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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

If Iran can have nukes, so can I.

[Reenk Roink]

No you can't, me and Just a Girl (ShambleS) have divided up the world already...

Sorry, try again in the power struggle after one of our deaths...

[Don Corleone]

Sure. The main insurance policy is nuclear. It says if a country gives nuclear hand-outs to terrorists, it will be looking at a Teller-Ulam designer sun for a couple seconds before eternal darkness sets in. That is why the regimes of North Korea, Pakistan or Libya never indulged in the practice.

Continued international cooperation and pressure on rogue states may be the only real solution. Again it is not fool-proof, but it has worked before. Libya would be a case in point. After decades of harbouring terrorists, trying to acquire WMD's and generally pissing off the entire neighbourhood, Tripoli recently agreed to a complex deal with the United States and gave up its nuclear ambitions and terrorist connections in order to become a moderate, generally recognised and accepted nation. In the end it's sanctions and total isolation what did Ghadafi in. Same thing with Milosevic. I believe Saddam should have been smoked out in similar fashion.

Well, there's a lot in your post you and I could spend hours debating some of the claims you make during your post...(Israel occupied southern Lebanon, not the entire country, and it was to make Syria stop shelling Northern Israel.... by the way, why were the Syrians, who entered before the IDF, occupying Lebanon?);

Rather than do that, I'll just look to the root of your post, the beginning and ending paragraphs, which I quoted above.

First, Iran doesn't mirror Libya, Pakistan or North Korea. Libya DID sponsor global terrorism, but never achieved nuclear capability. North Korea, while I believe they have achieved nuclear capability, does not sponsor splinter terrorist groups. And Pakistan, while obviously nuclear armed, really doesn't sponsor terrorism in the sense that Iran or Syria do. Granted, you could argue the insurgents they have armed and trained in Kashmir count, but that's a very focused issue. They do not appear, at the state level, to be breeding and releasing terrorism at large, it would appear to be focused on co-opting Kashmir away from India for now. As India is also nuclear armed, releasing nuclear arms to the insurgents in Kashmir seems like a poor strategical play.

Second, what pressure? What cooperation? At the time we invaded Iraq, Saddam was in violation of 4 different security council resolutions. Nobody but Iraq disputed this, but France's answer was to cancel the resolutions so that the Iraqis would be brought into compliance. That's the equivalent of making armed robbery legal, so that muggers don't come to view themselves as criminal. Sanctions weren't working, a fact everyone could and did agree on in 2002, the difference was how to deal with the fact that they weren't: France, Russia and China wanted to reward Saddam by removing the sanctions; the US and UK chose to enforce them by force. You can argue that we were wrong to do so, but it's an overly rosy view of recent history to claim that the world had united in enforcement of the resolutions and that they were working.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, at the end of the day, every nation has the right to do what it believes is best for it's people. Each nation has to respect the sovereignty of other nations, unless they pose a direct and otherwise irresolvable threat. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend Iran is going to grow up and start acting responsibly. They need to be watched closely and if Hezbollah winds up with a nuclear device, I would charge Russia, China and France with dealing with it for once.

[Adrian II]

Sanctions weren't working, a fact everyone could and did agree on in 2002 (..)

Very few agreed. And as we discovered in 2003, those sanctions had done an excellent job.

But let's not kid ourselves and pretend Iran is going to grow up and start acting responsibly. They need to be watched closely and if Hezbollah winds up with a nuclear device, I would charge Russia, China and France with dealing with it for once.

Indeed, let's not kid ourselves. I am sure your grand strategy will go down a riot.

[Devastatin Dave]

Very few agreed. And as we discovered in 2003, those sanctions had done an excellent job.Indeed, let's not kid ourselves. I am sure your grand strategy will go down a riot.

Well Adrian, you obviously have the answer to fix the Iran situation, could you please inform us of your grand strategy to rectify this situation. Thanks

[Don Corleone]

I am sure your grand strategy will go down a riot.

I don't have a grand strategy. I just urge caution. I really have a hard time believing, despite everything they've done over the past 27 years, the mullahs are suddenly going to become tranquil and focus inwards once they get the bomb. I hope it makes them feel more secure and that they don't continue to support global terrorism, but I find the odds are probably against it.

