Can there be any remaining doubt that Iran is at war with the U.S. and NATO?

Question

From ABC News:

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

NOTE: Richard Clarke is hardly a Bush mouthpiece. He has been openly critical of the Bush/Cheney administration and their rush to judgment on Iraq. He carries a certain amount of credibility.

Sjean, I agree. My guess is it will be “business as usual.”

rbanzai, I think you’re on to something with your comparison to the Cold War. We were in a state of war with the Soviet Union, but we fought it by proxy, never fighting the Russians directly. There was a reason for that: mutually assured destruction (MAD). We feared (and they did too) that a direct conflict would lead to a world-ending conflagration. We are falling into a cold war mentality with Iran, but without the same justification. Why continue a costly proxy war when there is no MAD risk?

Nickel Johann, I hope you're right.

Kobaincito, where to begin? In the first place you did not attempt to answer the question. Secondly, the US and UK invaded a foreign country (we’re still talking about Afghanistan here) only after their government’s proxies attacked the U.S. Third, who is “you guys”? If you mean the U.S., ask yourself this question and try to answer honestly: who closer to the Nazis in terms limitations on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, habeas corpus abuses, extermination of political rivals, extermination of religious rivals, forced internments, curtailment of women’s rights, curtailment of sexual rights, and confiscation of property? Which countries cooperated with the Nazis in their “final solution?” Not the U.S., the former governments of the countries we now occupy.

The U.S. isn’t perfect, but comparing the U.S. to the Nazis in light of the Muslim extremists we are up against is beyond any semblance of sanity. You need a reality check before you spew vacuous epithets.

Eready2002, I disagree that you must also say that the U.S. has been at war with Chile, Nicaragua and others in the past. More precisely, the U.S. was at war with the Soviet Union, and those countries were just the battleground. (This is neither a defense nor a condemnation of that strategy…just pointing out the difference.) We were in a proxy war with the Soviet Union then, just as we are in a proxy war with Iran now. The question is why fight this war by proxy? The Cold War against the Soviet Union made sense, because both sides feared mutual total destruction. Here, one side openly welcomes it in the name of Allah. (Read Ahmadinejad's writings; they are scary.) A different strategy is clearly needed now.

Rhsaunders, I agree. Many here wish so hard that Iran is opposing the occupation that they ignore nearly 30 years of open hostility toward the U.S. and all its interests. This is just the latest of many acts of war perpetrated by Iran since the Islamic Revolution.

Ndmagicman, of course it doesn’t surprise me. But as long as you, too, are bringing up the tired analogies about the Cold War, the arming of North Vietnam and Korea were a clear indication that we were at war with the Chinese. It was a proxy war, just like the proxy war we are fighting against Iran today. We fought a proxy war at that time because both sides felt it was the only way to wage a war against each other without risk of MAD. Clearly, the Chinese did not consider their participation in these two wars to be a war against Vietnamese and Koreans. They knew that their enemy was the U.S. and the U.N. and their influence in the region.

I am only suggesting that, as we continue to engage in the Middle East, that we clearly identify our enemies also.

Skip742, you are correct that simply selling weapons is not an act of war. Financing and committing acts of war by proxy and by Iranian agents and footsoldiers is on a whole different level than what France has done. No one is advocating fighting everyone at once. But don't you think we should at least admit that we know who is fighting us?

As for strengthening Ahmedinejad, will war with Iran strengthen him the way war with Iraq strengthened Saddam? Wait, did you say "strengthen" or "lengthen"?

Answer 1

Not in my mind. But there are lots of nay-sayers who will deny the facts, no matter how obvious they are.

Answer 2

There is no state of war between Iran and the U.S.

Destabilizing other countries via shipments of military equipment is common, and is used by most major nations to try and get a say in political climates outside the home nation.

It can contribute to hostility between nations but is unlikely to escalate to an actual shooting war. The Cold War was a good example of this, with both the U.S. and Soviet Union shipping military equipment and personnel around the globe to further their causes without direct conflict.

This is no different, it just happens to be used against us, which makes it appear more reprehensible. But in the end this is business as usual for governments.

Answer 3

This surprises you? I suppose you'd be surprise to hear that China was arming North Vietnam and Korea during our involvements in those two countries? Would you be surprised that the US was arming the Afghanistan rebels when they were fighting the Russian invasion? Would you be surprised that the US was arming Iraq during their war with Iran? If given the chance why wouldn't Iran help the insurgents in Iraq. It should be expected after the history the US and Iran have.
The 5 biggest arms dealers in the world are the US, UK, Russia, France, and China and are all guilty of funding and provinding arms to wars all over the world.

Answer 4

Simply depends on how you define a war? I would say there is no war between Iran and the US. Iran is simply shipping arms to other nations who are in conflict with the US...they are likely doing this for their interests, but the US has long done this as well.

If you say that Iran is at war with the US, then you must also say that the US has been at war with Chile, Nicaragua and others in the past (the US, afterall, is the largest arms producer and distributor in the world).

Answer 5

Uh, no. So, does that mean we were at war with France when they were selling weapons to Iraq? Your view of war is much too all-engaging. At some point, you have to realize that you can't fight everyone at once.

It's clear that Ahmedinejad is no friend, but going to war with him is not necessary or strategically sensible. He's losing power anyway, and our attacks would only strengthen him. Much the way Osama gave our president almost universal support right after the 9/11 attack. Do we really want to strengthen Ahmedinajad against the moderates in his country? I don't think so.

Answer 6

Iran? Iran did not invade a foreign country. The US and the UK did though. They are occupying a third world country. You can White Wash it all you want, but the different between you guys and the Nazis is that you have been winning so far.

Answer 7

We have the strangest tendancy to not know that enemies are at war with us!

Iran
Venezuela
Mexico

We can not say that Bush is doing great on the War on Terror issue when we are watching paris Hilton on the news while our representatives are falling over themselves to see who can sell us down the river the fastest!

Answer 8

Well, you know what ? President Amidjanah won´t be president forever or live forever.

Iranians do not hate the US, but their president does !!!

Answer 9

I don't think there's a single doubt.

It will be interesting to see how the appeasers handle this.