• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran: What do you think the U.S. should do?

What do you think the U.S. should do with regard to the current situation in Iran?


  • Total voters
    30

Lerxst

U mad bro?
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17,108
Reaction score
5,786
Location
Nationwide...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Quite simple. No need to explain your answer if you don't want. I'm just curious as to the opinions. However, if you pick other, please give some brief explanation if you would be so kind.

On the fifth option it should read "overt" not "over."
 
Last edited:
I went with "offer limited verbal support, nothing more". I would not mind seeing covert aid, but don't think there is time to do it. I suspect this will blow over before long. Rushing to do something like covert aid is asking for fatal mistakes.
 
At this point, America has very little to do in the internal affairs of Iran. However, we need to be ready to move with a coalition if violence overtakes the country. The region is too unstable and a civil war in Iran could be devastating.
 
As it stands, I think the US should ratchet up international support in favor of the protestors. Should things in Iran turn towards civil conflict, I say we go in and offer overt military support to those that oppose the current regime.
 
Stand well to the side and see if the fit hits the shan.

Ensure that pro-western leaders of the opposition in Iran are aware that if a full armed factional conflict erupts in Iran that the US is willing and able to provide arms to those seeking a real democracy free of theocratic nonsense, and make it happen if luck is with us.
 
Many Republicans are saying that we should do more. Its just more war mongering. Its like want a third war and they want to create another headache for U.S.

No, this is what should happen. Obama should stay silent, I mean he should obviously be a bit verbal on it, but its really not our business anyway.

How you like it if Iranians said they "had to do something" about our presidential elections last year? Oh dear people would be crying war from the rooftops. :shock:
 
I advocate open verbal support, but covert material support, in order to prevent this from becoming a U.S. liberation of Iran, rather than one created by the Iranians.
 
The only nation that has a say in the outcome of Iranian elections is Iran.

Neither the US nor the rest of the world has any business telling Iranians whom should lead their nation. The United States certainly should not advocate for Mousavi and the protesters, for several reasons:

  1. Mousavi has no more desire to end Iran's nuclear ambitions than Ahamenijad.
  2. Neither Mousavi nor Ahamenijad have complete public sentiment on their side.
  3. Khameni's support within the Assembly of Experts and Revolutionary Guard is unknown. The presumption is that he has these as his power base, but this past week's events make that unclear.
What the United States can and should do, is speak up in defense of political values and civic virtues that are at the core of our American Republic.

  1. We should promote the rights of people to order their own government according to their own choices.
  2. We should promote the importance to political legitimacy of free and fair elections.
  3. We should promote the value of peaceful protest, and argue in favor of every person's right petition the government for redress of grievances.
  4. We should promote the right of all nations to have their sovereignty respected within their own borders.
  5. We should promote the rule of law.
If, or perhaps when, the Islamic Republic is toppled and a new government is formed, the United States should move quickly to extend diplomatic relations to the new regime. Until that happens, no nation should seek to influence the outcome.

This is an Iranian issue and must be resolved by Iranians.
 
Verbal support. This election is none of our business. The only thing we should do is let the Iranian people know that we stand with them in support of their right to choose their next leader, and not be taken for fools.
 
No country should interfer with what is a internal issue. Only Iranians can swing it one way or the other, we can only observe
 
I vote we have Israel decide the election.
 
Verbal support. This election is none of our business. The only thing we should do is let the Iranian people know that we stand with them in support of their right to choose their next leader, and not be taken for fools.
You'll be spanked later for your answer. :mrgreen:
 
If we verbally support any faction too much, I am afraid they would not welcome it as it would put them in danger of being accused as an American influenced/controlled faction. Less is more, here. However, if they would welcome it, and it could be entirely secret, covert aid would be prudent.

Ultimately, this is a stubbornly Iranian problem. The political environment makes it so that if we take any steps to help in any way at all, we very much risk undermining the very thing we wish to happen.
 
As it stands, I think the US should ratchet up international support in favor of the protestors. Should things in Iran turn towards civil conflict, I say we go in and offer overt military support to those that oppose the current regime.


Absolutely, but with carefulo reservation. The majority of Iran's youth want their MTV, Hollywood, and free expression, but they don't want American boots on the ground. And the youth make up the majority in Iran. Whether our covert and verbal assistance pans out for them, we will have secured their good graces for the future. Contrary to what the pundits and critics wish to believe, their two neighbors have been freed from oppression and both futures have been placed in Muslim hands. They see Iraqis voting and the Afghani and Pakistani militaries actively assisting the West in their quest to rid themselves of their oppressive messes.

Stopping this progress now for fear of upsetting those Iranian overlords who are determined to be our enemies anyway is foolish.
 
Last edited:
No country should interfer with what is a internal issue. Only Iranians can swing it one way or the other, we can only observe

But when it threatens to affect the surrounding areas outside those borders? A Nazi Germany grew to affect the entire world. North Korea internal issues affect the entire Pacific, which draws in the U.S. And a nuclear Iran in the hands fo the current regime is a dangerous thing for many. Ultimate responsibilty lies with the citizens of that nation, but sometimes a little support from the outside goes a long way.

Often enough times, the internal issues of some nations should be an international interest.
 
Last edited:
But when it threatens to affect the surrounding areas outside those borders? A Nazi Germany grew to affect the entire world. North Korea internal issues affect the entire Pacific, which draws in the U.S. And a nuclear Iran in the hands fo the current regime is a dangerous thing for many.
Very true....but realistically what is the alternative? Saddam Hussein was at least as much of a regional threat as Iran might become once nuclearized, and unlike Iran actually took the step of invading one of his neighbors. If any nation was a fit candidate for regime change, it was Iraq; without discussing the merits of Operation Iraqi Freedom, six years of nation building as an aftermath is not a price that can be paid with regularity.

