NationStates Jolt Archive

From yesterday's Guardian:

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has suffered a potentially fatal blow to his authority after the country's supreme leader gave an apparent green light for MPs to attack his economic policies.

In an unprecedented rebuke, 150 parliamentarians signed a letter blaming Mr Ahmadinejad for raging inflation and high unemployment and criticising his government's failure to deliver the budget on time. They also condemned him for embarking on a tour of Latin America - from which he returns tomorrow - at a time of mounting crisis.

The signatories included a majority of the president's former fundamentalist allies, now apparently seeking to distance themselves as his prestige wanes.

MPs also criticised Mr Ahmadinejad's role in the UN security council dispute over Iran's nuclear programme amid growing evidence that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered him to stay silent on the issue.

The supreme leader, who was hitherto loyal to the president, is said to blame Mr Ahmadinejad for last month's UN resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment.

Ayatollah Khamenei has ultimate authority on foreign policy, and is rumoured to be so disillusioned with Mr Ahmadinejad's performance that he has refused to meet him on occasion.

Continues at http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html

Add to this Ahmadinejad's poor showing (http://www.citymayors.com/politics/iran_elections_06.html) in Iran's latest election.

And while this potential change in policy is working itself out, it seems that Bush is still prepared to threaten (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1990962,00.html) Iran even more, making a change in policy if they are after nukes less likely, and if they aren't after them more likely to consider doing so. This is, perhaps, a bad time to be sending Carriers to the gulf with 'Iran' written on them.

Your thoughts? I think that seeing Iran's internal politics work is interesting in it's own right.

Your thoughts? I think that seeing Iran's internal politics work is interesting in it's own right.

Indeed it is.

The international community needs to focus its criticism specifically on Ahmadinejad, taking care not to alienate or radicalise other parts of the Iranian government or Iranian society at large.

There's nothing like foreign pressure to make you forget your internal differences and band together. And nothing like foreign threats to make a people forget they don't really like their leader.

I hope Ahmadinejad is removed soon and replaced with a moderate who can bring some sensiblity to the region and give the Iranians some true prosperity.

Of course his future is in doubt, he's a democratically-elected politician. And not a very good one at that. The Iranians voted for him to make a point to the West. They've made that point, so now Ahmadinejad is now longer much use to them.

I think it would be very beneficial for Iran to rid themselves of their current President...just my 2 cents...

Indeed it is.

The international community needs to focus its criticism specifically on Ahmadinejad, taking care not to alienate or radicalise other parts of the Iranian government or Iranian society at large.

There's nothing like foreign pressure to make you forget your internal differences and band together. And nothing like foreign threats to make a people forget they don't really like their leader.
Spot on.:p

Of course his future is in doubt, he's a democratically-elected politician. And not a very good one at that. The Iranians voted for him to make a point to the West. They've made that point, so now Ahmadinejad is now longer much use to them.
Democratic so long as you aren't one of the candidates banned from running, and you don't plan on campaigning in censored media.

But that's a little off topic.

No fu***'em lets nuke 'em!!!

I think it would be very beneficial for Iran to rid themselves of their current President...just my 2 cents...

That's not going to happen if that chimpanzee in the white house doesn't stop his "we're going to invade Iran" moves.

No fu***'em lets nuke 'em!!!
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/Stupidity.jpg

Indeed it is.

The international community needs to focus its criticism specifically on Ahmadinejad, taking care not to alienate or radicalise other parts of the Iranian government or Iranian society at large.

There's nothing like foreign pressure to make you forget your internal differences and band together. And nothing like foreign threats to make a people forget they don't really like their leader.

It was quite clear to me that his rhetoric against Israel, and their nuclear program publicity was meant to distract the common Iranian from their economic woes. Ahmadinejad wants a regional war to keep everyone's mind off of the fact that the Iranian economy is headed into the toilet.

If we give him what he wants, he'll stay in power, and be popular. If we ignore him for a bit, the Iranians will replace him with someone who will work on the Iranian economy.

It was quite clear to me that his rhetoric against Israel, and their nuclear program publicity was meant to distract the common Iranian from their economic woes. Ahmadinejad wants a regional war to keep everyone's mind off of the fact that the Iranian economy is headed into the toilet.

If we give him what he wants, he'll stay in power, and be popular. If we ignore him for a bit, the Iranians will replace him with someone who will work on the Iranian economy.

