What would be the reason for invading Iran?

[maveric]

I'm reading posts about what it would take to invade them but dont really know why the US would want to. Oil? Bad people?????

[eridani]

1. Same as for Iraq n/t

[Cleita]

2. Isn't the bad guy dead? So it would have to be to bring

them democracy. I thought the Shah tried that, which is why he was deposed. I guess they didn't want democracy. So why would we try unless it's for the oil.

[Yavin4]

3. Iran Has A Democracy

Shrub will need another reason.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

5. Maybe they are going to " move " Bin Laden there ...

and then say they have some bogus intelligence that Bin Laden has been hiding there and then move in and create more mess . Anything is possible with this administration .

[Eloriel]

38. PNAC and Global Domination

plus Israel's security which is also part of the neocon doctrine.

The neocons have a plan to dominate the entire globe, by force. It's in their document which has served as a blueprint for the Bush administration. Project for a New Century (PNAC) -- look it up and note it well.

[Ms. Clio]

20. Are you being sarcastic about the Shah?

He certainly didn't try to bring democracy to Iran, but was installed in a CIA coup?

[Cleita]

21. That's what the spin was.

The Shah was trying to bring them into the twentieth century and introduce them to western ideas like democracy. I was alive and well when he was still in charge in Persia. This is what was written about him. I know it's as much BS as bringing democracy to Iraq. We really need to bring democracy to America before we start exporting a product we don't own anymore. I should have said that they didn't want our CIA version of democracy.

[Ms. Clio]

22. Thanks, I thought you meant something like this

I had an Iranian friend in high school who told me horror stories about the Shah and SAVAK--she was an ardent Marxist who supported the Ayatollah Khomeini, an interesting combo! When the Shah was overthrown, she couldn't wait to return to Iran, and I never knew what happened to her after that.

[Cleita]

23. I'm sure she was veiled, married off quickly and isn't

allowed to contact former friends without her husband's permission. I actually worked with many Persian refugees of the Bahai faith, who had escaped persecution under the Ayatollah. They told me a lot about the backlash of religious fanaticsm that followed the overthrow of the Shah. I'm sure the same will happen in Iraq after we are gone.

[Ms. Clio]

26. Probably something like that

Although I hope she came back to the States--her parents didn't want her to go back to Iran, and I'm not sure the rest of her family did go back.

She was a brilliant, wonderful girl and she wanted to be a doctor. I hope she was able to achieve her dream.

[eridani]

34. More than interesting, it was the norm in Iran at the time

The coalition against the Shah involved every section of society, from secular to fundie. The fundies screwed their allies after the Shah was overthrown, unfortunately. That's what tends to happen when secularism is associated with servitude to foreign interests--rebellion gets pushed into a fundie religious format.

Maybe your friend lucked out and got to work with Shirin Ebadi, the feminist human rights lawyer who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year.

[Ms. Clio]

36. I gathered from her that it was especially the norm among young people?

She told me she and her friends used to pass around cassette tapes of forbidden speeches and poetry and songs, and that she knew people who were tortured when they were caught with them.

Shirin Ebadi is someone I may have just vaguely heard of, but I confess my ignorance about the country and region is vast.

[eridani]

42. Young people for sure, but the movement had wide support--

--among all age groups. An interview--

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1010-01.htm

Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi told a news conference that she opposed any foreign intervention in Iran.

"The fight for human rights is conducted in Iran by the Iranian people and we are against any foreign intervention in Iran," she said.

The 56-year-old lawyer and human rights activist was speaking after earlier being awarded the Nobel peace prize, becoming the first ever Muslim woman to to get the honor.

An aside--for those who still think being kicked in the teeth by the US military is the best way to democratize the Middle East, exactly what part of FUCK OFF!! WE'D RATHER DO IT OURSELVES!! is it that you don't understand?

[Ms. Clio]

44. She is a brave and admirable woman

Ebadi spent time in jail for attending a 2001 conference on Iranian reform in Berlin. She has maintained a high profile for her feminist struggle also by writing many books and articles.

