[Stalin]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Yes. The USA maintains military bases all over the world, most notably in Germany, yet it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say that the existence of US bases in Germany is a 'threat' to the German people. The same applies to bases in the Middle East. It is conspiratorial to suggest that these bases presuppose a US invasion of the countries that surround them.

The context, however, is clearly not the same. The U.S. bases in Germany are remnants of the Second World War and the Cold War; both wars have ended; almost every country on the European continent is part of the EU/NATO; the continent is at peace.

The U.S. bases dotted around the Middle East and Central Asia, on the other hand, are being used far more frequently (compare Afghanistan to Germany) than their counterparts in Germany. A war on Iran's western border has just ended and one on its eastern border is still raging; and in the midst of all of this, Iran is being told by the U.S., which has no real evidence, that its nuclear programme is a weapons programme. The picture's slightly different now, is it not?

The Iranian regime has been investing in global terror networks for years, totally countering any claim you may make that the regime is not aggressive. What non-aggressive regime massacres tens of thousands of its own citizens and spends a great deal of capital propping up terrorist organisations?

The British Parliament is currently convening to discuss the matter of the almost one thousand men, women and children hanged in Iran in the past three years for simple crimes like being a homosexual. ("The official 170 forms of punishment include limb amputation without anaesthetic and gouging out eyes with a spoon-like instrument.") Furthermore, 120,000 political prisoners have been hanged since the 1979 revolution according to their findings (that's about 10 times the amount of Palestinians killed by Israel in an armed conflict lasting over sixty years, to put it in perspective.).

Secret executions are very much widespread in the IRI. "The [UN] report gives a detail of the executions carried out in 2010-11. It says that nearly 300 secret executions were carried out in the Vakilabad prison of Mashad in the year 2010. While the officially announced executions were 200 in the same year." This is not to mention the mass execution of political prisoners which took place in 1988. (The extensive report is available here.) 30,000 were killed in one single sweep, according to the Telegraph. ("Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.")

Iran is also a major funder of international terrorism, and this funding is precisely what endangers the British people and our allies abroad - notably Israel, but also the ordinary citizens of the country of Lebanon which has been torn apart by violence stemming from the actions of Iranian-backed terror groups, not to mention the occupation of Lebanon by Syria which was also promoted by Iran. Iran funded the recognised terrorist organisation Hamas to the tune of $150 million in 2008 alone. Iran was described by the CIA as the foremost state sponsor of terrorism according to Matthew Levitt in his book Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. He writes, "Iranian involvement in the weapons smuggling incident of the Karine-A - a ship located with Iranian weapons that was intercepted by the Israeli navy en route to Gaza in 2002 - is also well documented. The White House described evidence of Iran's role in the Karine-A incident as 'compelling,' a conclusion echoed in the statements of CIA head George Tenet, senior State Department officials, and even European officials." He goes on: "Iran also runs terrorist training camps of its own in Lebanon, aside from the Iranian-funded camps Hezbollah operates there. In August 2002, Tehran was reported to have financed camps under General Ali Reza Tamzar, commander of the IRGC activity in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley. These camps were designed to train Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and PFLP-GC terrorists in the use of short-range Fajr-5 missle and the SA-7 antiaircraft rocket. The IRGC training program, which reportedly costs Iran $50 million annually, was said to include training for Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists to carry out 'underwater suicide operations.'" As affirmed in the US Supreme Court case Susan Weinsten et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran et al., "the Islamic Republic of Iran gave the organization at least $25-50 million in 1995 and 1996, and also provided other groups with tens of millions of dollars to engage in terrorist activities. In total, Iran gave terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, between $100 and $200 million per year during this period." The country also gave the terrorist organisation Hezbollah $200 million in 2009, not to mention much more on numerous occasions. Iranian support for Hezbollah is just as well-documented as their support for Hamas, if not more. Iran's total disrespect for the security of the people of the Lebanon and the surrounding area, if not the entire Middle East, is astounding and worrying.

And we're supposed to believe that this sober, rational, non-aggressive regime will become even more rational when they get the bomb?

So, essentially, we cannot trust the Iranian regime because it supports Hamas, Hezbollah and even Al-Assad - but we managed to trust the Soviet Union, a far greater killer to its civilians than the Iranian regime will ever be, and a far greater supporter of terrorism than the Iranian regime will ever be. Go figure.

