# What gives us the right to pre-emptively attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022 "2004-09-19T18:49:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/61 "2004-09-21T16:19:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You state that as if it were a flatly absurd proposition. In fact it is an idea of ancient lineage – it is the basic thesis of Hobbes’ _Leviathan._ Yes, I do consider it a flatly absurd proposition, no matter how long its been held or who shares/shared it. There is no such thing as anyone who knows whats best for others, because there is no such thing as a human (or any being) with omniscience. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/62 "2004-09-21T16:44:24Z")
> [@Voodoochile](#): > > Yes, I do consider it a flatly absurd proposition, no matter how long its been held or who shares/shared it. There is no such thing as anyone who knows whats best for others, because there is no such thing as a human (or any being) with omniscience. Hobbes’ point was that we should submit to the strongest bastard around, not because he knows or even cares what is best for is, but because that is the surest way to replace “state of nature” anarchy with stable social order. Of course, by the same reasoning, we should be prepared to submit to the will of the Iranians if at some point in the future they should become stronger than us . . . ---
**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:** [September 21, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/63 "2004-09-21T16:58:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Are you sure? Yes, we would be in a position to invade Iraq from three fronts simultaneously – Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. But what are we going to use for troops? We can’t move troops out of Iraq leaving an insurgency at their backs. And Iran is a much bigger country than Iraq – population 68 million. We might lose. Unless we’re prepared to use nukes. We’d win easily and without the use of nukes. No way the Iranian army could stand up to the US in open battle. We’d win…until the occupation phase started. THEN we’d be stretched to the breaking point trying to hold down Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran…and still dealing with AQ. _snap_ Thats the sound of our logistics breaking and the house of cards crashing down. We won’t even go into what a full blown war in Iran would do to our economy…but it wouldn’t be pretty. You might here another _snap_… But don’t fool yourself BG…Iran wouldn’t have a chance in hell of even significantly slowing down the US military in open warfare…their best bet would be not to offer battle at all, but to go right into a decentralized irregular war right off the bat a la Iraq today. It would save them a hell of a lot of pain and would be the only effective thing they could do. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/64 "2004-09-21T17:50:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > For that matter, if the Iranians decided they wanted to invade **Iraq** right now and take it over, it’s entirely possible they could succeed, and slaughter most of our forces in the process. Possible. However, Iran will not need to resort to such drastic measures. Sooner or later, Iran will probably end up controlling Iraq. It’s only a matter of patience. The U. S. has removed the only obstacle to this happening by toppling Saddam. The U. S. is already in the absurd position of protesting the fact that Iran is financing hospitals and social welfare centers in Iraq. Also, Iran has stated that any attack on it will be met by immediate retaliation against Israel. Apparently they have cruise missiles targeting Israeli nuclear sites and have vowed that they will fire them if they are attacked. Iran has also threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack. This would potentially cork up a huge source of oil. Iran is strong and the U. S., by weakening Iraq, has tipped the balance of Middle Eastern power ever more in her favor. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/65 "2004-09-21T18:24:37Z")
> [@Rufus Xavier](#): > > Iran is strong and the U. S., by weakening Iraq, has tipped the balance of Middle Eastern power ever more in her favor. That apparently played a role in the thinking of Bush I in 1991, when he decided not to follow up the victory in Kuwait by marching on Baghdad. Would his son had the same common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/66 "2004-09-21T20:07:00Z")
Ok guys focus please. First the issue is not if Iran would use nukes in a conventional war… that isn’t much of a danger as was exposed in this thread. The smuggling of nukes through terrorists into western countries would be the problem. The fact that Pakistan is muslim and has nukes makes this kind of less relevant… but fine. So yes its in no ones interest to have nukes in Iran… except of course Iran’s interests. The message Bush sent to the muslim countries is: “You ain’t got nukular weapons we will invade!” So Iran is getting nukes in order to stop military adventures. Lastly… if the US plays this right and in a legal way… they will have a good and UN based precedent for imposing sanctions, or whatever else, on future nuclear wannabes. If they play this wrongly they will have to threaten every single wannabe. This means in the next decades the US will have to bully and cajole maybe dozens of countries… ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/67 "2004-09-21T20:31:31Z")
