Trouble in Paradise......

[usmarinemike]

Sounds great. So exactly how do we go about doing this?

Here's a Tom Clancy/WEB Griffin version.

-There are absolutely TONS of very successful Iranian people scattered throughout the west who have immense patriotism and ties with family back in Iran who cannot stand the government. Explaining our goals we can probably get good connections and lots of intel from these people and their people in Iran based on patriotism alone.

-With the intel and connections the right people can go to Iran unnoticed and start building a resistance. If all goes well, then native leaders will emerge that will carry it further.

-If things don't go well...There's always ninjas...And Jack Ryan...And Chuck Norris (just to piss some people off (HAL)).

It will take a very good understanding of the Eastern way of making war. A way which relies heavily on subversion and takes a huge advantage of the western nations' proclivity for grandstanding.

I'm just one of the great unwashed in this nation that can armchair quarterback something like this, but I'm sure the CIA has a pretty good handle on things. Or maybe not if we are still on the same shitty level of HumInt we were in September 2001. Thanks Bill.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

There are absolutely TONS of very successful Iranian people scattered throughout the west who have immense patriotism and ties with family back in Iran who cannot stand the government.

Interesting you say that. A guy I'm related to by marriage has parents living in Iran. They are high profile folks over there so I'll just leave it at that. These are people that are Iranian through and through, but won't be sending any Mohammed cards this year to the government. Actually, it's been pretty scary for em.

 

[Hozer]

Back at you...from Fred Kaplan of all people (Slate, and by no means Reagan-friendly) and I apologise for not originating this, but my thesis has much of the aftermentioned...and I have been drinking.

Reagan's stance at Reykjavik

"If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:

[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable."
...
Gorbachev wasn't the only decisive presence. If Reagan hadn't been president—if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place—Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed. Those other politicians would have been too traditional, too cautious, to push such radical proposals (zero nukes and SDI) or to take Gorbachev's radicalism at face value. (There's no need to speculate on this point. When Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan in 1989, U.S.-Soviet relations took a huge step backward; it took nearly a year for Bush and his advisers to realize that Gorby was for real.)

The end of the Cold War may be the most oddball chapter in the history of the 20th century. How fitting, then, that the two most oddball leaders, Gorbachev and Reagan, made it come to pass."

Brett, being a "big fan of Reagan", I'm intrigued by your belittling of his personal effect on the downfall of the Soviet Union.

you may fire when ready.

and, this has perfect relevance with regard to Iran also...

 

[Flash]

Here's a Tom Clancy/WEB Griffin version.

-There are absolutely TONS of very successful Iranian people scattered throughout the west who have immense patriotism and ties with family back in Iran who cannot stand the government. Explaining our goals we can probably get good connections and lots of intel from these people and their people in Iran based on patriotism alone.

-With the intel and connections the right people can go to Iran unnoticed and start building a resistance. If all goes well, then native leaders will emerge that will carry it further.

-If things don't go well...There's always ninjas...And Jack Ryan...And Chuck Norris (just to piss some people off (HAL)).

It will take a very good understanding of the Eastern way of making war. A way which relies heavily on subversion and takes a huge advantage of the western nations' proclivity for grandstanding.

I'm just one of the great unwashed in this nation that can armchair quarterback something like this, but I'm sure the CIA has a pretty good handle on things. Or maybe not if we are still on the same shitty level of HumInt we were in September 2001. Thanks Bill.

Thais all a little too Tom Clancy-ish unfortunately. There are Iranian-American citizens already working for a free Iran, unfortunately the Iranian regime has arrested them. Often times our work towards regime change, hard or soft, have ended in failure. Just look at the example of the Iranian Shah, many people there still have a dim view of our involement in bringing him to power.

As for the CIA having a good handle on things, you will be suprised at what they know and what they do not know.

 

[Brett327]

Back at you...from Fred Kaplan of all people (Slate, and by no means Reagan-friendly) and I apologise for not originating this, but my thesis has much of the aftermentioned...and I have been drinking.

Reagan's stance at Reykjavik

"If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:

[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable."
...
Gorbachev wasn't the only decisive presence. If Reagan hadn't been president—if Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale had defeated him or if Reagan had died and George H.W. Bush taken his place—Gorbachev almost certainly would not have received the push or reinforcement that he needed. Those other politicians would have been too traditional, too cautious, to push such radical proposals (zero nukes and SDI) or to take Gorbachev's radicalism at face value. (There's no need to speculate on this point. When Bush Sr. succeeded Reagan in 1989, U.S.-Soviet relations took a huge step backward; it took nearly a year for Bush and his advisers to realize that Gorby was for real.)

The end of the Cold War may be the most oddball chapter in the history of the 20th century. How fitting, then, that the two most oddball leaders, Gorbachev and Reagan, made it come to pass."

