Nuclear Iran (1 Viewer)

[Kandahar]

Personally I think that if Iran acquires nukes, it will use them as soon as it is tactically viable to do so. Such an insane regime absolutely CANNOT be deterred in my opinion, and if we don't act now we may be facing the world's first nuclear war. In the best case scenario, we'll be involved in a new Cold War but against a much less rational enemy than the USSR.

 

[Tashah]

IMHO... This is the most pressing and dangerous current international problem.

 

[GarzaUK]

What do you propose then? A bombing run is not reliable to do the job by any means, furthermore it would only cause to speed up the nuclear program as Iran will probably see this as an act of war. An invasion, America is nowhere near ready for an invasion of Iran without the draft and even then it will take a year to produce more weapons.
Our best chance to deter Iran is Russia. A war with Iran won't work without Russia's blessing. Russia and Iran have a better realtionship, only Russia can persuade them to be more transparent.

 

[Thinker]

My understanding is that Iran has obeyed all of the rules imposed by the
international regulatory authorities on everyone else with regard to inspections
and other controls.

If this is so, Iran would be rightly angry if the rules are changed just for them.

This seems to be yet another example of the "one law for us and another for
them" mentality that has lead to so many problems in the world.

If governments applied identical rules to everybody, we would be in a far less
frightening state than we are now.

 

[hipsterdufus]

This is a major problem.

I think the way to go on this one is to try to work with the Chinese, Russians and the UN to keep Iraq from going with its nuclear production.

The US has a bit of a credibility problem in the world after Iraq and WMD. I don't think we want to go it alone in Iraq, and I doubt that even Tony Blair would back us if we decide to act unilaterally.

 

[Kandahar]

What do you propose then? A bombing run is not reliable to do the job by any means, furthermore it would only cause to speed up the nuclear program as Iran will probably see this as an act of war. An invasion, America is nowhere near ready for an invasion of Iran without the draft and even then it will take a year to produce more weapons.
Our best chance to deter Iran is Russia. A war with Iran won't work without Russia's blessing. Russia and Iran have a better realtionship, only Russia can persuade them to be more transparent.

We have the resources and manpower to invade Iran without a draft if necessary. It certainly wouldn't be pretty, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that it would be far worse to NOT act now.

Russia's not seriously interested in persuading Iran to give up its nuclear program. They have a lucrative trade relationship with Iran and certainly wouldn't agree to any sanctions. Furthermore (and this is just speculation on my part), I bet Vladimir Putin is delighted to see the West squirming to come up with a solution. It may be in Russia's interest to do nothing or even encourage Iran.

 

[Kandahar]

My understanding is that Iran has obeyed all of the rules imposed by the
international regulatory authorities on everyone else with regard to inspections
and other controls.

Then your understanding is incorrect. Iran has violated every international regulation, has kicked inspectors out, and has broke the UN seals on its nuclear facilities.

If this is so, Iran would be rightly angry if the rules are changed just for them.

Oh please. Iran knew damn well that their actions would meet with stiff resistance from Western nations, and they did it anyway. This is simply their way of thumbing their nose at the rest of the world.

This seems to be yet another example of the "one law for us and another for
them" mentality that has lead to so many problems in the world.

If governments applied identical rules to everybody, we would be in a far less
frightening state than we are now.

What leads to many problems in the world is the attitude that the same laws SHOULD apply to every single country, regardless of circumstance or timing. International politics is not that simple, and to treat it as such as to simply be intellectually lazy.


I noticed you voted that Iran isn't interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. Do you have any reason for believing this, or is this just wishful thinking?

 

[Kandahar]

This is a major problem.

I think the way to go on this one is to try to work with the Chinese, Russians and the UN to keep Iraq from going with its nuclear production.

The US has a bit of a credibility problem in the world after Iraq and WMD. I don't think we want to go it alone in Iraq, and I doubt that even Tony Blair would back us if we decide to act unilaterally.

