What to do with a nuclear Iran?

**Lemur** · 12-08-2009, 17:19

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** · 12-08-2009, 17:51

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** · 12-08-2009, 18:23

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** · 12-08-2009, 19:23

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** · 12-08-2009, 19:39

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** · 12-08-2009, 19:43

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 12-08-2009, 21:57

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Xiahou** · 12-17-2009, 07:02

Originally Posted by Lemur

"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.

Well, the Iranians are clearly smarter than this guy. The Iranians hold all the cards and they know it. All they need to do is make a few noises about negotiating and then back out- rinse, repeat. Whenever the international community begins to find their backbones, Iran can just announce that they're prepared to agree to demands and everyone will back down. Then they can change their minds and start all over again- and there will never be any consequences. If they're really good, they can actually extort concessions from us while giving nothing in return.

I think they learned it from the DPRNK.

**Lemur** · 12-17-2009, 07:17

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, the Iranians are clearly smarter than this guy.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. The guy says that while gaming as Iran, he managed to get everything he wanted. You go on to explain how Iran gets everything they want, saying Iranians must be smarter ... than the guy who did exactly the same thing in a simulation.

I'm missing something ...

**Xiahou** · 12-17-2009, 07:23

"We started out thinking we were playing a weak hand

The Iranians hold all the cards and they know it

Does that help at all?

**Lemur** · 12-17-2009, 07:26

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Does that help at all?

So, the fact that the guy realized he actually had a strong hand in the gaming scenario makes him dumb? You're saying that the Iranians are much smarter because ... having lived through their actual situation, they're more keyed in to the political realities than a dude playing their role in a wargaming session?

Eh, never mind, it's a minor point anyway. It just read really weird.