She has said that pursuing a struggle for human rights in Iran entails constant fear, but, she said in a 1999 interview to the Christian Science Monitor: "I have learned to overcome my fear."


Thanks for the link.

[eridani]

33. There was a secular democracy in Iran in the 50s--

--which did what you would expect any real democracy sitting on a pool of oil to do--they voted to nationalize it. The US and Britain then overthrew Mossadegh and installed the Shah, a Saddam-like secular dictator who prioritized western interests.

[Ms. Clio]

37. Yes, I was shaky on the details of this

but that's what I thought had happened.

[Sinistrous]

4. Besides Wagging the Dog,

OIL.

[maveric]

7. Thats the obvious to me.

But what would the administration use for justification?

[Sinistrous]

12. Well, they are currently using the nuclear weapons gambit. n/t

.

[Bandit]

29. I suspect we will invade their airspace and they will shoot down our plane

That will stir the masses enough so they can get away with whatever they choose. The WMD drum beat will echo from sea to shining sea as well.

[baldguy]

6. 9-11! Bin Laden! Weapons of Mass Destruction-related program activities!

Because we can!

[K-W]

8. Short answer: Nukes, rogue ragime

Long answer:

The main reason will be that they are a 'evil' nation that has gotten or is about to get nukes. They will villianize Iran, showing it to be a human rights horror show and link them to terrorism.

They will use the war on terror and nuclear proliferation as the main selling point. It might definately work if they try it.

[Yupster]

9. Wouldn't surprise me if

we bombed their nuke plant.

No ground invasion though.

Just not possible.

Too big, too mountainous. It just couldn't be occupied.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Oh, the usual.

They have the intent to become interested in creating weapons of mass destruction programs. They did 9/11. And they hate our freedom. Also, they have a lot of oil.

[Stephanie]

11. They're playing dominos n/t

.

[catmandu57]

14. but it's a chess game

and right now the king is approaching jeopardy and these twits don't even know it.

[DrWeird]

13. Reelection.

Bush gets a bust in popularity when he invades other countries. Look at Iraq.

[Jacobin]

15. Because Israel told us to

Why else?

[VOX]

16. "The smoking gun is a mushroom cloud! Iran has WMD! Imminent threat!"

'Plus, they'll throw rose petals at our troops' feet as they march by!"

In short: "The usual lies."

[Killarney]

17. In bed with Al Queda

They let Al Queda cross their borders without stamping their passports or something like that. I forget. Big article about a month ago.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Reason? Reason? We don't need no steenkin' reason!

Don't forget "We're #1!" We're the Newnited States of 'Murka! We do what we want!

[Disturbed]

19. The cannot have nukes.

No permission needed from Congress. The Pres. can attack any country for a period of 20 days. My guess is that Israel will do the attack on the nuke facilities, calling it a defensive strike. If Iran strikes back on Israel the US will send in bombers. Perhaps MOAB will be dropped. The Military is itching to drop that one to see how much damage it can cause. When it is noticable that the Navy is gathering close to Iran that will be the indicator of an attack.

[radwriter0555]

24. Oil and regime change. there are specific factions in iran that want the

US to invade so that they can take charge, like the chalabi/allawi folks did in iraq.

[BiggJawn]

25. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned THIS....

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

It's all there. Iran is just a stepping stone to Total American Dominance in the region. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and all those little countries who are expected to piss themselves and give up without a shot.

Then Israel.
Then America controls all the Middle East oil, so we have plenty to fuel our SUV's with until Jeebus comes back after Halliburton re-builds the Temple....

[Ms. Clio]

27. And, just coincidentally, control the flow of oil to China and Europe, too

And prevent the rise of any possible rival or challenger.

