How to stop Iran from wanting the bomb.

[Takhisis]

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.

Only as long as Ahmadinejad and his clique remain in power.

Which could be a long time as it would seem part of the clergy is against him but he's able to hold them in check.

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

OK, when will the U.S. start its disarmament operation?

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.

Ahmadinejad and his clique of sycophant megalomaniacs wouldn't mind if a few thousands starved and the rest of the country was reduced to poverty as long as the military are safe. I blieve that the Iranian regime is following in the steps of the DPRK in becoming a military dictatorship under an ideological masquerade.

 

[Ayn Rand]

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?

Are you asking for the impossible? No self-respecting Nation will put aside its independence and security, particularly one which has just had its nuclear installations bombed by a foreign power. It may be possible to use a carrot and stick, so that there are rewards for dropping the nuclear program and punishments for keeping up with it, but they would have to be a very big carrot and a very heavy stick.

Now, we can't really offer the Iranians anything that they can't already get for themselves - so we have no carrot as such. They are naturally a strong and wealthy nation and don't need us for that...

... so that only leaves the stick. The only way we can stop them choosing the nuclear program is to threaten them or keep hitting them. But that may only convince them more and more that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves.


Ultimately, we seem to have three choices - to accept that they will get nukes, to accept a major war, or to try and overthrow their government in some way.

 

[bombshoo]

Ahmadinejad and his clique of sycophant megalomaniacs wouldn't mind if a few thousands starved and the rest of the country was reduced to poverty as long as the military are safe. I blieve that the Iranian regime is following in the steps of the DPRK in becoming a military dictatorship under an ideological masquerade.

Ahmadinejad, is all things considered, a populist. While their elections might not be the most free (I think they under-represent in certain things, rather than being entirely fake), maintaining popular support is still a necessity. The military of Iran doesn't really eat up that much of their budget (at least compared to the DPRK), so while Iran certainly has issues, I don't think it's yet a military dictatorship. I would argue the Revolutionary Guard (especially the domestic security and intel branches) and the clergy still have far more power than the actual military.

Are you asking for the impossible? No self-respecting Nation will put aside its independence and security, particularly one which has just had its nuclear installations bombed by a foreign power. It may be possible to use a carrot and stick, so that there are rewards for dropping the nuclear program and punishments for keeping up with it, but they would have to be a very big carrot and a very heavy stick.

Now, we can't really offer the Iranians anything that they can't already get for themselves - so we have no carrot as such. They are naturally a strong and wealthy nation and don't need us for that...

... so that only leaves the stick. The only way we can stop them choosing the nuclear program is to threaten them or keep hitting them. But that may only convince them more and more that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

Basically I agree with this.

 

[Thedrin]

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. It will be desirable to the Iranians as long as a nuclear deterrent is desirable in general.

This, pretty much. Especially the first paragraph.

Basketcase, if the Iranian people are so fearful of domestic laws prohibiting political speech that their publically stated opinions on the nuclear program cannot be trusted, can you provide sources that give the real, unheard opinions of Iranians on the nuclear program. I would prefer sources that are not actively looking for foreign intervention for the purposes of regime change, as I firmly believe that the Iranian people would choose a nuclear program they dislike but run themselves to any form of foreign intervention in their affairs.

I have only searched briefly on your behalf. I focused on the 2009 protests. I assumed that this was the period when Iranians would be least fearful of repercussions from the state.

Is the absence of any popular criticism of the nuclear program by the protestors or by the man they rallied behind, Mir-Hossein Mousavi*, during this period because:

a) the people remained in fear of the repercussions of speaking freely about the nuclear program despite speaking freely about other issues?
b) or the people do not care particularly strongly about the nuclear program one way or the other?
c) or is it that I didn't look thoroughly enough and you have the sources to show that it is an issue that the Iranian people are silent on?

*The BBC reported that Mousavi "called for greater personal freedoms in Iran and criticized the ban on private television channels", but "refused to back down from the country's disputed nuclear programme, saying it is "for peaceful purposes".

 

[bathsheba666]

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.

This week democracy brought to you, courtesy of Halliburton, on a no tender basis.

 

[BasketCase]

The technical name for that fallacy is the "horse laugh".

OK, when will the U.S. start its disarmament operation?

No need. Israel will be disarming Iran sometime in the next year or so.

Scary thing is, that actually wasn't a joke. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you meant, when will the U.S. start disarming its own nukes. That's irrelevant. The U.S. is okay to have nukes. Iran is not. Period. The fact that the U.S. has nukes does not entitle Iran to have them. Nothing entitles Iran to have nukes as long as its government is a dictatorship or theocracy.