> [@EsotericEnigma](#): > > First, any intelligence or war games simulations that pretend to be able to predict how a government with supreme and unquestioned dictatorial authority vested in one person or a small group of people will react to a situation like this is completely full of crap. > Second, even assuming that Iran WOULD act in complete and utter disregard for its own interests and choose to escalate the situation, we must ALSO assume that Iran would act in complete and utter disregard for its own interests and choose to use nukes aggressively if they had them. Have you considered applying for a position as one of these strategists. Obviously you’re more qualified than those who’re currently performing these functions. Or maybe you’re just stating a WAG as though it were an obvious truth. Given the choice, for now, I’m more likely to side with experts. Is there something more to your argument than a “Seems to me…”? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/68 "2004-09-22T03:36:21Z")
Updates: [http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iran.html](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-iran.html) > [@](#): > > United Nations on Tuesday by announcing it has begun converting a large amount of raw uranium to prepare it for enrichment, a process that can be used to develop atomic bombs. > > The announcement was likely to provoke an angry reaction from Washington and increase suspicion in Israel, which plans to buy 500 ``bunker buster’’ bombs from the United States that could take out Iran’s underground atomic facilities. > > Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, told reporters Iran had begun converting 37 tonnes of raw ``yellowcake’’ uranium to process it for use in nuclear centrifuges – the machines that enrich uranium. > > The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, adopted a resolution on Saturday calling on Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment. The United States, Russia and the European Union reinforced the message on Monday by urging Tehran to comply. > > ``Some of the amount of the 37 tonnes has been used. The tests have been successful but these tests have to be continued using the rest of the material,’’ said Aghazadeh, one of Iran’s vice presidents, who is attending a general conference of the Vienna-based IAEA. > > One nuclear expert has said that once converted from yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride, the feed material for enrichment centrifuges, Iran would eventually be able to enrich enough uranium for up to five nuclear weapons. > > The IAEA is aware of Iran’s plan to convert the uranium for the enrichment process and said it would monitor the tests. > > ``IAEA (chief) Mohamed ElBaradei continues to call on Iran, as did the board, to suspend such a test as part of their confidence building measures,’’ spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. > > Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran was determined to press ahead with its atomic program even if it brought an end to U.N. checks of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites. > > ``We are determined to obtain peaceful atomic technology even if it causes the stop of international supervision,’’ he said. And [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/politics/21diplo.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/politics/21diplo.html) > [@](#): > > Like Iraq in its final years under Saddam Hussein, Iran is believed by experts to be on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. In Iraq, that proved to be untrue, though this time the consensus is much stronger among Western experts. > > In addition, as with Iraq, administration officials have said recently that Iran is supporting insurgencies and terrorism in other countries. Recently, top administration officials have accused the Tehran government of backing the rebels in Iraq, something that officials fear could increase if Iran is pressed too hard on its nuclear program. > > A parallel concern in Washington is Iran’s continued backing of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group that the administration and the Israeli government say is channeling aid to groups attacking Israeli civilians. Israel also warns that Iran’s nuclear program will reach a “point of no return” next year, after which it will be able to make a bomb without any outside assistance. > > The Bush administration has yet to forge a clear strategy on how to deal with Iran, partly because of a lack of attractive options and partly because there is a debate under way between hard-liners and advocates of diplomatic engagement. But in another similarity with the Iraq situation before the war, Washington is in considerable disagreement with key allies over how to handle the threat. > > Britain, France and Germany say Iran’s nuclear program is unacceptable, but they also warn that a confrontation could backfire and that incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran. Threatening sanctions - a cutoff in oil purchases, for example - is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support, they say. > > European views cannot be dismissed, especially after the discord over Iraq, administration officials say. Last weekend, under European pressure, the United States agreed to defer its demand that the International Atomic Energy Agency immediately refer Iran’s noncooperation on nuclear issues to the United Nations Security Council, where sanctions might be considered. Instead, Iran was given two more months to show that it was cooperating. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/69 "2004-09-22T16:17:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hobbes’ point was that we should submit to the strongest bastard around, not because he knows or even cares what is best for is, but because that is the surest way to replace “state of nature” anarchy with stable social order. Well, this is off topic so I dont want to get into it too much, but I think Hobbes point as you state it is limited to the understandings of his time. Submitting to the strongest bastard ~is~ the state of nature. Anarchy, in the sense of no social order whatsoever, does not and has never existed. Anarchy, in the modern sense of the term, pretty much _means_ submitting to the strongest bastard, or becoming a strong bastard. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/70 "2004-09-23T02:23:03Z")
More updates: [http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-khatami.html](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-khatami.html) > [@](#): > > TEHRAN (Reuters) - The world must recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium for fueling power stations, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said on Wednesday, responding to a U.N. call for Iran to suspend enrichment-related activities. > > But he declined to say when Iran would resume enrichment, a process that can produce uranium suitable for use in atomic weapons that Washington argues Iran is building. > > ``The international community should recognize Iran’s right to enrichment,’’ Khatami told reporters after a weekly cabinet meeting. > > `If it does so, then the way will be open for further co-operation,'' the mid-ranking cleric said. `Iran is ready to continue its activities under full IAEA supervision and convince the world it is not considering atomic weapons.’’ [http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-israel.html:](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-israel.html:) > [@](#): > > UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Israel urged the United Nations on Wednesday to move toward sanctions against Iran because Tehran was never going to abandon its alleged quest for nuclear weapons. > > ``We know that the Europeans are trying now to engage with the Iranians. But we know that the Iranians will never abandon their plans to develop nuclear weapons. They are only trying to hide it,’’ Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told reporters at the United Nations. > > He said he believed European nations now realized that Iran was developing missiles that could hit Paris, Berlin and London as well as Israel. [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iran.html:](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iran.html:) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON (AP) – The Bush administration has no plans to seek an ``Iraq-style’’ U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran if it succeeds in efforts to have the council address that country’s nuclear activities. > > A senior State Department official said Wednesday there is a widespread misconception that the administration wants the same type of resolution for Iran as the one which led to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year. > > If the council takes up the Iran question, the administration would seek a resolution calling for a suspension of uranium enrichment activity by Iran, much as the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has done repeatedly, the official said. > > Secretary of State Colin Powell, in New York this week for the U.N. General Assembly, said in response to a question that he is not aware of any plans to attack Iran. But he added that the military option ``remains on the table.’’ > > ``I think there’s a clear understanding now that Iran must satisfy the concerns that have been expressed by the international community by the time of the November meeting,’’ Powell said. > > If Iran doesn’t cooperate, he said ``there will be every reason at that point to send the matter on to the Security Council.’’ ---
**Author:** ![PaulFitzroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2acd7d/32.png) [@PaulFitzroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulFitzroy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/71 "2004-09-23T02:33:34Z")
Why must we invade and occupy Iran to take care of the problem? In the 80s, Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in a surgical airstrike, taking care of the problem easily and setting Saddam’s nuclear weapons program back (which is why he didn’t have any nukes when we stuck our nose into his desert looking for them.) The US should send fighter jets to destroy any Muslim terrorist nuclear reactor of any sort from the air. There’s no reason any American soldier should be killed in the operation at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/72 "2004-09-23T02:43:39Z")
