Nonsense; we’ve been their enemy for decades, long before they had nuclear weapons. Since before the present government existed.
And did, using Saddam as our puppet. We ARE ruthless, aggressive and untrustworthy as a nation; something we’ve demonstrated to the world again and again.
Being peaceful wouldn’t keep it from being bombed on suspicion. Even if it WAS peaceful burying it would be the smart thing to do.
Allowing inspectors in didn’t keep us from invading Iraq with speeches about imaginary WMD.
I am quite sure that, if the existing bunker predates the second Iraq War, it can be penetrated by things shy of nuclear bunker-busters. We made some serious advances in penetrating warheads in the last few years.
And I don’t think anyone’s going to be too upset when Israel takes it out.
Marg bar dictator.
Well, I’ll try to be brief as I really need to go to bed.
To be honest I do not know the details regarding the construction of this plant, so my opinion and arguments are based on incomplete information. Maybe this is a silly question, but I will nonetheless ask it as it can’t hurt. What proof is there that the site was actually built secretly, which is being used to stir up apparent FUD? Apparently the US and other’s intelligence agencies knew about it (as was mentioned by Obama), and Iran revealed its existence by their own volition seemingly with enough notice as prescribed by the treaty, quite blunting the “gotcha!” moment that was probably intended by USA/UK/France. As to why they decided to build it under ground could be explained as already done above. Even if peaceful it wouldn’t be immune to a strike.
There are likely several incongruences within their program and surrounding events that make it all very fishy, as you say, but I am not necessarily arguing that they aren’t hiding something. So far my questions have been in regards to Iran’s obligations and the extent to which they are being honored.
From reports it seems to be located under a mountain, so that could potentially be a lot of rock to punch through. At least it’s not just a regular bunker with some earth and a few meters of reinforced concrete above. Of course you can still bomb the entrances, but that wouldn’t set them back too much.
I think this is easier said than done for the Israelis. It would likely be a very difficult operation for them to carry out effectively by themselves.
It’s not a silly question and it’s entirely debatable. Good luck finding a mainstream news pundit who has asked it. The Iranians, for their part, claimed to be shocked by our reaction. Are they full of shit, or are they genuine? Hard to tell at this point.
They (presumably Iran) haven’t been our enemies for decades, at least not in the sense I mean by ‘enemy’ (perhaps you are operating under a different definition). We’ve had unfriendly and even hostile relations toward Iran during that period of time…a bit of a different thing. Of course, the converse is that we have been their enemies during that period of time, from their perspective.
The thing is that, though we’ve had pretty rocky relations with Iran we haven’t actually attacked them in any way during this period, despite the fact that we certainly could have, had we been the knee jerk imperialist you so like to paint us as. There has been nothing stopping us from bombing the shit out of their infrastructure, say, had we a mind to do so…and basically nothing they could do about it if we decided to do so. Nothing is stopping us…except ourselves.
At this point the only reason an attack by the US on Iran is even on the radar (save for a few loony lefty types who have been insisting it’s about to happen any day now…for the past 6 or 7 years at least) is BECAUSE of what Iran is doing with it’s nuclear program. Had they REALLY had a peaceful intent to simply pursue a non-military power program and done so openly then there would BE no threat of US military strikes on Iranian targets at this point.
By the time Saddam got off the dime and allowed the inspectors in fully it was too little too late. Things had progressed far beyond the point of no return by that time, as far as Bush et al were concerned. Had Saddam allowed in inspectors right from the beginning and continued with an open policy toward them throughout the Clinton administration and continued to do so after Bush became Pres then we wouldn’t BE in Iraq today. I know you don’t believe this, but I do…just as I believe that IF the US attacks Iran it will be because of this dippy and stupid secretive policy of theirs, and that by the time they REALLY open up there won’t be enough trust on anyone’s part to fill a thimble…and we will have progressed too far down the road to war.
I’m not going to say it wouldn’t be hard. I’m of the opinion that they’re going to be the ones doing it, possibly with supplies from here, and with every other country looking the other way. It seems to be how things are done, you know?
I think Ahmadinejad is in serious trouble, on several levels, within and without his country, and he’s trying to scare everyone.
And sooner or later, it’s not gonna work. With luck, it’s before the bombs fall.
We don’t want to attack these countries because they have regimes in charge that are on our side. We actively prop up all those governments actually, they’d all last about five minutes without US support. Maybe Mubarak would last a few years but Saudi, the gulf states and Jordan would go fairly instantly.
When you look at this map and you consider the history between Iran and the US since 1953 (and the west, especially Britain since Britain discovered oil there) don’t you think Iran are justified in being a little bit paranoid about their nuclear program?
