Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/08/14/ixopinion.html
Iran's revolution is in its infancy - but it may have just found its Stalin
By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 14/08/2005)
Never underestimate a revolutionary regime. In particular, never underestimate the durability of the revolutionaries' fervour to fight for their cause. The French revolution began in 1789, but it was only after two decades of war that the fight was finally knocked out of the revolution's heirs, and repeatedly - in 1830, 1848 and 1870 - they threatened to make a comeback.
The Russian revolution began in 1917, but the Soviet Union posed a mortal threat until the mid-1980s. As for the Chinese revolution of 1949, it was only last month that the regime in Beijing was threatening to go nuclear over Taiwan.
We in the English-speaking world never give up hoping that the revolutionaries will suddenly see the advantages of peace, the rule of law and representative government. That may be because we think our own revolutions - the English revolution of the 1640s and the American revolution of the 1770s - followed that pattern.
---------------------------------------------------
The point is that President Bush's "axis of evil" - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - was never an "axis" at all. Iran and Iraq were historic adversaries. To weaken one was, inevitably, to strengthen the other. Moreover, as the British Government knew all along (see the Downing Street memorandum of July 2002), Iran was significantly closer than Iraq to acquiring real weapons of mass destruction. Now it is even closer. And, worst of all, no one in Iran wants WMD more avidly than President Ahamadinejad.
It is the old revolutionary story: the generation forged by revolutionary war turns out to be more belligerent than the generation who led the revolution itself. Significantly, Ahamadinejad's main election backers were the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basiji, the paramilitary popular militias formed during the Iran-Iraq War. Ahamadinejad is himself a war veteran - one of hundreds of thousands of Iranians who came of age under fire.
So where do we go from here? Plan A - the European carrot - has failed. Plan B - the flaccid UN stick - will also fail. Unfortunately Plan C - American (or Israeli) air strikes - is fraught with peril. According to Michael J Mazarr of the US National War College, Iran could retaliate with "an elaborate, ferocious, global provocation designed to draw the United States into a protracted conflict".
That translates into more terrorism in our cities and an escalation of the war in Iraq. "If Iran wanted," Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid Al Bayati said in February, "it could make Iraq a hell for the United States."
Now, ask yourself, what would be the likely effect of such a confrontation on Iranian politics?
To repeat: the Iranian revolution is still at an early stage. It has not yet produced its Bonaparte, its Stalin, its Mao. Or has it? A full-scale war with the "Great Satan" may be all Mr Ahmadinejad needs to don that bloody mantle.
NATO AIR said:And Iran will be the one that starts it. Iraq is just the beginning. This will not even begin to end until the mullahs in Iran are overturned and Iran is under our control. We have no choice. They will nuke Israel and overrun the middle east if we don't stop them.
dilloduck said:Israel can wipe out Iran---Why does the US have to do it? DO we give them 7 billion a year for frickin nothing?
GunnyL said:Why give Israel the pleasure? Iraq was business ...... Iran is personal. They still owe us, period.
dilloduck said:It's personal enough for me--the American taxpayer will have paid for the whole thing.
GunnyL said:Not if you're nuked, you won't.
And that would REALLY piss me off because if they nuke YOU, I would be screwed. I live in SA.
dilloduck said:Just trying to be clear here about Israel being able to defend itself from anything Iran has to offer including nukes. They don't need our help and why we keep giving them 7 Bil a year is beyond me---even worse--no one even dares question it.
If we blow Irans ass to kingdom come I sure hope we do it to protect America--not Israel.
GunnyL said:My motives are purely National. The idiots that currently hold power in Iran were instrumental in invading a US Embassy -- considered US soil. I STILL have neither forgotten nor forgiven.
I wouldn't have a problem with doing it to protect Israel either. Nothing wrong with taking a stand on the RIGHT side of things.
GunnyL said:My motives are purely National. The idiots that currently hold power in Iran were instrumental in invading a US Embassy -- considered US soil. I STILL have neither forgotten nor forgiven.
I wouldn't have a problem with doing it to protect Israel either. Nothing wrong with taking a stand on the RIGHT side of things.
canavar said:HEllo,
revenge is a natural reason.
I really do not underestimate USA-Military-Power. ISRAEL is anyway Hi-TEC.
But dealing with Iran is more Problem.
US-Jets can easily fly over Iranian-Terrirtory. I am not specialist in Military-Equipment. But Iran has Russian equipment. Also Iran develops much on his own. Satelites, planned being shot to universum from BAIKONUR, U-boats and soon.
Western-Technology will win, but Russian-equipment is also being built for war.
