The Situation in Iran

[Cocytus]

This ought to get some juices flowing.

You'd have to have been living under a rock not to notice the upheaval in Iran following the June 12th election, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner before millions of ballots were counted.

My question is, what should/can the United States do?

Option 1: None of this matters. The only concern is Iran's nuclear program. Moussavi isn't likely to be a huge change on that front, so who cares if he's president or not. Enough doe-eyed naivete, just destroy Natanz already.

Option 2: We have a clear duty, as the leader of the free world, to take any action in support of democracy. We should support the opposition with direct military action to bring down Khamenei's government.

Option 3: Support the opposition with weapons and funding. Let's not get bogged down in another quagmire that gets our own boys killed. Let's arm the opposition so they can bring down the government for us.

Option 4: Stay out of it. We intervene in any way, and we change the dialogue. We lend credence to the government's claim of US meddling, and reduce popular support within Iran for Moussavi's movement. Change in Iran must be made by Iranians.

Got another option? Feel free to discuss it. I'll add it to the poll.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I have to say that given the unpopularity of the US in Iran, option 4 is really the only viable one. Any of the first three is playing straight into Ahmadinajhad's hands.

[sonofccn]

I'd give support to democracy. A regime change might look upon us more favorably but if not we sowed some chaos and derailed their other projects to at least some extant. I wouldn't risk actual American lives to aid a non overly US friendly government but weapons and funds are a different matter.

[PunkMaister]

I'd give support to democracy. A regime change might look upon us more favorably but if not we sowed some chaos and derailed their other projects to at least some extant. I wouldn't risk actual American lives to aid a non overly US friendly government but weapons and funds are a different matter.

I agree funding and giving the pro democracy movement weapons is the far better option...

[Flectarn]

I agree funding and giving the pro democracy movement weapons is the far better option...

in general thats a good idea, but given our past history with Iran, particuraly meddling with it's sovereignty, it's best we stay out of it, lest we prove claims of the protests being the result of foreign intervention true.

[PunkMaister]

I agree funding and giving the pro democracy movement weapons is the far better option...

in general thats a good idea, but given our past history with Iran, particuraly meddling with it's sovereignty, it's best we stay out of it, lest we prove claims of the protests being the result of foreign intervention true.

I don't care about any claims the Abi regime makes to be honest. The world would be a far better place with that regime out of the picture. If only it were like that in North Korea as well. By the way a poll needs to be made about North Korea as well...
\

[Mr. Oragahn]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

[sonofccn]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

[PunkMaister]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

For the same reason he probably thinks we should just allow N.K to roll over S.K and part of Japan as they have always wanted. The Japs are just dirty capitalists as are the S.Koreans and as such they deserve to die just like Americans and all libertarians in the face of this planet. That's the liberal way of thinking nowadays anyhow...

[Who is like God arbour]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

I believe the same and have choosen the fourth option.

The Iran, wether I like this nation or not, is a sovereign nation. It has not attacked another nation in the last fifty years (it was attacked 1980 by the from the USA supported Iraq).

It has not violated any other rules of the customary international law. It my have ignored a few resolutions of the UN security council - but thats only a violation of international treaty law and not a casus belli. Besides, many other western nations, including Israel have also ignored resolutions of the UN security council.

That the Iran may want the atomic bomb is, even if it would be truth, irrelevant. Under the supposition that all nations are equal on the international level, the Iran has the same rights as all other nations. And if a few nations have nuclear weapons, the Iran can also have nuclear weapons. Something else can only be valid if the Iran would have agreed per treaty to not have nuclear weapons. And indeed, Iran is a signatory state of the NPT. But the violation of a treaty is never a casus belli because each treaty can be terminated. It would be preferable if that happens in the designated form, but that, by ignoring that treaty, it has only happened implied and maybe under violation of a cancellation period, is not a serious enough violation of international law to be a casus belli.

But the truth is that there is no evidence that the Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. Under the NPT the Iran has the right to build nuclear power plants. The Iran has constantly complied with its obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities. As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons. Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for. The IAEA further reported that it had not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with alleged studies of weaponization, based on documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran, and that Iran had agreed to address the alleged studies. The Non-Aligned Movement has welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the continued dialogue between Iran and the IAEA.

Insofar, the Iran has done nothing that would justify an international intervention in its sovereignty.

