Is Iran Really a Threat?
Every prominent American politician either believes or pretends they believe that Iran is a serious threat to America and the West. Is this really the case? When the regime spends about $9 billion a year on its military compared to the United States $660 billion, it's difficult to make the argument. Yet the Mitt Romneys, Sarah Palins and unfortunately, Barack Obamas, continue to hype the threat comparing the regime to the second incarnation of Nazi Party. Why is this the case?
Noam Chomsky breaks it down:
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean
that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity
is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes
with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle
East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II.
As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding,
control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A.
A. Berle).
But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand
its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand
bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties
with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent
capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase
its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with
regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is
seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term
used by General Petraeus. US invasion and military occupation of Iran's
neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in
neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate.
We'll continue to hear more rhetoric against Iran from the mainstream politicians, but hopefully saner heads will prevail and America will stop short of invading another Muslim nation in the Middle East. However, the US is ratcheting up sanctions against the Iran, and it is unlikely that the country will sit back and allow itself to be dictated to.
Expect some tense drama in the region over the coming months.
Every prominent American politician either believes or pretends they believe that Iran is a serious threat to America and the West. Is this really the case? When the regime spends about $9 billion a year on its military compared to the United States $660 billion, it's difficult to make the argument. Yet the Mitt Romneys, Sarah Palins and unfortunately, Barack Obamas, continue to hype the threat comparing the regime to the second incarnation of Nazi Party. Why is this the case?
Noam Chomsky breaks it down:
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean
that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity
is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes
with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle
East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II.
As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding,
control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A.
A. Berle).But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand
its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand
bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties
with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent
capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase
its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with
regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is
seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term
used by General Petraeus. US invasion and military occupation of Iran's
neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in
neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate.
We'll continue to hear more rhetoric against Iran from the mainstream politicians, but hopefully saner heads will prevail and America will stop short of invading another Muslim nation in the Middle East. However, the US is ratcheting up sanctions against the Iran, and it is unlikely that the country will sit back and allow itself to be dictated to.
Expect some tense drama in the region over the coming months.
Is Iran a threat??
Hmmmmmmmmmmm That’s a toughie…
Let’s see. They have threatened to wipe a sovereign country off the map.
They deny one of the worst chapters in human history ever happened..
And they are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons..
And you don’t see anything inherently threatening in that???
Seriously???
Michale32086
Rhetoric is always used by leaders for various ends and doesn’t inherently make a country more dangerous or threatening. And in any case, as I’m sure you know, Ahmadinejad never used those words. What he did was quote a former Iranian leader, Khomenei who referred to a regime, not a country, and didn’t mention the word “map” at all. He was talking about removing the regime from Jerusalem, which is a lot less apocalyptic than what is commonly misquoted.
You seem to apply the words of one man to the entire nation. I don’t think you’d find a majority of Iranians denying the holocaust. Imagine if people automatically assigned the statements and views of George Bush to the American people.
As for the nuclear weapons point, this should definitely be taken seriously, I agree, but what would you do if you were Iran?
cgrobel,
He was talking about removing the regime from Jerusalem, which is a lot less apocalyptic than what is commonly misquoted.
I don’t doubt what you are saying, but do you have the reference. I would love to read the facts on this (I mean, other than the ones I already have read) and if I am wrong, I will gladly admit so with thanx..
You seem to apply the words of one man to the entire nation.
Not too surprising since the “one man” is ostensibly, the leader of said nation.
Just as said one man has applied the words of “one man” (Obama) to the entirety of the United States at one point or another.
It’s logical that the leader of a nation IS representative of that nation.
Imagine if people automatically assigned the statements and views of George Bush to the American people.
When Bush WAS the leader, people around the world DID apply his statements to the US…
As for the nuclear weapons point, this should definitely be taken seriously, I agree, but what would you do if you were Iran?
If I were Iran, I would not support the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas.
Iran is a terrorist nation. It’s pursuit of Nuclear Weapons is a grave threat to regional stability.
At the risk of a Godwin…..
“With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world.”
-Spock, STAR TREK, City On The Edge Of Forever
Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
Because, if Iran acquires them, it will only be a matter of time before Hezbollah or Hamas acquires them.
And THAT should be a concern to ALL civilized people, the world over.
Michale32086