We did put them immediately under sanctions when they overthrew the dictatorship/secret police state we imposed on them and it’s fair to say we’ve behaved fairly threateningly towards them since then. We also shot down one of their civilian airliners a while back, have fairly constantly threatended them with naval blockades (an act of war) and military intervention. We’ve tried as hard as we could to overthrow the regime by backing dissident and anti-regime groups within Iran, funding exile groups and even supporting an anti-Iranian regime terrorist group, the support of terrorism being a bad thing only when other people do it. Basically ever since they kicked our puppet out we’ve been very unpleasant indeed towards them and it’s fair to say left them under no illusion as to whether we want them to remain in charge of their country. I think under the circumstances they’re entitled to do what they’re doing. After all, Israel built their nukes on the quiet and still haven’t signed the proliferation treaty. And that’s another thing, Iran aren’t starting a nuclear arms race in the region here, that already got underway some time ago.
I don’t think its a big deal at all. First, I’m not convinced this plant was operational but if it is, I’ll happily eat my words. Second, all of the nuclear powers, including the U.S, France, and Britain, likely have nuclear facilities that are shielded from the IAEA. Lastly, I don’t feel that Iran is a threat to my safety as a citizen at home or abroad. Again, if Iran arrives on the shores of Manhattan with Wing Zero or with something similar, I’ll reconsider my position.
I do (for now) support the use of more sanctions as long as its narrowly tailored to break the current regime and not increase the suffering of the Iranians. I do not, under any circumstances, support military engagement in Iran. Nothing short of an Iranian declaration of War would change my mind.
Of course we did; as pointed out above, we’ve funded terrorism against them, we blew up one of their airliners and gave the people involved medals; and of course there was the US supported invasion of Iran by Iraq. Just because you don’t want any of those things to count as attacks doesn’t mean the Iranians are going to agree with you.
You are engaging in the standard right wing practice of being so sure of America’s obvious righteousness that you refuse to admit that just maybe other countries honestly don’t agree with us. The practice of refusing to admit that any other country could possibly really see us as the bad guys.
Garbage. Saddam could have let in inspectors right off, and then put a bullet in his head and we still would have invaded. We invaded because we wanted to invade, not because of anything Saddam did or did not do.
I don’t support sanctions. For one, I’m not sure they can be narrowly tailored in the manner you describe. More importantly, what makes us think sanctions will work? Sanctions haven’t dissuaded the North Koreans. All sanctions will do is push Iran further into the arms of China and undermine internal dissent against that regime by giving the Iranians a reason to unify against us.
I think they tried building it above-ground but there were too many obstructionist legal challenges from Iranians with the “Not in my back-desert” mindset.
The government tried simply beheading them, but there were too many.
Being a neighbour of Iran and in a country which already has 2 nuclear powers for neighbours, last thing I want to see is a nuclear Iran.
But I can say if I was in Irans shoes, I would be busy building as much as I can get. You have a country (Israel) with a proven record of invading nearby countries and is supported by extra-regional actors who has invaded another country in the region despite that country agreeing to all of its demands (US) and another that has invaded Iran thrice in the last 150 years (United Kingdom) and one with whom there was a rivalry and to whom Iran lost much of its empire (Russia) and an international climate generally unfavourable to Iran.
Assuming the US were to invade, how is it that the Iranians would use nuclear weapons to deter that action? Is there evidence that they have an intercontinental delivery system? Or would they expect that the US would be deterred by a nuclear threat against Israel or some other country that they can reach?
The Shahab-3 missile has the longest range within the Iranian armory, somewhere below 2000km. Here is some more information about their missile capabilities, including a map with an “optimistic” assessment of their maximum range. They also have many shorter range delivery systems, as also described on the linked page, some of which could probably be modified to fit a nuclear warhead.
They claim that it would take 10-15 years for Iran to develop intercontinental capabilities. Still, I think a nuclear armed Iran even without intercontinental capabilities would be a significant deterrent against any aggression.
I cannot wait to hear all the ‘not in my hemisphere’ whining from the folks who pushed the ‘world’s sole remaining superpower’ meme to its limits, and beyond.
We funded terrorism against them? Interesting. As for the air liner, that was a (fairly honest) mistake given the tension at the time…and afaik we didn’t hand out medals over it. If you have data to the contrary feel free to provide it.
Just because you think of all of these things as attacks, or just because the Iranian’s MIGHT think of them in that light, my guess is that the keen eyed Iranian might note a slight difference between what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq as opposed to what we’ve done in Iran. All those ACTUAL and DIRECT attacks tend to be a bit more spectacular than those you have pointed out thus far.
:rolleyes: But you base this on your obviously biased and highly skewed understanding of the world and of the US, so it’s not like your analysis is something to take serious. If you didn’t speak every sentence in hyperbole (well, for you it’s absolute truth you speak with a completely straight face), it might make someone take your suppositions a tad bit more serious. On any subject touching on the US however whatever intelligence you have flies right out the window, carried on the wind of your own hyperbole and invective. C’est la vie.