On the other side, to support the opposition with weapons and funding is considered already as an aggression. The substantial involvement in acts of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, who are carrying out acts of armed force against another state are listed in Article 3 lit. g of the Resolution 3314 of the United Nations General Assembly.

Concerning this I also refer to the ruling of the International Court of Justice in in the case Nicaragua v. United States from 1986. The International Court of Justice has et al. decided that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.

What currently happens in Iran is only an internal affair. Other nations can be interested in its outcome. But they are not allowed to violate the sovereignty of Iran.

[sonofccn]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

For the same reason he probably thinks we should just allow N.K to roll over S.K and part of Japan as they have always wanted. The Japs are just dirty capitalists as are the S.Koreans and as such they deserve to die just like Americans and all libertarians in the face of this planet. That's the liberal way of thinking nowadays anyhow...

Only the most rabid and radical elements actively wish this. In my experiance the bulk of those on what I, an American, would call the left wish to help. They are good people who from my point of view are misguided.

[sonofccn]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

I believe the same and have choosen the fourth option.

The Iran, wether I like this nation or not, is a sovereign nation. It has not attacked another nation in the last fifty years (it was attacked 1980 by the from the USA supported Iraq).

It has not violated any other rules of the customary international law. It my have ignored a few resolutions of the UN security council - but thats only a violation of international treaty law and not a casus belli. Besides, many other western nations, including Israel have also ignored resolutions of the UN security council.

That the Iran may want the atomic bomb is, even if it would be truth, irrelevant. Under the supposition that all nations are equal on the international level, the Iran has the same rights as all other nations. And if a few nations have nuclear weapons, the Iran can also have nuclear weapons. Something else can only be valid if the Iran would have agreed per treaty to not have nuclear weapons. And indeed, Iran is a signatory state of the NPT. But the violation of a treaty is never a casus belli because each treaty can be terminated. It would be preferable if that happens in the designated form, but that, by ignoring that treaty, it has only happened implied and maybe under violation of a cancellation period, is not a serious enough violation of international law to be a casus belli.

But the truth is that there is no evidence that the Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. Under the NPT the Iran has the right to build nuclear power plants. The Iran has constantly complied with its obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities. As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons. Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for. The IAEA further reported that it had not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with alleged studies of weaponization, based on documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran, and that Iran had agreed to address the alleged studies. The Non-Aligned Movement has welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the continued dialogue between Iran and the IAEA.

Insofar, the Iran has done nothing that would justify an international intervention in its sovereignty.

On the other side, to support the opposition with weapons and funding is considered already as an aggression. The substantial involvement in acts of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, who are carrying out acts of armed force against another state are listed in Article 3 lit. g of the Resolution 3314 of the United Nations General Assembly.

Concerning this I also refer to the ruling of the International Court of Justice in in the case Nicaragua v. United States from 1986. The International Court of Justice has et al. decided that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State.

What currently happens in Iran is only an internal affair. Other nations can be interested in its outcome. But they are not allowed to violate the sovereignty of Iran.

1.All nations are not equal. Some are hellholes that should be combated others are not. If you dispute this fact just consider this. Would you willing move to N.Korea and live there as it is now?

2. The UN is either horribly corrupt organization that is incompetent or a horribly incompetent organization that is corrupt. Either way I'd trust Iran more then I'd trust what the UN says, at least their pretty open about their hatreds and goals.

3. So develping WMDs, attacking you, and breaking treaties are not causes for war. I'm curious do you believe anything is worthy fighting for?

[GStone]

I'm glad most people understand that keeping out of it is the way to go.

I don't mean to pry but if I may ask why do you believe we should stay out of it? JMS and Flectarn basicly cited it would aid the regimes statments that the unpleasentness is artificlly generated.

For the same reason he probably thinks we should just allow N.K to roll over S.K and part of Japan as they have always wanted. The Japs are just dirty capitalists as are the S.Koreans and as such they deserve to die just like Americans and all libertarians in the face of this planet. That's the liberal way of thinking nowadays anyhow...

Okay, you do understand our country is fucked up right now, don't you? We might be the leading nation of the free world, but open your eyes to the fact that we are so extremely spread thin as it is. We can't do everything for everyone. A leader leads, he doesn't spoon feed and take on all the responsibility of those he leads. And sometimes, you just have to let things play out on their own. Besides, we don't have a good track record for meddling.