Yup. Providing the people with an enemy to focus on is a good way to make them follow you, and dampen grumblings about domestic policy.

I hope Ahmadinejad is removed soon and replaced with a moderate who can bring some sensiblity to the region and give the Iranians some true prosperity.

Of course his future is in doubt, he's a democratically-elected politician. And not a very good one at that. The Iranians voted for him to make a point to the West. They've made that point, so now Ahmadinejad is now longer much use to them.
Considering that the position isn't much more than a figurehead, it doesn't really matter who holds the spot. The mullahs hold the real power and have ever since the revolution. That's why I've never taken Ahmeninejad's threats against Israel seriously--he can't make good on them and he never could.

Considering that the position isn't much more than a figurehead, it doesn't really matter who holds the spot. The mullahs hold the real power and have ever since the revolution. That's why I've never taken Ahmeninejad's threats against Israel seriously--he can't make good on them and he never could.

The mullahs could.

What do you think the reason is for them building the long range missiles?

Exactly,

Ahmedinejad position allows him to speak freely. He uses this power to gain popular support within the country. The real power, especially concerning issues like foreign affairs, lies with ayatollah Khamenei who is not always pleased with Ahmedinejad's speaches...

The mullahs could.

What do you think the reason is for them building the long range missiles?

Why would they want to destroy themselves?

This is highly unlikely.. Long range missiles mean influence and security for Iran. Yet, though they have much to gain by owning them, they have everything to lose by using them....

Israel is building sufficient second strike capabilities, Mutual Assured Destruction has frequently brought peace

The mullahs could.

What do you think the reason is for them building the long range missiles?

Defense, maybe? Why does the US have them? Why does any country have them? Iran, in the years since the revolution, has not been overtly hostile to its neighbors. They've had their fingers in terrorism, but it's the rare Middle Eastern state that doesn't have some tenuous connection with it, especially if you consider financial support for the families of suicide bombers to be support.

If I were Iran, you bet your ass I'd be working on both long range missiles and nukes. Why? Because I'd be sitting atop or near the resource everyone wants more of and that is disappearing rapidly. If Iran's leaders want to ensure that they won't be replaced by a puppet regime, they have to make it as difficult as possible to displace them. Nukes and missiles do that.

Democratic so long as you aren't one of the candidates banned from running, and you don't plan on campaigning in censored media.

But that's a little off topic.
Unlike the U.S. media. The best unbiased media money can buy. You Pay, We report whatever you tell us. They decide from false misleading news.
It is stupid to ban candidates. Use a 1st past the post system, which stops any 3rd party candidate in it's tracks.

Why would want to destroy themselves...

This is highly unlikely.. Longrange missiles mean influence and security for Iran. Yet, though they have much to gain by owning them, they have everything to lose by using them....

Israel is building sufficient second strike capabilities...

Never underestimate the power of hatred and stupidity. I don't believe for a second that none of the mullahs would contemplate a first strike on Israel, even if it meant taking some hits in return.

Once they have the missiles, it becomes possible to use them.

What might be interesting is to find out whether or not they are using a PAL system to secure them. As an example, Pakistan is NOT using a PAL system - that means that any damned idiot who controls the launch site can set one off.

Questions we might ask, but never have the answers.

Defense, maybe? Why does the US have them? Why does any country have them? Iran, in the years since the revolution, has not been overtly hostile to its neighbors. They've had their fingers in terrorism, but it's the rare Middle Eastern state that doesn't have some tenuous connection with it, especially if you consider financial support for the families of suicide bombers to be support.

If I were Iran, you bet your ass I'd be working on both long range missiles and nukes. Why? Because I'd be sitting atop or near the resource everyone wants more of and that is disappearing rapidly. If Iran's leaders want to ensure that they won't be replaced by a puppet regime, they have to make it as difficult as possible to displace them. Nukes and missiles do that.

Insurgents seem to work remarkably well.

Democratic so long as you aren't one of the candidates banned from running, and you don't plan on campaigning in censored media.

But that's a little off topic.

Iran's vetting process isn't as harsh as many people seem to think. The only people banned from standing for election are criminals and those who advocate the repeal of the Constitution, which is exactly the same as it would be in almost any other democracy. In practice, anyone can get around this suspension by pledging superficial support for the Constitution.

And yes, there is media censorship, but the Iranian media is a lot freer than the Asian average, and without any 'Great Firewall' equivilant, Iran finds it almost impossible to limit what information people access. The Islamic Republic of Iran relies on consent from its people to continue to exist, and by and large, it receives that consent.

Insurgents seem to work remarkably well.In specific circumstances. Most insurgencies are crushed with relatively little problem. An insurgency usually succeeds only when the established government is distracted by something else or is hopelessly incompetent. And what long term successes have Iran's proxy groups had? Hezbollah is somewhat powerful now, but it's not a state, and it's very limited in its influence outside southern Lebanon, and the influence they have inside Iraq right now only exists because the US removed Saddam and was incompetent in the post-invasion.

Never underestimate the power of hatred and stupidity. I don't believe for a second that none of the mullahs would contemplate a first strike on Israel, even if it meant taking some hits in return.

Once they have the missiles, it becomes possible to use them.

What might be interesting is to find out whether or not they are using a PAL system to secure them. As an example, Pakistan is NOT using a PAL system - that means that any damned idiot who controls the launch site can set one off.

Questions we might ask, but never have the answers.

I think you underestimate the rationallity of the regime... Power in Iran is shared by several factions; with the cleric and upper class or merchants, sharing power... There is not a single individual that can push the button, there are several councils, and platforms for debate...

It has not acted irrationally before and it is highly unlikely it will in the future. As Khomeini himself once said: "Shari'a can wait, for the Islamic state is more important."

Iran is their state, they are proud of it and it is their power base; they have nothing to gain by destroying themselves (Israel is thought to have sufficient nuclear capability), their power base and their grandiose islamic state project simply to destroy a small country that does not form a direct threat, especially when they have nuclear capability themselves.

The mullahs believe in the velayat-e faqih; the rule by the clerics. They would not abandon their project, they would however pay lipservice to the Arab plight because this would allow them to become more influencial in the region. ;)

In specific circumstances. Most insurgencies are crushed with relatively little problem. An insurgency usually succeeds only when the established government is distracted by something else or is hopelessly incompetent.

Wrong. Most insurgencies succeed. They exist primarily because they have a river to swim in. Didn't you read Mao's book on guerilla warfare? It is as timely and true today as it was then.

Malaya is one of the few examples that people can point to where an insurgency was defeated. The other is the Boer War.

Surely you're not advocating that we do what was done in the Boer War, and round up the civilian population and put them in concentration camps, in order to "crush the insurgency with relatively little problem"?

Democratic so long as you aren't one of the candidates banned from running, and you don't plan on campaigning in censored media.

But that's a little off topic.

Iran's vetting process isn't as harsh as many people seem to think. The only people banned from standing for election are criminals and those who advocate the repeal of the Constitution, which is exactly the same as it would be in almost any other democracy. In practice, anyone can get around this suspension by pledging superficial support for the Constitution.

And yes, there is media censorship, but the Iranian media is a lot freer than the Asian average, and without any 'Great Firewall' equivilant, Iran finds it almost impossible to limit what information people access. The Islamic Republic of Iran relies on consent from its people to continue to exist, and by and large, it receives that consent.

I think you underestimate the rationallity of the regime... Power in Iran is shared by several factions; with the cleric and upper class or merchants, sharing power... There is not a single individual that can push the button, there are several councils, and platforms for debate...


We don't know if they have a Permissive Action Link (PAL) system or not. Pakistan, for instance, does not.

Thus, in Pakistan, whoever is sitting next to the controls for the missile can press the button, regardless of what anyone else wants.

The question is, does Iran have a permissive action link system?

We don't know if they have a Permissive Action Link (PAL) system or not. Pakistan, for instance, does not.

Thus, in Pakistan, whoever is sitting next to the controls for the missile can press the button, regardless of what anyone else wants.

The question is, does Iran have a permissive action link system?

You are right, we can not know; we only know that Iran has not yet acquired nuclear weapons

From yesterday's Guardian:



Continues at http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html

Add to this Ahmadinejad's poor showing (http://www.citymayors.com/politics/iran_elections_06.html) in Iran's latest election.

And while this potential change in policy is working itself out, it seems that Bush is still prepared to threaten (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1990962,00.html) Iran even more, making a change in policy if they are after nukes less likely, and if they aren't after them more likely to consider doing so. This is, perhaps, a bad time to be sending Carriers to the gulf with 'Iran' written on them.

