And this class, is what happens when you allow small problems (Iranian Revolution) to evolve into big problems (adversarial country aiming to arm itself with nuclear weaponry). Remember, if you're propping up a totalitarian regime hated by its populace, its too late to make friendly friendly. You gotta support that shiat!
MrFancypants;5618929The whole context with the revolution and the Cold War aside the attack on the embassy itself doesn't seem like such a bad excuse for a war.[/quote]
It is if there is no vector to act through. The regime was already highly unpopular by this point- there were a few stragglers from the monarchy that remained but for the most part it would have been impractical to intervene in that country, directly or through support. Would have been a total quagmire really.
I guess a good parallel would be what occured in Afghanistan right about the time of the Iranian Revolution- the Saur Revolution and the subsequent political upheavals that resulted in the Soviet Union 'intervention' there on behalf of the PDPA, and the US taking advantage of the Mujaheddin to strike against a government that could not exert itself outside of Kabul.Many wars have been triggered by incidents of similar scale. The explosion of the USS Maine, assassination attempts on Israeli ambassadors etc.
I'm not sure how the USS Maine could be used as an example of this. The US already had its eyes set on Cuba for sometime- proposals even before then suggested Cuba could factor into Manifest Destiny and it was suggested it could resolve some slavery disputes by adding it into the the Union as a slave state. Plus, people there had a lot less info than they have now- one could make a strong argument that the media played a great role in drumming up support for war in Cuba, exaggerating stories of nonexistent 'atrocities' and Spanish insults of the US. I won't compare a colonial holding like Cuba from a decayed Spain to the scenario of Iran as an 'ascendent' regional power.
It's a shame though with all the information we have now though, that people still fall into this hole and jump on war drum beating, only to realize in hindsight what happened.
Not sure how assassination of Israeli ambassadors factor in either here- but again it added to the tensions. I know what you are trying to get at here, but it also ignores that there's a considerable difference in globetrotting around the world fighting a terrorist group and a full-fledged nation and its entire population.
If you look at the attempt to resolve the situation (sending helicopters with soldiers into the Iranian capital to rescue hostages and shoot anyone who resists) you are dealing with warlike actions anyway.
The rescue attempt, btw, also shows that Carter was in no way a pussy as Destroyer claims. The plan, even though it was poorly executed and unreasonably risky, was extremely ballsy.
Yes, that's the general consensus about the botched embassy rescue. However I don't think that necessarily translates into a full-scale declaration of war.
I guess as an aside here that the election that occurred during this time, the issue of Carter's perceived lack of 'fight' against such a blatant act against American citizens, granted strength to Reagan's call for a stronger US presence in foreign affairs.
Embassy problem was resolved soon after, US settled for mainly supporting Iraq against Iran- but then getting tangled up in the Iran-Contra mess which I think was probably even more 'cowardly' as it did involve some weapon transfers and sales to Iran to free some hostages off its dealings with the Contra idiots (as per the language and standards established previously). But hey, Reagan got off scott free (He wasn't aware it was going on, as 'evidence' shows I guess) and Oliver North got a sweet job at Fox and a NY Times bestselling author.
I guess they made up for it by using the hostage situation in Grenada after its coup and invading the little island nation as the grave threat to global security it was.
[QUOTE=Roaming East;5619302]And this class, is what happens when you allow small problems (Iranian Revolution) to evolve into big problems (adversarial country aiming to arm itself with nuclear weaponry). Remember, if you're propping up a totalitarian regime hated by its populace, its too late to make friendly friendly. You gotta support that shiat!
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The US, as did many other nations, saw the Iranian Revolution not as a 'small' problem but as a major one. It's why they supported the atrocities of the kingdom before and the abuses of SAVAK in a vain attempt to diffuse the situation there. They thought they had resolved the source of this with the half-assed "White Revolution" which made things worse in Iran because it cemented the divide between rich and poor there.
If the United States and others were concerned about this as they say they were, it could've arguably been made less of a problem had there not been so much interference domestically in Iran. Mossadeq's overthrow which was enabled and aided by outside powers (read UK and US) destroyed a secular movement there which could've taken a non-aligned stance in the world, and instead enabled the further prominence of clerics and religious thought among the disenfranchised there.
Supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War I think didn't count as 'doing nothing'- in fact it probably created one of the most brutal wars the region had ever seen. A long trench war with hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqi's sent into the grinder, Kurds gassed caught up in an act of genocide on the part of Iraq... etc. Surprisingly even as all this is going on, Iraq never really got condemned in the UN... helps to have a friend in the UN covering your ass.
It's no secret why Iran was so quiet during the late 80s and early 90s - Iran-Iraq War cut deeply into its economy and population, political divides, and more or less an increasingly withdrawn and 'isolationist' Iran.
Iran was 'enabled' not so much by the US's inaction as it was by the US's actions. The US and Israel's support of Islamist groups as a counterweight against the republican and nationalist groups in the Middle-East ended up causing these Islamist groups to be a force to be reckoned once the Soviet Union collapsed (having been the main supporter of those 'secular' groups, and of course the vacuum created in the region once Iraq was overthrown presented Iran with an opportunity to move beyond just lending support to groups like Hezbollah.
Considering that its two major enemies are also nuclear powered, it would have been more surprising if Iran never went through with this sort of nuclear program than the fact it has been able to do so with out any 'reaction' if we are to believe this angle.
Personally, I think what the US did in Afghanistan- supporting the Mujaheddin in a proxy war against the Soviet Union and the PDPA (which seized control in the Saur Revolution of '78, and ran fast into problems) of Afghanistan. Of course this allowed some backwards and oppressive shits to take control of that country (small problem), devolved into another civil war between warlords, which later became under the sway of the Taliban that came out of that mess, which provided al-Qaeda with safe haven, then 9/11 (massive 'problem') and the current War on Terror (big problem).
Not sure either if Iran's decision to work with nuclear weapons was motivated so much by its populace hating it as much as it was, again, how the region's power balance is going. Iran's dealing with the populace doesn't need nuclear weapons, but the usual mixture of patronage, heavy-handed 'judicial' system, nationalism and populism, among other things, that keeps it from getting overthrown so easily. That's what we saw in Libya and now seeing in Syria.
Wars involve time, manpower, and above all money.
No country should ever be engaged in war. Just saying.
Bazooka Bill;5619744Wars involve time, manpower, and above all money.
No country should ever be engaged in war. Just saying.
That's a fun little hippie tenet, but it doesn't have a leg to stand on in reality. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning or even necessarily condemning any possible conflict with Iran, I'm just saying that if you believe you should absolutely never be engaged in war... You'll just get conquered by someone who'll draft you into one.
If you seek peace, prepare for war.
Fortune;5619789That's a fun little hippie tenet, but it doesn't have a leg to stand on in reality. Don't get me wrong, I'm neither condoning or even necessarily condemning any possible conflict with Iran, I'm just saying that if you believe you should absolutely never be engaged in war... You'll just get conquered by someone who'll draft you into one. If you seek peace, prepare for war.
I exactly agree with you on that. Couldn't have said it better.