So the miltary-betterness of western Equipment will do only the job for bombing from air andsoon. Mobing Isfahan, where those Atomic-research is made...
But thinking, bombing chirurgic those Places will do the job, is the false way.
If only ISFAHAN is being bombed, it throws Iran only some years back on its way to the bomb. Those extremist-Mullahs and their Motivation for the bomb will remain.
So in some years it would be the same problem again.
This must be done by entering with troops, knowing that Iran has 70 mio inhabitants, and dis-power those Mullahs by Force and bring IRAN a new government.
Does USA have these capacities? Can Israel do this job. It seems to me, ISRAEL can not do on its own. And in USA, it is being discussed to generally-military-service for every citizen?
I was concerned when India/Pakistan developed, so maybe no worry-though I doubt it. My guess, Iran will nuke Israel, unless Jews leave before they do so. May be possible, but where will they go?Kathianne said:While I would hope US or Israel would take out, I don't think it will happen. My guess, Iran already has nuclear bomb, now is developing more and better. They will go nuclear. So will Syria.
What will happen down the road?
canavar said:Syria is far away from haveing atomic-bombs... Do they actually have atomic-research? Our views differ but Syria is weaaaaak.
Iran also has not. But they are on their ambitious way to have, and in some years they will have the bomb. And if Mullahs in Tehran have free hand, they will surely make foreign policy in some years. Foreign Policy based on Atomic-bomb-country.
Nobody could stop them.
Remember that IRAQs Population is SHIA too. Like Iran. Iran has interests in IRAQ, too. And IRAN is almost ally with russia.
Chinese have interests, too. Iranian Oil.
IRAN switched now his oil-markets from $ to (Euro)... In IRAN oil is being sold in now. This can not be welcomed by BUSH.
And IRAN is huge OIL-Country.
Achmadinedjat being "so-called" elected in IRAN is heating up the situation.
But IRANian population is not homogen...
There are only figures about IRANs population from MULLAH-Government.
Persian 51%,
Azeri 24%, (TURKS)
Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%,
Kurd 7%,
Arab 3%,
Lur 2%,
Baloch 2%,
Turkmen 2%, (TURKS)
other 1%
http://www.nationbynation.com/Iran/Population.html
these are numbers from MULLAH-Government source. When you say IRAN, IRAN are Persians. Persians are 51%. 35 Million Persians.
But always, since decades Mullah-Government says, Persians are 51 %.
always 1% over the majority for persians. so, you can be sure these figures are faked to say, the majority has the power.
Azeri-Turks, speaking Turkish, being Turks, are 24 %. 16 Million.
They are terrorized by MULLAHS, being PERSIANS. The same with every other ethnicity.
So fighting IRAN means fighting official 35 Million PERSIANS.
The majority of the rest, would welcome dis-powering those Extremist-Mullahs.
So, you have to back up on those ANTI-MULLAH-Ethnicities entering IRAN. Otherwise bombing all 70 Millions is a heavy war.
Big-bang in the middle-aest.
Not every ethnicities are MULLAHS. But MULLAHS have the Power.
canavar said:HEllo,
revenge is a natural reason.
I really do not underestimate USA-Military-Power. ISRAEL is anyway Hi-TEC.
But dealing with Iran is more Problem.
US-Jets can easily fly over Iranian-Terrirtory. I am not specialist in Military-Equipment. But Iran has Russian equipment. Also Iran develops much on his own. Satelites, planned being shot to universum from BAIKONUR, U-boats and soon.
Western-Technology will win, but Russian-equipment is also being built for war.
So the miltary-betterness of western Equipment will do only the job for bombing from air andsoon. Mobing Isfahan, where those Atomic-research is made...
But thinking, bombing chirurgic those Places will do the job, is the false way.
If only ISFAHAN is being bombed, it throws Iran only some years back on its way to the bomb. Those extremist-Mullahs and their Motivation for the bomb will remain.
So in some years it would be the same problem again.
This must be done by entering with troops, knowing that Iran has 70 mio inhabitants, and dis-power those Mullahs by Force and bring IRAN a new government.
Does USA have these capacities? Can Israel do this job. It seems to me, ISRAEL can not do on its own. And in USA, it is being discussed to generally-military-service for every citizen?
Whomever, whenever, for any reason-with that caveat.GunnyL said:Yes, if we destroy the facility they will just try and rebuild it. It would amount to buying time is all.
We faced Russian and French weaponry in Iraq. All the technology in the world is negated in the hands of novices.
We could beat Iran on the ground IF it was an unlimited war, fought by professionals instead of a limited one fought by politicians.
