Iran is planning to resume production of enriched uranium (which can be used as power-plant fuel or, in higher concentrations, in nuclear weapons) at its Isfahan nuclear fuel plant, unless the European countries come up with a new package of economic and political incentives. The U.S. is warning that if Iran does resume enrichment it might face sanctions from the UN Security Council. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/01/iran.nuclear/index.html
Issues for debate:
Well, there’s just one, isn’t there? Will this lead to war? We all remember what happened last time the U.S. made noises at the Security Council about a country having weapons of mass destruction.
I say no. We can’t go to war with Iran while we have so many troops tied down in a restive Iraq. It’s impossible. Unless we reinstate the draft, which is politically impossible. And even then, the budget couldn’t support another war, on a country much bigger and stronger than Iraq was in 2003. And just imagine trying to occupy a postwar Iran! Even in this Administration, nobody would be mad enough to consider such an enterprise. If military action is the only way to stop it, then we will let Iran go ahead and enrich uranium.
The only thing that’d skew the view is if there was another major terrorist attack in the US.
Then all bets are off.
Otherwise, I’d say we don’t have the political wherewithal to do what it would take to wage war against iran. War-Gaming the Mullahs
But America certainly could do it—and has given the idea some serious thought. “The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,” says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. “The question is, what then?” NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."
Apparently,
WWIII
(or WWIV,
or WWV,
depending on who’s doing the counting).
It can enrich Uranium if it wants to, as you say, and there isn’t anything we can physically do about it. But if they do, the US, the EU and their various allies will impose sanctions and Iran will become more isolated and more impoverished then it is already. Since neither side wants this, I think a deal will eventually be cut, though not without a lot more of the footstomping and verbal sparring that has characterised negotiations so far.
I just don’t see the administration getting the support and approval needed to wage another war against an “enemy” that hasn’t actually done anything to us at this time, neither from the public, nor Congress at large.
Bah, just push through another round or two of tax cuts and we’ll be able to afford anything.
Pretty much spot on. We aren’t capable of anything more warlike than a Clintonesque tossing of a few tomahawks or the odd bombing or two…unless someone madman is stupid enough to detonate a nuke or some other large scale attack on civilians while Bush is still in office. Then the shit will hit the fan and gods help us all.
At this point I’m actually leaning towards ‘let them have the damn things’, as distasteful as that is to think about. Slap some sanctions on them and let them be. I seriously doubt they will be giving one of their limited supply of nukes to a terrorist group because the consequences of being found out would be…extreme. Not being completely crazy they have to know this.
Being a Spaniard and all the baggage that appears to carry with you, perchance I should use the well-worn strategy of “same to you buddy” – I’ll simply asume that you’re just another mindless flag-waving jingoist at a different point in history. One that dislikes BushCo yet can’t help but defend them almost by default. But what the hell, even an ‘evil’ Socialist-leaning, Zapatero-voting Españolito such as myself can see the advantage in having, basically, ‘my country right or wrong’ patriots such as yourself come around to reality – reality as most of us see it, Imperial Hubris notwithstanding.
Point being, I hate to see any country ‘going nuclear’ for said circumstance obviously only increases the probabiliy of nuclear conflict linearly. Having said that, were I a ruler of nation in the sights of the PNAC/current US Ad., that would likely be my number one goal.
This time arouund, I’ll leave the “maybes” and “empathy” outta of the way and simply state that you know exactly what I mean. You’re too smart not to.
I know, it’s a hard job, but please, stop policing the world unilaterally. We’ll ALL lose that fight.
What deterrant is that? The Iranian’s tell us that they want to enrich uranium solely for the benefit of their civilian nuclear power program, and as far as anyone can tell, there’s no evidence they have an active bomb program. The nuclear powers have an obligation under the nonproliferation treaty to assist Iran in the peaceful exploitation of the atom.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, and all that, but we can’t really demand they cease and desist without throwing the treaty away, or negotiating a new one.
I’m not sure how you read into my post all that. Are you attempting to channel me or something? I said essentially ‘let Iran have the nukes’ and you read in that I can’t stand Spaniards, and I’m another ‘mindless flag-waving jingoist’. These insults seem to me to be better left in the Pit, though maybe I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand why they aren’t really insults to me. The point though is…how did you get to here from what I wrote in this thread? Or are you saying that even though I posted differently here, I REALLY meant something else? Or are you just interperating my past posts…or reading goat entrails? I’m truely curious how you got here from what I wrote.
I couldn’t agree more old boy. I was a libertarian isolationist before and frankly I find myself more and more coming back to this position. No more foreign involvement unless it directly impacts on my adopted nations national security. The rest of the world can fend for itself with my blessing.
I wasn’t specific enough was I?
I meant that having a nuke or two was a deterrent as per xtisme’s comments:
Originally Posted by xtisme
I seriously doubt they will be giving one of their limited supply of nukes to a terrorist group because the consequences of being found out would be…extreme. Not being completely crazy they have to know this.
