Is Iran really a "rogue state?"

[madfresh]

Seriously, I've been looking through the history of Iran and nothing tells me it is a rogue state. They do not have long history of creating conflict in the world. They don't seem to have nearly the history of wars we've had. In fact, if you want to say causing conflict in the World classifies you as a rogue state, we might as well be considered one, too.

I'm blaming the "rogue state" label on the media/propaganda.

[Queso]

Iran's status is entirely based on their funding for Islamic groups in Lebanon during and after the Civil War, and in Israeli-occupied Palestine; and of course that like Castro the Mullahs threw out big money interests when they took over the country and still haven't let big money back in.

Whilst I have no love for the leaders of the Islamic Republic (for obvious reasons, bearing my views on religion) or for a lot of their actions I believe their refusal to toe the unipolar line is the root of their official status more than anything else. Other countries get away with actions just as despicable.

[spikespike]

Seriously, I've been looking through the history of Iran and nothing tells me it is a rogue state. They do not have long history of creating conflict in the world. They don't seem to have nearly the history of wars we've had. In fact, if you want to say causing conflict in the World classifies you as a rogue state, we might as well be considered one, too.

I'm blaming the "rogue state" label on the media/propaganda.

It isn't about your history, its about your current situation and your perceived propensity for erratic actions. Iran has a long record of attempting to provoke the west.

[skunk]

It isn't about your history, its about your current situation and your perceived propensity for erratic actions. Iran has a long record of attempting to provoke the west.Considering that British Petroleum made off with all their crude, MI5 and the CIA instigated riots and installed the Shah in place of the democratically-elected Mossadeq, the US armed and abetted Saddam Hussein in making war on them at a cost of one million Iranian lives, and then shot down one of their civil airliners, I'd say they showed admirable restraint. In terms of provocation, they couldn't hold a candle to the USA.

[takao]

Iran's status is entirely based on their funding for Islamic groups in Lebanon during and after the Civil War, and in Israeli-occupied Palestine; and of course that like Castro the Mullahs threw out big money interests when they took over the country and still haven't let big money back in.

ignoring the fact that a lot of companies would have moved in the big money (iran isn't stopping them) if it weren't for an unnamed country having a policy to immediately condone such companies as soon as the value of deals exceeds a really low limit or simply does go against the grain of some politicians of that country
and most companies want to continue to do business with other companies located in that unnamed country ;)

[miloblithe]

Considering that British Petroleum made off with all their crude, MI5 and the CIA instigated riots and installed the Shah in place of the democratically-elected Mossadeq, the US armed and abetted Saddam Hussein in making war on them at a cost of one million Iranian lives, and then shot down one of their civil airliners, I'd say they showed admirable restraint. In terms of provocation, they couldn't hold a candle to the USA.

But, realistically, this is mostly a matter of asymmetric power, unless you're actually arguing that Iranians (and their leaders) are somehow more restrained my nature or philosophy from the use of power than are people (and their leaders) from the USA. What would the Iranians do to fight back against the US in any of these cases (well, other than hold embassy staff hostage for a year+ and fund terror groups)? Declare war?

[skunk]

But, realistically, this is mostly a matter of asymmetric power, unless you're actually arguing that Iranians (and their leaders) are somehow more restrained my nature or philosophy from the use of power than are people (and their leaders) from the USA. What would the Iranians do to fight back against the US in any of these cases (well, other than hold embassy staff hostage for a year+ and fund terror groups)? Declare war?Obviously the Iranians are unable to do all that much against the US, but what really irks the US seems to be that Iran chooses to be non-aligned, despite the huge financial cost imposed. Being non-aligned gives the lie to Bush's idiotic assertion that "you're either with us or against us". Iran quite simply refuses to bend the knee.

[spikespike]

Obviously the Iranians are unable to do all that much against the US, but what really irks the US seems to be that Iran chooses to be non-aligned, despite the huge financial cost imposed. Being non-aligned gives the lie to Bush's idiotic assertion that "you're either with us or against us". Iran quite simply refuses to bend the knee.

So its that they refuse to bend a knee? Not that they say, threaten nuclear holocaust against Israel? Or say, enforce repressive religious edicts and jail prominent American scholars?

[spikespike]

Oh, not to mention aiding and abetting a war that is killing American troops (regardless of the validity of the war).

