How to stop Iran from wanting the bomb.

[Takhisis]

Or the UK which is a monarchy and where one of the two Chambers of parliament is composed of aristocrats and the clergy of the state religion.

 

[Cutlass]

Technically, Iran is a representative democracy. The 'supreme leader' of Iran is elected by an 'assembly of experts' (basically learned clerics) who are themselves elected directly by the public to eight year terms. The assembly can also, in theory, dismiss the supreme leader.

The president of the republic (Ahmadinejad) is elected by the people to a four year term in national elections.

It's certainly a more democratic system than, say, China.

But Ahmadinejad is a puppet. He has no more authority than a dog catcher. He can't even make a decision about what shoes to wear without his bosses approval. The people who actually make decisions are not elected by anyone but themselves.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Regarding the OP, it seems pretty simple to me. Just leave them alone for a welcome change. If they don't feel so incessantly threatened, they likely won't feel any need to defend themselves.

 

[asbestos]

But Ahmadinejad is a puppet. He has no more authority than a dog catcher. He can't even make a decision about what shoes to wear without his bosses approval. The people who actually make decisions are not elected by anyone but themselves.

But his boss - the supreme leader - is elected by the assembly of experts, which in turn is elected by the people.

The assembly of experts resembles the electoral college, which elects the president.

The 'supreme leader' position resembles the American supreme court in that it is appointed and expected to uphold a document. Whether that document is the Koran or the American Constitution...

 

[Takhisis]

Both depend on 'In God we trust'. Riiight?

 

[emzie]

Yes, Zelig, I'm aware you posted a hypothetical.

Since it's an impossible hypothetical, I don't see any need to answer it. It's practically impossible for religious radicals to work within a democratic system; that requires them to tolerate heretics, something they can't abide. Democracy and theocracy are inherently incompatible.

Won't. Happen.

Could you explain what you mean by religious radicals not tolerating minorities and why that applies to Iran?

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, Zelig, I'm aware you posted a hypothetical.

Since it's an impossible hypothetical, I don't see any need to answer it. It's practically impossible for religious radicals to work within a democratic system; that requires them to tolerate heretics, something they can't abide. Democracy and theocracy are inherently incompatible.

Won't. Happen.

Could you explain what you mean by religious radicals not tolerating minorities and why that does not apply to the US?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Regarding the OP, it seems pretty simple to me. Just leave them alone for a welcome change. If they don't feel so incessantly threatened, they likely won't feel any need to defend themselves.

You can't "leave Iran alone" without leaving the Middle East alone. And you won't want to do that because it is a vital region for our economies (you know, oil). The 5 largest sources of oil in the world are there after all (Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran). A very naive proposal, to say the least.

In general, all the discussion about Iran seems to have fallen victim to the distracting media narratives about Iran being a nuclear threat, while it actually is so much more complex, but also so much more simple in a way. It's classic geo-politics. The real danger of Iran having atomic weaponry isn't a surprise strike against Israel or whatnot (to be blunt: what a stupid scare-mongering bullcrap), it is about the fact that it will be way harder to bully Iran around. And this is not something the USA or the West in general seems to be willing to accept, because Iran is a potent rival over influence in the Middle East. Look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq, look at Syria or the Lebanon. Everywhere the Iran tries to establish itself (or already did) as an important influence.
But ever since the importance of oil, the West did its best to keep th Middle East divided and weak, a willing vassel of American/Western interests without power centers. This started with the fight against Pan-Arabism and following the fracturing of the Arabian world, it continued with the fall of Iraq since the Iran-Iraq-war and is now focused on Iran. Simple as that. And that's also why Russia and China support the Iran, to have their own share of influence in this vital region.

And all those "Democracy-bringers" and "patriots" can't see this obvious truth in their ignorance but prefer to chase righteous myths designed to legitimize practical Geo-politics which has absolutely nothing to do with righteousness. And as that isn't bad enough, the other side is getting pulled into this propaganda mass as well, just opposing it, but still loosing sight of the real deal.

So how to stop Iran from wanting the bomb? Compromise. Allow it a curtain sphere of influence - under certain conditions - , while stopping to try to weaken and instead supporting the regime. Not very pretty, I know. Welcome to Geo-politics.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can't "leave Iran alone" without leaving the Middle East alone. And you won't want to do that because it is a vital region for our economies (you know, oil). The 5 largest sources of oil in the world are there after all (Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran). A very naive proposal, to say the least.

I'd say the "naive proposal" is one of imperialism and hegemony which inevitably leads to terrorism.

So how to stop Iran from wanting the bomb? Compromise. Allow it a curtain sphere of influence - under certain conditions - , while stopping to try to weaken and instead supporting the regime. Not very pretty, I know. Welcome to Geo-politics.

At least we agree on that, which is essentially what I just stated.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd say the "naive proposal" is one of imperialism and hegemony which inevitably leads to terrorism.

What in your opinion is exactly naive about that? But it's cute how you insinuate the prevention of terrorism as the ultimate goal of foreign policy (or should I say, naive? ).

At least we agree on that, which is essentially what I just stated.