I don't think the remarks of Dempsey or Dagan have much sway in the grand scheme of things. They are important figures but there are many within those organisations who say exactly the opposite, even years ago. A majority of Israel's security establishment applies full meaning to the word 'existential' - most have made it clear that they believe the threat to be exactly that. Anyway, abstaining from attacking would be a disaster not just for the long term survival of the Israeli state but for international law itself. Letting the regime continue with enrichment would make a mockery out of the IAEA, the European Union, the UN and the entire sanctions regime, not to mention that the Revolutionary Guards and the extremist faction of the Iranian government only stand to gain from the continuation of their nuclear policy.

If the point of the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities is to make sure that the world doesn't take the piss out of the IAEA, the EU and the UN, I think we've already lost that one. You can thank India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

I also think that the majority of the Iranian youth will not support the regime at any cost - even after an Israeli strike.

We were told the same about Iraq, and how the civilians were going to shower 'our boys' in flowers.



It didn't really look like this, though, did it?

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
So you give me an example of one of the least aggressive occupations to exist as an argument that Israel are more aggressive than the Iranians, despite the fact that the Iranian regime has killed more Iranians since 1979 than Israel has Palestinians since the 1940s?

Lets see some stats then...

Israel is occupying another country. Iran is governed by a government. The Iranian government cannot be considered an aggressive occupation of another country. Like another poster said, Iran haven't invaded anyone for over a century! In comparison, Israel was founded on a terrorist campaign (the Sten Gang etc), and is a far better example of an 'occupation' than the modern Iranian regime. Given especially that most of the people living in Israel immigrated there and pushed the natives out in the 30s and 40s!

Anyways its hardly surprising that Iran is governed the way it is, given the terrible influence the West has had (e.g. what happened to Mohammad Mossadeq). The state of modern Iran be clearly attributed to the negative effects of Western intervention - as long as the threat of Western intervention and control remains, Iran can never right itself. tbh the prevalence of religious extremism in Iran and the quasi-religious state may be because it appears to the people as the pole opposite (in values etc) of the Western powers that routinely and systematically ruined their country for economic profit!

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Stalin)
We were told the same about Iraq, and how the civilians were going to shower 'our boys' in flowers.



It didn't really look like this, though, did it?

That happens every year in France, 'La Fête Nationale' or 'Bastille Day' to the English so to say it doesn't happen like that is a fallacy as 'La Fête Nationale' has that happen... you'll have to find something related to the UK to really compare, can't use the Champs-Élysées.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by t0ffee)
Lets see some stats then...

Israel is occupying another country. Iran is governed by a government. The Iranian government cannot be considered an aggressive occupation of another country. Like another poster said, Iran haven't invaded anyone for over a century! In comparison, Israel was founded on a terrorist campaign (the Sten Gang etc), and is a far better example of an 'occupation' than the modern Iranian regime. Given especially that most of the people living in Israel immigrated there and pushed the natives out in the 30s and 40s!

Anyways its hardly surprising that Iran is governed the way it is, given the terrible influence the West has had (e.g. what happened to Mohammad Mossadeq). The state of modern Iran be clearly attributed to the negative effects of Western intervention - as long as the threat of Western intervention and control remains, Iran can never right itself. tbh the prevalence of religious extremism in Iran and the quasi-religious state may be because it appears to the people as the pole opposite (in values etc) of the Western powers that routinely and systematically ruined their country for economic profit!

If you'd care to scroll up a little bit to the reply I made to Stalin, the stats are there. The Iranian regime is obviously more aggressive than the Israeli state, and it doesn't need to occupy a foreign land in order to be so: it already is. Some definitional points need clearing up though: Israel is not occupying another country, it is occupying a territory that was without a sovereign ruler upon its occupation - which, by the way, was a defensive occupation in response to the invasion of Israel by its neighbours. And Israel itself is not an example of an occupation, unless you consider all of pre-1967 Israel to be an occupation, in which case you're insane.

To say that Israel 'was founded on a terrorist campaign' betrays a shocking lack of knowledge about how Israel was actually established. The actions of the Irgun and Lehi were roundly discouraged and criticised by the Zionist leadership at the time. The Israeli state was founded by institutions such as the Jewish National Fund and the pre-state settlement organisations headed by David Ben Gurion and the like, not by the shadowy terrorist organisations. (And if you're looking for a state that wasn't founded on an act of violence you'll be searching for quite a long time.) Also, no Jewish immigrant 'pushed out' any native. The creation of Israel in the former British colony did not necessitate the expulsion of the Palestinians. There was enough land there for two states for two peoples under the UN plan, but the Palestinian leadership rejected and many Palestinians fled in the resulting war because of their leaders' rejection of any Jewish state.

