of a clue.

Ironraven...thanks for speaking out.

Anyone who thinks we don;t have contingency plans to take care of any conceivable enemy hasn;t just been "not paying attention"....they've been oblivious to reality. What do you think they do in the Pentagon all day?

It's nice to come in here and hear people talk about "the U.S.", as if "those people" are some distant country we can criticise or complain about at will. "They" are us....as in WE. And WE are not provoking anyone right now...WE are responding to provocation. Reality really isn;t so distant a thing that we can;t see it. We just have to wait until the smoke clears or stay away from those who are blowing it. I'll give credit where it's due Diablo. At least you said "our government".... I can live with that. I can;t buy the rest of the statement though.

Here's a funny thought...brought up recently by a famous syndicated columnist: there are "many" here in America yammering about Iraq and our war on terror...wanting to pull troops here and there....moaning and crying about every move we make to protect ourselves.... pretending to be on the side of the soldiers risking their lives for whatever we send them to do. The same people are now yammering and whinning because they want to send troops to Darfur. Here's a novel idea! Let's pull our fighting forces out of where we need them most and send them.....where we need them least!

Stay away from the smoke.

"The US" is easier than saying "The power holders within the US government," or just "the US government." I thought that's what we were discussing here, the actions of governments, not the majority of individuals living in those nations who are virtually powerless to control those entities. Global politics is global politics. I, for one, do not look upon the US government more or less favorably than any other. Once you look past the facade they all work quite similarly.

http://copvcia.com/my_case_is.shtml