Leaving someone alone is essentially working together?

 

[BasketCase]

Technically, Iran is a representative democracy.

Nope. It's called a representative democracy. In practice it's actually no better than China.

No one thinks air strikes are setting it back ten years, I believe all the articles I have read suggested you are only getting a couple of years at best and is a one time shot because

Wrong. It takes a lot less time and resources to replace lost planes (or, more likely, unmanned drones) than to rebuild an underground nuclear research site.

Duckspeak, Orwell called that. You remain the only state to have used nukes in warfare, you attacked civilian populations, and you wonder why others want nukes.

Nope. Duckspeak is the ability to speak the politically-correct opinion without thinking. I am physically incapable of either speaking or typing a post without thinking. My brain engages automatically; I can't help it. But, enough about me.

Anyway, the answer is no. As I already explained, the nuclear deterrent has not worked against the U.S. on at least two occasions. Pakistan has nukes, yet our military goes strolling right through theirs, any time we want, and there's nothing they can do about it. The historical precedent is that nuclear capability doesn't deter the United States. So it's obvious that nations desiring nukes either want nukes for some other reason, or are being run by complete idiots. Frequently both.

The United states doesn't? Last I checked, the Tea Party had bagged a lot of seats in both Houses of Congress.

The Tea Party is not a group of religious nutcases. The only people in the U.S. who qualify as religious nutcases are ultra-radical racist skinheads who live on the fringe of society and have absolutely no chance of ever having any political influence.

And Karzai in US-occupied Afghanistan (next door to Iran btw) wins his elections how…? Ah, yes, by stuffing ballot boxes. About as democratic as Hamas, eh?

Big improvement over the way the Taliban ran things.

Regarding the OP, it seems pretty simple to me. Just leave them alone for a welcome change. If they don't feel so incessantly threatened, they likely won't feel any need to defend themselves.

Not possible. Iran has a very rocky history, and by that I don't mean a very rocky history with the United States. Iran started making historical enemies long before the U.S. even existed. Take the U.S. out of the equation, and Iran will still have lots of enemies.

Could you explain what you mean by religious radicals not tolerating minorities and why that applies to Iran?

Could you explain what you mean by religious radicals not tolerating minorities and why that does not apply to the US?

Both of you misinterpreted me; I didn't say "minorities", I said "heretics". That's a very important difference. Religious radicals have a problem with people from other religions. Such as, for example, abuse of Christians by the Iranian government. Also happening in Egypt. And lots of other places, but you get the idea. Here in the U.S., various religions get along much better than in most other parts of the world.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Nope. It's called a representative democracy. In practice it's actually no better than China.

In practice it is better than most countries of the region.

Wrong. It takes a lot less time and resources to replace lost planes (or, more likely, unmanned drones) than to rebuild an underground nuclear research site.

Er.. no, not "wrong". Your statement goes with a totally different assumption. Which is an assumption of periodically recurrence of bombing of a country which hasn't actually attacked anyone. That will go down well with the public I imagine.

Anyway, the answer is no. As I already explained, the nuclear deterrent has not worked against the U.S. on at least two occasions. Pakistan has nukes, yet our military goes strolling right through theirs, any time we want, and there's nothing they can do about it. The historical precedent is that nuclear capability doesn't deter the United States. So it's obvious that nations desiring nukes either want nukes for some other reason, or are being run by complete idiots. Frequently both.

Hallelujah, could you please stop inventing such shallow arguments without the blink of an eye? The reason the US can operate troops on Pakistani sole is that it actually supports the Pakistani government and that they cooperate.

Not possible. Iran has a very rocky history, and by that I don't mean a very rocky history with the United States. Iran started making historical enemies long before the U.S. even existed. Take the U.S. out of the equation, and Iran will still have lots of enemies.

There is no "enemy" willing and/or capable to attack Iran except the USA and Israel. In spite of your "rocky history" and "historical enemies".

 

[emzie]

Both of you misinterpreted me; I didn't say "minorities", I said "heretics". That's a very important difference. Religious radicals have a problem with people from other religions. Such as, for example, abuse of Christians by the Iranian government. Also happening in Egypt. And lots of other places, but you get the idea. Here in the U.S., various religions get along much better than in most other parts of the world.

If religious radicals cannot tolerate other religions, and Iran is governed by religious radicals, might you explain why there's 25,000 Jews living in Iran today?

 

[kramerfan86]

Wrong. It takes a lot less time and resources to replace lost planes (or, more likely, unmanned drones) than to rebuild an underground nuclear research site.

I dont think there are any unmanned drones that actually can carry bunker busters. That is a rather significant payload, this isnt blowing up a car or a hut. Iran will be able to rebuild the facilities quicker over time because they will have the know how as opposed to needing to research things step by step. It will also probably get more backdoor help from China and/or russia who will be infuriated by a military strike. Nevermind the terrorist backlash they will unleash. You have this delusional view that Israel can easily just shut it down at will with ease when most experts agree that simply wont happen and wont actually stop the program. There is a reason they arent giddy about that option.

