Several of there neighbors have expressed a interest in ‘pushing them into the sea’ and/or ‘wiping them off the map’. We aren’t talking simple regime change here, we are talking old-school sow-the-fields-with-salt action.
Sam Stone
You are looking at this with western eyes, not those of a religious or paranoid fanatic.
You have your own belief about what values are important, and what defines a good world nation.
Now try it another way, how about a theocracy that takes the view that all things western are crrupting, that all those who cooperate such as Egypt are just becoming corrupted.
They see it as their holy duty (perhaps) to defend themselves against the great oppressor, and it is not a massive step from there to decied that the best way of defence is to attack.
We have not invaded N Korea for several reasons, not least China, prior to it having nuclear capability, now even if China were to step aside, invasion of N Korea would be poltically unacceptable, not least because of the huge losses that would result, pkus there is not all that much to gain anyway.
Right now Islamic nations are interpreting what posession of Nuclear devices could mean to them, some have decided they are not worth the hassle, but you can be sure that others think differantly.
If Iran were to acquire nuclear capability, would all those nations you have named still follow the US line on non-nuclear proliferation, or would the lean to the Iranian viewpoint, could their governments prevent the drift of their own populace in that direction, I doubt that Syria could.
I also expect that one or two would be alarmed enough to want to acquire nuclear weapons just for comfort sake against Iran, who knows ?
As for your comparison with Alberta, what nonsense, what a strawman, how can you construct a sensible argument based upon the politics of that area and compare it to the situation in the Mid East ?
They simply do not see it that way at all, they are the ones who have most to fear, the US certainly does not need to fear attack by Iran.
Their interpretation is that the US projects its power to a region that it has no right to do, without any means of control from the international community, anything they do is to protect their own state and their own values.
This is the likely motivation for them trying to get nuclear capability, it is really a question of what the US is prepared to do about it, and what will the political cost of that.
Perhaps Iran will see that nuclear capability is not worth the price, I certainly hope so, but the actions of the US do not help up to now, unless the Iranians are made extremely clear what will happen if they continue.
The US has embarked on a course of being the worlds policeman, maybe that should be shared out more, but all the US seems to do is push others away from its world view by fabricating evidence and excuses for a pre-planned aggressive attack.
Is anyone denying that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program?
Are you thinking of a small boat sailing into New York Harbor, or what?
The Iranians are denying it and nobody has any hard proof to the contrary. Yet. All speculations along those lines are just that, speculations, based on the Iranian government’s ideology and rhetoric, and the not unreasonable inference that North Korea has taught the world that the best way to avoid being regime-changed by the U.S. is to actually have weapons of mass destruction; and that the Iranians are as capable as any “axis of evil” nation of learning that lesson.
Officially, Israel does not have nukes. 
Actually, the position of Israel as regards to Nuclear devices is,
“Israel will not be the first nation to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East”
This was a quote some years ago from the Israeli Premier some years ago, during the Vanunu abduction.
The word “introduce” does not mean Israel does not have them, it is taken to mean that this is a no first strike policy, and is a tacit admission that Israel does have nukes, but without officially saying so.
Weasel words I guess.
Probably not. In 2004 the Atlantic Monthly had a panel of military experts run a series of wargames scenarios on the aftermath of a limited U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. None could see any way of preventing the situation from escalating into a wider regional conflict.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/iran_wargame.pdf (PDF)
Since a wider regional conflict, whatever the outcome, would inevitably affect the flow of oil exports from the MENA, I think our government would really rather just let the Iranians have their nukes.
that said, i revert to my earlier proposition that for sure if it’s not going to succeed, it is not jusified…
which is o say that the geopolitical balance is destined to tilt a bit more towards Iran.
I never understood why we wanted to deny Saddam his due as a regional mlitary power–that was all he really wanted–just a little respect–Is that too much to ask//!
byway of hijack is anyone else getting notstalgic for that big bad brute who used to stand athwart the road from teheran to riyadh, that mean mesopotamian muthafucka with a baath babylon beat, that secular sunni who ate Shia fundis for breakfast (literally…) that man with the blackest mustache in a can of shoe polish, you loved him in '88, show him some love now
You know who I mean ,…Saddam.**El Guappo Sincero
** Hussein…Hussein.
spread out and hidden
would their program be vulnerable to disablement via some sort of moving “no drive” zones enforced from sat views, where you forced convoys o f their trucks through radiatin checkpoints?
If the US/UN hadn’t intervened, they would have taken the whole peninsula. You got any reason why it wouldn’t be the exact same as it is now, just called “Korea?”
This is all academic. The only way Iran is going to get the bomb is if they a)buy it from someone like N. Korea or b) suddenly announce that they have it in a secure location and there is nothing we can do about it.
Outside of that, it ain’t gonna happen. The Prez. of Iran has called for the eradication of Israel. These folks are not going to forget the 1930’s and-40’s. They WILL strike. Israel will NOT allow Iran to slowly and incrementally step by step their way to the bomb. South Africa has 'em? Pakistan too? These are red herrings. They are completely separate issues. In this set of circumstances, Iran is NOT going to be allowed to get the bomb.
Which brings us to the point…what is Iran’s endgame? They know at some point, if they continue overt progress towards the bomb, an attack will come. They know this. It is not in any way vague or any shade of grey.
So they are provoking Israel, and by proxy the West, into a shooting war. Germany has said that Iran cannot be allowed to have the bomb, and I am fairly certain that Europe will follow Germany’s lead.
