Why is US obsessed with Iran

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

There are two fold reasons why USA is obsessed with Iran.

1. Israel: It is no secret which is the most powerful lobby in United States, a lobby that even has the power over POTUS (President of United States of America). It does not help that even now Obama is backed with AIPAC. Just lately on 15/3/10 AIPAC lashed out at Obama publicly for his statements for what it calls "escalated rhetoric" on the part of the administration in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's push for new housing units in East Jerusalem.

"The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State."

It is no secret Israel want's Iran gone for various reasons.

2. Russia: If US is able to control Iran it will also have hold over Caspian basin area which was the stronghold of USSR before it's fall. Iran is the last point US has to secure to surround Russia.

Your wrong on both counts, the Jewish Lobby is not the reason the USA supports Israel. One of the reasons the US supports Israel is US support for Israel actually allows the United States to soften Israel in a manner which makes the Middle East a less tense and more benign environment for the United States than it would be absent such support

You might want to read this Seven Reasons To Support Israel
The Jewish Press ^ | March 20 2002 | U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe
James M. Inhofe - U.S. Senator - Oklahoma
United States Senator Jim Inhofe, one of the leading conservative voices in the Senate, is a strong advocate of common sense Oklahoma values. Speech on the Senate Floor.

Seven Reasons To Support Israel

there is a religious componet by Christians to support Isreal, also is the only example of democracy and economic development in the middle east.



Now as far as Russia is concerned its not the USSR it only has about ten percent of the economic and military budget of the USA. Russia is not a threat to the the USA. Its failed ideaology is no longer a threat to the world, get over it.

 

[Ek Bhartiye]

Your wrong on both counts, the Jewish Lobby is not the reason the USA supports Israel. One of the reasons the US supports Israel is US support for Israel actually allows the United States to soften Israel in a manner which makes the Middle East a less tense and more benign environment for the United States than it would be absent such support

I did not said Jewish lobby, I used the term "Israel Lobby". There is a difference between Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. Israel lobby includes hardcore right wing Christians. Since Israel inception, Middle East has hardly been war free zone. Therefore the statement of "less tense and more benign environment" stands no ground.

You might want to read this Seven Reasons To Support Israel
The Jewish Press ^ | March 20 2002 | U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe
Seven Reasons To Support Israel there is a religious componet by Christians to support Isreal,

I would rather think and decide for myself.

also is the only example of democracy and economic development in the middle east.

American backing is often justified by the claim that Israel is a fellow‐democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. This rationale sounds convincing, but it cannot account for the current level of U.S. support. After all, there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the lavish support that Israel does. The United States has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance U.S. interests, and it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today. Thus, being democratic neither justifies nor explains America’s support for Israel.
The “shared democracy” rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli democracy that are at odds with core American values. The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.

Similarly, Israel does not permit Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens to become citizens themselves, and does not give these spouses the right to live in Israel. The Israeli human rights organization B’tselem called this restriction “a racist law that determines who can live here according to racist criteria.” Such laws may be understandable given Israel’s founding principles, but they are not consistent with America’s image of democracy.

Israel’s democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Israel controls the lives of about 3.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, while colonizing lands on which the Palestinians have long dwelt. Israel is formally democratic, but the millions of Palestinians that it controls are denied full political rights and the “shared democracy” rationale is correspondingly weakened.

Now as far as Russia is concerned its not the USSR it only has about ten percent of the economic and military budget of the USA. Russia is not a threat to the the USA. Its failed ideaology is no longer a threat to the world, get over it.

Only if US administration would have understood it but sadly that's not the case.

 

[Aspahbod]

US does not depend on ME oil. FACT.

Sure sir.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

I did not said Jewish lobby, I used the term "Israel Lobby". There is a difference between Jewish lobby and Israel lobby. Israel lobby includes hardcore right wing Christians. Since Israel inception, Middle East has hardly been war free zone. Therefore the statement of "less tense and more benign environment" stands no ground.


I would rather think and decide for myself.



American backing is often justified by the claim that Israel is a fellow‐democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. This rationale sounds convincing, but it cannot account for the current level of U.S. support. After all, there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the lavish support that Israel does. The United States has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance U.S. interests, and it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today. Thus, being democratic neither justifies nor explains America’s support for Israel.
The “shared democracy” rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli democracy that are at odds with core American values. The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.

Similarly, Israel does not permit Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens to become citizens themselves, and does not give these spouses the right to live in Israel. The Israeli human rights organization B’tselem called this restriction “a racist law that determines who can live here according to racist criteria.” Such laws may be understandable given Israel’s founding principles, but they are not consistent with America’s image of democracy.

Israel’s democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Israel controls the lives of about 3.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, while colonizing lands on which the Palestinians have long dwelt. Israel is formally democratic, but the millions of Palestinians that it controls are denied full political rights and the “shared democracy” rationale is correspondingly weakened.


Only if US administration would have understood it but sadly that's not the case.

I would read what you wrote, but as you say "I would rather think and decide for myself."

 

[Ek Bhartiye]

I would read what you wrote, but as you say "I would rather think and decide for myself."

