Is Iran really a "rogue state?"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by madfresh, Sep 29, 2008.

  1. madfresh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #2
    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.
     
  3. spikespike macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #3
    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.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    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.
     
  5. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #5
    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 ;)
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    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?
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    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.
     
  8. spikespike macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #8
    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?
     
  9. spikespike macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #9
    Oh, not to mention aiding and abetting a war that is killing American troops (regardless of the validity of the war).
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    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?
     
  11. spikespike macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #11
    Hm right you are about the nuclear holocaust remark.

    And don't you know better than to take the President seriously?
     
  12. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #12
    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 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.
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    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 A**holes"

    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
     
  14. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #14
    Coyboyism 101. Just like how if somebody says something bad about a woman, you're justified in hittin' em.
     
  15. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #15
    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.
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #18
    You know who else's name is Otto? Otto Octavius, aka Dr. Octopus. A super villain.

    Coincidence?
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #19
    Sure, Otto Preminger.

    He did a great turn in Stalag 17. :p
     
  20. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #20
    Mhm, and you know who's related to Uncle Benz?
    Condollezza Rice.

    Coincidence?
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    And if you swap just a few letters and add a U their names make an anagram of Beelzebub :eek:

    Coincidence?
     
  22. MacbookSwitcher macrumors 6502

    MacbookSwitcher

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    #23
    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.
     
  23. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #24
    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.
     
  24. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #25
    Are you using phrases from campaign stump speeches as fact?
     

Share This Page