What's more, rather than pretending there is no risk, I really would like to see what France, Russia and China have to offer in terms of solutions. It's clear that diplomacy with the Iranians has not led to where it was intended. What's next? If the matter goes to the Security Council, the Iranians have already claimed they'll kick out all inspectors and go for broke to finish up their program. It looks to me like the Iranians are holding all the cards, and they don't feel like playing nice anymore.

[Watchman]

Who'd want to end up as the next Saddam anyway ? His deterrent was smoke and mirrors (although he may not have known it himself), and look where that got him. Where a fake has proven unworkable, get a real one.

Personally, I suspect there's little short of actual war (which nobody really has the resources or inclination for; state-level invasion have gotten awfully costly and complicated since WW2) that can be done to keep the Iranians from building their bomb if they seriously decide it's in their best interests to. If it really comes down to it they can always throw caution to the wind and finish the program while gambling on looking like far too thorny a prospect for anyone to stamp down before it's ready - after which they probably have the insurance and prestige they want, if not exactly many friends.

I sincerely doubt if they'd go giving the nasty little firecrackers around just for fun, though - little sense in doing so anyway, as the current real hardcore Muslim ultras aren't exactly Shi'ite friendly to begin with, and if there's a mushroom cloud in NY (or Paris, or London) odds are the next one blooms over Teheran within the hour, no committees involved and no inquiries made.
And suicidal stupidity never struck me as being a big hit among the Irani brass. It's one thing to toe the line and entirely another to drive a tank over it, if you see what I mean.

[Don Corleone]

I see what you mean, but what if a moderate scale radioactive contamination shows up in Haifa and Tel Aviv? Do you still think the world would be immediately prepared to nuke Tehran with no direct evidence?

I don't think Iran is governed by morons either. But I do think they won't stop until they find a way to 1) exterminate Israel now 2) spread the revolution worldwide, long term.

[Divinus Arma]

The U.S. tried to deliver a lethal blow to Al Qaida in Afghanistan in 2001. It didn't work out. It tried to do so in Iraq in 2003. It didn't work out.

The Taliban, who directly supported the operations of Al Qaida, were thrwon from power. As a result, Al Qaida is no longer in the position of open operation that they were in before the war. Lethal blow? No. Limb-chopping blood-letting blow? Yes.

As for Iraq, that is a developing situation that is hard to understand by some folks who have no patience and would rather sit back eating Doritos and watching Comedy Central. Not that this is you. But this is a huge portion of lazy westerners who have no stomach for sacrifice and dedication. History will judge this, not you or I or Michael Moore or anyone else for that matter.

Can we try to keep the topic on Iran and not go down the Iraq rabbit hole please? You brought it up. I just answered what you presented as a fact, when it is just your opinion.

[Watchman]

I don't think Iran is governed by morons either. But I do think they won't stop until they find a way to 1) exterminate Israel now 2) spread the revolution worldwide, long term.

And *I* think you're taking their rhetoric at face value rather too easily. The Communist Block preached fire and brimstone about world revolution from the word go, and look how far that ever got.

Hot air, when you come down to it, doesn't cost a thing.

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm, I wish Iran was just full of hot air:

We have this...

They paid and trained Hezbollah to do this...

Here's a list of the kidnappings they've performed, where the victims, such as Bill Buckley, get transferred back to Iran where they are tortured and killed...

They kill Iranian dissidents across Europe. I mean come on, the evidence of Iranian involvement in terrorist activities for the past 27 years is undeniable. Do you really think that's all going to turn to 'hot air' because they got the bomb?

[Watchman]

Of course not. But that still doesn't mean they'd have anything to gain from leaking nukes to the nutty bombers, or that they'd want to start playing Chicken! with a serious pyrotechnics budget with Israel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The problem isn't the government handing over a nuke -- as you note, they aren't cheap and if you like being in the nuclear club you want to keep them. Don C and I are also concerned about security. Radicalized countries with nukes may grow less radical, but it doesn't mean that you won't find a few folks who agree with Osama and manage to "look the other way" when a warhead gets swiped.

Doc C:

The Israeli decision to stop-punch the impending invasion in 1967 was a brilliant one, and paid off handsomely. I am well aware that the threat they "agressed" to counter was imminent and real. As to Poland, didn't the Nazis invade to avenge that radio station....

However, as our "esteemed" Senator from West Virginia might aver, they did fire first. You'll remember his arguments against the invasion of Iraq because they had not attacked us directly -- he wanted to wait for the hit.

[Watchman]

Well you know it *is* rather easier to get "justifiable self-defense" through in the courts if you can actually prove the other guy really did attack you first, and not the other way around...

