Never can Iran have a Nuclear Weapon

After the deal expired in 10 years Iran was free to build nuclear weapons

 

Nope. It was an argument against fostering terrorism.

 

I think you put the discussion on the wrong footing when you talk about any nation's "right" to stick its nose into any other area. "Rights" are a metaphysical invention which assume we're dealing with a community of people of good will. Australia didn't have any "right" to stick its nose into East Timor, but I'm glad it did, because it helped restrain the Indonesian barbarians there. The problem with America in the Middle East is that it doesn't help anyone.

Rather, ask what "interest" America has in getting involved in endless Mideastern quarrels. I believe most Americans who are still committed to a significant American military presence in the Middle East, taking the side of the Sunnis vs the Shias in one place, the Shias vs the Sunnis in another ... have little understanding of or interest in these conflicts.

They're propelled by two things, both of them not contemptible: (1) the idea that's it's better to be strong than to be weak, and some of the people who protest our presence there are against the idea of military strength (especially if it's American military strength) on principle; (2) the good old conservative principle that what worked in the past, should not be thrown away lightly: the Americans won the Cold War through a 'forward deployment' everywhere, even if it turned out to be disastrous and unnecessary in some places (Vietnam) -- so there's a lot of Cold War inertia going on.

But I believe more and more conservatives in the US are coming to the conclusion that with Communism dead and gone, it's time to return to the original Republican Party attitude towards foreign entanglements -- only abandoned after 1945. The ideology of Woodrow Wilson is actually alien to the sort of national self-interest motivation that is at the heart of conservatism. This isn't necessarily a virtuous motivation. It might also rule out foreign military interventions that would actually be good things, just not particularly good things from the point of view of immediate American self-interest.

That restraint could take many forms, of course. I can't see the US abandoning Israel for another decade or two, althought that's clearly on the cards, but a genuinely nationalist American government might reconsider its alliances with areas that the Chinese will eventually dominate, one way or the other: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand. (I'm not saying this is good -- I don't think it is. But once the idea that Americans don't have to have their nose in the Middle East takes hold, it will have a certain logical momentum.)

 

Lol ... Did I tell only wire tapped? Don't you even trust the intelligence abilities of your own US intelligence services?

 

What part of "they aren't allowed in those places per the deal" was unclear? When you leave known static monitoring in place it is easily circumvented.

 

Well ... this is 10 x 365 days ... and do you really believe that in meantime nothing else will happen and all shrug after these 10 years are over?
Can't you imagine that in meantime the relatons and further deals will improve and will follow?

 

Look ... let's say there is a military camp somewhere in Iran, the IAEA inspecotors have no access. Using satellite will tell what is there build and what activities are.given etc. And if there is any suspicion that Iran is the building unallowed and in all secret nuclear things or so .... it is easy detected by "the services" too!

Remembering the Syrian try to build a secret reactor in Syrian "nowhere" with help of North Korea? Ask yourself why the Israelis found that out ... and eleminated the complete plant with one strike at least!

 

Enrichment facilities can be shielded. Satellites are not foolproof, hence why we physically visit the other sites.

The norks and syrians are not the iranians. the iranians are rather more sophisticated technologically.

 

So do you think they have these sites already hidden away, or would they need to build new ones?

 

Por que no los dos?

 

muy grande muy caro.

 

I assume the worst will happen

If things turn out better than expected thats a bonus

 

si pero esta es el gobermento de teocracia.

 

What's the worst case with respect to Iran?

That it gets nuclear weapons, and that in some internal struggle, genuine maniacs take over who, in order to try to exterminate the Israelis,
are willing to risk the sacrifice their own country. Khomeini himself said "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world". (Although this quote is disputed, it is absolutely consistent with militant Islam.)

You can be certain that the Israelis have very detailed plans for, if necessary, turning Iran into a giant ceramic reflector, visible from space.

Of course, the worst case has already happened in Pakistan, a much more backward country than Iran. But there, there is less congruence between the beliefs of the rulers, and the beliefs of people who really take their religion seriously. Pakistan is ruled by its military, corrupt to the core, in a way that Iran is not. Their enemy is India, and they're not going to take any chances angering the Israelis. On the other hand, their nuclear scientists, for either religious/ideological reasons, or for gold, would no doubt be very happy to teach the Iranians all they know, and in fact probably already have.

 

Doesn't make the facilities easy to hide.

 

Screw it. Give Saudi Arabia and Iran nukes, walk away and let them sort it all out.

 

The Saudi Arabs don't like to fight. They don't want to get their boots dirty.
The Persians on the other hand.

 

Does mean they don't give a **** about the scale of the project, or the cost, or the idea that they might have to plug potential leaks by murdering people though.

 

You shouldn't talk about AOC that Way1

 

Your reply has nothing to do if the US / the west is secular. And my point is that it's as good as not secular.

 

Protect world interests or protect your own interests?

There is a difference.

 

As a resident of the world, I would posit that anything that is in the world's interest, is also in my own interest. About half of the world's oil passes through the straight of Hormuz. Someone must provide security there to prevent a despotic regime from disrupting the world's oil supply. I don't care who that is, as long as they can do the job reliably and dependably.

 

I don’t know what your point is. Nations that have governments that have free elections and separate religion from governance, are more trust worthy and easier to deal with.

 

My point is that there aint really a separation between religion and governance.... since Merkel is from the party called CDU... where C stands for Christian. Trump, like as good as every other president has been sworn in with his hand on the bible. He thanks God in his speeches to his citizens all the time. Might as well vote in the clergy.

 

I have already answered that.