What other people, experts, are saying is that the Iran leadership is less irresponsible than we have been led to believe.
That they are not batshit crazy and even more level headed than Pakistan.
What if the nuclear weapon couldn’t be traced to any specific country with certainty, and it turned out that Iran hadn’t actually supplied the nuclear weapon, but that it was made without support from a state-actor?
(That’s exactly what happened with the Iraq War by the way). There wouldn’t be an excuse for spreading democracy or any other reason. (This is why we have leaders - because if everyone’s opinion became policy, i.e. someone like yours, as Gandhi said, the whole world would be blind).
Massive retaliation is appropriate…when you have 100% certainty that you know who did it. It’s easy to convince yourself that you are close to certain or 100% certain on something when in reality it isn’t (that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction and that it was going to supply them to the terrorists, which you yourself deny as happening with any reasonable probability in the case of Iran).:smack:
A terrorist organization who wanted us to start a nuclear war with Iran (again it can’t be assumed that all terrorists support the nation whose religion and culture are similar to theirs, case in point the Iraq-Iran war) could make their own nuclear weapons and detonate them somewhere and frame it as an Iranian weapon). You’re right that Iran would almost certainly never provide nuclear weapons to terrorists - and you can’t know for sure that blame can be assigned to the Iranian military chain of command - if you can’t, and you end up being wrong, then you have killed millions of, literally innocent people.
Indeed. If there is one batshit crazy country, whose people talk with glee about bombing civilians and turning regions into glass deserts, it is the US.
The nation known to have used nukes on civilians and to have very recently engaged in a war of agression.
We won’t care.
Again, we won’t care.
Thinking that they might hand out nuclear weapons to terrorists (and on top of it plausibly deny it) is ludicrous. Also, I doubt Iran is planning to build “suitcase bombs”.
And by the way, if proper checks and balances and guarantee of good stewarship is the main issue, then you should be much more worried about Pakistan, IMO. Iran’s regime might not be to your liking but its leadership is reasonnably stable and sane.
Don’t forget also that Iran has valid reasons for building nukes (I mean apart from giving them to terrorists). Not only, as it has been mentioned it has been threatened by the USA with a military attack not excluding nuclear weapons, but it had been on the receiving end of a WWI scale war against an ennemy supported by…well, by pretty much everybody (Russia, USA, European countries, you name it). It also didn’t get very good deals in the past from western nation(*). Also, if you look around from Iran, pretty much every other country around is a potential ennemy (and not only by some fault of their own. Irak was an ennemy before and after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan another before and after the fall of the Talibans, etc…)
Honestly, if I were Iran, I would try to get nuclear weapons too. It makes more sense for Iran to want them than for most current nuclear powers (including the USA).
As for how to deal with Iran when it will have those weapons, I don’t know. But the issue won’t be nuclear missiles getting lost or given to random terrorists.
(*)Just mentioning it, because I don’t think it really matters…except of course for the fact that we wouldn’t have a nuclear-armed, religious-led country there if Iran had been left alone in the past (and IMHO, we would have instead a shining example of a developed, modern and democratic country in the middle East. Iran had and still has a lot of potential, I believe) . But well, back then like now nobody cares not only about mesing up with remote foreigners but also with the possible long-terms consequences. Realpolitiks will keep biting us in the ass forever I guess
When I think of it, it’s ironical that, had Iran succeeded in ousting the Talibans (then backed by Pakistan and even by the USA), 9/11 wouldn’t have taken place. Yet another example of the unintended consequences of the “sane” Western foreign policies as opposed to the irrational Iranian ones).
ETA : I’m no fan of Iranian policies, in case I might appear to. But I don’t make the assumption that they’re drooling idiots, as some seem to think.
I don’t think Iran plans to use their nukes. I think what Iran is after is the ability to support international terrorism with impunity. They are miscalculating if they think a nuclear deterrent would make them untouchable if they went too far.
Please; they can already support terrorism with impunity. They want nukes almost certainly in order to ensure that they won’t be conquered by the US.
