Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

I just came out of a conversation that began roughly like this:

"Damn those iranians! We should bomb them into oblivion! Turn that whole region into a giant parking lot!"

"Why?"

"Because they're crazy and want to kill us!"

"Why do you believe that?"

"All muslims are crazy, religious wackos!"

"Really? Shall we also bomb the Saudis? Because last I checked we were allies with them. Why is Iran different?

It went downhill from there. I've had conversations like it in the past, and they generally all end fairly badly, depending on how much history the people I'm speaking with can agree with me about. Sometimes the discussion turns to Israel. But I don't understand why the US should care about Israel. There are plenty of countries in the world with adversarial relationships. That Iran and Israel don't get along doesn't seem sufficient justification to me to invade their country and kill them. Sometimes the discussion turns to the destruction of the twin towers in New York. But Iran had nothing to do with that. It would be like wanting to invade Peru because of the Helmet massacre in Brazil. Sometimes the discussion turns to how awful Saddam Hussein was. But Saddam was the president of Iraq, not Iran. Again, it doesn't make sense to invade one country because you don't like the president of an entirely different country. Especially when he's been dead for years, and those two countries never got along very well anyway. Very often these discussions turn to the question of whether Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Which...is awkward for a number of reasons. Not least of which is that the logic seems to be that if they get nuclear weapons they might use them to kill people. And killing people is wrong. So we should definitely kill them now to stop them from maybe killing people later. That kind of thinking doesn't really work for me.

I've had these conversations a number of times...enough times that I could probably chart out the various if-then scenarios and logical fallacies involved. But most often, ultimately it seems to come down to one of a couple things:

A) Iran is bad because I've been told they're bad, and bad people deserve to die, therefore we should bomb them.

B) Might makes right, and we are by definition morally right, therefore we should have the might and make sure that nobody else does.

C) I'm an idiot who can't even find my own state on a map so you can't expect to me to differentiate completely different countries on the opposite side of the planet. "A" was bad, and A and Q are both letters in the alphabet, so clearly we should bomb Q.

At least, these are my interpretations of the sort of thinking people who promote the destruction of Iran seem to be using. But these are merely my interpretations of the arguments I've generally been given. Which are generally more along the lines of "You don't want crazy people to have nuclear weapons do you!?!?!"

So...somebody, please explain to me...logically and coherently...what's the rationale behind wanting to destroy Iran? Honestly...why should we care about them at all? To me, the idea of wanting to destroy Iran doesn't seem all that different from wanting to destroy Belize. The reaction isn't "yes, great idea!" or "no, really bad move!" But more..."huh, what? Why?" As far back as Bush declaring Iran as part of what he called an "axis of evil"  it always seemed strange to me that the US would have any care one way or another about Iran.

But it seems to be a deeply emotionally charged topic for many people. And I don't understand why.

What's the big deal with Iran? Why should the US have any involvement with Iran at all apart from maybe buying their oil and vacationing at their ski resorts?

[Flying Dice]

The pro-Israel lobby.

[Max White]

Well most common men hate Iran because they don't understand a damn thing and just go off misconceptions.

Those that have looked into it a little are worried because despite signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, their ability to ratify it is questionable. They are being called a 'rogue state' and that allowing them to have any nuclear capabilities is unacceptable. We are talking any nuclear capabilities, such as power plants or production of medical isotopes. Sort of a double standard, as right now Australia is selling metric shittons of uranium to India, one of the very few countries to not have signed up to the NPT, making them a much more dangerous nuclear power.

I have no idea what a fully informed person would tell you, as this isn't me.

[MadocComadrin]

Their ski resorts suck, duh!

Do remember that people tend to only see the bad. Very few people want "to bomb Iran to oblivion" as a whole--they want to take out the regime they view as extremist and bent on "destroying the west." When viewing an enemy they believe to be so huge, they tend to forget the rest of the country, especially the innocent.

One reason I could see an invasion in Iran is to replace a regime some believe is more than willing to develop nuclear arms for immediate use against Israel or other countries. Remember, even though the Cold War is over, MAD is still quite in effect, and any war involving more than small-scale tactical nuclear weapons may result in global annihilation. This is the least likely, but most worrisome.

Next is how many believe that they fund terrorist proxy groups. I believe this is mainly against Israel, but any country willing to fund such overt terrorism might need to be put down, as some may believe.

Third is the oil. Putting up a government that would give the US a better deal would be, well, better for the US. I don't see this as likely, as it's more likely to force OPEC and other oil-exporting non-member countries to raise oil prices in response.

Finally, we have the humanitarian option: removing a repressive regime in favor to replace it with something more democratic.

Any invasion of Iran would be a combination of these. Just to clarify, these are the reasons I see, not that I personally believe one way or another. I'll leave that ambiguous.

[Criptfeind]

I had no idea that hating Iran was still something that people did. Maybe you live in fuckwitastand.