Personally I think we'd have more backing for military action against Iran than we did for Iraq. Since Iran really is a threat to the world, unlike Iraq, I think most Western countries would be relieved if we took military action (assuming it is ultimately necessary to do so). Also unlike Iraq, none of our allies or intelligence officials are seriously disputing the claims that Iran has an active WMD program.

Iran has basically walked away from the diplomatic route, so I think that phase has ended. We can try more coercive economic measures and take actions to destabilize the regime, but ultimately I'm not sure that there is any solution other than military action.

 

[M14 Shooter]

. Russia and Iran have a better realtionship, only Russia can persuade them to be more transparent.

Transparency isnt the issue - the fact that they seem bent on building nukes is the issue. It doesnt really matter how much we know about their progress if they don't plan on stopping until they are done.

At this point, it appears that force is the only way to deal with this issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My understanding is that Iran has obeyed all of the rules imposed by the
international regulatory authorities on everyone else with regard to inspections
and other controls.

Except that:
-They denied having a nuke program for the 20+ years that they had one
-They unilaterally decided to break the IAEA seals on their facilities and resume uranium enrichment.

Iran is the bad guy here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a major problem.

The US has a bit of a credibility problem in the world after Iraq and WMD. I don't think we want to go it alone in Iraq, and I doubt that even Tony Blair would back us if we decide to act unilaterally.

Iran, not the US is making all the claims necessary to justify action against them -- and, like Iraq, there seems to be a consensus across the international
community that Iran is, indeed, a threat.

And if anyone will go with us - it will be the UK.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Iran, not the US is making all the claims necessary to justify action against them -- and, like Iraq, there seems to be a consensus across the international
community that Iran is, indeed, a threat.

And if anyone will go with us - it will be the UK.

If it comes to that point, I hope you're right. Blair's not in good political shape these days though.

 

[Hoot]

Force against Iran? "We have the manpower and resources to invade Iran?!" Hipster is the only one who's thinking logically about this issue.

Iran's economy is ready to collapse...high unemployment and an ever growing disastisfied youth culture.

Iran cannot make nukes and face economic sanctions and have a prayer of keeping their economy afloat. If the economy falters, the leaders of Iran will be out of power...something they do not want.

New research suggests the cost of war in Iraq could reach 2 trillion dollars for the United States, and yet we have some of you proposing bombing runs into Iran, which will most certainly require additional ground forces, and further alienate the rest of the world against the U.S., and increase our obscene debt, and only serve to further strengthen Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons, and do little to delay their ability to achieve their ends.

Our only hope is a unified response with our allies to show Iran the consequences of pursuing nuclear ambitions, and the promise to help their nation economically if they agree to open inspections and peace.

Some of you may be interested in reading the testimony of K. Pollack, Director of research on Mid-East policy at the Brookings Institute, in a speech he gave to the House Armed Services Committee in Sept of '05.

If you like...skip ahead to page 8...."The Road Ahead," to see what Mr. Pollack suggests we do about Iran.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/pollack/20050929.pdf

 

[cnredd]

Our only hope is a unified response with our allies to show Iran the consequences of pursuing nuclear ambitions, and the promise to help their nation economically if they agree to open inspections and peace.

If that is our "only hope", then what happens when that doesn't pan out?

In 1994 Madeline Albright went to North Korea and got Kim Jong-Il to "agree to open inspections and peace" because we promised "to help their nation economically"...

How'd that work out?...

Consequences...How laughable...Name some instances where "consequences" have diplomatically held a country in check...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Force against Iran? "We have the manpower and resources to invade Iran?!" Hipster is the only one who's thinking logically about this issue.

There's a difference between thinking logically and thinking soundly.
You can be completely logical and be 100% wrong -- if you're basing your argument on poor information and assumptions.

You're arguing that we dont have the resources for a general invasion of Iran, with the objective as the toppling of the current government, ala Iraq 2003. An invasion of Iran, with the objective of taking away its ability to develop nukes, doesnt necessitate such a thing.

