OK, most countries making up the UN don’t want Iran to have the capability to make nuclear weapons but sanctions don’t seem to be working. There’s always the option of a military strike, but for lots of reasons that would be a last resort. So, what are the in-between options? Something worse than a sanction but not as bad as military action. The only other thing I can think of is some sort of embargo, but who would go along with it?
We could use drones to sow Panicle and shoot blight over their Pistachio orchards on moonless nights.
Collapse of the industry would help foment internal strife, possibly revolution.
Of course, any revolution would need effective leaders to succeed, and there’s been precious little sign of such a group forming in Iran.
The regime’d probably catch us in the act anyway. That’d be unfortunate, to say the very least.
Short of conquest I can’t think of anything likely to work. The problem is, their government’s desire for a nuclear weapon is both rational and arguably even their duty.
The biggest danger to Iran is America, and that’s all that has been shown to deter America. Israel, despite often coming up in threads about nukes and Iran is at most a side issue in comparison. It’s America that has conquered Iran’s neighbor, and previously supported an attack by that neighbor on Iran. It’s America that has in the past made a point of publicly stating that we “refuse to take the nuclear option off the table” as a method of dealing with them. They may not like Israel, but Israel isn’t going to conquer them, and I don’t recall it obliquely threatening the Iranians with nuclear war. Israel isn’t an existential danger to Iran; America is.
I can’t think of anything that we can do to them short of conquest that would be more frightening to them than our being on their border, having conquered a neighbor of theirs that tried everything it could to placate us, and rattling the nuclear saber. And they can look at other countries like NK and Pakistan, that have nukes and get the kid glove treatment regardless of how we feel about them. Why wouldn’t they want nukes?
Actually, the people don’t want nukes. In poll after poll they’ve shown that the cartoonish good vs evil world that you constantly talk about doesn’t appeal to them. What you’re actually doing is supporting the theocrats who rule by naked force and fraudulent elections, and you’re doing so simply because they oppose America.
Or to put it in a nutshell: you are opposing the will of democracy and secularism and supporting tyrants and theocracts because only the tyrannical theocrats will give you the kind of situation that fits into your gloss. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
As soon as the thugocrats are removed from power (one way or another) Iran will be at peace with the rest of the world and we won’t have to talk about “defending” themselves from anybody, as there will be no cause for violence or conflict. In fact, a democratic Iran will be a feather in the cap of whatever US administration manages to have it happen on their watch.
Back to the OP: as for what we can do, the best bet is likely to find a way to support pro-democracy forces with just enough force to get them over the hump but not to make it into an American led revolution. When they’re ready to take back their own country the issue of nuclear weapons will be a thing of the past, as will their support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and so on. A free and democratic Iran might very well be the domino that changes the Middle East in a way that changes everything, from Jerusalem to Riydah.
I honestly don’t think that they’re too worried about us. And I personally believe that they want the nukes mostly to be a super power in their own back yard as opposed to wanting to stand up the US. They do that now anyway without nukes.
But I do agree that if the US and other UN member nations don’t want Iran to get nukes, then they’ll have to fight them. Frankly I think this might be worse in the long run. The younger people are friendly to the west and hopefully they’ll eventually get into positions of power and make Iran a more moderate state. If we attack them then we’ll just be fueling anti-west and anti-American sentiment and if anything, the country will probably become more hard-line.
I think a nuclear Iran would be a threat to Israel, but then again, maby M.A.D. would prevent anything from happening like it did with the US and Soviet union, or Pakistan and India.
For a few months now there’s been lots of unrest because the recently contested elections. If we want to help the opposition, now seems to be the time. They’re losing steam as time goes by but they’re still making noise. Then again, who knows? Maybe we are and we’re being very good at keeping it a secret.
Yeah, suuuure. Just like they had nothing to worry about before the “thugocrats” took over, right? :rolleyes: We were their enemy before the Islamists took over.
And what makes you think that any successor government is likely to be pro-American enough to satisfy us? Since when has America had any concern over democracy, as opposed to sucking up to America or paying it off? If it was the “thugocracy” that was our problem with Iran, we’d be threatening Saudi Arabia at least as much - but we aren’t. We aren’t, because we have never had any real concern for democracy beyond lip service. If some democratic regime does take over in Iran, how long would it be before we were trying to sponsor a coup against it if it didn’t suck up to us enough?
Wasn’t a free and democratic Iraq going to be what was going to free the Middle east?