> [@PaulFitzroy](#): > > Why must we invade and occupy Iran to take care of the problem? In the 80s, Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in a surgical airstrike, taking care of the problem easily and setting Saddam’s nuclear weapons program back (which is why he didn’t have any nukes when we stuck our nose into his desert looking for them.) > > The US should send fighter jets to destroy any Muslim terrorist nuclear reactor of any sort from the air. There’s no reason any American soldier should be killed in the operation at all. Since you’re new to this thread, **Paul,** I’ll repeat for your benefit this excerpt from the _Newsweek_ article on which the OP is based ([MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/)): > [@](#): > > Israel, which has long regarded Iran as a more dire threat than Iraq, is making thinly veiled threats of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, like its 1981 airstrike against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. “If the state decides that a military solution is required, then the military has to provide a solution,” said Israel’s new Air Force chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, in a newspaper interview last week. “For obvious reasons,” he added, “we aren’t going to speak of specifics.” U.S. defense experts doubt that Israel can pull it off. Iran’s facilities (which it insists are for peaceful purposes) are at the far edge of combat range for Israel’s aircraft; They’re also widely dispersed and, in many cases, deep underground. > > But America certainly could do it—and has given the idea some serious thought. “The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,” says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. “The question is, what then?” NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, “The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.” I’d like you to take a couple of minutes to think seriously about the implications of that word “escalating.” Same article, next paragraph: > [@](#): > > Instead, administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran—by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled “draft” or “working draft” to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration’s abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime’s promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there’s no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level. Not in any way preferable to the bombing-raid idea, IMO. We really don’t have any good options here. The best of a bad lot is to let the Iranians do what they’re doing and hope that they’re telling the truth when they say they only want this technology to generate electricity. ---
**Author:** ![PaulFitzroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2acd7d/32.png) [@PaulFitzroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulFitzroy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/73 "2004-09-23T08:28:00Z")
Why should we trust fanatical Muslim ayatollahs hell-bent on the destruction of non-Muslim infidels and America (and Israel) in particular? Your solution is the absolute worst of a bad lot. It guarantees that America will be struck first. I have little doubt that the Mullahs of Iran will attack us directly or by proxy had they the capability to do so. Remember, Islam sanctions lying to the Infidel and then stabbing him in the back in the manner of Muhammad’s phony peace treaty with the Quaryza tribe, whom he later massacred wholesale. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/74 "2004-09-23T19:13:13Z")
> [@PaulFitzroy](#): > > Why should we trust fanatical Muslim ayatollahs hell-bent on the destruction of non-Muslim infidels and America (and Israel) in particular? > > Your solution is the absolute worst of a bad lot. It guarantees that America will be struck first. I have little doubt that the Mullahs of Iran will attack us directly or by proxy had they the capability to do so. You think? The Iranian Council of Guardians might be fanatical, but we have no reason to suppose they are insanely reckless and suicidal. And an Iranian nuclear strike on the U.S. or a U.S. ally would be suicide for the Iranian leaders. And I said we should “believe” them, which is not the same as “trusting” them. It is entirely plausible the Iranians want their own uranium-enrichment technology entirely for the purposes of modernization, self-sufficiency, and pollution abatement. (That question is being debated in a separate GD thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277039](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277039) Furthermore, the Iranians are open to international inspections to make sure they’re not making bombs. They have not threatened to kick UN or AEIA inspectors out of the country. All they have said is that they will continue to develop their own NE technology, even if the UN or AEIA respond to that by withdrawing their inspectors. Read the stories posted above. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/75 "2004-09-23T19:15:07Z")
Sorry, I meant to type IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), not AEIA (Assholes Execrating the Insubordination of Ayatollahs). ---
**Author:** ![PaulFitzroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2acd7d/32.png) [@PaulFitzroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulFitzroy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/76 "2004-09-23T19:32:49Z")
> [@](#): > > And an Iranian nuclear strike on the U.S. or a U.S. ally would be suicide for the Iranian leaders. I have absolutely no doubt that the leaders of Iran would sacrifice themselves and their entire population to attack the ‘Great Satan’ of the United States with nuclear weapons. It is right in line with the Koranic principles of Jihad and martyrdom. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/77 "2004-09-23T19:47:52Z")
