Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Originally Posted by Milkman

...India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes.

Attacking Iran will bring bad consequences, IMO. And Iran may not fall on its sword.

Iran won't be falling on any swords, just provoking others to make them try.

But in the Arab/Muslim-Israel arena, with Pakistan owning nukes it's a good idea to continue giving them special treatment and tolerance, not because they might use them against Israel or the West, but because someone else might.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Iran is appeased. The are allowed to proceed unabashed. They develop both Nuclear power and weapons. They then become the dominant influence in the middle east.

What's wrong with appeasement ? The US is doing it all the time with Israel and SA, why not with Iran ? Pakistan is far more dangerous and yet we let them get away with it. Oh yeah, Pakistan doesn't have oil.

The military action being threatened against Iran is basically some missile strikes, to try and take out (unlikely) or slow down their nuclear development program. I should point out, the West, and US in particular, rattling their sabres at Iran is nothing new- it's pretty much an ongoing story over the last quarter century so I doubt it is causing mass panic there.

An invasion is not on the agenda, and would be a disaster anyway. Iran is not Iraq- it is a bigger country, with a functional and large military. It also controls the narrow strait of Hormuz, through which 60% of the worlds oil passes, and is in missile strike range of Kuwaiti, Saudi, Iraqi oil installations and ports. Unlike Iraq, their military capacity has not been neutered by the UN, and we all know how the occupation of Iraq is going. So talk of 'falling on it's sword' is hyperbole.

If you think oil is expensive now, just see what happens if Iran is attacked. The northern hemisphere winter is coming up, and there is already concern about world oil inventories. I hardly need mention the knock on effect with the Dow and FTSE, all this on the back of the current liquidity crisis. Banks will be strait back in crisis, recession inevitable, depression quite possible.

In short, I don't think it will happen. While I have no faith in the Bush administration, they certainly care about safeguarding their financial interests, and feathering their own nests. To that extent, Iran has the world economy over a barrel, a barrel of Oil.

Who would benefit from an attack on Iran? Israel, because of it's ephemeral wish to maintain a monopoly on nukes in the ME; Venezuela and Russia because of the huge spike in oil prices. Not what the Republicans (or Democrats) particularly wish to see.

Adding to this argument, some other points:-

Iran has no territorial ambitions. It has attacked no other country in centuries. It is not even an Arab country. The worse case scenario, it getting nukes, would be for defensive purposes only, ie a deterrent against foreign invasion.

But Iran has also stated it wishes to develop nuclear technology for power generation purposes only, and will do so under the supervision of the IAEA (unlike Israel). There are sound economic reasons for it to do so, as I have pointed out before. There were riots in Iran recently when they raised the price of petrol at the pump. Under IAEA supervision, all fissile material is accounted for- it is unlikely they could filch material to make a bomb without being noticed, damn near impossible actually.

The people of Iran are also strongly behind the idea, and under IAEA supervision they are breaking no international laws.

However, just having nuclear power generation capacity would make Iran perceived to be closer to strategic parity with Israel- which many of us would argue is not necessarily a bad thing. An Israel which is not under threat of nuclear attack, but has reason to think twice about aggression outside of it's own borders would seem to me a step in the right direction towards peace in the ME.

Does the nuclear world want Iran to go nuclear? Of course not, they never do- nothing new there. Is it such a disaster to the World order if and when they do? Nope, it's a storm in a teacup. Even the mad Ayatollah would not use a nuclear device as an offensive weapon, given the life expectancy of his beloved Iran would then be 2 or 3 hours.

I'd get right behing the UN with this one, and let them develop nuclear power generation for peaceful purposes, under the close supervision of the IAEA. Those that think differently, I can see no real logical reason why except a hawkish pro-Israeli stance- but happy to listen to other reasons.

Originally Posted by chinthee

The alternative would be a nuclear armed Iran. Apart from the nutjobs on this forum, who the hell would want that???

who wants any country including (GASP!) israel to have nuclear weapons?

but apparently the recently retired commander of US forces in the ME doesn't seem too concerned...

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran - Yahoo! News

but maybe the cyber tough guys on this forum know better than abizaid.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Pakistan is far more dangerous and yet we let them get away with it. Oh yeah, Pakistan doesn't have oil.

And Pakistan has nukes.
That certainly goes a long way in turning potential enemies 'friendly'.

Originally Posted by sabang

Iran has no territorial ambitions. It has attacked no other country in centuries. It is not even an Arab country. The worse case scenario, it getting nukes, would be for defensive purposes only, ie a deterrent against foreign invasion.

Sounds fine in theory, but it would mean a considerable power-shift in the ME in favour of Iran, possibly with envisaged territorial gain through a defunct Iraq.

And frankly, I don't like the noises which have been coming out of Iran, see topic title and their stance on Israel. I am not sure the rational judgment of the leaders can be trusted, there sure is a fear element about them gaining nuclear capability which I share with many others.

Originally Posted by stroller

Sounds fine in theory, but it would mean a considerable power-shift in the ME in favour of Iran, possibly with envisaged territorial gain through a defunct Iraq.

