The very fact that Iran is seen as some kind of military threat to the Unites States is testimony to the effectiveness of our propaganda system. The idea is absurd on its face. Further, the people who inhabit what we now call Iran have been at peace with their neighbors for centuries. The last time they were involved in armed conflict was response to an invasion by Iraq, whose ruler at that time was a US client. They remember this. They remember 1953, the brutal Shah (another US client), and the Vincennes.
But suppose that Iran’s leaders, who are viewed as irrational through our lens, decided to fire a missile at Turkey or France or Israel. What would happen? Scorched earth. It would be suicide. Countries do not commit suicide.
The US wants regime change in Iran, preferrably the Shah in democratic garb, a new dictator who would abide by our wishes. The US surrounds Iran with missiles, aircraft carriers are always nearby, and there are constant threats of violence against the country. The US spent millions of dollars to disrupt their elections a few years back. Imagine that any country were to behave in such a violent manner against us – what would be the consequence if Iran’s leaders continually said that the US must be defeated, it’s nuclear program (which is in violation of the Non-proliferation Treaty) sabotaged, it’s leadership brought down. What would be the consequence? (I support all of that, by the way.)
Iran’s leaders are very rational, and know exactly what they have to do to survive: build a nuke. Once armed in this manner, any potential invasion by the US (sometimes called “NATO”) would be stalled. It is called “credible deterrence.” That is the only reason why the US fears Iran having a nuclear bomb.
So tell me, who is the irrational party here?
____________
Interesting link below, first comment by Susan Dirgham. I have been curious why, given the US attitude about democracy in general, it would be offering support to the Syrian movement while trying to undermine all the others. Plausible answers in her link.
Piece of Mindful 
You might be interested in this article by an Australian friend on Syria.
http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/17/syrians-deserve-better-deal
Finally there are some decent articles coming out now on Syria. But still our ABC here in Australia mostly tries to avoid debate or discussion; they prefer to present one simple narrative which beats the drums of war. 22 million people and their views and lives are irrelevant.
LikeLike
Maybe Ron Paul’s your man.
LikeLike
Yes, Swede. The answer lay in partisan US politics.
LikeLike
Our conflict with Iran is largely over control of the Persian Gulf.
If you are anxious to let them have it, I hope you are willing to bear the consequences.
You think it is all right for them to have a nuke. But they don’t have the institutional stability to maintain them in reasonable safety. Are you willing to take that chance? I don’t think you really do.
LikeLike
In other words, we are rational, they are not. Gotcha. All you need now is some evidence, Vincennes guy.
LikeLike
Take this simple rationally test Mark.
Is an offensive attack on Israel a rational act?
LikeLike
For Palestinians, it’s sheer futility. Israel is stealing their land. If they resist, they are fucked. If they don’t resist, they are fucked.
Iran did back Hezbollah when Israel invaded Lebanon, and that turned out to be effective. Israel was forced to withdraw into its own borders.
Beyond that, unless you’ve got a scoop, I don’t think that Iran has attacked Israel.
LikeLike
They are rational, if you consider running things via Shia Islam rational.
You’re the one usually fretting over the religious having any political power.
LikeLike
It’s really none of our business. You do see that, right? You don’t really think the US gives a shit about anything but dominance, right?
LikeLike
I think it would be better that they not have them but its obviously not ‘the end of the world’ if they do and its clearly not worth the cost to attack them to stop it from happening. Clearly the iranians would be deterred from using the weapons offensively. The US military concluded as much in public years ago. More importantly WE (and especially Israel) would have to consider that deterrence value in regards to our OWN actions towards Iran…which is what its really all about.
LikeLike
And by that last ill formed sentence I mean that Iran will be able to deter aggression from the US (and our friends in the neighborhood)..thereby limiting our own freedom to do what we will. We dont like that.
LikeLike
not ‘the end of the world’
Problem is then Saudi will want nukes, then Egypt, then Jordan…
We should draw a line somewhere. But it is hard to draw such lines.
LikeLike
Ergo the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which we are ignoring as to our own responsibilities. Question for you: has Israel signed hat treaty?
LikeLike
If we were going to able to draw that line effectively it would have had to have happened a long time ago, before Israel / Pakistan / and India got them. Some say the Saudis already have nuclear weapons they bought from Pakistan a long time ago. Considering they basically funded the paki weapons program its probably not a stretch.
LikeLike
Who will get involved in an attack on Iran? From my reading, Saudi Arabia is keenly behind if not an attack at least undermining Iran by supporting a nasty civil war in Syria.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/210256.html
This article tells it pretty much as it is, but will ‘we’ (WASPs and friends) take notice of it? It is written by an Iranian political analyst and published on a Russian site, which means it may as well been written by Goebbels for all the credibility it will be given by people. As biased and duplicitous as reports are from most Western mainstream sources, eg BBC, ABC, regarding Syria (my concern now), we trust them because they represent ‘us’, ie the ‘civilized world’.
The first of the Seven Commandments (“Animal Farm”): “Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy”
LikeLike
China has done quite well securing Iraqi oil contracts. We should be very pleased, right?
LikeLike
For those interested in the situation in Syria, the US game plan there etc, this is an excellent presentation of recent events. (It all relates back to Iran and its ‘enemies’ some how.) Unfortunately, the analysis may be dismissed out of hand by those who believe anything from RT is “on two legs..(so) is an enemy”.
http://counterpsyops.com/2011/11/17/bloody-civil-war-at-hand-as-syria-under-ultimatum-video/
LikeLike
Of course the US axis is trying to undermine and topple the Assad regime. They are one of the main pillars of support for the Iranians and crucial to the support of hezbollah. The US and Saudis are certainly helping to stoke whats happening in Syria…just like the Iranians are doing to stoke problems in Bahrain and Yemen. The Iranians are no babes in the woods. They are probably better at this stuff then the US.
LikeLike
In March, a fatwa was put on the Syrian government and president by one of the most influential Sunni clerics based in Qatar. Shouldn’t we know about this and be concerned about this element of the ‘revolution’ in Syria, which is supported by most mainstream Western media outlets, it seems.
LikeLike
From around the 14th Century on, Persians (Iran) were not part of the Ottoman Empire. Syria became a partitioned French colony in 1920 as European countries sliced and diced the former Ottoman Empire following WWI, as a major first act of the League of Nations — long before the first wave of U.N. black helicopters. See also: The Great Game.
Iran is 90% Shia, Syria is only 20% Shia. Over 1.2 million Sunni Iraqi refugees fled to Syria (majority now in Damascus) since Poppy Bush began the Iraq War. Unravel this!
The French neoliberals will come to the rescue via NATO air attacks like we saw in Libya. Nothing ever changes. In the aftermath, international banks will get rich rebuilding from rubble. The collateral to secure the loans: black gold. Classic “disaster capitalism.” Neoliberals are running wild and we hardly know them. They break it, they rebuild it, making money at every turn.
We are neoliberal agitators posing as spectators. Cricket anyone?
LikeLike