Strange.  My views on the subject track your a great deal, yet I can't help but feel much of this piece is just scare-mongering.  For instance, you write It's a delusion to believe that Iran's program is for civilian purposes , "It's a delusion to believe that Iran's program is for civilian purposes only...," but you fail to explain this.  It has apparently reached the status of an unquestionable truth, like "the media is liberal," "democrats are weak on defense," or "Iraq has weapons of mass distruction."

Additionally, you say "The dangers of an Iranian bomb are clear."  But are they?  Isn't the possibility that other countries would build a bomb there anyway?  Iran's conventional force far outweighs Saudi Arabia's, so the Saudis should already have an earnest desire for a balancing weapon.  As for Egypt, they are in no way directly threatened by Iran.  Their only competition would be for influence in the region, in which case building a bomb should have pretty much as much value to then whether or not Iran has one.  Anyway, Egypt has lived next to a high-strung nuclear power for decades without building a bomb. 

As for the "fatal blow" to non-proliferation, I think you might be closing that door a bit late.  I suspect the fatal blow was struck by Israel, or India, or Pakistan, or North Korea, or A.Q. Khan.  Hostility toward Iran won't salvage that.   

Also, you say that Iran having the bomb "could deter the United States and others from responding to Iranian aggression."  Setting asside the fact that Iran has not launched a war in a century, why would that be.  The imbalance between US and Iranian conventional forces is so extreme that we would not need to fully commit to block an Iranian invasion of any country.  For instance, we were able to do significant damage to Iran in the 1980's war simply by giving Iraq satellite data.  Also, we fought a low-level war with the USSR for decades, how could be possibly be prevented from making any similar necessary moves against Iran?

And, of course, you destroy your credibility by asking, "do we really want to run the risk of them passing nuclear materials or even a weapon on to al Qaeda?"  The idea that the world's leading Shi'ite nation would hand its most powerful weapon over to a fringe group that has sworn death to all Shi'ites is absurd on the face of it.  Any reference to such a thing without a massive explanation of why such a possibility is credible is scare-mongering, pure and simple.

As for your talk of sanctions, you have not explained how to make them credible without the support of the entire world.  You have tacitly accepted that without Chinese and Indian support, we cannot cut off Iran's oil sales.  So we are left with ending US and European investment in Iran.  But Iran has done fine without US investment for 25 years.  So you are just advocating that Europe alone cut off investment.  But Iran has its own petroleum sector, and the Chinese industry is growing fast.  With Chinese, and especially with Russian help, Iran could do just fine without European investment.  So your sanctions look pretty weak.

All in all, you seem to be trying to scare your readers, but without offering any real solutions.  

Offer them a better deal: full membership of WTO, end to US sanctions, US opposition for any Israeli racist settler colonies beyond the 1967 borders (i.e. removal of the 100,000s of thousands of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem), forcing Israel into the non-proliferation regime, abandoning the idea of permanent bases in Iraq, long term possible entry for Iran into the European Economic Area/ EU customs union like Turkey, a settlement of pre-1979 claims and full diplomatic relations, in return for Iran abandoning neuclear research and permanent full on-site inspections etc by US-EU teams with gendarm powers (reciprocated, if they like, with Iranian investigations of the nuclear sites of the EU non-nuclear powers e.g. Germany).

So far the EU and US have offered little. They are not serious about making the sort of political and economic offer the Iranians would consider worthwhile to abandon their nuclear ambitions. But the US prefers forcing the palestinians to accept Israeli settlements, maintaining Israeli regional hegemony, and lack of integration of Iran into existing forms of global governance to really trying to reduce Iran's incentives to get the bomb. Hence the farce of meaningless and ambiguous "expanded economic and diplomatic ties", the rush to say "diplomacy had run its course", and the steps, slow or quick, to war.

Sure they can. Israel is entirely dependent on US and EU policies to maintain its colonisation of the Palestinians. Eisenhower forced that 'sovereign state' to abandon its settler colonies once. You could make the same point with Carter. The US can certainly do it again, if its serious about trying to reduce Iran's incentives to get the bomb.

This is an odd claim to make in a post about Iran. It's a sovereign state too, and US and EU policies, including policies toward other states, are trying to affect its behaviour.

