The nuclear programme of Iran

I'm surprised, what with Pakistan's economy being what it is, that Iran didn't manage to buy one wholesale (as opposed to merely get some of AQ Khan's knowhow). Then again, the power of sectarianism...

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

I'm far more worried about terrorists getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes that are being driven around in vans with no military escort than I am about Iran.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

Iran's leadership isn't stupid or suicidal. They know that launching a first strike against Israel or any American allies would be met with overwhelming retaliation. The US wouldn't even need to nuke them back; we have enough air and sea power to level their country with conventional weapons.

Honestly, I think they're building them for one of two reasons: To have a bargaining chip for foreign aid (We give up our nukes, you give us money), or as a deterrent to future invasion from the US. After all, we are not going to invade a country that could retaliate with nuclear weapons.

And by the way, Ahmadinejad is not Iran's leader. Ayatollah Khamenei is. Ahmadinejad is just the front man.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

That's not working very well with North Korea. The situation there hasn't been this close to war since early 1950.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Iran's military outnumbers NK's by how much now?

Even before the nukes, no one would want to invade Iran. It'd be an S+ rank clusterfuck.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

^ You're forgetting several key aspects of the thing. Iran isn't some nebulous terrorist group they won't be pulling insurgent tactics to the same degree as Iraq if at all. Why? Their people hate their guts already, they won't gain sympathy by randomly using IED's and suicide bombings. (And they realize such tactics lost in Iraq.) Secondly, they follow Shi'a Islam which unlike Sunni is fairly centralized. In essence for them, capture the clergy and you control/eliminate the insurgency. Thirdly, they fully adhere to the concept of I Will Fight Some More Forever and Attack! Attack! Attack!. They won't wait in the shadows or plot in the mountains. They'll just keep coming until they run out of men and materiel and that will only take a year or so at most to wear out.

In short, Iran won't be Iraq.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Sure, it will be just 5 minute war that magically turns into fully democratic 1st world country.

I don't know what alternative world you live Tom, but invasion of Iran will be a one giant clusterfuck.

^ People said the same of Iraq in 1991. It lasted 3 days on the ground. Hell Saddam was saying the same thing in March 2003, 3 weeks later he was in hiding and US troops held the country.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Dude, eliminating the leadership and beating the "country" was in both cases like 5% of the actual mess.

If you don't think the occupation and aftermath would be horrendous then you're frankly delusional.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Who said we'd have to occupy? Go in, destroy the nuke facilities (eradicating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard optional) take whatever materials aren't destroyed and get out, mission accomplished.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Yes, you Won the War, Lost the Peace?

It's the second part that's the Kicker .

Plan for it, unlike last time.

It won't be that simple. And I'm sure the Israelis could pull that off anyway (using almost all their Air Force, but still). Current Plans seem to involve a Land Invasion as well, using US and British Troops.

edited 10th Nov '11 8:24:54 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Saber-rattling and actual war are two very different things. Countries have been making threats and saying naughty words to each other for thousands of years. Leaders like being in power and want to stay in power. Acting like the country is under constant threat of invasion is a useful propaganda tool.

Nobody wants to get into a war they can't win. Kim Jong Il may be crazy, but he's not an idiot. Khamenei is a religious nut, but it's better to be in charge of a country than a smoking crater, and he knows it.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

A land invasion of Iran?

Oh, please tell me Obama is smarter than that, or we're seriously all fucked, just give up now and detonate all the nukes over the Atlantic to EMP us back to the Stone Age and start all over again.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'm sure Obama is. But considering the rhetoric here, it's pretty obvious that Iraq didn't teach a harsh enough lesson. Saddam, a truly despised leader in Iraq, resulted in an insurgency that created 4 million refugees and over a million deaths due to sectarian violence, disease and starvation. Now we go to Iran, and somehow believe that "the Iranians hate their government are just waiting for the Heroic Team America to arrive to save them from the oppression of Ahmadinejad and his evil ways!". Get real.

edited 10th Nov '11 8:54:12 AM by breadloaf

Yeah the Green Movement wasn't even against the Islamic Republic itself, they were against the Dinner Jacket and by extention the Supreme Leader because he backed the Dinner Jacket. This government, being the only Shiite (for a particular sense of the term of course) government in the world in the only Shiite state in the world and surrounded by countries that hate you, they have hold of a very strong sense of nationalism. Its why the Green Movement didn't take enough hold.

Further, capture the clerical leadership, you're more likely to piss off the Iranians even more. Saddam had superior tech to Iran too once upon a time, and he ended up in a grueling WWI style conflict for 8 years. While the West MIGHT have a better time of it, Iran isn't a pushover by any means just because they don't have the latest tech in their arsenal.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

^ Uhh their military hasn't really evolved or modernized since the 1980s. Also Western militaries have engaged Iranian outfits before. Remember Operation: Praying Mantis?

