What's to be done about Iran?

[Rum]

They are clearly taking the piss at the moment. The security council reps are saying they are not able to do anything more to engage with them about their nuclear programme until Iran makes a move.

What should the rest of us do? Should we wait until it is too late to stop them? (they are clearly seeking to develop a deliverable nuclear bomb), or should something happen in a pre-emptive fashion?

[Santa_Claus]

we can't beat them miltarily (not enuf Army, no money and no (public) willpower)...........wouldn't mean we couldn't start a war though. and maybe even replace the current bunch of nutters with another bunch. might even set back the nuke weapons............but Iran will get nukes sooner or later. and to be fair, if anyone else lived in there neighbourhood they would be idiots not to want nukes too.

the question is really how to ensure they have no interest in dropping nukes on us / our interests. IMO fighting / bombing 'em to delay just makes it more likely in the long term.

my answer is to normalise relations, and bind them into the world economically and accept that the west is dealing with a civiliation that has been around for several thousand years - and with genuine interests to defend in there region. the price is Nukes sooner rather than later and "legally"acquired (ideally with help from the west). the bonus is a secure Iran won't fear the West or neighbours militarily. Economically the Iranians are a smart people and will be able to hold there own / have nothig to fear from the West.

Either that or a pre-emptive nuke strike - maybe 100 warheads?- I am not bothered either way, I just think that poking a tiger with a stick won't end well............

[PsychoSerenity]

I agree with Santa! mostly...

I wouldn't want to see a pre-emptive nuke strike.

[.Morticia.]

They are clearly taking the piss at the moment. The security council reps are saying they are not able to do anything more to engage with them about their nuclear programme until Iran makes a move.

What should the rest of us do? Should we wait until it is too late to stop them?

(they are clearly seeking to develop a deliverable nuclear bomb),

Are they? Who says?


or should something happen in a pre-emptive fashion?

[Robert_S]

They are clearly taking the piss at the moment. The security council reps are saying they are not able to do anything more to engage with them about their nuclear programme until Iran makes a move.

What should the rest of us do? Should we wait until it is too late to stop them? (they are clearly seeking to develop a deliverable nuclear bomb), or should something happen in a pre-emptive fashion?

I say we keep hacking their shit until they give up.

[sandinista]

If the US, Israel, France, India etc can have nukes then Iran should be able to as well. If anything "should be done" it should be ridding all countries of nukes.

[Animavore]

Or, conversely, if every country had nukes it might actually bring peace. It would be like a Mexican stand-off.

[Svartalf]

Well, if there really is a will to do something at the proper level, let's do the only possible things at the moment

a) infiltrate black ops teams to take care of the most bothersome people and matériel

b) fund and equip locals who are ready to do the dirty work for us, and possibly stir enough unrest to get the mullahs down and turn Iran into a nation that won't chase after nuke power, or one that we'll trust with such power.

[Robert_S]

If the US, Israel, France, India etc can have nukes then Iran should be able to as well. If anything "should be done" it should be ridding all countries of nukes.

Bad logic. "If all those countries should have nukes then Iran should be able to as well" might be more accurate.

[sandinista]

If the US, Israel, France, India etc can have nukes then Iran should be able to as well. If anything "should be done" it should be ridding all countries of nukes.

Bad logic. "If all those countries should have nukes then Iran should be able to as well" might be more accurate.

Or, conversely, if every country had nukes it might actually bring peace. It would be like a Mexican stand-off.

[Ian]

I'd say normalize relations with them - as much as politically possible on the western side, and let's see how much Iran's government will want to normalize them as well. Demographically, time is on the side of the world (and by world I mean pretty much every country outside Iran, all of whom don't care for the idea of a nuclear Tehran). The younger generations are more tech-savvy and modern, more interested in normal relations with the world, have no memory of the revolution, and don't buy into the constant government-line scapegoating of the "Great Satan" as much as the older generations did. The regime in Tehran isn't universally popular within the country, and particularly so among the young. And opening the country up some more might expedite the process of reform.

But if the world can wait for Iran's demographics to change the country from within, the world has every right to worry about technology moving at a faster pace. I don't buy the "If a bunch of other countries are able to make and have their own nukes, Iran should be able as well" logic. Not for a minute. As much as I'd like to see the world nuclear-free, let's be realistic about who's got them now. I don't worry about Britain, India or the US smuggling any bombs or nuclear materials to Hezbollah. I also don't worry Russian, Chinese or French leaders ever factoring martyrdom into their strategic decisionmaking process. I worry about the future of Pakistan, but for now, their WMDs seem to be locked up and controlled well enough. But I worry about Iran. A soverign power though they are, Iran is also, in fact, an authoritarian theocracy.

Anyway, Israel worries about them a lot more, for reasons which should be obvious.

[Azathoth]

so sit back and let the Joos nuke them and they can deal with the shit afterwards then

[Twiglet]

The nuclear nations aren't living up to their part of the NPT so why should anyone else?

If Iraq had any lessons for the international community it is that if your nation sits atop a vast pool of oil wealth, it's probably a good idea to have a few nukes to hand if you want to keep a hold of your sovereignty.

[Ian]

The nuclear nations aren't living up to their part of the NPT so why should anyone else?

Examples?

If Iraq had any lessons for the international community it is that if your nation sits atop a vast pool of oil wealth, it's probably a good idea to have a few nukes to hand if you want to keep a hold of your sovereignty.

So we can expect Canada to develop a secret nuclear weapons program then?

[Twiglet]

I suggest you read the NPT, which I've linked in full here http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... irc140.pdf it's hardly contentious that the nuclear nations violate the treaty, it just isn't very widely discussed.

The major oil companies control Canadian resources, so Canada isn't under any threat. If Canada sought to turn the taps off and assert more control - it would be another matter entirely.