Iran’s going to get nuclear weapons unless Israel stops them. Israel’s defense cabinet is almost 50/50 in support of a first-strike using conventional arms in an attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. In my opinion, this would be a catastrophically stupid mistake.
But, assume Israel sees reason and doesn’t get into an honest-to-goodness war with Iran over this issue, and Iran manages to make a couple of nuclear weapons. I’m not at all convinced that Iran wouldn’t use the weapons to threaten Israel. There are many layers of “catastrophically stupid” use of the threat of nuclear weapons that don’t include actually detonating one over Israel. How likely is it that Iran will do something absolutely retarded with its nukes, and meltdown the middle east?
I guess the real meat of the question is “who do you think is more likely to do something unbelievably crazy, Iran or Israel?”
Iran is more likely to actually USE a weapon if it manages to get one online. Israel strikes me as far more likely to threaten everyone around it, expecting back up. Another good question would be: " If Israel is catastrophically stupid enough to threaten a nuclear strike, will the west support it?"
Seems a no brainer to me. Iran, by continuing to explore building nuclear weapons, is clearly already the one pushing the envelop on ‘catastrophically stupid’.
In your opinion it would be. However, surly you understand that not everyone has so blase an attitude about it. Possibly if you lived in Israel and would be the target of any nukes Iran manages to build you might feel a bit differently about it, and feel a bit differently about how stupid or not so stupid it would be to try and prevent them from getting the things.
To me, the stupidity lies in Iran continuing to push on this, despite almost universal disapproval from other countries, even excluding Israel and the US since you probably think they aren’t exactly unbiased here.
The trouble is that Iran is pretty much an outlaw nation. It’s feared by most of it’s neighbors, including Israel. Iran getting weapons unbalances the force equation in the region, and my guess is it would start an arms race in the region as others (such as Saudi for instance) attempt to bridge the force gap. Whether that is by getting nukes of their own or by some other means I have no idea…but they aren’t going to just sit by and allow Iran to dominate the region. In addition, Iran isn’t exactly the most stable place in the world. Eventually, IMHO (since we are tossing out opinions right and left here) the wheels are going to come off, and Iran is going to fly apart…and when that happens, I think it would be a Bad Thing™ if they have nukes in their possession.
All around, it’s a really, REALLY bad idea for Iran to get nukes, and it’s incredibly stupid for them to keep pushing and pushing on this. Whether or not Israel, the US, NATO or someone else takes steps is unknown at this time…but the ‘catastrophically stupid’ part of all of this is squarely on Iran’s shoulders here.
Iran. Hands down. Israel is certainly capable of doing something unbelievably STUPID…but Iran is second only to, perhaps, North Korea, in the potential for doing something really crazy.
At the moment, I don’t see the catastrophic stupidity of an Israeli strike against Iran. There is precedent - the bombing of an Iraqi nuclear plant back in the 1980s. The main consequence was a lot of harumphing by the usual harumphers.
What exactly will happen if Israel attacks Iran in a similar way? Will the UN condemn Israel (for the hundredth time)? Will Hamas and Hezbollah decide that now they REALLY hate Israel? Will Iran decide that the “Zionist Entity” needs to be wiped off the map? Will Iranians burn Israeli flags in the streets of Tehran? Will they start referring to Israel as the “Little Satan”?
Israel recognizes it’s interdependency with the rest of the world, especially the West. It’s unlikely that Israel would do something so drastic as nuking someone without it being a matter of national survival. If that’s the case, then I’d fully expect them to go after their threat with every nuclear weapon at their disposal, with little regard to anyone else’s opinion.
Iran on the other hand, scares me. Their government doesn’t seem to be operating in the same universe as the other governments of the world, and Ahmadinejad seems to be an total lunatic. I think the likelihood of nuclear weapon use is small, but drastically higher than with Israel.
You propose two players, Iran and Israel, and then mention two stupid actions, threatening Israel and bombing Iran, respectively. Although I do not agree the actions of either side should be regarded as stupid, I would say that Israel is more likely to follow through with an activity that is designated stupid by Mosier.
The reason why is because the fantastic imaginations of the right wing contingent of Israel takes seriously the idea that Iran will nuke them (militarily there should always be people doing this but its not for rational adults). They currently run the show in Israel’s government. Israel has the military force needed to perform the action, so it would seem to be reasonably probable that a bombing campaign may commence.
