Um, because they don’t want to? You’re right, the real responsibility lies with the people who put him in power, repeatedly, not the guy who’s just doing what he told them he would.
So who’s going to contain the Israeli voters?
If I were suddenly promoted to absolute dictator of America, I’d go ahead and take that ten year “sunset”, even if the lies about it were true! I figure with a ten year running start, we can get enough Iranians to believe that there is a lot more going on in life than killing someone and then dying yourself. Internet, CD’s, racy Bollywood movies with actual kissing! Hooo, doggies, corrupt the shit out of them. So the ten years is up, and they go “Awww, fuck it, not worth the trouble…”
But say they don’t. Say the ten years is up and they go “OK, gonna build us a big ol’ bomb right today!” We go, “No, you can’t, we won’t let you.”
“But its the sunset clause, ten years, and then we can do whatever we want!”
“We lied. We only said that shit so we wouldn’t have to kill you. Still don’t want to, but you can’t have the Bomb. By they way, seen Katy Perry’s new video?..”
Not a fan of Israel but there are lots of officially “Christian” countries in Europe. Beyond that it’s a “Jewish state” in an ethnic sense not a religious state so that’s hardly comparable to a theocracy like Iran.
Now I’m not a fan of either states formed on blood and soil nationalism or Israel, but again there are plenty ethnic based states in Europe.
No shit, but it’s government wasn’t really solidified. Minor nitpick anyway that hardly detracts from the message of your post.
What? Kissing in Bollywood movies, you’re crazy!
(Yes, I know it happens.)
The Israel position on this creates a bizarre situation, akin to Finland being upset that someone else might lay landmines, or Mark Ronson denouncing dynamic range compression.
Well, I just can’t imagine any realistic scenario which would lead Israel to - willingly or grudgingly - dismantle its nukes, or sign the NPT. Can you, or any of you?
Iranians already know all that. They have Internet, they have CD’s, and they have not only racy Bollywood movies but even - get this - their own underground porn industry! (I’ve been offered made-in-Iran porn CD-R’s on the streets of Tehran. Prices differed depending on where the featured girls came from: If from out in the sticks, 'twas cheap; if from Esfahan or Shiraz, mid-priced; if from ultra-posh northern Tehran, expensive as hell.)
What’s more, the nuclear program is wildly popular in all segments of Iranian society. It’s not just the ruling “mullahcracy,” but the secular nationalists as well - and there are millions of those, and always will be, even if the mullahcracy collapses. See, it’s more a matter of national pride than of Shia fanaticism.
I totally get why the Iranians want nukes. I mean, I want my country to stop them, but it’s not because they’re doing something inherently evil.
What nukes? 
Sure; the U.S. leans on them and makes it a condition of continued aid. That is a scenario “unrealistic” only in terms of American politics, which are mutable.
You don’t know Israelis that well, do you? We are, as God once said, a stiff-necked people, and we don’t respond well to threats, even from our friends. *Especially *from our friends.
What Alessan said. There is no realistic scenario in which Israel voluntarily dismantles its nukes. Seriously, they would abandon all US support first.
(Erm, the nukes it may or may not have, that is.)
If it ever came to that - and no amount of lobbying and negotiating and back-slapping and cajoling could turn the Americans around - I imagine the Israelis would finally say “OK, fuck you too,” and keep on keepin’ on without American aid.
ETA: What andros said.
G_ddamned board software ate my first attempt at this post. So I’ll be brief. Alessan,
[ul]
[li]What is your estimate of the probability that a developed Iranian nuclear weapon and its delivery system will be used on one of its neighbors within the, say, next 50 years?[/li][li]Second, if so, what is your estimate of the likelihood that the neighbor is Israel? [/li][li]Is the latter estimate likely enough, and the potential harm great enough, that you think Israel (because I don’t see anyone else doing it) will take preemptive military action to prevent that contingency from occurring? [/li][li]Finally, due to the reputed dispersed and hardened nature of Iranian nuclear weapons development infrastructure, wouldn’t effective (delaying development by more than a few months) Israeli military action against it have to involve nuclear weapons itself?[/li][/ul]
My own WAG is that Iranian nuclear weapon use against its neighbors within the next fifty years is more likely than not. Not because of any inherent insane destructiveness on the part of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution or his advisers, or desire to see Armageddon, but mainly because an nuclear armed Iran will inspire all of its wealthy neighbors to arm—KSA, the Emirates, Oman, etc… Those arsenals will likely be small enough to make a successful counterforce attack much more likely than during the Cold War. Further, the battlespace is sufficiently compressed, and delivery systems stealthier, that all actors will have much less time to make decisions in the face of an attack warning. IMHO, all of these factors combined make a Persian Gulf/SW Asia MAD paradigm much more unstable than Cold War U.S/Soviet MAD situation, which makes it more likely that someone will actually use the damned things.
Its taken Iran decades to even get to this point, and they’re still not close to a nuke yet. There’s no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would realistically spur the other countries around them to go nuclear. There is just as much pressure not to go nuclear from the rest of the world, that will not change. I doubt the likes of Syria or Iraq are holding off going nuclear just because Iran doesn’t have one yet. There are lots of practical reasons they don’t have nukes, reasons that will remain if Iran gets one
That’s rather irrational, isn’t it? Foreign aid is much more useful to Israel than those nuclear weapons that Israel might or might not have, and in any case will never use without itself being destroyed right afterwards.
Irrational? Dunno. Israelis have a finely-honed national sense of paranoia, which is justified by their being a religious, cultural, political, and geographic minority in a sea of Arabic Muslim despotisms. It’s not a matter of their wanting to nuke anyone, its a matter of deterrence, and a deterrence that helps keep them alive.
Could you imagine anything that would convince the U.S. to give up its nukes? How about Russia or China?
The Ukraine gave up their nukes and things worked out fine for them.
Sure, a multilateral agreement where everybody does including Russia and China. I don’t think there would be much public outcry against that, so long as there are measures in place to verify other countries’ disarmament.
I couldn’t disagree more. With the greatest of respect, that’s some serious Pollyanna thinking. And I think you’re presupposing the existence of magic, honestly: some perfect system in which we–the US government, military, and citizenry–can know everyone else in the world has disarmed. The only way that happens is if Jesus Christ descends from the clouds along with Buddy Holly, Elvis and John Wayne, to say “Alright kids, the Russkies and ChiComs and Indians and Pakistanis and Norks and even Israel–heh–have broken all their swords into plowshares! Time to pack the bombs up!”
No. I’m sorry, but even then, I can’t see it. American exceptionalism continues to run deep, as do our decades-long paranoia and xenophobia. The American people will *never *believe that no one anywhere in the world has a bomb. And even if somehow they did, there’s no way they’d ever agree to give the last one up.
.