And frankly, I don't like the noises which have been coming out of Iran, see topic title and their stance on Israel. I am not sure the rational judgment of the leaders can be trusted, there sure is a fear element about them gaining nuclear capability which I share with many others.

I suppose many people would share those reservations stroller but, assuming they are agreeable to working with the IAEA as they have stated (and complied with), the alternatives seem a whole lot less palatable.
In practise, every country that has 'gone nuclear' has done so through howls of disapproval, but when it's all said and done little changes except they are now part of the 'club', and don't want anyone else to get nukes.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by chinthee

I think this is still a struggle to contain Russia. To the extent that the US can control and hold Iran, it holds the south ports of Russia's oil supply, and I do know a great deal about this.

An interesting perspective, the plan for new US bases in Eastern Europe seem to support this view.
Any further insights, apart from control of the oil/gas, in what way is Russia still regarded a threat?

Yes, well this also has to do with oil fields and pipelines from central asia. It's really beyond the scope of a simple internet forum discussion.

There are many counterbalancing forces at play:

Kazakhstan to Turkey-Europe-Usa oil

Azerbaijan to the above

Russia to the above

all the above to China via the new pipeline

And, importantly, the southern port option to Iran of all these sources including Iran.

Too much to discuss. Much to consider.

I thought the original plan's to take it through Afghanistan-northern Pakland-Indian sea and all the way to the US?

^ Syria has had chemical weapons for many years though booner.


I thought this article from the Guardian was pretty good. Good paper actually- I seem to get a fair bit of suff from here:-

Tehran's misguided defiance

Propelled by sabre rattlers on both sides, Iran and the west are hurtling towards confrontation.

Simon Tisdall

Asked in Tehran earlier this year about the possibility of a US military strike on Iran, a senior official laughed out loud. "Are you serious?" he asked. "They will never attack us. That would be madness." His amusement was genuine - and chilling.

Ignorance and complacency about American motivations and intentions abound in equal measure in the land of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Uniquely among the countries of the world, Iran has been almost entirely cut off from US cultural, social and economic influence since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

This semi-voluntary, semi-imposed isolation is changing as an ever more youthful population reaches out to the west. And long-held certainties are fading that the US, having behaved so injuriously towards Iran during the Shah's time, would not dare do so again. Local media have been agog with speculation that Israel's US-approved air raid inside Syria earlier this month was aimed obliquely at Iran.

All the same, old political habits die hard. Mr Khamenei, an instinctive conservative of the Khomeini school, told worshippers at Friday prayers that the US was fighting a losing "psychological war" against Iran. "America's power in the region is waning those who attack the Revolution even in the capacity of a mighty power such as America are facing defeat day by day." His words were greeted with ritual chants of "Death to America".

In similar vein, Mr Ahmadinejad this week shrugged off the sternest warning yet by any European government that the stalemate over Iran's nuclear programmes was leading to catastrophe. "We do not take these threats seriously," he said, referring to the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner's remarks about a possible war. Britain's sober view that Mr Kouchner had merely stated the obvious appears to have been dismissed, too.

Given that Iran is facing a possible third round of UN sanctions, a US-orchestrated international business and trade boycott, and rising, indirect military pressure, Mr Ahmadinejad's insouciance inspires alarm rather than confidence. It begs the question as to exactly what will it take for the Iranian leadership to grasp the seriousness of the threat it faces.
Yet a crucial consideration in the unfolding Iranian tragedy is that divisions within the Bush administration, and between the US and EU countries, over how best to pursue a diplomatic solution are actually encouraging Iran's false sense of security.

What Tehran, fatefully, appears not to understand is that the longer these western splits persist and the further Iran's nuclear activities advance unchecked, the more likely that, exasperated, out of time and egged on by vice-president Dick Cheney and Israel, George Bush will opt for force.

As the pressure builds remorselessly, attempts to keep the diplomatic process on track seem to be failing. Mr Kouchner's tough words provoked Germany into publicly advocating a much softer line this week under which, Berlin said, new sanctions might not be needed at all. Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's nuclear weapons chief, whose latest, self-propelled inspections pact with Tehran has deeply angered the US and Britain, also waded in, warning the west's whole policy was spinning out of control.
Russia and China, playing strategic power games of their own, have meanwhile once again underscored their opposition to any talk of force, or to additional sanctions outside the ambit of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their stance is bringing ever closer an Iraq-style split in the UN security council - a split that far from benefiting Tehran, could doom it to a military attack.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, having fluttered uncertainly between hawks and doves since taking over from Colin Powell, now appears to have belatedly recognised the danger of another unplanned, disastrous Middle East conflagration. With the Pentagon's discredited chief, Donald Rumsfeld, no longer around to block her, and backed by his successor, Robert Gates, she is mounting another effort, beginning on Friday in Washington, to knock security council heads together and rebuild a consensus on diplomatic action.

Hers is an uphill task, as noise levels rise and calmer voices are shouted down both in the west and in Iran. Mr Cheney and the neocons, Israeli hawks and ideologues, Arab states terrified of Iran's expanding regional power, and Iran's complacent, uncomprehendingly hardline leaders are now coming together in an unholy coalition of the willing - and chilling.
Their shared destination is confrontation, their common cause is fear. They all believe, without a shadow of doubt, that they are right, and they may take some stopping now.