It's about time. I say better late than never to start thinking for yourself instead relying on Fox news and AIPAC/ JDL flyers to think or speak for you. Good for you.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

1:Iran could defeat Iraq in just one year if:
It was not supported financially by so many countries
France, Brazil, UK, USSR didn't give it so many weapons or helped it with military technology
Nearly all of the Arab countries didn't send manpower
So many countries didn't give Saddam so many substances which could be used to make Chemical weapons.
Iraq didn't use "so much" chemical weapons against Iran.

In just one year, Iran repelled the Iraqi invasion. Saddam was scared and asked for a ceasefire. Iran didn't accept and started some offensives to recapture all the lost territory. Many other countries gave financial help and sold weapons to Iraq. Even with those, Iran Was successful in invasions. Then Saddam started to use chemical weapons. What really stopped Iranian offensive.

2:Iran just lost half million.
3:Iraq didn't have a proper air defense. and it's troops were mostly untrained and its weapon systems were very old. Without "any" upgrades. For example their T-72 didn't have night vision, IR tracking, fire control systems, ERA , etc. American Abrams could easily shoot Iraqi old tanks from distance thanks their fire control systems. And also Iraq didn't have any proper tactics. Like all other Arab countries. Is it too hard to take down such a country?

The most unlikely country to support Iran was Israel, given that the revolutionary government had replaced the country's longstanding alliance with an obsessive and hostile Anti-Zionism. Still, the Israelis did provide some arms to their Iranian enemies. Why?

Two main reasons:

One is that Israel often subscribes to the Middle East dictum, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and Iraq was viewed as a more immediate danger.

A large number of Jews remained in Iran, and the Israelis hoped to essentially buy their safety while covert and not-so-covert efforts were undertaken throughout the war to get Iranian Jews out of the country.

I was wondering if Iran ever thanked Israel for their support during the Iran Iraq war.

Have you ever wondered if not for the UN US santions on Iraq that there might have been a second Iran Iraq war with more WMD and even nuclear weapons. If not with Saddam maybe his sons.

And you are right it was not a fair fight the USA has a stronger military then all the armed forces in the middle east combined.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

It's about time. I say better late than never to start thinking for yourself instead relying on Fox news and AIPAC/ JDL flyers to think or speak for you. Good for you.

Is that a Muslem thing or an Iranian thing, censoring what other people want to read or listen to.

 

[Ras]

Sure sir.

Let your belief keep you secure...after all facts have been shown in this very thread that ME oil accounts for 20% of the US oil supply and not 80%.

 

[mike05]

I lived thru the Saudi oil so-called 'embargo' back in the 1970s. That was when US vehicles had far worse fuel mileage and we were overall far less energy efficient than today. Even so, that so-called 'embargo' did not last long. It was nothing more than a reduction in output. The long lines for gasoline in the US were more the result of minor panic and over cautious oil companies, not from a genuine shortage. In the end, that output reduction hurt the Saudis more than it hurt US and after a number of years, the Saudis admitted it.

In 1970 America still produced a decent amount of Crude to satisfy internal demand so the Oil shock impact was limited. And true cars are alot more efficient now then back in the 1970 so the car manufacturers just made them more powerful negating the effects of fuel efficiency, most people in Europe drive a 1.2 - 2 Liter car in the US anything below 2 Liters is probably a laugh. Also how many budget airlines were in service back in the 1970?


That is why in the global calculus, inter-states stability in the ME is more attention grabbing than anything from NKR. The North Korean regime is simply trying to survive whereas both Iran and Iraq had territorial/political expansionist ambitions, at the expense of regional stability if either deemed it necessary. So yes, at the highest level, oil is very much an important factor. But for US? Not really. In an emergency, the US, Canada and Mexico would unite and support each other economically and we can get by without the ME. The ME would rapidly collapse from lack of revenue because the oil sheiks were the ones who started their own collapse. Asian and European powers would literally battle it out in the ME to gain access to anyone left standing there.

So good luck in continuing to believe that the US is more dependent on ME oil than the rest of you.

So lets play out two scenarios
Option 1. Middle East decides not to sell oil to the US (as you said its not vital).
- Will the Middle East collapse due to lack of funds I doubt it as China, India & Europe will buy up whatever they have in stock (And both countries don't have trillion dollar deficits). And the new Middle East is already flooded with cash anyway.
- Due to Oil shortage Canada and Mexico are requested to pump out more oil to meet the US shortage of 20% (Both of which have low spare capacity and Canada's landscape will be further ruined more then it is already which I am sure citizens there will be overjoyed). As demand goes up and supply goes down the price of Oil supplied to the US will go up. To finance this the US govt will print more cash and sell the bonds to China and India. Hummers and SUV will be sold as scrap, people in the surburb will take the trains to work like the UK, oh wait are there trains near the suburbs?