[Who is like God arbour]

1. All nations are not equal. Some are hellholes that should be combated others are not. If you dispute this fact just consider this. Would you willing move to N.Korea and live there as it is now?

If I say all nations are equal on the international level, I do not mean that they are all the same. Yes, there are nations in which I wouldn't want to live. But that's irrelevant. There are also people who have opinions whith which I agree and other people have opinions whith which I do not agree. There are families in which I would want to live and families in which I wouldn't want to live. There are saints and there are villains. But all are equal before the law.

And it is the same with nations. Only that, whilst municipal law is hierarchical or vertical in its structure (meaning that a legislature enacts binding legislation), international law is horizontal in nature. This means that all states are sovereign and equal. The doctrines of legal equality, territorial sovereignty, and independence of states, became definitive to international law in Europe. These principals were recognised in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and became the foundation for the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster. This doctrin was also incorporated into the UN charta:

• Article 1, clause 2, 1. half-sentence reads as follows:
  • The Purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights.
• Article 2, clause 1 reads as follows:
  • The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

The acceptance of this doctrine is necessary to maintain international peace and security. If you have here another opinion be aware that you are not only propagandising the "might of the strongest". That has nothing to do with right and justice and is not beneficial to a peaceful and free world (which is not conquered by the strongest who has eliminated each opposition and thus has created peace by absolute and unchallenged domination).

If you complain that nations are wanting nuclear weapons (nations who, contrary to the USA, have not attacked other nations) you have to assure them that you will not attack them. No nation wants nuclear weapons to attack the USA because they know that they can not win such a war. They want them as a guarantee for their sovereignty because they hope that they will not be attacked if they have nuclear weapons.

And it is time that this is understood because the USA will not prevent that such nations, who have to fear to be attacked by the USA, sooner or later will have nuclear weapons. The USA could not prevent that Israel, Indien, Pakistan or North Korea have developed nuclear weapons and if other nations are determined to develop them too, they will sooner or later.

The solution can not be to threat them with war - and make them all the more determined - but to show them that they will not need nuclear weapons because the USA will never attack them.

2. The UN is either horribly corrupt organization that is incompetent or a horribly incompetent organization that is corrupt. Either way I'd trust Iran more then I'd trust what the UN says, at least their pretty open about their hatreds and goals.

If it is corrupt then only because the permanent members of the security council, first and foremost the USA, are corrupt. How often could the UN not act because the USA have vetoed a resolution of the security council?

3. So develping WMDs, attacking you, and breaking treaties are not causes for war.

Developing WMD and breaking treaties are not a casus belli. Otherwise each nation would be justified in attacking the USA who has developed and still is developing WMDs and with that violates several international treaties.

To attack another nation is a casus belli. But Iran has, contrary to the USA, not attacked another nation. And Iran has not developed nuclear weapons nor is it currently developing nuclear weapons. What's your point?

I'm curious do you believe anything is worthy fighting for?

Yes, there are things that are worthy fighting for.
If my own nation is unjustified attacked, I think it is worth fighting to defend it.
If another nation is unjustified attacked by a third nation, I think it is worth fighting to defend the attacked nation.
And here it ends. Fighting to defend something is ok. Fighting to attack something is not ok.

It's the same in my private life. I fight to defend myself and others when authoritarian help is not available. I never fight because I want something another possess or because another has a different opinion or life style I do not like.

[PunkMaister]

Okay, you do understand our country is fucked up right now, don't you? We might be the leading nation of the free world, but open your eyes to the fact that we are so extremely spread thin as it is. We can't do everything for everyone. A leader leads, he doesn't spoon feed and take on all the responsibility of those he leads. And sometimes, you just have to let things play out on their own. Besides, we don't have a good track record for meddling.

Nobody is asking for a full military invasion so your argument of being spread too thin doesn't hold any water whatsoever. It is an option in the poll that was rejected far and wide, what irks is that liberals think that the best way to deal with issues is to not to deal with them at all! God I'm glad you guys were not in power during WWII! Because if you had been the Axis powers would just rolled and conquered the whole planet unopposed and Jews, Gypsies and so son would be lampshades by now heck myself included being of mixed race I would have never even had the chance of being born. But I guess that's the kind of world that liberals daydream about perhaps for the looks of it. The most radical elements of liberalism sure do...