Your thoughts? I think that seeing Iran's internal politics work is interesting in it's own right.

Holy Koran Batman. Ahmadinejad is going down in flames. This is good news for the Iranians. Hopefully this idiot will be ousted from power soon.

You are right, we can not know; we only know that Iran has not yet acquired nuclear weapons

Working on it. It's not that hard once you have the enriched uranium.

Working on it. It's not that hard once you have the enriched uranium.

I do not think it is good that they acquire nuclear weapon, but i reckon the situation is not grave enough to allow for rash stupidity, from the US or Isreal.

Pakistan is much less stable and consequently more dangerous to the world. Sadly they do have these weapons...

Unlike the U.S. media. The best unbiased media money can buy. You Pay, We report whatever you tell us. They decide from false misleading news.
It is stupid to ban candidates. Use a 1st past the post system, which stops any 3rd party candidate in it's tracks.
*Coughcough*Fox*Coughcough*

Iran's vetting process isn't as harsh as many people seem to think. The only people banned from standing for election are criminals and those who advocate the repeal of the Constitution, which is exactly the same as it would be in almost any other democracy. In practice, anyone can get around this suspension by pledging superficial support for the Constitution.
As well as anyone who doesn't support conservative Islamic clerics. I doubt pledging superficial support for the constitution would even begin to fool the clerics who control who is allowed to run in elections. (Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1120995,00.html))

And yes, there is media censorship, but the Iranian media is a lot freer than the Asian average, and without any 'Great Firewall' equivilant, Iran finds it almost impossible to limit what information people access. The Islamic Republic of Iran relies on consent from its people to continue to exist, and by and large, it receives that consent.
Reporters without Borders would disagree with you there (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19388). As would Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130452004?open&of=ENG-IRN). The Iranian government relies on the consent of the people, but what the people are allowed to give consent to is limited.

Working on it. It's not that hard once you have the enriched uranium.
Of course, getting the enriched uranium in the first place is the bitch, and considering that Iran's nowhere near able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, well, the threat is negligible at best.

Of course, getting the enriched uranium in the first place is the bitch, and considering that Iran's nowhere near able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, well, the threat is negligible at best.

It's not difficult. If you have the equipment to take it to reactor grade, you can take it to weapons grade.

The hard one is plutonium - taking that to weapons grade is difficult by comparison.

Wrong. Most insurgencies succeed. They exist primarily because they have a river to swim in. Didn't you read Mao's book on guerilla warfare? It is as timely and true today as it was then.

This guy (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/01/1380018) would seem to disagree.
LESSONS OF HISTORY

Historical examples can deepen our understanding of the problems we face, but they rarely offer appropriate solutions. It's been fascinating to listen to the phenomenal amount of nonsense offered up as the "lessons of history" about insurgencies by those who have no serious knowledge of the past, still less of the Middle East, and none, whatsoever, of our military.

We have been warned that it's virtually impossible to defeat insurgencies, which is simply wrong. Down the centuries, few insurgencies succeeded. Those that did triumph generally opposed a decayed state from within or a troubled empire on its vulnerable frontiers. With the sympathy of a minority of the population, an insurgency can cause infernal trouble, but it cannot win against a steadfast power. The key variable is commitment — or, simply put, time (which takes us back to American impatience, exacerbated by the poisonous and irresponsible media). Fighting a robust power, the only hope an insurgency possesses is to outlast its opponent, to win an eventual political victory in place of the military victory it has no hope of achieving. That is what the insurgents — and terrorists — in Iraq intend to do.

Our enemies aren't wizards of cultural understanding. They've gotten much wrong about America, especially by underestimating the courage and skill of our troops. But they cling to one big, promising idea that may yet pay off for them: To our enemies, the crucial lesson of Vietnam is that America gets tired. Media-wise and Internet-savvy, both insurgents and terrorists are very much aware of the political bickering in the United States and the (overhyped) anti-war movement. Their strategy comes down to attritting our forces and staying in the headlines, to win through the media what they cannot win with bombs.

