Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel/War in Iran!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Since this attempt at opening a discussion has failed, I shall try again, hopefully more clearly.

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons - ie, explosive devices based on nuclear fission?

As a sovereign nation, should they be allowed to purchase such devices? What if they design and construct them without foreign aid?

What effects will the acquisition of nuclear armaments on Iran's part have in the Middle East and the world? Good or ill?

Note: to keep the discussion on track, minimize discussion of Israel.

[Proletariat]

It's unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would think Ahmadinejad has the intellectual or emotional faculties to bear this sort of power.

[Leet Eriksson]

I don't think iran will use them, becuase they know the consequences, but i still say no to nuclear weapons.

I know i'll mention isreal, just bare with me ok.

Isrealis nuclear weapons is destablising the region, i'm all for defending themselves, but nukes is not the way. But anyways, in my honest opinion, the US should be more active and start monitoring Iran, Iran did allow inspectors, so they should start there. So long as no more nuclear powers are added to the roster i'm fine.

[Sartaq]

Everyone arms, or everyone disarms. Why should Isreal have them when others don't? or Russia or the US, or China? If Iran gets them who is going to want them next?

[Ice]

NO. Anyone that says Isreal should be wiped off the map really should not have that kind of firepower. Furthermore, I can't remember the exact quote, but he said a while ago about how they should kill all the Christians and Jews.

For those reasons and about thousand others, i say NO. Don't try to convince me otherwise, because my answer is concrete.

[Just A Girl]

I think nucular weapons should be Dissarmed by All and I also beleve that They should NEVER be built by any 1 EVER again.

So Thats a definative NO,
--
I dont like one country telling people what to do all the time,
If a 3rd world country needs Power to expand and the Best way for them to do that is to build a nucular power plant.
I say let them build one.

I beleve ALL countrys Should Be allowed to create NUCULAR Power.....

However 1st thing this happens, The americans Start demanding that they stop.

I know thats off topic.
But i wanted to say it any way.

[Marcellus]

As others have already stated, I can see only very negative consequences if a country whose leader has stated his desire to wipe Israel off the map obtains the means to do so.

[Reenk Roink]

Here's the full text of the speech:

I am grateful to God for giving me the great pleasure of speaking at this very important gathering. I thank God for seeing the pious faces of you, the valiant, aware, God-fearing and selfless children of the revolution, who understand with vigilance and intelligence the most important issues of our times and are active with great zest and in a decisive way in the most central issues of the Islamic world. I thank God for the presence of you dear young people.

The real question is what is Zionism? No doubt there have been many discussions in this conference on this issue and you have made studies in this regard, and you may know what I want to emphasize, but it is something worth mentioning.

We must see what the real story of Palestine is. Is the conflict in Palestine a war between some Jews on the one side and Muslims and non-Jews on the other side? Is it a war between the Jews and other faiths? Is it the war of one country with other countries? Is it the war of one country with the Arab world? Is the conflict only over the limited lands of Palestine? I think the answer to all these questions is negative.

The creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods (Jerusalem) was a heavy move by the globally dominant system and Global Arrogance against the Islamic world. There is a historic battle going on between the Oppressor World and the Islamic world and the roots of this conflict goes back hundreds of years.

In this historic conflict, the fronts have shifted many times. There were times when the Muslims had the upper hand and were active and forward-moving, while the Oppressor World was on retreat.

Unfortunately, in the past three hundred years, the Islamic world has been on retreat in the face of the Oppressor World.

I do not intend to go to the roots of the issue and I concentrate on a historical review of the events. In the past one hundred years, the last trenches of the Islamic world fell and the Oppressor World created the regime occupying Al-Qods as the bridgehead for its domination of the Islamic world. Bridgehead is a military term in warfare. When two divisions or armies are fighting each other, if one side advances and breaks through the front and captures a piece of enemy territory and builds up fortifications and strengthens its hold to make it a base for further territorial expansion, then we call this a bridgehead.

The occupying state (Israel) is the bridgehead of the Oppressor World in the heart of the Islamic world. They have built a base to expand their domination to the entire Islamic world. There is no other raison d’etre for this entity without this objective.

