A Nuclear IRAN

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by keith

Different perspective, to me you and slim are the ones with heads stuck in the sand, squaking "bomb them bomb them" out of the exposed orifice.

Maybe Slim and I had similar training. When a bomb is about to go off, you get to the ground and cover up. And don't forget to warn your pals too. Thats much different than what the left hopes when they stick their heads in the sand.

Your stand is that Iran will eventually develope nukes, no matter what. The original question still stands; should they be allowed to? Right now, they do not have them, and we possess the means and might to stop them. I recognize that doing so would have serious impact (economic and political) on the world, however a nuclear capable Iran would be much much worse, IMO.

From Senator Mccain.

"There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option -- that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

[Tomas N]

1. Israel is not going to airstrike Iran. They just don't have the military capability to do it effectively. Too far away to do heavy damage.

2. Airstrikes probably aren't enough anyway. Have to deploy troops in order to stop the nuclear program. That requires the U.S.

3. Iran has had all sorts of bad stuff like biological weapons for many years. They haven't given it to terrorists. They aren't likely to give nuclear bombs to terrorists either.

4. Don't get confused between the reality of Iranian politics and the rhetoric of Iranian politics.

Tomas

[keith]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Maybe Slim and I had similar training. When a bomb is about to go off, you get to the ground and cover up. And don't forget to warn your pals too. Thats much different than what the left hopes when they stick their heads in the sand.

Heads in the ground re the way the world has change in the last twenty years might be a more polite way to phrase it then.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Your stand is that Iran will eventually develope nukes, no matter what.

Well more that any country that wants it can get it (the bomb that is), while we are busy in a fluster over Iran remember that both Pakistan, India and North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons through, almost, purely domestic efforts - its not a case anymore that they have to 'buy in' from the technically sophisticated west.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

The original question still stands; should they be allowed to?

... and my response still stands, you're asking this question twenty odd years to late. Invading, bombing - doesn't stop Iran from getting the bomb, only delays.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Right now, they do not have them, and we possess the means and might to stop them.

It might delay them, stopping isn't an option. I have tried to point out why delay is the only outcome - and from many perspectives would make Iran more dangerous rather than less. Even if we invaded and were as succesful as in Iraq would that stop them or just force us to invade again 10 years on?

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I recognize that doing so would have serious impact (economic and political) on the world, however a nuclear capable Iran would be much much worse, IMO.

I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a 'good thing' - but the only real game in town is to persuade them that the Brazilian/Canadian model is the one to follow; it is one thing to know how to build a bomb its another to actually build one.

[larry hurdiss]

is anyone else here old enough to remember...."On the Beach"....
the book and the movie....????
in it....one character asks..
re the "third world war"....
"How did it all start?"
the answer comes....
" Some obscure nation in the middle East".........
have some fun....go to your nearest Blockbuster....and rent it...
oh....it was called a "black and white" film....dont adjust your DVD players...it is supposed to look like that...........;-)
does all this rhetoric change anything....??????
lets fence....

[Teme]

There are a few things I find, well, confusing, for lack of better word:

Although I don't understan Farsi, nor were I present in the conference where Mr. Ahmadinejad made the notorious Israel statement, I'm led to believe it is indeed rather common rhetoric in the political athmostphere of Iran, but not at highest level. Which leads to the point that 3 years ago Mr. Ahmadinejad was a nobody, and while being the maior of Teheran, the state official still thought he was a nobody. So, there is a slight chance that as a statesman, he's not house-broken yet, but knows only the 'usual stuff' of low-brow political speech making.
Furthermore, in the context it's quite possible he ment that Palestinians should "wipe Israel off the map", not necessarily Iranians.

When his predecessor, Mr. Khatami, turned out to be a rather moderate president sponsoring the 'civilized dialogue' among nations (it was even claimed that he shook hands with president of Israel!), it was a woe and shame that the president of Iran was a mere figurehead without any real power. Have the Iranian presidential powers somehow changed since Mr. Ahmadinejad took the office? At least his ministers have been trying to do some damage control, which might mena that the unelected theocracy is not nearly as radical as the elected president.