[alway]

Hope you've got awhile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations

As for why the average person on the street hates Iran... Never overestimate the amount of thought people give to their biases and hatreds.

[Aqizzar]

I had no idea that hating Iran was still something that people did. Maybe you live in fuckwitastand.

You do have the nation's President saying he will attack the United States Navy (however pointless that would be), and if a nuclear weapon was acquired, detonating it in the Straights of Hormuz as an ace in the hole, thus shutting down the entire Iraqi oil industry and sending the world's energy economy into a tailspin.

Well, except its Ahmadinejad, and what he says Wednesday may sound like what he said Monday, even while the rest of the government makes the decisions on Tuesday.  The idea of Iran starting a war with anyone, knowing the entire government structure would be obliterated in hours, you'd think would be unthinkable.  It's one of those tricky little foreign entanglement scenarios that seems impossible right up until the day it happens.

As for the rhetoric, hey, who doesn't miss the 1980s?

[Malt_Hitman]

The pro-Israel lobby.

This is true.  One of the reasons politicians care about the Iran/Isreal* situation is due to the population of those following the Jewish faith and the votes that it gets them.  The other, less substantial, reason is about those Christians that believe one of the triggers of the second coming of Christ is tied to the return of all members of the Jewish faith to Isreal*.  Or something like that.

The other reason people see Iran as a threat to American interests goes back to the Islamic Revolution thing and the seizing of the U.S. embassy in Iran when the Shah was overthrown.  Some American embassy workers and citizens were held for around 450 days or something like that.  It was a big deal back in the early 80’s and even though I wasn’t alive then I know it stuck with my parents.

Then there was another screw up having to do with illegal arms sales in Iran by the U.S. government known as Iran-Contra.  The main issue here was with President Regan illegally, depending on who you ask, selling weapons to revolutionaries opposed to the Islamic government.

* Intentionally misspelled.

[Flying Dice]

The pro-Israel lobby.

This is true.  One of the reasons politicians care about the Iran/Isreal* situation is due to the population of those following the Jewish faith and the votes that it gets them.  The other, less substantial, reason is about those Christians that believe one of the triggers of the second coming of Christ is tied to the return of all members of the Jewish faith to Isreal*.  Or something like that.

The other reason people see Iran as a threat to American interests goes back to the Islamic Revolution thing and the seizing of the U.S. embassy in Iran when the Shah was overthrown.  Some American embassy workers and citizens were held for around 450 days or something like that.  It was a big deal back in the early 80’s and even though I wasn’t alive then I know it stuck with my parents.

Then there was another screw up having to do with illegal arms sales in Iran by the U.S. government known as Iran-Contra.  The main issue here was with President Regan illegally, depending on who you ask, selling weapons to revolutionaries opposed to the Islamic government.

* Intentionally misspelled.

More than that, it is because of the massive amounts of influence AIPAC and the other, smaller groups have inside the Beltway, and the amount of donations they can channel to any pro-Israel (or opponent of a not-sufficiently-pro-Israel) candidate pretty much mean that no politician who doesn't want to commit political suicide/make reelection extremely difficult is going to follow their line, especially as there really isn't a balancing group (the pro-Arab lobby has a fraction of its funding and influence, as do the smaller, dovish pro-Israel groups) to counter the influence of AIPAC, the Christian Zionist groups, etc. And honestly, the fact that a list of prominent pro-Israel lobbiests is very similar to a list of prominent neoconservatives doesn't do anything to endear me to them.

[Mr. Palau]

Mostly because one functional atomic weapon (I.E. not fission, fusion) could wipe Israel of the map. More than half of Israel is desert, so one bomb can irradiate the rest to such a degree as to make it certaintly a place you woulnd't want to live, and a smaller area unlivable for sustained periods of time. Now of course that samll area would mena less to big countries like the US, but that small area could be Tel Aviv, whose metrpolitian area is home to 1.2M people ou tof Israel's 7.8M.

Secondly because there are elements among the Iranian government who are not rational actors, and hence would not fear retaliation. If you allow Iran to have a nuke you are betting that the rational elements of the Iranian government trump those who would rather see the Jews destroyed at all costs. Iran is a Theocracy, and as we all know religion is irrational. With no fear of retaliation if those elements where able to have a nuke launched, the above situation would occur, effectively making the 50% of Israel that is live able undesirable, to say the least.

Also Iran represents a leader for Shia muslims in the middle east, who are by and large unfavorable to the US. The US prefers the dominance of Sunni muslims in terms of regional dominacne whenever possible, as the Sunni Muslim comunity in the Middle East is dominated by US allies, compartively to say the least, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Iran has hated the US since the Islamic revoloution, so the Us is trying to limit it's dominacne in the region. Having a nuke gives you a lot more power in the international comunity, so in order to prevent an increase in Iranian power, the Us tries to stop them getting a nuke.

