A simple question about Iran

[Craig234]

If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though we unintentionally converted Iraq to an ally).

 

[HumblePi]

If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though ironically we turned Iraq into an ally).

The unilateral Iran nuclear agreement was working. There was no reason for Trump to cancel it because doing so put our country, and our allies in the Middle East, in the line of danger since he gave Iran license to commence nuclear development.

 

[redbeer]

Since we opened our borders, why not?......let Iran have nukes, what the hell! Let's help in starting WWIII....so what if they blow Israel to Kingdom Come.......poor little Iran.

 

[joluoto]

Iran has been "a year from getting the bomb" for 30 years now. Longest year in history.

 

[MamboDervish]

If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though we unintentionally converted Iraq to an ally).

Well, let's face it. Given our history since the overthrow of Mosaddegh, with Bush the Lesser calling them part of the Axis of Evil, then placing our Armies on both their eastern and western borders, and two carrier fleets in the Persian Gulf, Iran would have to be insane to not want nuclear weapons!

Nuclear weapons makes you a player. It gives you a seat at the table. It puts you in rotation for the UN Security Council. Any country that we have treated like we've treated Iran would damned sure want nuclear weapons. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though we unintentionally converted Iraq to an ally).

If I were in charge of Iran, yes, I absolutely would want nukes. No country with nukes has ever been invaded, and they are completely surrounded by people that want to attack them, justified or not.

Since we opened our borders, why not?......let Iran have nukes, what the hell! Let's help in starting WWIII....so what if they blow Israel to Kingdom Come.......poor little Iran.

The US doesn't have open borders and Trump is the one that torpedoed the agreement preventing them from getting nukes. You're being childish and trying to distract from the question.

 

[redbeer]

The US doesn't have open borders and Trump is the one that torpedoed the agreement preventing them from getting nukes. You're being childish and trying to distract from the question.

The states of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas would strongly disagree with you. The Iranian government was not following the rules of the agreement, hence the reason for rejecting and increasing stringent levies on the regime and greatly increased peace in the Middle East.

 

[joluoto]

The states of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas would strongly disagree with you. The Iranian government was not following the rules of the agreement, hence the reason for rejecting and increasing stringent levies on the regime and greatly increased peace in the Middle East.

They were actually following the rule of the agreement, but stopped once the US broke the agreement.

Access to foreign trade is more valuable to Iran than a expensive nuclear program that still after three decades haven't yielded results. However if they can't access foreign trade they have no reason to not keep trying making the bomb.

 

[Rogue Valley]

If I were in charge of Iran, yes, I absolutely would want nukes. No country with nukes has ever been invaded, and they are completely surrounded by people that want to attack them, justified or not.

In 1996, Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. She agreed to join the NPT and become a neutral nation. Russia received between 2,650 and 4,200 tactical nuclear weapons deployed on Ukraine territory. Ukraine destroyed 176 nuclear capable ICBM's and dozens of nuclear missile silos. All HEU was handed over to Russia by 2012. A nuclear missile base at Pervomaysk was turned into a museum. I visited once. It extended 10 floors deep underground. Antiquated, yet sobering.

If Ukraine still had a nuclear arsenal in 2014, Putin would never have invaded Crimea and Donbas.

 

[Rogue Valley]

They were actually following the rule of the agreement, but stopped once the US broke the agreement.

Indeed. The EU and IAEA agreed that Iran was in compliance when Trump trashed the treaty.

 

[redbeer]

They were actually following the rule of the agreement, but stopped once the US broke the agreement.

Access to foreign trade is more valuable to Iran than a expensive nuclear program that still after three decades haven't yielded results. However if they can't access foreign trade they have no reason to not keep trying making the bomb.

Not so,

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time

Iranian leaders have breached both the resolutions and the nuclear agreement for the third time since the nuclear deal went into effect in January 2016. Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles.

www.huffpost.com

 

[joluoto]

Not so,

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time

Iranian leaders have breached both the resolutions and the nuclear agreement for the third time since the nuclear deal went into effect in January 2016. Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles.

www.huffpost.com

Iran was still in compliance in 2019:

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal

Right now they are not, haven't been for more than a year. But they were in compliance back then.

