Still early in the game at this point, but thought I’d start a threat and see what people’s thoughts are. Here is an article discussing the situation as it stands:
So, what now? Obviously more talking in the SC…but to what end? If the US, Uk and (I suppose) France vote for sanctions but China and Russia reject, then what happens? What options are available to the west at that point? It appears to me as if Iran is going to push this all the way…frankly I don’t see why they shouldn’t from their perspective. So…what can be done? What should be done?
Offer to help. No strings attached, simply from the kindness of our hearts. No one is going to believe us, of course, but its a step in the right direction. We are going to spend a very long time rehabilitating our image in the ME, when you start from Great Satan, there is a lot of work to be done. Don’t even know if its possible.
Iran has committed herself to rebuilding Lebanon. Its a grand gesture, and such gestures are expensive. Once they start writing the checks, they’ll sober up. Its just barely possible that they might be willing to consider an offer of assistance and thereby open up lines of communication.
Frankly, I see no reason why they should, they’ve got all the cards, and all the options. Our options are limited to a)shit or b) go bowling.
I don’t think there is anything can be done, in practical terms. Stopping Iran would take a full scale invasion at this point, and that’s not likely to happen at this point ( although I expect it was the original plan of the Bush neocons ). Or preemptively nuking them, but I hope that not even the Bush Admin is that nuts.
Diplomacy simply isn’t going to work, at this point. If we ever disentangle ourselves from Iraq, they know they are on our list for conquest. They’d be fools not to want nukes to defend themselves. For that matter, I would consider it their clear duty to their nation to get nukes. Nothing we say, no bribe we offer will change that.
Nah. They’ll do as much as they can afford to do and that’ll be it. Besides, the last thing we want is for them to have more influence in the region.
We could have Hans Blix write them a very nasty letter!
I think the best we can do is delay the inevitable for as long as possible. Iran is going to get nukes sooner or later. If freakin’ NK can develop nukes, anyone can. But it might not be such a bad thing, as it will further isolate Iran from its neighbors. With great power comes great responisbility. When push comes to shove, though, neither the Russians nor the Chinese wants Iran to have nukes, so they’ll agree to whatever is necessary to slow the progress down, but they’ll wait til the absolute last minute to do it (and try to get something for themselves in the process).
I don’t believe that either a full scale invasion or use of nukes is necessary to halt (or at least slow down) Iran’s nuclear program, though I conceed that the point is debatable. The critical thing though is…is war worth it to prevent Iran from getting nukes? Have all diplomatic avenues been tried and found futile?
I don’t know the answer to either of those questions. I’m not quite as blas’e about the possibility as appearently most other dopers are…though I don’t know if its worth going to war over it either.
I guess I don’t see how this would help. How would helping Iran get nuclear weapons help to make them a more stable regime? How would it help rehabilitate our image? How would their neighbors perceive such help, in the highly unlikely even we did this? How would it effect our relationships with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia and Kuait? Israel?
Exactly. Especially if we do a cut and run in Iraq sometime. A nuclear armed and more influential Iran and a weak, decentralized Iraq in a state of civil war…the biggest side Shi’ite. Not a good thing IMHO.
Trying not to laugh at this…especially in light of the fact that this is the most probable course that WILL be taken.
Then why did we invade Iraq? Any fool could have seen that would only increase Iran’s relative strength and regional influence. Including their influence in Iraq, which may well become a de facto Iranian sattelite not long after we pull out.
Using your magical time machine again? Its hindsight based on the actual outcome you know happened. I don’t believe that the Administration or the military predicted things in Iraq would be such a cluster fuck when we invaded. Even based on relatively pessimistic assessments, I would say that the thought process was that a democratic Iraq with heavy US support (and long term US basing) would be a match for Iran as far as regional power and influence goes. IF there had been no great insurgency in Iraq it may well have worked out that way too.
Now, you can tell me that YOU predicted 4 years of increasingly nasty insurgency in Iraq, and maybe a few other people did as well, but I don’t believe that this was mainstream thinking at the time for any but the worst case scenerios at the bottom of the pile.
You’d think so, but evidently the Bush Admin is full of unusually low quality fools. Besides, they were taking advice from Chalabi, a known criminal - and an Iranian agent, as it happens.
The idea that Iraq would ever hold together without brutal force was a wildly optimistic assessments. I’d heard for years how the place was held together mainly by Saddam’s ruthlessness, and that it would likely fly apart when he died. The disaster resulting from removing him was quite predictable.
That simply means the mainstream was stupid enough to miss the obvious. Of course there would be a large insurgency; I’m actually surprised it isn’t worse. And of course it would last a long time. Did the Afghans roll over for the Soviets ?
Meh, even in a rosey scenario I don’t think predicting a post-Saddam Iraq would be more Iran friendly then pre-Saddam Iraq was too difficult. Everyone realized the Shitte would be the most powerful demographic in a democratic state, and that most of the natural leaders of the Shia (and many Sunni and Kurds as well) had received decades of support from the Iranian gov’t. Of course, to the optimist, US influence might have been able to limit this more then appears to have actually been the case, but even under that assumption the new Iraq was going to be closer to Iran then it was under Saddam.
Has it been proven that they are getting a weapons system? I’ve heard that they’re supposedly doing it, and that keeping IAEA people out of Natanz doesn’t look great, but has there been any concrete proof?
Also, if Iran DID have weapons, and indisputible proof of such things, what if they said they would gladly disarm their nukes if the USA did as well?
I´m thinking, going out of a limb here that maybe a nuclear Iran would be, in the long run, a good thing.
This days nukes make for good defense but not good offense, as hair rising as some experiences on the Cold War were, it was shown that MAD acutally worked; I highly doubt Iran would pursue to use their nuclear weapons in a first attack.
Nukes would give them a pretty good deterrence for invasion or attack, that may make them feel less vulnerable and maybe then they´ll start to de-radicalize given enough time.
Then again the bozos in Teheran may go completely bonkers and lob their missiles to whoever is pissing them off the most at that particular moment…
Or worst…the current Iranian government may fold at some point to be replaced by gods know what. Thats my own major fear. I think the current government is less popular than folks generally realize, and they seem to be going through another crackdown phase…where this might lead I have no idea. But eventually regimes that are THIS repressive are overturned. This may be a good thing…or like in Russia, it might be a mixed blessing. Or, considering the region and the various permutations of what MIGHT happen, or how a violent revolution MIGHT go, its more than possible it would be a complete disaster.
Once again I note the absence of the formerly prolific pro-war types. No chiming in to say, “Boy I assessed the evidence the wrong way and was I ever wrong. Thanks guys for putting me straight.”
I don´t think there´s too much to worry about Iran´s goverment being replaced by a more rabid bunch; on the other hand Pakistan (who actually has nukes) is being held by duct tape; that´s a case to be worried about.
A novice, inexperienced craddle of foam mouthed fundamentalists getting their hands on those bombs from one day to the other is something very dangerous; the ankylosed rulers of Iran would be very little inclined to go into suicide mode and lose all that they have gained through many years of rule.