And when you think about it, what saved mankind from a nuclear Armageddon during the Cold War was the insistence of both sides on not being the ones to launch first.

[Tribesman]

Divinus
Can we try to keep the topic on Iran and not go down the Iraq rabbit hole please?
Since the Iranian backed groups are in ascendancy in Iraq it is blindness to look at Iran without considering the wider aspects .
Which aspects also will have to include Lebanon and the occupied territories where Iranian backed groups are active .

You brought it up. I just answered what you presented as a fact, when it is just your opinion.
Talking of facts , can you provide any details of this Israeli attack on Iran that you have mentioned in two threads now ? or is it a figment of your imagination ?

Don , OT but you mention the Syrian presence before the Israeli invasion , just to remind you that the Syrian presence was welcomed at the time as a stabilising influence into a very nasty situation , by almost all governments concerned , including your own .

Dave
Actually he'll just do what Kim Jung Ill has done. Let the people suffer while he and a relative few will live in opulance while getting aide from the UN or some other international charity that blindly gives money, food, and supplies to despots.

I don't want to piss on your bonfire too much , but but how much aid has your government sent to Kim Jung ?


So onto my position and possible options .
To solely address Iran without considering the wider implications in the region is pure stupidity .
Any UN action will almost definately be stopped by 1 or 2 of the permenant security council members .
Limited airstrikes will not achieve the desired results and will inflame the wider region .
A full military intervention will be long , bloody and very expensive , will inflame the wider region and has no guarantees of success .
Nuke the whole area , that would work , but that does mean that you have also managed to wipe Isreal off the map and you can no longer afford to run your automobiles and industry .
Finally , keep talking and be optimistic about the results of the dialouge , yeah right

[Adrian II]

Can we try to keep the topic on Iran and not go down the Iraq rabbit hole please? You brought it up.

You did, in the opening post of your own thread called 'War in Iran' which was then integrated with this one.

Besides, comparisons between countries and historical episodes serve to illustrate or demonstrate an idea. What is wrong with that?

Indeed I feel that the Iran situation may go down the Iraq 'rabbit hole' of misinformation, hysterics and war pimping and I find that disappointing. In the original thread I answered Seamus and Crazed Rabbit the best I could, but I have no time for round two which is called 'Oh, so you hate freedom and you wanna destroy Israel?' Help yourself to the hardcore cliches, guys. I'm off to BKS realm of love and understanding.
Yes, I am so gay.

[drone]

From the Desk of the Secretary of the Nuclear Club of Nations:

Iranian Leadership,

Congratulations on your achievement! Possessing nuclear arms is a grand accomplishment, and offers many benefits for you and your people. We welcome you into our club as a junior member, and expect that you will come to your initiation party next Wednesday. Usually, the Russians are in charge of the hazing, but since copious amounts of vodka probably conflicts with your religion, we'll try to come up with something different.

A little bit about us. Our club was chartered in 1945. Membership is fairly selective, prospective members must show technical expertise, willingness to expend large sums of money for research, and lately, creative diplomatic and counter-surveillence techniques. Some qualified nations have not yet joined, we believe they are either shy or unwilling to pay the club dues.

The club offers many benefits. Membership grants prestige on the international stage. Your voice will carry greater weight in international affairs. Other club members will be more respectful towards you in negotiations. You are now eligible to hire non-member nations to perform work that you no longer desire to do for yourself. We only ask that you keep your nuclear material within your borders. Sharing this material with other nations or proxies in it's refined state will lessen the prestige of the existing club members (yours included). If your nation or one of your proxies shares this material in it's critical state to an unwilling recipient, other club members will be forced to share large amounts of their own material with you in the same manner and your membership will be invoked permanently. Due to your own special case, sharing of critical state material for religious reasons will force a member to place material in the same state at the coordinates 21°25′N 39°49′E. This is our only rule: Keep your material to yourself, you worked hard for it.

Once again, congratulations. You have reached a grand turning point in the history of your nation. We look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,
The Nuclear Club of Nations

P.S. Your membership card and a gift basket should be arriving shortly.

[Adrian II]

If your nation or one of your proxies shares this material in it's critical state to an unwilling recipient, other club members will be forced to share large amounts of their own material with you in the same manner and your membership will be invoked permanently.

Heh.

Excellent parody, Drone.

[Watchman]

Kudos for that one.