[skunk]

So its that they refuse to bend a knee? Not that they say, threaten nuclear holocaust against Israel? Or say, enforce repressive religious edicts and jail prominent American scholars?If jailing foreign nationals (although the person you are talking about has dual nationality) is the criterion for being a rogue state, you'd better not look too closely at Guantanamo, Bagram or various other US-run hell-holes. At least the Iranians have had the decency to bring charges. As for "threatening nuclear holocaust", the Iranians have never done so, nor do the have the means to carry out the threat. Try again.

Oh, not to mention aiding and abetting a war that is killing American troops (regardless of the validity of the war).I thought your president said the war was over?

[spikespike]

If jailing foreign nationals (although the person you are talking about has dual nationality) is the criterion for being a rogue state, you'd better not look too closely at Guantanamo, Bagram or various other US-run hell-holes. At least the Iranians have had the decency to bring charges. As for "threatening nuclear holocaust", the Iranians have never done so, nor do the have the means to carry out the threat. Try again.

I thought your president said the war was over?

Hm right you are about the nuclear holocaust remark.

And don't you know better than to take the President seriously?

[és:]

So its that they refuse to bend a knee? Not that they say, threaten nuclear holocaust against Israel?

When have Iran threatened nuclear holocaust?

Anyway, onto the original post...

It really depends how you mean by 'rogue state', I'm not sure if there is an accepted definition that stands up to any intellectual scrutiny but it seems a less than respectable term to me.

If Iran are a rogue nation, then the United States are even more so. You only have to compare the two from an attacking sense to see the hypocrisy. Iran has never initiated an attack on another country; America has attacked many. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons; America has huge stock piles. Iran has never used a nuclear weapon; America is the only country to use a nuclear weapon. Iran has been linked to terrorist activities; America funds a terrorist state and has partaken in terrorism. The list goes on...

The Director General of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), Dr. M. El-Baradei has said there there is no evidence (http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=56533&sectionid=351020104) that Iran are making a nuclear weapon. As a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are well within their rights to enrich Uranium.

Whilst Iran isn't the most stable of nations and should be viewed with some caution, just like the United States should, they are the ones that offered to temporarily stop all uranium enrichment (despite it being their legal right to do so) if the UN could give them firm assurances on security issues (meaning the constant threats from US/Israel). Iran lived up to their side of the agreement but the UN didn't. When El-Baradei suggested that all weapons grade Uranium enrichment should be under intentional supervision, only one country accepted that proposal. Iran. So there are ways to have a peaceful resolution to the nuclear armed Iran debate, if the US actually wanted them.

For the record, the United States gives huge amounts of money to Israel who are in violation of more international laws than any other country, have hundreds of nuclear weapons, have attacked the countries surrounding it, have illegally occupied a country for decades and will not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's not hard to see the hypocrisy of the situation or the propagandistic nonsense being used by Bush.

So are they rogue a rogue state? Maybe they are rogue, but if we're applying that term to them then, to remain credible, we have to apply them to ourselves, too.

[solvs]

I've always wondered. Iran's figure head (not actual leader mind you) makes some pretty wild comments that can be described as, shall we say, threatening. Mistranslated maybe, but still says some crazy things. This is justification enough for an attack? :confused: Uh, did anyone tell our figure heads that? How many times has Bush made threatening comments? Or McCain for that matter ("Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb, Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann")? Or any other US politician or media talking head? I mean, come on:

Woodward: Bush Said His Iran Strategy Was "They're **********" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/woodward-bush-said-his-ir_n_131852.html)

And it's not like we didn't invade another country near them on trumped up charges, so while they might be a threat, I can't help but wonder if maybe they aren't, or even if they are, it's simply in response to our cowboy diplomacy.

Iran's leader gives thumbs down during Bush speech to UN (http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-09-22-2439710439_x.htm)

[Iscariot]

I've always wondered. Iran's figure head (not actual leader mind you) makes some pretty wild comments that can be described as, shall we say, threatening. Mistranslated maybe, but still says some crazy things. This is justification enough for an attack?

Coyboyism 101. Just like how if somebody says something bad about a woman, you're justified in hittin' em.

[Anuba]

Seriously, I've been looking through the history of Iran and nothing tells me it is a rogue state. They do not have long history of creating conflict in the world. They don't seem to have nearly the history of wars we've had. In fact, if you want to say causing conflict in the World classifies you as a rogue state, we might as well be considered one, too.

