A while back (too lazy to look for the post), I think it was a year or two ago, I mentioned the “pincers” idea in regards to any thought of a military strike against Iran with bases on the East and West borders. IIRC, at the time, the idea was roundly shot down and debunked.
Maybe you’re coming around to my way of thinking. 
While your idea would be ideal, you’re forgetting something in making this analogy.
The drunk friend will sober up in the morning and not want to throw the brick. You wouldn’t have to watch over him 24/7 for possible brick hurling. Insanity never sobers up.
But who’s insane here?
Not necessarily that hard. It would depend on how much losses the USA would be willing to accept in order to pursue his goals in the region. Let’s assume that Iran acquire a number of nuclear weapons, though not the technology needed to launch an ICBM on american territory.
Now, the USA, for some reason, wants to invade Iran. Iran says : stop right now or we use our nukes. How are you sure that they’re bluffing? Will the USA be willing to take the risk of losing say, a couple task forces, a couple army corps, plus let Iran vaporize some cities in allied countries (say, Tel Aviv and Karachi)? Maybe they’ll even add : we have hidden a nuke somewhere in New-York. What would it take for the USA to think that invading Iran is worth this price? “Iranians fund terrorists in Lebanon, mess up with us in Irak and generally irritate us” in all likehood wouldn’t.
This basically (on a smaller scale since Iran won’t have the ability to launch a nuclear attack on american soil in a reasonnably close future) has been the french nuclear doctrine during the soviet era : you have the means to both invade us and vaporize our whole country, but the price you’d pay for that would be so huge that even considering this option would be insane. Jut try it, and there’s no more Moscow, St-Petersburg, Kiev, Volgograd, etc… Yes, we know that then there won’t be any more a France, either, but we’ll do it nevertheless. Bluff or not? How do you know? What is worth taking this risk?
As soon as Iran has some nukes in working order, a reasonnably reliable mean of delivering a nuclear payload, it finds itself in more or less the same situation. The stakes in case of military action become HUGE. And calling it “bluff” really is a risky position.
That’s most certainly the reason why Bush seems to think that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons at all cost. Because otherwise it would become mostly untouchable, except in the most extreme circumstances.
By the way, my opinion is that Iran wants to have nukes, that this can only be delayed, and even so at a high cost, that any real attempt to completely prevent it (by a full-scale invasion, nuclear preventive attacks, etc…) would be mostly insane, hence that if the US admnistration doesn’t act insanely, Iran will have nukes. Hence that the world will eventually have to deal with a mostly untouchable Iran. Which is nothing new. The western world dealt with the USSR and has to deal with China.
And I don’t believe that there’s any chance Iran will do something as ludicrous as handing out nukes to terrorists. I think that too many people have a weird belief that iranian leaders are just crazy and could randomly take any kind of action, regardless how nonsentical it could be.
My worry is that 99% of them are pragmatic and reasonable and would never dream of it…but the other 1% are truly of the batcrap insane variety who dreams fervently of the apolcalypse. Perhaps an Iranian A.Q. Kahn who’s in the proliferation game for something other than money hooks up with the most radicalized elements in the govt…Maybe I’m being paranoid, but I do not trust religious wingnuts over there any more than I trust them here. And the Islamist wingnuts reportedly are doggedly seeking a nuclear weapon to use on an American or Israeli target. I can’t imagine a more sympathetic nuclear power than Iran.
Hell, any nation that wants nukes bad enough is going to get them.
Most nations want them for defensive purposes. I would, with cautious confidence, include Iran in that category. I think they want nuclear weapons as a means of dissuading that frothing-at-the-mouth blithering idiot occupying the US White House and his team of warmongers from invading Iran as they did Iraq.
I would not totally rule out the possibility that they would consider using a nuke for first-strike terrorist activity, but even bug-eyed zealots are generally brought to a pause by considering the likelihood of the US turning their entire fucking country into a glass-lined shallow bowl of sand. And yeah, if they end up with enough of them in their arsenal, there’s the risk of them selling one or two to an extranational terrorist group. But then there’s still the distinct possibility that the US would retaliate by turning their entire fucking country into a glass-lined shallow bowl of sand just for selling the nuke to the terrorists.
(Sooner or later, most of the countries that worry about being pushed around will have nukes. For that matter, any political organization of sufficient size and intensity that wants one badly enough will have one. So it would be a really good thing to phase out all remaining vestiges of “might makes right” and work towards a fair and equitable means of working out global conflict.)