 

[ecofarm]

If I ran Iran:

Step 1: No more totalitarian theocracy.
Gay people are no longer executed.
Women have rights.
Install democracy.

Step 2: Become the darling of the development world.
Take bids on projects and accept UN humanitarian missions. Take development aid money from the US and Europe. Expand education and healthcare.


You would remain a totalitarian theocracy at odds with the free world?

 

[lemmiwinx]

Iran is currently ruled by religious extremists who if allowed to have nukes would use them. You can't have Ayatollahs with nuclear weapons it wouldn't work out well for anyone. Believe me.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The states of New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas would strongly disagree with you. The Iranian government was not following the rules of the agreement, hence the reason for rejecting and increasing stringent levies on the regime and greatly increased peace in the Middle East.

You can lie all you want, the US does not have an open border policy. And you have no evidence that Iran was breaking the original agreement, all of the evidence from the actual agencies inspecting them says they were, but Trump told you they weren't so that's all you need. Now nothing is stopping them from doing it.

 

[MamboDervish]

Not so,

Iran Breaches the Nuclear Deal and UN Resolutions for Third Time

Iranian leaders have breached both the resolutions and the nuclear agreement for the third time since the nuclear deal went into effect in January 2016. Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles.

www.huffpost.com

Not exactly. Ballistic missiles are conventional weapons that Iran would use to defend itself sans any nuclear weapon capacity. Nothing in the article refers to Uranium enrichment, or bringing them any closer to nuclear weapons capability. Long before the multilateral nuclear agreement, Iran already had the largest ballistic missile numbers in the region. The periodic testing of those conventional weapons would still be a national defense issue.

 

[Questerr]

Since we opened our borders, why not?......let Iran have nukes, what the hell! Let's help in starting WWIII....so what if they blow Israel to Kingdom Come.......poor little Iran.

Why would Iran randomly decide to attack Israel?

 

[Questerr]

Iran is currently ruled by religious extremists who if allowed to have nukes would use them. You can't have Ayatollahs with nuclear weapons it wouldn't work out well for anyone. Believe me.

Why would they use nukes if they had them? They've had other WMD's for decades and didn't use them even when the Iraqis used WMD's on Iran first.

 

[Mycroft]

If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

If I ran Iran, I wouldn't be a religious zealot going around making enemies.

 

[MamboDervish]

Why would Iran randomly decide to attack Israel?

They certainly wouldn't if it risked their own obliteration.

 

[MamboDervish]

Why would they use nukes if they had them? They've had other WMD's for decades and didn't use them even when the Iraqis used WMD's on Iran first.

Point taken.

 

[Lisa]

Since we opened our borders, why not?......let Iran have nukes, what the hell! Let's help in starting WWIII....so what if they blow Israel to Kingdom Come.......poor little Iran.

Israel already has nuclear weapons. That is one of the reasons that Iran wants to join the nuclear club to have parity with Israel. That and the fact that no member of the nuclear club has ever been seriously threatened or invaded.

Israel is widely believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and to have produced enough plutonium for 100-200 weapons. While a stockpile of this size constitutes a credible minimal deterrent, the lack of an explosive testing program might create concerns about effectiveness. There is speculation that Israel worked with other countries to test its weapons’ effectiveness. Israel may have relied on France for some testing data until France imposed an embargo on Israel after the Six-Day War in June, 1967. Some also speculate that Israel conducted a nuclear weapons test with South Africa in 1979 known as the Vela incident.


Weapons-grade fissile material stocks in the country are thought to have come from two sources.


First, it is widely believed that the plutonium for Israel’s nuclear weapons program was produced at the Negev Nuclear Research Center near the city of Dimona. Natural uranium fuel may have been irradiated in a heavy-water-moderated reactor. Then, the plutonium could be chemically separated in a reprocessing plant that is believed to be co-located at Negev. It is believed that the Dimona was built with French assistance in the 1960s, although the facility is not under IAEA safeguards and inspectors are not allowed to go there. An unclassified study prepared for the U.S. Congress in 1980 estimated that the Dimona reactor was capable of producing 9-10 kilograms of fissile plutonium a year starting in 1965.


