I was reading this article today and it struck me that there just isn’t any point in continueing to try and block Iran from getting nukes. Nor does there seem to be any real point in continueing this farce called the UN. Its clear that major nations do whatever they want to do without reguard to treaties signed or even the Charter…they do what they feel is best for themselves and the rest of the world can just hang. Since (according to the article) both China and Russia will block any resolutions to try and put pressure on Iran via sanctions, and in fact will fully support Iran for their own economic reasons, is there any point to trying to block Iran from getting the things? It seems a doomed effort at this point.
A couple of things from the article:
The most telling thing to me is that Iran has come right out and said it has no fear of whatever the UN can do to it…even if China and Russia go along (which looks highly unlikely). That being the case, what point continueing with this? Why not just conceed the point and let them have the things? Or is there a point to keeping this fight up? Should the US and Europe fight on with trying to prevent this? Obviously a military option is out, and if economic pressure can’t be brought to bear by the entire international community, then what else could be done? Doesn’t look like anything from where I’m sitting.
For bonus points, doesn’t this show just how irrelevant the UN has become?
If we they acquire the technology they seek, being able to produce things that go boom would be one of the less useful things to do. At least until India and Pakistan start grinning at each other again.
Iran has stated that it is pursuing the technology so that it will be able to produce/recycle fuel for/from their existing nuclear power plants. Which, incidentally, is perfectly fine under the various non-proliferation treaties in effect.
Energy self sufficiency is a bigger threat to US control over the region than Iran having The Bomb.
Cause the next step is to let them use them. There is no nuclear second amendment for the rest of the world , the ability to dictate to them, what and what they cannot aquire with regard to heavy weaponry is a fact of life that they have to get used to.
As much as China and Russia want to tweak America’s nose , should the president desire them to stabilize the situation , they will do so , for now they have the luxury of snubbing the States.
Well the purpose of the security council anyways , the general assembly is mainly a body of moral persuasion , rather than a congress or parliament that can declare war or such.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Iran will eventually have nukes. The best we can realistically hope to due is to stall. If we can stall long enough that true democracy takes hold, the world will be better off. They’ll still want to have nukes, and they’ll still get them, but a democratic government with nukes is much less dangerous than a similarly armed autocractic one.
Iran is going to her nukes eventually. I agree that the best path is to stall that, preferably in a non-invasive way.
One way to stall them is to help them develop their LNG facilities. Iran has huge gas reserves, and it actively dealing with a host of nations across Asia to supply LNG. The US is doing its best to scuttle these deals (or at least, I know it’s trying its damndest with India), perhaps to economically isolate Iran, and force it to the negotiation table.
Instead, letting those deals go through will allow Iran’s gas refining facilities to be developed, this allowing it to fuel its own energy needs - one of those articles mentions that Iran grossly underutilises its gas reserves due to lack of facilities. If that happens, Iran won’t have the excuse of needing to fuel their nuclear power stations. I know it’s optimistic, but it might be more effective than bullying them.
As an aside, at least in the India deal, the pipeline is to go through Pakistan. A pipeline running through Pakistan to serve India’s energy needs would be a huge confidence-boosting measure - one that is in the interest of the region and the world in general. It also allows a US-friendly nation like India to develop stronger ties with Iran - which is good for the US’s strategic interests in Iran’s nuke program.
Note: The articles are still there on the NYT site, but they’re available on payment only.
Well Xtisme did you expect the UN to block Iran all by itself ? Its not a world governance body… after all if 2/5ths of the Security Council won’t approve… it not exactly the UN’s fault is it ?
Well if Russia, China and everyone that matters do agree to block Iran from having nukes… wouldn’t the UN be the best way to get that done ? The UN is “useless” in this case to support US interests alone.
IMO Russia and China are playing hard to get… I doubt they would like Iran having nukes. With a bit more diplomacy and arm wringing things can be done to slow down Iran. Yet its quite obvious that the US should open up relations with Iran and speed “democratic” forces by simply reducing the aggressive posturing.
John Mace:“a democratic government with nukes is much less dangerous than a similarly armed autocractic one”.
Not being picky here, but why John ?
If anything, a democraticaly elected leader may find it easyer to justify - he has the backing of his country. We have seen a similar line towed many times during the past few years, and i havnt really seen a good counter- argument to it. When we elect a gov in th UK, we are giving it carte blanche to act in our best interests, NOT to do everything we wish ( like not launching a nuclear weapon )
In fact, as i write this, i am also thinking that as an autocratic gov ( by definition ) is more concerned with its own power and survival - than that of its people, it would actually be a huge mistake to start threatening everyone and his dog with a nuclear strike. It would be professional suicide. Plus, the International Community would show a greater concensus to act very quickly. A democratic gov can just hide behind the fact that it was elected to protect its citizens and go for it.
