What to do with a nuclear Iran?

[Lemur]

Interesting article about policy wonks wargaming the looming Iran fiasco. Relevant bits:

The gamers framed their strategies realistically: Obama's America wants to avoid war, which means restraining Israel; Iran wants to continue its nuclear program, even as it dickers over a deal to enrich uranium outside its borders, such as the one floated in Geneva in October; Israel doesn't trust America to stop Iran and is looking for help from the Gulf Arab countries and Europe.

The Obama team was confounded by congressional demands for unilateral U.S. sanctions against companies involved in Iran's energy sector. This shot at Iran ended up backfiring, since some of the key companies were from Russia and China -- the very nations whose support the United States needs for strong U.N. sanctions. The Russians and Chinese were so offended that they began negotiating with Tehran behind America's back.

"We started out thinking we were playing a weak hand, but by the end, everyone was negotiating for us," said the leader of the Iranian team, Columbia University professor Gary Sick. By the December 2010 hypothetical endpoint, Iran had doubled its supply of low-enriched uranium and was pushing ahead with weaponization.

The whole thing is worth a read, especially given the recent education we've all had in the Graveyard of Empires exercise.

So let's say the Revolutionary Guard completes its coup and manages to contain the Green Revolution. Let's say that Iran manages to obtain some weak level of nuclear weaponry. And let's say that China and Russia remain as feckless as ever. What are our options?

[KukriKhan]

Tell em: "Welcome to the Club. Here are the rules, and here's the secret handshake.", whilst quietly shifting some NORAD resources.

The big question is: what to do if they ever launch something? On whose side are we? Can that/will that change? Do we (US) have a role to play, assuming we aren't struck directly?

-edit-
Oh... and: who is next (to acquire)?

[rory_20_uk]

Syria has missiles with chemical / nerve gas warheads. From a "man on the ground" perspective, both will kill thousands.

And I personally am no more pleased that Iran's got then than Israel or Pakistan.

[Fragony]

No idea really I guess we will have to bomb their facilities, I would really really hate to have the Iranians having a grudge towards us. I am still kinda hoping that the change in Iran will come from within. The Iranian people are a natural ally of the west we should aid them, no way it wouldn't be bloody but we can take everything down right now and make a new start with the Islamic world. What else can we do, they will eventually bomb Isreal and Israel is going to respond, pre-emptive or not, going to be a mess, many dead on both sides and it just isn't needed I think we should attack the place and make it quik easy and painless for the Iranians and see from there, it might be a terrible mistake we have made before but I don't want to wait for the alternative. We should take out the pain before it becomes pure death. Attack, now.

[HoreTore]

Thing is; Iran actually has very valid reasons to obtain nukes.

Yes. I said it. Both its neighbors have been invaded this decade and they face hostilities from just about everyone, and they are quite threatened with an invasion. Getting a nuke is a good way to prevent that from happening.

[Beskar]

Thing is; Iran actually has very valid reasons to obtain nukes.

Yes. I said it. Both its neighbors have been invaded this decade and they face hostilities from just about everyone, and they are quite threatened with an invasion. Getting a nuke is a good way to prevent that from happening.

But they are the Axis of Terror (sic). Would you arm Lex Luthor with nuclear weapons to give him a fairer advantage because Superman can punch through a tank and check out girls while they are clothed with his x-ray vision?

[Major Robert Dump]

I think the only was for Afghanistan to achieve true security and economic independence is for the country to become nuclear capable. Then, and only then, can there be true peace.

[Idaho]

The US has been threatening Iran since they got kicked out in '79. Each time a Republican president gets elected, the sabre rattling starts again. In the last few years, as HoreTore says, the US have invaded countries on either side of Iran, Israel - a secret nuclear power - has declared open hostility on a number of occassions, and another neighbour, Pakistan has nuked up.

It would be a demonstration of almost unparralelled trust and restraint if Iran did not set itself up with a nuclear deterrent.

[KukriKhan]

I think the only was for Afghanistan to achieve true security and economic independence is for the country to become nuclear capable. Then, and only then, can there be true peace.