[Disturbed]

28. Oil and Natural Gas

This may answer two questions: The first, what are Bush’s political objectives? It is not so much Iraq’s WMD as we were led to believe; it is more about Iran. Bush will try to outflank Iran and not allow oil and gas pipelines to run through Iran from the Northern Caspian region, Russia, Caspian Sea, and Turkmenistan/ Kazakhstan, South to the Persian Gulf and into Pakistan. Bush, inextricably tied to western oil interests, wants to run their pipelines through Afghanistan into Pakistan as the counter weight on the Eastern front. Then pipelines through Iraq, an Iraq controlled by the U.S., is the counterweight on the Western front. Control Baghdad, you control the Euphrates and Tigris rivers’ trade waterways.

But Russia will try to dominate in the North, with pipelines running North and Northwest into Russia and across to the Black Sea; China will try to dominate the East with pipelines running East and Southeast into China, "The Silk Road" route. Put succinctly: Russia wants the Black Sea routes, China the Silk Road routes, Bush wants everything to flow South from the entire region into his deep pockets via the Persian Gulf routes. Geography rules even if borders no longer matter.

Also, recently reported (Jan/May 2003 NYT), Russia is negotiating massive pipeline routes from its Siberian oil fields: one from Angarsk into the northern industrial region of China and a separate one which would bypass China. Negotiating with the Japanese for a pipeline which would run from Lake Baikal to the port of Nakhodka, near Vladivostok on the Sea of Japan. Oil is the Great Game and everyone is in on it. Russia and China have already opened dialogue on security issues with India, and Japan will not remain in economic doldrums forever.

The second is control of the future; the encirclement of Iran, isolating its oil and gas production, is again, but one of many goals. Control of these routes is primary to western interest’s control of the future. Thus, while Russia and China seem "out of it" today, they along with India have been holding trilateral security meetings regularly since Bush removed the Taliban, and have gone further since the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They see the chessboard. Bush may be pressing the United States into a highly lucrative new Cold War with this trilateral formation; Iran will not sit idle while this takes place. Iran is more the target than Iraq. To control, or dominate Iran, Mr. Bush has to encircle it: Afghanistan to the East, Turkey/Azerbaijan to the North, Iraq to the West, the South are already U.S. stooges. Pipelines, in effect, will become the new Berlin Wall. See the map attached.

The Caspian News Agency reported during the height of the invasion plans, 16:12 16.01.2003/ Iran and Azerbaijan nearing agreement on Caspian Sea: Baku(CNA). The Iranian Deputy Foreign minister Mekhti Safari arrived at Baku to hold talks with the Azeri officials on the Caspian sea. Azerbaijani and Iranian officials have considered dividing the Caspian Sea, which is believed to contain large oil and gas reserves, into five equal parts. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the sea's status was regulated by treaties between the Soviet Union and Iran. Azerbaijan says it is nearing an agreement with Iran on the legal status of the Caspian Sea.

(snip)

Azerbaijan is key to understanding the region and the power. During the past decade the only western source of power and force projection into the region was with the USACC: The United States Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. It was this body that has, and remains, the source of negotiations, planning and structure in the region. Prior to many of its board members entering the present White House along with Mr. Bush, they were the force behind the U.S. Congressional effort called the Silk Road Strategy of 1996-1998; the Caspian initiative; Black Sea pipeline routes and the division of the Caspian Sea, etc.

The USACC Advisory Board consisted of “only” these seven men: Dr. Henry Kissinger, James A Baker III, Lloyd Bentsen, Zibigniew Brzezinski, Dick Cheney, Brent Scowcroft, John Sununu. It is noted here that the current Vice President’s daughter, Elizabeth Cheney-Perry, has been named Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs for regional economic issues; she left Armitage Associates for the job. The USACC Vice-Chairman of the Board is James A Baker IV (Baker Botts, L.L.P.); Chairman Emeritus is T. Don Stacy (VP, Amoco); with Richard Armitage as Board President, until he resigned to become Colin Powell’s Deputy, which rounds out the US elite running the USACC in the past and whose policies remain in place.

