Is Iran an enemy to the United States?

[CID1990]

We started by over extending ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan with nation building. Countries like Libya were a little cowed by what we did, and guys like Gaddafi started making sure we knew he was "giving up" his nuke programs (heh).

Iran wasn't fooled though. They put a lot of treasure into helping both insurgencies with ID technology. We knew it, and they knew we knew it, and we did nothing about it.

Now for the last 6 years we've been playing footie with Iran, claiming that "no option is off the table" while drawing red lines in Syria that go ignored and unenforced. The Iranians KNOW the military option isn't on the table, that we don't have the stomach for it, and that's one reason they are negotiating a "deal", because they know it will have no teeth and just buy them time.

I'm not sure whether a nuclear Iran would be the end of the world or not. The Norks are much goofier
And they have the bomb. But the Saudis are now engaging the south Koreans for nuclear technology because they.no longer feel they can look to the West to keep things in balance over there. Regardless of our opinion of the Saudis (I'm not a fan), that has the hallmarks of some very dangerous times coming.

I just don't buy all the "everything was perfectly under control right up until 15 minutes ago" bullshIt that is the never ending hot topic of every Republican looking for re-election

a while back we thought everybody had Nukes (Who knew nobody did..? go figure)
Apparently we knew so little about who had 'em and who didn't we thought Saddam was ready to fire 400 Kiloton thermonuclear MIRV devices with Trident III tracking priority structure any minute now...

Turns out it was a few piles of garbage a broken Alpha Emitter and PU238 dumped in a hole... (so close dammit)

Pardon me if I don't get all loose in the lower intestines from this latest round of Advanced Intel

I've never claimed things were peaches with Iran- but if a nuclear Iran is unacceptable- and I'm somewhat ambiguous on whether that is the case- then the last 10-15 years have seen some extremely questionable foreign policy in terms of preventing that.

[houndawg]

Not to mention the fact that the "latest intel" has been saying they're "two or three years" away from the bomb for about 20 years.

Indeed,
If Saddam's pile of rubbish and 12 grams of expired plutonium constitutes a global nuclear threat - then - yes indeed Iran is a regular any minute now cover your ears and for sure in 62 years they'll have the bomb

Iran and the Cornell university of Anthropology department are on the same "bomb" timeline apparently

The CIA is all over this - I feel safer already

like they were all over the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[travelinman67]

Associated Press State Dept. assigned reporter Matt Lee stepping out of line, keeping State Department spox Psaki honest. Kudos to a reporter who's doing his job...

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=yQmldslXgfA[/youtube]

...in keeping with AP/Dem tradition...he'll be transferred to the AP Yemen field office next month.

[kalm]

Glenn Greewald:

We're told Iran is dangerous because some yell "Death to America" as biggest US newspapers keep publishing demands that Iran be bombed.
6:06am - 26 Mar 15

[Wedgebuster]

Iran is our longtime ally, we armed them, we educated them, we aided in their energy industry, and we were defending them as well. Maybe we should be working to normalize diplomatic relations with them again. Especially given their geographical location and who their neighbors are, we would have much more to gain to do so. I don't really see that we have any friends in the region..at all.

Besides that, you know, you should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer..

[houndawg]

Iran is our longtime ally, we armed them, we educated them, we aided in their energy industry, and we were defending them as well. Maybe we should be working to normalize diplomatic relations with them again. Especially given their geographical location and who their neighbors are, we would have much more to gain to do so. I don't really see that we have any friends in the region..at all.

Besides that, you know, you should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer..

Not to mention the potential billions in weapons sales.

[CID1990]

Iran is our longtime ally, we armed them, we educated them, we aided in their energy industry, and we were defending them as well. Maybe we should be working to normalize diplomatic relations with them again. Especially given their geographical location and who their neighbors are, we would have much more to gain to do so. I don't really see that we have any friends in the region..at all.

Besides that, you know, you should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer..

There's something to be said for that- but the inmates have been running the asylum there since the 1970s. That would be a tough nut to crack. Kudos to whoever figures out how to do it.

They'll have to at least stop hanging the homos from cranes, forget about the nukes

[Chizzang]

If anybody cares to look above you can see that 75% of the people on this forum think Iran is an actual ENEMY



We are either using the word ENEMY extremely loosely
and need to re-define just what that means
or
If Iran qualifies as an ENEMY we've got a world full of enemies
including (topping the list) ourselves

[89Hen]

we've got a world full of enemies
including (topping the list) ourselves

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc5iTNVEOAg[/youtube]

[Wedgebuster]

[houndawg]

Iran is our longtime ally, we armed them, we educated them, we aided in their energy industry, and we were defending them as well. Maybe we should be working to normalize diplomatic relations with them again. Especially given their geographical location and who their neighbors are, we would have much more to gain to do so. I don't really see that we have any friends in the region..at all.

Besides that, you know, you should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer..

There's something to be said for that- but the inmates have been running the asylum there since the 1970s. That would be a tough nut to crack. Kudos to whoever figures out how to do it.

They'll have to at least stop hanging the homos from cranes, forget about the nukes

RocknRoll.

The demographics are perfect.

[Wedgebuster]

There's something to be said for that- but the inmates have been running the asylum there since the 1970s. That would be a tough nut to crack. Kudos to whoever figures out how to do it.

They'll have to at least stop hanging the homos from cranes, forget about the nukes

RocknRoll.

The demographics are perfect.

'zactly, they are also highly educated, they went to our finest universities. Shockingly to all that want to "bomb Iran", they are not Arabs, but Persians.

Of course they want to have a nuke, duh?? Because BB and Burner want to "bomb Iran".

Again, the only time one country used nuclear weapons was when one country had them and the other did not.

[kalm]

Nuclear compliance. Hostage swap. Sanctions now lifted. New markets.

Obama victory?

Reason for hope or still our enemy?

http://news.yahoo.com/rouhani-hails-gol ... 39167.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

we've got a world full of enemies
including (topping the list) ourselves

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc5iTNVEOAg[/youtube]

Missed this. Gotta love the 90's bubblegum rock.

[CAA Flagship]

Nuclear compliance. Hostage swap. Sanctions now lifted. New markets.

Obama victory?

Reason for hope or still our enemy?

http://news.yahoo.com/rouhani-hails-gol ... 39167.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States imposed sanctions on 11 companies and individuals for supplying Iran's ballistic missile program, the U.S. Treasury Department said.

The new sanctions come after the Obama administration delayed the action for more than two weeks during tense negotiations to free five American prisoners, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-imposes-ballist ... 29380.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

Iran certainly considers the United States an enemy. Iran is the largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad.

Iran views restraint as weakness to be exploited and placation as weakness to expand upon, therefore it might be wise to oppose Iran with strength as opposed to give them $100 Million+ in aid to expand their militaristic abilities.

Just sayin'

[kalm]

Iran certainly considers the United States an enemy. Iran is the largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad.

Iran views restraint as weakness to be exploited and placation as weakness to expand upon, therefore it might be wise to oppose Iran with strength as opposed to give them $100 Million+ in aid to expand their militaristic abilities.

Just sayin'

How do you measure Iran as the "largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad"?

Did we really give them $100 million?

[Bronco]

_

Iran is trolling us and laughing at Obama and he bends over and takes it
I guess helping them get Nukes is more important than his self respect.

Latest BS from Iran...Iran: ‘American Sailors Started Crying After Arrest’
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-ge ... ured-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Via BI:

The United States and Iran on Sunday settled a longstanding claim at the Hague, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest, the State Department said.

[Ibanez]

I think the term is "frenemy."

[LeadBolt]

Iran certainly considers the United States an enemy. Iran is the largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad.