Nice piece Ivo. this problem has us in a pickle, no doubt about it and your article is a thoughtful contribution. However, I don't think you can rule out a strike. all options must remain on the table, if only to give us leverage.
On the terrorism issue, i think the point is not necessarily that Iran will deliberately transfer but could do so because of theft and corruption, etc. so Ivo's point is still valid.

Ivo:  Ahmadinejad has the West by the balls.

Thanks to Bush's Iraqi debacle, the US can't threaten an invasion and nothing else counts: Sanctions and even bombs will only make the nut jobs in Tehran even stronger.

Comparing oil-rich Iran to impoverished NK is not being serious.  Like China will endanger its prosperity so that Iran doesn't get a nuke (which it will anyway) while Pakistan got one with only a slap on the wrist from Washington. Yes, sure.

Bush put Ahmadinejad in the driver's seat,  but people like Ivo want to believe we can shove him to the back of the bus by talking tough and slapping sanctions. Dream on!

While Iran won't cave in? Easy.  It's surrounded by Pakistan, Russia, the US on both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq) and, within a short range, Israel, all of which have nukes.

PS  a technical mistake you made you might want to correct. YOu say it's Iran's choice to reintegrate the international community and preserve its security, etc.  Not true. The US refuses to grant Iran any security guarantees (even if it denukes) short of regime change.  The US still calls Iran part of the axis of evil. So would you care to clarify your statement?

Has it occurred to you that the US persistent refusal to normalize relations with Iran might be the main source of its paranoia? 

I'd like to commend Weasel on his thorough going over of Daalder and Gordon's typically myopic and dangerous take on the Iranian nuclear question. The most significant thing revealed about Daalder and which Weasel destroys is his innate establishment fear of countries with no record of invading other countries suddenly becoming hyper-aggressive. Though with the U.S. military machine on its border the prediction might turn out be prescient. Daalder sadly represents a typical world view that is delusional in its insistence on maintaining the ruse that the U.S. is an entirely neutral player, sitting atop its mountain of nuclear warheads with Soloman-like wisdom interested only in peace and democracy. I posted my own rant in the reader's blog section entitled "Whither Phase II? Blame It On Iran" of which the following has been excerpted:

"......Never mind about the fact that Iran has a right under international law to nuclear power. Forget that the boys in the nuke club have absolutely no intention of maintaining their obligations under the NPT and yet seem fit to threaten Iran with lethal force if they do! Baloney! Who cares? Stop harping on all this history stuff. You know that nasty little business about a CIA/British coup installing the Shah when their democratically elected leader suggested that Iran should have control over its oil. Forget that in Iran there is a healthy, public debate over whether to pursue nuclear weapons while all the rest of us WMD holders developed our weapons in total secrecy, even from our own citizens. Forget the talk of Iran being surrounded by nuclear tipped missiles. If you don't put a sock in it with this whining about how Israel made a huge display of how their purchase of the latest fighter bombers from the U.S. can, just coincidently you understand, fly missions to and from as far away as Iran, I'm going to force you to listen to a Bush radio address. So what if they're nervous because they have watched how the U.S. enthusiastically supported Iraq's initiation of a bloody war with Iran that killed millions. Sorry, your take on the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi reactor actually jump starting their nuclear weapons program doesn't fly with me. To heck with the U.S. being the biggest arms merchant in the world. I've had it with all of your harping on the U.S.'s insistence on achieving "Full Spectrum Dominance" over the rest of the world and how that increases the likelihood of more states wanting to protect themselves from the threat of U.S. aggression. That line of thinking is twisted. I guess we should all blame America first, right? Will you shut up about U.S. space based weapons on the drawing boards that are fueling an arms race with China and Russia? Forget that the mullahs might be antsy over the U.S. attacking Iraq, which didn't have nukes. Phooey! We're not attacking North Korea, a far more dangerous regime? What's your point? Are you suggesting it's because they have a few bombs? We're not scared of that Kim dude! We have priorities. Forget all this blather about sanctions and/or military strikes setting back the democracy movement in Iran. We know something about sanctions, buddy. Look, killing 500,000 children in Iraq under the sanctions regime and weakening the opposition to Saddam "was worth it". And we sic predators with cameras and missiles on whom we please, mister. Sorry! I can't hear you! I'm not listening to all of this quaking in the boots stuff about how if we lob a little missile into Iran they might make our lives a living hell in Iraq and the rest of the region, the likes of which will have us longing achingly for the good old days of the early occupation, okay? And we've had oil shocks before. I'm not worried about oil prices skyrocketing. Forget about IAEA and their useless inspections. So what if they were right about Iraq and were the one mechanism that could have averted a costly and pointless war. I'm sorry but inspections put me to sleep. Don't bore me with talk of diplomacy and reasoned, steady engagement with our adversaries. Are you kidding? We're talking about the Iranians! They take hostages!! They're not democratic! They don't even speak Arabic for crying out loud! They can't be reasoned with! If you trot out your tired rant about how many murderous regimes (Saddam being a fave) we not only "reasoned" with but kept in guns and hookers for decades I'm going to blow a gasket. I'm serious.