Back to Iran, though: defensive. And while fundamentalist Shiites give me the creeps, I can’t entirely say I blame them.
Are you able to pause your hate for even a moment? Iran was long ago persuing a nuke. Bush has nothing to do with it. They were persuing nukes during the 8 years of Clinton, 4 years of GHW, 8 years of Reagan, and going back to the days of the Shah 4 years during the Carter Administration. Likely going back as far as Ford and Nixon.
Iran hasn’t been a fan of the US nor Israel for quite some time now. Even before the liberating revolution brought sanction after sanction upon the people, there was a healthy hatred of the US in Iran. Evidenced by the popular support of the Shah’s exile.
If the US wanted to invade Iran, we’ve had 25 years to make the move. To blame Bush for Iran seeking a nuke is ludicrous. They didn’t start this little hobby in the last 6 years. But if you have to blame Bush for everything, go for it. And I’m not posting as a Bush supporter. I have some issues myself with him right now. But it’s absurd to assign your blind hatred of him to what Tehran is (has) been doing for decades.
The US is too weak to credibly threaten Iran. It’s oil-dependency means it cannot destabilise the region further, even if it had the numbers to do so. They know this in Tehran. Secondly, if Tehran turns its drip feed to Iraqi insurgents into a gush, the entire US project for Iraq is over, lost and failed. Easy like that.
They are living it up in Iran, knowing they have the US over a barrel, again.
Well, not really. It’s been reported we’re going to invade Venezuela for their oil, so Tehran is a non-issue when it comes to oil. And the source of that info is infallible as it comes from the leader of Venezuela himself. A hero to you, I trust.
So, **duffer[b/], why do you think Iran wants a nuke? Do you think they intend to use nuclear weapons offensively?
I am genuinely curious.
Cite?
Here’s something from 95 that appears to contradict you
If you have any actual evidence that Iran is pursuing an atom bomb, I’d like to see it. It’s not that I trust Iran on this. It’s just that every claim I’ve seen to the contrary seems to be based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Have you got something beyond smoke and mirrors to back you up?
They’re actively constructing every part of the weapons cycle, as part of their ostensibly civilain efforts to build a power-generating infrastructure they really don’t need. They need more centrifuges, but that’s really about it. Even without the enriched U, they could conceivably already have enough Pu for a handful of bombs. Pu bombs are more of an engineering challenge, but that’s something we worked out in 1945. They’re also working on a formidable ballistic missile capability, and bragging they can hit Tel Aviv. All the critical pieces are already or nearly in place. 5 years, 10 tops, they’ve got everything they need. If they’re not actively seeking a bomb they can put on a missile that can flatten Israeli targets, I’ll eat my shoes. It’s such an obvious tactical asset for them, I don’t see how they could resist the opportunity.
Yes, actually I do think they want it for an offensive strike. Against whom first? Not sure, but I’m willing to lay dollars on Israel.
What defensive need do they have? China seems a pretty friendly ally, and Russia isn’t exactly pissed at them right now. Nor have they been for years. Afghanistan was the thorn in Moscow’s side for awhile. But Iran wasn’t really a part of that. China and Russia seem in shape to lob a few missiles our way as friends of the psychos. Deterrence gained.
And China and Russia have been less than vigilant in keeping Tehran in check. They have for years been two of Iran’s staunchest supporters. Going as far as shipping not only hardware, but scientific knowledge to Tehran about nuclear weapon systems. Given the nuke power of China and Russia, Iran has sat comfortably in it’s La-Z-Boy recliners with that security to work on it’s own weapon production for decades.
Tehran has enough nuclear allies to not need a defense. Again, it’s been over 25 years since the US had a reason to bomb the hell out of them if we wanted to, and it hasn’t happened.
When the leaders in Tehran call for the destruction of Israel (wiped off the map), then persue nuclear weapons technology openly saying they want to use it to destroy another country, while saying it’s only for power generation, then saying they achieved the technology, than say they are still persuing peaceful civilian use, then announcing amazing new missile technology that will pawn all teh suxxorz!!11one1!!, and do it all in a few week’s time?
They’re either delusional, actually capable of using these new toys, or psycho’s that think everyone will think they have them and just pick up their gloves and go home.
Of those 3 choices, I can’t think of any of them that would justify anyone to trust them with a nuclear weapon. For whatever reason.