The riots in France show what an inflamed Islamic population can do. Iran may be thinking that they are willing to absorb the bombing campaign at home in order to foment an Islamic revolution abroad.
From what I understand, (from the Iranians in the USA I know) the Iranian ex-patriate community despises, nay LOATHES the Iranian leadership. I know they are actively trying to overthrow the regime with various subversions. It also seems to me, again from anecdotal evidence from Iranians here I know, that Average Joe Iran is fairly fond of America.
So why should Iran prompt a shooting war with the West? Perhaps to give all Iranians a common enemy, and rally support for the regime.
If the posessing the bomb was the endgame in an of itself, they would continue developing the bomb in secret, then just announce that they have it. This is obviously not the goal.
On another note…if Iran announces they have a few nukes, they can wreak havoc without much trouble.
They could announce that they have placed nuclear devices in shiping containers that are arriving in New York and San Fransisco. Even if they didn’t actually place the devices, we would be obligated to stop shipping until we could ensure the safety of the ports. Our economy could be easily wrecked.
So you can have all of the “feel good” academic discussions about the “Nuclear Club” we started, and the sovereignty of nations to do what they please as long as they don’t directly threaten anyone. The fact of the matter, the cold hard fact is that Iran cannot be allowed to have the bomb.
Does anyone believe that Iran needs to protect its sovereignty?
Who is going to attack them now that the Shiite government in Iraq is in control?
Who needs to fear a nuclear armed Iran? Israel perhaps? If you don’t believe that, then you needn’t read the rest of my post.
The world has undergone many crises in the last few millenia and there is no reason to assume that it won’t continue. Those people who happen to have been born in the cradle of western democracy may think that humanity has finally gotten beyond human attrocity and that the word and the pen trumps violent force, but you are in the minority on a world scale.
Were you surprised by the latest reaction to the Danish cartoons? If so ask yourself why. Have you got a realistic handle on how Islam and the west can get along with their relative values? Are you willing to give your values up? If Osama bin Laden just got democratically elected to lead Pakistan would you take comfort in the fact that the USA is several thousand miles away? Well that is where we are right now with Iran. They have religious nuts in control, on the verge of producing nuclear weapons, a history of no compunction at thumbing their noses to the west, and I can’t discount the possibility that they are unable to develop long range ballistic capability. Nevermind that the news that Israel has just been turned into a sheet of glass will just make me feel ,… well just scared shitless.
Think about North Korea. there is no world wide religious agenda on their part. Just a bunch of mafia type thugs determined to make sure that they can maintain a superior position in their society. But we let them get their nuclear capability. The joke is that there is nothing we can do about it. We have to ascribe to these thugs who have enslaved their own people a respect under the banner of sovereignty. What a joke! I don’t know what the financial cost is to Americans, but how many of these type of situations can you afford ? I note also that no one is describing the American military presence there as an occupation. I wonder if the financial cost of the American presence in South Korea over the past 50 years is comparable to the effort in Iraq. In any case, the Israelis dispensed with the Iraqi nuclear threat in one day over 20 years ago. Israel is still very much alive. If Iran is deemed to continue to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, may I suggest that we follow the Israeli example?
Well, shit, where have we heard that one before? I sounds vaguely familiar.
Let’s say Iran said they were going to destroy the Axis of Wee Evils, listed three countries, and then invaded one of them…would the other two on that list have cause to be concerned?
Hmm…
We already allowed a theocracy with a habit of funding terrorism to get nukes. And they are our good buddies- Pakistan.
Under your theory, we are justified in attacking anyone. In the civilized world, you don’t attack people who haven’t at least threatened you. You especially don’t attack people who are actually incapable of threatening you. Taking over a country is a very grave action. Think of all the countries you know of that have overthrown other country’s governments…not a lot of good guys in that club, are there?
Sure, maybe at some point in the future Iran will gain the ability to attack Europe. Europe has it’s own nukes. Europe is capable of making it’s own decisions. If Europe decides to go to war, there is a good chance we will support them. Oddly, Europe doesn’t seem all that worried.
Perhaps this is best in a different thread, but North Korea is a unique situation. The country, for it’s entire existence, has been under direct threat of nuclear annihilation by the world’s biggest superpower. We have had nukes pointed directly at them for fifty years. The only options we left were to become a military based country or give up on being a country altogether. Unfortunately for them, North Korea simply doesn’t have enough resources to keep up with the most powerful country in the world, and their people suffer as a result. Perhaps the noble thing for the leadership would be to give up and hand over the country to South Korea or China. But it’s ridiculous to expect them to do that.
If we weren’t on their border with nukes pointed at them for fifty years, chances are they’d resemble the rest of the Communist world- given up, fizzled out, not all that bad or on it’s last legs (Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba.) Whether the human suffering of all of the peninsula being under a normal communist rule outweighs the current situation of one half being free and the other half being in the ridiculous situation that is North Korea is a philosophical one.
Not historically true, except under a “no true Scotsman” definition of “civilized.” (In historical/anthropological/technological terms, Nazi Germany was one of the most highly civilized countries on Earth.)
:dubious: The same government that is in control of the Shiite government of Iraq, and whose administration has classified Iran as one of the “Axis of Evil.” Have you completely lost track of what this thread is about?!
WAG Just before they set one off so we get or is it that we give them a double whammy!