The battle that is going on in Palestine today, therefore, is the frontline of the conflict between the Islamic world and the Oppressor World. It is a battle of destiny that will determine the fate of hundreds of years of conflict in Palestine.

Today, the Palestinian nation is fighting the Oppressor World on behalf of the Islamic umma (nation). Thank God, from the day the Palestinian nation moved towards an Islamic struggle with Islamic objectives and an Islamic environment, and made Islam the dominating force in its behaviour and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and successes of the Palestinian nation every day.

I must say that you have chosen a very valuable title for your gathering [World Without Zionism]. Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair in this all-out war between the Islamic world and the Infidel Front, hoping to dishearten the Islamic world.

Such people are using words like “it’s not possible”. They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realised”.

If we take a look back, we had in our country a regime that was very violent, anti-popular, dependent on foreigners, and armed to its teeth. Members of SAVAK [the Shah’s secret police] controlled every move and a terrible reign of terror existed.

But when the dear Imam [Ruhollah Khomeini] said this regime must be destroyed, and we want a world without a client state, many of those who claim to be political gurus and other things said it’s not possible. The day when the Imam started his move, all the powers of the world supported that corrupt regime. Even after the massacre of Black Friday, the West and the East and regional powers all supported the regime. But our nation fought and now for 27 years we have a government that is independent of America. The Imam said the domination of the East and the West must be destroyed, but weak-minded persons, who only see the little world around them, didn’t believe him…

Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise… This would mean our defeat. Anyone who would recognize this state [Israel] has put his signature under the defeat of the Islamic world.

In his struggle against the World Arrogance, our dear Imam targeted the central and command base of the enemy, namely the occupying regime in Al-Qods. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in dear Palestine and which we witness today all over the Islamic world will soon wipe this scourge of shame from the Islamic world. This can be done.

We have to watch out for conspiracies. For more than 50 years, the World Arrogance has tried to give recognition to the existence of this fake regime [Israel] and they have make many efforts to first stabilize it and then take further steps.

Some 27 or 28 years ago, they took an important step in this regard and, unfortunately, one of the frontline countries made this mistake, and we hope that country [Egypt] will rectify its mistake.

Recently, a new conspiracy has been plotted and is underway. They have been forced to evacuate a corner of Palestine and this was imposed on them by the Palestinian nation. But they want to sell this as the final victory and use the evacuation of Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state as an excuse to end the Palestinian cause and goal.

Today they are making an evil and deceptive effort to turn the struggle into an internal conflict of the Islamic world. They want to create conflict among Palestinian groups inside Palestine by making them greedy for political positions or high office, so that these groups abandon the decisive issue fo Palestine and turn on each other.

With the excuse of having cleared the Gaza Strip to show their good will, they want a group of Muslim nations to recognise this corrupt regime, and I am very hopeful and pray to God that the Palestinian nation and the dear Palestinian groups will be cautious of such sedition.

Today the unity of the front in Palestine on its goals is a pressing necessity. The issue of Palestine is by no means finished. The issue of Palestine will only be resolved when all of Palestine comes under Palestinian rule, when all the refugees return to their homes, and when a popular government chosen by this nation takes the affairs in its hands. Of course, those who have come to this land from far away to plunder this land have no right to participate in the decision-making process for this nation.

I am hopeful that just as the Palestinian nation continued its struggle for the past ten years, it will continue to maintain its awareness and vigilance. This phase is going to be short-lived. If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.

I warn all the leaders in the Islamic world to beware of this conspiracy. If any of them takes a step towards the recognition of this regime [Israel], then he will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma (nation) and will have eternal shame stamped on his forehead, regardless of whether he did this under pressure by the dominant powers, or lack of understanding or naiveté or selfishness or worldly incentives.

The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic world. Those who are closeted behind closed doors cannot make decisions on this issue and the Islamic nation does not allow this historical enemy to exist at the heart of the Islamic world.

Definitely some hardline rhetoric here, and the guy obviously hates Israel, but the part about "killing Jews and Christians" is probably not true, otherwise we would have all heard of it by now (and I'm getting quite sick of hearing him).

Then again, the same guy also said this:

How do you dispel the impression that Iran is making a nuclear weapon?