There is simply no excuse for the actions of the Iranian regime. To excuse their actions as some sort of legitimate defence against Western imperialism is rather shocking, and you shouldn't be surprised or outraged if someone said to you that Israel can do what they want to Palestinians because of the threat from their Arab neighbours. Either it works both ways or it doesn't - and it's the latter. States have responsibilities and obligations. States like Iran who massacre their civilians because of political reasons do not have get out of jail free cards because the West don't like them.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by Teofilo)
I think the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran is limited, and has been grossly and deliberately exaggerated in certain corners.

No it has not been. If you see the news, they are actually producing nuclear arms, and you don't know what they could do with this. Question: Which country do they hate the most after Israel? Hint: Not america.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Stalin)
The context, however, is clearly not the same. The U.S. bases in Germany are remnants of the Second World War and the Cold War; both wars have ended; almost every country on the European continent is part of the EU/NATO; the continent is at peace.

The U.S. bases dotted around the Middle East and Central Asia, on the other hand, are being used far more frequently (compare Afghanistan to Germany) than their counterparts in Germany. A war on Iran's western border has just ended and one on its eastern border is still raging; and in the midst of all of this, Iran is being told by the U.S., which has no real evidence, that its nuclear programme is a weapons programme. The picture's slightly different now, is it not?

Of course the context isn't the same, but the picture in itself doesn't say anything. The picture highlights in red both Israel and Saudi Arabia as US allies, obviously, yet to claim that there is some sort of communication on the issue of strategy between Israeli and Saudi on the subject of Iran is ludicrous - yet this is exactly what the map hints at. The map in and of itself says nothing.

So, essentially, we cannot trust the Iranian regime because it supports Hamas, Hezbollah and even Al-Assad - but we managed to trust the Soviet Union, a far greater killer to its civilians than the Iranian regime will ever be, and a far greater supporter of terrorism than the Iranian regime will ever be. Go figure.

My point was that you cannot consider the Iranian regime a regime acting purely in self-defence, and you definitely cannot consider it a non-aggressive regime considering how long their attacks on both their own civilians and their proxy attacks on the states surrounding them have gone on for.

If the point of the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities is to make sure that the world doesn't take the piss out of the IAEA, the EU and the UN, I think we've already lost that one. You can thank India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

Yes, I know.

We were told the same about Iraq, and how the civilians were going to shower 'our boys' in flowers.



It didn't really look like this, though, did it?

The Iraq issue is obviously different, however I'd hedge by bets that that majority of Iran's youth would be happy to see the downfall of the regime, just as the majority of Iraqis were happy to see the back of Saddam even if they didn't celebrate on the streets for fear of reprisals from extremist organisations. As Hitch said on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, "The welcome that I've seen American and British forces get in parts of Iraq is something I want to mention first because there are people who say that that never happened. It is commonly said by political philosophers like Maureen Dowd say that where were the sweets and where were the flowers? Well, I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with – months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south. ... [S]till lining the roads and waving and the children waving which is always the sign, because if the parents don't want them to, they don't. For miles, it was like going – it was like, this is the nearest I'll get to taking part in the liberation of the country, to ride in with the liberating army. I'll never forget, and I will not allow it not to be said that that did not happen. And in the marshes too – the marsh Arab area of the country which was drained and burned out and poisoned by Saddam Hussein. Again, an almost hysterical welcome, and in Kurdistan in the north. So, extraordinary."

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
If you'd care to scroll up a little bit to the reply I made to Stalin, the stats are there. The Iranian regime is obviously more aggressive than the Israeli state, and it doesn't need to occupy a foreign land in order to be so: it already is. Some definitional points need clearing up though: Israel is not occupying another country, it is occupying a territory that was without a sovereign ruler upon its occupation - which, by the way, was a defensive occupation in response to the invasion of Israel by its neighbours. And Israel itself is not an example of an occupation, unless you consider all of pre-1967 Israel to be an occupation, in which case you're insane.

You havn't explained what it is occupying To the bold - LOL.