Iran views restraint as weakness to be exploited and placation as weakness to expand upon, therefore it might be wise to oppose Iran with strength as opposed to give them $100 Million+ in aid to expand their militaristic abilities.

Just sayin'

How do you measure Iran as the "largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad"?

Did we really give them $100 million?

You are correct, it's not $100 million, but rather $1,700 million. Sorry for understating this. Thanks to Bronco for correcting.

ISIS, Hezbollah, etc.

[kalm]

How do you measure Iran as the "largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad"?

Did we really give them $100 million?

You are correct, it's not $100 million, but rather $1,700 million. Sorry for understating this. Thanks to Bronco for correcting.

ISIS, Hezbollah, etc.

What part our budget did that come out of?

And you didn't answer the other question.

[LeadBolt]

You are correct, it's not $100 million, but rather $1,700 million. Sorry for understating this. Thanks to Bronco for correcting.

ISIS, Hezbollah, etc.

What part our budget did that come out of?

And you didn't answer the other question.

I let others define it. Here is a quote and source:

The U.S. State Department considers Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." U.S. officials say Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups--most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon--posing a security concern to the international community.

Source:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For other sources across a range of thoughts try these for additional reading:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/p ... -terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-report- ... 1434720328" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... rism-label" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/13/is- ... lah-assad/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-ir ... ism-2015-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me know if you need more.

[CID1990]

Remember when supporting tyrants because they did what we wanted them to was a bad thing?

The new paradigm is we kill those tyrants (because evil) and leave power vacuums and failed states... and we play nice with regimes like Iran so they'll pretend to cooperate with us, and give us the occasional domestic political win.

Ten years from now we're all going to be wondering what we were thinking, and why we didn't "do nothing".

[kalm]

What part our budget did that come out of?

And you didn't answer the other question.

I let others define it. Here is a quote and source:

The U.S. State Department considers Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." U.S. officials say Iran provides funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups--most notably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon--posing a security concern to the international community.

Source:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For other sources across a range of thoughts try these for additional reading:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/p ... -terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-report- ... 1434720328" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... rism-label" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/13/is- ... lah-assad/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-ir ... ism-2015-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me know if you need more.

Thanks, LB. The reason I asked is that shiites are a small percentage of the worldwide muslim population and while everyone knows of Iran's support of West Bank terrorism, it would still seem a stretch to say Iran is the "largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad".

I noticed in the later post that you changed that to "state sponsored terrorism" which I suppose might be closer to the truth.

I opened your Guardian link and it only indicated how the US government viewed Iran. You haven't lost your skepticism for the government have you?

I'm just checking on accuracy here, LB.

Here's a good read on some more state sponsored terrorism...

Today, it’s the case in Yemen where the U.S. and France are helping Saudi Arabia in its massive air war against Houthi Shi‘ites. And it’s the case in Syria, the scene of the most destructive war game of them all, where Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states are channeling money and arms to Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh), and similar forces with the full knowledge of the U.S.

Western leaders encourage this violence yet decry it in virtually the same breath. In April 2008, a Treasury official testified in a congressional hearing that “Saudi Arabia today remains the location from which more money is going to … Sunni terror groups and the Taliban than from any other place in the world.” [See Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Their Oil Is Thicker Than Our Blood,” in in Sarah N. Stern, ed., Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 127.]

In December 2009, Hillary Clinton noted in a confidential diplomatic memo that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” In October 2014, Joe Biden told students at Harvard’s Kennedy School that “the Saudis, the emirates, etc. … were so determined to take down [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war … [that] they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda.”

Just last month, a New York Times editorial complained that Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis were continuing to funnel donations not only to Al Qaeda but to Islamic State as well.

Yet despite countless promises to shut down such funding, the spigots have remained wide open. The U.S. has not only acquiesced in such activities, moreover, but has actively participated in them. In June 2012, the Times wrote that the C.I.A. was working with the Muslim Brotherhood to channel Turkish, Saudi and Qatari-supplied arms to anti-Assad rebels.

