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

[G-Man]

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

Because Iran's regime isn't as stable and because the regime is built very differently.

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

Do you really think China's ties with Iran are so close that they'll defend them?

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.

What possible interest could they have to do so? Their relations with the US are much more important than those with Iran and such a situation is probably the least ideal to deply these systems.

But to where?

Mainly the Iran-Iraq and IRan-Afghanistan borders.

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

Destroying all their facilities will bring them back years. It isn't just a slow down, but a set-back. Obviously they could do it all over again, but that'll take many more years, and it's possible that their regime will simply give up (AFAIK Iraq and Syria didn't restart their nuclear programs).

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.

What kind of consequences are they suffering today?

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

Sure. I think all democracies should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

 

[storealex]

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

It might, since the regime is already struggeling to keep power. Truth is we don't know, so the question is whether we're willing to do it, well knowing that we don't know the results. It might backfire and rally the population behind the Government instead. Besides, Russia and China would obstruct and Obama would need to give them a very big cookie in order to obtain their support.

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

Well, if it brought a regime change it might very well stop them.

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

Why not? Im not a fan of Israel, and I think their extreme right should go to hell, but it's clear that their nukes is purely for self defense. We have no idea what Iran would do with Nukes.

 

[RedRalph]

Because Iran's regime isn't as stable and because the regime is built very differently.

Isn't as stable? you must be joking, it's in a better position than Iraq was. In any case, how long would you expect this to take to work?

Do you really think China's ties with Iran are so close that they'll defend them?

Not militarily, no. But do you think they wouldn't retaliate if one of their biggest energy sources gets cut off?

What possible interest could they have to do so? Their relations with the US are much more important than those with Iran and such a situation is probably the least ideal to deply these systems.

Their interest is that they have absolutely no intention whatsoever to see Iran becoming a US-friendly state, absolutely none. Russia's whole foreing policy is anti-American and seeks influence in the ME, at the moment their only strong ally in the ME is Iran, and the one they want to drive out is the US, so why on Earth would they take their worst enemy's side over their closest ally?

Mainly the Iran-Iraq and IRan-Afghanistan borders.

That's already been done.

Destroying all their facilities will bring them back years. It isn't just a slow down, but a set-back. Obviously they could do it all over again, but that'll take many more years, and it's possible that their regime will simply give up (AFAIK Iraq and Syria didn't restart their nuclear programs).

Well, that's not what anyhting I have heard has said. It's possible they are thinking this way, but most analysists think it would be little more than a speed bump.

What kind of consequences are they suffering today?

Sanctions and international condemnation.

Sure. I think all democracies should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Why?

 

[RedRalph]

Why not? Im not a fan of Israel, and I think their extreme right should go to hell, but it's clear that their nukes is purely for self defense. We have no idea what Iran would do with Nukes.

And what makes you say Iran's nukes wouldn't be defensive? Can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

 

[storealex]

And what makes you say Iran's nukes wouldn't be defensive? Can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

1. We know Israels nukes is only defensive. We cannot say that for Iran.
2. The Iranian regime is full of nutters.
3. The Iranian military is full of nutters.
4. Iran is supporting terrorism, but not too openly and not too much because of fear of retaliation. Once Iran has nukes, they need not fear retaliation and can step up it's funding of Hezbollah, JAM and the likes.
5. Irans regime is not too stable. Add to this nukes and I don't like the combo.

 

[RedRalph]

1. We know Israels nukes is only defensive. We cannot say that for Iran.
2. The Iranian regime is full of nutters.
3. The Iranian military is full of nutters.
4. Iran is supporting terrorism, but not too openly and not too much because of fear of retaliation. Once Iran has nukes, they need not fear retaliation and can step up it's funding of Hezbollah, JAM and the likes.
5. Irans regime is not too stable. Add to this nukes and I don't like the combo.

But can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

 

[IAM]

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.

I like this plan. How would America feel if Mexico had several hundred nukes and we didn't have any. Not too secure I think.

As far as I'm concerned Iran has every right to posses whatever weapons they feel necessary to defend themselves. A Iranian military armed with several hundred nukes would be a deterrent to hostile nations that have already invaded their neighbors.

 

[Cheetah]

And what makes you say Iran's nukes wouldn't be defensive? Can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

Problem is, they could even be used to defend the regime.

If a popular revolt would finally get going in Iran, a regime which professes to await the 12th Imam and doomsday may very well be willing to use nuclear weapons against their own citisens. Punish a city, and bring the rest back into the fold...

 

[G-Man]

Isn't as stable? you must be joking, it's in a better position than Iraq was.

Iraq had a short period during and after the first gulf war of instability, but other than that I don't recall a year with so many protests against its regime.

In any case, how long would you expect this to take to work?

I'd say it should be given a few months, depending on the situation - If Iran will start enriching uranium to higher levels we'll need to move on to the next stages quickly. If it'll have problems and won't progress very much we take our time a bit more.

Not militarily, no. But do you think they wouldn't retaliate if one of their biggest energy sources gets cut off?

They way I see it, China's first priority will be to get their energy source back, and as such it'll pressure both sides. The US is much stronger than Iran, so if it won't show any signs of surrendering to this pressure, China will turn most of its attention to Iran.

Their interest is that they have absolutely no intention whatsoever to see Iran becoming a US-friendly state, absolutely none. Russia's whole foreing policy is anti-American and seeks influence in the ME, at the moment their only strong ally in the ME is Iran, and the one they want to drive out is the US, so why on Earth would they take their worst enemy's side over their closest ally?

Why would such a move turn Iran into a US-friendly state?

That's already been done.

Yes, to a scale fit to stop insurgents, not to stop an army.

Well, that's not what anyhting I have heard has said. It's possible they are thinking this way, but most analysists think it would be little more than a speed bump.

Physically, you can't enrich uranium without centrifuges, and these take time to build (that's most of what the Iranians have been doing for the last few years). If you destroy all of Iran's facilities, they'll have to rebuild everything.

Sanctions and international condemnation.

What sanctions?

Why?

Nuclear weapons allow a country to defend itself, and make it nearly impossible to take over this country by military means. I believe democracies are regimes which should enjoy such a protection. Non democracies shouldn't, and especially not regimes which support terrorism, as we need to have that leverage against them.

 

[RedRalph]

Iraq had a short period during and after the first gulf war of instability, but other than that I don't recall a year with so many protests against its regime.

What??? They didnt even control most of their territory for 12 years

I'd say it should be given a few months, depending on the situation - If Iran will start enriching uranium to higher levels we'll need to move on to the next stages quickly. If it'll have problems and won't progress very much we take our time a bit more.

There is no way no how they would work in a matter of months.

They way I see it, China's first priority will be to get their energy source back, and as such it'll pressure both sides. The US is much stronger than Iran, so if it won't show any signs of surrendering to this pressure, China will turn most of its attention to Iran.

Well, lets see if China votes for sanctions in a few weeks. Do you think that's likely?

Why would such a move turn Iran into a US-friendly state?

Regime change? Why would the US replace the current regime with one unfruiendly to them?

Yes, to a scale fit to stop insurgents, not to stop an army.

So let me get this straight: you are worried that if Iran was being attacked by the US and/or Israel, it might take the opportunity to invade Afghanistan or Iraq?

Physically, you can't enrich uranium without centrifuges, and these take time to build (that's most of what the Iranians have been doing for the last few years). If you destroy all of Iran's facilities, they'll have to rebuild everything.

Which all experts agree they could do, and a hell of a lot faster if they weren't in the NNPT.

What sanctions?

Are you unaware of US sanctions on Iran?

Nuclear weapons allow a country to defend itself, and make it nearly impossible to take over this country by military means. I believe democracies are regimes which should enjoy such a protection. Non democracies shouldn't, and especially not regimes which support terrorism, as we need to have that leverage against them.

Oh, I see. And who should decide what is and isn't a democracy? Would countries which change their laws to prevent demographics changing the charater of the country count?

 

[storealex]

But can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

1. We know Israels nukes is only defensive. We cannot say that for Iran. The consequences of an exploding nuke are so dire, simply not knowing is a good reason of being afraid.
2. The Iranian regime is full of nutters. Nutters do things that dosn't have to make sense.
3. The Iranian military is full of nutters. Nutters do things that dosn't have to make sense.
4. Iran is supporting terrorism, but not too openly and not too much because of fear of retaliation. Once Iran has nukes, they need not fear retaliation and can step up it's funding of Hezbollah, JAM and the likes. Now can you paint for me a realistic scenario where America decides it would be in it's interests to stop Irans support of terrorism, by striking a nuclear armed Iran? No? Well then, what's to stop Iran from becoming the official terrorist supporter once it's has nukes?
5. Irans regime is not too stable. Add to this nukes and I don't like the combo.
An unstable regime might not always know where all of it's nukes are ending up

 

[G-Man]

What??? They didnt even control most of their territory for 12 years

They didn't control a part of their territory, so what? The regime was stable. China doesn't have control over Taiwan for decades, but I wouldn't say their regime is unstable.

There is no way no how they would work in a matter of months.

How do you know?

Well, lets see if China votes for sanctions in a few weeks. Do you think that's likely?

Not as long as they don't think that not having sanctions will be an even greater threat to their oil supply.

Regime change? Why would the US replace the current regime with one unfruiendly to them?

Why would the US replace the current regime at all?

So let me get this straight: you are worried that if Iran was being attacked by the US and/or Israel, it might take the opportunity to invade Afghanistan or Iraq?

Not "take the opputunity" as much as "retaliate by", but basically yes.

Which all experts agree they could do, and a hell of a lot faster if they weren't in the NNPT.

And a lot slower than if we keep the current situation in which they already have enough facilities to creates nukes and are in the process of building more.

Are you unaware of US sanctions on Iran?

I'm unaware of any serious sanctions due to Iran's support of terrorism.

Oh, I see. And who should decide what is and isn't a democracy? Would countries which change their laws to prevent demographics changing the charater of the country count?

I don't see what demographics have to do with the definition of democracy, not to mention that all democracies have laws which limit and regulate immigration, so if you exclude them you'll be left with nothing (which might be good in the sense of no one having nuclear weapons, but very risky and very unrealistic).

 

[RedRalph]

1. We know Israels nukes is only defensive. We cannot say that for Iran. The consequences of an exploding nuke are so dire, simply not knowing is a good reason of being afraid.
2. The Iranian regime is full of nutters. Nutters do things that dosn't have to make sense.
3. The Iranian military is full of nutters. Nutters do things that dosn't have to make sense.
4. Iran is supporting terrorism, but not too openly and not too much because of fear of retaliation. Once Iran has nukes, they need not fear retaliation and can step up it's funding of Hezbollah, JAM and the likes. Now can you paint for me a realistic scenario where America decides it would be in it's interests to stop Irans support of terrorism, by striking a nuclear armed Iran? No? Well then, what's to stop Iran from becoming the official terrorist supporter once it's has nukes?
5. Irans regime is not too stable. Add to this nukes and I don't like the combo.
An unstable regime might not always know where all of it's nukes are ending up

So in other words, Storealex, you aren't afraid that Iran will use nukes, you are just afraid they will be more powerful in general if they have them?

 

[Mise]

Let's be clear on one thing, it's better that our allies have nuclear weapons than countries who are openly belligerent towards our allies, even if it would be even better if no-one had nuclear weapons. There's no point in saying, "Israel has nukes, so why shouldn't Iran?"; the logic is about as compelling as saying, "Israel has nukes, why not my 3 year old sister?" Fact is, Iran with nuclear weapons is dangerous.

That being said, I can't see a solution to the problem. I'm not saying there isn't one, I just can't see one. And none of the suggestions in this thread so far have been particularly compelling.

 

[IAM]

Let's be clear on one thing, it's better that our allies have nuclear weapons than countries who are openly belligerent towards our allies, even if it would be even better if no-one had nuclear weapons. There's no point in saying, "Israel has nukes, so why shouldn't Iran?"; the logic is about as compelling as saying, "Israel has nukes, why not my 3 year old sister?" Fact is, Iran with nuclear weapons is dangerous.

That being said, I can't see a solution to the problem. I'm not saying there isn't one, I just can't see one. And none of the suggestions in this thread so far have been particularly compelling.

Israel, in my opinion, is more likely to use nukes than Iran and therefore more dangerous. Iran knows that there would be massive retaliation against them and so is less likely to use them. If Israel thinks America will not retaliate or let anyone else, no matter what, they may use them instead of risking large numbers of conventional forces in war.

 

[RedRalph]

They didn't control a part of their territory, so what? The regime was stable. China doesn't have control over Taiwan for decades, but I wouldn't say their regime is unstable.

Is this a serious post? Iraq's regime was unstable, there was coup attempts, no real sovreignty, yet it still didn't collapse through sanctions. If you dont want to face that, theres no much I can do.

How do you know?

well, you provide for me some reasons why they would work in a few months, given the myriad examples we have of sanction not working for decades.

Not as long as they don't think that not having sanctions will be an even greater threat to their oil supply.

Clarify this please, i dont understand

Why would the US replace the current regime at all?

er... isn't that what you are talking about?

Not "take the opputunity" as much as "retaliate by", but basically yes.

Aren't you a soldier? Are you seriously contending that Iran would decide ot spead its forces even thinner by attempting an invasion while trying to defend itself? come on man, youre being unrealistic

And a lot slower than if we keep the current situation in which they already have enough facilities to creates nukes and are in the process of building more.

But you admit it will happen eventually, so it would just postpone the ineviitable?

I'm unaware of any serious sanctions due to Iran's support of terrorism.

On the Revolutionary Guard?

I don't see what demographics have to do with the definition of democracy, not to mention that all democracies have laws which limit and regulate immigration, so if you exclude them you'll be left with nothing (which might be good in the sense of no one having nuclear weapons, but very risky and very unrealistic).

So who do you think should define which countries are and aren't democratic enough to have nukes?

 

[RedRalph]

Let's be clear on one thing, it's better that our allies have nuclear weapons than countries who are openly belligerent towards our allies, even if it would be even better if no-one had nuclear weapons. There's no point in saying, "Israel has nukes, so why shouldn't Iran?"; the logic is about as compelling as saying, "Israel has nukes, why not my 3 year old sister?" Fact is, Iran with nuclear weapons is dangerous.

That being said, I can't see a solution to the problem. I'm not saying there isn't one, I just can't see one. And none of the suggestions in this thread so far have been particularly compelling.

Can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

 

[Mise]

Israel, in my opinion, is more likely to use nukes than Iran and therefore more dangerous. Iran knows that there would be massive retaliation against them and so is less likely to use them. If Israel thinks America will not retaliate or let anyone else, no matter what, they may use them instead of risking large numbers of conventional forces in war.

Nah, Israel knows that it would lose all international support if it used nuclear weapons without explicit sanction. If Israel used nuclear weapons without a REALLY good reason, it would become more vulnerable than ever. Israel isn't going to use nuclear weapons unsanctioned.

 

[Mise]

Can you paint for me a realistic scenario where Iran decides it would be in it's interests to use nukes without provocation?

No, I can't predict how Iran might use nuclear weapons, if it possessed them. My inability to predict future events bears little relevance to whether nuclear proliferation is a good or a bad thing. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more dangerous the world becomes.

 

[RedRalph]

No, I can't predict how Iran might use nuclear weapons, if it possessed them. My inability to predict future events bears little relevance to whether nuclear proliferation is a good or a bad thing. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more dangerous the world becomes.

That's weird, you seem to have done a pretty good job of predicting future events when it comes to Israeli use of nuclear weapons