To say that Israel 'was founded on a terrorist campaign' betrays a shocking lack of knowledge about how Israel was actually established. The actions of the Irgun and Lehi were roundly discouraged and criticised by the Zionist leadership at the time. The Israeli state was founded by institutions such as the Jewish National Fund and the pre-state settlement organisations headed by David Ben Gurion and the like, not by the shadowy terrorist organisations. (And if you're looking for a state that wasn't founded on an act of violence you'll be searching for quite a long time.) Also, no Jewish immigrant 'pushed out' any native. The creation of Israel in the former British colony did not necessitate the expulsion of the Palestinians. There was enough land there for two states for two peoples under the UN plan, but the Palestinian leadership rejected and many Palestinians fled in the resulting war because of their leaders' rejection of any Jewish state.

This is simply not true.

On the Stern gang:

Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine. It was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.[19] Lehi assassinated United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte and was banned by the Israeli government.[20] The United Nations Security Council called the assassins "a criminal group of terrorists,"[21] and Lehi was similarly condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche.[22] Lehi and Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration, the Lehi ribbon.[23] Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.... The conflict between Lehi and mainstream Jewish and subsequently Israeli organizations came to an end when Lehi was formally dissolved and integrated into the Israeli Defense Forces on 31 May 1948, its leaders getting amnesty from prosecution or reprisals as part of the integration.

Clearly the criticism was all a bit meaningless. (Source for the quoted bits is wiki). Indeed most sources suggest that Britain abandoned its mandate because of the terrorism in Palestine, not because of Jewish pressure. Ben Gurion was just a figurehead, and as the quote shows Israel was quite happy to except and reward the Stern gang for their efforts.

There is simply no excuse for the actions of the Iranian regime. To excuse their actions as some sort of legitimate defence against Western imperialism is rather shocking, and you shouldn't be surprised or outraged if someone said to you that Israel can do what they want to Palestinians because of the threat from their Arab neighbours. Either it works both ways or it doesn't - and it's the latter. States have responsibilities and obligations. States like Iran who massacre their civilians because of political reasons do not have get out of jail free cards because the West don't like them.

Iran is not occupying another country. The Iranian state is not occupying another county.

Israel is occupying Palestine.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by t0ffee)
You havn't explained what it is occupying To the bold - LOL.

It is occupying a former Mandate of the United Kingdom sanctioned by the League of Nations. After the UN Partition Plan the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, then by Israel. It is not legally correct to say that Israel is occupying another country. And yes, you are insane if you think that pre-67 Israel is an occupation. Such a claim is devoid of any legal or moral value.

This is simply not true.

On the Stern gang:

Clearly the criticism was all a bit meaningless. (Source for the quoted bits is wiki). Indeed most sources suggest that Britain abandoned its mandate because of the terrorism in Palestine, not because of Jewish pressure. Ben Gurion was just a figurehead, and as the quote shows Israel was quite happy to except and reward the Stern gang for their efforts.

The criticism was not meaningless and this doesn't back up your point at all. Israel was founded after a vote of the UN that passed because of the actions of peaceful Jewish organisations like the JNF, and figures like Golda Meir and David Ben Gurion. The quote shows nothing of the sort - they did not accept or reward the Stern gang - they disbanded it.

Iran is not occupying another country. The Iranian state is not occupying another county.

Again, not the point. You do not need to occupy another country to be an aggressive state. Iran props up terrorist organisations that it uses as proxies. These proxies fight wars on behalf of Iran for Iranian money in return, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran have seriously destablised Lebanon and ruined any chance of a democracy there given that they gave monetary and diplomatic support to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Israel is occupying Palestine.

With less deaths as a result than Iran have caused. 35,000 dead Arabs (Palestinians, also including Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc.) since 1948 over five major defensive wars on the one hand, versus well over 100,000 political prisoners in Iran since 1979 over no major wars, not to mention the countless civilians killed or mauled by the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and also the Syrian regime, which are all propped up by the Iranian regime. Why do you not get this? This is my point - you're not saying anything to refute it.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Of course the context isn't the same, but the picture in itself doesn't say anything. The picture highlights in red both Israel and Saudi Arabia as US allies, obviously, yet to claim that there is some sort of communication on the issue of strategy between Israeli and Saudi on the subject of Iran is ludicrous - yet this is exactly what the map hints at. The map in and of itself says nothing.

The point of the map is to show U.S. bases in Iran's vicinity, not "to claim that there is some sort of communication on the issue of strategy between Israeli and Saudi on the subject of Iran."

My point in showing you the map is to try to show you the conflict from a different angle. My example was Israel during its independence, and how a map of the Middle East looked: Israel surrounded by enemies.

Where is the difference between Israel during its independence and contemporary Iran?

My point was that you cannot consider the Iranian regime a regime acting purely in self-defence, and you definitely cannot consider it a non-aggressive regime considering how long their attacks on both their own civilians and their proxy attacks on the states surrounding them have gone on for.