Iran also has a right wing contingent with fantastic imaginations and they think they will be attacked by the West. Nukes would be a way to prevent this. They would probably threaten Israel or other Western allied countries in the Middle East if they felt threatened. Since they are who they are then they feel probably feel threatened all the time. So a threat is possible. The mere building of these devices is a threaten so we might be able to say that Iran’s stupidity has already manifested itself.
That’s if you believe they are developing a weapons program. Which is, of course, in doubt. It’s doubted by neutral parties.
I also doubt Israel would be the nation to perform this bombing campaign.
I don’t think its that stupid, at least from their perspective. There isn’t really any way they can defend themselves against a putative invasion by a modern military except with the threat of nukes. And Israel, Pakistan and India have shown the actual consequences of building nukes outside of international permission are pretty minimal, while Israels example suggests its a pretty good way to deter foreign invasion (compare the number of invasions Israel has suffered before and after its nukes became an open secret). If your a second-rate power whose earned the ire of the West, the best bang for your defense buck is probably nukes.
I’m pretty skeptical “Israel would be the target of any nukes Iran manages to build”. I suspect Iran would use them for the same purpose everyone (well, except the US during WWII) else has, as a deterrent against invasion.
And people in the US overstate Iran’s enmity for Israel. They certainly hate them, but I suspect the states that Iran’s Ayatollahs and Generals think about when they think about where their own military goals is Iraq and the Saudis. Israel is on the other side of the Arabian peninsula with a small population and a military geared towards fighting arab invaders and Palestinian insurgents. The Saudi’s on the other hand, funded an Iraqi invasion that almost destroyed Iran, was the largest conflict the country has ever been seriously involved in, involved millions of deaths and came just as the Islamic state was forming and led to a long standoff with Iraq, the Saudis and their Western allies. Its their Revolutionary War, Cold War and WWII all wrapped into one, and I think preventing a repeat is the primary goal of pretty much all Iranian foreign policy.
The anti-Isreali stuff is just bluster for domestic political reasons, and to keep Sunni in the Arab states from hating Iran more then they already do.
This isn’t to say I want Iran to develop nukes, I wish they’d cut it out to. But from their perspective, I don’t think its as foolish a move as your making it out to be, and I don’t think they’re spending so much effort on it just so they and Israel can wipe each other off the map.
Is Iran at least on good or not-bad terms with its neighbors to the north – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan? I’ve never heard of any particular conflict between them, at any rate.
They have occasional spats about the oil fields in the Caspian sea, but I think these have pretty much been hashed out diplomatically. I actually question that any of Iran’s immediate neighbors other then Saudi Arabia “fear” Iran.
Why worry about Ahmadinejad? Even if he may or may not support causing an apocalyptic war to bring back the vanished Imam he wouldn’t have control over Iran’s nukes.
The Iraqis would certainly disagree with his claim.
At one point there were discussions of invading Iran by the US, but it was pointed out that such an invasion would be vastly more difficult than the US invasion of Iraq and occupying Iran would be be even more difficult.
Additionally, the last time the US war-gamed an invasion of Iran the entire US fleet wound up getting sent to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. It was such a humiliation that the Brass ordered the fleet “refloated” and the exercise continue. The Marine General representing the Iranian forces resigned in protest.
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
I don’t think its that stupid, at least from their perspective. There isn’t really any way they can defend themselves against a putative invasion by a modern military except with the threat of nukes.
[/QUOTE]
Rather a Catch-22 there. They need nukes to stem off an imminent invasion that would be theoretically caused by their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons in the face of nearly universal international censure. This is the same ‘logic’ that forced the Nazi Germans to invade Russia…to protect themselves of course. And you think this is not ‘stupid’…and, presumably that it’s a rational action?
Many more countries without nuclear weapons have been able to some how avoid dastardly invasion, especially if they actually work and play well with the international community. Pakistan and India have been in conflict several times and on the brink of war, but I doubt that having nukes is the only reason they have held off. Same with Israel’s neighbors…it was demonstrated pretty decisively that invading them frontally was a losing proposition long before various people started guessing (with still no proof afaik) that Israel has nukes. It hasn’t helped them much stemming the tide of periodic terrorist attacks.