But the main problem is that Iran is not actually doing (or can't be proven to be doing) anything forbidden. Iran categorically denies developing nuclears weapons, and IAEA can't prove it either way. There are international investigators watching every step of the program even now. At least every step they're allowed to watch.
So, if Iran develops the capability and if they start to enrich weapons grade uranium, and if they can hide that for sufficient time, then they get the bomb. That's quite a many ifs for grounds of an all out military operation...

Considering they have nucular Israel to the west and nucular Pakistan to the East, I somewhat can see the need for either 'civilized dialogue' or nucular weapons.

ps. I think I was too young when I saw "On The Beach"...

[Inquartata]

Developing a nuclear program in secret is a violation, I believe. Such programs are supposed to be conducted under IAEA monitoring, which Iran deliberately circumvented.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Developing a nuclear program in secret is a violation, I believe. Such programs are supposed to be conducted under IAEA monitoring, which Iran deliberately circumvented.

They certainy haven't been forthcoming about what they have been up to but everything they have been 'caught' doing is allowed under the NPT - some of us miserable head in the sand leftists where out in the streets demanding the tightening up of that limp treaty back in the '80s .

Which reminds me;

Have you ever wondered why everyone calls it the NPT and not the NNPT?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Developing a nuclear program in secret is a violation, I believe. Such programs are supposed to be conducted under IAEA monitoring, which Iran deliberately circumvented.

Developing a nuclear weapon under the guise of a nuclear programme is prohibited in the NPT. The problem is that Iran has the legal right to Nuclear power unless it can be proved it is for weapons. By the time it can be proved it will be too late, but untill it is proved they have the law on their side. As far as monitoring is concerned. I believe that the Iranians were under no obligation and monitoring had been going on despite this. It would take a resolution to make inspections mandatory.

It must be remembered that Iran's nuclear programme started, under US supervision, before the 1979 Revolution. The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000. Telling the Iranians 'yea that was then- but we hate you know' doesn't really ring with credibilty.

So it was ok to have a nuclear Iran before the Revolution, the problem is that the nature of Iranian-US relations is defined by the mindset the Revolution endowed on both. On the Iranian side- it was the hated Shahs close support of the US and Israel. On the US side- it was the actual nature of the revolution, the hostages and fact that the CIA didn't predict it.

The obvious point that LAOS and Slim miss, but even Krauthammer seems to concede, is that their basically isn't a military option short of bombing about 200 installations every week for ever and ever. No amount of name calling will change that. The second obvious point would be that (as the Saudi foreign minister pointed out) perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to give Israel nukes after all.

Another obvious point is that Iran has not threatened Israel with destruction. It has said that the world would be a better place without Israel existing. That is clearly a contemptful statement, but it would be wrong to suggest that Iran's nuclear programme is connected with that statement. Death to Israel is, sadly, a mainstream rallying cry in many Arab (I know Iranians are not Arabs) states. To undestand it you have to understand the politics of the 1979 Revolution and how Khomenei established it as a symbolic rhetorical tool that played on the hated Shahs support for Israel. It remains a rallying cry, even an asipiration for many. It (a nuclear strike on Israel) has, however, never been a strategy and it never will in my opinion. I understand that the nature of the Iranian leadership make this very difficult to believe and it certainly is no argument for being happy about a potential nuclear Iran. But, if Iran does go nuclear, it is a reason to not expect imminent oblivion. What has underlined Iranian strategy more than anything is pragmatism.

The Iranians clearly exploited the good cop, bad cop approach by the US and Europe. Europe, even Russia, is now taking a firmer stance and the US perhaps a less firm stance. The obvious problem is that sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. This is going to have to be, however unjust and cowardly people like LAOS and Slim characterise it, a mutually beneficial deal tied to political reform, economic ties and recognition of Israel.