Why is it impossible to imagine a rational Iran? The Soviet Union didn't nuke anyone, whilst killing far more of its civilians and sponsoring far more terrorism - not merely confined to the states surrounding it but worldwide - than Iran.

The Iraq issue is obviously different, however I'd hedge by bets that that majority of Iran's youth would be happy to see the downfall of the regime, just as the majority of Iraqis were happy to see the back of Saddam even if they didn't celebrate on the streets for fear of reprisals from extremist organisations. As Hitch said on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, "The welcome that I've seen American and British forces get in parts of Iraq is something I want to mention first because there are people who say that that never happened. It is commonly said by political philosophers like Maureen Dowd say that where were the sweets and where were the flowers? Well, I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with – months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south. ... [S]till lining the roads and waving and the children waving which is always the sign, because if the parents don't want them to, they don't. For miles, it was like going – it was like, this is the nearest I'll get to taking part in the liberation of the country, to ride in with the liberating army. I'll never forget, and I will not allow it not to be said that that did not happen. And in the marshes too – the marsh Arab area of the country which was drained and burned out and poisoned by Saddam Hussein. Again, an almost hysterical welcome, and in Kurdistan in the north. So, extraordinary."

I've seen the interview before - but my point was that everything we've been told will happen doesn't quite work out:

* WMD - none found.
* No need for as many as 300,000 troops to stabilise Iraq once Saddam was overthrown - clearly quite the contrary.
* Relatively short campaign, you'll be home in no time - eight odd years isn't short.

I could go on for a while and include Afghanistan.

Going back to my point, why should Iran be any different? Why do I sense the contrary will occur when I hear people saying 'just bomb the nuclear sites - don't worry, the pilots will be home for dinner.'

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
It is occupying a former Mandate of the United Kingdom sanctioned by the League of Nations. After the UN Partition Plan the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, then by Israel. It is not legally correct to say that Israel is occupying another country. And yes, you are insane if you think that pre-67 Israel is an occupation. Such a claim is devoid of any legal or moral value.



The criticism was not meaningless and this doesn't back up your point at all. Israel was founded after a vote of the UN that passed because of the actions of peaceful Jewish organisations like the JNF, and figures like Golda Meir and David Ben Gurion. The quote shows nothing of the sort - they did not accept or reward the Stern gang - they disbanded it.



Again, not the point. You do not need to occupy another country to be an aggressive state. Iran props up terrorist organisations that it uses as proxies. These proxies fight wars on behalf of Iran for Iranian money in return, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran have seriously destablised Lebanon and ruined any chance of a democracy there given that they gave monetary and diplomatic support to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.



With less deaths as a result than Iran have caused. 35,000 dead Arabs (Palestinians, also including Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc.) since 1948 over five major defensive wars on the one hand, versus well over 100,000 political prisoners in Iran since 1979 over no major wars, not to mention the countless civilians killed or mauled by the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, and also the Syrian regime, which are all propped up by the Iranian regime. Why do you not get this? This is my point - you're not saying anything to refute it.

This is not an objective historical analysis of the situation - that is all there is to say.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by t0ffee)
This is not an objective historical analysis of the situation - that is all there is to say.

No, that is not all there is to say, you have completely ignored most of my points. This confirms my original suspicion that you don't actually know much about the issue.

[unruly1986]

Rhadamanthus is pretty much spot on with all his posts.

Which is more of a threat? Probably closing the Straits.

That said, if Iran did/does close the Straits, they will be annihilated. No question.

[MxSK]

(Original post by unruly1986)
That said, if Iran did/does close the Straits, they will be annihilated. No question.

wtf? "annihilated", for closing the straits? are you insane? the most extreme thing that would happen is they would re-open the straits and then take out the capability to do it again... what kind of bull**** talk is "annihilated"?

The regime isn't going to pick a fight it knows it going to lose... This has been a consistant fact throughout its whole lifetime. Otherwise it wouldn't exist today.

Look in January when there was last talk of "closing the straits", WaPo reported that US sent a blunt message to Iran through various channels and literally the next day the foreign ministry basically apologised.

And look again this time, just a few days ago after reports of the US increasing persian gulf presence with the introduction "floating military launchpad base" thing. Look at how the foreign ministry panics and wimpers in response:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...9aW_story.html
http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/2045235.html#popupInfo

IRI Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi downplayed threats by Iranian officials in recent months to block the Strait of Hormuz, the slender oil shipping channel out of the Gulf, in retaliation for a European Union ban on its oil exports, Reuters reported.
"Probably those who have suggested this idea have in mind that if Iran is denied access to the Persian Gulf for whatever reason ... then Iran will probably react appropriately," he said.
"But I don't think such a time will ever come," he added.

