What should be done about Iran?

[Ian]

Iran is just learning from Iraq. If you are sat on a large pool of oil, and don't want to be invaded, then you better set about developing a deterrent.

We've seen very clearly what happens to countries which have something America wants to steal which lack WMDs, after all. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose no strategic threat to anywhere because the retaliation for using a nuclear strike would be to wipe it off the face of the planet. If it developed nuclear weapons, it would, however, possess a significant deterrent against invasion, because it would have the capability to wipe out warships or military bases.

As others have mentioned, nobody has the moral authority to say Iran shouldn't develop weapons. Israel is estimated to have around 1-200 warheads and is in complete violation of the NPT.

I don't think anyone who's in touch with the issue is saying that the Iranian government having nukes is the worst thing that could happen. Much worse than that is that Iran could have nuclear materials and technology that itself is not secure. Pakistan is already a nightmare (A.Q. Khan, political instability, the ISI, etc.), but Iran would likely be even more of a problem.

I'm sure Tehran wants a deterrent, and who can blame them. But they are in fact an Islamic theocracy. They have strong links to terrorist organizations, most notably Hezbollah. Proliferation is a legitimate concern.

People can spout out all the semantic stuff they like ("The west is being hypocritical, Iran has every right, etc..."), but if push ever comes to shove and Iranian nuclear targets are struck, rest assured that leaders around the world will first call the US, Israel, Britain and whomever else imperialist warmongers, and then they'll quietly have a drink to their relief.

[Twiglet]

Well, if Iran signs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear country, which they did, I would think that a general respect for international law would allow one to suggest to Iran that they kindly abide by it.

Like India and Pakistan you mean?

The same India which the US & Russia are now falling over themselves to supply with technology and nuclear material. The NPT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[RuleBritannia]

Well, if Iran signs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear country, which they did, I would think that a general respect for international law would allow one to suggest to Iran that they kindly abide by it.

Like India and Pakistan you mean?

The same India which the US & Russia are now falling over themselves to supply with technology and nuclear material. The NPT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Actually India and Pakistan haven't signed it, along with Israel they're the only non-signatories. North Korea were signatories but withdrew in 2003.

But you're right the whole treaty is worthless, as there's no way to enforce it.

[Twiglet]

I don't think anyone who's in touch with the issue is saying that the Iranian government having nukes is the worst thing that could happen. Much worse than that is that Iran could have nuclear materials and technology that itself is not secure. Pakistan is already a nightmare (A.Q. Khan, political instability, the ISI, etc.), but Iran would likely be even more of a problem.

I'm sure Tehran wants a deterrent, and who can blame them. But they are in fact an Islamic theocracy. They have strong links to terrorist organizations, most notably Hezbollah. Proliferation is a legitimate concern.

People can spout out all the semantic stuff they like ("The west is being hypocritical, Iran has every right, etc..."), but if push ever comes to shove and Iranian nuclear targets are struck, rest assured that leaders around the world will first call the US, Israel, Britain and whomever else imperialist warmongers, and then they'll quietly have a drink to their relief.

I don't imagine many people are all that keen to see Iran develop nuclear weapons, however my point is that it might be easier to convince nations not to develop weapons by not invading their neighbours under false pretexts. Team America World Police may be fixated on Iran, but plenty of other nations probably have programs too.

We might stop to consider how the current regime in Iran came about too, after US backed Shahs regime got toppled, and the ensuing Iran/Iraq war which was basically a cold war theatre, during which "terrorist groups" like Hezbollah were being funded and armed by the US and encouraged in their fundamentalism to form a bulwark against communism. Politics doesn't happen in a vacuum, and no matter how theocratic a nation might be, most people just want to bring up their kids in relative peace and security.

[FBM]

Well, if Iran signs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear country, which they did, I would think that a general respect for international law would allow one to suggest to Iran that they kindly abide by it.

Like India and Pakistan you mean?

The same India which the US & Russia are now falling over themselves to supply with technology and nuclear material. The NPT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

MOD NOTE:

Sorry, I goofed the quotes. That was Coito's statement, not mine. Fixed in my original post now. The mistake is seen above. I took the liberty of correcting the citation in the subsequent posts that quoted it.

END MOD NOTE.

[Twiglet]

Well, if Iran signs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear country, which they did, I would think that a general respect for international law would allow one to suggest to Iran that they kindly abide by it.

Like India and Pakistan you mean?

The same India which the US & Russia are now falling over themselves to supply with technology and nuclear material. The NPT isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Actually India and Pakistan haven't signed it, along with Israel they're the only non-signatories. North Korea were signatories but withdrew in 2003.

But you're right the whole treaty is worthless, as there's no way to enforce it.

You're right, but that's even worse then really, isn't it? The whole idea of the NPT was to discourage development of arms in exchange for offering civillian development for power. Supplying India and Pakistan technology and material sends the message to signatories that you are better off to withdraw from the treaty altogether. Why be encumbered by it.