Martin D

This article is unmitigated drivel.  Specifically:

"even those most committed to a diplomatic solution with Iran now accept that diplomacy has run its course, and the time for decision and action has arrived."

Nonsense. The Iranians are five years away from a bomb. Secondly, as the Iranian envoy to the IAEA has pointed out in an interview recently, the seals were broken only to resume enrichment research. Everything is STILL under IAEA video cameras.

So where is the "crisis"?  This is propaganda, nothing more.

" It's a delusion to believe that Iran's program is for civilian purposes only and that allowing Iran to master nuclear enrichment is therefore no big deal. Given Iran's long track record of hiding and lying about important aspects of its nuclear program, allowing it to develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities -- even under an international inspection regime -- would remove the most important technical barrier to its acquiring nuclear weapons and leave the decision of going nuclear entirely in the hands of Ahmadinejad's radical Islamist government. That is an unacceptable risk."

To whom? Israel? That is the only party at risk from a nuclear Iran - and since Iran would NEVER preemptively attack Israel with nuclear weapons as long as the US - with its thousands of weapons - not to mention Israel's nuclear-equipped cruise missle submarines in the Gulf - is Israel's defender, the entire concept is nonsense.

Iran engaged in hidden nuclear research for PRECISELY the reason that their enemies would engage in the exact logic this article does. They also did for the precise reason that ISRAEL did the exact same thing. Notice how Israel's nuclear program is not mentioned anywhere here? Exactly WHY does Israel need in excess of 200 nuclear weapons to DEFEND itself?

"Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran would represent a major threat to regional and global security. It could deter the United States and others from responding to Iranian aggression or to Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. And given the messianic streak of Tehran's current leaders, do we really want to run the risk of them passing nuclear materials or even a weapon on to al Qaeda?"

This, too, is utter drivel. How can Iran's one or two nuclear weapons possibly deter the United States - with thousands of nuclear weapons and more than enough conventional military power to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in any event - in the event of unprovoked Iranian territorial expansion - let alone an attack on Israel? In the first place, Iran has indicated NO desire to expand its territory to any of its neighbors. Still less likely is the possibility that any such would go unopposed, nuclear weapons or not.

The idea that Iran would hand nuclear weapons to terrorists is completely braindead. Any nuclear weapon handed to terrorists would be tracked back to its origin before or after its use and the supplier would be nuked out of existence. It's ridiculous to even contemplate this scenario.

More importantly, this is the same nonsensical propaganda that was deployed to further notion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US - despite the fact that there was never any evidence of a connection between Hussein or Al Qaeda. The evidence linking Iran to Al Qaeda is scarcely any better. The fact that Iran is run by Muslim Mullahs is irrelevant to the issue. The Mullahs are not going to see their entire nation nuked out of existence by arbitrarily handing out nukes to terrorist groups who are not under their total control for the dubious goal of blowing up a city in Israel. It's ridiculous. It's pure neocon propaganda.

The ONLY scenario at risk here is that a nuclear weapon could be STOLEN by terrorists from a state possessing them. This is PRECISELY the reason that Israel should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If a terrorist group managed to steal such a weapon and use it on Israel or the United States, who would the US be able to attack in retaliation?

This is hyperbolic propaganda, nothing more.

The article IS correct that using military force against Iran - either by supporting an Israeli attack or initiating one ourselves - is a REALLY bad idea.