Our own weak grasp of history plays into their hands as commentators insist — forever citing Vietnam — that insurgencies always win. Yet, the United States has been fighting insurgencies and winning since before we were a nation, on the Indian frontier, in a great civil war, against the Ku Klux Klan (a struggle waged on and off for over a century), against the Muslim-fundamentalist Moros and later the Huks in the Philippines, and in Central America. Our track record has been very good. Even in Vietnam, we defeated the insurgency. North Vietnam had to send in its regulars — and still only won after our troops were recalled and aid to South Vietnam was cut off. Saigon fell to a massive invasion, not to an insurgency.

But facts don't matter. The struggle on our domestic front (where Iraq may well be lost) is all about emotion, resentment and scoring political points. History has often been prostituted, but rarely with such shamelessness. The one historical truth that administration opponents refuse to accept is that defeating insurgencies takes time — about a decade, on average. For purely partisan purposes, an influential segment of our population is in a rush to declare defeat. The insurgency's most potent weapon is our media and the struggle's center of gravity is in the U.S. Senate, not in Iraq.

Even those in the military or hovering around it suffer from a selective study of history, endlessly citing T.E. Lawrence out of context — yet, that flamboyant self-promoter's "revolt in the desert" would have come to nothing without the advance of the British Empire's conventional forces. Lawrence was colorful. Allenby was effective. Lawrence understood the Bedu. More important, his British masters understood Lawrence and used him as an effective auxiliary — but an auxiliary, nonetheless. While reading "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" offers enduring insights into Arab behavior and motivations, it doesn't offer a formula for winning our present war.

Others cite Trinquier and the French in Algeria, proposing an "ink-blot" or "oil-spot" strategy that pacifies a key node, occupies it and expands outward from it, creating zones of security for the population: stability operations instead of aggressive hunting. Apart from the facts that the French lost and that the interim effectiveness of their strategy depended on having a half-million troops on the ground, there is certainly some merit in using such a technique as part of a larger strategy. But if adopted as a sole solution, it relinquishes the initiative to the insurgents (who already have an inherent advantage in that regard); requires a heavy and immobilized troop presence; and effectively hands sovereignty beyond the wire over to the enemy. To be effective, an ink-blot strategy requires local cooperation, dependable native troops and police in large numbers — and relentless offensive actions to keep the enemy on the defensive while the pacified population centers develop and expand.

You can't just circle the wagons — especially given our national impatience. And you can't allow the enemy to fortify "liberated" zones while you concentrate on cities X and Y. You have to hold firmly and attack aggressively at the same time. That requires numbers that our forces in Iraq were never allowed.

The point isn't to attack one worthy approach, but to stress the importance of flexibility, of refusing to limit ourselves to a single formula, of using every play in the playbook and never ceasing to develop new combinations for use against an adaptive enemy.

To study the history of insurgencies seriously, we would have to begin at least 25 centuries ago and march forward. The twin lessons would be that, while insurgencies generally fail, there is no easy formula for suppressing them — other than ruthlessness at a level we cannot presently permit ourselves.

Eh, it really doesn't matter whether Ahmadinejad is in office or not. What matters is the mentality of the clerical community in Iran.

This guy (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/01/1380018) would seem to disagree.

This, from the same guy who said:

I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it...The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree.

leave it to you to quote a guy who just wants to parrot what he thinks is popular.

This, from the same guy who said:Just chose one of the early google replies. I'm sure I could find more if I gave a shit. It's enough that your argument has at least been challenged.



leave it to you to quote a guy who just wants to parrot what he thinks is popular.
Physician, heal thyself. :rolleyes:

Just chose one of the early google replies. I'm sure I could find more if I gave a shit. It's enough that your argument has at least been challenged.

So you're standing by your quote from Ralph Peters?

The same Ralph Peters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters

So you're standing by your quote from Ralph Peters?

The same Ralph Peters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_PetersIs there supposed to be something damning in there? He was a supporter of the war--so he had bad judgment. Doesn't mean he doesn't have his facts straight when it comes to the history of insurgencies.

Is there supposed to be something damning in there? He was a supporter of the war--so he had bad judgment. Doesn't mean he doesn't have his facts straight when it comes to the history of insurgencies.

He's got a lot more than that going for him. He is apparently a complete idiot.

Maybe you should read the whole Wikipedia article about him.

He's got a lot more than that going for him. He is apparently a complete idiot.

Maybe you should read the whole Wikipedia article about him.

What makes you think I didn't?

What makes you think I didn't?

Because you're still clinging to your belief in his veracity.