Make no mistake the Iranians are 100% commited to controling the nuclear cycle, they will do this what ever you or I say. That is guaranteed. It is now about dealing with a nuclear Iran, and consideration of 2 things must guide this. Firstly Iranians are literally immune to US threats. Secondly Iran has never attacked another country (ok supported some Palestinian terrorists) and has nothing to gain by doing so. Iran wants the nuclear cycle for 2 reasons.

1) When the oil runs out (eventually)- this argument obviously convinced the US in the 60's.
2) So that they have the capabilty (if needed) to independently build a bomb, using their domestic programme as a base.

I don't see much point in encouraging them that they need to do the latter. Some people need to start thinking in terms of making the best out of a bad situation, rather than assume the US has a non diplomatic solution to every problem in the world. Remember- attack Iran and say goodbye to any chance of peace in Iraq, a palestinian state or a chance of internal regime change in Iran itself.

If none of this were true, then Israel would have attacked already.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

(Snippage of clear argument)

Some people need to start thinking in terms of making the best out of a bad situation, rather than assume the US has a non diplomatic solution to every problem in the world.

Common misconception. Diplomacy is of course the preferred solution for the US as with any other grown-up nation. The problem is, diplomacy that is not backed up by a real likelihood of military follow-through is about as effective, when dealing with nations such as Iran, as would be the protestations of a schoolyard weakling to the class bully.

I find it strange that modern Europeans and certain Americans, who really ought to know better, seem to believe that diplomacy is the only proper approach, rather than merely the beginning of a progression of actions available and proper for ensuring the protection of one's national interest against nations with opposing interests. I assure you, that if you only acted with diplomacy, economic sanctions and UN documents, you would have little success. But if such things were backed up by a promise of force which Iran knew would in fact be used, should such things fail, I am equally confident that diplomacy would, in fact, be successful. You simply cannot limit your options by insisting on diplomacy alone, unless you seek failure.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Developing a nuclear weapon under the guise of a nuclear programme is prohibited in the NPT. The problem is that Iran has the legal right to Nuclear power unless it can be proved it is for weapons. By the time it can be proved it will be too late, but untill it is proved they have the law on their side. As far as monitoring is concerned. I believe that the Iranians were under no obligation and monitoring had been going on despite this. It would take a resolution to make inspections mandatory.

It must be remembered that Iran's nuclear programme started, under US supervision, before the 1979 Revolution. The TNRC was equipped with a US supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor. Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place plans were drawn by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations across the country together with USA by the year 2000. Telling the Iranians 'yea that was then- but we hate you know' doesn't really ring with credibilty.

So it was ok to have a nuclear Iran before the Revolution, the problem is that the nature of Iranian-US relations is defined by the mindset the Revolution endowed on both. On the Iranian side- it was the hated Shahs close support of the US and Israel. On the US side- it was the actual nature of the revolution, the hostages and fact that the CIA didn't predict it.

The obvious point that LAOS and Slim miss, but even Krauthammer seems to concede, is that their basically isn't a military option short of bombing about 200 installations every week for ever and ever. No amount of name calling will change that. The second obvious point would be that (as the Saudi foreign minister pointed out) perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to give Israel nukes after all.

Another obvious point is that Iran has not threatened Israel with destruction. It has said that the world would be a better place without Israel existing. That is clearly a contemptful statement, but it would be wrong to suggest that Iran's nuclear programme is connected with that statement. Death to Israel is, sadly, a mainstream rallying cry in many Arab (I know Iranians are not Arabs) states. To undestand it you have to understand the politics of the 1979 Revolution and how Khomenei established it as a symbolic rhetorical tool that played on the hated Shahs support for Israel. It remains a rallying cry, even an asipiration for many. It (a nuclear strike on Israel) has, however, never been a strategy and it never will in my opinion. I understand that the nature of the Iranian leadership make this very difficult to believe and it certainly is no argument for being happy about a potential nuclear Iran. But, if Iran does go nuclear, it is a reason to not expect imminent oblivion. What has underlined Iranian strategy more than anything is pragmatism.