The article demands sanctions against Iran by making an oil embargo. Just how would this be enforced? The Iraq oil embargo was hardly totally effective, and Iran's oil influence in the world is far larger than Iraq's.

Exactly how would Iranian oil shipments be embargoed? US naval vessels interdicting Iranian oil shipments on the high seas would result in a war in short order.

The impact of an Iranian oil embargo on the world's economies is glossed over by the article as a "necessary price to pay." However, it has already been specifically analyzed by oil industry analysts, and the conclusions are that the world economies cannot afford to lose Iranian oil. This is in fact why the Iranians are not particularly concerned by any particular threat of sanctions. They KNOW that China, Europe and others NEED Iranian oil.

The final paragraph of this article threatens Iran with being a "pariah impoverished state like North Korea." This is extremely unlikely - first, because Iran has much more to offer the world than North Korea - namely oil and gas. It also has a more thriving economy and dynamic culture than North Korea which has languished under Communist rule for the last half century.

In addition, the article ignores the extraordinary lengths that the Iranians have gone to maintain their involvement with the Western community in the process of negotiating for the right to continue their nuclear program. They have voluntarily gone BEYOND their legal requirements in complying with the West - and as a result they have subjected to repeated verbal attacks by the US government and theats of sanctions and military action, including direct threats by Israel.

If I was treated like that, I would tell the West to "get lost", too. 

The entire article offers NO solutions to the Iranian issue - merely more of the same crap we've come to expect from people who do not understand either Iran's attitude or the position of Iran in the scheme of things - not to mention the baleful influence of both Israel and the neocons on this discussion for their own agendas.

Iran WILL become a nuclear power in the next five years IF that is what they want to do. The only country negatively affected by this situation will be Israel - and that will be GOOD for the Middle East. If other countries in the region seek to go nuclear for the same reasons, that also will be good for the Middle East in restraining and preventing the encroachment of Israel's Zionists on the ultimate plan of completely controlling the Middle East and its oil.

The only way to convince Iran and the other nations in the region NOT to go nuclear would be for the United States to renounce all military support to Israel, to go on the offensive in requiring Israel to live up to the numerous UN resolutions it has defied for fifty years, to refer Israel to the UN for sanctions if it does not begin a program of unilateral nuclear disarmament, to force Israel to deal fairly with the Palestinians, and for the United States itself to renounce all of IT'S interference in the internal affairs of the Middle East including the support of corrupt monarchies and secular governments in the Middle East.

This will also reduce terrorism in the West, because these are precisely the issues that are the cause of the antipathy toward the West which spurs bin Laden and others to attack the West.

Since none of this is going to happen, you had better make peace with the idea of a nuclear Iran - and possibly a nuclear Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and anybody else who is threatened by Israel.

Unfortunately, it is very clear that Israel and the neocons in the US intend to launch a military attack on Iran within the next three to six months (timing depending on preparation of the ground in the UN and elsewhere).

Progressives in the US have no more than this amount of time to press Congress to pass legislation explicitly preventing the President from initiating OR supporting ANY military action against Iran without the express Declaration of War by Congress, and to explicitly prohibit the President from authorizing the use of nuclear weapons against ANY non-nuclear nation without the express authorization of Congress.

Otherwise, a year from now, you'll all be saying how you were against the war in Iran from the git-go - as thousands of US troops die every month , and a gallon of gas costs you $10, and the US economy sinks back into recession.

Yep, those war drums are beating triplets.

Like small children, we Americans tend to see everything going on in the world as about us, demanding our attention.
 
The latest Iran moves may well not be about us.  They probably please a lot of people in the Middle East who like to see us get our knickers in a twist, but Iran's muscle flexing is as likely to be about a) internal politics, and b) the relationship with China.  The reaction of the US and Europe could just be gravy for Ahmadinejad who strikes me as being remarkably like George W. Bush in character and pretensions.

The only real information I gleaned is how badly mis-informed conventional wisdom seems to be. The Author takes several half-baked notions and cobbles them together with some wishfull thinking vis-a-vis our tactical and stratigic position. And then he seasoned it with some Karl Rove propaganda that somehow has wormed its way into the public pysche. It smells like faliure and looks like an attempt to convince oneself that we still control events.