Brett, being a "big fan of Reagan", I'm intrigued by your belittling of his personal effect on the downfall of the Soviet Union.

you may fire when ready.

and, this has perfect relevance with regard to Iran also...

You've just made my point for me. You'll figure it out when you dry out.

Brett

 

[gaijin6423]

I'm inclined to agree with Brett, despite my obvious affinity for good ol' Ronnie. There were many factors that influenced the downfall of the Soviet Union, and the situation was completely different from today's Iran. Different politics; Different ideologies; Different racial/ethnic histories; Just plain different. And I think it would be a huge mistake to bring too much out of the Cold War bag of tricks in order to deal with Iran because of this. Now, does that mean the US should not apply pressure in various covert/overt means, which have been tailored to the specific situation in Iran? Not just no, but hell fuck no. But to use the same kind of Spy v. Spy mentality that seemed to dominate the Cold War era would be very bad indeed.

 

[Hozer]

I fell strongly about Reagan being the right man for the time.
I met Gorbachev after a seminar at my school a few years ago.
He stressed repeatedly throughout his discussion that the Soviet Union would have perpetuated itself (albeit not indefinitely) were it not for the unique pressures brought to bear by Reagan.
I believe that it is Monday-morning quarterbacking attributing anything less to Reagan, especially down-playing events like Reykjavic. I remember vividly those events as seminal moments in history.
Gorbachev is a reformer, but absoutely still a communist and as the 1991 coup clearly showed, wanted to preserve the Soviet Union.

That same ideology, a determined foreign-policy with backbone, is key to solving the Iran issue.
A small, deluded clique of ideologue-elites run a country full of oil. The poor management of those resources compels the rationing of petrol. The population is controlled via a terror-police network.
The masses want change, want an outreach to the West.
Iran is an economic shambles, and continued constant pressure will effect change.

 

[Brett327]

The masses want change, want an outreach to the West.
Iran is an economic shambles, and continued constant pressure will effect change.

The "masses" are more worried about where their next meal is coming from, not politics.

Brett

 

[usmarinemike]

That same ideology, a determined foreign-policy with backbone, is key to solving the Iran issue.
A small, deluded clique of ideologue-elites run a country full of oil. The poor management of those resources compels the rationing of petrol. The population is controlled via a terror-police network.
The masses want change, want an outreach to the West.
Iran is an economic shambles, and continued constant pressure will effect change.

Hear, hear. But where will we get such a foreign policy with backbone? Who has the muster and statemanship to put in place a strong, stolid system while having to deal with a self interested mob in Congress and a "watchdog" sensationalist press that has the potential to be the main ingredient in the eventual doom of our own country. WHO?

Thais all a little too Tom Clancy-ish unfortunately. There are Iranian-American citizens already working for a free Iran, unfortunately the Iranian regime has arrested them. Often times our work towards regime change, hard or soft, have ended in failure. Just look at the example of the Iranian Shah, many people there still have a dim view of our involement in bringing him to power.

As for the CIA having a good handle on things, you will be suprised at what they know and what they do not know.

That's why I put in my disclaimer and Jack Ryan reference. It might make for a good movie if you add some plot twists, but the general principle of sending spies to agitate rebellion and revolution is not something new, and there's probably no way we'll ever know how much or how well it's being utilized.

 

[usmarinemike]

The "masses" are more worried about where their next meal is coming from, not politics.

Brett

Not unlike the situation in the Soviet Union. They just need someone to tell them that there's a connection.

We can have the Iranians wearing Levis and eating Pizza Hut (hold the sausage) in less than 10 years without firing a shot.

 

[Hozer]

We can have the Iranians wearing Levis and eating Pizza Hut (hold the sausage) in less than 10 years without firing a shot.

Concur. The Iranians are on the defensive. Despite the crisis-oriented news media, we are winning. That's not to say it's a foregone conclusion, but don't doubt that we are winning.

Look at it from inside Iran. US troops, not just NATO wussies, are on the western and southern borders. Two US CSG's are in the backyard 24/7. Iran can't provide fuel (much less food) to it's own people, b/c it needs the revenue to fund anti-western terror movements that in some places are now fighting each other.
Iran is economically isolated and dying a slow, but sure death.
Naive? Nope. Optimistic? Fuckin' a.

 

[Flash]

I fell strongly about Reagan being the right man for the time.
I met Gorbachev after a seminar at my school a few years ago.
He stressed repeatedly throughout his discussion that the Soviet Union would have perpetuated itself (albeit not indefinitely) were it not for the unique pressures brought to bear by Reagan.
I believe that it is Monday-morning quarterbacking attributing anything less to Reagan, especially down-playing events like Reykjavic. I remember vividly those events as seminal moments in history.
Gorbachev is a reformer, but absoutely still a communist and as the 1991 coup clearly showed, wanted to preserve the Soviet Union.

