So how long until Iran has nukes?

[wolfwill23]

I would guess it's just a matter of time before Iran has nuclear weapons. They are CLEARLY following Iraq's model of delay, delay, delay because they know time is on their side. They know that if they can keep the UN member states fighting with the US long enough, they'll be able to put one together. And once they have one, as proven with North Korea, it's blackmail time.

This just proves the incompetence of the IAEA and the UN in this area. If a nation is determined to build the bomb, there is little the IAEA will be able to do to stop them because they can't seem to get that many countries to agree on one thing (except that they hate George Bush) which makes the IAEA not only ineffective, but a danger to the world.

ps-Any new news on the oil-for-food scandal? I really like how the UN is cooperating with the investigation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Iran will have nukes about a day before the IAF launches a raid against their nuclear facilities in full, levelling anything that they have with a full arsenel of bunker busters and other less delicate tools.

Seriously though Iran is probably going to get nuclear weapons and lives will be lost because of it. What many cannot comprehend is the sheer hatred that these states hold towards the west and the lengths that they will go to to ensure destruction. If we look at nuclear proliferation globally we can see that there is a clear domino effect that is occuring from Pakistan, first the Pakistanis get the bomb. Now you have Quadeer Khan admitting a full blown smuggling ring for nuclear technology. Iran is almost certainly a recipiant of it as well as Libya and North Korea. You also have the busts made in Malaysia, all of these and many more point to a global trade in nuclear technology that will inevitably lead to terrorists and rogue states obtaining these weapons. This is not the cold war where each country was under the leadership of relatively pragmatic indivuals and had the vision to see Mutually Assured Destruction, this is a new war with new paradigms. Islamism (This is not Islam, I repeat Islamism = Bad, Saudi Wahhabism style extremist political/social ideology, Islam = Religion practiced by over 1 billion people) is an insidious ideology that has no problem in killing non-Muslims to furthur their goal of a global Islamic Superstate, they would use Nuclear Weapons if they were given the opertunity and the way things are going this is a distinct possibility.

We need to crack down on these regimes in the harshest possible ways, if all out war is neccissary to prevent rogue states from obtaining such weapons (a last resort of course, but certainly an option that is out there) then that is a price that we should be willing to pay. Nuclear Weapons are very dangerous devices and you must never, ever underestimate the damage that they could do in the hands of madmen who you cannot negotiate with.

North Korea is a different case if anyone was going to bring it up because it seems they need the weapons to secure the regime, that is a lot more tricky than Iran because there you would have hundreds of thousands dead off the bat from artillery strikes in the event of war, that is a situation where each party seems willing to negotiate a solution to the problem in exchange for some guarantees, you do not see this same willingness from Iran or Syria or your terrorist organizations, they are the new paradigm because they are a risk and they must be dealt with but preemptive force is a legitimate means of self defence from them.

 

[verte76]

Iran has plenty of dissidents. One of them won the Nobel Peace Prize last year. The conservatives screwed the reform people in the elections, but I don't think the liberals just went away. They're still there. I wonder if their liberals want nukes? Another thing that makes Iran unique among Muslim countries is that it's currently the only Shia state. This could change if Sistani gets his way in Iraq, it could also become a Shia state. This would be interesting!

 

[melon]

Iran wouldn't have half of its nuclear capabilities, if it weren't for Russia's assistance. So, by the Bush Doctrine, shouldn't we be declaring war on Russia now? Then he could go down in blazes like the last two world leaders who tried to invade Russia. And, yes, what about Pakistan? Like Saudi Arabia, the best thing they could have done to help their survival was to "ally" with the United States on the "war on terror," because then these nations can get away with murder.