We do in the same way a passenger does when the wing comes off the 747 at 35angels. Sure there might be a parachute stashed somewhere, and sure you might somehow find it while overcoming the centrifigul force of the spinning airplane, but mostly we are just along for the ride.

You make for a Darn Good discussion here, Richard. 

 One point that  does not seem very clear though is how Israel  and the neocons will attack Iran in  the next three to six months. Is William Kristol  in the Air Force Reserve or something? 

"Unfortunately, it is very clear that Israel and the neocons in the US intend to launch a military attack on Iran within the next three to six months (timing depending on preparation of the ground in the UN and elsewhere)."

 You make a good point here:  "The article IS correct that using military force against Iran - either by supporting an Israeli attack or initiating one ourselves - is a REALLY bad idea."

This truly is a good discussion; we should have had one about Iraq. 

  Seems like ever since WWII when we let the cat out of the bag by developing first atomic and then nuclear weapons we have been trying to put the cat back in the bag. During the cold war the focus was on Russian and American nuclear capabilities but with the end of the cold war nuclear proliferation is popping up everywhere from North Korea to Pakistan. This is all rather like the story of the Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke except in this case there seem to be more holes in the dyke than the Dutch boy has fingers.

The problem of convincing countries not to pursue nuclear weapons is surely not helped by the fact that those powers seeking to contain nuclear weapons don’t want to give them up themselves. Apparently we are more cozy if the people who have them dress and look like us but if it comes to the Mid-East, well then, why those folk are crazy, right? But can we trust the French any more than we can Iran? Maybe we should invade France before it is too late.

 Patterns similar to the build-up to war with Iraq are appearing before our eyes, some military experts suggest it would be easy to take out the two main nuclear fuel producing facilities in Iran yet even they admit this would only slow the program down. So here we go again, it would be easy, sound familiar? Remember those open welcoming arms? I think it has been made abundantly clear in Iraq that aerial bombing alone will not ensure a military victory, not even troops on the ground has assured any kind of victory so it goes without saying if we are going to be seduced by “easy” let us not kid ourselves.

 A war with Iran would unveil the true and profound folly of President Bush’s Iraq policies. There were no WMD thus we have squandered our military and our resources on a fools errand leaving us in a weakened state and one in which we may have to deal with a real threat though it has yet to be proven that Iran is a threat. Some might say our military is strategically positioned to deal with Iran but if you read the news the impression is that our military is stretched thin and barely holding its own against the insurgency forces in Iraq. It seems much more likely that our forces will continue to be vulnerable to increased attacks that could follow if we bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran.

The fact that we don’t even know the true number and location of Iran’s nuclear facilities speaks volumes about the quality of the intelligence we have on Iran and her nuclear capabilities. Are we about to repeat the same mortal error; are we about to charge into another prolonged war based on poor intelligence? I would not be surprised.

If and when we go to war with Iran what new powers will President Bush be claiming for the executive office? Another consideration is that it might be likely that the same people who were responsible for the glowing success we call Iraq will also be around for a fiasco with Iran.

Sleep well.

Shorn of its posturing about making Iran "pay a price" and "forcing" them to make our preferred choice, this seems to be the crux of Mr. Daalder's proposal:

The credibility of sanctions would be enhanced if it were clear that negotiations could resume -- and punitive actions be suspended -- as soon as Tehran terminates the enrichment activities it recently resumed. The offer to support a civilian nuclear energy program, increase trade and investment -- and even engage in regional security talks and restore diplomatic relations with the United States -- would also remain on the table.

So far as I can tell, then, the bottom line of Mr. Daalder's proposal is that we make a deal with Iran.  But he is also suggesting we first engage in a face-saving sanctions charade before making that inevitable deal.  While we are inflicting sanctions to make Iran "pay a price" for its uranium enrichment activities, we at the same time make it clear that once those activities have ceased we will give them their civilian nuclear program, begin talks to increase trade and investment in Iran, normalize relations, and engage in regional security talks.