Second, there is unconfirmed reporting over the diversion to Israel of 300 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium from a U.S. naval propulsion reactor fuel fabrication plant in the late 1960s. If true, this material could be stockpiled for weapons use, or it could be mixed with natural uranium and used in the Dimona reactor to produce tritium. Tritium mixed with deuterium, an easily-acquired isotope, can boost the yield of a nuclear explosion.

Fact Sheet: Israel's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Israel’s assumed nuclear weapons program, and the history surrounding it, is characterized by ambiguity. Thus far, that ambiguity has been effectively tolerated. Any formal recognition or acknowledgement of Israel’s weapons program could upset the current uneasy balance in the region...

armscontrolcenter.org

 

[Questerr]

For all the people who claim Iran would immediately use nukes, probably on Israel, the moment they could, consider this:

Right now, Iran has a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles. More than enough to overwhelm Israel's missile defense network and blanket their major urban areas. Iran also possesses a huge stockpile of nerve agents, all of which could be delivered by ballistic missile. If Iran wanted to, they could launch a mass nerve gas attack on Israel, on their cities, which would result in the functional annihilation of the Israeli populace. Even the people who survived would be incapacitated by the side effects for months to years. Israel would cease to exist as a nation.

So why hasn't Iran done that, if as you all like to claim they want to annihilate Israel as soon as possible?

 

[lemmiwinx]

Why would they use nukes if they had them? They've had other WMD's for decades and didn't use them even when the Iraqis used WMD's on Iran first.

Religious extremists are likely to do anything. You can't comprehend how much the Ayatollahs hate Jews and will do anything to bring about the end of the world as we know it. Those dudes are mega-scary if you ask me.

 

[ataraxia]

If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though we unintentionally converted Iraq to an ally).

Iran is really complicated. When talking about Iran, it doesn’t help to just talk about a single entity. On the one hand, you have the government of Iran, which is the government with the mullah clergy heading it, alingbwithh the military they control. On the other, you have the people of Iran, who mostly now hate their government. Up until not too long ago, that was just mostly the educated and those in large urban centers. The uneducated, the working class, the villagers, and those living in rural areas were the main base of support for the Islamic government.

But as the economy has continued to deteriorate, these folks have been left bearing the brunt of the economic pain. And so they have been increasingly turning on the government. There have been numerous widespread protests and strikes from the working class recently. They are learning of the incredible amount of corruption in their government, with the Mullahs at the top stealing hundreds of billions of dollars and siphoning it off to their personal bank accounts in foreign banks, while they are left suffering. Their anger is reaching a boiling point.

During this last election, there were many Iranian Americans who actually voted for Trump, despite his talks of a Muslim ban and his bigotry againstmiddle easterners, because they wanted to see America get actively involved in overthrowing the government there- even if it took an active bombing campaign to do so. Think about it: you had Iranians actively hoping America would bomb their country to get rid of the government there.

But not only is the Iranian regime under siege domestically, it is increasingly under siege abroad as well. They are pissing everybody off. It doesn’t help that they are now even losing the support of their traditional allies, the Arabs. Saudi Arabia has now become one of their most dangerous enemies in the region. It has even been allying itself more with Israel because they have the Iranians as their common enemy. As they say in geopolitics: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.“

So domestically and abroad, they have more and more enemies everywhere they turn. The only thing they have left to try to protect themselves is the military. It’s hard for their own people to argue with machine guns pointed them. And if they have nuclear weapons, it becomes harder for other countries to argue with them. And so they plan to use force to stay in power and continue the corruption.

Personally, I think even if they develop nuclear weapons, they are not in a stable position and it’s just a matter of time before they eventually fall. You can’t piss everybody off at home and abroad and continue to stay in power, no matter how much force you use.