The point is that it would ratchet up the fear factor of Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Whether they would be crazy enough to actually use them is hard to say…they ARE pretty fucking irrational, as demonstrated by their single minded pursuit of the things despite all of the international flack they are getting, and despite the fact that they have a lot of simmering issues right at home that they really need to be dealing with.
And you figure that the Saudi’s would be ok with one of their arch rivals getting nukes? The reason the Saudi’s did what they did is that they are in terror of a Shi’ia fundamentalist theocracy getting power in the region. Pretty much all of the Sunni majority nations are in the same boat. And even the other Shi’ia majority nations in the region, with a few exceptions like Syria, are a bit nervous of Iran as well. And that’s NOW.
As for the threat to Israel, it’s easy to blithely hand wave away the threat or belittle it when you are safe and snug here in the US or Europe. Bit more difficult when you are surrounded by enemies, and one of your express enemies who has used pretty explicit and over the top rhetoric in the past is on the bring of gaining weapons that could wipe out entire cities, and you are unsure how stable their government is, or how crazy some of their theocratic types might be. Contrary to your experience, I’ve found that most Americans and Europeans consistently understate the various threats to Israel, rationalizing the various threats based on their own world view and understanding of risk. ‘Oh, Iran wouldn’t do that…they would be destroyed in return and they know it!’. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t…maybe they calculate risk and reward differently than you, however, and maybe the ‘reward’ (of killing a city-load of Jews and possibly bringing down the interlopers) is worth the ‘risk’ (of getting hundreds of thousands or even millions of their own people killed…people who would die martyrs deaths and surly go to paradise).
Ah…glad you cleared that up. And you know this, for sure and certainty…how, exactly? Are you 100% sure it’s all bluster? 95% sure? 80%? And it will stay this way no matter what happens, right? It will always be this way forever and ever, no worries no sweat? :dubious:
I’m sure there are many reasons that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, and wiping Israel off the map is probably not at the top of their list. I doubt the fervent defense of the homeland, as you and Der and others bring up, is at the top of their list either…since they haven’t been invaded and don’t have nukes I seriously doubt they are living in terror of the much prophesied perennial invasion as they wait in joyful hope of the coming of the nukes to protest them. No, my GUESS is that the real reason they want nukes is the power and prestige it will give them, as well as the intimidation and influence aspects in their region. That’s what, IMHO, this is all about.
I note with some humor that you parsed this well. You used ‘immediate neighbors’ and ‘fear’ very cleverly there.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Is Iran at least on good or not-bad terms with its neighbors to the north – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan? I’ve never heard of any particular conflict between them, at any rate.
[/QUOTE]
Well, they aren’t on great terms with Turkey, and they aren’t exactly bosom buddies with the others you listed there, but they make a lot of their ‘immediate’ neighbors a bit nervous. And that’s now. They don’t have nukes…yet. If they get them, then I doubt this is going to do a lot to ease the minds of everyone around there, right?
Thats silly. There are plenty of reasons for Iran to fear invasion other then their pursuit of nukes. They were invaded in the 80’s by Iraq and that had nothing to do with nukes. And of course, Iraq was invaded by the US to keep them from building nukes they weren’t building.
“Dastardly invasions”? Countries do invade eachother. Its a real thing. After all, you could use your same poo-pooing of the idea that countries shouldn’t be worried about being invaded to say that having defensive armies at all is irrational.
Whats more, countries have been known to invade Iran. And they’ve been known to invade Iran’s neighbors due to accusations that they also level at Iran. Its hardly irrational for Iran to think they may be invaded again someday, and spend their money on what is probably the most effective likely deterrent.
No but its put an end to invasions. And there’s a pretty stark difference between the threat caused to Israel by Hamas blowing up Sbarro’s and the threat posed to Israel by the various Arab-Israel wars that threatened it during its first few decades. Just because nukes don’t solve every conceivable threat hardly makes developing them irrational. (or put another way, since Israel’s development of nukes hasn’t kept it free from terrorists, do you think developing those nukes was irrational?)
No, I never said anything like that. I’m sure the Saudis would be pretty scared of the Iranians having nukes. I’m not sure why that should be a reason for the Iranians to decide not to develop a nuclear program though.