Um...I rather strongly suspect Iran would accept this deal.  So why not just make the deal and skip the sanctions?  Could it be because the convoluted rituals and codes of official Washington require that, before one backs down from a saber-rattling posture and enters into negotiations with an adversary, one must first act out some elaborate comedy of chivalric manners to create the appearance of strength and manly resolve?  Daalder proposes that before we give Iran everything it wants, we must try to make it look like we forced them into it.  The problem is that outside the charmed fantasy world of the royal court in Washington, with its powdered legions of viziers and sycophantic retainers, nobody else is taken in by this sort of preening and posturing.

Allegedly the problem we face is a matter of potential Iranian aggression several years down the road:

Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran would represent a major threat to regional and global security. It could deter the United States and others from responding to Iranian aggression or to Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and beyond.

Oh please Mr. Daalder.  Don't you just mean that a nuclear Iran might deter the United States from any of several contemplated US interventions in the region?  In other words, isn't the problem from the point of view of Washington's "grand startegists" that the US wants to maintain a free hand for its own aggressions in the region, and a nuclear Iran throws a monkey wrench into all those clever contingency plans?

I remember so well how our most recent intervention in the Middle East was dazzlingly successful in responding to a case of dastardly aggression.  Why, when we invaded Iraq, Saddam's regime was fully embarked on its invasion of ... um ... er ... Oh, that's right!  Saddam was pinched in on two sides by no-fly zomes and couldn't even invade the northern and southern regions of his own country!  Well it's a good thing we softened them up with a decade of sanctions.

As for Iran, lets just make the damned deal and skip the nonsense. 

It's amazing how the actions of President Ahmadinejad dovetail nicely with the needs of the Neocon "Attack Iran" chorus. If I didn't know better, I'd think that Ahmadinejad had been put there by the Americans to make Iran look bad.

Nah, I can't imagine the CIA or anyone like that getting directly involved in Iranian politics.

Ivo

Given that the "do nothing" its alright view common here but unacceptable for most the country and probably the world two questions:

If we have sanctions against Iran are you assuming Iran will not use their oil against the West?  If they do use their oil against the West do you presume they need the money more than China and Europe need their oil?

What ability do we have to use covert means to support the anti-Mullah factions with Iran?  Thus allowing a more ration government in Iran to have access to the nuclear weapons.

I am glad you were in government more than many of us here.

We seem to be seeing the same scenario. LV.  Except in one respect:  I think America, not just those other countries, is suffering badly, badly.  It just hasn't noticed yet.  Almost, but not quite yet.

I think you folks are a little misdirected in your analysis.  Iran can only, at this point, look north, west and east and see America has literally taken over the region; regardless of what it would have do or was doing in from a position relatively free of molestation, now it can only rationally conclude that it is faced with a very near existential threat.  Thus, they announce their deterrent, and sit back and watch the West cannablize itself - a very reliable expectation.  This will provide them time.  They also close an extraordinary energy deal with China - which has also been busily conducting joint-military operations with Russia - which has been providing Iran with its Bushehr and Natanz reactor expertise and equipment.  Iran knows it can count on Russian and Chinese vetoes at the United Nations.  If I may be so bold, it is my opinion that Russia helped Iraq remove his existing WMD from Iraq (probably to Belarus).  I realize that is an exotic opinion, but my point is that these powers are militarily weak and they know it, but they are politically strong, and they know that too.  They misunderstand US power; my Russian friends were giddy with the prospect of Lebanonization - and I mean real Lebanonization, not L-lite - and were convinced the US would lose the war. 

手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声
网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表

