# Even if the Bush is Right About Iran and Nuclear Weapons **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2007, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200 "2007-10-27T05:00:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/21 "2007-10-28T07:29:54Z")
[QUOTE=Uzi] There is no world wide consensus and it is unlikely in the current world environment. Tolerance and negotiation can only happen between those who are tolerant and willing to negotiate. Countries that are totalitarian and deny human rights should not be given the same voice at the table as those who are democratic and promote human rights. Ideally there should be a organization of states, call it the United Democratic Nations, that only members who meet certain criteria can join. Those who allow people a voice in their government, those who support human rights for all their citizens, and those that have shown a history of doing so are permitted to be members. These members would all be equal. There would be no need for the equivalent of the Security Council. They would have free trade between them. Those not members would be allowed to trade but at a penalty. Maybe there would be different levels of trade for nations more advanced than others. But at least there would be some incentive for countries to clean up their act and become full members. Now there isn’t. [/QUOTE] I agree completely. If our leaders truly believed in democracy, this is what they would do. I also think that in our negotiations with emerging nuclear powers that we should agree to destroy X number of our nukes if they allow unfettered access to their nuclear facilities. Right now, we offer them trade benefits, but no promises of reduction of our own weapons, other than “someday.” We wouldn’t have to scrap _all_ our weapons, just enough to show that we’re serious about getting the total number down. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/22 "2007-10-28T07:32:08Z")
And what if the people choose a totalitarian government? Happened in Iran, and I’m sure many Iranians deeply regret it, but it happened. Have we some privilege to judge that, and overturn it? And yes, you most certainly can negotiate with such governments, and even ally to such, as witness Stalin in WWII. Besides, I’m not talking about the most attractive option, I’m talking about the _only_ option. Upon preview: golf claps, **Tucker**. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/23 "2007-10-28T07:42:23Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And what if the people choose a totalitarian government? [/QUOTE] Then they’d be out of the club. If they want to go back to the dark ages, then so be it. But they shouldn’t get to expect the rest of the world to accommodate and support their choice. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/24 "2007-10-28T07:57:14Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And what if the people choose a totalitarian government? Happened in Iran, and I’m sure many Iranians deeply regret it, but it happened. [/QUOTE] Is Iran a “totalitarian government”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/25 "2007-10-28T12:55:12Z")
Less now than it was, but like many revolutionary governments, it was well along the authoritarian path. Whether or not you want to say “totalitarian” is tomato-tomahto. Which would amount to a quibble not worth troubling the hamsters over. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/26 "2007-10-28T16:22:19Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] I agree completely. If our leaders truly believed in democracy, this is what they would do. I also think that in our negotiations with emerging nuclear powers that we should agree to destroy X number of our nukes if they allow unfettered access to their nuclear facilities. Right now, we offer them trade benefits, but no promises of reduction of our own weapons, other than “someday.” We wouldn’t have to scrap _all_ our weapons, just enough to show that we’re serious about getting the total number down. [/QUOTE] Let’s say we decided to reduce our nuclear weapons cache by X% tomorrow. Why would Iran be any less interested in getting nukes of their own? It seems to me that, if anything, they would be more interested. The fewer nukes we have, the easier it is for them (or anyone else) to approach parity. > [@elucidator](#): > > ``` > Less now than it was, but like many revolutionary governments, it was well along the authoritarian path. Whether or not you want to say "totalitarian" is tomato-tomahto. Which would amount to a quibble not worth troubling the hamsters over. > > ``` OK, but it’s unclear to me that the Iranians chose the current government they have. Was there an election and the clerics won? Iran is a pseudo-democracy-- they have elections all the time, but unelected clerics get to choose who the candidates are. It might be accurate to say they chose to get rid of the shah, but what happened afterwards did not happen democratically. At least that’s not how I remember it. At any rate, I think we both agree that Iran poses much less of a threat to the US than Bush et al would have us believe. There is no reason we can’t sit down at the table with them and talk. We don’t have to endorse their form of government, but if we aren’t talking to them, we really don’t have any way of influencing them. There are plenty of other powerful countries they can talk to, and get whatever they want from. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/27 "2007-10-28T17:31:28Z")
Too close to agreement for quibble. But yes, there was an election, and the people chose the party most fervently “anti-Shah”. Heat of the moment, and all that. Not a wise choice, by any means, but definitely within the bounds of “democratic”. And I would carry your willlingness to talk a step further: I think Iran and the US have any number of grounds for agreement and cooperation. For instance, the Taliban derives from a virulently anti-Shia sect and are Irans avowed enemy. (IIRC, there were a number of stories circulating about diplomatic “feelers” from Iran over cooperating in Afghanistan…) And, like you, I am far more concerned with Pakistan, whose possession is not a prospect, but a fact on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/28 "2007-10-28T18:02:01Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And I would carry your willlingness to talk a step further: I think Iran and the US have any number of grounds for agreement and cooperation. For instance, the Taliban derives from a virulently anti-Shia sect and are Irans avowed enemy. (IIRC, there were a number of stories circulating about diplomatic “feelers” from Iran over cooperating in Afghanistan…) [/QUOTE] Yes. Iran is much more of a natural ally\* to the US than a country like Saudi Arabia is. The Iranian people actually like the US. The Saudis… not so much. \*using the term in a relative sense. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/29 "2007-10-28T19:01:50Z")
So what do people think IRAN will do? (once in posession of nuclear bombs)? Will they say to Israel-leave, or we will attck you with nuclear bombs? Will the announce to the USA: "Get your ships OUT of the Persian Gulf, or we will nuke SA?)or to Pakistan: “Stop supporting the USA (to Musharraf)”-or we attack? Honestly, I don’t see the Iranians being so crazy. Let’s assume they are telling the truth-they are developing fuel for power plants, not bombs-wht would attacking them accomplish? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/30 "2007-10-28T22:51:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Let’s say we decided to reduce our nuclear weapons cache by X% tomorrow. Why would Iran be any less interested in getting nukes of their own? It seems to me that, if anything, they would be more interested. The fewer nukes we have, the easier it is for them (or anyone else) to approach parity. [/QUOTE] Because as is often pointed out, it’s rather hypocritical for us to say that nukes are bad and no one should have have them, but we’re going to keep ours. And even reaching parity isn’t that big of a deal, since we can probably build new ones faster than anybody. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2007, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200/31 "2007-10-28T23:08:08Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Yes. Iran is much more of a natural ally\* to the US than a country like Saudi Arabia is. [/QUOTE] Just chiming in to agree with this and to wonder aloud why we haven’t sought rapprochement with Iran, or responded to their feelers in that direction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/even-if-the-bush-is-right-about-iran-and-nuclear-weapons/424200.md?page=1)