Memo to Dir, CIA: plant deniable rumor of US nuke assets in Kandahar and Herat.

~signed k, potus

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thing is; Iran actually has very valid reasons to obtain nukes.

Yes. I said it. Both its neighbors have been invaded this decade and they face hostilities from just about everyone, and they are quite threatened with an invasion. Getting a nuke is a good way to prevent that from happening.

Whether they have valid reasons or not only matters to a few hippies with no grasp of international politics.

Yes. I said it. A nuclear Iran makes the world less safe, not more, and to let them be armed with weapons that can obliterate one of our cities in an instant is not a good thing to have in the hands of a country that supports terrorist organizations who are already fighting against us.

[Hax]

Whether they have valid reasons or not only matters to a few hippies with no grasp of international politics.

Iran has zero nuclear weapons.

Israel has a hundred to two hundred.

Yes. I said it. A nuclear Iran makes the world less safe, not more, and to let them be armed with weapons that can obliterate one of our cities in an instant is not a good thing to have...

I don't see how this would work. Iran is not completely opposed to the West. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the United States had tried to open negotiations with Iran during the presidency of Mohammed Khatami, we wouldn't have this nutjob president we have now.


But face it, people. America has been constantly trying to meddle in the Iranian affairs, ever since they put a tyrant in power (The Shah). When a democratically elected socialist was made Prime Minister, wham, he was kicked out in a coup d'etât. During this crime against the very essence of democracy, the precious American values of freedom and democracy were overlooked, cast away, thrown out, nobody ever cared about them. When the Iranians put another tyrant in power, with whom the American conservatives disagreed, there we go; there's been nothing but mud-slinging to not only the Iranian government, but the Iranian people as well.

President Mohammed Khatami provided the Northern Alliance and the United States with intelligence during the Afghanistan war, and how did the great American president respond; by placing Iran in this "Axis of Evil".

And they have the guts to say they're surprised that the Iranians may feel a slight bit of resentment towards the United States and the West that they represent. It's called action --> consequence, people, and it's time we grow up.

But it's too late to open up talks with this country right now; you've let it come this far, America. The enemy was created by yourselves.

.. in the hands of a country that supports terrorist organizations who are already fighting against us.

Who, Hezbollah? When was the last time they tried anything? And before you mention Hamas; if there's one thing the Iranian government currently hates more than America, it's Sunnis.

[KukriKhan]

Thus, Iran [i]deserves[/b] teh nuke, and peace shall reign throughout the neighborhood, due to parity?

[Hax]

Personally, I'm opposed to any country having nuclear weapons. Nuclear power for Iran is no problem, whatsoever.

However, I wonder who can go in and say "You don't have the right, but a lot of different countries do". It's not about them deserving or "earning" nukes, but rather about not deserving.

[KukriKhan]

So, nuke power plants = OK, nuke weapons = not OK. I think much of the world (including the evil US) agrees with you.

[Hax]

So, nuke power plants = OK, nuke weapons = not OK. I think much of the world (including the evil US) agrees with you.

I should have been more subtle in my wording.

Let me get this straight: Nuclear power is something I dont inherently agree with.

Weapons of mass destruction are always bad.

Nuclear power is not always bad, and can be used to power an immense area.


Now there's something else. Iran is nowhere as dangerous as say, North Korea, which is led by a delusional megalomaniac or Pakistan, one of the most unbalanced and dangerous countries in the world.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm let me see the thread is "What to do with a nuclear Iran" I suppose the short answer is nobody can do anything when a country has nuclear weapons so that would be nothing we can do nothing with Iran.

[KukriKhan]

I should have been more subtle in my wording.

Let me get this straight: Nuclear power is something I dont inherently agree with.

Weapons of mass destruction are always bad.

Nuclear power is not always bad, and can be used to power an immense area.

I'm with ya, mate, up to this bit:

Now there's something else. Iran is nowhere as dangerous as say, North Korea, which is led by a delusional megalomaniac or Pakistan, one of the most unbalanced and dangerous countries in the world.