手机铃声 铃声下载 免费铃声 免费铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦铃声 三星铃声 三星手机铃声下载 MP3铃声 手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声 MP3手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 NOKIA铃声下载 小灵通铃声下载 真人铃声 MP3铃声下载 自编铃声 联通铃声下载 移动手机铃声下载 联通手机铃声免费下载 TCL铃声 飞利浦铃声下载 特效铃声 搞笑铃声 MIDI铃声 铃声图片 MMF铃声下载 免费手机图片下载 免费手机点歌 手机短信 手机彩信 手机彩铃 康佳手机铃声下载 TCL手机铃声下载 迪比特手机铃声下载 手机和旋铃声 三星手机铃声 三星手机和弦铃声下载 波导手机铃声下载 熊猫手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声 科健手机铃声下载 海尔手机铃声下载 诺基亚手机铃声下载 手机和弦铃声 手机铃声图片下载 飞利浦手机铃声下载 手机自编铃声曲谱 小灵通手机铃声下载 手机铃声编辑 CDMA手机铃声下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声下载 联通CDMA手机铃声下载 松下手机铃声下载 东信手机铃声下载 联想手机铃声下载 中兴手机铃声下载 大显手机铃声下载 首信手机铃声下载 三星手机自编铃声 三星CDMA手机铃声 康佳手机和弦铃声 MP3手机铃声下载 索尼爱立信手机铃声 手机铃声大全 三星手机铃声图片下载 手机特效铃声 手机铃声制作 三星手机铃声免费下载 TCL手机自编铃声 松下手机自编铃声 飞利浦手机自编铃声 诺基亚手机自编铃声 摩托罗拉自编铃声 三星手机MP3铃声 手机MP3铃声制作软件 免费MP3铃声下载 摩托罗拉MP3铃声 三星MP3铃声下载 联通MP3铃声下载 中国移动铃声下载 中国联通手机铃声下载 免费联通手机铃声 联通铃声 联通用户手机铃声下载 联通手机和弦铃声下载 联通手机铃声图片下载 小灵通铃声免费下载 和弦铃声免费下载
免费下载三星铃声 诺基亚免费铃声下载 联通免费铃声下载 免费铃声图片下载 MMF铃声免费下载 TCL免费铃声下载 免费下载铃声 手机铃声免费下载 松下免费铃声下载 NOKIA免费铃声下载 MIDI铃声免费下载 和弦铃声下载 TCL免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声图片下载 免费手机铃声下载网站 小灵通手机铃声免费下载 诺基亚手机铃声免费下载 摩托罗拉手机铃声免费下载 三星和弦铃声 CECT和弦铃声下载 三星T108和弦铃声 NOKIA和弦铃声下载 康佳和弦铃声下载 迪比特和弦铃声下载 阿尔卡特和弦铃声 CDMA和弦铃声下载 夏新和弦铃声下载 西门子和弦铃声 诺基亚和弦铃声 联通和弦铃声 三星铃声下载 三星和旋铃声 三星T108铃声下载 三星手机铃声乐园 三星CDMA铃声下载 三星免费铃声 三星真人铃声 诺基亚3100铃声下载 NOKIA手机铃声下载 怎样下载小灵通铃声 真人铃声下载 真人真唱手机铃声下载 联通用户铃声下载 联通CDMA铃声下载 TCL手机铃声图片下载 TCL手机和弦铃声下载 飞利浦630铃声下载 三星特效铃声 手机特效铃声下载 搞笑短信 MMF手机铃声 MMF格式铃声 免费短信 短信笑话 幽默短信 经典短信 谜语短信 短信祝福 爆笑短信 生日短信 爱情短信 精彩短信 情人节短信 短信传情 节日短信 彩信图片 彩信动画 彩信相册 免费彩信下载 三星彩信 联通彩信 移动彩信 彩信铃声 免费彩铃下载 移动彩铃 联通彩铃 12530彩铃 小灵通彩铃 免费三星手机铃声 免费和弦铃声 手机图铃下载 免费图铃下载 待机彩图 三星手机待机彩图 丰胸铃声
网络游戏 免费游戏下载 小游戏 在线游戏 游戏外挂 游戏论坛 游戏点卡 联众游戏 泡泡堂游戏 游戏攻略 FLASH游戏 单机游戏下载 美女 美女图片 美女写真 美女论坛 性感美女 美女走光 街头走光 走光照片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 免费电影在线观看 小电影 免费成人电影 免费激情电影 电影论坛 PP点点通电影下载 BT电影下载 免费三级电影 爱情电影 舒淇电影 韩国电影 周星驰电影 流行音乐 免费音乐下载 音乐在线 在线音乐 古典音乐 音乐试听 MP3音乐 MP3下载 MP3播放器 MP3随身听 免费MP3歌曲下载 QQ下载 申请QQ QQ幻想外挂 QQ表情 QQ挂机 珊瑚虫QQ QQ头像 QQ游戏 QQ空间代码 QQ个性签名 网络小说 玄幻小说 成人小说 爱情小说 小说下载 金庸小说 武侠小说 聊天室 语音聊天室 列车时刻表

