So as not to derail the "would Russia back Iran in a war?" thread even more, starting this doozy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45209267/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
So Iran is in direct violation of the non-proliferation treaty that they signed. What now? Sanctions, or strikes?
I'm not denying that Iran is a major causer of instability in the reason, and I agree that Israel has plenty of reasons to have a nuclear deterrent. The point I was trying to make is that Iran has reasons for wanting breakout capability well beyond "lol we're evil and want to kill everyone".
And it certainly is possible to look inside the head of a nation and work out what it's thinking, since a nations government is made up of people who communicate with each other. Iran's government is far more than just the President or the Supreme Leader, so it's just as possible to work out what Iran wants as it is to work out what any nation wants (though I admit that it's far from easy).
![]()
True, but the post I was replying to seemed to ignore the war completely, as breadload then jumped strait to the Allied invasion in WW 2.
I didn't ignore that war. They weren't on the offensive. US, France and some others backed Iraq to invade Iran. Iran defended itself. So how the heck is that an offensive war by Iran? Heck, the only time Iran even had troops in Iraq, Saddam gassed the Kurdish cities they occupied just to kill everyone. So really, I don't think arguing that Iran was "aggressive" in that war is a good one unless you want to talk about how the West supplied chemical weapons to someone attacking Iran.
And that just goes further to the point here. It was only three decades ago the West was helping to gas tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers defending their country. Not to mention the Contra affair. I mean, how exactly do you think it sounds like when we tell them that we suspect them of building nuclear weapons? Why do you think it's so hard to get any traction?
The point is that no matter how undemocratic we like to think Iran is, they are democratic enough that they need to listen to their people and every Western complaint sounds like nothing more than "I want to attack and bomb your country again".
The current deal is okay. It says they may have nuclear power and they give in to inspectors. If they have monthly inspections, like Canada does with our reactors, it's impossible for them to make any realistic amount of nukes. That should be our concentration. We waste our time on trying to bash them like some evil doer country when the only people who ever did evil things was us against them for not choosing a side between Soviet-NATO. Our efforts should concentrate on what countries are allowed to do; build a civilian nuclear programme with regular inspections by the IAEA.
edited 26th Nov '13 10:29:35 PM by breadloaf
Besides, there is a strategic advantage to not having the bomb; you can actually think about military actions without the spectre of nuclear retaliation. The weight of a nuclear exchange invites strategic paralysis; there's a reason nuclear experts suspect that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait if he had nuclear strike capability.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
When you're willingly NOT grabbing a piece of the doomsday button when up against countries that do, you're doomed, actually.
If you and the other guy are the only two countries who exist, then yes.
But nuclear strategy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are all those other countries, and they care about fallout on the wind, who's the next country to launch now that the unspoken taboo on nuclear weapons use is broken, economic consequences, refugee populations, public opinion, and so on. And in the launching country, they have to consider all of those plus the diplomatic consequences plus the possibility of their weapons being intercepted by countermeasures...when you add it all up, it's more than enough factors to trigger strategic paralysis.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I mostly agree with Radical Taoist here. Mideast isn't Iran and Israel. It's many many countries.
The political situation is designed such that Iran's commitment to a non-nuclear policy is incredibly beneficial. Let's not forget that Iran was also the country that helped in getting Syria to agree to dumping its chemical weapons. Iran is famous for its no-chemical weapons in mid-east stance. Their nuclear policy follows the same vein. They gain a lot of respect and credibility.
The main reason most countries have trouble (other than the West) complaining about Iran's nuclear programme is that the country has been behind many disarmament pushes about NBC-warfare. So it is just peculiar to everyone to accuse them of trying to go for nukes, especially when people around them are going for nukes and no one says a thing.
The point is; they don't need nukes. Anybody hits them with one gets glassed by a third party anyway.
edited 28th Nov '13 1:52:40 PM by breadloaf
If they "don't need nukes", it's news to them. "We don't really need this" is a pretty stupid reason to keep working towards HEU production in previously hidden facilities, in spite of sanctions that are (or were, with the agreement) cratering the Iranian economy.
All your safe space are belong to TrumpThey don't need or want nukes, but they are prepared to build bombs... if they themselves are hit by bombs first, as decreed by Muslim doctrine and general ideology. This nuclear issue is just trigger happy paranoia.
What I would like to see is detente with Iran. They have plenty of allies in the region, and peace with Iran would lead to a better sense of stability in the Mideast. They have the power to reel in Hezbollah, they are an enemy of the Taliban, they're working things out in Iraq and they helped Syria destroy its chemical weapons.
edited 3rd Dec '13 3:06:32 AM by Sledgesaul
Not disagreeing with you on the need for detente, but I disagree that expanding Iran's nuclear weapon capability would strengthen peace in the region. The Sunnis would not be thrilled to have a nuclear-armed Iran threatening their interests, and Saudi Arabia for one would quickly respond by developing their own nuclear latent capability.
Honestly, the simple solution would be to let Iran have reactors for peaceful purposes at 3.5% enriched, on the proviso that they agree to IAEA inspections like everyone else. If they're willing to go for that, I imagine the US will probably go for it too (the EU will take much more convincing, though).