I'm blaming the "rogue state" label on the media/propaganda.
And I quote Madeleine Albright: ""In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

Iran used to be a country where Islam was kept in check. It was a relatively modern country where people actually wore pants. The Islamic revolution in 1979, when Iran was basically sent 500 years back in time, was a result of the instability caused by the US poking the anthill decades earlier.

The only place where the US has actually "fixed" anything after WW2 is former Yugoslavia. Pretty much everything else has only made things worse.

[skunk]

The Islamic revolution in 1979, when Iran was basically sent 500 years back in time, was a result of the instability caused by the US poking the anthill decades earlier.To be entirely fair, the British were equally guilty in the Mossadeq affair. After all it was British Petroleum which was the main commercial beneficiary of his overthrow.

[Anuba]

To be entirely fair, the British were equally guilty in the Mossadeq affair. After all it was British Petroleum which was the main commercial beneficiary of his overthrow.
Yes, the British were still in the colonialist mindset back then...

Ahh, oil. Perhaps the real culprits are German engineers like Otto and Benz who made a combustion engine that runs on gasoline and put four wheels on it.

[Iscariot]

Yes, the British were still in the colonialist mindset back then...

Ahh, oil. Perhaps the real culprits are German engineers like Otto and Benz who made a combustion engine that runs on gasoline and put four wheels on it.

You know who else's name is Otto? Otto Octavius, aka Dr. Octopus. A super villain.

Coincidence?

[iJohnHenry]

You know who else's name is Otto?

Sure, Otto Preminger.

He did a great turn in Stalag 17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_17). :p

[Anuba]

You know who else's name is Otto? Otto Octavius, aka Dr. Octopus. A super villain.

Coincidence?
Mhm, and you know who's related to Uncle Benz?
Condollezza Rice.

Coincidence?

[Queso]

Otto and Benz
And if you swap just a few letters and add a U their names make an anagram of Beelzebub :eek:

Coincidence?

[és:]

El Baradei: Iran far from acquiring nuclear weapon (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vykGj0-J4no)

[MacbookSwitcher]

No, they are not a rogue state. But they are a threat to Israel, which means they are a threat to the US. Pause and think about that and what it says about our foreign policy.

[és:]

But they are a threat to Israel

In what way?

Even if that is true, which is debatable, then Israel are a far greater threat to Iran and the countries around Israel than Iran is to Israel.

[jplan2008]

Not that they say, threaten nuclear holocaust against Israel?

Are you using phrases from campaign stump speeches as fact?

[Desertrat]

Iran has been a rogue state since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs. They've tried to expand Shiite Islam by force, overtly or covertly, ever since. They use Hezbollah as a surrogate army against Israel--yet Israel has never been any threat against Iran. Iran has funded Hezbollah's virtual takeover of Lebanon, which once was a quite viable country with Beirut being regarded as the Paris of the East.

What British Petroleum or Kissinger or the CIA once did does not justify fomenting revolution elsewhere nor attacking another country via surrogates. Nobody has interfered with Iran's internal affairs since that 1979 change in power--so using the past to justify the sins of the present is sophistry. Or total BS, to get to the nitty-gritty.

'Rat

[skunk]

Iran has been a rogue state since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs. They've tried to expand Shiite Islam by force, overtly or covertly, ever since.The USA has been a rogue state since the end of WW2. They've tried to expand their sphere of political, military and economic influence by force, overtly or covertly, ever since. They use Hezbollah as a surrogate army against Israel--yet Israel has never been any threat against Iran. Iran has funded Hezbollah's virtual takeover of Lebanon, which once was a quite viable country with Beirut being regarded as the Paris of the East.They used Iraq as a surrogate army against Iran from 1980 to 1988, resulting in the deaths of over one million Iranians. Then they invaded Iraq itself twice on trumped up charges. Iraq was once a quite viable country and among the most tolerant secular states in the Middle East.

[blackfox]

Iran has been a rogue state since the rise to power of the Ayatollahs. They've tried to expand Shiite Islam by force, overtly or covertly, ever since. They use Hezbollah as a surrogate army against Israel--yet Israel has never been any threat against Iran. Iran has funded Hezbollah's virtual takeover of Lebanon, which once was a quite viable country with Beirut being regarded as the Paris of the East.

