Subversion.
Our little friend, the CIA, can do very, very much. Very, very quietly.
Do what? “De Nuke”? Yeah I doubt it. Sabotage, assassinat, bribe etc. Sure. Not denuclearize.
They’ll have nukes long before the decade is over. And what makes you think the next regime won’t want them?
When the Shah comes back, that might be a cogent argument.
Neither of those sources support your claim that Iran has no intention of getting nukes. They have suspended their weaponization program, but can start it up again at any time. And they continue their enrichment program, which is a necessary step in that program anyway.
Now, I frankly don’t think there is much we can do to stop Iran from getting nukes, nor should we. Any “cure” to that problem would be worse than the disease. At best, we can slow them down. A nuclear Iran would be less dangerous to US interests than a nuclear Pakistan is, and we’ve been able to live with the latter for years.
I’ll agree that I don’t think bringing up the Shah’s relationship with Israel was terribly relevant, up until Saddam getting defanged by the US in Gulf War I, Israel and Iran did work together behind the scenes as chronicled by Trita Parsi.
The oldest and most relevant saying in the Middle East is “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Truth be told, the Iranians desire for nukes has more to do with establishing hegemony in their region of the world rather than rattling their sabers against either Israel or the US and no, when they get nukes it won’t bring about the end of the world.
AK might disagree with me, but I think there was far greater chance of starting WWIII when Pakistan got nukes just because of Pakistan’s history with India than there is of WWIII starting when Iran gets nukes.
Not in Iran.
I do not disagree with your sentiment here but wouldn’t that change somewhat if PRK became a nuclear threat? They are not a country one can actually negotiate with IMO.
Once they actually have them I’m not sure what can be done. So the goal is to try to prevent them from getting to that stage.
Maybe a nuclear-armed Iran is better?
-with its nuclear arsenal, Iran no longer fears attack
-it can now tone down the anti-Israel rhetoric
-Ahmadinajad can now offer concessions to the students and liberals in Iran
-Iran can cut is conventional naval forces in the Gulf
It actually might lead to a major reduction in tensions. Plus, the Iranians are not stupid-they know that they might be able to launch a “first strike”-but the retaliation that would follow would mean the end of them. they are not going to risk that.
The Iranian nation cold focus on internal improvements, and get away from the brinkmanship.
If Iran feels more secure in interfering in other countries, that won’t reduce tensions in the Middle East at all. And Ahmadinejad can’t offer anybody anything because he doesn’t run the country.
It’s anti-Israel rhetoric isn’t about fears of external attack, but fears of internal dissent. All dictatorships need to instill fear and hatred of outsiders, it’s the only way to get the population to live with oppression. In the Shah’s era it was communism, I guess, but that didn’t sell well and he was overthrown. The current regime talks about infidels who want to destroy Islam itself, and that seems to have more staying power. It doesn’t matter in the least if the threat is realistic or not.
It’s not a popular position, but I’ve basically said the same thing. If you’re serious about not being invaded by the U.S. you need nuclear weapons. We’ve never invaded a nuclear State. We’ve never really been in position to, though, but Iran arguably had/has a lot more to worry about in those regards than any other State.
North Korea I don’t think even needed nuclear weapons as a deterrent, because their huge array of pre-sighted and hardened artillery would make any invasion of the North unacceptable to South Korea since it’d mean their capital getting reduce to a rubble heap–and it’s unlikely we’d invade the North without the South’s approval.
Further, Pakistan isn’t a good State, and it has nukes. Even crazy States like Iran and North Korea know they can’t really get away with nuking stuff without immense consequences. So at the end of the day what is really hurt by either country having nuclear weapons?
What does worry me with any nuclear proliferation isn’t the Irans or North Koreas, at least not their governments. It’s what happens twenty, thirty years from now when more and more proliferation has happened and Iran or North Korea can afford to give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group? That’s my real nightmare scenario, because a terrorist group has no strong disincentive to nuking anyone. The Ayatollah or the Kim’s like running their respective States and like being in power. They nuke anyone and those days end. But a terrorist group has no similar risk and nothing to lose.
I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the fact some day in our history a Western city will be destroyed by a terrorist nuclear detonation.
I’ve got to agree with Martin here. We piss and moan and threaten and sanction but at the end of the day, having nukes is an effective innoculation against invasion. I can’t blame the North Koreans or Iranians for wanting the bomb, if I was in their shoes I’d do the same thing. I don’t think either the North Koreans or the Iranians are batshit crazy enough to actually use them. What is more worrying is the prospect that emerging nuclear powers won’t secure their weapons and that someday one of them is going to wind up in the hands of terrorists. Not sure if it will happen in my lifetime, but someday a major American city is going to be leveled by a terrorist nuke.
So can you provide support for the claim that they do have intention of getting nukes? It strikes me as something that is difficult to disprove since you likely won’t take the ayatollah’s word for it. They continue enrichment for civilian applications. Their stockpile of 20% enriched uranium was actually falling as of last September.
It wasn’t a “gotcha question”. I was asking him his honest opinion on whether or not the French resistance constituted a terrorist group or not.
I ask because lots of people have very radically different ideas on what does and doesn’t constitute a terrorist group.
To give a fairly obvious example, Israel has long insisted it opposes all forms of terrorisms yet has had two PMs formerly viewed as terrorists(Begin and Shamir) and for most of the past several decades has been led by a political party that grew out of two defunct groups classified as terrorist groups(Irgun and Lehi).
For my part, I generally try to avoid using the term “terrorist” because it’s so arbitrary and loaded and, to be blunt, there are many actions that I do think can be considered justifiable that would be labeled as examples of “terrorism”.
It’s why I generally try to use the term “guerillas” to refer to the 911 hijackers or the Munich massacre.
I just wanted Der Trihs to explain his idea on what does and doesn’t constitute being a “terrorist” because it’s so arbitrary.
I think we would be wise to assume that they will have them at some point in the near future and prepare for that. And by “prepare”, I don’t mean get ready to invade.