They need higher levels of enrichment in order to provide electricity for their homes. 20% enrichment is exactly in line with with nuclear-powered medicinal factories. 85% is what's needed to make weapons-grade gadgetry.
Why should they let the IAEA intrude in their technolgy when the IAEA previously lied about Iraq having nukes?
edited 3rd Dec '13 3:50:59 AM by Sledgesaul
Did the IAEA lie about Iraq and nukes? I thought those lies were by the intelligence services (MI 6 and the CIA).
As for the Saudi's developing breakout capability, they already have it, as seen by the deal they have with Pakistan (that Newsnight exposed).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Mohamed ElBaradei, then Director-General of the IAEA, said in 2003 that there was no evidence of Iraqi nuclear weaponry and later said the war was a bloody mistake and Blair and Bush could be tried for war crimes.
Hans Blix reported Iraqi co-operation with inspection regimes to the UN prior to the invasion.
Sledgesaul is trying to say the IAEA lied over Iraq, thus giving Bush 'n' Blair a justification for the 2003 invasion. I don't know why he thinks that, because its not really true. The IAEA did fail to say publicly that there were no WMD in Iraq, which was because they did not at the time have the information to make that call definitively - and they pleaded for more time to finish the inspection programme agreed in 2002 before Bush took it out of their hands.
edited 3rd Dec '13 6:10:15 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThe point being that Iran can want nuclear weapons without sacrificing their Islamic ideals or seeking to use them in a confrontation of some kind. Even so, that would still help destabilize the region, and so is not an ideal outcome for anyone who wants to promote peace and stability. The Iranian probably will come out of this with some sort of civilian nuclear capability, some sort of inspections regime, and the latent ability to produce nukes within a year or two. If the US is on board with this, then I doubt Israel will take it upon itself to attack. I would say the odds of a more or less positive outcome are pretty good.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Definitely, but it should be a detente that realizes that America is negotiating from a position of superior firepower and has a reasonable interest (in realpolitik terms) in maintaining that status quo.
This, combined with the fact that past Iranian leadership (and by that I mean Ahmadinejad and the people who were holding his leash) have damaged Khameini and Rouhani's credibility, means that an inspections regime is going to be pretty much non-negotiable if Iran wants their sanctions off.
Does it absolutely have to be? Do we really have to indulge what Matt Taibbi rightfully calls "that American fear of not having the biggest dick in the room"?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Short form: yes. In particular, America really doesn't want Iran whipping its own dick out in a conflict with the Sunnis, because that'll lead to the Saudis grabbing a ruler to take their own measurements, and that will not end well.
Unfortunately, Obama really wants to pull out of the Middle East just when things are heating up. America no longer wants to be the world policeman, and I think that a result of that will be an upsurge in violent conflict, particularly as we're seeing a full-blown revolutionary wave in the world right now.
edited 3rd Dec '13 8:51:41 PM by Ramidel
Until the UN, or the G20, or Starfleet take over the business of protecting the rule of law and economic stability, the US is all the world (and the US) have at the moment. No one likes it, least of all the US taxpayer, but the fact of the matter is the world needs a policeman of some variety, and if we dont do it, then who?
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The U.N.
That said, the U.S. has been through the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The problem is, none of those wars had an achievable "victory", which frankly demoralizes everyone on the U.S. end, and well, the U.S. has so much inequality and crumbling infrastructure that I find it very hard to explain to people why the U.S. needs to be the big-shot overseas when they're losing their homes and jobs at home. It doesn't make sense to people on that scale.
edited 4th Dec '13 9:57:02 AM by PotatoesRock
"The problem is, none of those wars had an achievable "victory", which frankly demoralizes everyone on the U.S. end, and well, the U.S. has so much inequality and crumbling infrastructure that I find it very hard to explain to people why the U.S. needs to be the big-shot overseas when they're losing their homes and jobs at home."
The role of the US in the world isnt to "win", and thereby make everything better. It's to hold the line against chaos and prevent everything from getting much, much worse. People everywhere still buy our stuff, even though they dont like our policies. Or our propensity for open competition.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.

@demarquis:
Six months is longer than most Obama promises last, so I'm not holding my breath on a good final outcome.
No one is asking them to give up their civilian nuclear energy program. That Iran claims it's required to generate near weapons grade materials note for medical purposes doesn't mean that it's kosher (ahem) for them to generate enough for a year's worth of medical radioisotope work each month (IIRC on the numbers, don't have a source link immediately handy).
I suspect any inspection regime will be about as effective in Iran as it was in Iraq after Desert Storm, if not less so. Iraq was required to account for all their WMD production under the cease fire agreement, and no such situation exists with Iran.
@Silasw:
Since there's no convenient way to look inside a person's head (and wouldn't be even if HUMINTnote capabilites hadn't been falling by the wayside in favor of shiny toys like satellites and drones), for all practical purposes it's ill-advised to assume anything less than "where there's a way, there's a will".
Yeah, because Iranian actions haven't done anything to encourage strife and instability in the region that's made others be concerned for their safety, and Israel has never been attacked "out of the blue" or threatened with being driven into the sea by significantly numerically superior forces.
All your safe space are belong to Trump