The Iranians clearly exploited the good cop, bad cop approach by the US and Europe. Europe, even Russia, is now taking a firmer stance and the US perhaps a less firm stance. The obvious problem is that sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. This is going to have to be, however unjust and cowardly people like LAOS and Slim characterise it, a mutually beneficial deal tied to political reform, economic ties and recognition of Israel.

Make no mistake the Iranians are 100% commited to controling the nuclear cycle, they will do this what ever you or I say. That is guaranteed. It is now about dealing with a nuclear Iran, and consideration of 2 things must guide this. Firstly Iranians are literally immune to US threats. Secondly Iran has never attacked another country (ok supported some Palestinian terrorists) and has nothing to gain by doing so. Iran wants the nuclear cycle for 2 reasons.

1) When the oil runs out (eventually)- this argument obviously convinced the US in the 60's.
2) So that they have the capabilty (if needed) to independently build a bomb, using their domestic programme as a base.

I don't see much point in encouraging them that they need to do the latter. Some people need to start thinking in terms of making the best out of a bad situation, rather than assume the US has a non diplomatic solution to every problem in the world. Remember- attack Iran and say goodbye to any chance of peace in Iraq, a palestinian state or a chance of internal regime change in Iran itself.

If none of this were true, then Israel would have attacked already.

Dont be so sure. You really think there are 200 sites with the exact same capabilities and that they would be able to rebuild them weekly? I dont think the intent would be to out them out of business forever (not possible). It's merely to prolong the process. Perhaps until a popular uprising could change current management.

Perhaps no one has come out directly said "When we get a nuke we will nuke Israel." I dont think they have to. I dont think Israel should or will wait until they do. Iran knows enough that to say it directly would cause some major problems from Russia and China, and the rest of the world. Not to mention an immediate and justified response from Israel. Enough has been said to pretty much understand thier position on Israel, and get the Israelis worked up enough to comtemplate action.

When the oil runs out? That's laughable. They sit on a major portion of the world's oil. This is the last thing they are thinking about. It's ONLY about joining the nuclear weapon club.

One would think that if Iran's intentions were really as non-hostile as you claim, they would rachet down the rhetoric. They are attmpting to play the martyr card, trying to invite an attack to rally more people into jihad. That's probably the only reason it hasnt' happend yet.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

The problem is, diplomacy that is not backed up by a real likelihood of military follow-through is about as effective, when dealing with nations such as Iran, as would be the protestations of a schoolyard weakling to the class bully.

Okay so would you be able to provide examples where the use of force was a key?

I can't, certainly Libya and North Korea were never threatened with force (unless in you are arguing a very delayed response ).

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I find it strange that modern Europeans and certain Americans, who really ought to know better, seem to believe that diplomacy is the only proper approach, rather than merely the beginning of a progression of actions available and proper for ensuring the protection of one's national interest against nations with opposing interests.

... and I am equally surprised (as one of those who should know better) how some americans, and europeans, seem to think that the use of military force is a useful option. As opposed to the end result of bravado posturing of the "don't cross this, no not that line this line" sort.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I assure you, that if you only acted with diplomacy, economic sanctions and UN documents, you would have little success.

Seemed to work just fine for Libya and probably would for Iran as well. Provided the Iranians could be convinced that pariah status can and will be imposed.

The larger problem with any attempts to isolate (or attack) Iran is that they aren't actually in breach of the NPT. Plenty of people think they are thinking about breaching the NPT but that is a different sort of thing. The one good thing that might come out of all of this is a few folks taking the NPT round the back and putting it out of its misery.

Neither the Russians nor Chinese will allow heavy sanctions (let alone condone military action) on these sort of legalese grounds. Also the oil market is so open that an embargo can't work without all the major importers taking part, which would include China. Not to mention that while the Iranians know they may be at risk from a face saving military strike by america they know there is absolutely no risk of an invasion - that's been proven by the events in Iraq. So at the end of the day, there is no viable military threat america can make..............

[Slim]

Originally Posted by keith

Okay so would you be able to provide examples where the use of force was a key?