This may sound odd coming from me, but I think the prospect of a nuclear Iran is quite frightening. There is simply no getting around the fact that Iran is a radical Islamist theocracy. Preventing religious fanatics from getting nuclear weapons is precisely the kind of goal the War on Terror should be focusing on. Unfortunately, we’ve blown most of our wad in Iraq, and have precious little left in the way of force, clout, or international support, to do what may need to be done in places like Iran. What should have happened is a persistent ratcheting-up of pressure on the mullahs to cease and desist. That pressure should have been backed with the promise of swift and devastating force. Now we can’t do that without a draft. We’re too busy chasing Wolfowitz’s cheap oil in Iraq. Iran should be allowed to have nuclear power if they like, but not the means to produce weapons-grade fissile explosives (unranium enrichment capability or plutonium-generating breeder reactors). Iran is a known supporter of terrorists (big-time fiancier of Hezbollah), has ultra-radical theocrats in the highest levels of govt., and such people simply cannot be trusted with such dangerous materials. The odds such materials will fall into the hands of terrorists probably approach unity in such an environment, and neither we nor any other Western power can reasonably tolerate the nuclear Iran scenerio without the strictest controls. Thus far, Iran is resisting such oversight, and playing a dangerous game. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/78 "2004-09-23T20:38:10Z")
> [@PaulFitzroy](#): > > I have absolutely no doubt that the leaders of Iran would sacrifice themselves and their entire population to attack the ‘Great Satan’ of the United States with nuclear weapons. In 1979? Maybe. Today? No. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/79 "2004-09-23T21:17:45Z")
More updates. From [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Israel-Iran.html:](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Israel-Iran.html:) > [@](#): > > UNITED NATIONS (AP) – Iran warned that it will react ``most severely’’ to any Israeli action against its nuclear facilities, after Israel said the United States was selling it 500 bunker buster bombs. > > Israeli military officials said Tuesday that the Jewish state will receive nearly 5,000 smart bombs, including the 500 one-ton bombs that can destroy six-foot concrete walls. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor before it could begin operating. > > ``But be sure, any action by Israel certainly will be reacted (to) by us, most severely,’’ [Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal] Kharrazi said after he met British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly’s ministerial meeting. > > Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Wednesday that Iran will never abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons and called for quick action by the U.N. Security Council ``to put an end to this nightmare.’’ > > Shalom sidestepped the question of whether Israel would take military action against Iran if it continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions. > > ``They are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare,’’ he told reporters after meeting Secretary-General Kofi Annan. > > Secretary of State Colin Powell, responding to a question about an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities similar to the Iraqi strike, said: ``We’re talking about diplomacy and political efforts to stop this movement on the part of the Iranians toward a nuclear weapon. > > ``We’re not talking about strikes. But every option always, of course, remains on the table.’’ And from [http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-un-israel.html:](http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-un-israel.html:) > [@](#): > > UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Israel charged on Thursday that Iran had replaced Saddam Hussein as the world’s primary exporter of ``terror, hate and instability.’’ > > Stepping up a war of words between the Middle East’s two most implacable enemies, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom challenged the U.N. General Assembly to `end its obsession'' with the Jewish state and focus instead on `the active involvement of Iran and Syria in terrorism.’’ > > ``Indeed, Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world’s number one exporter of terror, hate and instability,’’ Shalom asserted at the world forum. > > Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Wednesday that Israel, not Iran, was the greatest threat to all countries in the Middle East because of its ``nuclear bombs as well as other weapons of mass destruction.’’ > > Israel is widely believed to have the only atomic arsenal in the Middle East, although it maintains a policy of refusing to confirm or deny its nuclear capability . Who can place this quote for me? “History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.” ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022/80 "2004-09-23T21:34:08Z")
Wikiquote says it’s from Joyce’s Ulysses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-us-the-right-to-pre-emptively-attack-irans-nuclear-infrastructure/265022.md?page=5)