Some people have a screw loose when it comes to Iran

A lot of the rhetoric I've been hearing about Iran lately downright scares me.

Everyone agrees that Iran with nuclear weapons would be a very bad thing. I think we all agree that we should do whatever we can with diplomacy and sanctions to prevent that. But it's not worth going to war over.

Countries do not build nuclear weapons to use them. They build nuclear weapons as a deterrent, a bargaining chit, a status symbol, a means of intimidating their neighbors, or something along those lines. This is why no one has actually used nuclear weapons since 1945. You just don't use them on a planet you intend to live on. The notion that Iran would start tossing nukes around the minute they got them is just nuts. The Iranian regime knows very well if they did that, it would unite the entire world against them and result in a war with every major power that they have no prayer of winning. While there are lots of things you can say about the Iranian regime, they aren't suicidal. They are very much interested in their own survival and in retaining power.

I also think that the idea that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to terrorists is extremely unlikely. For one thing, if a nuclear weapon is detonated in a city anywhere in the world, every nation's intelligence services are going to be bent on finding out who did it, and will not rest until they have an answer. And Iran knows very well that if they had nuclear weapons, they would be on the top of everyone's suspect list, whether they had anything to do with it or not. I doubt there's any real chance that Iran could get away with such a thing, and they know it.

Also bear in mind that the terrorist groups Iran is most closely aligned with - most importantly Hezbollah and Hamas - are regional players, not global. They have pretty limited operational capabilities outside of Israel and the surrounding region. And Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are hostile to Iran - they are generally Sunni while Iran is Shi'ite. No one is going to give someone a gun if they aren't sure which way they're going to point it.

Finally, a military strike on Iran by either Israel or the US would have drastic consequences. For one thing that would make oil prices jump like a cricket on a hot skillet. For another, Iran would certainly attack Israeli and American interests in the region, which it has a significant ability to do.

Bottom line - a nuclear Iran would be bad, but a war would be worse. We can live with a nuclear Iran.

 

North Korea, China and Pakistan have nukes. We are by no means allies with them.

 

All of this is predicated on the notion that Iran is a rational actor. No one sane is going to nuke another city, or is going to give nukes to terrorists because they don't want to be nuked in return. If you're setting yourself up as martyrs and holy warriors, as the Ayatollah seems to be doing, then I don't think we can call you a "sane" leader. If a million Iranians are killed in a holy war -- they're martyrs and enjoying Paradise. That's not going to deter Iran from first strikes of any sort. Russia, OTOH wouldn't have done those sorts of things, because love them or hate them, they didn't believe Communism was a holy crusade or that martyrs in the name of Marx were going to heaven. America didn't nuke for much the same reason -- no one thought that dying in the name of George Washington meant anything. So for Russia and the US, nukes are a deterant because a crater in the ground means dead citizens, not martyrs. Iran is not like Russia. Don't think this is a Cold War battle between two rational states who don't want their citizens to die, but a situation of a nation not afraid to be nuked in return to win its cause. This is an insane man with a gun.

 

Well, China is our most favored trading partner, and Pakistan is a very shaky ally.

 

Not really. The Ayatollah is power hungry and autocratic, but he's not stupid.

The people running Iran use religion as a tool to manipulate people, but it's doubtful they actually believe in half of the things they say they do.

Case in point, notice how the masterminds behind suicide bombings never volunteer themselves for the bombing.

They aren't aiming to meet 72 virgins -- they just like having useful idiots under them.

 

I really don't think this view reflects the reality. If the Iranian leadership was willing to start a suicidal war for their ideology, why haven't they done so already? I would speculate that devote Shi'ites would love to see the holy cities of Mecca and Medina under Shi'ite control, and yet Iran hasn't invaded Saudi Arabia. If Iran wanted to start a crusade, they have Sunnis to the west and south, and Hindus to the east.

Historically, the Iranian regime has been aggressive, but they've never gone so far as to do something that would seriously endanger the survival of the regime. Even at the height of Iran's shadow war against the US in the 1980's they never did anything that could lead to full scale war.

I've heard stories about the leadership of Iran holding apocalyptic beliefs about the Hidden Imam and such. I don't know the details of the actual doctrine in question, but I'm pretty sure they've been grossly exaggerated and distorted by certain commentators. Frankly, the little bit I have heard sounds no worse then evangelical Christians getting ready for the Rapture.

 

If Iran can have Nukes.........

.....then there isnt a country on this planet who should be denied.


Any guesses as to how this "Nukes for Everyone" Policy works out in the end?

MAD works......until your dealing with Madmen.....
.
.
.

 

You're speaking as if other countries need the US's permission to build nukes...

Like I said, no one wants Iran to have nukes, the question is whether it's worth going to war over.

And while there may be exceptions, I think that generally speaking, if someone is crazy enough not to be deterred by MAD, they aren't going to be able to function well enough to become a head of state.

 

Countries do not build nuclear weapons to use them. They build nuclear weapons as a deterrent, a bargaining chit, a status symbol, a means of intimidating their neighbors, or something along those lines. " This is why no one has actually used nuclear weapons since 1945."

More than a little contradictory. "USED SINCE, never becomes, NOT USED.

And check with Japan for a dissenting opinion.

Plus you are ASSUMING an ongoing logic and rationality by the Iranians. The people that said they should wipe Israel off the earth. Those rational, logical people.

 

According to the international law Iran signed. They do, considering the USA is the primary enforcement entity of international law.

Well some of us aren't willing to take any chances whatsoever on what you and other Appeasers "think".

 

No.

A war is immensely preferrable.

 

The conundrum that needs to be ironed out is whether Iran is pursuing nuclear development for economic and political leverage, or for something more devious such as religious conquest. If it is the latter, some form of concrete action or harsher sanctions is likely necessary. If it is the former, diplomacy and normalization of relations can work.