This is the real issue and it’s a shame that it gets lost so often among bombast and counter-bombast about Iran nuking Manhattan, or what have you.
This is a very odd conclusion, considering that Iran was allied with Al Quaeda and helping them train in tactics and the use of explosives.
This is a very bad example and actually undercuts your argument. The US has said that nuclear weapons aren’t off the table if Iran keeps developing its secretive nuclear program. Your argument, therefore, boils down to “We’ve got to get nuclear weapons to protect us from the Americans who say they’ll only attack us if we keep working on nuclear weapons!”
Seriously, you need to reconsider. Iran has attacked United States military forces on multiple occasions and collaborated with Al Queada and we still didn’t attack them. Not even a Clintonesque chuck-a-few-tomahawk-missiles-at-'em response. The idea that if they stand down they’d be at greater risk is Jabberwockian. Iran could easily remove virtually any and all threat from the US by dismantling its support for Hamas and Hezbollah and instituting the Additional Protocols. Free and fair elections and a real push to reform its theocracy would be icing on the cake. But the idea that they need to nuke up because they’re at risk only because they’re nuking up? That, in fact, points to a fundamental and unignorable level of irrationality on behalf of the Iranian leadership.
Not to be too much of a spoilsport but ..
Operation Nimble Archer Operation Praying Mantis
You’re correct, I should have been more specific: Iran has attacked United States military forces on multiple occasions and collaborated with Al Queada and* we still didn’t drop bombs on Iranian soil.*
We helped overthrow their democratic government (so much for the idea we’d be friendlier if they got rid of the theocracy), supported Iraq’s invasion, blew up an Iranian airliner (and gave the guys who did it medals), and funded terrorists in Iran.
When come back, read the NPT before making such nonsensical statements. You are aware that the comment by Bush about not taking any options off of the table was in reference to Iran’s continued development of the bomb in violation of its NPT obligations, hardly the big mean nuclear armed US threatening poor nuke less Iran with nuclear attack without fear of retaliation. ‘Not taking options off of the table’ is also common rhetoric in such situations; it was the US position during Desert Storm in the event Saddam used chemical or biological weapons against coalition forces.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Iran can freely withdrawl from the NPT after 90 days notice are given when claiming it’s a treaty, not a suicide pact.
I think that what he’s saying, or implying, is that the NPT is written by those who have nukes to benefit themselves. To say that nobody can make nukes once they’ve signed it, but grandfather in those who already have them, is an intrinsic inequality.
Personally, I wouldn’t like it if another state gets its hands on nukes, but I cannot logically justify why Iran cannot have them if others already have. The treaty is unfair to all those who have no nukes, and while its existence may have prevented countries from developing them, we cannot know that for sure. It may be simply easier to join that treaty, but back out when you actually have the capability to make one.
No.
That’s a rather fantastic claim considering A.Q. is Sunni and regards Shiites as heretics, while Iran is a fundamentalist Shiite regime.
Well, yeah, but they didn’t have to sign it. The real question is whether they can unilaterally withdraw from the NPT (they can), and whether they will (not yet).
He threatened Iran with nuclear attack. That is more than enough to absolve them of any kind of treaty obligations. If America wants them to act all nice and civilized and legal, maybe it should return the favor.
It’s ridiculous that people wave this away like it doesn’t matter; what would America’s reaction be if a nation with nuclear weapons threatened to nuke it?
In other words you’re ignorant of the 9/11 Commission report. You really should gain a basic factual grounding before you challenge facts from a position of willful ignorance.
Ahh I guess you are being willfully ignorant of what we found in Bin Laden’s compound.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/03/us-usa-binladen-documents-iran-idUSBRE8421EG20120503
But hey, don’t let facts stand in your way. If some Iranian agent loaded an Al Qaeda agent 5 bucks for gas 30 years ago then that makes them cue evil music collaborators! It’s a ridiculously retarded level of analysis. Fundamentalist religious fanatics aren’t going to be long term allies with people they consider apostates. It’s basic common sense.