 

[Zelig]

If religious radicals cannot tolerate other religions, and Iran is governed by religious radicals, might you explain why there's 25,000 Jews living in Iran today?

The Iranian government forces some Iranians to claim they're Jewish, so as to appear more tolerant on the international stage.

 

[emzie]

I dont think there are any unmanned drones that actually can carry bunker busters. That is a rather significant payload, this isnt blowing up a car or a hut. Iran will be able to rebuild the facilities quicker over time because they will have the know how as opposed to needing to research things step by step. It will also probably get more backdoor help from China and/or russia who will be infuriated by a military strike. Nevermind the terrorist backlash they will unleash. You have this delusional view that Israel can easily just shut it down at will with ease when most experts agree that simply wont happen and wont actually stop the program. There is a reason they arent giddy about that option.

If it wern't illegal, I'd just shoot a tungsten rod the size of a telephone pole at the bunker from orbit.

edit: oh, actually the rods from god concept isn't banned by treaty, only WMDs are. Cool.

 

[asbestos]

Nope. It's called a representative democracy. In practice it's actually no better than China.

Please explain. In Iran the president and the parliament are elected by the people. The supreme leader (who gets a lot of broad powers) is elected by an assembly of experts, also elected by the people. The supreme leader can dismiss the president if 2/3 of parliament votes to impeach him, and the assembly of experts can dismiss the supreme leader.

In China, OTOH, elections happen at the local level only. These locally elected assemblies elect the next highest level of government, and that level elects the next highest level, and so on, culminating with the president. The average Iranian appoints his top leaders more directly than does the average Chinese.

The assembly of experts and the supreme leader are chosen from the clergy, and this set up was created by Khomeini following a 1979 referendum whereby the Iranian people voted in an Islamic constitution, with the direct aim of vetoing unislamic legislation... so the transition to theocracy was, for all intents and purposes, democratic and constitutional. As such, only parties that accept the underlying theocratic principles of the republic are eligible to run.

And while it's correct to point out that religion gets unfair oversight over legislation and executive powers, we don't get to smirk too heavily when recalling the analogous role that corporations play in our own electoral system. Whether it's secularism or labor being drowned out, each society has its formal and informal concentrations of power.

tl;dr: holding elections and having a separation of powers doesn't automagically make a free society. That truism should apply as much to America as it does to China and Iran.

 

[Zelig]

Yup. Most often with more effective weapons, that don't show on any radar. But sometimes with conventional weapons. Hell, Afghans fired rockets at Soviet troops and helicopters all the time. Never saw Afghanistan get nuked, didja? That's the thing. The Soviets knew we were screwing with their proxy states, knew we were spying on them. But they didn't have the nerve to pop off a high-megatonner. America called their bluff, and they folded.

Since you've now posted 3 further times in this thread while continuing to ignore my hypothetical, I'm forced to assume this is because your answer to the hypothetical would be "no", in that you would not support the current regime in Iran in developing nuclear arms, thus showing that you don't actually care about democracy, and that you just want the current regime out.

The alternative is "yes", where you'd accept the current regime in developing nuclear arms if they reformed their electoral process to achieve widespread consensus as having been democratically elected.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

First lets get it clear that Iran is not yet close to a nuclear weapon, second of all the current biggest threat of this so called Iranian Nuclear Arsenal will be dirty bombs, use radioactive supstance but no huge BOOM. And why stop it, I'm pissed at Americans because they're mister police men they can have bombs, so can Israel, so can Pakistan but god forbid Iran.

 

[BasketCase]

Since you've now posted 3 further times in this thread while continuing to ignore my hypothetical, I'm forced to assume this is because your answer to the hypothetical would be "no"

And you would be wrong. My answer to your hypothetical was "your hypothetical is impossible".

There is a revolution (or an attempt at one) in progress in Iran. They're trying to overthrow the current regime. That describes pretty clearly what the Iranian people think of the current regime. So, when you ask "what if the Iranians re-elected all the people currently in power" I say "that cannot possibly happen".

In practice it is better than most countries of the region.

Iran's election process was brought to a standstill in 2009. "In practice" Iran's democracy is completely dysfunctional.

The reason the US can operate troops on Pakistani sole is that it actually supports the Pakistani government and that they cooperate.

Wrong. The reason the U.S. can operate on Pakistani soil is because we can sneak in without getting spotted. We went in there to kill Osama without Pakistan's permission. Be real clear on that boldface part.

The fact that Pakistan has nukes, gave them zero leverage to prevent us from pulling that nasty little stunt.

There is no "enemy" willing and/or capable to attack Iran except the USA and Israel. In spite of your "rocky history" and "historical enemies".

Iraq. There. One counterexample = you're wrong (that's what happens when you make a blanket statement such as "there is no X"). Make no mistake: the bad blood between Iran and Iraq has not gone away. And similar unpleasantness still simmers between Iran and several of its neighbors. Most notably Saudi Arabia.


Actually, you guys made me rethink my position on this. Iran has a very long history of religious radicalism in its government, so I think Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons until long after it has become a Democracy. We need to make damn sure the religious elements in their government disappear and never come back.