…

Ahmedinnerjacket needs to be taken seriously. Iran is the #1 routine state sponsor of terrorism, and even has its proxies, such as Hizballah (and one day, something similar in Iraq). Even if Israel inflicts many more casualties, if after a nuclear exchange Israel is destroyed while there is at least one survivor in Iran, it is an Iranian victory and the arithmetic is acceptable to many in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

We must plan for all contingencies, and yes, that includes the posibilty of war. A war that would make Iraq seem like a walk in the park, by the way. A war that would be easier to plan for if we didn’t already have our military up shits creek. Iran is looking for the Bomb. I think they’re going to get it even with sanctions. We either actually go to war with them now, before they have the bomb, or we work very hard at stabilization and promotion of democratic ideals, hopefully making the environment in Iran less wholesome for theocratic crazies, so when they have the bomb, they’ll be less inclined to actually USE it.

When this guy talks about the “destruction of the Zionists” and such he is not speaking to the rest of the world, but to the Iranians, most especially to his “base”.

When GWB says that “all options are on the table” is he also just talking to his “base?” Sorry, but I’m smelling a double-standard here.

If we keep up the saber rattling towards Iran rather than talking and coming to some sort of understanding, then of course they will trend towards acting on their rhetoric. If they didn’t it would only show them as weak and it would undermine their position, so they have no choice but to push back.

No one is forcing Iran into such extremist rhetoric, therefore it seems pretty disingenuous to blame US “saber rattling” for forcing them into a position where they might act on that rhetoric. Iran is the one “saber rattling” here.

Since you bring up Vietnam, if you know their history then you will know that Ho Chi Minh came to us first before he went to communist Russia. Even then, he fell out of favor, and the force he created in Vietnam was predominantly nationalist rather than communist.

This is a matter of debate, not objective fact. A recent series of books on the Vietnam conflict call into question much of the conventional wisdoms about that war.

If we keep up the saber rattling towards Iran rather than talking and coming to some sort of understanding, then of course they will trend towards acting on their rhetoric. If they didn’t it would only show them as weak and it would undermine their position, so they have no choice but to push back.

Since you bring up Vietnam, if you know their history then you will know that Ho Chi Minh came to us first before he went to communist Russia. Even then, he fell out of favor, and the force he created in Vietnam was predominantly nationalist rather than communist. It wasn’t until after WWII, when we betrayed them again in our and our allies interests that the movement became purely communist.

Now, what I’m trying to achieve by that example is to show that Iran, just as Vietnam, was an enemy of our own creation. If we actually, you know, talk with these people and try to work with them rather than consistently threatening them or undermining them for our own benefit and because they have different views on the world, then there is the possibility of ratcheting down the rhetoric and the aggressive actions.

One of the great failings of Lyndon Johnson is that he never understood true believe. Since President Johnson did not believe in anything but raw political party, he never understood what people in Vietnam would do to establish a communist country.

I believe that too many American take our culture and apply it to other cultures. We should take them at their word until they demonstrate that they do not believe it. The Iranian support of terrorist in Lebanon seesm to be indicates that the rhetoric is for more than local consumption.

When this guy talks about the “destruction of the Zionists” and such he is not speaking to the rest of the world, but to the Iranians, most especially to his “base”.

The rest of that sentence should be “we hope”. We have to deal with at least the possibility that he means it.

I tend to agree with your assessment of Ahmedinejad’s rationality and his use of foreign policy as a domestic politics tool. But responsible policymaking requires hedging against the possibility that we are wrong, especially given the potential for a nuclear dimension in the intermediate future.

B- After much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that this man is not, in fact, insane. Nor do I believe that his dislike of jews or the west is half as strong as his will to stay in power. He isn’t a stupid man, I hope. He knows that he has to make the right noises to the rabid crowds that love to see grandstanding in front of Israel and the US. However, I think he must be aware that actually carrying out the thinly veiled threats of nuking Israel is not in his best interest. I don’t think he’s a true believer, willing to throw it all away in order to eliminate the Jews. He’d much rather use the threat, to keep his populace distracted and the world too afraid to be harsh.