The virtue of standing aside to see what develops is prudent. If the protesters gain significant ground, and threaten the mullahs on their own, then is the time to weigh in with material support. In this horse race, America needs to back the winning horse or not bet at all.
 
"In other news, the CIA has lost track of 500 compact camcorders, 1,000 16gb flash memory cards, 5,000 2gb memory cards, 250 satellite uplinks, 2,000 compact digital cambers and other media recording devices on a shipment to Kuwait."

Hmmmmmmmm :2wave:

Guns? No. Devices to pirate broadcast to the world what Iran is going through to the world? Yes.
 
Very true....but realistically what is the alternative? Saddam Hussein was at least as much of a regional threat as Iran might become once nuclearized, and unlike Iran actually took the step of invading one of his neighbors. If any nation was a fit candidate for regime change, it was Iraq; without discussing the merits of Operation Iraqi Freedom, six years of nation building as an aftermath is not a price that can be paid with regularity.

The virtue of standing aside to see what develops is prudent. If the protesters gain significant ground, and threaten the mullahs on their own, then is the time to weigh in with material support. In this horse race, America needs to back the winning horse or not bet at all.

Hussein invaded two neighboring countries and as late as 2002 was flying military jets over Jordanian and Saudi Arabian air space. His threat was physical disrespect for his neighbors. Iran's threat involves political pressure with the backing of nuclear weapons and a history of funding terrrosit organizations. Iraq was a mess not just because of Rumsfeld, but because of the population make up. Iran stands in a much better situation and are far less divided in respects to rival tribes so recovery would not be the same as it was in Iraq.

I completely understand your point of view and see the reality of it. But we are Americans and gambling is what we do. Our problem has always been that we sometimies choose to gamble on the safe side no matter what it does to our values and our image. We are already in this horse race and we do have a favorite. Backing the current regime because they "won" will not slow their nuclear quest. One of the very real issues Muslims in the Middle East has against America is its hypocracy to deliver freedom and equality to its own while practicing apathy or "support" towards their oppresive regimes. The "winning horse" is exactly what America did wrong during the Cold War.
 
At this current moment we should just offer verbal support for the Iranian people and let this pan out one way or the other. If we were to get involved at this stage it would be a disaster.

If the government puts the thumbscrews on the people, I think limited overt measures should be taken as mediation, possibly protection of the people. Not just by the US though, but a coalition of the willing.
 
I completely understand your point of view and see the reality of it. But we are Americans and gambling is what we do. Our problem has always been that we sometimies choose to gamble on the safe side no matter what it does to our values and our image. We are already in this horse race and we do have a favorite. Backing the current regime because they "won" will not slow their nuclear quest. One of the very real issues Muslims in the Middle East has against America is its hypocracy to deliver freedom and equality to its own while practicing apathy or "support" towards their oppresive regimes. The "winning horse" is exactly what America did wrong during the Cold War.
Good points.

However, there is also the very real concern that premature backing of the protesters could de-legitimize them in the eyes of the muslim world. They need to prove themselves, prove they are the real deal, before any come rushing to their aid. Backing the protesters too soon could strengthen the mullahs' hand not just in cracking down on the protesters but in their dealings with their Mid-Eastern neighbors.

I doubt there's much uncertainty as to whether or not America overall wants the mullahs overthrown--and I doubt Khamanei is unaware of this. That's why I wish Dear Leader were taking a clearer stand on the principles of democracy; without giving direct endorsement of the protesters, speaking to American democratic values and using the seminal documents of American democratic traditions, he can show common cause with the protesters, giving them much needed encouragement, while at the same time building a case for direct support if and when their movement reaches that level of maturity.

As it stands, the US is merely reacting to events, and has not articulated a clear stand on anything regarding Iran. That is certainly no help to the protesters, while undermining America's own capacity to deal with the mullahs should they survive. It is a lose-lose-lose strategy.
 
Good points.

However, there is also the very real concern that premature backing of the protesters could de-legitimize them in the eyes of the muslim world. They need to prove themselves, prove they are the real deal, before any come rushing to their aid. Backing the protesters too soon could strengthen the mullahs' hand not just in cracking down on the protesters but in their dealings with their Mid-Eastern neighbors.

"Spoken" like a thinker. I agree, of course. One of the things we placed on the shelf since 9/11 was our talent to behave with political precision. This is a careful situation. The Iranians have to do for themselves and it has to appear to the rest of the Muslim world as if they made the decisions all by themselves. Our immediate involvement could be as simple as secretly supplying the crowds with sattelite phones and video cameras. Of course, our equipment is all "Made In China" so the source would be confusing enough.

I believe America's path in the "Post-Cold War" should be to serve the needs of the oppressed underneath the governments we have been accustomed to dealing with for so long. But we have to do it carefully and with their expressed wants.


I doubt there's much uncertainty as to whether or not America overall wants the mullahs overthrown--and I doubt Khamanei is unaware of this. That's why I wish Dear Leader were taking a clearer stand on the principles of democracy; without giving direct endorsement of the protesters, speaking to American democratic values and using the seminal documents of American democratic traditions, he can show common cause with the protesters, giving them much needed encouragement, while at the same time building a case for direct support if and when their movement reaches that level of maturity.
Absolutely.
 
Our gov should set up a covert opperation to kill the President of Iran and his closest men....

Perhaps stage a suicide bombing framing Al-Queda
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom