What, if anything, should Israel/US do about Iran's nuclear programme?

[RedRalph]

What would you do if you were calling the shots? Realistic answers only please, no 'awesome Iran back to teh stone age'

 

[Bast]

It shouldn't be up to just Israel/US. The world should stop another country from getting nuclear weapons making the whole world less safer.

 

[RedRalph]

It shouldn't be up to just Israel/US. The world should stop another country from getting nuclear weapons making the whole world less safer.

How, exactly?

 

[Kraznaya]

Awesome Iran's nuclear facilities back to the stone age.

 

[Cheetah]

Dunno.

What would happen if, completely hypothetically of course, a plane - or maybe even a space shuttle (their old and almost useless now, right?) - had some serious technical difficulties and unfortunately tragically crashed into some Iranian official building while the Guardian Council, the other council and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard were gathered there?

I feel an apology and very heartfelt condolences from the rest of the world would be required at least.

 

[Winner]

What would you do if you were calling the shots? Realistic answers only please, no 'awesome Iran back to teh stone age'

Nothing. Let them waste money on weapons which will make them less secure and more hated in the world.

I'd invest heavily in missile defence programmes and seek wider international security guarantees for Israel.

 

[RedRalph]

Nothing. Let them waste money on weapons which will make them less secure and more hated in the world.

I'd invest heavily in missile defence programmes and seek wider international security guarantees for Israel.

I actually think that would be the best bet, from Israel's POV. The US tried to pry Syria away form Iran this week and Syria gave them two fingers. The americans are just going to habve aot acceopt Iran as the regional power sooner or later, but they won't be a hegemon.

I wonder will Turkey, KSA, etc build their own nuclear weapons if Iran does?

 

[nonconformist]

I strongly suspect it would involve Barack Obama wanking through Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letterbox

 

[RedRalph]

Does anyone think airstrikes are the best option?

 

[Winner]

Airstrikes without any sort of backup planning and follow up operations would be the WORST option.

 

[Camikaze]

If I was the US Pres, I'd allow Iranian nuclear inspectors to go to Israel to oversee the complete destruction of Israel's entire nuclear arsenal, which would be made public in its entirety, in return for a complete halt to Iran's nuclear weapons program. And then I'd subsidise Iranian nuclear power under the proviso that the funding could be withdrawn at any time if permanent nuclear inspectors were unhappy with anything such as the restarting of a weapons program.

Of course, it's not an entirely realistic solution, but it sure as hell beats going to war.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Step 1) Declare war on Iran
Step 2) Start the air attacks
Step 3) Move the ground forces in. They won't occupy; they'll just dismantle the nuclear facilities and the military facilities of Iran and capture the government
Step 4) Hold a show-trial of the captured leaders, sending them to prison for many years
Step 5) Leave Iran before anyone gets too involved a la Iraq. Iran is now in no position to be a nuclear or regional power, the government's gone, and we can stick a big fat mission accomplished next to this war.

 

[G-Man]

What would you do if you were calling the shots? Realistic answers only please, no 'awesome Iran back to teh stone age'

1. Put Harsh sanctions, the type that'll not only slow down their development of nuclear weapons but also put their regime at risk.
2. If this doesn't work, put a blockade on Iran.
3. If this also doesn't work, bomb every known nuclear site in Iran, but nothing else (except obviously whatever is required for such a strike - air defence, etc). Like Iraq and like Syria, Iran won't retaliate too strongly because they'll know such a thing would put their regime at risk, but I'd still deploy troops in neighbouring friendly countries, just in case (and as further deterance).
4. Keep the sanctions untill Iran stops supporting terrorism.

 

[RedRalph]

1. Put Harsh sanctions, the type that'll not only slow down their development of nuclear weapons but also put their regime at risk.

Doesn't work, as we've seen many, many times before.

2. If this doesn't work, put a blockade on Iran.

China will be very, very unhappy. Russia will soon be ferrying S-300s aplenty across the Caspian sea. Good luck to Israeli pilots.

3. If this also doesn't work, bomb every known nuclear site in Iran, but nothing else (except obviously whatever is required for such a strike - air defence, etc). Like Iraq and like Syria, Iran won't retaliate too strongly because they'll know such a thing would put their regime at risk, but I'd still deploy troops in neighbouring friendly countries, just in case (and as further deterance).

Where on Earth could Israel deploy troops to??? And you do know this would guarantee that Iran would leave the NNPT and would eventually get a bomb anyway, don't you?

4. Keep the sanctions untill Iran stops supporting terrorism.

Wouldn't work.

 

[holy king]

I strongly suspect it would involve Barack Obama wanking through Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letterbox

that would mean nuclear war fo sure!

 

[Cheetah]

The solution is regime change!

Which would be quite likely I imagine, if a tragic space shuttle accident managed to crash into and kill the current government...

 

[G-Man]

Doesn't work, as we've seen many, many times before.

Shouldn't we try putting serious sanctions before we declare that they don't work.

China will be very, very unhappy.

Very good. Maybe then they'll pressure their Iranian buddies to stop their nuclear program.

Russia will soon be ferrying S-300s aplenty across the Caspian sea. Good luck to Israeli pilots.

Russia has been promising and delaying these missiles for years. Either way, I don't see how such a move would change their position.

Where on Earth could Israel deploy troops to???

I ment the US.

And you do know this would guarantee that Iran would leave the NNPT and would eventually get a bomb anyway, don't you?

I'd rather have "eventually" than "shortly". We've seen how useful the NNPT is on this issue.

Wouldn't work.

Why not?

 

[RedRalph]

Shouldn't we try putting serious sanctions before we declare that they don't work.

Why would they work on Iran when they failed so spectacularly on Iraq?

Very good. Maybe then they'll pressure their Iranian buddies to stop their nuclear program.

No, they wouldn't, and China would retaliate. You cannot just dismiss them anymore.

Russia has been promising and delaying these missiles for years. Either way, I don't see how such a move would change their position.

They only delay them to try and get Iran to back down. Once it becomes clear that definitely isn't going to happen, they would have every interest in helping the Iranians shoot down American warplanes. they'd be gleeful about it.

I ment the US.

But to where?

I'd rather have "eventually" than "shortly". We've seen how useful the NNPT is on this issue.

But you do conceed this would just slow them down and not stop them?

Why not?

Come on, think about it. Iran already suffers consequences for supporting Hezbollah, but it's still more advantageous for them to have a way of stuicking the knife into Israel. this would be even more true in the situation you describe. If anything, they would be even mroe supportive.

Incidentally, do you think Israel should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

 

[Merkinball]

Obviously they shouldn't do anything at all. As Obama said back in the day, strong language only antagonizes the Iranians. And as we've learned from the last few days on the board, pacifism and complacency inevitably lead to peace. So, I just think that the entire world should not do anything. Because it's so obviously a contradiction to say that pacifism and non-aggression could ever destabilize the world.

 

[RedRalph]

Obviously they shouldn't do anything at all. As Obama said back in the day, strong language only antagonizes the Iranians. And as we've learned from the last few days on the board, pacifism and complacency inevitably lead to peace. So, I just think that the entire world should not do anything. Because it's so obviously a contradiction to say that pacifism and non-aggression could ever destabilize the world.

What would you do?