So, we should concentrate on disarming NK's and Pakistan's already existing nuke packages, but allow less threatening Iran to gain a similar package, because they can be trusted more?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Iran has zero nuclear weapons.

Israel has a hundred to two hundred.

I don't particularly care. Israel already has them. Iran doesn't, and we can stop them from having them. Israel has many more reasons than Iran to have them as well - but that isn't the issue, like I said. The less countries that are hostile to us that have them, the better.

I don't see how this would work. Iran is not completely opposed to the West. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the United States had tried to open negotiations with Iran during the presidency of Mohammed Khatami, we wouldn't have this nutjob president we have now.

You can certainly go off on an unrelated tangent on how America is evil, I wouldn't expect anything less from you. Nonetheless, it doesn't change what I said. A country that is opposed to the West, for whatever reason, should not have nuclear weapons because it is contrary to our interests and safety.

Who, Hezbollah? When was the last time they tried anything?

This year springs immediately to mind.

And before you mention Hamas; if there's one thing the Iranian government currently hates more than America, it's Sunnis.

Perhaps so, but it hasn't stopped them supplying Hamas. Admittedly the biggest perpetrator of that is Syria, but Iran does it nonetheless.

[Hax]

I don't particularly care. Israel already has them. Iran doesn't, and we can stop them from having them. Israel has many more reasons than Iran to have them as well - but that isn't the issue, like I said. The less countries that are hostile to us that have them, the better.

It's really quite the false dilemma you're putting us for. So, in your point of view, your either for the West or against it? Thing is, I don't exactly see Iran as directly detrimental to stability in the Middle East. Compared to most countries, they are one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, next to Jordan and, yes, Israel.

To be honest, the current problem in Iran was created by the incompetent president of the United States, who was still in office less than a year ago.

You can certainly go off on an unrelated tangent on how America is evil, I wouldn't expect anything less from you

Obviously, I don't deal in abstract terms as "good" and "evil". I'm stating that the problem with the United States that Iran has was something that was created by the United States (and more abstractly, the West). Or did you honestly think that the Iranians have something against "the West" by nature?

This year springs immediately to mind.

Which actually makes me think of something else that happened, just about a year ago.

Perhaps so, but it hasn't stopped them supplying Hamas. Admittedly the biggest perpetrator of that is Syria, but Iran does it nonetheless.

Yeah, they keep saying that. Hezbollah is Shi'a, I can understand Iran supplying them, but Hamas? That would be a strange action indeed.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's really quite the false dilemma you're putting us for. So, in your point of view, your either for the West or against it? Thing is, I don't exactly see Iran as directly detrimental to stability in the Middle East. Compared to most countries, they are one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, next to Jordan and, yes, Israel.

Israel is an awful lot more stable than Iran, unless by stability you mean the increased ability of the state to hang homosexuals.

To be honest, the current problem in Iran was created by the incompetent president of the United States, who was still in office less than a year ago.

In your opinion.

Obviously, I don't deal in abstract terms as "good" and "evil". I'm stating that the problem with the United States that Iran has was something that was created by the United States (and more abstractly, the West). Or did you honestly think that the Iranians have something against "the West" by nature?

Certainly not, but I disagree that America created the problem.

Yeah, they keep saying that. Hezbollah is Shi'a, I can understand Iran supplying them, but Hamas? That would be a strange action indeed.

Stranger things have happened in international politics. Iran is supplying or supporting Hamas.

[Kralizec]

Not to mention their close relationship with Syria, whose population is largely sunni and wich has a secular regime.

Nevertheless I largely agree with Hax on this one. Iran would probably have been a lot more cooperative and agreeable (from a diplomatic perspective) today if it weren't for the USA's confrontational policies.

Israel is an awful lot more stable than Iran, unless by stability you mean the increased ability of the state to hang homosexuals.

Iran is a hellhole as far as human rights are concerned, but it definitely is a lot more stable than Pakistan for exmample. The fact that their current leaders follow an ideology wich is hostile to certain western countries doesn't mean that they'd proactively start a nuclear war over it. The Soviet Union or the PRC didn't.

