Deterring Iran from making nukes

Great Debates
41

Israel is involved, but it’s not all about Israel. Many Arab regimes didn’t decide to start their own nuclear programs recently because of Israel, but because of Iran. The Lebanese aren’t at risk of having their nation stolen from them by Israel, but by Iran. Jews weren’t murdered in Argentina by Israel, but by the Iranian proxy force Hezbollah. United states non-combatant peacekeepers weren’t murdered in Lebanon by Israel, but by Iran using forces it created, armed, trained and directed at a specific target. United states soldiers weren’t murdered in Saudi Arabia by Israel, but by Iranian using its proxy forces which it armed, trained and directed at a specific target. Nations all over the world aren’t jumpy because Israel has terrorist cells there, but because the Iranian proxy Hezbollah has cells all over Europe, Africa and North America.

And so on. Of course I’m sure that the Israelis are worried that a nuclear Iran can engage in MAD while stepping up its attacks via Hezbollah/Hamas, and might possibly leak enough material to them for a dirty bomb or what have you, all why claiming it never had any idea of what was going on… but Israel isn’t at the center of this issue. Iran is.

42

No, the simple truth and well known for years. We attacked when we did because Iraq WAS cooperating with the UN, and we didn’t want the UN to come back with a finding of “No WMDs”.

Ridiculous. They know quite well that we wouldn’t care if we could prove they were behind it; we’d quite likely take the opportunity to carpet bomb them with nukes even if we were pretty sure they weren’t behind it. Nor are they likely to pre-emptively use it against anyone, especially a nation like Israel which almost certainly already has nuclear weapons.

I see no reason to consider Iran anywhere near as crazy as you are painting them. Crazier than Stalin, crazier than Mao.

Right now. Having nuclear weapons or not makes no difference in their relations with Israel. It does with America.

43

No one would care what it claimed. And “dirty bombs” are a joke. And you don’t even need a nuclear program to make one anyway so they are irrelevant to this matter.

44

Iran haven’t yet decided if they’re going to make a nuclear weapon and they may never do. Iranians in general support Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and don’t want to give that up. If they were asked whether they should have the ability to quickly build a bomb to deter foreign threats, the policy the Iranian government appears to be pursuing, the majority of Iranians would support that policy too. So with there being no democratic mandate in Iran to scrap the nuclear program and Iran not backing down there’s little America can do other than organise sanctions that will be watered down to effectively nothing by Russia amd China. We can’t support any revolutionary movement over there (and they don’t want to be associated with us) due to our history in the country. And any new government is going to keep the nuclear program too and would be effectively just as careful and nationalistic in any negotiations with us as the current lot. Neither will any new government in Iran change anything in the Middle East as we’ll continue to prop up almost every single Arab government to some extent like we already do. The last thing America wants is any kind of democratic revolution in the region.

45

Funny, the actual poll shows that this claim is fictional. Funny, too, it’s diametrically at odds with the actual data that’s been gathered. Even funnier is where on Earth you could have gotten the data to make such erroneous claims if the actual data falsifies your claims.
Just one of them thar mysteries.

Nah, you’re wrong there too, never happened.

[

](http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report.pdf)

I’m sure you’ll be along right away to cite the poll that supports your claims. Right? Right away.

46

Your numbers are from " terror free tomorrow"? Not the most objective organisation I’ll bet. The main people behind it are war-supporting GOP Senators and ex Iran-Contra people. About as credible as the International Republican Institute that found most Iraqis supported the occupation and making peace with Israel. The democratically elected government? Not so much. And it claims that Iranians would recognise Israel? Hilarious. Come on, do you honestly believe that?

Here’s a poll of polls :

Even Mousavvi supporters support Iran’s nuclear program :

However, Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php?nid=&id=&pnt=652&lb=

So the only thing I actually said that the polls show shows what I said it shows. I have yet to see a poll that asks Iranians if they were being threatened with invasion or similar wold they support the ability to quickly build a nuke to deter invasion but like I said I’m sure Iranians would support that too. That’s a different issue from whether they should give that option up if offered a normalisation of relations with America.

I’m pleased we agree that the idea that a change in government in Iran would bring about sinificant political change in the Middle East is ridiculous.

47

Polls stand or fall based on their methodology. Since you are totally unable to even mention it and rely on a silly ad hom fallacy instead, you are pretty much admitting that you aint got nuthin. But we already knew that.
Speakin’ of which, it’s quite clear that you either misusing the poll data, one way or another. "However, Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran’s nuclear program. " That’s it? No questions, no sample sizes, no breakdown, no followups? And the current US government, not the US as a nation or possibility for future peace?

This is not how valid statistical research is conducted, it’s just some second tier data-mining.

You also somehow missed "A majority of Mousavi supporters did favor diplomatic relations with the US, and were ready to make a deal whereby Iran would preclude developing nuclear weapons through intrusive international inspections in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, this was equally true of the majority of all Iranians. " But I guess that when you’re picking cherries, sometimes you miss some stuff.

Nope. The actual poll I’ve provided which debunks your claims and which you cannot even address let alone refute shows that your claims are hot air.

Again, seriously, you can’t cite your imagination. Not only have I said that it would bring about significant change, it’s rather obvious that nothing I said could have given you such an erroneous impression that I said anything but. I’d ask you to cite whatever text caused such a wild misreading on your part, but we can save us both time and just figure that it’s one of them thar errors.

Of course, it’s also absurd. As if stopping funding and arming Hamas and Hezbollah, stopping the regional nuclear race, stopping exporting Khomenism etc… would not effect things. A good clue that your argument has jumped the rails is that when you ignore facts because they don’t fit into your narrative, and you disregard reality because it makes your narrative a bit harder, but you still like your narrative just fine.

48

OK. So your poll is fine and my poll is wrong.

Here are the actual numbers from the poll of polls so that everybody can look for themselves and make their own minds up :

And people can check the poll out for themselves at the link I already posted. It’s clear from the actual numbers which of us is full of fiction.

And I’m not cherry picking. I’m sure the majority of Iranians would forego nukes if they could get relations between Iran and America normalised, but ask them if they’re ever under serious threat of invasion or heavy bombing, should they retain the ability to quickly build a bomb and I think they’d want to keep the option to quickly build one bomb. Which they can do even if they scrap any policy to build one!

And upthread you were talking about how Iran becoming democratic could well be the domino that changes the face of the Middle East. The same Neocon nonsense that we heard for years about Iraq. It was wrong then and it’s no less wrong now.

49

It’s almost like you’re ignoring the problems with methodology in order to focus on irrelevancies. And by “almost” I mean that’s exactly what you’re doing.

It’s funny, I just pointed out the methodological problems with one single question, especially one phrased in that manner, and you respond by… showing that question. Wheee.

So you pretty much just imagined me saying the exact opposite of what I actually said in this thread, you can’t cite anywhere that I said what you just claimed I did since it seems it came to you in a dream, and you can’t actually address a single factual point I made and instead want to handwave it away instead. Shocka.

Yet again, a clue for you: Iran and Iraq both have an I, an R, and an A in their names but… wait for it… wait for it… they’re different countries. I know, what are the odds? Your inability to deal with Iran and your dedication to talk about Iraq instead just shows, yeep, you aint got nuthin’.

50

Then why didn’t we carpet bomb Iran after the Lebanon Marine barracks bombing? We knew they were behind it and so did they. So…why no action then?

I think we’ve been pretty fair in dealing with Iran and that the election of the Obama admin we are preparing to diplomatically deal with them, which I support. So why are we all of a sudden in a hurry to eradicate them?

That’s right, we aren’t, and we’ve never been. We don’t need a reason to bomb them, we could have done it whenever we chose and painted the scenario any way we wanted to the American public, yet we didn’t…why is that?

And furthermore, why Iraq instead of Iran when we did in fact invade? We could have just as easily wagged the dog and made a case for either nation, right?

Oh yeah, its because of nuclear weapons and their inherent instability and inability to “play nice” with all the other countries in the world that have been begging them to do so for what…decades?

51

Because we didn’t really care, despite our rhetoric, and were preoccupied by the Soviet Union.

The likely international reaction.

Iran is bigger. And Bush II wanted to show up Daddy. And because the plan was Iraq, THEN Iran; if the Iraqis had been the grovellers we presumed they were, we would have conquered Iran or Syria next. Instead, we bogged down.

52

What international reaction? You mean the same one we would have faced that we ended up “facing” WRT Iraq? Why would the “case for Iran” have been any different? Whom would have stopped us had we acted upon them instead of Iraq? If we are so cavalier towards international reactions as you like to claim, then why not Iran?

Iran being bigger in terms of land mass is of no consequence. If we were as stupid as you like to paint in terms of our Iraq invasion, you’d see it wouldn’t have mattered. Apparently we picked the wrong boogeyman to sell to ourselves.

53

Yeah, methodology. I’m sure the methodology on your poll is just fine and my poll is all wrong. Here are some points from your own poll with its fantastic methodology, the same methodology that shows Iranians want to recognise Israel :

Slightly more than half, however, said they still favor the development of nuclear weapons and think the country would be safer with them.

And while nearly two-thirds support financial assistance for opposition groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, 55 percent of Iranians support recognizing Israel and Palestine as independent states in exchange for normal relations with the United States.

So the majority of Iranians favor funding Hamas (although Iran still well behind our allies Saudi Arabia obviously) until the Palestinians get their own state in which case they’ll recognise both states. That seems fair, it’s a shame Israel will never go for it.