Comment is free: Tehran's misguided defiance

Seems the commentator considers a higher chance of an attack on Iran than myself.

^ it's a fantastic point. even gen abizaid (US commander in the ME) knows it would be for defensive purposes.

additionally, there is no direct evidence that iran is developing nuclear weapons.
none.
if someone on this board has evidence that the IAEA, the UN or the CIA is unaware of, please come forward......hold on now, not everyone at once. no pushing....

but considering the aggressive nature of it's neighbors---US controlled iraq and afghanistan, and israel---why shouldn't iran be able to defend itself with those very same weapons?

and finally, even when iraq used chemical weapons against iran back in the 80s, iran did not respond in kind...even though it was capable of doing so, and easily could have argued that they were withing their rights.

Originally Posted by raycarey

additionally, there is no direct evidence that iran is developing nuclear weapons.

That's a striking similarity to the situation before the Iraq invasion - remember those "WMD"s - and yet there are still people advocating to attack Iran now.

GW Bush has no political capital to engage in any conflict, it will be suicidal for him to do it, but again him being a drydrunk and a crackhead, he might do it.

However, Tony the lapdog is gone, but he might have found a new one, Sarko, who would be more than happy to suck his cock to replace Tony the other cocksucker.

Can't see GWB has any intention to invade Iran or order surgical strikes for that matter. If strikes are deemed necessary the Israelis will do it.

^ I think the same way, although i think it would be lunacy.
According to some analysts, the recent Israeli air raid on Syria was really intended as a shot across the bow for Iran.

Originally Posted by keda

Can't see GWB has any intention to invade Iran or order surgical strikes for that matter. If strikes are deemed necessary the Israelis will do it.

There do seem to be two alternate theories here:

1. The Israelis will do it, and the US will maintain distance from the initial decision and then later join the effort once underway, perhaps with both France, Germany and others. This would deflect mass condemnation of yet another US led attack. Might be strategically the best option for Washington.

2. The US will lead the attack, take the flak, Israel may get attacked and use that opportunity to join the fray with a vengeance, creating a multi-pronged attack. This will be harder on the US in terms of image, but I believe Washington has the will to do this at some "drop dead point."

Where is this drop dead point, where the attack will happen regardless? We don't know.

Originally Posted by chinthee

The Israelis will do it, and the US will maintain distance from the initial decision and then later join the effort once underway, perhaps with both France, Germany and others.

Just as a sidenote: Germany will not join any offensive military actions. They'd only join an UN mission with a peacekeeping emphasis.

^ Yes, you're right.

quite a few cyber generals on here posting about 'multi-pronged attacks' and 'surgical strikes'.

very impressive indeed.


by the way, why haven't any of our resident generals responded to this open call for evidence?

Originally Posted by raycarey

additionally, there is no direct evidence that iran is developing nuclear weapons.
none.
if someone on this board has evidence that the IAEA, the UN or the CIA is unaware of, please come forward......hold on now, not everyone at once. no pushing....

another bad faith act from the US

BBC NEWS | Americas | US blocks Iran leader 9/11 visit

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by keda

Can't see GWB has any intention to invade Iran or order surgical strikes for that matter. If strikes are deemed necessary the Israelis will do it.

There do seem to be two alternate theories here:

1. The Israelis will do it, and the US will maintain distance from the initial decision and then later join the effort once underway, perhaps with both France, Germany and others. This would deflect mass condemnation of yet another US led attack. Might be strategically the best option for Washington.

2. The US will lead the attack, take the flak, Israel may get attacked and use that opportunity to join the fray with a vengeance, creating a multi-pronged attack. This will be harder on the US in terms of image, but I believe Washington has the will to do this at some "drop dead point."

Where is this drop dead point, where the attack will happen regardless? We don't know.

1. The US cannot distance itself and will be roundly criticised by the howlers even if keeps mum, for allowing it, and or for not presuring Israel for restraint.

2. If the US leads or unilaterally attacks Iran, Israel still gets the flack because as we are told the US is one of the global djooish proxies. Also, the US doesn't need Israeli firepower, so it's unlikely that Israel would be party to an attack on Iran in concert with the US.

I thought the drop dead point was breached a long while back, but of course that could be my radical intolerance of Islamic terrorism.

Originally Posted by keda

I thought the drop dead point was breached a long while back

did it prompt you to join the military?

Originally Posted by keda

I thought the drop dead point was breached a long while back, but of course that could be my radical intolerance of Islamic terrorism.

The issue is nuclear arms development in Iran, not "Islamic terrorism".

Well that's one of the differences between us, I see the whackjob's goal of WMD as preparation for Islamic terrorism, though you're more than welcome to view it as a peaceful attempt to reduce his backward nation's reliance upon oil.

Talking about how we are at war with Iran - albeit a proxy war - how about the SAMS they are shifting into Iraq to kill our boys? This has got to stop.

Iran Smuggling Missiles and Other Advanced Weapons Into Iraq