Furthermore, if we wanted to take out Iran, we could do so without putting any planes in the air or boots on the ground.

 

"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."

-Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

 

This entire situation is based on fantastical speculations that have been proven false; Iran is not interested in a nuclear weapons nor has it tried to produce them. Nukes are relied upon by countries which are too weak to defend themselves or don't have stability. Iran has proven it has both and they are probably confident in their own power.

Power today is economic and diplomatic power blocking off a countries markets or replacing democratically elected leaders legally in a bloodless coup is way more efficient then any military force could ever be. Iran's nuclear development is an excuse to weaken Iranian economic and diplomatic power especially in relation to Syria, Palestine and Lebanon.

If people were seriously worried about nuclear weapons they could just look at Pakistan nukes, corruption, organized crime, lack of stability they are the most dangerous nuclear state right now Iran doesn't even come close it's pretty sad that anyone is worried about them.

 

Preferable to who? Defense contractors?

 

Actually we are allies with pakistan, and that is the sad part......

 

lol

to a nuclear armed iran?

 

Iran is not anywhere near as much of a problem as people assume.

Pakistan is who we should be watching closely, and they already have nukes.

 

we are watching them too

multitasking is a virtue

 

The flaw in that view, if only the usa has a say with 'international law'

It then makes nations like russia and china, automatic enemies of america. As they are big enough to be not told what to do.

 

So are you suggesting that the US is not a rational actor, since we're the only nation ever to actually use nuclear weapons? Obviously the situation in 1945 was drastically different then the situation today. For one thing, since those were the first nuclear weapons ever built, no one had any real appreciation of what they can do.

As for wiping Israel off the map... Surely you're not suggesting that American politicians have never been guilty of using over the top hyperbole? Rhetoric is one thing, actions are another.

Actually, as a non-nuclear weapons state signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is bared from developing or receiving nuclear weapons, period. The US cannot unilaterally give them (or anyone else) permission to develop nukes. However, the NPT does allow signatories to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty with 90 days notice, as North Korea did some years ago.

So pointing out that going to war would have huge consequences and dubious benefits makes me an appeaser, does it?

War is always a very bad thing. There is no such thing as a moral war. there may be occasions when war is the least bad alternative, this isn't one of them. Lots of people always die in wars, including civilians and bystanders. You're looking forward to seeing the aftermath of a mistargeted US bomb on the evening news are you? You like the idea of the Straights of Hormuz being mined? Or anti-ship missiles zipping back and forth across the Persian Gulf? How about rockets raining down on Israel? suicide bombings against US and Israeli targets all over the place? And just how much do you want to pay for gas for the satisfaction of making some smoking craters in Iran?

“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”

- 2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9

Your point?

Monotheists in general seem inordinately fond of preaching death and destruction, pain and suffering. As crazy as that is, none of them have started lobbing nukes around yet. Before you start complaining about how nuts the Iranians' apocalyptic beliefs are, take a look at what evangelicals here in the US are saying.

 

This isn't about your bigotry for evangelicals, it's about the leadership of a government trying to acquire nuclear weapons. If you're comfortable that the leadership of Iran are rational actors than there's nothing to worry about. And for the record, I hope you're right.

But you should have a plan B in mind just in case.

 

I wouldn't say there's nothing to worry about - as I said, Iran getting nukes would certainly be a bad thing, for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether or not the US should conduct a military strike against Iran's nuclear program in the near future. If we do attack them, it will almost certainly start a major conflict that while it may not come to open war, it will create all sorts of havoc. It also means that the Iranians will almost certainly start building nukes as soon as possible. And it will strengthen the hardliners and weaken the reformers in Iranian politics. On the other hand, if we don't attack Iran, they may decide that nuclear weapons aren't really worth the cost they'd have to pay for building them. Even if they do build nukes, I really see no reason to think that there is more then a very remote chance they would attack their neighbors without provocation. So we have to choose between an almost certain very bad outcome and an improbable extremely bad outcome.

Bigotry against evangelicals? I was just pointing out that religious rhetoric isn't really a good way to judge a nation's intentions. We all have a few wingnuts who say crazy stuff.

 

The same idiots rooting for a war with Iran, rooted Bush on as he had Iraq invaded.

They're most likely aren't having their kids sent over there, so why (*)(*)(*)(*) would they care if somebody else's kids go.

They sacrificed jack squat during the last debacle, but god forbid you tell them to cough up doe to pay for another meaningless war.

 

India and Israel are also rogue nuclear weapons nations under the NPT and all NPT nations, including the United States, have a treaty obligation to take the measures necessary to force these nations to dismantle their nuclear weapons. We're not doing that except with N Korea and that is diplomatic hypocracy on our part. China is authorized to have nuclear weapons under the NPT and is not a rogue nuclear weapons nations.

Iran doesn't appear to be a threat as far as producing nuclear weapons. A top Iranian politician has stated that Iran already has the technical knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon but doesn't have any plans to do so. Having the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon does not violate the NPT.

Iran is enriching uranium to 20% which is the level required for nuclear medicine but not the level for nuclear weapons which is typically over 90% enrichment. Iran is not producing nuclear weapons grade uranium.

Finally we also have a top Iranian nuclear program adminstrator stating that once they have obtained enough 20% enriched uranium for medical purposes they are going to stop producing this higher lever grade of uranium.

All things considered there doesn't appear to be a threat of Iran producing a nuclear weapon. What we do need to begin to address are those rogue nuclear weapons nations such as N Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel and force them through economic sanctions to dismantle their nuclear weapons. N Korea is caving in related to this because of effective economic sanctions and so we need to apply them to the other rogue nuclear weapon nations equally.