"Our religion prohibits us from having nuclear arms. Our religious leader has prohibited it from the point of view of religious law. It's a closed road. We even don't need it; we can guarantee our security in other ways … During the past two years, more then 1,200 inspections have taken place in our country. More than 1,030 documents have been given to the IAEA. All the IAEA cameras are fixed on our facilities, and the IAEA supervisors can control every action within our facilities. We have proven amply that we are conforming to regulations."

To answer the question (again). Should Iran have nuclear weapons? Hell , but then again, in an ideal world, neither should we....

[Xiahou]

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons - ie, explosive devices based on nuclear fission?

No.

As a sovereign nation, should they be allowed to purchase such devices? What if they design and construct them without foreign aid?

No.

What effects will the acquisition of nuclear armaments on Iran's part have in the Middle East and the world? Good or ill?

Worst case ill, best case none. When we're dealing with nuclear weapons and a country run by fundamentalist clerics, we can't risk ill. I don't care if they are a soveriegn nation- you cant just sit by and wring your hands if your neighbor is building a giant cannon that's pointed at your house and say to yourself 'What can I do? It's their land'

[Samurai Waki]

If Iran gets nukes, then I say Madagascar should get nukes!

Long Live Madagascar!

[Ice]

The speech by that nutjob makes me answer even more concrete then before. I'd be willing you use military action to take him out if it were necessary.
Let the Flames Against me Begin.

[Soulforged]

No particular person, nor a corporation, not even any government can be trusted when having weapons of mass destruction in their hands, or the technology to produce it. However this has it's limitations and Iran is using it for civil development as stated so I don't see anything wrong.

The polemical treaty of Non Proliferation (1968) signed by almost all sovereing nations (with the exception that all of the five permanent members of the UN can still have weapons of mass destruction) was from the begining a failure, born asimetrical and still generating problems in international relationships.

This was always a question of hipocresy. Now when affecting a nation with a polemical government, wich probably needs it for generating work and devoloping production, all comes to the safety of the entire world. I admit that Ahmadinejad is a bit of a worry, at least for what he says, but there's something that I found profundly unjust with that treaty, wich shouldn't be respected by any nation, and it's that they aren't in a line of equality.
So if the question is you should be worried, well I already answered, but if it's "it should be allowed", of course, as long there's other nations that are allowed, then I don't see why this particular one don't. Perhaps it all comes to the administrative or even moral superiority that some nations are believed to have, but that I don't eat.

[Redleg]

Iran in a treaty stated that in order to recieve aid and assistance in developing their nuclear energy that they would not use the gained knowledge to pursue nuclear weapons.

As we know treaties between nations are not enforcable by the International Community - unless one of the nations involved in the treaty wish to enforce the treaty,

Iran has the ablity and the soverign right to attempt to build nuclear weapons in violation of the agreed upon treaties, if it so desires

However the converse is also true. Nations that signed the treaty with Iran, can attempt to enforce the agreed upon treaty if they so desire.

Its really a damned if you do - damned if you don't scenerio

Edit: Incomplete sentence was corrected

[Sartaq]

Perhaps it all comes to the administrative or even moral superiority that some nations are believed to have, but that I don't eat.

Yes, good point. Perhaps some nations have more motives to use them than others though? At this point in time. Everything can change ofcourse.

[Adrian II]

It's unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would think Ahmadinejad has the intellectual or emotional faculties to bear this sort of power.

The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.

The development toward nuclear arms is nearly always controlled by military and technical experts, whilst the outcome dictates the establishment of all sorts of cautionary procedures and (confidential) international agreements, hotlines, etcetera.

At the time of the Indian nuclear tests (1998) the governing Hindu-fascists in Delhi were spouting the worst kind of rhetoric, comparing their nuclear missiles to Hindu phalluses and other symbols of manhood that would wipe out the Pakistani foe. Islamabad responded in kind. However, to close observers it was clear that both governments were merely playing to the gallery of their public opinion, whereas behind the screens they were sealing off all possibilities of abuse or mistaken assumptions on the part of the opposition. A new sense of security resulting from their nuclear arms has brought the two counties closer instead of widening the gap between them.

Let us hope that the development of an Iranian nuclear capability will have a similar effect in the Middle East. Much of Ahmadinejad's language seems to be a reaction to perceived foreign threats, some of which (Israel, U.S.) are only too real.