By the way, the NPT agreement, to which Australia is a signatory, demands that member states not supply nuclear material to non-signatories, which is why Australia won't give India uranium, but that hasn't stopped the US and Russia trying to win contracts.

[Azathoth]

Mullen said that his "worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability" is that other states in the region will seek nuclear arms of their own.

It always strikes me as odd that nobody ever complains about the Israeli fundie nutbags having nukes. I think they are the most likely candidate for using the things too.

[sandinista]

Mullen said that his "worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability" is that other states in the region will seek nuclear arms of their own.

It always strikes me as odd that nobody ever complains about the Israeli fundie nutbags having nukes. I think they are the most likely candidate for using the things too.

Not too odd, they are white. It's the dark skinned terrorists who are the threat, not the white ones.

Ian wrote:

People can spout out all the semantic stuff they like ("The west is being hypocritical, Iran has every right, etc..."), but if push ever comes to shove and Iranian nuclear targets are struck, rest assured that leaders around the world will first call the US, Israel, Britain and whomever else imperialist warmongers, and then they'll quietly have a drink to their relief.

It's not "semantic stuff" its facts.

[Twiglet]

Mullen said that his "worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability" is that other states in the region will seek nuclear arms of their own.

It always strikes me as odd that nobody ever complains about the Israeli fundie nutbags having nukes. I think they are the most likely candidate for using the things too.

Not too odd, they are white. It's the dark skinned terrorists who are the threat, not the white ones.

Ian wrote:

People can spout out all the semantic stuff they like ("The west is being hypocritical, Iran has every right, etc..."), but if push ever comes to shove and Iranian nuclear targets are struck, rest assured that leaders around the world will first call the US, Israel, Britain and whomever else imperialist warmongers, and then they'll quietly have a drink to their relief.

It's not "semantic stuff" its facts.

It's also worth pointing out that the current protection racket relies on the idea that the nuclear powers "protect" everyone else from nuclear threats. Rather than come running to Imperialist powers, the likely result is just much wider proliferation. What's to stop every European country for developing weapons, or Australia, or Japan? All possess the technical know-how.

Obama pretty much directly threatened Iran with nuclear strike when he stated that the US was changing its nuclear policy **excluding** Iran and Korea. Iran doesn't have a weapon at this point in time, so in effect, Obama insinuated that it's perfectly OK for the US to initiate a nuclear strike against conventionally armed Iran.

[Ian]

People can spout out all the semantic stuff they like ("The west is being hypocritical, Iran has every right, etc..."), but if push ever comes to shove and Iranian nuclear targets are struck, rest assured that leaders around the world will first call the US, Israel, Britain and whomever else imperialist warmongers, and then they'll quietly have a drink to their relief.

It's not "semantic stuff" its facts.

EDIT:

[Twiglet]

Extracted from a very involved and interesting article here: http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100323.htm

""The evil scourge of terrorism": Reality, construction, remedy"

If we seriously want to end the plague of terrorism, we know how to do it. First, end our own role as perpetrators. That alone will have a substantial effect. Second, attend to the grievances that are typically in the background, and if they are legitimate, do something about them. Third, if an act of terror occurs, deal with it as a criminal act: identify and apprehend the suspects and carry out an honest judicial process. That actually works. In contrast, the techniques that are employed enhance the threat of terror. The evidence is fairly strong, and falls together which much else.

[Ian]

Extracted from a very involved and interesting article here: http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100323.htm

""The evil scourge of terrorism": Reality, construction, remedy"

If we seriously want to end the plague of terrorism, we know how to do it. First, end our own role as perpetrators. That alone will have a substantial effect. Second, attend to the grievances that are typically in the background, and if they are legitimate, do something about them. Third, if an act of terror occurs, deal with it as a criminal act: identify and apprehend the suspects and carry out an honest judicial process. That actually works. In contrast, the techniques that are employed enhance the threat of terror. The evidence is fairly strong, and falls together which much else.

I like all the rest, but what if the grievances are not legitimate? In other words, Islam?

[Twiglet]

Extracted from a very involved and interesting article here: http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20100323.htm

""The evil scourge of terrorism": Reality, construction, remedy"

If we seriously want to end the plague of terrorism, we know how to do it. First, end our own role as perpetrators. That alone will have a substantial effect. Second, attend to the grievances that are typically in the background, and if they are legitimate, do something about them. Third, if an act of terror occurs, deal with it as a criminal act: identify and apprehend the suspects and carry out an honest judicial process. That actually works. In contrast, the techniques that are employed enhance the threat of terror. The evidence is fairly strong, and falls together which much else.

I like all the rest, but what if the grievances are not legitimate? In other words, Islam?

It's an interesting question. I don't see religion as being the primary reason for such sour relations between Iran and the US, as evidenced by the pretty decent relations the US has enjoyed, at times, with other Islamic nations. Sabre rattlers provide fuel for each other, and in conflict, the hawks on both sides provide fuel for each other. Something which chomsky focuses on in the same article:

"One constructive step would have been to isolate al-Qaeda, and unify opposition to it even among those attracted to its project. Nothing of the sort ever seems to have been considered. Instead, the Bush administration and its allies chose to unify the jihadi movement in support of Bin Laden and to mobilize many others to his cause by confirming his charge that the West is at war with Islam: invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, resorting to torture and rendition, and in general, choosing violence for the purposes of state power. With good reason, the hawkish Michael Scheuer, who was in charge of tracking bin Laden for the CIA for many years, concludes that "the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."