*Sorry, I forgot to paste the URL of this when I copied it from DU. This does explain the complicated reasons for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, most likely the reason why J. Kerry and J.Edwards backed both invasion and still maintain both countries need to be occupied by the USA.

The Neo Fascist and Dems will not publicly state the reasons. It is easier to state "democracy" and War On Terror bullshite reasons.

[Ms. Clio]

30. Very interesting--and sounds familiar, I may have read that before

here on DU, like you!

There's a book called American Empire by Andrew Bacevich that apparently argues that U.S. foreign policy is basically the same no matter which party is in power.

From the H-Net review:

Bacevich's most provocative thesis is that American foreign policy
makers have long sought to establish an American empire. Correcting
those who have said that the U.S. has not had a "grand strategy"
since the end of the Cold War, Bacevich shows that, in fact, the
grand strategy now is not only the same as it was during the Cold
War, but also the same as it was in World War II and I, and for at
least the last century of American politics. As he says, "
ultimate objective is the creation of an open and integrated
international order based on the principles of democratic
capitalism, with the United States as the ultimate guarantor of
order and enforcer of norms" (p. 3). One of the most interesting
ways he demonstrates the continuity in approach is by the quotes he
uses to open each chapter of the book. Despite being garnered from a
variety of sources and spanning just over the last century of
American policy, if the quotes were not credited the reader might
easily believe that the same person had uttered all of those remarks
because of their amazingly similar attitude--the attitude of
American righteousness and manifest destiny.

(snip)

Bacevich supports his thesis about the relative continuity of
American foreign policy by using both historical quotes and examples
and also by a convincing array of evidence focusing on the last
twenty years in which he shows that foreign policy goals have
remained the same regardless of which party has power in the White
House. He shows how little difference there has been among
presidential candidates in their foreign policy positions. Any
differences have dissolved upon entering office, when leaders are
quick to realize the usefulness of having an American empire and the
relative ease of pursuing the path of empire and the difficulties of
retreat from that path. Bacevich argues that American policy makers and citizens alike are convinced of the importance of American
leadership (particularly in upholding and promoting American values)
and the dangers of American isolation. These beliefs and others help
frame foreign policy making, leading to similar decisions regardless
of who is actually in office.

I can't link to the review itself, but it can be found at H-Net Reviews.

[lovuian]

31. Weapons Of mass destruction it works

....Look at Iraq

[Disturbed]

32. A shorter reading...

search for PNAC. This explains what is going on. J. Kerry and J. Edwards won't deviate much from present policies.

[walldude]

35. Great Stuff Disturbed..

I read the PNAC document right before the war started. It explained alot.
There's no way Kerry or Bush can pull out of Iraq. With Saddam out of the way, if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq the Shiite majority will instantly ally itself with Iran, setting themselves up to move in on Kuwait, Syria and the rest of the Middle East. Of course thats after killing the Sunni's and Kurds in an Iraqi civil war.

[KingofRock]

39. It's pretty obvious....

Geroge Bush is an imperialist racist Nazi. Anyone who doesn't realize this is under some kind of mind control. I am serious about this. I'm scared.

[zoeb]

40. they need another...

"opportunity zone."

[DebJ]

41. The Emperor wants to expand his Empire

[Elginoid]

43. because of incursions by iranian terrorists into iraq...

duh...

[BonjourUSA]

45. With which troops ??

Iran is a country of 62 million of inhabitants with an well-experimented army (10 years of war against Iraq) and long range missiles.

In Iraq, 150 000 soldiers are not enough for occupying a country of 23 million of inhabitants, how many for one of 62 with desert and high mountains

Slowly but surely, before your asshole president places Iran into the Evil camp, the Iranian youth grabed the power day after day and came again closer to the western countries. It would be a better policy to try helping this youth which is more than 65% of the population than to send many thousands of US young guys to the death.

And, what are the Asian countries (Russian included) which would agree with the US occupation of its pipes of oil supply ?