Chances are that as soon as Tehran possesses a usable nuclear weapon, it will establish a hotline with Tel Aviv.

[monkian]

Good post dude, sounds enitrely feasible.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.

A valid point for consideration. I suspect that you are correct. The USA has certainly been reluctant to use atomic/nuclear weaponry since observing the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- despite finding ourselves in tactical situations where nuclear weapons would have been a tactically useful tool [notably against the massed "volunteer" Chinese forces that attacked UN forces in North Korea].

My concerns with the spread of nuclear weapons technology really aren't connected to the States that possess them (as you say, they have a valid fear of retribution to deter silliness), but to the degree of security that these weapons and materials have in various countries. An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it [e.g. Just who would we nuke if a terrorist cell detonated a TNW in Tel Aviv. Even were the group supported by Hussein in Damascus, would Israel feel justified in wiping a largely innocent city out when the nation involved began denying culpability? The terrorists might get off a free shot.]

I know countries have a vested interest in securing their nuclear weapons better than anything else they have, but just how large will the nuclear club grow before someone slips up. Heavens, states of the former CCCP already have problems with this.


The USA and other nuclear powers may have no "legitimate" right to prevent the acquisition of same by another sovereign country -- but it is almost certainly in our interest to prevent it. Following the 9-11-01 attacks, it seems possible that any US administration would have a lot of incentive to err on the side of caution and security despite the cost to international relations and good will.

[Don Corleone]

Agreed Seamus. I seriously doubt Iran would actually be foolish enough to directly use nuclear weapons. But given their track record of supporting global terrorism, I'm more worried about what they'll be giving their friends in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then claiming they had nothing to do with it.

Somebody mentioned selling them the technology. I totally disagree with that. I believe part of the process has to be developing it on your own, with your own scientists. Somebody also mentioned it would provide an effective deterrant to Israel. As far as I know, Israel has engaged in offensive actions twice: 1) when they bombed a nuclear weapons research facility in Iraq and 2) when they invaded Lebanon and secured the Lebanese/Israeli border which the Syrians were using to shell positions within Israel. So I don't know how much stock I put in that argument.

And Adrian, I'm sorry, I fail to see the correlation between Israli/US agression towards Iran and President Ahmadinejad's expression of his desire for the destruction of Israel, other than in indirect terms. Maybe you could provide me with some more information on this? Maybe beginning with where Iran has been the victim of US or Israeli agression in the past few years?

Interesting take on the India/Pakistan conflicts in the 90s. While I'll agree that the Indians made some foolishly irresponsible statements at times, as they say it takes two to tango and Pakistan seems to get off rather lightly in the analysis.

All that being said, I still hold that the sovereignty of nations is absolute, and if Iran has the brainpower to develop nuclear weapons on their own, nobody else has the right to prevent them from doing so. We do have the right to prevent them from using them offensively or sharing them with 3rd parties, but that's not the root question of this thread.

[Adrian II]

An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it (..)

Point taken. But here the India-Pakistan situation is instructive as well because of a major departure from the Cold War equation as we (thought we) knew it.

During the Cold War the dominant view held that mutually assured destruction was most pertinent among 'enduring rivals' such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union and China, etcetera. Because their differences were ideological and determined by issues of classic (territorial) power politics, not by otherwordly concerns, they would act or respond rationally to perceived threats and opportunities. Neither would cross the nuclear threshold because the consequences were deemed 'unthinkable'.

Of course we will never know whether this is true; the mere fact that nuclear war did not occur does not prove that mutually assured destruction was the sole or even the main operative principle. According to some modern strategic thinkers, the success of Cold War deterrence may have been a question of 'luck'...

Enter India and Pakistan, two enduring rivals: they had been at odds since 1947, they had waged three conventional wars and were preparing a fourth because of lingering suspicions that the other side might go nuclear at any moment.

When both went nuclear in 1998, the theory of deterrence was put to a new test since their main difference was not territorial or economic, but religious (Muslim versus Hindu, even though India would officially deny the latter as its state religion). And the otherwordly orientation of religion could be expected to make the 'unthinkable' thinkable after all.