Two months later, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Al Qaeda, Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood dominated the Syrian rebel movement, that their goal was to establish a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” where Islamic State’s caliphate is now located, and that this is “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition” – i.e. the West, Gulf states, and Turkey – “want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

More recently, the Obama administration made no objection when the Saudis supplied Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, with high-tech TOW missiles in support of its offensive in Syria’s northern Idlib province. It did not complain when the Saudis vowed to step up aid to such groups in response to Russia’s intervention in support of the besieged Assad regime.

Two weeks ago, the Times’s Ben Hubbard noted that 50 American Special Operations troops injected into northern Syria have been assigned to work with Arab rebels who had previously collaborated with Al Nusra and – although Hubbard didn’t say so – would undoubtedly do so again as soon as the Americans had gone.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/14/h ... ls-terror/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, did you happen to edit something from your post? I swear there was another comment there, but I don't see it now.

[LeadBolt]

I let others define it. Here is a quote and source:



Source:
http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For other sources across a range of thoughts try these for additional reading:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/p ... -terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-report- ... 1434720328" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/s ... rism-label" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/13/is- ... lah-assad/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-ir ... ism-2015-5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me know if you need more.

Thanks, LB. The reason I asked is that shiites are a small percentage of the worldwide muslim population and while everyone knows of Iran's support of West Bank terrorism, it would still seem a stretch to say Iran is the "largest nation state that supports terrorism abroad".

I noticed in the later post that you changed that to "state sponsored terrorism" which I suppose might be closer to the truth.

I opened your Guardian link and it only indicated how the US government viewed Iran. You haven't lost your skepticism for the government have you?

I'm just checking on accuracy here, LB.

Here's a good read on some more state sponsored terrorism...

Today, it’s the case in Yemen where the U.S. and France are helping Saudi Arabia in its massive air war against Houthi Shi‘ites. And it’s the case in Syria, the scene of the most destructive war game of them all, where Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states are channeling money and arms to Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh), and similar forces with the full knowledge of the U.S.

Western leaders encourage this violence yet decry it in virtually the same breath. In April 2008, a Treasury official testified in a congressional hearing that “Saudi Arabia today remains the location from which more money is going to … Sunni terror groups and the Taliban than from any other place in the world.” [See Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Their Oil Is Thicker Than Our Blood,” in in Sarah N. Stern, ed., Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 127.]

In December 2009, Hillary Clinton noted in a confidential diplomatic memo that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” In October 2014, Joe Biden told students at Harvard’s Kennedy School that “the Saudis, the emirates, etc. … were so determined to take down [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war … [that] they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda.”

Just last month, a New York Times editorial complained that Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis were continuing to funnel donations not only to Al Qaeda but to Islamic State as well.

Yet despite countless promises to shut down such funding, the spigots have remained wide open. The U.S. has not only acquiesced in such activities, moreover, but has actively participated in them. In June 2012, the Times wrote that the C.I.A. was working with the Muslim Brotherhood to channel Turkish, Saudi and Qatari-supplied arms to anti-Assad rebels.

Two months later, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Al Qaeda, Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood dominated the Syrian rebel movement, that their goal was to establish a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” where Islamic State’s caliphate is now located, and that this is “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition” – i.e. the West, Gulf states, and Turkey – “want in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

More recently, the Obama administration made no objection when the Saudis supplied Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, with high-tech TOW missiles in support of its offensive in Syria’s northern Idlib province. It did not complain when the Saudis vowed to step up aid to such groups in response to Russia’s intervention in support of the besieged Assad regime.

Two weeks ago, the Times’s Ben Hubbard noted that 50 American Special Operations troops injected into northern Syria have been assigned to work with Arab rebels who had previously collaborated with Al Nusra and – although Hubbard didn’t say so – would undoubtedly do so again as soon as the Americans had gone.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/14/h ... ls-terror/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, did you happen to edit something from your post? I swear there was another comment there, but I don't see it now.

The bourbon wore off.