I think there’s an opposite effect. People in the US and Europe tend to view all greater mid-east affairs through the lense of Israel’s security. I don’t think the various Mid-eastern rulers spend anywhere near as much time thinking about Israel one way or another as people in the States picture them doing. Especially in the case of Iran, where Israel is both far away and not particlularly big, the Iran-Iraq war and the recent US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan play a much larger role in their thinking about defense then Israel.
Maybe, but then the same might be true of whomever is in charge of India or Israels or Pakistans or Chinas or Russias or Frances or even the US’s nukes. So long as there are nukes, there’s the risk someone suicidal maniac will be put in charge of them. So far, though, this hasn’t happened. And I think people that are both competent enough to gain power but crazy enough to destroy themselves in their country for a whim are thin enough on the ground that the risk is small.
Except they were invaded. It was one of the most deadly wars in history despite the relatively small populations of the combatants, it went on for a decade, its easily within living memory and its part of Iran’s founding myth. I think you underestimate how big a factor the Iran-Iraq War is in the Iranian conception of the world, or their conception of their own security.
Just teasing you on your characterization of Israel as a “neighbor” of Iran, you can’t get to one from the other without passing through at least two other countries. Most of Iran’s actual neighbors seem to have good relationships with it, and even if we take your definition of “neighbor” as “within three countries”, I doubt you’d find that “most” of the included countries would fear Iran. You’d have a few more Sunni Monarchies that do hate Iran, but you’d end up with a lot more ex-Soviet states that don’t.
Probably so. And here too, if Israel bells the Persian Cat, a lot of people who nominally hate Israel will be pretty happy. In fact, rumor has it that the Saudis have quietly let it be known that they will look the other way if the IAF needs to cross their territory on the way to Iran.
Does he have any control over or role in the Iranian military at all? I thought the military was under the direct personal control of the Supreme Leader.
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
Thats silly. There are plenty of reasons for Iran to fear invasion other then their pursuit of nukes. They were invaded in the 80’s by Iraq and that had nothing to do with nukes. And of course, Iraq was invaded by the US to keep them from building nukes they weren’t building.
[/QUOTE]
And there you destroyed your argument that Iran needs nukes. See, you are right…Iraq, for various reasons, DID invade Iran. And lost (well, I suppose it was a draw). And that was an Iraq that was considered one of the military powers of the region, and an Iran that had just completed their revolution.
There is practically zero chance of any of Iran’s neighbors invading them, and nukes won’t make a hairs difference in their calculations. There is practically zero probability of the US invading them either, and I’d guess less than a zero chance that Europe will. Or China. Or Russia. Of the list, the US is probably the only nation that COULD invade Iran successfully (especially if we could get a coalition together), and it would be horrifically costly, even if we don’t count the dead in that calculation. It ain’t gonna happen.
Of course, as with a lot of things, judging whether or not Iran understands this is difficult. Like your own projection that Iran really is just blowing hot air about Israel, it’s based on the assumption that they can look at reality in the same way and draw the same conclusions.
Do they? How many countries get invaded by large scale armies these days? How many nations are capable of projecting large scale force beyond their own border? How often do nations with large conventional forces (as Iran has) and large populations (as Iran has, relative to it’s neighbors) get invaded? To me this seems to be cherry picking data from the last hundred years or so and then trying to draw a conclusion. The reality is that large scale invasions are vanishingly rare, especially in the last few decades. The only ones I can think of were the US/coalition invasion of Afghanistan and the US invasion of Iraq, and in both cases the nations being invaded were substantially smaller than Iran and the circumstances that led to those invasions were far from the norm and unlikely, for a variety of reasons, to happen again.
Hell, even with Iran pursuing nukes you haven’t exactly seen a lot of military action against them…and they don’t HAVE nukes, yet at least. So, their magic tiger repellant already seems to be working for them, no? What they are courting if they continue is probably more along the line of a surgical strike or series of surgical strikes against their various nuclear programs, if anything (and I doubt even that)…not an ‘existential threat to their existence’ (since this is something that always gets tossed in). And, as I said, it’s a Catch-22…if they weren’t pursuing nuclear weapons they wouldn’t be courting even that sort of attack…that it’s being contemplated is BECAUSE they are pursuing nuclear weapons.
The last instance of which was over 30 years ago, and they successfully defended themselves without nukes. With the possible exception of Turkey (and you don’t seriously think Turkey is going to invade Iran, do you?), they are far more powerful than any of their ‘immediate neighbors’…THEY are the largest military threat in the region WITHOUT nukes. Even if you count their not so immediate neighbors, no one in the region could or would invade Iran.
That leaves the US boogie man. And we haven’t exactly gone out of our way to invade or even attack them, despite the fact that they are developing nuclear weapons that threaten our own interests in the region…interests that actually DO pose an ‘existential threat’ to our strategic interests. Again, their tiger repellant has worked fine without nukes…no tiger attacks, despite the eminent threat of tiger invasion.
Leaving aside the ‘pretty strong proof of Israel’s nuclear program’, do I contest that nukes are an effective deterrent to invasion? Well…sort of. I think that nukes are a factor, but that the overwhelming reason countries don’t invade each other these days is that it’s a lot harder, and infinitely more costly, than people seem to realize. The US made the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (initially) look easy, but it’s far from easy…and look what it cost us both in terms of lives lost and treasure expended. And we are, without doubt the strongest nation on earth…probably the strongest nation relative to every other nation that’s ever been. I think that their deterrent factor is way overblown and leaves aside the realities of modern warfare. North Korea hasn’t been invaded not because they have the dread nookular weapons, but because their conventional military is huge and the cost of trying to invade them and get those idiots out of power is too costly. Pakistan and India haven’t gone at it hammer and tongs not because both are nuclear armed, but because realistically neither country COULD wipe the other out in a conventional war. And Iran, despite not having nukes, still hasn’t been invaded or even attacked, despite repeated condemnation by the international community over their nuclear weapons building antics.
But those invasions had ceased before the world ‘knew’ that Israel had nukes. What puts and end to invasions is the changing landscape of the world, and world community, and the fact that modern military action projected beyond your own shores is really, really difficult and costly. Terrorism is cheap though, which is why groups and even nation states (ironically, including Iran) have gone that route…doesn’t cost a lot to get some mopes to strap on some explosives and visit a mall, or toss some unguided rockets in the general vicinity of a city or town.
To answer your question, I DO think that developing nukes is irrational, yes. Not because nukes haven’t kept terrorists from attacking Israel (or the US…they certainly didn’t deter AQ from blowing the crap out of the WTC complex or Pentagon), but because, assuming your assertion that the focus on why they are developing them is to prevent military invasion or attack (which I disagree with as I’ve said…it’s about the power and influence, not about protecting from attack), it is meaningless. Iran isn’t going to be invaded and conquered. None of their neighbors COULD do it, successfully (with the possible exception of Turkey…and I’m doubtful even there). The US (with some serious help) MIGHT be able to do it, but the only conceivable reason we would revolves around those nukes…Catch-22. As for military action, their having nukes or not having them wouldn’t stop or even seriously curtail the US, say, from sending in some strike fighters or cruise missiles to blow something up if we really wanted to. It would be the same as those terrorists…you aren’t going to launch nukes because of something like that. See the various flare ups between Pakistan and India or North and South Korea for supporting evidence…or even some of the proxy conflicts between the US and old Soviet Union. You aren’t going to use your nukes, especially if you don’t have all that many, for anything less than that ‘existential threat’ thingy, at least if you are rational. Course, that’s the rub, isn’t it? And the reason why Iran getting the things is making so many nations a bit nervous.
From their perspective it probably makes pretty good sense, though again not for the reasons you are laying out here. They don’t need them to stem off invasion…no one is going to invade them. What they probably think it will give them is a preeminent position in the region…power, influence, intimidation, etc. Certainly they aren’t worried about the Saudi’s being worried about them getting the nasty things because, frankly, there isn’t anything the Saudi’s can do about it.
The point I was making is that Iran pursuing the things has pretty much made everyone nervous…and everyone was already nervous because, frankly, Iran is already one of the most powerful (if not THE most powerful) military nations in the region, and they have a relatively large population for the region as well. And, of course, they are still pretty fanatical, a bit wild and wooly, and fairly unstable…all of which are bad things even if you don’t factor in the nukes. Like with Pakistan, it’s not so much the having of nukes, but who has them and how stable they are that ratchets up the fear factor. Put it another way…would you be more comfortable with Pakistan having nukes or, say, the United Kingdom? North Korea or, say, Germany? Or, even comparing apples to apples, India or Pakistan? Or does it not matter?
I think you are underestimating the level of concern that Iran generates even today, let alone if they actually manage to acquire nukes.