Supposedly Iran is comprised entirely of suicidal fanatics who'd happily sacrifice themselves if it meant wiping Israel off the map, but I don't buy that they're that radical.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Iran is a hellhole as far as human rights are concerned, but it definitely is a lot more stable than Pakistan for exmample. The fact that their current leaders follow an ideology wich is hostile to certain western countries doesn't mean that they'd proactively start a nuclear war over it. The Soviet Union or the PRC didn't.

Supposedly Iran is comprised entirely of suicidal fanatics who'd happily sacrifice themselves if it meant wiping Israel off the map, but I don't buy that they're that radical.

But why risk it? Why allow a hostile nation to have nuclear weapons in the interests of fairness, simply because they probably won't start a nuclear war? It just isn't rational.

[Hax]

It's not really about nuclear weapons, is it? The problem obviously lies with nuclear power.

Israel is an awful lot more stable than Iran, unless by stability you mean the increased ability of the state to hang homosexuals.

Oh, yes, it is more stable, certainly. Actually, when it comes to the rights of the Jews, Israel is doing a really good job. Don't get started on the rights of Palestinian Israelis, though. But generally, Israel is a good example for the nearby countries. Well, there are some pretty good examples; Lebanon and Jordan come to mind.

In your opinion.

Then what else created the problem? The current position Iran is in is an effect of the continuous anti-Iranian war the US Government has been fighting. Yes, the war of words, I mean. Time after time the Iranians are demonised, leading to what? Resentment, of course. I can't believe people are actually surprised that Ahmadinejad was (re)elected.

Certainly not, but I disagree that America created the problem.

Well, kicking Mohammed Mossadeq out back in the fifties, and supporting the Shah who showed continuous disrespect to the clergy and whose reign knew disappearings, murders, torture, rape, etc*, certainly meant a lot to the orthodox Iranians, which happen to make up about at least 60 percent of the Iranian people.

*Keep in mind that the situation nowadays isn't much better, but Iran's switched to the other side of the extreme, if you know what I mean.

[KukriKhan]

Boy, I knew it. Somehow, some way, Bush was at the bottom of all this trouble - installing the Shah, kicking Mohammed Mossadeq out, saying nasty things about Iranians. No wonder Iran feels entitled to teh bomb, just to show Bush that he's not the boss of them.









But: "What to do with a nuclear Iran?", to repeat the OP question.

[miotas]

I don't think any country with nuclear weapons has the right to tell any other country that they can't have them. Just my 2c.

[Beirut]

Thus, Iran [i]deserves[/b] teh nuke, and peace shall reign throughout the neighborhood, due to parity?

No, but it does beg the question, or rather the statement, that those allowed in The Club are allowed in either because "we" like them or because the risk of excluding them is too high.

Iran can/will be kept out of The Club because (a) "we" don't like them, and (b) because it is "easy" to blow them up and still get a good night's sleep.

Is has nothing to do with right or wrong; it has everything to do with expedience and bias.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, but it does beg the question, or rather the statement, that those allowed in The Club are allowed in either because "we" like them or because the risk of excluding them is too high.

Iran can/will be kept out of The Club because (a) "we" don't like them, and (b) because it is "easy" to blow them up and still get a good night's sleep.

Is has nothing to do with right or wrong; it has everything to do with expedience and bias.

True, and rightly so. Nobody so far has been able to answer my question of which good and practical reason there is for us to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A good and practical reason could be that a quid pro quo could be made involving for instance the IAEA and a better appraisal of what their arsenal does (not) consist of. In return a hopefully more mature way of negotiating that need not involve so many ‘threats’.

I mean it is not like Pakistan was originally supposed to get that bomb. Or India. Or North Korea (which appears to be working towards that). But then again it is not like saying “no” means that whoever you tell it to will automatically comply -- and the US and EU should realize by now that they do not singularly command the world's awe or respect [anymore].

[miotas]

"Do as we say, but not as we do" would probably be an apt name for this discussion.

[Azathoth]

That's already taken.