I can't, certainly Libya and North Korea were never threatened with force (unless in you are arguing a very delayed response ).

Right. Gaddafi just woke up one morning and had an epiphany. Maybe you forget that Reagan planted the fear of airstrikes in his head back in 86?

[keith]

Originally Posted by Slim

Right. Gaddafi just woke up one morning and had an epiphany. Maybe you forget that Reagan planted the fear of airstrikes in his head back in 86?

Ah so it's a time release formula is it - funny I hadn't heard the rational that if we bomb Iran in eighteen years they might surrender their nuclear programme .

Although if we want to parrallel, in '86 Libya had no nuclear programme - it then started one and after diplomatic deal ended that programe and in the process blew the whistle on Iran.

So I would say Libya is a perfect example of what happens when you rely on a military rather than diplomatic approach

[Slim]

Originally Posted by keith

Ah so it's a time release formula is it - funny I hadn't heard the rational that if we bomb Iran in eighteen years they might surrender their nuclear programme .

Although if we want to parrallel, in '86 Libya had no nuclear programme - it then started one and after diplomatic deal ended that programe and in the process blew the whistle on Iran.

So I would say Libya is a perfect example of what happens when you rely on a military rather than diplomatic approach

I think you are forgetting that what really triggered his change of heart was seeing Iraq fall in a matter of days coupled with the memory of almost getting blown up the last time he was in the crosshairs.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Slim

I think you are forgetting that what really triggered his change of heart was seeing Iraq fall in a matter of days coupled with the memory of almost getting blown up the last time he was in the crosshairs.

Eh?*

If this approach is so foolproof why didn't the invasion of Iraq have the same effect on the Iranians. Still

The libyans didn't 'surrender' their programme in the face of invasion. They got a nice big carrot in the shape of an end to pariah status - Gaddafi did a fair bit of climbing down over both the agents who went on trial for the PanAm bombing and also his nuclear programme.

So either a couple of bombs dropped 18 years ago or long term diplomatic pressure resulted in a change of heart for Gaddafi.............


* remembers that when in comes to incompetent attempts at assasination no one tops the USA.

[Epee_Pox]

Keith, decades of diplomacy backed by no real threat accomplished zilch to get Libya to see the light. But all of a sudden, the USA changes the way it behaves, and uses force to enforce what the diplomats wrought, and Libya suddenly wants to join the ranks of law-abiding nations. Coincidence?

Years and years of diplomacy, backed by no real threat (worse, backed by the sure knowledge that the USA would do nothing at all), accomplished zilch to get Syria out of Lebanon. But all of a sudden the USA makes it clear that it will now back up its diplomacy with force if need be, and Syria pulls out. Coincidence?

The few remaining dictatorships in the region are being careful lately to make nice nice, and start complying with diplomatic pressures. Saudi Arabia is bending over backwards, even beginning to institute democratic elections at low levels. Egypt is starting to act like it's seen the light as well. Is it mere coincidence that diplomacy is starting to have effect now? Or did something happen in recent years to, perhaps, give cause where none had existed before to actually take it seriously?

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Keith, decades of diplomacy backed by no real threat accomplished zilch to get Libya to see the light. But all of a sudden, the USA changes the way it behaves, and uses force to enforce what the diplomats wrought, and Libya suddenly wants to join the ranks of law-abiding nations. Coincidence?

Years and years of diplomacy, backed by no real threat (worse, backed by the sure knowledge that the USA would do nothing at all), accomplished zilch to get Syria out of Lebanon. But all of a sudden the USA makes it clear that it will now back up its diplomacy with force if need be, and Syria pulls out. Coincidence?

The few remaining dictatorships in the region are being careful lately to make nice nice, and start complying with diplomatic pressures. Saudi Arabia is bending over backwards, even beginning to institute democratic elections at low levels. Egypt is starting to act like it's seen the light as well. Is it mere coincidence that diplomacy is starting to have effect now? Or did something happen in recent years to, perhaps, give cause where none had existed before to actually take it seriously?

Some get it, some dont. And some just dont want to.....