And the U.S. can't attack Iran, because, frankly, we've overstretched ourselves; and it is all the more delicate of a situation because Iran isn't like Iraq. Take the ayatollahs out of the equation and the people of Iran are one of the most educated and progressive in the Middle East. Last polled, something like 75% of Iranians had a favorable view of the United States. But, as we know, the balance of power isn't with the Iranians; it's with the clerics, and, at least at this point, it is unknown as to how capable the public is to topple the government. There is one thing for sure, though: Ayatollah Khomeini will have to die someday, and maybe that'll be enough to bring Iran forward. They are really that close, IMO, and the *worst* thing that can be done probably is to invade Iran like Iraq, because not only will you destabilize the nation, but the people will become as desperate as the Iraqis. Taking Saddam out of the equation like the ayatollahs, the Iraqi people were also once one of the most progressive in the Middle East.

It is very difficult to say what should be done, because the knee-jerk reaction is to want to blow up what we don't like. However, we did this tactic before back in the 1950s with Iran and we certainly destabilized the nation. Had we not intervened, Iran might very well be like Turkey: a secular Islamic nation. I guess Kemal Ataturk had a luxury that other nations didn't have: he revolutionized during the 1920s, before the Cold War and before all the Western meddling.

So, overall, I don't know what should be done, but we should be very very very cautious about what we do, because the short term fix might be disastrous in the long term.

Melon

 

[Popmartijn]

Melon, what you said, I have nothing to add to. Nor anything to take issue with, as they are exactly my thoughts.



Marty

 

[verte76]

Excellent post melon.

 

[nbcrusader]

Iran will have nukes about a day before the IAF launches a raid against their nuclear facilities in full, levelling anything that they have with a full arsenel of bunker busters and other less delicate tools.

Yes, the IAF seems to have accomplished more than the UN.

 

[deep]

To many in the rest of the world this is part and parcle of the mideast nuclear question.




Zionists Blocking Efforts to Establish WMD-Free Zone in Middle East

By M. A. Saki

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is scheduled to visit Israel today along with an IAEA delegation to hold talks with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission director general, Gideon Frank, and his senior aides.

ElBaradei is visiting the Zionist regime to discuss the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. He will propose that Israel agree to begin talks for establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. The delegation is accompanied only by three news agency reporters.

ElBaradei has already urged Israel to dismantle all its nuclear weapons in order to create an atmosphere of tranquility in the Middle East. He told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in December that such weapons were not "an incentive for security". He also said Israel should sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He even warned that the belief that Israel was safer because it possessed such weapons was false since other Middle Eastern countries felt threatened by the Israeli nuclear arsenal. "Frankly, I am not happy with the status quo, because I see a lot of frustration in the Middle


East due to Israel's sitting on nuclear weapons or [its] nuclear weapons capability, while other parties in the Middle East are committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.


the rest of the article is here

 

[wolfwill23]

I believe we were talking about Iran, the country run by Muslim extremists and sworn enemy of America and Israel lying to the international community to obtain nuclear weapons, not the free, democratic Israel already having nuclear weapons. That is a different issue.

 

[nbcrusader]

Israel's nuclear weapons is probably the one thing that has kept their enemies from launching full scale attacks.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Lets look at it this way, Israel obtained its nuclear weapons in the mid 60's. Since it obtained nukes and people began to assume that they did (This occured in the early 70's, obviously after Yom Kippur War) there has not been a single all out war in the ME. This past 30 years of peace is due solely to the fact Israel has nuclear weapons which are used as a detterent. Give any Islamic country in the Middle East nuclear weapons and I guarantee you that that peace would be upset and millions of people would die. I like the way that the Iranians say that the Zionists are the ones who are obfuscating efforts because as we all know Zionist is codeword for Jew. Could anybody imagine what would happen if Israel or any Liberal Democracy said that the Muslims were a threat to peace in the region.

Two fun little articles about what Iran has been doing to fight against the evil Amerikans and the treat that they have been preparing in their nuclear reactors to give to Israel.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124835,00.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14070

 

[Earnie Shavers]

When will Iran have nukes? The answer is probably "never". As A_Wanderer suggested, Israel would simply never let it get that far. They'd never, ever let another power in the region have them and they're not shy either. My bet is that if Iran keeps moving forward, post-US elections the focus will shift there. Either a political/economic push from the UN/US/UK or a swift little bombing raid care of Israel. They can refill in Iraq now!
Either way, it just won't happen. Could be an easy, painless lesson dealt to Iran, or it could be deadly.