Option 2. Middle East decides not to sell Oil to the US and the US war machines go to work.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

So lets play out two scenarios
Option 1. Middle East decides not to sell oil to the US (as you said its not vital).
- Will the Middle East collapse due to lack of funds I doubt it as China, India & Europe will buy up whatever they have in stock (And both countries don't have trillion dollar deficits). And the new Middle East is already flooded with cash anyway.
- Due to Oil shortage Canada and Mexico are requested to pump out more oil to meet the US shortage of 20% (Both of which have low spare capacity and Canada's landscape will be further ruined more then it is already which I am sure citizens there will be overjoyed). As demand goes up and supply goes down the price of Oil supplied to the US will go up. To finance this the US govt will print more cash and sell the bonds to China and India. Hummers and SUV will be sold as scrap, people in the surburb will take the trains to work like the UK, oh wait are there trains near the suburbs?


Option 2. Middle East decides not to sell Oil to the US and the US war machines go to work.

Option 3.. USA developes alternative energy supplies and no long imports oil.
If we could find alternatives for 20 percent we could eliminate the middle east as a supplier and oil would drop to ten dollars a barrel.

All the middle east has is oil. The middle east was once the world’s most advanced region, but these days its biggest industries are extravagant consumption and the venting of resentment. According to the UN’s 2004 Arab human development report, the region boasts the second lowest adult literacy rate in the world (after sub-Saharan Africa) at just 63 per cent. Its dependence on oil means that manufactured goods account for just 17 per cent of exports, compared to a global average of 78 per cent. Moreover, despite its oil wealth, the entire middle east generated under 4 per cent of global GDP in 2006—less than Germany. That is piteful.

 

[gambit]

Iran as a signatory to NPT is full within it's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purpose. IAEA has in fact said it have not found any evidence of weapons programme and affirmed that Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful. Last year IAEA director specifically stated, "As I have said many times, and I continue to say today, the Agency has no concrete proof there is an ongoing weapons programme in Iran".

People can read for themselves and see how deceiving is this argument.

News Center : IAEA and Iran

Contrary to popular myth, the Israeli bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor did not stop it's nuclear weapons program. In fact, it may well have started or greatly expanded it, according to Iraqi nuclear scientists who have written on it. It was not the bombing raid that stopped Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, but Operation Desert Storm (ten years later) and the IAEA inspection that followed.

The Osirak attack was never intended to completely stop Iraq's nuclear weapons program but to retard it and it worked.

I cannot believe even after all this time people still believe this HOAX of "Wiping out Israel". This myth derives from a remark made by Ahmadinejad:"This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be wiped off/eliminated from the pages of history/our times." The term is regime not Israel and the people living there. How is it different from Clinton's early this year remark that Iran's leadership is dictator and should be removed?

Every time I see the rhetorical tap-dancing about this by Iranian defenders, I cannot help but wonder what 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' really mean...

Actually, diplomacy with Iran has not been tried by the United States. It is sanctions that have been tried and failed for five years by Bush Administration. It refused to talk to Iran at all about nuclear issues because Iran did not accept U.S. demands that it first suspend all enrichment. More of the same is not going to produce different results, and trying for "crippling sanctions" will only make things worse. Even last year when Obama took office he stated he will talk with Iran without any pre-conditions but he did not and instead has resorted to same old threats and sanctions.

The deception here is 'enrichment level'. If the intention is truly about peaceful use of nuclear technology then all NPT privileges cannot be denied to a member, which Iran is a signatory. But the Iranian enrichment program was not about enrichment level for non-military use but higher...

Iran Raising Uranium-Enrichment Level | Arms Control Association

Nuclear power reactors typically use uranium enriched to about 4 percent. Weapons-grade enrichment levels are generally around 90 percent, although nuclear weapons can also be produced using uranium enriched to about 80 percent. The IAEA defines highly enriched uranium (HEU) as uranium enriched to levels of 20 percent and higher.

Due to space restriction issue, nuclear powered ships uses %90 enrichment uranium...

Nuclear-Powered Ships | Nuclear Submarines

they deliver a lot of power from a very small volume and therefore run on highly-enriched uranium (>20% U-235, originally c 97% but apparently now 93% in latest US submarines, c 20-25% in some western vessels, 20% in the first and second generation Russian reactors (1957-81)*, then 45% in 3rd generation Russian units),

Iran does not have a nuclear powered navy and there are no restrictions on land, so when a nuclear state begins to enrich above the known technical requirements for non-military uses, what else can other NPT members do but to cast suspicions.

 

[ARSENAL6]

This movie was totally fiction. If you think it was fact then you are delusional. It was a Hollywood Movie!!!! It was made to make money off of anti-Americans like you.

Is that it ?

Is that the best rebuttle you can do for Fearinhight 911 ?

Is it because you haven't got any good answer of your own ?

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

Iran provides more funds, training and arms to more terrorist then any country in the world, I dont trust them with nuclear weapons.

 

[zagahaga]

USAObsession over Iran won't stop until ahmedeenajad dead body will be hanging ..... Uncle Sam at his best

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

USAObsession over Iran won't stop until ahmedeenajad dead body will be hanging ..... Uncle Sam at his best

But Russia and China have huge trade & and geo political value in Iran its like Russia Attacking Canada and saying that they will hold the Candian Prime Minister (who ever insignificant one may that be)