Would You Let Iran Acquire Nuclear Weapons? I wouldn't. We have many cards in our deck; we have cards of varying sizes; we have cards like our own nuclear weapons which we KNOW will prevent them from acquiring nukes. I'd be clear that I was going to start playing cards until one worked, starting with sanctions. As our first move we should stop/seriously curtail the flow of certain products to and from Iran through a naval blockade (no oil tankers in or out, no cargo ships in or out, pipeline to Turkey shut, but blow off air blockade and truck routes to neighbors), and we make clear that any country which doesn't support us has a trade problem as well. I wouldn't try to convince the UN to support this. We've already tried and it won't happen. This should work from what I've read but if it doesn't ... The second move is selected military. The objectives would not be the Iranian facility or the military targets. The objectives would be economic targets and targets which are designed to humiliate and apply political pressure. The reason they want to acquire the nuclear weapons is to enhance their political muscle. We'd go directly at that. We'd also attack some economic targets of entities that thwarted the sanctions. Sinking an empty oil tanker or two of a company that traded with Iran, or whacking a refinery in a country like Turkey or even France which didn't get the message on sanctions would scream that we were serious as a heart attack. Somewehere along the way they'd figure out that nuclear weapons were not going to happen. I wouldn't find myself twenty years from now with a nuclear explosion in NYC that came from a terrorist who acquired his nuke from Iran.
Your post is pure saber rattling. This conversation has been going on now for years. Its a horse thats not only been beaten to death, but has been put through the wood chipper not once, but about a dozen times, and then thrown into a blast furnace. Then, the actual molecules have been split multiple times. Im waiting for a black hole to spontaneously appear and consume the earth. Thanks, Tahoehorn. To your points, What would be the purpose of the blockade? To block EVERYTHING from coming into the country, or only those items that can be used for nuclear purposes? If only nuclear materials, then lets talk about that and the legal ability of the US to enact such a blockade. At what point do you say the NPT no longer applies to Iran, their signature is null and void, and they have no inherent right to ANY nuclear technology of any kind? And under what Internationally recognized law would you propose this? You state that the US should just do what it wants in spite of the UN. Well, weve done this before, so that wouldnt be anything new. Do you believe the US should withdraw from the UN? Certainly you dont believe in selective participation. You think the US should intimidate any country that wishes to do business with Iran. At what point does that constitute declaring war on all said countries? Youd actually bomd a refinery in France? Really? Surely you jest! Under what basis can the US just decide to intimidate every country that it feels like? Pakistan has nukes. We certainly have relations with them, and we certainly dont seem all that worried about them having nukes. NK has nukes and they are so much more worrisome than Iran its not even funny. You dont think that NK might give away some nukes to terrorists? We sure never hear that worry from anyone around here. Ooh, they sank a Korean warship. Our response? Some wargames in the ocean nearby. Clap. Clap. Clap. Very impressive...... You would support bombing and attacking economic targets and those that would humiliate? What would those be? Targets that would cripple the millions of innocent civilians who live in Iran? You realize that the economic sanctions that we placed on Iraq following the Gulf War in 91, sanctions which held for pretty much the duration before we attacked Iraq AGAIN, did nothing to hurt Saddam, but rather, hurt millions of innocent people. Hundreds of thousands of people, or more, or less depending on who you ask, died because of these sanctions, and they didnt do anything to diminish the power of Saddam or to foment any kind of rebellion. We only caused a lot of pain and suffering for innocent people. At this point in time, Iran has attempted to make arrangements to exchange fuel with other countries, and at this point there is no direct evidence of a nuclear weapons program. The continued saber rattling about nukes just has no bite anymore. Pakistan, India, NK, Israel, Russia and God knows who else possess nuclear weapons, and we are STILL the only country to ever use them on a population. Nuclear energy is a real thing, not imaginary, and it has uses. There are much more important things in the world than trying to keep Iran from developing nuclear energy capability. Why dont we trade with them? Why dont we fix our own economy and get our affairs in order? Why dont we take care of ourselves and stop funding/supporting all the other dictators and thugs in the ME that have been for years? You are way too smart to make such an open ended post. If not to bait people like me, there cant be any logical reason for it.
Nuclear weapons will be used in warfare, as will chemical and biological weapons. People like to kill other people and take their things. Nuclear weapons can be effective to that end, and therefore they will be used in its service. So the debate is not whether we can prevent this, but for how long we can delay it. As far as delaying it, I think that your strategy has merit. However, the principle mechanism for delaying any form of research is cutting its funding. In this case, all of the funding comes from our desperate need for their oil. Much of the mischief that comes from the Middle East is basically analagous to a Paris Hilton getting excited about an insane cause: material resources all out of proportion with the restraint required to obtain or maintain them. Drilling and improved extraction (>15% of predicted would be a good start) of domestic offshore resources will give us a decade or so, but it's only breathing room. Renewable fuels are the way of the future, and ending the subsidies that make buying oil from the criminally insane is absolutely necessary (not that Obama could even name one).
I have though about this a lot and there just doesnt seem to be a very good answer. Sanctions, historically, dont work and only seem to harm the everyday citizens. While I do not trust Iran one single bit, I suppose they have the right to nuclear energy. If they are breaking the agreements on this then maybe something should be done. Somehow Iran must be made aware that if there is ever a nuclear weapon that is detonated anywhere in the world and it is traced back to them, then that is the same as declaring war on the world. All of their leaders would be fair game for whatever harm can be inflicted on them. It is a bad thing no matter what.
They have a certifiable nut running their country we cannot let them have nuclear weapons. If we have to bomb them then so be it.
I think that they will get the nuke eventually. I think the best deterrent is to maintain our own weapons at adequate levels and diplomacy/fair dealing. Oil is highly corrupting, so fair dealing is a term d'art that has many problematic folds. Still, the more military threats are used against them the harder they will try to gain the nuke. I highly doubt that the Iranians will try to use or disseminate nuke tech. That defeats the purpose of having the nuke, which is to give them strength, rather than forcing more powerful nations to decimate them. Getting the nuke is shrewd, using it is asinine. I know the popular conception of the Iranian leadership is one of insanity, but I don't think reality plays that out at all.
Tahoe is a fear monger. Hes more worried about Iran than NK, whose already sunk an allies ship AND already has nukes. Im more worried about China than NK, and more worried about NK than Iran. Of course, Im half Iranian, so Iran isnt nearly the boogey man that some people here think it is. Bronco, thank you for at least trying to talk rationally. IF Iran breaks rules of the NPT, then action should be taken accordingly, according to the rules of the NPT, not the wishes of the US or Israel and the arm twisting that these countries try to put on everyone else. Iran using a nuke would be declaring war... They know this. The US slapping sanctions on anyone they choose because they are "afraid" that someone may in the future do something is also a declaration of war. When you forcefully keep a country from importing food, medical supplies, fuel and other important goods necessary for infrastructure and the well being of the nation as a whole, THAT is a declaration of war..... To say that US can attack who it wants, put embargos on who it wants, anytime it wants, for any reason it wants or for any suspicion that it wants.... THAT is international terrorism.
If you can point me to any recent similar threads about North Korea that you have started, Ill gladly take that back. For the record, are you more concerned with NK or are you more concerned with Iran?
The threats to us are: 1. China - it's out twenty to forty years and it's economic but it is super serious 2. North Korea - they are nutty and have internal problems 3. Iran - their internal problems are far less serious than N Korea's but there are nuts not in power who could get their hands on weapons; it's not the government I fear but their Hizbollah type proxies 4. Pakistan & Pakistan/India - Again, non-governmental forces who may get their hands on weapons are a concern; the Kashmir/Punjab dispute is also underrated as a problem After that it drops way off. Russia, Yemen and so on are much less troublesome. Now, "for the record", how did you conclude that Iran was my biggest concern?
Thank you Tahoe. I take your last post way more seriously than the original post.... and you lay out your concerns clearly and succinctly. For your record, like I said in my previous post, if you can direct me to other posts youve made about these other countries, Ill gladly take it back. Over the years youve made plenty of posts that I can recall that deal with Iran. Once again, this post gives me what I need to know concerning your true opinions. Thank you.
Iran has nuclear weapons, but not the technology to merge their warhead with the delivery system. This is what I have been told by people who say they are in the know... They could be right or could be jumping the gun. Either way, it is true that the best we can do is delay them getting nukes. Nuclear energy serves a VERY legit purpose. The President of Iran is a figure head who has no real power and doesn't run the country. The problem with Iran is NOT that there is a 'nut' running the country, but rather that there are calm, cool, radicals, who thinks very rationally about how to carry out their plans. That is much more scary to me than a nut. We have been screwing up with regards to Iran for at least 100 years. Even more severly by taking out their democratically elected leader. Even more by replacing him with a sovereign that they didn't want who was weak, and then made weaker by the lies of Pres. Carter, who effectively engineered the Islamic Revolution in Iran through his arrogance. I really don't know why Carter hasn't been brought to trial for his role in the Islamic Revolution and the bringing to power of the current regime in Iran. Carter walks around a free man who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The iranian prez denies there was a holocost, claims we used nuclear weapons in Iraq but he is not a nut. Their are to many crazy statements by him to list. Hpslugga you proved you don't know what your talking about with that stupid retort.
mojo, I am pretty sure HP was referring to the fact that the president of Iran has little to no power in the governmental structure of Iran. It is NOT he who runs the country. I don't think HP was saying he isn't a nut... he was saying he isn't running the country.
Yo, Naw.. none of those folks really.. Just Carter... If you think I am crazy for saying so I encourage you to look more into the history of his presidency and role in the political life of Iran.
Personal soapbox? No, just taking away the layer of BS hyperbole in this thread. Iran is a threat to use nukes more than any other country? What is that statement based on? You better not try and dish up some poorly mistranslated statements either.
THEU, if your friends are so certain that Iran actually has nuclear weapons, perhaps they can direct their knowledge to the IAEA. If you are going to blame Carter, then there is a whole list of other presidents that should stand trial for treason as well. They are all a bunch of crooks.
TexasGrad, One friend in particular worked in the Clinton WH and directed his knowledge directly to HRC's cell phone. Does that work? The Sec. of State is someone who needs to know even more than the IAEA IMHO. Also, I didn't say Carter should stand trial for treason. I believe he did NOT intentionally act against the interests of the US, but rather acted with willful negligence. And yes, I guess they are all crooks. I just really don't like Carter, and 1000% own that he sticks in my craw more than anyother president of the last 60 years.
I tend to agree that the Ayatollah controls things but Mahm doesn't say things in the international community that the Ayatollah doesnt approve. There is a huge difference between someone like Palin making comments about domestic policy and Iran's position on many things in the international community. If Palin were making statements that led to Israel contemplating bombing us, I think she might be handled a little differently. Iran is going to have some big, big social problems in the coming years. Unemployment is very high, especially outside of Tehran. Technology is too broad and cheap for them to effectively censor it and their people will understand. I don't see what advantage it gives the Ayatollah to foster an "us against the world" attitude when it is so clearly going to be exposed. Perhaps they really arent that smart. If those guys really are smart, they know this. Their people can read the same comments their President makes. I just don't think the rulers of Iran have ANY regard for the good of their citizens. I think they are drunk with their power and will do whatever they want to keep it.
HP and Texgrad, I agree with a lot of what you two are saying, but it is not as easy or clear as you seem to make it out to be.