Instead, the formal acquisition of nuclear weapons by both states introduced a whole new dynamic to their relationship.

1. First off, the formal announcements, actual tests and published nuclear doctrines on both sides served to clear the air. Both nations now had the 'bomb' and there was no more room for festering suspicions on the subject.

2. Secondly, both were forced to think in terms of mutual destruction. They discovered the need for consultation, as well as mutual and international cooperation, in order to prevent escalation. India and Pakistan had always refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996) on grounds that they were discriminatory and merely prolonged 'nuclear Apartheid'. After 1998 they began to think like Americans and Europeans. And they learned fast: the 1999 Kargil skirmish was contained in the same manner as the superpower stand-offs of the Cold War.

3. Thirdly, religion apparently does not make elites less selfish and less bent of their own physical and political subsistence. Mind you: even amid the horrific proliferation practices of Dr Khan throughout the 1990's, no nuclear materials or production secrets were ever sold to non-state groups. Pakistani officials who contemplated such a sale were fired or even shot.

The tentative conclusion should be that religious regimes behave rationally (i.e. along the same lines as non-religious state actors) and that there is no reason to fear an Iranian nuclear weapon more than an Indian or Pakistani one. That is reassuring.

But this does not exclude the possibility you mentioned: that nuclear technology ends up in the hands of religious non-state actors who think the 'unthinkable'. The only reassurance we have in this case is classic deterrence: any state that is even remotely involved with a non-state actor in the pursuit of nuclear arms will itself risk total annihilation. Remember that every atom in every single nuclear charge in the world has its fingerprint, which allows its origin and trajectory to be traced in detail. My personal view is that this has prevented nuclear terrorism until now, notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan, Libya, the former states of the USSR and other nations have been leaking nuclear materials and knowlewdge for decades. But of course it may have been just luck...

[Don Corleone]

My apologies, I'm getting my boogeymen mixed up. Iran supports Hezbollah, not Hamas, not that I'd care to be in the clutches of either group.

[BDC]

Iran, who's president (elected, albiet in a not very democractic way) said he wanted to destroy Israel and would prefer America not to exist, can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. Ignoring arguments over rights etc, no one in their right mind would allow a country like that to have the bomb.

Hopefully they will see sense, else the question is does Israel just nuke them or am I going to end up being conscripted to attack them?

[drone]

On the subject of Iran's president: How much power does this guy really have? My impression has always been that the presidency has always had to answer to the theocracy. His predecessor didn't really have much say, I doubt that the current president is any more than a puppet, especially considering how he got the job in the first place. He talks a good game though.

Nukes are like becoming an adult. You finally have the money/power to do what you want, but your responsibilities and the consequences prevent you from doing these same things...

[Soulforged]

Iran in a treaty stated that in order to recieve aid and assistance in developing their nuclear energy that they would not use the gained knowledge to pursue nuclear weapons.

As said previously (and knowing your point before hand) the treaty was sentenced to death from the begining, just by being asimetrical. An unjust law shouldn't be respected, and the further generations shouldn't be paying with their economic prosperity for the mistakes of their predecessors.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You make good points Adrian, but why take the chance that the crazies running Iran don't calm down and actually start a nuclear war?

This chance is not insignificant (especially considering the Pres. of Iran's belief that he's some sort of religious messiah)*, and the results would be devastating.

Is it not prudent, then, to do all we can to prevent them from getting the bomb? No good can come of letting them get nuclear weapons capability, and they certainly have enough oil to provide power. Nor are there any enemies they need to defend against (arguing that they need to make WMDs to stop the US from invading to prevent them getting WMDs is silly. They could just not make nukes, and no one would bother them.) Their 'nuclear power' line is but a smokescreen for what they really want. Am I surprised that they want nuclear power? Not really, who doesn't, after all? But that doesn't mean we should let them get it.

Crazed Rabbit

EDIT: *Just a quick summary, he may not exactly think he's a messiah, just read the article.

[Goofball]

I say no nukes for Iran. The reason that no nuclear holocausts have yet occurred has been because of the mutually assured destruction theory. Unfortunately, that concept only works if the political leaders of nuclear powers are rational and believe that the benefit of a nuclear war (wiping out the enemy) does not outweigh the cost (being wiped out).