It seems the leaders in Tehran aren’t too concerned with civilization of non-Muslims carrying on. Say what you will of America, Europe and China, we’ve shown that we can possess nukes without resorting to global annhiliation.
Iran? Need a little bit more in the stability department.
As you know, the same process is used to generate fuel for reactors, and material for making bombs. That being the case, it’s important to know whether there is any evidence that they are pursuing bombs. Duffer’s undocumented claims not withstanding, there doesn’t seem to be any real evidence they’re working on bombs. You make the additional claim that they don’t need a civilian nuclear power program. Why not? Lots of countries have civilian nuclear programs. Some, like Brazil as I mentioned above, have even decided to nationalize the complete nuclear fuel cycle. Why is it so unreasonable for Iran to want to do the same?
Nope, no reason for the UNSC, IAEA and others to treat this as a threat. Other than because I just pull obvious facts out of my ass.
I appreciate that you respect my opinion enough to assume international agencies to take it more seriously than you do. I’m flattered. Truly.
Sadly, though, they never consulted me on this issue. They had to stumble through the dark to come to the same conclusions. I understand you don’t trust what I say, so you could never trust what they say.
If I said it’s a threat, that makes it a non-threat? Whatever makes you feel good. Do what you gotta do.
Why so defensive duffer? If you don’t have evidence to back up your claim, just say so.
Sure, the possibility that Iran might have a weapons program is a cause for concern, but that’s no call for assuming that they have one without at least a little proof.
And, given the consequences of such an action, why exactly would they do so?
The concept that Russia or China would start a nuclear war on behalf of Iran is totally absurd. Plainly nonsentical. Even using the word “allies” doesn’t make sense.
Plus, the USA is allied with plenty of nuclear powers : UK, France, Israel, Pakistan… According to your reasonning, why on earth would it need nuclear weapons in these circumstances? Don’t you think that you should just scrap them all and rely on the good will of Chirac and Musharraf? Can you think of a reason not to?
Apart from the “axis of evil” thing, the permanent anti-Iranian rethoric of the USA during the last 20 years or so, the fact that it has troops stationned on its borders, etc, etc, etc… Iran has no reason to be worried, indeed. Do you think that any country would not take steps to protect itself in such a situation? That it would just rely on the general good-will of the superpower that threatens it all the time and hope that it will never act on its threats?
Besides, why do you think that nukes can be of any use only against another nuclear power? Don’t you think that a nuke of two would have come in handy to prevent or win the Irak-Iran war, for instance? It’s not like the region is exceptionnally stable.
In the same way other nuclear powers are equally delusional or psychos for the exact same reasons, namely that they actually intend to use nuclear weapons or expect that other countries will believe they will?
I stand corrected. I have no proof to invalidate what Tehran has said. Nor do I have any proof to show why the UK, France, Germany and Russia seem to want to prevent Tehran from doing what they either want or have done in the arena of producing weapons-grade nuclear material.
Not my area of expertise. So I’ll stop worrying about it and move on. Thanks for listening to my unfounded concerns.
It’s all in the report. Iran has concealed and lied about their nuclear R&D for decades. A great many of the lies have now come out. Not one of the lies (so far) has turned out to be evidence for a weapons program. And correct me if I’m wrong, but also not one of the things they have been caught doing was actually illegal, had they not tried to hide and lie about it!
Why does the IAEA want them to stop what they’re doing? First, because they see it as a confidence building measure, and second, because Iran actually signed an agreement promising to do so. The latter is really baffling. It is totally clear they are never going to give up enrichment (they have a right to do it which nobody is disputing). So why did they even promise? My guess: they were pressured and cajoled into it by the IAEA; or there was an internal power struggle where the “doves” temporarily prevailed; or it was a bad faith negotiating ploy to get the IAEA off their backs for a while, allowing them to quietly complete their plant and then start it up anyway; or a combination of these.
Everything you say in post #68 is true. Still I don’t think it is “ludicrous” to blame current U.S. foreign policy for bringing the crisis to a head. While we’re not going to prevent them from gaining nuclear technology, nor prevent them from getting a weapon should they decide to develop one, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the current foreign policy is not the most productive one to handle the current situation. (I know they are not duffer’s word’s, but what I think is ludicrous is equating “U.S. foreign policy” = “Bush”. Hillary Clinton is at least as guilty as Dick Cheney or John Bolton.)