 

[Basstrap]

there is no excuse for having nukes, I don't care if it's a deterant or not.

every country, powerful or not, should destroy them

of course, I know that is an idealistic approach. Nobody will disarm because nobody trusts anybody else in this world

The less nuclear weapons on this earth the better though, even if you have to sacrifice some security.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not that simple, US and Russia are willing to disarm most of their stockpiles however many two-bit dictatorships seek to obtain nuclear weapons as means of leverage against greater powers or as a means to shift the balance of power in their own region. There is no problem with countries like the USA, Russia, UK, France, Israel, China having nuclear weapons because they are pretty stable politically and have relatively level headed leadership. When you have nuclear weapons somewhere like Pakistan you are in a much more dangerous situation because there could be a coup that brings these weapons into the hands of an Islamist regime, and that would not be a good thing for anyone. As this technology spreads throughout the middle east you are risking all out war because I have no doubt that those regimes would use nuclear weapons against Israel in a heartbeat, they do not desire peace and they will not stop their pursuit of WMD's until the Jews are wiped off the face of the planet and they are able to threaten the western world on equal terms. Basically unless they are stopped millions or even billions of people will die, hence we must stop these states from obtaining these weapons.

Encouraging Disarment of smaller countries is a good start and reducing the strategic arsenel of the major powers is also good but we should never assume that just because we want peace and freedom our enemies share the same goal.

 

[Klaus]

Can you remember that many Arab countries wanted a WMD-Free Mid Eeast?
Of course other countries feel the need for WMDs as soon as some people in the region have them.
If you want to build the a-bomb it would be foolish to copy mr. husseins attemts.
Look at North Korea or Pakistan than you know how you can do as a dictator without being invaded.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Please Arab Countries DO NOT want a WMD-Free Middle East (Libya, Formerly Iraq, Syria and Iran (Not Arab but still Muslim) show this very well through their own programs and use of such weapons) they simply desire an Jew Free Middle East, the only way that they will achieve this is if Israel is forced to sacrifice its strategic advantage against its Arab enemies while they amass armies and WMD's to use against Israel.

It is a logical conclusion that all that stands between millions of deaths in an all out ME War is the fact that Israel and only Israel holds nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

 

[nbcrusader]

Please Arab Countries DO NOT want a WMD-Free Middle East (Libya, Formerly Iraq, Syria and Iran (Not Arab but still Muslim) show this very well through their own programs and use of such weapons) they simply desire an Jew Free Middle East

Other Middle East countries want WMD to create a Jew Free Middle East

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:
I think a WMD-free war between israel and arab-nations who desire a jew free mid-east is better than a war with WMDs where the mid east tries to make the mid-east jew-free.

The mid east radicals who want this jew-free arab know exactly that Europe and the US would support Israel if they attack them - and both, US and Europe have enough WMDs.
So i think this WMD-free zone was a great oportunity for a mid-east deescalation

 

[A_Wanderer]

