Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (42994)	9/10/2002 7:52:08 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Agree, we are ignoring Iran rather than have a war with them and Iraq at the same time. Tough enough trying to get support for Iraq to go back in... Once this is accomplished I believe incentives for Iran people to take back their country from these leaders will come about... Esp. with money and support from U.S.

To: LindyBill who wrote (42994)	9/10/2002 10:36:27 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Have we been ignoring Iran? Iran, I believe, requires somewhat different handling than Iraq or Afghanistan. The thing that sets Iran apart is the degree and nature of the domestic opposition to the existing regime. Of all the hostile powers in the region, Iran looks most likely to be brought down from the inside. This situation needs to be exploited, but very subtly: outside meddling, especially from the US, is not well regarded even by those who oppose the mullahs. There is a very real risk that aggressive talk or overt threat could weaken the opposition and rally support behind the regime. We don't want that. I don't know what our people are doing about Iran. I hope they are acting quietly and subtly, rather than doing nothing. I think that aggressive posturing would be out of place. A few comments on the article: Last Friday Iran successfully tested a new ballistic missile, apparently of North Korean vintage. It was the first in a series of tests that will be carried out in coming days, involving five different missiles. Note that there is no mention of the range of these missiles. That looks, to my eye at least, like an attempt to frighten by suggesting that there is a direct threat to the US. The article would be more credible if the missiles (medium range, I believe) were properly identified and the range of threat explained. It is only proper, since Iran is the mother of all modern terrorism, the great engine of terror in the region, and the sworn enemy of the United States. This raises an issue that needs to be dealt with more often: just what sort of terrorism are we fighting against? Too many people are going around shouting about "sponsors of terrorism" without mentioning whether the terrorism in question is aimed at us. I've no objection to using our people and resources to protect ourselves. I don't think we are under any obligation to use them to protect anyone else. The mullahs would be gravely threatened by a free and successful society in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Here we go with that old line of bizarre fantasy again. The mullahs don't want a regime allied with the US on either side. The threat of freedom and success is way too remote to be an issue.