What should be done about Iran?

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Ian » Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:32 am

Twiglet wrote: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.

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Twiglet » Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:34 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:
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.

User avatar
RuleBritannia
Cupid is a cunt!
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:55 pm
About me: About you
Location: The Machine
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by RuleBritannia » Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:39 am

Twiglet wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
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.
RuleBritannia © MMXI

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Twiglet » Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:45 am

Ian wrote: 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.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by FBM » Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:54 am

Twiglet wrote:
FBM wrote:
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.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Twiglet » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:00 am

RuleBritannia wrote:
Twiglet wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
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.

User avatar
Azathoth
blind idiot god
blind idiot god
Posts: 9418
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:31 pm
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Azathoth » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:07 am

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.
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Code: Select all

// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis 
   $str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by sandinista » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:35 am

Ghatanothoa wrote:
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.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Twiglet » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:47 am

sandinista wrote:
Ghatanothoa wrote:
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.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Ian » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:04 am

sandinista 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.
EDIT:
:flip:

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Twiglet » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:32 am

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.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Ian » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:00 am

Twiglet wrote: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?

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Twiglet » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:09 am

Ian wrote:
Twiglet wrote: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."

User avatar
Boyle
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:37 am
About me: I already know how this will end.
Location: Alameda, CA
Contact:

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Boyle » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:11 am

Rum wrote: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.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: What should be done about Iran?

Post by Ian » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:39 am

Boyle wrote: 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests