How to stop Iran from wanting the bomb.

[emzie]

For this thread, I'm postulating two things: that Iran wants a nuke and that the west is willing to use force to prevent that. The point of this thread is not to debate what Iran is or is not doing; nor to discuss if the west has the right and / or ability to intervene.

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

...
But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.

...

If Obama were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

Earlier this month, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a "sweet spot", where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that as a "best guess".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action

On these forums of late, I have seen a lot of discussion about when Israel and/or the US will strike Iran, or if such a strike is possible. However, it seems the discussion ends there, or continues only so far as Iran's immediate reaction (attempts to close the strait of Hormuz). What I don't see is a lot of discussion regarding how to stop Iran from just building deeper bunkers and going at it again. Short of getting Russia and China to agree to strict sanctions, or just invading the country, all a strike would do is act as a delaying tactic. The problem of Iran still wanting the bomb exists.

So let's say that Iran will get a nuclear weapon if Israel / the US don't intervene. A strike is launched and Iran's program is reset. What comes next, CFC?

 

[kramerfan86]

If they are actually interested in stopping it, really stopping it, ground invasion coupled with regime change is the only way. Airstrikes are only a delay, a delay which will likely infuriate Russia and China and insure they never do anything to help prevent Iran from doing whatever it wants. Personally, I dont think a military option is worth it. I dont buy this argument that Iran is suddenly going to act like a bunch of delusional maniacs and use a nuke just because they have one.

 

[History_Buff]

Indeed; either the West commits to full scale invasion in the name of regime change and non-proliferation (a terrible idea), or we let them develop nuclear capabilities (a so-so idea).

 

[emzie]

There's still the option of successfully convincing Iran they don't want nukes.

 

[amadeus]

The first thing we ought to do is dispel the notion that sanctions are going to do anything good. If the sanctions are actually effective, ordinary Iranians will be poorer and Iran's government will blame it on the West, hurting our image and ultimately being counter-productive. If the sanctions work as intended, global oil prices will rise and consumers worldwide will be hurt by an oil price spike. If the sanctions aren't effective, Iran's will still be able to justify developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent against potential aggression.

If you want Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons, get the U.S. out of the Mideast and disarm Israel.

 

[BasketCase]

There's still the option of successfully convincing Iran they don't want nukes.

And right now military is the only way to do that.

Allowing a bunch of religious radicals to have nukes is simply not acceptable. Period. Iran must have its regime changed, one way or another.

The first thing we ought to do is dispel the notion that sanctions are going to do anything good.

Second. I disagree with some of your reasons why, but the fact itself holds true regardless. Sanctions will hurt Iranian civilians first--and they are not the problem. The government is.

 

[bombshoo]

I know I've brought this up before, but pretty much popular opinion in Iran is that they should have nuclear weapons. Even most of the people who don't like the Shia clergy, and recognize that maybe denying the Holocaust is not the best way to make friends (aka "the opposition", whatever that means) still think nuclear weapons are a good idea.

I think there is a few reasons for this. For one, Iran, despite it's moderately close relations with Russia and China, is pretty much an independent power in its own right. It doesn't have any really close allies it can trust and it is basically surrounded by historical enemies on all sides. For another thing, Iran has been working on developing an independent nuclear energy program since the days of the Shah. The idea they should have not just nuclear weapons, but should function on nuclear power (partially so they can export more oil) is deeply ingrained in their state's ideology. Nuclear weapons are basically the natural extension of a nuclear power program for states that are not already in some other country's nuclear shield, where maintaining the weapons simply isn't worth the costs (like much of Western Europe). Their route right now really isn't that much different than India and Pakistan's route to nuclear weapons, except there is more hostility and less trust about it. Partially because of the way India and Pakistan developed their programs, though admittedly the Iranians own rhetoric (which mostly red meat for the masses) plays into this distrust as well.

So what can we do? I think it's an inevitability that we'll just have to learn to live with. We could try to make Iran feel secure somehow through other methods, such as working with the Israelis (probably the biggest nuclear threat to them) but there is still an awful lot to say about developing your own nuclear weapons program. In short, it will be desirable to the Iranians as long as a nuclear deterrent is desirable in general.

 

[amadeus]

Iran must have its regime changed, one way or another.

Playing whack-a-mullah is how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

[kramerfan86]

There's still the option of successfully convincing Iran they don't want nukes.

That isnt really an option, why would they allow their enemies to talk them out of the weapon they want to deter those enemies? The option at this point are really full war with them or let them do as they wish. Practically the second option should be the preferred one, we dont have the resources at this point to fight a country as big as Iran unless it is an utter emergency. It would cripple the deficit further and likely ruin the meager economic recovery when oil spikes. Never mind the terrorist shadow war Iran will wage in retaliation even as their regime burns.

Playing whack-a-mullah is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Indeed, and the prospects for peacefully replacing the regime are slim, the people will hate us. It will be the Iraq situation on steroids, a long grueling nation build against a people who dont want their nation built by us. And contrary to what some seem to think you have to nation build. You cant just leave a nation of 80 million people in anarchy. Would destabilize the how region when their anarchy spills over into the delicate Iraq and Afghanistan situations.

