AskCherlock » Blog Archive » So, Iran Wants To Wear Long Pants?

Politics-Opinions-Life Issues-Impact!

So, Iran Wants To Wear Long Pants?

25 July 2010 12 Comments

: Image via Wikipedia

Reacting to threats by the European Union to strengthen sanctions against Iran, President Ahmadinejad continued to “rattle his saber”, and expressed his usual contempt for those countries that stand in the way of Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Ahmadinejad’s bellicose behavior comes as no surprise to either the EU or to the United Nations, both of which have repeatedly threatened to punish Iran for it’s uranium enrichment program. The unfortunate truth is that sanctions are unlikely to work over the long run because of Russia’s and China’s reluctance to push too hard against a country they view as friendly to their own self-interests in the region. In the short run, sanctions will not be effective because the government has repeatedly shown its willingness to allow its people to suffer from shortages and deprivations in the pursuit of nuclear weapons. In the end of the “development period”, which is coming soon, the Iranians will have constructed and deployed nuclear weapons in spite of world-wide condemnation.

As Iran enters its final phase of nuclear weapons development, the issue of economic sanctions becomes more and more of a moot point. Although sanctions may continue to be used to “punish” Iran for bad behavior, they will have failed in stopping the Iranians from acquiring “the bomb”. Once Iran has accomplished its objective, there will be few options available to the U.S. or its NATO allies to curtail the Iranians from pursuing more expansionist objectives. In his testimony before the U.S. Senate, General James Cartwright concluded that the U.S. may not be able to permanently stop Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions from happening unless it is willing to occupy the country. Given the unlikelihood that the Obama Administration would seriously consider putting “boots on the ground” in Iran, a more likely scenario would be that the U.S. and NATO nations learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

At this point in time, it is almost “unthinkable” that there would be the political or moral support within the U.S. or anywhere else in the world (except Israel) to engage in a bloody and brutal ground war in Iran. The unintended consequences of such an action would be to boost the life-expectancy of the Iranian leadership, end all chances of internal political pressure taking hold, and risk a regional conflagration as surrounding nations jump into the fray. Iran has deliberately set in motion a course of events that will take it out of its “age of innocence”, and into the world of the “big boys”. In a sense, Iran has made itself a much bigger target for the powerful countries of the world, and has upped the ante immeasurably. Only time will tell if Iran is ready to wear “long pants”, or if its ambitions will ultimately lead to its destruction.

Rich

12 Comments »

Judie said:

Amanutjob needs to put on his “big boy” panties and realize just what he had done to his country.

# 25 July 2010 at 2:52 pm

GreenLeaf said:

There is no second guessing what Iran would do if attacked by anyone. For sure, the price of oil would rise, but internally there would a re-uniting of most Iranians thus keeping the power in the same hands as now.

# 25 July 2010 at 5:04 pm

Barkha Dhar said:

So true Rich!…..couldn’t agree more…..I wish Iran in its mission to be a nuclear independent nation also emphasizes on freedom of voice, which given the country’s current socio-political scenario seems significant. And yes …..love the title!!!!!
Thanks for your valuable perspective.
http://dharbarkha.blogspot.com/

# 25 July 2010 at 10:39 pm

Tweets that mention So, Iran Wants To Wear Long Pants? -- Topsy.com said:

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Barkha Dhar, askcherlock. askcherlock said: New blog post: So, Iran Wants To Wear Long Pants? http://askcherlock.com/2010/07/so-iran-wants-to-wear-long-pants/ [...]

# 25 July 2010 at 11:03 pm

KAK said:

When the U.S. lays down it’s nuclear weapons, then it has the moral authority to tell other countries they cannot have them. Nuclear arsenals are a weight on everyone, no one feels comfortable with them but if Iran or any other nation were to use one it would cease to exist from the response and it is that countries people who have the duty and right to pressure their government into nuclear neutrality. The U.S. opened the lid of Pandoras box, the consequences of which are ours.

Those who are freaking at the thoughts of a nuclear Iran should familiarize themselves with Sibel Edmonds and what she knows(and has not been negated by FBI investigations) about American sales of nuclear technology illegally by high level government officials. Nothing from the American media, Daniel Ellsburg says it is more earth shaking than the Pentagon papers. Her information is too big to prosecute because it encompasses both parties but should be the headline of the decade. Google Sibel Edmonds, the information is out there…..then realize that if we cannot police our own nuclear recklessness, we have no business telling anyone else what they can and cannot do…ith threats of war no less.

# 25 July 2010 at 11:54 pm

admin (author) said:

Judie,
The recent “elections” in Iran showed the world that Amahdinejad is really only a puppet for the Hard-line clerics who really wield the power.

# 26 July 2010 at 8:40 am

admin (author) said:

Greenleaf,
You are correct in your statement. Any attack on Iran would only unite all of the various factions behind a common cause. A ground war in Iran would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, unless nukes were used. Armageddon anyone?

# 26 July 2010 at 8:45 am

admin (author) said:

Kevin,
Great comment! The “nuclear genie” was released by the U.S. back in 1945, and it will be difficult to put it back in the bottle. I’ll have to look into Sibel Edmonds. Sounds interesting!

# 26 July 2010 at 8:50 am

KAK said:

Edmonds….Rich, please do, her case needs public exposure.

# 26 July 2010 at 9:17 am

greg cryns said:

Please excuse my language, but it is difficult for me to express my opinions because, frankly, it goes over the heads of most people. I am not feeling superior about it. Just pissed off espeically when I read the comments here that are sophmoric, at best.

When we talk about IRAN we are talking about its asshole leader and his close asshole friends. We are not necessarily talking about the people of Iran who, as a whole, spend their days working hard to support their families.

To say that IRAN wants to threaten the US would be like saying “The US wants to kill everyone in Afghanistan.” Give me a break. Like the Iranians we are held captive by asshole leaders.

Oh well, saying this is like spitting into the wind, isn’t it?

# 26 July 2010 at 9:21 am

admin (author) said:

Greg,
The leadership of Iran and the leadership of the U.S. both share a propensity for human frailty and unbridled ambition; however, the leadership of the U.S. is accountable to the people (i.e.voters), whereas the Iranian leadership is not. In a sense it was a “revolution” of the voters that brought Obama and the Democrats to power in 2008. A similar type of revolution failed miserably in Iran last year, which ended up in further suppression of free speech and assembly.

# 26 July 2010 at 1:52 pm

KAK said:

Rich here is a link on Sibel Edmonds, one of my blog posts http://kkak.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/sibel-edmonds-you-should-know-her.html . It is loaded with reference links. The Hustler magazine article is the closest Edmonds case has come to mainstream media and should be read……I do hope you and others familiarize yourself with her, you will see the U.S. nuclear hipocracy here.

# 26 July 2010 at 10:40 pm