Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Your statements here and the article you linked to offer up a lot of speculation derived from observable facts. Assuming each step in the chain to full on arms race is going to happen and the continuing spread of this technology to places in all directions of the compass outside of the Middle East what can we possibly hope to do to stop this?

Assuming it is impossible: How does a Persian - Arab arms race evolve differently than a Soviet - USA arms race or Pakistan - India arms race? The two that have actually happened seem to develop into largely peaceful posturing, grumbling and proxy warfare.

This future you describe honestly does not seem different than today: Iran uses its proxy forces to control various parts of the Middle East. The populaces of most countries that can really go to war with Iran have no stomach for it. Their governments can probably only perform air strikes or missile strikes - so it’s not different whether Iran has or does not have nukes.

I have faith in Iran’s people so long as they remain as free as they are now. I think the enhanced education of the populace in pursuit of various types of technology, even in weapons, will tend toward opening up their society. I think a large part of what is driving the revolutionary forces in the Middle East, from terrorist to Arab Spring, is a population of well-educated, motivated individuals with little to no opportunities.

Whether your scenario or a scenario without Iran nuclear weapons comes to pass, attempts at peaceful, non-punitive diplomatic activities will have the best outcomes for us in the long run.

Although it is valuable to develop the kinds of techniques exhibited by Stuxnet, I think it is a half measure and does not, in the long run, serve our goal: an Iran free of nuclear weapons.

What alternate universe are from where the Shah wasn’t an ally of the United States?

If America has nuclear weapons, there’s nothing wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons. Because Iran is just like America.

Iran isn’t just like America, Iran wouldn’t nuke an enemy country. :slight_smile:

Since they’ve never actually had nuclear weapons, it’s pretty impossible to say what they’d do if they did have them. Considering what this country does to its own people, I’m not optimistic about it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The Shah was an ally of both the US and Israel.

Please read up about the situation before making extremely moronic statements about my homeland.

I think that’s his point - that the Shah was doing the bidding of America.

I know, I know, jeez can’t a body joke about nuclear weapons anymore? I do have to wonder, how would it ever possibly benefit any country other than maybe the US/Russia/China to nuke an enemy. If Iran’s leaders decided to level Tel Aviv, or wherever, they’d be basically committing a very bloody suicide and possibly destroying their own civilisation with it.

Exactly.

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that they’re bringing about the return of the Vanished Imam, the final battle between the Messiah and the Mahdi versus the Anti-Christ, the End of Days and the ascendency of the just into paradise.

Some people wouldn’t find the latter too upsetting.

Yeah, because they can’t. Instead they fund and supply terrorist regimes and terrorist groups in the region, eg, Hamas, Hizbollah.

(Or perhaps you are sympathetic to those groups. I donno.)

Or the other alternative: They win that round and the next couple.

If Iran somehow managed to level Tel Aviv and had Syria and Lebanon and Hamas backing it (or whomever), Israel may be so up in arms over itself that it may not strike back. Or it would, but Israel is pretty tiny. Tel Aviv is a stone’s throw from the border and iirc you can make it from Tel Aviv to Jeruslaem in a few hours on a bus. Tel Aviv is also a major population hub. shudder I don’t even want to think about it. It wouldn’t take much.

The nice thing is that while Egypt, Iran and Turkey are making plays to be the power brokers in the ME, most people really don’t want to see Iran with nukes.

Just like us; we support plenty of terrorists and tyrants across the world; far more than Iran does. And Iran could attack other countries if it wanted to, it’s not stuck on some island. It obviously isn’t interested; most countries aren’t these days, there’s no profit in it.

Don’t be silly, they’d nuke as much of Iran as they had the weapons for, and I’m sure Iran knows it.

Oh, nothing nice, to be sure. However, compared to China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, France if you count the whole Algeria thing… yah, they’re really nothing special.

For that matter, if you consider foreign policy, I’m hard set to see how Iran’s policy has been more significantly more volatile or aggressive than China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, France, the UK, the US, Israel… have I missed anybody?

One of the happy tendencies of politics is that people with death wishes rarely find themselves with sufficient power to unilaterally launch a country’s nuclear arsenal. Certainly Khamenei is not such a person, nor indeed is Ahmadenijad (note that he’d never have the power anyway). Really, we don’t worry about nukes for the sake of crazy leaders —after all, we’ve had Stalin and Mao with nukes, and it worked out fine.

AFAIK, there are basically worries when a country gets nuclear weapons: 1) the country will get itself into an existential threat and have to use them (North Korea); 2) the country will start being more aggressive as it feels it has become a major power (Iran); 3) the country will give or lose its nuclear weapons to a non-state actor for whom MAD doesn’t work (Pakistan, former Soviet Union); or 4) the country will sell its technology onto another country for whom the first three reasons apply (North Korea, Pakistan). Iran’s foreign policy isn’t exceptionally aggressive by the standards of the region; I don’t think #2 is enough to be more than unhappy about them getting nukes. The other three don’t really apply at all; Iran’s never shown signs of trying for #1, they have too much control for #3 (and we’re not exactly inundated Shi’ite terrorists anyway —I can’t imagine Iran giving nukes to any Sunni group), and they aren’t cash-strapped enough for #4 to be worthwhile.

IOW, Iran getting nuclear weapons wouldn’t be a good thing, but it also wouldn’t be the end of the world. Not by a long shot.

Iran can use a nuclear weapon exactly once. After that, the mushroom clouds are inbound, not outbound. And nukes aren’t magical world-ending engines of destruction. They’re large explosives with unpleasant side effects (unless deployed several hundred at a time, as they would be in response to Iran using one).

An Iranian nuke going off in downtown Tel Aviv isn’t going to end Israel. An Iranian nuke going off in the middle of a US carrier group isn’t going to end the United States. However, an Iranian nuke going off anywhere outside of Iran will certainly end Iran. Can Iran build one? If it pleases Allah. Can they use one? Not unless they want every Iranian citizen’s balls to glow green like on the flag of their country.

Why does everybody always assume the Israelis can just decide to do this and succeed? The Iranians have learned a lesson (maybe the wrong lesson, whatever) from the Osirak boming, and built their nuclear facilities underground and bomb-hardened. We’ve been over this many times before.

And, why does everybody always assume that Iran’s air force is so inferior that Israeli bombers can even be sure of reaching targets in their country?