That same ideology, a determined foreign-policy with backbone, is key to solving the Iran issue.
A small, deluded clique of ideologue-elites run a country full of oil. The poor management of those resources compels the rationing of petrol. The population is controlled via a terror-police network.
The masses want change, want an outreach to the West.
Iran is an economic shambles, and continued constant pressure will effect change.

Come on, the guy was at the helm when the USSR disentegrated, do you honestly believe he is going to blame the utter failure of the communist system and the leadership that he was part of?! Any serious student of the era would agree that Reagan had a role, but the Soviet Union was a decaying country well before Reagan came to power, he merely pushed it over the edge. This decay had been festering from years of poor state management in the economy and a focus on power, not serving the people (the next meal, etc). A slight increase in spending on SDI-like initiatives and counters to the system on top of an already bloated defense budget had little effect on the fall of the USSR.

You also give Carter too little credit, his abandonment of detente (a cornerstone of Nixon/Kissinger diplomacy) and his focus on human rights resonated around much of the world and undermined the legitimacy of the USSR in many people's eyes. Couple this with the Pope John Paul II being elected and there was a new focus on the lack of human rights under Communism. This had more effect on the Cold War than many people realized at the time......think Solidarity, the beginning of the end for the Warsaw Pact and the USSR's domination of Eastern Europe. He was a pretty poor President but at least he had that going for him.

 

[Flash]

Concur. The Iranians are on the defensive. Despite the crisis-oriented news media, we are winning. That's not to say it's a foregone conclusion, but don't doubt that we are winning.

Look at it from inside Iran. US troops, not just NATO wussies, are on the western and southern borders. Two US CSG's are in the backyard 24/7. Iran can't provide fuel (much less food) to it's own people, b/c it needs the revenue to fund anti-western terror movements that in some places are now fighting each other.
Iran is economically isolated and dying a slow, but sure death.
Naive? Nope. Optimistic? Fuckin' a.

The Gaza Strip has fallen and Hezbollah controls mch of Lebanon while Iran freely supplies weapons to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan while slowly but surely gaining a dominating influence in the southern Iraq. We ain't losing but we sure as hell ain't 'winning' either. If you really think two CSG's scare them, think again..........

Iran is not economically isolated by any means either, they have many robust trading partners in the region and the world, they are just too big and have too much oil to ignore. As for their inability to provide fuel to the people, it ahs more to do with thier counter-productive subsidies on gas that make it cheaper than water over there and the leadership's incoherent and incompotent economic policy that is hurting them, the tens of billions of $ they spend on subsidies dwarfs what they give their terrorist friends.

As for the NATO wussies comment, do you realize that the Brits, Dutch and Canadians are fighting alongside us and taking serious casualties in Afghanistan? I am reminded of this whenever I talk about it with my wife, the resident Canuck in this house. Canada has lost aout 60 troops in Afghanistan, quite a few for a commitment of 2000-2500.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/total.html

The Danes are no slouches either, they still have troops in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, one of the few left. Not all NATO allies are like the Italians and the Germans who have put serious restrictions on their troops in Afghanistan, give credit where credit is due.

 

[Hozer]

Come on, the guy was at the helm when the USSR disentegrated, do you honestly believe he is going to blame the utter failure of the communist system and the leadership that he was part of?!

No, Gorbachev wanted to reform the Soviet Union. Not disintegrate it. And he places plenty of blame on the systemic problems in the USSR. He is totally upfront with his failures, and the failures of the planned economy.
Again, Gorbachev is equally adamant that Reagans relentless commitment to his convictions (despite vociferous resistance at home to projects like SDI) were the subjects of great concern in the Politburo.

Carter? Any serious student would also cite the Iranian Hostage Crisis as the most embarrasing foreign-policy debacle of the era. Coupled with the double-digit inflation (the highest since '47), interest, and unemployment rates provided a showcase for anti-capitalists.

 

[Hozer]

Economic growth in Iran will slow but remain firm over the forecast period, as faltering oil revenue forces the government to rein-in its expansionary fiscal policy. As a result, we expect real GDP growth to ease from 4.6% in fiscal year 2007/08 (March 21st-March 20th) to an average of 3.5% in the final three fiscal years of the forecast period. Falling oil prices and stagnant production growth is expected to push the current account into deficitfrom 2009/10.

http://www.economist.com/countries/Iran/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic Data

40% population below poverty line. 13.8% inflation rate (217th in the world), 15% unemployment (self-reported, 148th)...CIA Factbook

Canada has lost aout 60 troops in Afghanistan, quite a few for a commitment of 2000-2500.

commitment of 2000-2500? you made my point. I don't question the skill or dedication of the individual, but the political will...