EDIT:
here's link to the US warning this time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...wart-Iran.html

"Don't even think about closing the strait. We'll clear the mines. Don't even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We'll put them on the bottom of the Gulf."

And as you saw above, IRI wimpers helplessly "ok sorry".

[thisisnew]

Regarding that map of US military bases, I remember checking a few of the 'bases' and they ended up being past-used refueling stations etc with few troops stationed - how many of those bases can actually be considered a good and proper military base of the kind that matches up with the message behind the graphic?

If you look at this map, most of the 'bases' on the right of Iran fall under the 'use of national facilities' category.

[MxSK]

(Original post by thisisnew)
Regarding that map of US military bases, I remember checking a few of the 'bases' and they ended up being past-used outposts for supply lines where they have like 20 troops stationed etc - how many of those bases can actually be considered a good and proper military base of the kind that matches up with the message behind the graphic?

Are you suggesting that the US doesn't have a vast and huge military presence in the region especially in areas surrounding iran i.e afghanistan, the persian gulf?'

If not, then whats your point? Because the message that the US has been wanting to send to iran in the last 6 months has been that they are continuously increasing this military presence (to make up for the the reduction in iraq and also to back up the "all options on the table" quote)... so

[ANIGAV]

(Original post by King Kebab)
Nukes without a doubt I think.

If Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, the West would destroy them within a month.

No, they wouldn't. Their allies wouldnt let such happen.

[thisisnew]

(Original post by MxSK)
Are you suggesting that the US doesn't have a vast and huge military presence in the region especially in areas surrounding iran i.e afghanistan, the persian gulf?'

If not, then whats your point? Because the message that the US has been wanting to send to iran in the last 6 months has been that they are continuously increasing this military presence (to make up for the the reduction in iraq and also to back up the "all options on the table" quote)... so

Well, if you read it again, you'd see I was merely asking how many of the bases depicted on the map can be considered the type of 'threatening' base that the graphic alludes to so no, I'm not suggesting that the US doesn't have a large presence in the Middle East, I'm suggesting that the graphic in question is slightly misleading for example the US vacated the Karshi-Khanabad Air Base in 2005, the US only ever evaluated former Soviet bases in Khujand, the US used Chirchik in 2001 and they're probably going to be forced out of Uzbeki bases in the years to come when the leases expire - this is just a few examples, I wonder how many more on the map are like this.

[MxSK]

(Original post by thisisnew)
Well, if you read it again, you'd see I was merely asking how many of the bases depicted on the map can be considered the type of 'threatening' base that the graphic alludes to so no... I wonder how many more on the map are like this.

Probably quite a few i guess, its something that was made by randoms on the internet, i don't think its actually properly sourced. But i don't think that really changes the point of the map.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
No, that is not all there is to say, you have completely ignored most of my points. This confirms my original suspicion that you don't actually know much about the issue.

Well you haven't listed any sources for all the facts you've included. And tbh the various Zionist and Israeli motifs on your profile suggest that you are most likely bias, and consequently making facts fit beliefs rather than vis versa.

And I know a good amount about the issue lol.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by unruly1986)
Rhadamanthus is pretty much spot on with all his posts.

Which is more of a threat? Probably closing the Straits.

That said, if Iran did/does close the Straits, they will be annihilated. No question.

It wouldn't be worth it for the terrorism and economic aspects etc to annihilate Iran. And America cannot afford another war. They also cannot afford the almost certain cold war esq conflict when China or Russia offer the attacked Iranians assistance (e.g. we'll help you rebuild your government, as long as you put someone sympathetic on the throne lol) etc. The only option is a land invasion and occupation, which they won't do.

I don't think you realize how much better an independent Iran is for the West than other options (Iran influenced by China and Russia).

And the closing of the straits threat was only meaningfully in the context of if America or Israel attack us!. Not 'we will do it whether you do or you don't'.

Iran just has to wait till Israel is not as strategically important to the US as it is now, then it can effectively act as Israel does. And it won't be too long before it happens. The only reason Israel gets so much backing is because they are the most powerful in the region and America don't want them invading oil countries or threatening its activities. Its not because Americans think that the Israelis are morally right or they like Zionism lol.