And the democratic Iran thing, you obviously agree with the Neocon nonsense. That’s the same claim they’re making about Iran that they made about Iraq a few years ago. Here’s your own words “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.” That’s exactly the same thing we heard from the neocons endlessly about Iraq in 2002/3 and it’s the same thing we’re hearing now about Iran. And it’s nonsense.

54

Yes, the same international reaction that likely would have helped deter a less moronic President from attacking Iraq.

No one would have stopped us; and we didn’t go after Iran, because Iraq was first on the list.

It didn’t matter, except to help push Iraq to the top of the list; we would I’m sure have later attacked Iran if the Iraqis had sucked up to us and thrown flowers like they were supposed to. And it would have been an even bigger disaster if we had attacked them first.

55

Dick, you’re still refusing to even address the methodology involved. Truly, one would have had to be some sort of psychic to predict that you’d dodge the actual facts. (I’ll get to your continued cherry picking in a moment, just be patient).

The results you cited were obtained by first informing their respondants that sanctions have hurt their country, and ask how badly they think they’ve been hurt. Then they later ask if sanctions were lifted, what they’d give in exchange. They deliberately set up a set of questions that couldn’t have been more effective if it was phrased as “The global community is trying to shake you down, will you submit to their threats?”

Of course, in the poll I cited, as well as its 2009 followup, as soon as the question becomes one which mentions specific benefits that have been offered to Iran over the years, and which they’d accept, lo and behold the numbers skyrocket and it turns out, nope, they’re not particularly married to the idea of nuclear weapons or even a nuclear program. But of course, methodology doesn’t concern you.

I notice the cherrypicking, and I’ll be happy to point out your ignorance as well. For instance:

-you cherrypick the initial comment about nuclear weapons but as soon as they’re pressed about actual benefits for dropping them versus nebulous “so is this a good idea”, the supermajority makes clear that they don’t want nukes. Of course, you don’t mention that because you’re cherrypicking. You are also evidently ignorant of the importance of followup questions and clarifying nebulous generalities that respondants are likely to give.
-You point to support of Hamas and Hezbollah, deliberately ignoring (or being ignorant of the fact) that they’re seen as valid governmental entities over much of the Arab world and support for them does not necessarily equate to war with Israel. Of course, some folks outside of the Arab world are aware that they’re virulent racists committed to genocide and they still support them (as you’ve gone on record as doing), but the situation is a bit more nucanced outside of the “I support genocidal racists and I’m proud!” crowd.

I’ll also note that your silly little dodge doesn’t carry much weight as they supported financial assistance while Iran is currently supplying them with weapons, training and safe haven.

Focus man, focus. I’m not sure how to make this any clearer. Iran, Iraq. See? They’re not the same word. You may be even more shocked to learn that they’re not the same country. But please, more ad hom fallacies, that’ll shore up your argument, boy howdy. Tell me about how only a neocon would recognize that they’re not the same country, and only a neocon would possibly address the facts about Iran’s relationship with the Middle East.

Now, I know this will be hard, but try addressing the actual facts of the matter. Try to argue (I know it’s hard, because you aint got nuthin’) as to why all the things that Iran effects now will magically stay the same even if Iran totally changes its actions and stance. Or just keep repeating “Nuh unh!!!” I mean, that’s a pretty effective factual rebuttal too. I guess.

56

Why do you think so? Besides landmass, Iran was pretty similar to Iraq in terms of military capability…unless you intend to admit to their vast proxy terrorist network that’s incredibly active in the Middle East. How is their sponsorship of Hezbollah helpful to anyone or anything, exactly?

57

The Iranis have been at nuclear enrichment for a long time and have reached 20 percent. A nuke requires 90. They are not close. It could be, they are not ever going to get there.
There have been a lot of stories about Israel going after the Iran nuclear plants. The discussion once was when would Bush/Cheney green light it. Now they would have to do it on their own. But the discussion has gone on for a long time. It is not a lie to suggest that Israel is a serious threat to Iran.

58

Sorry Gonz, wrong yet again. 20% is HEU and you can make a nuclear weapon with 20%.

And yes, there have been a lot of stories. Lots of stories about how Israel was about to attack Iran any day now. Lots of stories about how Bush was going to attack Iran any day now. Blah blah blah. And given the number of times Iran’s proxies have attacked Israel with zero response back from Israel, claiming that Israel is some sort of serious threat is fantasy.

59

What threats have Israel made to Iran? Ahmadinejad is making a claim of war, without citing a source, but Netanyahu is denying that and instead trying for sanctions site.

I know, it’s a he said-he said type scenario, but Ahmadinejad hasn’t backed up his claim so far. And seeing how denies that the holocaust occurred site, I don’t think his credibility is all that great.

60

Hardly. Iraq was already near prostrate because of so many years of bombing and severe sanctions. It was essentially helpless. And the problem is much less the military than the higher population. People can make all the speeches about pro-American sentiments in Iran they like; once we invaded and started the massacres, the bombing, the torture and all the rest all that sentiment would vanish.