[Boyle]

The thing about this situation is the possibility of there, in the end, there being no winning scenario. Attacking them could just spark a new Middle East war with Israel involved and god knows who else. The outcome of all that would be so unpredictable and potentially very messy indeed. Israel would use their nukes if backed into a corner I am sure.

If Iran don't give up their plans however and the rest of the world don't do something about it, they will be armed with it, as sworn enemies of Israel, dedicated to its destruction. Iran and Israel nose to nose with nukes? Sheesh.

Something therefore has to give.

I am tempted to think that one way 'out' is a change of regime in Iran, but that is grasping at straws. We know that from the Iraq experience.

Hold on tight folks.

Iran will never nuke Israel without provocation. They know exactly how that situation would play out, and no crater has been a successful country. The only reason they want them is to deter the US or Israel from launching attacks against them. In that sense, it makes plenty of sense. I don't give a shit what Ahmadinejad says about destroying Israel; he doesn't control the nation, the Sheik does, and he isn't stupid.

I look at this like the Pakistan/India conflicts. Both countries managed to get nuclear weapons, yet they never used them against each other. It was scary sure, but if any country should be eyed warily about using nukes it's the US. We're the only ones with the track record, and we're also the ones that stood our ground during the Cuba Missile Crisis. I am very glad that the Russians blinked, because we sure as hell weren't going to.

Also, the new START Treaty and Nuclear Posture Report outlines how we aim to end up with a nuke-less world, and it is through incremental decreases to our arsenal so we can have some moral high ground to stand on when telling other countries to knock it off. In addition, we are developing methods to produce nukes quickly, should the need arise, rather than have thousands on hand.

On topic, again, if the US left the area and reined Israel in we'd have a hell of a bargaining chip to slam on the table. Iran wants nukes for defense, if they have no serious threats, they don't need nukes. International sanctions aren't working because they are desperate for some sort of respect, be it out of fear or admiration, and nuclear weapons will give them that.

As for the NPT, the deal is this: If you signed and don't have nukes, GREAT! We won't use nuclear weapons in a first strike against you! If, however, you have nukes or haven't signed the treaty, tough shit, bro, cause our babies will be let loose should you really piss us off. That means Israel, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, PRK, and others are open to nuclear warfare.

[Ian]

Iran will never nuke Israel without provocation. They know exactly how that situation would play out, and no crater has been a successful country. The only reason they want them is to deter the US or Israel from launching attacks against them. In that sense, it makes plenty of sense. I don't give a shit what Ahmadinejad says about destroying Israel; he doesn't control the nation, the Sheik does, and he isn't stupid.

I look at this like the Pakistan/India conflicts. Both countries managed to get nuclear weapons, yet they never used them against each other.

They've had them a whole 12 years now. I wouldn't put the subcontinent's strategic situation on the same level as the MAD which kept the US and USSR from striking each other during the whole Cold War.

It was scary sure, but if any country should be eyed warily about using nukes it's the US. We're the only ones with the track record, and we're also the ones that stood our ground during the Cuba Missile Crisis. I am very glad that the Russians blinked, because we sure as hell weren't going to.

A bad situation yes, but here's some information most people seem to not know about: in 1962, the Soviets' strategic arsenal was utterly dwarfed by the US arsenal. The USSR had at most a couple dozen warheads capable of reaching the US (not counting what they were building in Cuba, which was a pretty strong incentive for Khruschev to send them down there in the first place), whereas the US already had a couple thousand warheads deliverable to within the USSR's borders. The Soviets were well aware of this disadvantage, as were the Americans by 1961 after the CORONA missions began.

Also, the new START Treaty and Nuclear Posture Report outlines how we aim to end up with a nuke-less world, and it is through incremental decreases to our arsenal so we can have some moral high ground to stand on when telling other countries to knock it off. In addition, we are developing methods to produce nukes quickly, should the need arise, rather than have thousands on hand.

On topic, again, if the US left the area and reined Israel in we'd have a hell of a bargaining chip to slam on the table. Iran wants nukes for defense, if they have no serious threats, they don't need nukes. International sanctions aren't working because they are desperate for some sort of respect, be it out of fear or admiration, and nuclear weapons will give them that.

They do indeed.
Thing is, I don't know if the US can rein Israel in. They do not consider themselves to be a US puppet state, take my word for it.

As for the NPT, the deal is this: If you signed and don't have nukes, GREAT! We won't use nuclear weapons in a first strike against you! If, however, you have nukes or haven't signed the treaty, tough shit, bro, cause our babies will be let loose should you really piss us off. That means Israel, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, PRK, and others are open to nuclear warfare.