As I said, as long as the Arabs are not allowed to obtain nuclear weapons (not WMD because they allready have them) there will not be a war, Arab states tried and failed to annihilate Israel in 48, 67 and 73, the only reason that they havent continued to come back and get thrashed is because they know the threat of nuclear annihilation is only minutes away. I have no problem if Israel retains weapons because it does not abuse the technology, it quite literally speaks softly and carries a big stick, this diplomatic use of weapons is a good thing as it ensures a lasting "peace". Deescalation in the Middle East is not a term that goes through the mind of your average terrorist or Arab Leader, they simply see peace plans as ways to weaken Israel and setup the next phase of their war of annihilation. Basically I think that you are only going to see peace in the middle east two ways, first is if all Jews simply die or leave the Middle East or secondly if the indocrination and sponsering of terrorism and hatred within Islamic societies ends and the Muslims produce a generation that genuinely wants to create peace and foster cooperation in the region. Nuclear disarment would only be laying the groundwork for a new holocaust and I simply think that there is too much at stake to loose sight of this.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer:
with "there will not be a war" you're obviousely not talking about peace in the mid-east or even peace in palestine, just no war between israel and a neighbour.
And if you think that the knowledge of the A-bomb stoped the arab leaders invading Israel why the heck did the israeli government try to keep their a-bomb secret? Why was the man who (by that logig "brought israel the peace" by telling the world that israel has the a-bomb punished?

The "average terrorist" gives a shit if israel has the a-bomb or not they wouldn't care if israel drops the a-bomb on their country as long as they can take as many israelites with them on the road to death.

If you think a little more long-term you have to have a peace plan because with the current state in the mid east you simply feed the terrorists.

btw. "nice" combo:

the mind of your average terrorist or Arab Leader

 

[A_Wanderer]

You must remember that the Israelis maintain a policy of strategic ambiguity, that being they neither confirm nor deny the existence of a nuclear program. The stuff that they keep secret is the mechanisms of the program e.g. production, how many bombs, what type of arsenel. The policy of strategic ambiguity ensures that nobody messes with the Israelis and if they do they won't know what to expect in return, is it a nuclear bomb or a neutron bomb for instance.

The Israelis do not want the existence of a program secret they just dont want anybody to know how advanced it is, thats why they dont go off and have nuclear tests like your average proud tinpot dicatorship (Pakistan, N-Korea when the time Comes) which just gives away your limits off the bat.

I stand by the combo, If I were given Saudi Royals, Saddam Hussein, Muomar Qadafee I would put their mentality on par with Rantisi, Yassin or Bin Laden.

 

[Klaus]

they neither confirm nor deny the existence of a nuclear program

So they didn't need the A-bomb for that concept.
If you develop the a-bomb in secret and don't tell anyone about the bomb it's not usefull for deterrence it's just usefull for surprise attacking or for scientific interest.

By the way, neither Pakistan nor Northkorea are "my average proud tinpot dictators"!
Neither I nor my country support these dictators more than ...let's say.. the US President

Global Peace through Deadly Force

How about Global Peace through deescalation?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Strategic Ambiguity is merely a means of bringing peace, if that policy fails it does help to actually have the weapons there to oblitterate your enemies army. Hollow threats would be a very shakey guarantee for peace in the region.

Global Peace through deescalation is a surefire way to be murdered by people who don't want to play that little game, if we back away from from the fight and cease defending the liberal democratic tradition it is only a matter of time until our enemies devise a way to truly obliterate us all, Every Australian, American, Israeli, Indian, Frenchman, German, Thailander etc. is at risk from countries like Iran (Theocratic, support terrorism, bent on the total annihilation of Israel) obtaining nuclear weapons. There will be billions of lives at stake as these regimes gather weapons and eventually something is going to give and we will suffer because of it. I say that we continue to fight terrorism, fight for freedom and stand up to the challenge because our enemies (yes OUR enemies because the Islamist Terrorists see anybody who doesn't conform to their world view as an enemy) sure as hell will never back down or stop trying to kill us because we declare a unilateral peace.

Or another way how do you talk peace with men who do not understand the meaning of the word?

 

[Basstrap]

my question is that if they nuked us would we nuke back?

 

[wolfwill23]

Global Peace through deescalation is a surefire way to be murdered by people who don't want to play that little game, if we back away from from the fight and cease defending the liberal democratic tradition it is only a matter of time until our enemies devise a way to truly obliterate us all, Every Australian, American, Israeli, Indian, Frenchman, German, Thailander etc. is at risk from countries like Iran (Theocratic, support terrorism, bent on the total annihilation of Israel) obtaining nuclear weapons. There will be billions of lives at stake as these regimes gather weapons and eventually something is going to give and we will suffer because of it. I say that we continue to fight terrorism, fight for freedom and stand up to the challenge because our enemies (yes OUR enemies because the Islamist Terrorists see anybody who doesn't conform to their world view as an enemy) sure as hell will never back down or stop trying to kill us because we declare a unilateral peace.