Iran's economy is ready to collapse...high unemployment and an ever growing disastisfied youth culture.

Then maybe scanctiond will work.
Of course, there are questions:
-Will Russia/China allow meaningful sanctions?
-Will Iran react to sanctions by cutting off oil to Europe?

Iran cannot make nukes and face economic sanctions and have a prayer of keeping their economy afloat. If the economy falters, the leaders of Iran will be out of power...something they do not want.

These are examples of 'poor assumtions' upon which one might base a valid, but unsound, argument.

New research suggests the cost of war in Iraq could reach 2 trillion dollars for the United States, and yet we have some of you proposing bombing runs into Iran, which will most certainly require additional ground forces, and further alienate the rest of the world against the U.S., and increase our obscene debt, and only serve to further strengthen Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons, and do little to delay their ability to achieve their ends.

-Whats the cost of NOT stopping Iran?
-Why, if the western world supports action against Iran, would the world be 'furthern alineated' against us?
-Why would our actions 'do little to delay their ability to achieve their ends'?

Our only hope is a unified response with our allies to show Iran the consequences of pursuing nuclear ambitions, and the promise to help their nation economically if they agree to open inspections and peace.

Wait...
You argue these things wont work.. and then you argue they're our only hope?

 

[TimmyBoy]

I think it is rather unfair that the major powers insist that other nations not have nuclear weapons while they maintain huge nuclear arsenals themselves. I don't think that the West has any right nor any legitimacy in telling Iran that they could not have nuclear weapons. If I was a smaller, weaker country observing the actions of the larger stronger powers, I would seek out nuclear weapons as well, that way, my security would be assured and I would not be unjustly bullied by these powers. I would then tell the major powers that I would agree to give up my nuclear weapons if they

1) Reduce the size of their conventional forces significantly to where those forces could not pose a threat to my country.

2) The major powers surrender and destroy every last nuclear weapon they have.

When the major powers are willing to give up every last one of their nukes and their vast conventional forces that are used to threaten others, then and only then, would I be willing to negotiate in good faith and give up my own nuclear arsenal.

 

[Thinker]

Then your understanding is incorrect. Iran has violated every international regulation,

Such as?

...has kicked inspectors out, and has broke the UN seals on its nuclear facilities.

... only after it became clear that they were supposed to play by altered
rules.

Oh please. Iran knew damn well that their actions would meet with stiff resistance from Western nations, and they did it anyway. This is simply their way of thumbing their nose at the rest of the world.

and the Western nations (i.e., the USA and its dumb followers) asked for it.

What leads to many problems in the world is the attitude that the
same laws SHOULD apply to every single country, regardless of circumstance
or timing. International politics is not that simple, and to treat it as such as to simply be intellectually lazy.

What possible justification can you have to say that one rule is good for one
country while a completely different rule is applied to another? The only
one I can think of is the bullying attitude of "we know what's best for you".
Note that we're talking about international law here, not local laws.

What reaction do you expect from a country when others preach one thing and do another?

Before you ask, I think that the current regime in Iran is reprehensible, but so
are many others around the world. As the West benefits from being nice
to them, we turn a blind eye to their atrocities while screaming about the
rest.

 

[Hoot]

If the sanctions don't work, and Iran continues its nuclear ambitions, then of course, war may be neccessary, but as Pollack suggests at the end of his testimony, this should be a last resort.

An air attack against Iran will do little because of the hundreds of potential sites we would have to take out, and as Pollack states, it would only delay the inevitable.

Not only the West, but the Eastern nations, the EU and UN need to get on board to create sanctions against Iran...sanctions that will cripple their economy and lead to a disatisfied populace demanding regime change.

Those of you that want to go into Iran with guns a-blazing are not looking at the consequences...consequences that will spell far more trouble for the U.S. then allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon...a weapon that many experts suggest is still a good 5-7 years away.

We still have time to find a solution to Iran that does not involve more U.S. deaths, more terrorists strikes, and more burden to our pornographic debt.

