The inauguration of Iran’s President Hassan Rohani in two days restarts the countdown toward a confrontation over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program as it approaches Israel’s “red line” for military action.
After a decade of fruitless negotiations and tightening economic sanctions, the next 12 months may make or break the international effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Such weapons would pose an existential threat to Israel, endanger the U.S. and Europe, and trigger a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf region.
Rohani, who takes office Aug. 4 and was considered a relative moderate among the candidates permitted to run by the country’s Guardian Council, has spurred hopes in some quarters that Iran may be willing to curb its nuclear efforts. That view isn’t shared by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who calls Rohani a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and Iran’s nuclear advances are narrowing the window of time to avoid a conflict.
“There is a 75 percent to 80 percent chance that issue will have come to a head” by this time next year, said John McLaughlin, a former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
As negotiations stalled during the wait for the election to choose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s successor, Iran increased its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium and added centrifuges capable of shortening the “breakout” time to produce enough highly enriched fuel for a nuclear device.
The country could have a nuclear weapon within a year if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei chooses to do so, according to former U.S. Marine General James Mattis, who retired in March as commander of the U.S. Central Command.
Iran
This situation is going to come due one of these days, and either Iran will be attacked or have a nuclear bomb.
Iran
This situation is going to come due one of these days, and either Iran will be attacked or have a nuclear bomb.
Come due? You guys are being chased by shadows. Even if Iran had 15 bombs tomorrow, they can't do anything with them except to use them as a deterrent. If a sovereign gov't that has previously been disastrously the recipient of US "intervention" in response to nationalization of their own oil industry feels the need to have a bomb or two... I for one don't blame them.
Every source of uranium ore and every processing facility produces a unique isotopic signature. It's fairly simple to tell exactly where bomb grade uranium comes from, even after detonation. No country, not North Korea, not Iran, not Pakistan... no one can use a nuke offensively and not face immediate and complete erasure from the planet. Even the craziest nut-job dictators know this, and if they don't, their generals do.
The reason you are being sold the fear of a rogue nation with a nuke as a serious threat is because they can't tell you the truth. Countries with bombs cannot be manipulated by the US as they have been in the past. It's the allegory to having a CCP. They get to keep their resources and the industries that profit for them, meaning they have no need for World Bank or IMF loans and conditions, they get to keep their democratically elected gov'ts, they get to make their own policies, etc.
They seek the bomb for the same reasons we hold the 2nd amendment sacred. To defend against tyranny the tyranny of others. They have already, and still suffer the consequences of tyranny from the US in the 1953 coup initiated and funded by the CIA, the installation of the US hand-picked Shah, and the loss of their nationalized oil, industry and profit. Their house was broken into, their stuff stolen, their politics raped... ya, I can totally see why they want a gun big enough to defend themselves.
You are mistaken. If Iran becomes a nuclear power it will be less restrained and may make miscalculations by letting Hizbollah act with less restraint. This might provoke a Hizbollah attack on Israel with unconventional weapons, causing unacceptable casualties and forcing Israel to demonstrate the credibility of its deterrent. Things may very well escalate from there.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of a regime with a martyr's complex is not a good idea.
A martyrs complex? Please, setting your biased opinions aside, what factual evidence do you have that Iran has ever acted in keeping with a "martyrs complex"?
A martyrs complex? Please, setting your biased opinions aside, what factual evidence do you have that Iran has ever acted in keeping with a "martyrs complex"?
Moderator's Warning: |
Iran
This situation is going to come due one of these days, and either Iran will be attacked or have a nuclear bomb.
I have yet to see any hard evidence that they are attempting to make a nuke.
1. Based on discussions here (I don't remember exactly where), they've been enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels.
2. They have ran the IAEA around in circles.
3. Iranian-funded terrorist groups have had mushroom clouds on their flags.
None of that is hard evidence whatsoever, especially the last one. Please show me evidence that they are enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels.
I have yet to see any hard evidence that they are attempting to make a nuke.
None of that is hard evidence whatsoever, especially the last one. Please show me evidence that they are enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels.
1. Based on discussions here (I don't remember exactly where), they've been enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels.
2. They have ran the IAEA around in circles.
3. Iranian-funded terrorist groups have had mushroom clouds on their flags.
The anti-Israel/anti-West crowd develops their ludicrous argument against attacking iran in several ways, using the same idiotic points seen across the web:
1-the lie that iran has "not attacked anyone in, like, 500 years". This is obviously patently false.
2-"there is no evidence that iran is working on a bomb" - as if they are privileged CIA operatives who would get to see the evidence first hand.
3-then when the first 2 moronic points above fail, they resort to: "well, they SHOULD be working on a bomb, since Israel has one, and they are enemies."
This is why there is such strong support for Israel and the West against iran across the world, because bright people can see right through the drivel, propaganda nonsense the iran excusers try to use.
I don't think attacking Iran is the answer. Containment is a better policy. We need to eliminate pro-Iran regimes in the region (Baathist Syria) and help fight against their puppet terrorist groups (Hezbollah and to a lesser extent, Hamas). Iran relies on extending it's influence into other countries. As soon as we prevent it from doing that, it will contract and then collapse, similarly to the Soviet Union. Iran, despite how it tries to act, is filling to the brim with dissidence and instability. Without the ability to direct this negative energy outward, the Islamic Republic will have its days numbered.
My first option actually, would be be not to attack the facilities, but to bomb and destroy the regime itself. Once a more rational, less antagonistic regime were in place, with the republican guard and basij neutralized, the entire program could be dismantled. That would require a bit more time and military presence than just sending cruise missiles into nuclear facilities, and would guarantee that the regime would not just spend the next 5 years re-building them.
That said, containment is not an option because they are too willing, unlike the much more rational soviets. to handing off their nuclear weapons tech to other rogue nations, or selling it outright. Since it is a hug country, and has scumbags like putin and china helping it, it would be nearly impossible to be able to quarantine the country fully.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?