Well said.

"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy." - George Washington

 

[melon]

I'm going to put it this way. I'm not about to say that the Middle East has anything altruistic about them. Do I really believe that Syria has any peaceful motives about it when it advocates a WMD-free Middle East? Of course not. I don't trust any of them. And do I think that Iran is led by good guys? Definitely not.

All I want to say is that we'd better be careful, because Iran is not Iraq, and a war with Iran will not be so swift as it was beating down Iraq's tattered military. Ten years of sanctions certainly beat them down, even if it did nothing to topple Saddam. The fact of the matter is that we are in no position to go after Iran, outside of diplomatic pressure currently, and I certainly support any efforts to make Iran accountable, and these efforts should be stern and relentless. However, when you have an "ally" like Russia feeding Iran's nuclear ambitions, who is more to blame?

Bush isn't that stupid, and the fact that he's been as nice as he has been to both Iran and North Korea means that he certainly isn't in a mood for a "preemptive strike" for a while. And it is true. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Western nations is certainly safer than nuclear weapons in the hands of despots, and "deescalation" is ideal, yes, but it is highly unrealistic. Sad to say, nuclear weaponry has probably been our greatest deterrant to war in all of history; prior to World War II, Europe was pretty much embroiled in nearly incessant conflict.

For now, at least, the diplomatic route will have to do, and if the UN or its agencies get lazy, then we should keep on them to do their job.

Melon

 

[Rono]

I do not get the problem. I do not understand why some countries are allowed to have nukes and other countries not.

 

[melon]

I do not get the problem. I do not understand why some countries are allowed to have nukes and other countries not.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty spells it out, which I believe Iran is a part of.

North Korea pulled out of it, but they are using the threat of making one as negotiating leverage. They're doing their usual wheeling-and-dealing, so, really, they're asking for intervention.

Melon

 

[Salome]

For now, at least, the diplomatic route will have to do, and if the UN or its agencies get lazy, then we should keep on them to do their job.

I agree

as much fun as it would be to wage war with anyone not playing by the rules it wouldn't really help peace in the long run either

 

[A_Wanderer]

I know it was sarcasm but war is never ever fun. Countries can never just go to war on a whim there must be a large ammount of reason and cause to justify any war. The problem with the UN is that there is no bite to its threats, unless there is a genuine threat to the Iranian leadership there will be no action. The other method to encourage cooperation is the old stick and carrot method of offering them something in return and continuing to push for disarment. Both methods work well in their particular situations, lets look at it this way.

1) Nuclear Proliferation is a threat to every human being.

2) There are some countries that seek these weapons for the wrong reasons (National Pride, Offensive Weapons etc.) and this should be prevented

3) Diplomacy and Multilateralism are the first line of defence against this problem and they must be embraced actively.

4) Diplomacy can be exploited by some countries as a way to delay until they can get the weapons and shift the entire situation to their advantage.

5) When you are faced with such a situation it can be very useful to begin to look at millitary options, not war, simply strikes and make it very clear to the target country that they will not get these weapons either the hard way or the deadly way.

6) Optimally target nation backs down and dismantles program, we give concessions and positive engagement and democratization follows. Failing this and the nation does aquire the weapons then a serious effort at disarment must begin, if that fails and a war is launched against an ally then all bets are off and millions of people will die in a most barbaric and sickening fashion.

I want there to be peace as much as anybody else here but I simply cannot accept that we can have a lasting peace while countries with such destructive rhetoric and records continue to actively seek the means to destroy all of us. Give us a free world and we will give a true peace.