I've served my 4 years in the military...you want war with Iran? Then go enlist before we are forced to re-introduce the draft.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think it is rather unfair that the major powers insist that other nations not have nuclear weapons while they maintain huge nuclear arsenals themselves. I don't think that the West has any right nor any legitimacy in telling Iran that they could not have nuclear weapons.

Iran is (was) part of the Non-proliferation treaty. They AGREED to not pursue nukes.

The other parties to the treaty have the right to force compliance to the treaty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've served my 4 years in the military...you want war with Iran? Then go enlist before we are forced to re-introduce the draft.

You were doing OK until you got here.
Are you a fireman> A policeman?
No?
Do you support the idea that the government supply these services to you, right?

According to your argument, above, if you support the government doing those things, then you should join up.

Why havent you?

 

[cnredd]

Then your understanding is incorrect. Iran has violated every international regulation,

Such as?

I'm sure there are a few out there, but I'll just go with the main one...

There are ongoing investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Remaining uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's November 2004 report. IAEA deputy director for safeguards Pierre Goldschmidt reported in June 2005 that Iran had admitted to separating out small amounts of plutonium as recently as 1998.

Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities.

 

[Gardener]

Two different Iranian leaders have now said they plan on using their nukes as an offensive rather than defensive weapon, and for the purpose of eliminating Israel -- oops, make that "the Zionist entity" -- with both offering the same rationale. I think it is important to note their rationale, because they not only toss the notion od M.A.D. on its ear, but also the notion that it is simply a nation-state aquiring the weapon.

By their reasoning, they can destroy Israel, but withstand the response (no mutual destruction there), and they aren't really talking about Iran per se, but the entire Islamic world. They are motivated by the establishment of the caliphate, and so see the potential retaliation as worth the price.


That good old M.A.D. doctrine was flawed from the beginning, because it presupposed that nuclear engagements were between evenly balanced nation states and in the hands of rational people with a sense of self-preservation. Now, Kissinger is certainly rational, but like many very rational people, he overestimated the trait in others especially in regards to self preservation. I don't know that he ever considered the potential for nukes in the hands of religious zealots who planned on using them as an instrument of Jihad.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That good old M.A.D. doctrine was flawed from the beginning, because it presupposed that nuclear engagements were between evenly balanced nation states and in the hands of rational people with a sense of self-preservation.

Its only 'flawed' when you try to apply it to circumstances outside its assumptions. It was never intended to apply to EVERY situation; to argue that it is flawed because it doesnt cover every situation is unsound.

Iran cannot be deterred, and so its more and more apparent that force is necessary.

 

[Gardener]

If the sanctions don't work, and Iran continues its nuclear ambitions, then of course, war may be neccessary, but as Pollack suggests at the end of his testimony, this should be a last resort.

An air attack against Iran will do little because of the hundreds of potential sites we would have to take out, and as Pollack states, it would only delay the inevitable.

Not only the West, but the Eastern nations, the EU and UN need to get on board to create sanctions against Iran...sanctions that will cripple their economy and lead to a disatisfied populace demanding regime change.

Those of you that want to go into Iran with guns a-blazing are not looking at the consequences...consequences that will spell far more trouble for the U.S. then allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon...a weapon that many experts suggest is still a good 5-7 years away.

We still have time to find a solution to Iran that does not involve more U.S. deaths, more terrorists strikes, and more burden to our pornographic debt.

I've served my 4 years in the military...you want war with Iran? Then go enlist before we are forced to re-introduce the draft.

I'm curious -- in the last hundred years or so, has there ever been a case where sanctions against a country actually did resulted in regime change from this disatisfied populace you mentioned?

 

[cnredd]

I'm curious -- in the last hundred years or so, has there ever been a case where sanctions against a country actually did resulted in regime change from this disatisfied populace you mentioned?

I'm still on the waiting list for an answer, too...

Consequences...How laughable...Name some instances where "consequences" have diplomatically held a country in check...