# Israel ready to attack Iran? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685 "2012-02-03T21:14:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/41 "2012-02-04T00:33:37Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Two things. They probably shouldn’t have signed the NNPT if they felt that the only way to survive as a rogue nation was to have the nuclear option. Maybe at the time they believed us when we said we’d disarm, scout’s honour. Maybe they were afraid we’d get pissed if they didn’t bend over. Maybe they simply figured it was no thang to sign it because they didn’t imagine they’d ever get into a position where they could get nuclear tech and it was free goodwill points. How should I know ? > [@](#): > > Sadly, Iraq never did let them have free reign, and even the limited access they DID give was a bit late in the game. Had they been doing this all along there would have been zero pretense for the US invasion. Don’t even try. The invasion of Iraq was set to go regardless of facts the moment W stepped into the Oval Office and you know it. > [@](#): > > Perhaps Iran should take THAT lesson to heart, while there is still time to open up to UN inspection and derail not only Mad Dog USAUSAUSA from attacking, but more probably, an Israeli surgical strike because THEY think Iran is threatening their existence by trying to build nukes. Israel attacked Iraq’s Osirak reactor in the 80s despite the fact that it had never been and _would have been impossible_ to use in a military capacity. It had been specifically designed that way. Israel more recently very presumably hacked into Iran’s civilian nuclear program and disabled it, as well as very presumably assassinated key members of Iran’s nuclear energy program. Since Israel is quite evidently going to try and mess with any hint of nucleariness in the region _anyway_, from the Iranian standpoint they might as well try and get real nukes while they’re at it. Once they get them, Israel will be forced to cease their fuckery and the civilian energy program can keep on keeping on. What’s the alternative ? Just shrug and not modernize their electric grid ? > [@](#): > > So, IOW, it’s cool to act like a total nutball rogue state? They don’t have to bend over and take it up the ass, they merely have to stop supporting terrorist groups and stop trying to build nukes. Why is this unreasonable?? 😕 Errr… we build nukes and support terrorist groups too, you know. Not the same ones, obviously. At least I hope not, that would be awkward. > [@](#): > > I would say that the US has decommissioned more nukes than France ever had, so I guess the answer is ‘yes’. I don’t recall the NNPT saying that nuclear signatories had to disarm though…do you have a cite for that? Like I said, we get rid of old crap once in a while. But it doesn’t matter because we re-use the fissile matter in new crap. US total nuclear stockpiles have remained [more or less stagnant since the late 80s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg). And of course are still quite enough to turn the entire world into a dustbowl a dozen times over. As for the cite, would a wiki one suffice ? [QUOTE=Wiki article on the NNPT] **Second pillar: disarmament** Article VI of the NPT represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. The NPT’s preamble contains language affirming the desire of treaty signatories to ease international tension and strengthen international trust so as to create someday the conditions for a halt to the production of nuclear weapons, and treaty on general and complete disarmament that liquidates, in particular, nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles from national arsenals. The wording of the NPT’s Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.”[[11]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#cite_note-10) Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them “to negotiate in good faith.”[[12]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#cite_note-11) On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the [Non-Aligned Movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement), have interpreted Article VI’s language as being anything but vague. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation.[_[citation needed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)_] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its [advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_the_Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons), issued 8 July 1996, unanimously interprets the text of Article VI as implying that “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” The ICJ opinion notes that this obligation involves all NPT parties (not just the nuclear weapon states) and does not suggest a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.[[13]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#cite_note-ICJ-12) Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states[_[who?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)_] sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post–[Cold War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) era, has angered some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own nuclear arsenals.[_[citation needed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)_] Other observers have suggested that the linkage between proliferation and disarmament may also work the other way, i.e., that the failure to resolve proliferation threats in Iran and North Korea, for instance, will cripple the prospects for disarmament.[_[citation needed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)_] No current nuclear weapons state, the argument goes, would seriously consider eliminating its last nuclear weapons without high confidence that other countries would not acquire them. Some observers have even suggested that the very progress of disarmament by the superpowers—which has led to the elimination of thousands of weapons and delivery systems[[14]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#cite_note-13)—could eventually make the possession of nuclear weapons more attractive by increasing the perceived strategic value of a small arsenal. As one U.S. official and NPT expert warned in 2007, “logic suggests that as the number of nuclear weapons decreases, the ‘marginal utility’ of a nuclear weapon as an instrument of military power increases. At the extreme, which it is precisely disarmament’s hope to create, the strategic utility of even one or two nuclear weapons would be huge.”[[15]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT#cite_note-14) [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Fact is, however, that Iran DID sign and pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons. No matter how one waves ones hands, that is still the bottom line. Ah yes. “Well, maybe, I dunno about what we do but THEY SHOULDN’T DO IT, PERIOD”. Compelling. > [@](#): > > I believe (could be wrong here) that they COULD simply revoke the treaty, or formally state that they won’t honor it anymore, but they are taking the rogue route and trying to develop the things in secret. If they are developing the things in secret, _how do you know ?_ ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/42 "2012-02-04T00:38:10Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Disagree. No way Israel goes ahead without an specific US nod. Which is the whole topic of the debate. There are plenty of circumstances where Israel will not act if the US says no. But without that they will not ask our permission. We don’t want to pre-approve such actions by Israel, and they know that. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/43 "2012-02-04T00:40:54Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] The tiger isn’t looking at New Zealand. Iran is on America’s “hit list,” (whether justified or not) and the only absolutely sure way Iran can both resist American influence and prevent an American invasion is nukes. Can you think of another way? America has made it clear that Iran needs to submit to our demands, or else. [/QUOTE] You are mixing multiple arguments here, so I’ll just focus on the later part of your statement. America hasn’t said that Iran needs to ‘submit to our demands, or else’, we’ve gradually upped the heat on them using sanctions to try and get them to HONOR THEIR OWN TREATY OBLIGATIONS. And we aren’t exactly alone here, the big bad bully on the block picking on poor wittle Iran. You might have noticed that it was actually the European sanctions that really hurt Iran (since Iran already doesn’t exactly have a bustling trade with the US) and sparked the Iranian regime to start making threats. > [@](#): > > So Iran’s options are “surrender completely without fighting (like Sadaam should have done) or get invaded and have your government violently overthrown.” Surely you can see that asking Iran to have a completely transparent government is unreasonable. Would you agree to let Iranian inspectors full access to American government secrets? Hell no, and rightly so! Seriously…did you READ what I wrote? To put this simply, their options are to continue to do what they are currently doing, and see the pressure ramp up and possibly blow up in their face (this seems to be the optimal option for Der and Red so they can get that magic anti-tiger repellant they simply MUST have to prevent further US future attacks that will happen any day now), or to honor their treaty obligations and throw open their nuclear program to UN inspection AS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO TO HONOR THEIR TREATY OBLIGATIONS. None of this entails surrendering or taking any objects up the ass. Nope…I don’t see why this is a major issue for the Iranians, to be honest. This has nothing to do with American secrets, and everything to do with honoring their own treaty obligations. How hard is this really to get? The only reason they WOULD risk war is because they think the risk is less than others believe (they could be wrong or right about this…still no vicious and unprovoked attack by the horrible USAUSAUSA to date…not even one by those nasty Israelis for that matter), and they think they can get away with it. Which seems to be the marvelous option that many in this thread think is vitally important for Iran to take. > [@](#): > > Iran has taken a lesson to heart. The lesson is “America is unpredictable, and we cannot hope to compete in a military struggle.” America can and probably will dismantle the Iranian government on a whim. But not if Iran has nukes. A nuclear armed Iran is America’s fault, and we can’t solve it with more threats and more military power. Right, so what they really should do is keep pushing on this nuclear thing because ‘unpredictable’ America will surly…what? Not attack until they manage to get their anti-tiger protection in place? I fail to see the logic that on the one hand we are such vicious and unpredictable bastards that our trembling hand is over the Big Red Button Of Doom, yet the best course is to continue to push us (let’s again leave out the fact that we aren’t the only ones concerned here…wouldn’t want to get TOO real here) on this because, well, we obviously won’t attack them until they get those nukes, then they will be safe…or something. > [@](#): > > They are only a “rogue” state from the perspective of their adversaries. From their perspective, getting nukes makes perfect sense. Considering that this seems to be the general consensus among most nations (and some that don’t publicly state this, such as Russia and China, do so for purely economic reasons), I’m guessing that it’s not far off the mark. They are a ‘rogue’ state because they ACT like a rogue state. They openly support several terrorist groups, have assisted Syria in their reign of terror (and they could do this because, by gum, they are the BESTEST at putting down a protesting population and keeping it well under thumb, and Syria needs all the help along these lines it can get), and, of course, there is that small nuclear weapons pursuit issue thingy. Of COURSE getting nukes makes perfect sense to them! :smack: It makes perfect sense to you, Red and Der as well. Hell, it makes perfect sense to me why they want the things. That doesn’t equate to it being a good idea…even from their perspective. Certainly not if they push the US or Israel into attacking their nuclear programs. > [@](#): > > Saddam was not building nukes, and not supporting terrorist groups. Wasn’t enough for him, was it? And the US just attacked him out of the blue as he was being all peaceable and nice, right? 😛 Had Saddam simply opened up his purported WMD stockpiles and purported weapons manufacturing facilities to FULL UN INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE TREATIES HE SIGNED AFTER THE FIRST GULF WAR, he’d still be sitting pretty with his foot firmly on the throats of the Iraqi people, as the gods intended. Sadly, for him and for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (instead of the tens of thousands that would have suffered under his continued boot in the ass) he didn’t. Thems-da-breaks. Iran could learn something from that and avoid all of this by simply honoring their treaty obligations and allowing full transparency with UN inspectors. Or not, and risk war. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/44 "2012-02-04T00:52:16Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Anyone who refuted the Bush admin’s assertion that Iraq was developing WMD was punished and silenced. Remember Valerie Plame? I’m sorry this statement is ridiculous. How exactly has Valerie Plame or her husband been silenced? Had anyone heard of either before the scandal broke? Moreover, they’ve made a huge amount of money off this, been on the cover of Vanity Fair and had a Hollywood movie put out glorifying them. Besides, the idea they were “silenced” by the Bush administration is moronic. The journalist who “outed” Plame’s identity, Robert Novak was the staunchested and fiercest opponent of the Iraq War amongst Washington journalists. You might as well claim Paul Krugman was a water-carrier for the Bush administration. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/45 "2012-02-04T01:05:49Z")
[QUOTE=Kobal2] Maybe at the time they believed us when we said we’d disarm, scout’s honour. Maybe they were afraid we’d get pissed if they didn’t bend over. Maybe they simply figured it was no thang to sign it because they didn’t imagine they’d ever get into a position where they could get nuclear tech and it was free goodwill points. How should I know ? [/QUOTE] If that’s the case, perhaps they should have read the fine print (from your own cite below): > [@](#): > > The ICJ opinion notes that this obligation involves all NPT parties (not just the nuclear weapon states) and does not suggest a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.[13] > [@](#): > > Don’t even try. The invasion of Iraq was set to go regardless of facts the moment W stepped into the Oval Office and you know it. Sorry, I don’t know that. Once 9/11 happened it was probably a forgone conclusion…certainly it opened the window of opportunity for the US and more importantly Bush and his merry men (which includes Condi) to do what we did. However, to me it’s pure fantasy that we were going to attack Iraq simply because W was elected…it puts the cart before the horse. Regardless, there was nothing preventing Saddam from allowing UN inspectors full and transparent access BEFORE GW was elected…and by doing so Saddam et al would have avoided the entire mess, even WITH 9/11. > [@](#): > > Israel attacked Iraq’s Osirak reactor in the 80s despite the fact that it had never been and would have been impossible to use in a military capacity. It had been specifically designed that way. Israel more recently very presumably hacked into Iran’s civilian nuclear program and disabled it, as well as very presumably assassinated key members of Iran’s nuclear energy program. I actually think it was the US that hacked Iran’s nuclear program, but that’s pure speculation. Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear power plant because they felt it was a sufficient threat to Saddam getting nukes to warrant military action. Again, Iran might want to re-think it’s own stance on this, especially with the fact that there is MORE credible evidence that Iran IS pursuing a nuclear weapons program, given the IAEA report. > [@](#): > > Since Israel is quite evidently going to try and mess with any hint of nucleariness in the region _anyway_, from the Iranian standpoint they might as well try and get real nukes while they’re at it. Once they get them, Israel will be forced to cease their fuckery and the civilian energy program can keep on keeping on. What’s the alternative ? Just shrug and not modernize their electric grid ? AFAIK, Israel is NOT a signatory to the NNPT. There is also no concrete evidence (there is plenty of speculation but no hard data) that Israel does have nukes, though since they didn’t sign the NNPT it’s a moot point. Israel is certainly going to do everything they can to prevent Iran from getting the things, treaty or no treaty, because they (rightfully IMHO) see that as a direct threat to their national survival. You seem to think Iran getting the things will make things more peaceful and force Israel to back off, but I think that’s a fantasy…it will make things MUCH more unstable both regionally and between Iran and Israel. > [@](#): > > Errr… we build nukes and support terrorist groups too, you know. Not the same ones, obviously. At least I hope not, that would be awkward. We build nukes (though we don’t build a lot these days, merely support the ones we already have) because our own treaty obligations allow us to. And if you think that the ‘terrorist groups’ the US supports today are in the same league as Hamas and Hezbollah then all I can say is you are mistake. > [@](#): > > Like I said, we get rid of old crap once in a while. But it doesn’t matter because we re-use the fissile matter in new crap. US total nuclear stockpiles have remained more or less stagnant since the late 80s. And of course are still quite enough to turn the entire world into a dustbowl a dozen times over. We do more than get rid of ‘old crap once in a while’…we’ve decommissioned whole classes of nuclear weapons, and DOE is continuously weeding out the stockpile. That said, yeah, we have quite a few of the nasty things, no doubt about that. A lot of them are getting pretty long in the tooth, and their reliability is increasingly in question (the Russians actually have a MUCH larger problem on this…your graph there doesn’t tell the whole story, since it simply lists the crude numbers). > [@](#): > > As for the cite, would a wiki one suffice ? Yep, thanks for the cite. It doesn’t seem to say what you think it does, in that while there is some language for ‘good faith’ disarmament initiatives, there is no real timetables or timelines and no hard obligations to disarm…merely to pursue disarmament as a long term goal, which, based on the multiple treaties between the US and USSR/Russia I’d say we’ve fulfilled. > [@](#): > > Ah yes. “Well, maybe, I dunno about what we do but THEY SHOULDN’T DO IT, PERIOD”. Compelling. Again, it’s an apples to oranges comparison you are attempting here…and, while it’s probably getting traction with the Red/Der crowd I doubt many others are buying it as more than a distraction. The US and Iran are not equals, and what we signed is not equivalent, regardless of how you try and spin and create false equivalencies. > [@](#): > > If they are developing the things in secret, how do you know ? Because as well as all their other myriad faults, they fucking suck at keeping their ‘secret’ programs a secret. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/46 "2012-02-04T01:44:32Z")
The apologia for Iran is… odd. “Well if he’d just stop breaking into people’s houses the cops would stop hassling him.” “No, he needs a rocket launcher!” “Well, look, if he tries to get a rocket launcher he’s going to have the alphabet agencies on his ass and then he’s in real trouble. He could, ya know, just stop robbing houses.” “No! You’re asking him to submit, submit to _the Man!_” It is, frankly, amazing that some people believe that if Iran stopped supporting terrorism, instituted the Additional Protocols and stopped trying to dominate other states in the region that anybody would have all that much of a problem with them. But the burglar just _needs_ that rocket launcher, otherwise he’s not safe. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Israel attacked Iraq’s Osirak reactor in the 80s despite the fact that it had never been and _would have been impossible_ to use in a military capacity. Not true and drastically overstated. Difficult is hardly “impossible” and you do the debate a disservice with such bombast. [ > [@](#): > > The reactor was part of Iraq’s quest for a nuclear weapon. On September 8, 1975, > then-Vice President Saddam Hussein declared publicly that the purchase of the French reactors ‘‘was the first actual step in the production of an Arab atomic weapon, despite the fact that the declared purpose for the establishment of the reactor is not the production of atomic weapons.’’12 The Iranian revolution accelerated Iraqi interest in acquiring an atomic bomb. In December 1979, Hussein directly commanded his nuclear scientists to defy NPT commitments and build a nuclear weapon.13 > > The Iraqi weapons program before the Osiraq attack included plans to manufacture a nuclear weapon with plutonium\*/rather than enriched uranium\*/produced by the larger, 70-MW reactor. How could plutonium have been produced? Memoirs by former Iraqi nuclear physicists do not go into detail, but there has been discussion about possible means. The more effective method would have been to remove ‘‘reflector’’ components from the reactor and to introduce 15/20 ‘‘fertile’’ uranium elements into the core itself. The core also would have been surrounded by a blanket of fertile uranium elements. A less efficient means would have been to produce plutonium in the neutron hall below the reactor; this hall was also destroyed in the attack.16 > > There is disagreement about exactly how much plutonium could have been produced per year from the reactor using either or both of these strategies (though, as discussed below, engineering hurdles would have delayed the building of a working bomb even if a bomb’s worth of fissile material had become available).17 As noted, light water reactors, such as the one at Osiraq, are relatively inefficient producers of plutonium, in part because there are relatively few ‘‘spare’’ neutrons to produce plutonium, especially compared to reactors such as the Dimona installation in Israel. Khadduri goes so far as to claim that the reactor ‘‘was specifically designed to be unsuitable for the production of > plutonium for a bomb.’’18 In late 1979, the Iraqis themselves estimated they could produce roughly 2 kilograms (kg) of plutonium per year (an atomic bomb needs several kilograms of plutonium; the most sophisticated, miniaturized design, which the Iraqis may not have been capable of producing, requires 5 kg), though in his memoirs Obeidi doubted the ability of the reactor to produce fissile material quickly, describing ‘‘a mismatch between idea and reality.’’ > > The French estimated the reactor could produce about 4 kg per year, and the Israelis estimated the reactor could produce about 8 kg per year.19 An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official estimated that the reactor might be able to produce enough plutonium for a bomb every four years, assuming of course that inspections were eluded; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) produced a roughly similar estimate, predicting that the reactor could have produced 1 kg of plutonium per year.20 The U.S. Congressional Research Service estimated shortly after the attack that, assuming evasion of all inspections, under the most likely circumstances it would have taken 10/30 years to produce enough plutonium for a single nuclear warhead.21 Notably, most of those estimates were made in the 1980s by outside observers. We now know that technical difficulties may have introduced further delays: Obeidi reported in 2004 that at the time of the attack there were flaws in the aluminum pipes leading to the reactor that would have eventually required repair at the cost of some $25 million.22 ]([http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/Osirak.pdf](http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/Osirak.pdf)) ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/47 "2012-02-04T01:46:35Z")
I don’t have a lot of time now, but I’d like to hear an explanation (particularly from xtisme himself) clarifying the statements about Iran being a rogue state. The biggest argument I could see for Iran being a rogue state is that they support terrorist groups. Does supporting terrorist groups necessarily make a nation a rogue state? If so, how can you justify America’s history of support for such groups, without calling the USA a rogue state? Iran is in bed with more unsavory groups RIGHT NOW than America is, but it wasn’t too many years ago that we happily sponsored Saddam’s chemical weapons program ourselves, long as they agreed to kill some Iranians with it. I’m not saying Iran is blameless and America is evil. I’m saying that invading Iran is an unacceptable response. We need to dial down the rhetoric before the fuse on this powder keg gets lit and we find out what real suffering and global financial crises look like. Now is not the time to get tough. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/48 "2012-02-04T01:52:14Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > invading Iran is an unacceptable response Cite for any nation, on the entire planet, that is considering invading Iran? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/49 "2012-02-04T02:09:34Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Disagree. No way Israel goes ahead without an specific US nod. Which is the whole topic of the debate. So, the leaders of Israel are convinced that Iran poses an existential threat, but holds back and risks annihilation because the US won’t give an OK? Not a chance. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/50 "2012-02-04T02:23:30Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] I don’t have a lot of time now, but I’d like to hear an explanation (particularly from xtisme himself) clarifying the statements about Iran being a rogue state. [/QUOTE] Sure, I’ll give you my quick thumbnail take, FWIW. The list is long (and not very distinguished), but the main things that make them a ‘rogue’ state, IMHO, is their treatment of their own population, their support for terrorist groups like H&H (to name but two), and of course the basic subject of this thread, namely their pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite treaty obligations to the contrary. The dickish stuff they sometimes do, such as threats to close trade through the straights is probably borderline ‘rogue’, but those things mentioned earlier DEFINITELY take them into the realm of ‘rogue state’. > [@](#): > > The biggest argument I could see for Iran being a rogue state is that they support terrorist groups. That’s certainly one of them, but there are others. > [@](#): > > Does supporting terrorist groups necessarily make a nation a rogue state? If so, how can you justify America’s history of support for such groups, without calling the USA a rogue state? Iran is in bed with more unsavory groups RIGHT NOW than America is, but it wasn’t too many years ago that we happily sponsored Saddam’s chemical weapons program ourselves, long as they agreed to kill some Iranians with it. Apples to oranges and not entirely accurate. The US certainly doesn’t support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas today, even if in the past we might have supported some groups that were vaguely similar. Supporting Saddam in the past, even as tangential as our support actually was, is not similar to the support that Iran gives those groups…and there is the fact that, unsavory as Saddam et al were, they were still a nation state (I’m not saying that supporting Iraq/Saddam was a good idea or justified, btw…just that it’s an invalid comparison). > [@](#): > > I’m not saying Iran is blameless and America is evil. I’m saying that invading Iran is an unacceptable response. We need to dial down the rhetoric before the fuse on this powder keg gets lit and we find out what real suffering and global financial crises look like. Now is not the time to get tough. The US has plenty of blood on our collective hands…no one believes that we are all goodness and light either internally or on the international stage. I’d say that, by and large our own actions have often been to hold our noses and support fairly unsavory groups or nations because of realpolitic (as was the case with Iraq and Saddam) because we felt the ends (of stopping the Soviets, or a monkey wrench into what was perceived at the time as a hostile Islamic theocracy in the case of Iran) justified the means. That hasn’t been a bright spot in our history, to be sure. However, Iran whole heartedly supports H&H and groups like them as part of their fundamental mission, not as a hold your nose and reluctantly support some group for reasons of realpolitic (in fact, there is some evidence that Iran actually directly controls such groups…i.e. they are a covert part of the Iranian military or paramilitary, though I think this is more speculative…Finn probably knows the answer to this), and I think that’s one of the fundamental differences, and one of the (myriad) things that makes Iran’s actions those of a ‘rogue state’…as opposed to the actions of the US, which makes us a ‘superpower’. To be sure, this isn’t an argument that’s going to get much traction with either Red or Der, and perhaps not with you or many others either, but to ME it seems an appropriate distinction. BTW, as Finn says, no one is even considering invading Iran. It’s probably not logistically possible for the US to do, certainly not as we stand today…and is totally and unquestionably beyond even the realms of fantasy for Israel. The only way Israel could do a ground attack on Iran is if someone magically teleported it to be on the border of Israel, and even then I’m fairly sure it would be pretty much STILL impossible. What folks are talking about here is a surgical strike encompassing air and perhaps naval assets (in the case of the US especially) against specific alleged/purported Iranian nuclear facilities, not a general invasion. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/51 "2012-02-04T02:58:01Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > The [**Ahmadinejad quote**](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html) has been distorted to hell and used to this day as an implausible war-cry. So please, let’s stop using all excuses for war revolving on that particular issue. You think this is the only quote from Iranian leaders regarding the situation? Their supreme leader continually talks about the impending arrival of the 12th imam and the rise of Islam. This is not some nut-job like Fred Phelps, this is their religious lead and defacto head of the state. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/52 "2012-02-04T03:34:19Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > If that’s the case, perhaps they should have read the fine print (from your own cite below) Yes, I know there is no specific timetable. However, I think you’d agree that maintaining stockpiles at stable levels arguably does not fall within an “earnest pursuit of nuclear disarmament” ; and that building \*new \*nuclear weapons is really not an earnest fucking pursuit of nuclear disarmament. > [@](#): > > Regardless, there was nothing preventing Saddam from allowing UN inspectors full and transparent access BEFORE GW was elected…and by doing so Saddam et al would have avoided the entire mess, even WITH 9/11. You haven’t answered **Mosier** ’s quite legitimate question: would you be OK having foreign inspectors visit (and possibly spy on) US bases, R&D sites, classified locations, power stations and so forth ? Or ask the US Government for full transparency ? Yes/No. > [@](#): > > I actually think it was the US that hacked Iran’s nuclear program, but that’s pure speculation. Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear power plant because they felt it was a sufficient threat to Saddam getting nukes to warrant military action. Again, Iran might want to re-think it’s own stance on this, especially with the fact that there is MORE credible evidence that Iran IS pursuing a nuclear weapons program, given the IAEA report. And if Israel felt a sufficient threat from a civilian reactor specifically designed to make it unsuitable for the fabrication of nuclear weapons, Israel will feel threatened by anything vaguely nuclear related. I ask the question again, what is Iran to do ? Should it just stop trying to upgrade its infrastructure ? > [@](#): > > AFAIK, Israel is NOT a signatory to the NNPT. I never said it was 😕 > [@](#): > > There is also no concrete evidence (there is plenty of speculation but no hard data) that Israel does have nukes, though since they didn’t sign the NNPT it’s a moot point. Israel is certainly going to do everything they can to prevent Iran from getting the things, treaty or no treaty, because they (rightfully IMHO) see that as a direct threat to their national survival. You seem to think Iran getting the things will make things more peaceful and force Israel to back off, but I think that’s a fantasy…it will make things MUCH more unstable both regionally and between Iran and Israel. How do you figure ? Or are you one of those “Iran will launch all its nukes at Israel the second it gets any because they’re all crazy !!!1” types ? > [@](#): > > We build nukes (though we don’t build a lot these days, merely support the ones we already have) because our own treaty obligations allow us to. No. They don’t. > [@](#): > > And if you think that the ‘terrorist groups’ the US supports today are in the same league as Hamas and Hezbollah then all I can say is you are mistake. A terrorist is a terrorist. There is no “terrorism light”. > [@](#): > > We do more than get rid of ‘old crap once in a while’…we’ve decommissioned whole classes of nuclear weapons, and DOE is continuously weeding out the stockpile. And replacing them. Besides, the US of all people is the one nation that _should_ be slashing its arsenal the most, along with Russia, simply because “We went from destroying the world 26 times to 24 times” is not significant at all when there is only one world. As long as your world-destroying count is above one, you haven’t reduced anything in any meaningful way. > [@](#): > > Yep, thanks for the cite. It doesn’t seem to say what you think it does, in that while there is some language for ‘good faith’ disarmament initiatives, there is no real timetables or timelines and no hard obligations to disarm…merely to pursue disarmament as a long term goal, which, based on the multiple treaties between the US and USSR/Russia I’d say we’ve fulfilled. You can’t possibly be serious. How does building new bombs in any way, shape or form constitute an earnest pursuit of disarmament, be it long term or short term ? > [@](#): > > Again, it’s an apples to oranges comparison you are attempting here…and, while it’s probably getting traction with the Red/Der crowd I doubt many others are buying it as more than a distraction. The US and Iran are not equals, and what we signed is not equivalent, regardless of how you try and spin and create false equivalencies. They are absolutely equals when it comes to the treaties they signed together. If you and me don’t do our part of the contract, I honestly see no basis for demanding they respect theirs. “Yes but we’re the good guys so we get to ! And they aren’t so they don’t !” is an extremely poor argument, certainly not a legal one. > [@](#): > > Because as well as all their other myriad faults, they fucking suck at keeping their ‘secret’ programs a secret. 😛 One more startlingly compelling argument from you 😕 > [@](#): > > Sure, I’ll give you my quick thumbnail take, FWIW. The list is long (and not very distinguished), but the main things that make them a ‘rogue’ state, IMHO, is their treatment of their own population, their support for terrorist groups like H&H (to name but two), and of course the basic subject of this thread, namely their pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite treaty obligations to the contrary. The dickish stuff they sometimes do, such as threats to close trade through the straights is probably borderline ‘rogue’, but those things mentioned earlier DEFINITELY take them into the realm of ‘rogue state’. So they can’t get nukes because they’re a rogue state. But they’re a rogue state because they’re trying to get nukes. Quite a catch, that catch 22. As for treatment of their own population, I take it you haven’t kept up with the way the OWS crowd was being treated ? > [@](#): > > Apples to oranges and not entirely accurate. The US certainly doesn’t support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas today, even if in the past we might have supported some groups that were vaguely similar. Supporting Saddam in the past, even as tangential as our support actually was, is not similar to the support that Iran gives those groups…and there is the fact that, unsavory as Saddam et al were, they were still a nation state (I’m not saying that supporting Iraq/Saddam was a good idea or justified, btw…just that it’s an invalid comparison). How about the IRA ? Hell, how about your arming and training Osama’s own mujahideen back when they were tussling with the Russians instead of with you ? The Contras ? Shall I go on ? And I’m not saying this to specifically bash America - my own country pretty much sells weapons to whoever has a buck to show, and fucked with Africa as thoroughly as the US has fucked with South America (including very cordial relations with that corrupt madman Mobutu Sese Seko). All countries strictly pursue their own self interest like frothing sociopaths. All countries will ally with anyone, no matter how bloodthirsty or loathsome, as long as they further those interests. Iran is no different, and it’s way hypocritical to poo-poo them for it. Hell, when seen from across the border, the Mossad or the CIA \*are \*terrorist organizations. Just because they operate under the umbrella of a state doesn’t make what they do any less brutal or subversive. Contrary to what Eddie Izzard says, having a flag doesn’t mean shit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/53 "2012-02-04T04:15:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > We don’t need an excuse, we are perfectly willing to simply make one up. And we haven’t attacked them recently because we got ourselves bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, why didn’t we attack them during the 20 years prior? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/54 "2012-02-04T05:00:34Z")
[QUOTE=Kobal2] Yes, I know there is no specific timetable. However, I think you’d agree that maintaining stockpiles at stable levels arguably does not fall within an “earnest pursuit of nuclear disarmament” ; and that building new nuclear weapons is really not an earnest fucking pursuit of nuclear disarmament. [/QUOTE] I’m not trying to be snarky here, but you do realize that the US has had several disarmament treaties with the USSR/Russia, correct? These DO constitute good faith efforts at disarmament on both sides in what looks to me compliance with the fairly loose language of the NNPT that we signed. I’m no expert, so I’m willing to see some data showing that the US is or has not been in compliance with said treaty, however if you have it. As for building new nukes, afaik the US hasn’t done so for quite some time, at least not on any scale. Part of the complaint I’ve heard from some of the DOE folks I know is that the US DOESN’T build new ones, and that the old ones are, well, getting old. Since they can’t test them, that increasingly has become a problem in gauging their reliability. Again, I’m no expert here, so if you have data to backup your assertion that we’re building a few, a lot or somewhere in-between new nukes I’m certainly all ears. > [@](#): > > You haven’t answered Mosier’s quite legitimate question: would you be OK having foreign inspectors visit (and possibly spy on) US bases, R&D sites, classified locations, power stations and so forth ? Or ask the US Government for full transparency ? Yes/No. In compliance with treaties we’ve agreed upon? Absolutely. In fact, I believe the USSR DID demand inspectors to oversee disposal of treaty decommissioned nuclear weapons, just as we demanded the same from them. AFAIK, and again, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here, no treaty the US has signed necessitates the UN to inspect our nuclear weapons facilities because we aren’t in possible/probable violation of our treaty wrt the NNPT…something that Iran IS. This is, again, an apples to oranges comparison, IMHO. Iran is required to have THEIR NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES TRANSPARENT, and that’s what I was specifically addressing. They don’t have to open up every bit of dirty laundry and state secret to the UN, but they DO have to open up this to their inspectors. Again, I’m no expert, so if you have some data showing that in fact they have no requirement to do so, and that it’s a totally BS request by the UN to request such compliance with inspection, then feel free to present it and I’ll be happy to acknowledge that I was wrong in my understanding. > [@](#): > > And if Israel felt a sufficient threat from a civilian reactor specifically designed to make it unsuitable for the fabrication of nuclear weapons, Israel will feel threatened by anything vaguely nuclear related. > I ask the question again, what is Iran to do ? Should it just stop trying to upgrade its infrastructure ? They should probably stop trying or giving the impression that they are attempting to develop nuclear weapons. That seems simple enough to me. If they open up their nuclear research and development to UN inspection and if the UN is satisfied with their transparency then Israel would probably be calmer about Iranian research into things nuclear. IAEA (not Israeli) reports indicating that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons, however, probably aren’t going to make Israels bunny jump, right? Seems pretty straight forward to me. > [@](#): > > I never said it was Never said you did, and apologize if you thought I was putting words in your mouth there. Was just following my own chain of thought there. > [@](#): > > How do you figure ? Or are you one of those “Iran will launch all its nukes at Israel the second it gets any because they’re all crazy !!!1” types ? Never said I did, though I do believe that by Iran gaining nukes it DOES constitute an existential threat to Israel, considering the clear hostility that Iran has towards Israel. They don’t have to launch the things the instance they get them to be threats to Israel. > [@](#): > > No. They don’t. Cite that buy building nuclear weapons the US is in violation of any treaty we are signatories too. Or, if that’s not what you mean, then please explain. > [@](#): > > A terrorist is a terrorist. There is no “terrorism light”. I disagree. As with all things, there are various degrees. I concede that you may not see it that way. I also point out, however, that if the US is considered a ‘rogue state’ because of past actions then so would France…and pretty much everyone else. Attempting to equate the US and Iran or North Korea in the same terms is, IMHO, ridiculous, but again YMMV. > [@](#): > > And replacing them. Besides, the US of all people is the one nation that _should_ be slashing its arsenal the most, along with Russia, simply because “We went from destroying the world 26 times to 24 times” is not significant at all when there is only one world. As long as your world-destroying count is above one, you haven’t reduced anything in any meaningful way. Again, afaik, the US (and Russia for that matter) aren’t building a lot (or any) new nukes, just maintaining their current stocks (actually, I think both countries are slowly decommissioning quite a few, but you don’t just take them to the junkyard…decommissioning nukes is quite expensive, and there are tons of security and environmental hoops you have to jump through as well). If you have data indicating that the US is replacing nukes with new ones then that would be something I’m not aware of, since nuclear weapons aren’t my specialty…my specialty being computer gaming, hard drinking, drugs and things of that nature. > [@](#): > > You can’t possibly be serious. How does building new bombs in any way, shape or form constitute an earnest pursuit of disarmament, be it long term or short term ? Well, for one thing, I’m obviously not convinced we ARE building a lot of new ones. For another, again, I’ve seen no hard cite from you that by doing so, even if we are, is a violation of our treaty obligations. As opposed to the clear violation that Iran is doing by even attempting to develop the things. So, I think it’s another instance of a false equivalency on your part, coupled with a couple of things that I’m unclear on and would appreciate cites from you to back up your assertions on if you wouldn’t mind. > [@](#): > > They are absolutely equals when it comes to the treaties they signed together. If you and me don’t do our part of the contract, I honestly see no basis for demanding they respect theirs. “Yes but we’re the good guys so we get to ! And they aren’t so they don’t !” is an extremely poor argument, certainly not a legal one. Then show me a cite indicating that we are in fact violating either the letter or spirit of the treaties we’ve signed. > [@](#): > > One more startlingly compelling argument from you 😕 I thought it was quite clever, actually, but humor is in the eye of the beholder I guess. The actual, non-witty answer is ‘we know about their secret program because of reports like the UN’s IAEA reports indicating that the Iranians might be developing nuclear weapons’. What were you looking for? > [@](#): > > So they can’t get nukes because they’re a rogue state. But they’re a rogue state because they’re trying to get nukes. Quite a catch, that catch 22. As for treatment of their own population, I take it you haven’t kept up with the way the OWS crowd was being treated ? They can’t get nukes because they signed a treaty specifically forbidding them from attempting to either acquire or develop nukes. Simple as that. I, again, am puzzled why this seemingly simple point is so hard to understand. We have nukes (and France, and all the other countries that have nukes prior to the NNTP) because the treaty we signed didn’t forbid us to keep or acquire new ones. Basically, no one who had nukes before the treaty would have signed it if it forbid them to have the things…nor would they have signed it if it compelled them to disarm all of their nuclear weapons. There is no ‘catch-22’ here. Iran signed a treaty that specifically forbids them from acquiring or developing nukes. > [@](#): > > How about the IRA ? Hell, how about your arming and training Osama’s own mujahideen back when they were tussling with the Russians instead of with you ? The Contras ? Shall I go on ? > And I’m not saying this to specifically bash America - my own country pretty much sells weapons to whoever has a buck to show, and fucked with Africa as thoroughly as the US has fucked with South America (including very cordial relations with that corrupt madman Mobutu Sese Seko). The US government didn’t support the IRA. We certainly did provide both funding and some training to the Mujaheddin, but we didn’t run them…they were fighting already, we merely facilitated their continued fighting. Same with the Contras. You needn’t go on, as it’s clear that I see a distinction and you don’t. I concede that who is or isn’t a ‘terrorist’ is debatable. If you want to see the US as a rogue state, or if you think that because the US did some questionable things in the past that means Iran or anyone else is a rogue state that’s entirely up to you. The fact remains that, labels aside, Iran signed the NNPT and it forbids them from attempting to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. And, even if you think that’s horseshit and they can just handwave that away, Israel does seem this as a clear existential threat to their existence. Again, you can handwave that away, safe as you are in France and I am in the US, but THEY think that’s the case, and if Iran continues they are inviting an attack by someone. You will perhaps have noticed that France is also one of the countries who have upped the sanctions on Iran, and while folks might say a lot of things about France, no one thinks they are a lapdog of the US, doing whatever we tell them to do (_snort_), so they are ALSO concerned about Iran getting the things, despite your blithe assurance that Iran is safe, and should get them for their own good. It’s not JUST America (or Israel) that are concerned about this. You might want to bone up on the European reaction to the UN IAEA report as well…and see that things are heating up on this issue. I can guarantee you that if Iran attempts to close the straights to trade, it will be Europeans who are also calling for military intervention in this thing. And if Iran keeps pushing this, it won’t just be the US and Israel who ramp this up further. Just something to keep in mind while asking the US to cast the motes from our collective eye… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/55 "2012-02-04T05:13:47Z")
Just found this thread and must reread for more depth. (Don’t want to be seen as one hit poster.) So Israel hits Iran, and there is no pre-agreement on this with the USA. We publicly berate Israel for this “inappropriate” action. Iran leaves us off the hook? Based on the rhetoric and debate so far, why should we assume Iran will believe us? Based on the irrationality of Iran, and the heat of the moment, I would fully expect Iran to lob a few missiles south into the Persian Gulf and say, “Well Satan, you’re in it now!” Or worse. Iran arms one of those 1,500 miler missiles it is claimed they have with a nuclear weapon and launches it almost straight up and a bit south. The US military immediately gears up for a potential nuke strike on a carrier battle group in the Gulf (you’ve got to be fuckin’ kidding me!), only to find Iran detonates the nuke in the boost phase, about 100-150 miles up. “Well Satan, you’re in it now! And now you’re blind!” Now what? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/56 "2012-02-04T05:23:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, why didn’t we attack them during the 20 years prior? Political hangover from Vietnam. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/57 "2012-02-04T05:26:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Political hangover from Vietnam. And yet we attacked other countries. So, the hangover applied only to Iran? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/58 "2012-02-04T05:44:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You think this is the only quote from Iranian leaders regarding the situation? Their supreme leader continually talks about the impending arrival of the 12th imam and the rise of Islam. This is not some nut-job like Fred Phelps, this is their religious lead and defacto head of the state. Could you put up these quotes? Merely talking about the arrival of the 12th imam doesn’t constitute a threat of nuclear war. Incidentally here is Ahmedinejad himself [about](http://worldnews.about.com/od/iran/f/12thimam.htm)the 12th imam: > [@](#): > > What is being said about an apocalyptic war and – global war, things of that nature. This is what the Zionists are claiming. Imam…will come with logic, with culture, with science. He will come so that there is no more war. No more enmity, hatred. No more conflict. He will call on everyone to enter a brotherly love. Of course, he will return with Jesus Christ. The two will come back together. And working together, they would fill this world with love. The stories that have been disseminated around the world about extensive war, apocalyptic wars, so on and so forth, these are false. Of course you may choose not to believe his sincerity but then there is no particular reason to believe that his more intemperate quotes, usually mis-translated or distored, respresent Iranian national security policy either. If you look at Iran’s actual policies on the ground in places like Afghanisan and Iraq you see a savvy, pragmatic authoritarian regime at work, not an apocalyptic cult. A nuclear-armed Iran is no more likely to initiate a nuclear war than Israel. Of course the US should try to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, but if it fails it won’t be that difficult to contain it. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/59 "2012-02-04T07:11:56Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > As for treatment of their own population, I take it you haven’t kept up with the way the OWS crowd was being treated ? This is an extremely stupid comment. Please explain to me how the US treatment of the OWS movement has been remotely comparable to Iran’s treatment of, to take just one example? I assume you think that life is vastly worst for members of the OWS then it was for blacks in the Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa because the Bahai are treated vastly worse that blacks in those countries were. > [@](#): > > A terrorist is a terrorist. There is no “terrorism light”. So then you think that members of Hamas who set off a bomb in pizzeria or a school bus are no different than members of the French resistance fighting against the Nazis? > [@](#): > > How about the IRA ? That statement is utterly moronic. The US government never supported the IRA and always listed it as a terrorist group. By contrast Hezbollah has sworn fealty to the government of Iran and to Iran’s Supreme Leader. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/60 "2012-02-04T07:16:38Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Of course you may choose not to believe his sincerity but then there is no particular reason to believe that his more intemperate quotes,\*\* usually mis-translated\*\* or distored, respresent Iranian national security policy either. Really. The only quote of his I remember being “mis-translated” was his “wipe Israel from the map”, but you’re saying most of his have been. Would you mind listing several of his other ones that have been mis-translated and the proper translations. Thanks [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685.md?page=4)