Ridiculous. Why would Iran give al-Qaeda nukes? Iran hasn’t worked with al-Qaeda, and in fact, Iran was on our side in Afghanistan and had been supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for years before we got involved.
NK already has them, won’t relinquish them, so it’s moot.
Iran is hell bent to get a nuclear arsenal, regardless of what Russia or China might prefer.
So, my observation stands.
Why not disagree without incendiary language like “ridiculous” or “utterly ridiculous”? Can’t you disagree in a more sporting, respectful manner?
Iran might or might not give a nuke to al-Qaida, but they sure might give one to Hamas or Hezbollah to use against Israel.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Prediction: satellite phones and laptop computers become so cheap that the U.S. floods Iran with portable internet stations not subject to governmental censorship, enabling the citizens to download uncut movies, TV shows and terabytes upon terabytes of porn.
Well, that’d be my plan.
I seriously doubt that any government would give something that powerful to somebody else.
Since an important part of the debate appears to hinge on how many American troops will be tied up in Iraq, here’s an interesting New Yorker article about the outlook in Iraq based on insider and outsider estimates:
My own feeling is that these things always take longer than planned, so I wouldn’t count on our combat troops being out of there by summer 2008.
I think the comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan is quite different for a couple of reasons.
First, Iran is quite a bit larger in both landmass and population than Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, I think it’s less likely that we’d have a quick and decisive invasion.
Second, our allies in Europe, Russia, and China have more influence over Iran than we do. Some of their ties are cultural, but many of their ties are economic. So I think any solution is going to depend heavily on our allies’ ability to influence Iran’s leadership, probably through economic sanctions.
Third, I think the fact that we have little influence over Iran creates an interesting conundrum. Specifically, if the mullahs are as crazy as they talk, then their likely targets are the US and Israel. So our European allies, Russia, and China don’t have as much to fear from an Iranian nuke as we do, and thus don’t have the same incentive that we do to take drastic action.
If we do decide to take direct action, I believe it’s more likely to involve strategic strikes at their nuclear facilities, but also at their power and oil facilities. Anything to slow their production capabilities, including through financing.
Having said that, I think it’s likely that Iran will eventually get nukes. The most prominent use of those nukes will probably be prestige and influence. But of course when a country’s President says that his country will get nukes whether we try to stop them or not, and simultaneously calls for Israel to be “wiped out,” then it’s hard to place too much faith in his peaceful intentions. (emphasis added)
Yikes.
Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons to our protests. There will be a lot of hand wringing and scary news stories. As years go by, more and more nations will get them, as has been the trend.
Life goes on.
Uh, no. Your observation does not stand. Your observation was that Russia and China would like to see Iran have nuclear weapons because it would be a thorn in the side of the west. Whether or not Russia or China can do anything about it does not do anything to support/refute your initial point. It has nothing to do with it.
Come up with points that aren’t utterly ridiculous and I’ll be less dismissive.
Actually, if I’m not mistaken, it was another resistance group, Shiite, operating in the western part of Afghanistan, and not part of the “northern alliance” that Iran supported. If I remember correctly, this group was mostly decimated before 9/11 and the following war in Afghanistan.
By the way, the ennemity between Iran and the Talibans has been one of the reasons why the USA wasn’t that eager to have the Talibans ousted before 9/11 (the ennemies (Talibans) of our ennemy (Iran) can’t be that bad).
IMO, like for any other country, the most proeminent use will be deterence. And honestly, it makes a lot of sense for Iran, in the current situation, to become a nuclear power. It’s not like theyre safe without a single potential ennemy. Actually, I think that Iran has currently more use for nuclear deterence than the USA, or Russia, etc…
That’s why I don’t believe it’s a “bargain chip”. IMO, they want nukes, period.
No, the Hazara Shi’ites were definitely part of the alliance.
Hm, predictions ehe? Well, for myself I think that some kind of weak sanctions will be passed which will have the effect of simply upping the tempo for Iran to get nukes. I suppose there could be a pre-GW II back and forth procrastination fest a la Sam Stones first prediction. In the end I predict that Iran will be a nuclear power because the US doesn’t have the political will, Europe doesn’t have the cajones and China and Russia will block anything meaningful from the SC. What Iran being nuclear means is debatable…I seriously doubt that it will be as bad as the gloom and doomers think (caviot: For as long as the regime lasts. If it folds all bets are off).
As Sam said, Israel is the wild card. They COULD certainly set back Iranian nuclear production for a few years (and secretly I think this is what the Euro’s are hoping for…best of both worlds for them. Problem solved with the Iranians and the chance to protest and bitch about Israel taking matters into their own hands).
You were wrong when you said this in the other Iran thread and remain wrong. The US certainly has the military strength to regime-change Iran…even with so many troops tied up in Iraq. What we dont have is the will as a nation to do so. Oh, it would take a major committment by the US, and probably draw down our last reserves. It would be ugly and messy, especially the occupation phase. But we COULD certainly do this if we wanted to. We don’t though and I agree, its not a viable option. I have serious doubts if we will even make token air strikes at this point. The Iraq war (for various reasons on both sides of the fence) has crippled us in that reguard IMHO.
-XT
Learn how to read, ace. Sam wrote:
“However, the Russians and the Chinese really have opposing interests to the west here … an Iran which is a serious thorn in the side of Israel, the U.S., and other western nations isn’t a bad thing.”
I agreed. Where did I state that the Russians and PRC want Iran to obtain nukes? My point was that Russia and the PRC want Iran to be a foil to our objectives.
Your leaps of illogic are utterly ridiculous.
They won’t get nuked by Iran before then, if this Washington Post article is on the money, because Iran, according to the intelligence estimates in that article, won’t be capable of building a bomb before then.
Has anyone seen any evidence that Iran is capable of building a bomb in less than five years, other than (a) bald-faced assertions by Iranian mullahs, and (b) bald-faced assertions by U.S. administration officials?
My own predictions? I think Iran is talking tough but is nowhere near close enough to a bomb to justify the ridiculous sense of bellicose urgency that’s suddenly surrounding this question.
Hmmm…let’s see.
We’re discussing Iran gaining nuclear weapons and how the UN should handle it. You agree that Russia and China would like Iran to be a thorn in our side, and that’s a reason they will stall things in the UNSC.
In other words, Russia and China wouldn’t mind seeing, and would even like to see, Iran gain nuclear weapons - since that would make them more of a thorn in the side of the west. Correct? If I’m missing something, please go ahead and tie together those statements to imply something other than what they clearly imply, “ace.”
Yes.
There are plenty of reasonable estimates that say Iran is less than 5 years away from building a nuke. And there are plenty of reasonable estimates that say they’re 10 years away from building a nuke. Because the whole thing is a guessing game, and the Iranians won’t let us inspect their work to see how far along they really are.
Iran will be further strengthened by entering into an actual formal alliance with Russia, China and North Korea, the purpose being to get in a better position to confront the West, politically, economically and militarily.
With this alliance Iran will have time to develop their nuclear weapons without interference from the United States and other nations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
Israel’s defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.
Who knows what that will entail though or if Israel will do anything.