Ahmadinejad and his clique of sycophant megalomaniacs wouldn't mind if a few thousands starved and the rest of the country was reduced to poverty as long as the military are safe.

Agreed there.

 

[otago]

The technical name for that fallacy is the "horse laugh".


No need. Israel will be disarming Iran sometime in the next year or so.

Scary thing is, that actually wasn't a joke. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you meant, when will the U.S. start disarming its own nukes. That's irrelevant. The U.S. is okay to have nukes. Iran is not. Period. The fact that the U.S. has nukes does not entitle Iran to have them. Nothing entitles Iran to have nukes as long as its government is a dictatorship or theocracy.


Agreed there.

Yep the Israelis would be stupid enough to kill a couple of hundred Russians in bombing a nuclear reactor, now that would be bright.
The Israelis will only get one strike which will not get rid of that processed fuel.
And invasion by Israel, how ?
So when the Iranians make a mess of the Saudi oil facilities and oil reaches $400 a barrel the US public would be happy to pay those prices ?

 

[Leoreth]

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

Nah, it started with Whack-a-Mossadegh, but in principle you're right.

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

Right, show them our weapons so they think they won't need theirs

 

[Batey]

Pretty harsh argument, but alot of academics seem to think that the security dilemma was the factor that broke the Soviet Union. If Persia gets the bomb, it seems implicit that the US and Israeli elites think they are gonna use it?

 

[Batey]

Nah, it started with Whack-a-Mossadegh, but in principle you're right./QUOTE]

Ahh nice one, i dont even remember how many times i have wished more people would read history(Look at Venezuela these days, nationalizing the oil always has consequences). Another sarcastic argument is the genius of British stiffed upper lip-gents drawing maps. Great long-term thinking, but in reality of course something thats hard in real-life foreign policy.

 

[Shaihulud]

Iran have insisted that they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons, do we have evidence to the contrary?

 

[aronnax]

I say we stop all sanctions, stop selling Israel weapons and tell her to keep quiet, withdraw from a couple more regional basis and just leave Iran the heck alone.
Maybe, just maybe, they'll stop thinking USA and Israel is trying to invade them. If Iran wants the bomb, we can't really stop her. What America can do is try to establish friendlier relations before the building materials of the bridge is burnt and get China and Russia to pressure Iran to remain calm and carry on.

 

[LordRahl]

Well, we could always nuke Israel ourselves - and save Iran the trouble. We could also hand our our briefcase nukes to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian proxies, so they can detonate them in Manhattan, Washington DC and LA. There you go - no more need for Iran to get nukes.

 

[amadeus]

Nah, it started with Whack-a-Mossadegh, but in principle you're right.

But mullah sounded closest to mole.

 

[Ramius75]

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

this and also Pakistan, which means India too...

 

[emzie]

Well, we could always nuke Israel ourselves - and save Iran the trouble. We could also hand our our briefcase nukes to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian proxies, so they can detonate them in Manhattan, Washington DC and LA. There you go - no more need for Iran to get nukes.

That doesn't really answer the question I asked. That is a (rather bad) argument in favour of keeping Iran from getting a bomb. Okay, we started the thread with that being the goal. How do you suggest this happens, or are you just here to make flippant remarks, and then retreat when challenged?

Or did I misunderstand and you really think nuking Israel is the solution?

 

[CaptainF]

Scary thing is, that actually wasn't a joke. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you meant, when will the U.S. start disarming its own nukes. That's irrelevant. The U.S. is okay to have nukes. Iran is not. Period. The fact that the U.S. has nukes does not entitle Iran to have them. Nothing entitles Iran to have nukes as long as its government is a dictatorship or theocracy.

Hypocrisy. Double-think.

 

[BasketCase]

Not at all. Iran has a significant religious faction in partial control of the government. And religious fanatics are the LAST people on this planet that you want having nuclear weapons!! Because they're some of the very few people on this planet that might actually use them, for no reason other than to destroy heretics.

Iran has religious nutcases in positions of power. The United States does not. Therefore it's okay for the U.S. (and England and France and Germany and Japan and all those others in the Free World) to have nukes, but not okay for Iran to have nukes.

Yep the Israelis would be stupid enough to kill a couple of hundred Russians in bombing a nuclear reactor

They've done it before, haven't they? And gotten away with it.....

 

[bhsup]

Actually, it's okay because of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which says we can have them and Iran can't.

 

[BasketCase]

If Iran becomes a Democracy (fat chance), then I'd be fine with Iran having nukes.