I guess if you ‘free’ all of them that is going to be true eventually, but a little bit of skepticism is warranted when the domino argument is recycled so soon after its last use.
Otara
Naw. If anything MAD will allow Iran to be even more open and forward with its support of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Just like MAD allowed Russia to be even more open and forward with its support of various proxy forces.
As for covert support, unless Obama is totally incompetent it should already be underway.
There is a non-trivial difference between rational skepticism and blind nay-saying. We had a belly-full of this nonsense during the “ZOMG, Bush is going to attack Iran any day now!” * for years*.
The fact of the matter is that a huge degree of regional tension is caused by Iran’s export of Khomenism, its nuclear program, its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, etc… neuter Hezbollah and Hamas, and a peace deal in Israel becomes that much more likely. Stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and the Arab arms race that has begun may taper off. Stop exporting Khomenism by force, and sectarian divides aren’t quite as dangerous as they once were.
Context and facts aren’t to be handwaved away.
Thats confusing ‘this place is a real problem’ with ‘this is going to be the solution and this time its going to really work’.
Theres more than one way to handwave.
No, you’re pretty much handwaving all specifics away by relying on those silly and irrelevant fallacious nuggets. It doesn’t matter what else someone said was a problem, and it doesn’t matter what else someone said would effect certain changes. If you are unable or unwilling to address the facts and context of this particular situation, and insist on looking at it as if it was another situation, then of course it’s going to look more like another situation and you won’t analyze it based on the facts and context of this specific situation.
It’s just a little bit silly to maintain that you refuse to look at this situation and will only compare it to another situation and then complain that it doesn’t look distinct enough and looks too much like another situation.
What specifics?
So far all Ive seen is ‘support freedom forces within without it being seen as US led’, which is about as vague as it can get.
It doesnt detail how this would deter nuclear development in the short to medium term in any credible sense. It doesnt address the possible negative outcomes in the region of an attempt like this. It doesnt offer any credible or detailed arguments about what the outcomes would be or evne any credible scenarios about how the US would go about this.
If you dont offer any detail yourself I cant quite see how you can complain you didnt get any in return.
Otara
I know, the thread is, what, a whole dozen posts? I can see how you’d lose the relevant posts in that sea of data.
In 1953 ,the US and Brits toppled the Democratically elected government of Mosaddeq and installed the Peacock Throne. We got them 26 years of repression. That was of course was because they had the nerve to nationalize the oil production. That sort of stuff is not allowed.
That sowed the revolution that resulted in the Khomenei regime. Our hands are so dirty, I distrust anything we do or say in Iran.
:dubious: Ya think?! Iran is at least as volatile as Iraq, and five times as big.
From everything I hear the general population are more moderate than the leaders who are hard-line. Actually, after the disputed election I have heard of rifts occurring within the leadership itself with some members wanting some moderation. But to get back to the OP, it seems the hard-liners who are in charge are hell-bent of obtaining nuclear weapons, and my feeling is that either regime change or military action are the only two things which will stop them.
But all of that combined is tiny compared to America and it’s propensity for little things like, oh, outright wars of conquest.
Just brainstorming, here, but how about we brain-drain them? Much as Khomeini might want nukes, he’s not going to be able to literally make them himself: He’s going to need to rely on educated scientists, engineers, and technicians to do that. So how about we offer work visas, fast-track citizenship, and better-paying jobs to the Iranian nuke techs (and their immediate families, of course)? Sure, at least some of them are going to want to stay, but at least some of them will want to take us up on the offer, too, which should at least slow down the Iranian weapons program. And if the Iranian government tries to stop them from leaving by force, then we’ve got a good excuse to send in just enough force to provide them with a security escort to the border. Make it highly visible and public: They’ll have a hard time putting a spin on their own people freely deciding to join the US.
But they’ll have an easy time of putting a spin on us violating their national sovereignty by sending in an invading force. Especially given the likelihood of their military standing and fighting, and especially given that “just enough force” for the job would be about as much force as would be needed to, say, conquer one or more of their cities. I doubt we’d win many friends by leaving a hundred mile long, ten miles wide trail of death and destruction just so we can grab some guy.
If we want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we’re going to have to be prepared to use them ourselves. Invasion isn’t going to work, but attacks on Iran’s nuclear development program will, and since they’ve hardened sites against conventional attack, that means nukes.
But I’d rather a peaceful solution: encourage democracy and the removal of theocracy. Iran is going to need nuclear power for when their oil runs out.
I fear that we may not have much time: remember how quickly the Manhattan Project developed the bomb de novo in the first place.