If this is the case then they are only doing what the US does with Israel - protect a client state from havng to abide to international law for its own national self-interest. i’m sure the UK does the same thing. So long as national self interest trumps international agreements we can hardly complain when others do the same thing, regardless of what we think of the regime.
Everyone has taken the Iraq/N Korea lesson. Get nukes quick.
It’s a good question, and I shouldn’t have expected anyone to take it face value. A democractic country is well integrated into the international community. It has a LOT to loose by disrupting that integration. A country like NK, has almost nothing to lose. Iran isn’t quite on par with NK, but it’s still a non-democratic country that isn’t well integrated into the international community. It has oil, and that forces a certain amount of integration, but no foreign government can reasonably trust Iran on a diplomatic level.
Since we have a sample of 1 when it comes to nuclear-armed countries actually using those weapons, I’d say history disagrees with you…or in other words, the ONLY government to ever use them, was a democratic one
Any statitican will tell you that a sample of one is insignificant, and certainly not something to bet your life on. However, if you want to put forward the thesis that we’re safer with nukes in the hands of autocratic regimes, go ahead.
Just for the sake of it Ryan_Liam, could you please explain to me how i would go about overthrowing the gov if they decided to launch a nuke - say a preventitive strike on another country. Would i have time?
I just dont see that a democratic country has more to loose than an autocratic one. If anything the democratic one has more tools in its political / international belt than somewhere like Iran. If Iran lauched a nuke at Israel, it would just get nuked back. Not good if you wish to retain your autocratic power.
Now then, if the UK for example, nuked Iran ( or anyone on the ‘axis or evil’ ), i would guess that :
1.The propaganda would have been effective enough to make many Brits fear Iran and their ‘WMD programs’, leading to the support of at least some of the country.
2.The US and several other nations would support it.
3.It would be safely wrapped up in the continuing War On Terror ("well, they were on the axis of evil ", "look at these fotos of missiles pointing at you " )
4. There would not be a populist revolution in Britain leading to a new gov. You may get rid of the pm, but thats it.
So where is the deterant in a democracy?
As many others have already said, Iran will get them one day. Why not just manage the situation instead of upping the ante.
The best way to do this, IMO, is to stop any country from having a veto on the UN security council and force these fucking politians to act like adults. They need to use both carrot AND stick to come to some sort of arrangement. If a way was found to allow nuclear power, but guarantee there was no weapons program, then who could argue against it? Both sides are happy, no ?
Any plan that both sides can live with - even in the short term, is better than one country simply demanding that another country does as it is told.
If you bin the UN then you really are fucked. No-one would ever get around to forming something to replace it. Its just not worth the effort. Powerfull countries need to rip the guts out of the UN - much like a renovation of an historic / listed building. You keep the outer walls, address and name, but gut the inside, creating a new, better interior - with ethernet ports and coffee machines built in !. The only people who can change the UN are the big 8. I look forward to John Bolton putting forward a radical new plan for reforming the UN - unless he is just gonna bitch and whine for a few years…
Sorry to xtisme if he thinks i am moving to far from the crux of the OP. Please drag it back if you want !
Sorry Plan B… I’ve seen a few of these hijacks on democracies vs autocracy… that aren’t too productive. Focusing on in Iran as per OP would be nicer IMO.
The government can only go so far in wars against the concensus of the people, if a democratic government did launch nukes, and then the population rallied to make that government resign because of it, its somewhat assuring it can’t happen again, in totalitarian societies, that doesn’t happen.
But then the autocratic power would be destroyed, as they tend usually to be highly centralised in order to maintain control. Besides, I have no sympathy for dictorial regimes if they’re destroyed, only the people killed in order to remove it.
And Irans nukes would be gone, and a democratic government in place of the Islamist theocracy, I see no harm in that.
the reason is that democracies are less likely inclined to wage war, or to lob nukes at other countries. Totalitarian ones do, like Soviet Russia, which placed nukes on Cuban soil.
Even when Iran was going to initiate the programme regardless of the carrot and stick approach? This is what pisses me off half the time, you can only reach a dialogue with a totalitarian regime to a point, the rest of the time you just need to back it up with force.