 

[emzie]

That isnt really an option, why would they allow their enemies to talk them out of the weapon they want to deter those enemies? The option at this point are really full war with them or let them do as they wish. Practically the second option should be the preferred one, we dont have the resources at this point to fight a country as big as Iran unless it is an utter emergency. It would cripple the deficit further and likely ruin the meager economic recovery when oil spikes.

Well you'd have to promise a lot of bad if they continue developing nukes, and then offer a lot of good if they change their mind. It could be done if the west wasn't seen as a threat.

 

[kramerfan86]

Well you'd have to promise a lot of bad if they continue developing nukes, and then offer a lot of good if they change their mind. It could be done if the west wasn't seen as a threat.

That doesnt even make sense, you are supposed to threaten them with a lot of bad but make them view the west as a non-threat? Those are opposing goals there.

 

[emzie]

That doesnt even make sense, you are supposed to threaten them with a lot of bad but make them view the west as a non-threat? Those are opposing goals there.

But isn't that basically what the sanctions threat is: comply and economy good, resist and economy bad?

 

[kramerfan86]

But isn't that basically what the sanctions threat is: comply and economy good, resist and economy bad?

Everyone is starting to agree at this point though that Iran doesnt really care about the sanctions, especially if China and Russia arent participating aggressively. If the sanctions were going to scare them out of their nuclear program they would have done it by now.

 

[BasketCase]

Playing whack-a-mullah is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Nope. Refusing to whack all the mullahs is.

I know I've brought this up before, but pretty much popular opinion in Iran is that they should have nuclear weapons.

How do you know that? The Iranian government tends to shoot Iranian citizens who express dissenting opinions. If an Iranian citizens tells you to your face that Iran should have nuclear weapons, it's probably because they fear they'll lose their lives (or that their family will lose THEIR lives! ) if they tell you anything else.

The Iranian government needs to be deposed, and replaced with a free state, so we can find out what the "popular opinion" in Iran actually is.

 

[kramerfan86]

Nope. Refusing to whack all the mullahs is.

Hardly, we forced a dictator on them, our dictator over their democratic choice. What a shock they arent exactly licking their chops at US coming to liberate them from oppression by the non-hand selected dictators. Where exactly do you plan on finding the trillions it would take to force controlled regime change anyways?

 

[bombshoo]

How do you know that? The Iranian government tends to shoot Iranian citizens who express dissenting opinions. If an Iranian citizens tells you to your face that Iran should have nuclear weapons, it's probably because they fear they'll lose their lives (or that their family will lose THEIR lives! ) if they tell you anything else.

The Iranian government needs to be deposed, and replaced with a free state, so we can find out what the "popular opinion" in Iran actually is.

Well, despite having seen the polls, it still makes sense they would want them. See the rest of my post. The rest of the countries around them are hardly beacons of peace, order and religious tolerance. Basically every country surrounding Iran has some problems with Iran (a lot of them having fought them in the last 100 years in at least a skirmish) and some even have history of backing a separatist/irredentist movement within Iranian borders. Add into that, look at all the American bases in the region and the fact that the Israelis have nukes. If I were anyone in Iran with an interest in maintaining the state, it would seem like a great idea to have nukes. It doesn't mean every Iranian wants to use them on all theirs neighbors, but deterrents in these sort of situations generally don't seem like a bad idea.

Just for note, I am against proliferation in general. Iran is right on the bottom of the list of countries I want to see with nuclear weapons. I just don't think, from their point of view, you can say they have no good justification for seeking them. That being considered, as long as they have justification, you probably can't stop it or turn opinion in a major way.

 

[amadeus]

How do you know that? The Iranian government tends to shoot Iranian citizens who express dissenting opinions. If an Iranian citizens tells you to your face that Iran should have nuclear weapons, it's probably because they fear they'll lose their lives (or that their family will lose THEIR lives! ) if they tell you anything else.

But Iran's official position is that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, so if the Iranian government shot people for expressing opinions contrary to that of the state, wouldn't they have to shoot the people in favor of nuclear weapons?

The Iranian government needs to be deposed, and replaced with a free state, so we can find out what the "popular opinion" in Iran actually is.

Oh, you.

 

[Maniacal]

The more Iran fears the west invading it the more they will probably want to develop nuclear weapons. An invasion by the USA and Israel would just be a massive waste of money, military resources, lives and do nothing to improve the state of the US economy or foreign relations.

The Mullahs and current regime need to go, but change will have to come from within Iran and the Muslim world. It is America's fault that they came to power in the first place anyway.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's still the option of successfully convincing Iran they don't want nukes.

Don't want or don't need? They think they need them, therefore they want them. What could they be offered as an alternative so they wouldn't think they need them?

The Iranian government needs to be deposed, and replaced with a free state, so we can find out what the "popular opinion" in Iran actually is.

That was tried already in Iraq; are you any closer to figure out what the popular opinion there is, besides "Yankee go home"?

If only the world were as neat as a Civ II game, where you could have the tech and never need to use it, or if you did, there's always Cheat Mode or Save & Reboot if you want a fresh start (not that I use Cheat Mode; if I get nuked in a Civ game, I get nuked - but I rarely allow any AI civ to get that kind of tech in the first place).

 

[kramerfan86]

Im still waiting to hear where the money for the military option is going to come from. Iraq cost us over 2 trillion according to the CBO so a bigger country like Iran will at least cost that, probably over 3 trillion at best, 4 or 5 trillion at worst. Where does that money magically come from?