This does not apply in a theocracy, especially an extremist one like Iran's. To Iran's leaders, the benefit of a nuclear exchange (wiping the Israelis off the map) might appear far greater than the cost (being sent to meet Allah earlier than originally scheduled). In fact, they might see it as a "win/win," given that matryrdom is held in such high regard by religious extremists.

[Adrian II]

(..) why take the chance that the crazies running Iran don't calm down and actually start a nuclear war? This chance is not insignificant considering the Pres. of Iran's belief that he's some sort of religious messiah

He is certainly a loose cannon, but so was Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India in 1998 - a man whose Hindu nationalist followers not only managed to look utterly ridiculous during their public fitness displays in khaki shorts and white singlets, but uttered some pretty apocalyptic nonsense about an upcoming 'reckoning' with Pakistan as well. In Pakistan similar cr@p was heard from the islamist parties and many mullahs.

In reality both nations took care to disperse both their nuclear decision-making powers and their actual nuclear arsenals among various institutions and bases, to establish checks and hotlines and to ask for international assistance. The Indian Army managed to retain a firm control over the whole arsenal and withstand any radical tendencies. Pakistan even enlisted United States help in securing its nuclear arsenal against a possible islamist overthrow of the government. Washington was only too happy to oblige...

Is it not prudent, then, to do all we can to prevent them from getting the bomb?

Oh yes, personally I feel we should do all we can - bar a new war. Make them pay their way (back) into the international community by sticking to their agreements, such as their NPT obligations which they flouted for 18 years. For precisely that reason, Russia should stop delivering fissile material to Iran as of today, China should stop buying Iranian oil, etcetera. Make 'em bleed every inch of the way.

Alas, such unity of purpose is a remote possibility. Russia and China consider Iran an unpalatable but indispensable ally in the region, much like the U.S. regards Pakistan or Uzbekistan as indispensable allies.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am aware of your Indian-Pakistan comparison. But in the case of Iran, its leaders may not fear retaliation if they believed they could destory Israel before they could strike back. And even then, the MAD theory needs the participant's desire to live, which may not be as strong for the Iranian leadership if they think nukes are God's gift to Islam, and that they should perish in the flames of war if they can take out Israel. A kind of matyrdom, as hath been spoke of previously.

Alas, such unity of purpose is a remote possibility. Russia and China consider Iran an unpalatable but indispensable ally in the region, much like the U.S. regards Pakistan or Uzbekistan as indispensable allies.

Sadly, less. But I think a small scale action, like bombing reactors, would be good and necessary to stop them.

Crazed Rabbit

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Nuclear weapons could, in theory, give Iran extra leverage if it wanted to hold us hostage for oil. IE, we won't sell any oil unless x demands are made. Iran would essentially hold hostage any major city within striking distance - and who would sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians for oil?



I'm not sure where I stand on this, other than Iran possessing nuclear weapons is not an ideal. What to do about it, I know not.

[Divinus Arma]

I tend to agree with Don Corleone and Seamus on this issue.

The greatest threat is not from national use of nuclear weapons, but from "extra-national" use, as Don put it.


The loss of a major Western City would be met with dancing in the streets by the middle eastern majority.

The Iranian President is right about one thing: There is a war between the West and radical Islam. The battleground is the psyche of the muslim male and the goal of the West is to impose tolerance on state-sponsored muslim extremism. The goal of radical Islam is unoppossed oppression, total obediance, and the spread of dictatorial theocracy throughout the world.


We must win their minds. However, this is a difficult process because it requires the destruction of institutional hatred, such as that espoused by Ayatollah Nutjob, as well as the imposition of democracy and individual liberty.

[Adrian II]

A kind of martyrdom, as hath been spoke of previously.

That kind of martyrdom is restricted to non-state actors who usually belong to small, socially and psychologically isolated groups. Ruling elites answer to the 'laws' of inertia, self-preservation and institutional cowardice. Those have saved mankind from nuclear winter many a time. I believe Israel should talk to Iran in the same way it has started talking to Turkey, Pakistan and other former adversaries. That will take time, some nerves, some imagination. Bombs won't stop any process of radicalisation in the Muslim world. I think that has been amply demonstrated in the neighbourhood recently.