I agree with "weasel" and the general liberal consensus that we should not go to war with Iran. Our Administrations' stated reason for going to war with Iran is that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is vehemently anti-US and can support his anti-US views with a military strike against the U.S. and/or Israel, therefore posing a credible threat to us that needs to be dealt with. The Administration concludes that we have to stop the threat by launching our own preemptive military strike. This is a terrible idea supported by flawed logic. Yes, Ahmadinejad hates the US. Yes, he is an Islamist. Yes, he opposes Israel's right to exist. Nonetheless, he currently cannot do anything about it- yet, if we do invade, the political tide will likely turn and Ahmadinejad will then be able to do something about it. He's all talk- at least for now. Anyone who at least knows anything about Iran's internal political landscape knows this. I will attempt to explain:

The Iranian President is just a figurehead in Iran with no real authority. As President, Ahmadinejad cannot appoint his cabinet, he cannot appoint military or judicial leaders and most importantly, he is not even the Commander-in-Chief of Iran's military (that constitutional authority lies with Iran's Supreme Leader). Iranian President Ahmadinejad is increasingly under criticism from the Iranian Majlis, Iran's parliament. Ahmadinejad is steadily becoming marginalized by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who is in turn supervised by the Iranian Mujtahids (council of 86 Islamic legal experts), who are also critical of Ahmadinejad. Growing numbers of the rest of the Marjas (Grand Ayatollahs) of Iran are marginalizing Ahmadinejad. Parviz Davoodi, First Vice President to Ahmadinejad, also strongly disagrees with Ahmadinejad on some very big issues (there are 10 Vice Presidents in total). More and more Iranian citizens are becoming disenchanted with Ahmadinejad. Ali Larijani, the chairman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), is progressively alienated by Ahmadinejad and shares Khamnei's reservations of Ahmadinejad's policies, especially his confrontational anti-US rhetoric on foreign policy (mind you that criticism of Ahmadinejad ranges from democratic reformers and dissidents within the majority of Iranian civil society to theocratic traditionalists among Iran's clerics). This mounting criticism will probably dissipate if the US invades Iran, and the rising resentment towards Ahmadinejad will probably be redirected towards the US and a lengthy retaliation against the US will likely stem from a revitalized, consolidated coalition among Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Majlis, the Majras, the Mujtahids and Iranian civil society. They will likely put aside their differences and unite against any US invasion force, probably solidifying and even intensifying Iranian support for Ahmadinejad's anti-US rhetoric. If we invade Iran, any hopes Iranian society has for democracy will likely be replaced with hatred and contempt for the US presence there. If we invade Iran, we can say goodbye to any hopes for a stable Iranian democracy for (at least) another decade, which in turn will further destabilize the already imperiled Middle East and upset the chances of peace in the region.

If we invade Iran, we will be hurting its chance at stability and democracy. We will also be giving the Iranians every reason to rally around Ahmadinejad and consolidate his anti-US rhetoric into actual policy. Specifically, we might cause the Supreme Leader to transfer his Commander-In-Chief responsibilities to Ahmadinejad, giving him the reigns of Iran's military and thereby adding military strength to his anti-U.S and anti-Israel rhetoric. Iran's military is significantly larger than Iraq's, more experienced and better equipped for a war. Plus, there's a real chance that Hizballah might come in to help their sponsors, brining in their extra firepower- in effect reinforcing Iran's already powerful military. Our military is already stretched thin in the Middle East, currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and our generals and the NeoCons (notably Richard Perle and Francis Fukuyama) are already saying Iraq is a losing battle. In short, we will be making a disastrous mistake if we invade Iran. Considering Iran's vastly superior military and intelligence capabilities compared to Iraq's, we will be there longer than we're spending in Iraq.

Alas, our President recently authorized the use of force against Iranian scientists in Iraq. So in the end, Bush might not have given the American public a choice. This pessimistic view is further cemented by foriegn policy experts who say Bush and his cronies are trying to provoke Iran into a war (notably, Zbigniew Brzezinski holds this view). In effect, he'd be sending more of our men, women and our nation's children to die for a plan he should by now know will fail and that he will be recklessly adding more blood to the bloodbath that he helped create.