What British Petroleum or Kissinger or the CIA once did does not justify fomenting revolution elsewhere nor attacking another country via surrogates. Nobody has interfered with Iran's internal affairs since that 1979 change in power--so using the past to justify the sins of the present is sophistry. Or total BS, to get to the nitty-gritty.

'Rat

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I look at Iran's actions over the past three decades as reasonable actions of self-determination.

They live in a rough neighborhood - and tend to not fit in that well there. They are not Arabs, and not Sunni. They fought a long war with the other side being assisted by Western Powers. Saudi Arabia continues to be assisted by the US. They have played a somewhat weak hand the best they could.

The financing of surrogates and formenting revolution is a time-honored tradition, practiced by most (if not all) countries, either in the past or present. Sure, it may not be honorable, but it has utility.

Iran's current nuclear ambitions are an example of their line of thinking. They wish to be at least a regional power, to counteract (at least) Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey locally, and (at least) the US and Russia internationally. Since history has definitively proven that all countries who acquired membership to the Nuclear Club, have resultantly become less hostile - there seems to be little reason, other than geopolitical - to be afraid of Iran.

Where's the uproar about Pakistan? They are already nuclear, and are fast becoming a "rogue" state - not purposefully, but as a result of their descent into ungovernability.

BTW, Syria certainly has a stronger hand in Lebanon than Iran.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, skunk, but "The USA has been a rogue state since the end of WW2. They've tried to expand their sphere of political, military and economic influence by force, overtly or covertly, ever since." is a bunch of bat guano.

We didn't start the Cold War, and our post WW II politico/military policies all stemmed from that. Until the invasion of South Korea by the North, we were happily disarming and retreating back into our pre-war somnolence. Our economic influence came from our having more money than other countries, making us a major customer. "The" major customer, for many.

Yeah, Iraq was secular. Trouble was, there was a genocidal maniac running the joint. Vis-a-vis Israel, the same holds, today, for Iran.

Israel? Since the UN vote that created it, Israel has been reactive, not pro-active--except when waiting to be kicked in the crotch would have been an obvious mistake. Folks with numbers tattooed on their forearms, or whose parents have such numbers, aren't people with whom you go to casually screwing around. Lotsa slow learners in the middle east, unfortunately, and, also unfortunately, lots of the slow learners' running dogs in the west.

'Rat

[skunk]

Sorry, skunk, but "The USA has been a rogue state since the end of WW2. They've tried to expand their sphere of political, military and economic influence by force, overtly or covertly, ever since." is a bunch of bat guano.Exactly my point. In case you hadn't noticed, I was mirroring the bat guano you were offering.
Yeah, Iraq was secular. Trouble was, there was a genocidal maniac running the joint. Vis-a-vis Israel, the same holds, today, for Iran.Genocide is a very emotive word, besides being wholly irrelevant to either case.

[63dot]

Seriously, I've been looking through the history of Iran and nothing tells me it is a rogue state. They do not have long history of creating conflict in the world. They don't seem to have nearly the history of wars we've had. In fact, if you want to say causing conflict in the World classifies you as a rogue state, we might as well be considered one, too.

I'm blaming the "rogue state" label on the media/propaganda.

I hope you listen to moderate/liberal Ronn Owens on KGO. He seems to think it's a rogue state, to a point. I don't agree with him and think it's more unfriendly towards the US due to our involvement in Iraq.

But if we persist in staying in Iraq, the chances of Iran becoming a nation closer to a rogue state increases. If they had a a dirty bomb, I don't have too much doubt that they may use it on Israel. As for them using such a device on us, I tend to doubt it since I don't think they have the motive for it, yet. And by doing so, it would pose even a Democratic President to invade their country.

I don't think their leader has that nation's interest at heart, but he certainly cares about his personal power. Anything, like attacking the US, would end his term as their leader there as our country would put him out of power.

The chances of Iran having a huge Soviet style arsenal of modern ICBMs is fantasy, but I could see McCain using that as a reason (however false) to invade Iran.

The US has no reason for invading anybody except the nations who directly attack us. Our army should be for self defense, not 19th century invasion and nation building (in our image). The British Empire tried that and the whole thing fell like a house of cards. If we continue our empire path, we too will lose our top dog position in the world. With the power we still have, we can affect positive change and help end disease and hunger.