In 1990 and 1991 people were saying Iraq would be a WW 1 style slugfest, that the Republican Guard were battle-hardened well equipped soldiers able to take on all comers. We quickly found out how false that was.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Let's also keep in mind that the flawed theory that an invasion in Iraq would be short and inexpensive was exactly what got us into the mess we've been in for the last decade.

Going in with an optimistic, cavalier attitude is crazy when you're looking at billions of dollars and millions of lives lost due to the fallout that it could cause.

edited 10th Nov '11 9:14:46 AM by Meeble

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

Technically it was a right assumption...

edited 10th Nov '11 9:14:35 AM by honorius

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

I think an invasion of Iran can easily go better than the invasion of Iraq (a low bar to set). The trick is not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It may be a good idea to invade Iran much like we invaded Iraq, kill the people we don't like, reck the weapons program and then just leave. Trust the Iranians to setup a better government. Three weeks tops. If we can't get out in three weeks, don't go in.

It's likely that this plan isn't worth the risk of a fucked up Iran.

Sex, Drugs, and Rationality

You can't just destabilize an entire country of almost eighty million people and then tell the citizens 'Okay, you clean up the mess.' That's irresponsible and self-centered on an absolutely astounding level. It took HALF A DECADE for Iraq's electricity and oil to return to normal levels after the invasion, and that's WITH help (from incredibly corrupt no-bid contractors, of course)! Besides, of course, the fact that America isn't in a position to go throwing money around on more wars that won't get international support.

As long as the nukes are kept tabs on so that they don't leave the country and fall into the hands of random crazies, I don't see the problem. Iran's government is evil, not stupid.

edited 10th Nov '11 9:24:38 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

The problem is Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty which them possessing nukes makes them in violation of. Secondly, nobody in the region will just stand idly by and let the Iranians have nukes. Saudi Arabia won't. Israel won't. Iraq won't. It will quickly set the entire Middle East into a nigh continuous set of cold and hot wars.

Basically, there is no possible way Iran getting a nuke is a good thing.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

As a question of fact, I don't know if this is true. I suspect it is true for some countries, and not true for others. There were a lot of countries that were very populous and destabilized at the end of the cold war with the fall of the USSR. That had some pretty promising results. I'm also pretty sure that it's occupation that's expensive not invasion.

(I'm also pretty sure that this is a bad idea. I'm putting forward a model of invasion that doesn't look like Iraq.)

edited 10th Nov '11 9:28:58 AM by Oscredwin

Sex, Drugs, and Rationality

Tom, we're not in any position to bitch at other people over not following treaties/international laws, and the Middle East is in a constant set of cold and hot wars already ANYWAYS. It will continue to be so until demand for the region's natural resources drop to insignificant levels.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

^ That's not going to happen any time soon so an escalation of the region's troubles is not a good thing.

Also which treaties are we in supposed violation of? We didn't sign many of those things like the Ottawa Treaty or the cluster munitions ban.

edited 10th Nov '11 9:35:34 AM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

@ Oscredwin

That's not the same type of destabilisation though. That's more like "Okay we're not going to oppress you any more" and granted they lost some USSR funding but that wasn't critical to their survival. USSR didn't detonate nuclear bombs in every major city of their satellite states when breaking up.

In this case, going in and "wrecking their weapons program", require devastating the entire country and defeating their military. I have no doubt that the US has the military capacity to do so. I just don't think that it's worth the cost.

• What's it going to be? A trillion dollars? Two trillion? Yeah I'm sure you got trillions just spilling out your ass for this conflict.

• How many deaths? A thousand? Ten thousand? Fifty thousand? Let's ask small town America to sacrifice all their boys again for nothing.

• How long does this delay the nuclear weapons program? Ten years? Five years? Will it even have the effect you want? I mean, you think Iran doesn't like the US at this point, which is more of a general "I think the US acts hostile toward us for no reason", and you turn it into "The US raped and murdered millions, we should kill them if it's the last thing we do".

@ Tom

Yeah great way to argue. We disagreed with the rest of the world on moral issues, therefore we're not in violation of any law. The way the UN works is that if enough countries ratified, it becomes international law, regardless of whether or not you signed the law or not.

I think it's total bs you think that's a valid argument. China didn't sign the Ottawa treaty either, so should we just be "Yeah it's okay they have landmines, they didn't sign the treaty"? Pft. And you know what, at least China stopped making landmines decades ago unlike USA.

edited 10th Nov '11 9:37:40 AM by breadloaf