By the way this has very little to do with the Jewish vote 60% of Jews vote Deomocratic anyway so as long as Barack Obama doesn't say he would side with Iran, he will win the Jewish vote. Only a small minority of the US Jewish population are hard-core advocates for Israel, and as Flying-Dice mentioned they are a powerful and influential minority, given their size.

Edit: might doesn't make right but it does help protect your intrests in the Middle East.

[nenjin]

If you want to go back in history, Iran has said and done some things that give western powers plenty of reason to worry. The mistake people are making is failing to distinguish between the Iranian people, and their regime. The regime does crazy shit like make fountains that flow fake blood to represent the blood of the fallen in the Iran/Iraq war.

Iranians are actually fairly modern. They have their hardliners and their moderates just like everyone else, except their hardliners have been running the country for the last ~30 years unchecked. Revolutionary government, and all that. So they're very entrenched and that scares Western powers badly. They're worried what a regime like that would do with nuclear weapons if it faced its demise.

[Flying Dice]

The problem, of course, is that in all likelihood, Iran would want nuclear weapons as a deterrant to an Israeli first strike, as the Israelis have already spoken openly about attacking Iranian nuclear plants to preemptively eliminate any nuclear capability. Arguing that any side in a conflict is more likely to do something because they are irrational because of reason X is rather pointless; both the U.S. and Soviet governments during the Cold War had just as many hardliners with no room for compromise, with just as much at stake, and the world is still intact. I seem to recall that at one point the Iranian government also offered to allow unrestricted UN inspections (among other things) in exchange for resolution of the Palestine issue and the lifting of the sanctions. Iran, like Iraq and Syria, has been on the hitlist of the hawks both in the Israeli government and in the lobby here in the US for decades as a 'critical threat to the survival of Israel'. The critical issue here is the continued misidentification of Israel as a vital U.S. ally and strategic asset; it is neither, and even in the height of the Cold War, U.S. efforts would likely have been better spent combatting Soviet efforts in Egypt, among other nations. As for the present day, backing Israel to the hilt and providing an abnormally large degree of unconditional aid to a nation that is already the major regional power, especially when it does things like intentionally clusterbombing civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, does nothing but harm, both the international image of the U.S., and to relations with various nations in the Middle East.

[GlyphGryph]

Mr. Palau, acting like Israel has actors any more rational than Iran, and that Israel isn't pushing ever further in the direction of theocracy themselves...

Sorry, but no, I've got no sympathies for a country that assassinates scientific researchers as a standard "diplomatic" practice. There's more evidence that Israel will start a war with Iran than Iran doing something so stupid so as to attack Israel.

Every one of Iran's threats have been defensive - them holding a grenade and saying "If you start shooting at me, I'll do it, I'll pull the pin and take us both down". That is, in fact, the actions of a rational actor that's been pushed into a corner. Iran seems dead certain that if they don't get a nuclear weapon with which to defend themselves, they're going to get destroyed by Israel and the US - in essence, both sides are so certain that the other side wants to destroy them that they are pretty much willing to guarantee it happens in the pursuit of "security"

[Mr. Palau]

Mr. Palau, acting like Israel has actors any more rational than Iran, and that Israel isn't pushing ever further in the direction of theocracy themselves...

Sorry, but no, I've got no sympathies for a country that assassinates scientific researchers as a standard "diplomatic" practice. There's more evidence that Israel will start a war with Iran than Iran doing something so stupid so as to attack Israel.

Every one of Iran's threats have been defensive - them holding a grenade and saying "If you start shooting at me, I'll do it, I'll pull the pin and take us both down". That is, in fact, the actions of a rational actor that's been pushed into a corner. Iran seems dead certain that if they don't get a nuclear weapon with which to defend themselves, they're going to get destroyed by Israel and the US - in essence, both sides are so certain that the other side wants to destroy them that they are pretty much willing to guarantee it happens in the pursuit of "security"

Israel isn't the instigator in this situation, nor are they anywhere near theocratic. Israel is simply a state that was designied to be majority Jewish, so there si a certain amount of religion involved. Iran decided to pursue a nuclear weapon fully aware that Israel would use every weapon at their disposal to preveent them. Iran has said it would like to see Israel driven into the sea. Iran isn't dead certain the US and Israel would destroy them if they don't have a nuke, the regime ruled for many years wihtout the US or Israel taking any action. Iran is doing this in order to increase their influence in the region. Israel dosn't even want Iran to be gone, they just want Iran to not have Nukes or missels, and hence no be a threat to the Jewish state.

[Valid_Dark]

I got a call today informing me that people are stockpiling food and water because Iran is going to use chemical weapons.  I asked why people thought that and I never got an answer, and I tried looking online, but I haven't found anything.  Are people just crazy?