دكتر ستراينجلوف or: How I Learned to Love the Bomb

[Murkwood]

"دكتر ستراينجلوف" seems to be "Dr. Strangelove" in Persian, so there's that.

Currently, Iran and the US are engaging in on-again off-again talks about Iran's nuclear program. Iran, however, doesn't seem to be taking the talks seriously. Iran hates Israel with a passion, and any nukes used by Iran would be directed at US ally Israel. If the talks fail and Iran does develop or come rather close to developing a nuclear weapon, what should be done? Should it be handled diplomatically, or should the US and/or Israel intervene to destroy Iran's nuclear program if they get to close?

The Iranian nuclear program presents a clear and present danger to Israel, and must be stopped. I believe that, if Iran can be convinced diplomatically to stop or allow UN inspectors unfettered access to their nuclear sites, then that would be great. But I seriously doubt that. I think that the US should try and negotiate, but the second Iran gets somewhat close to gaining nuclear weapons, the US and Israel should attack Iran to destroy their nuclear program.

[The Lithuanian-Surinamese Caliphate]

Right, because a hypothetical Iranian nuclear program is worse than a currently-existing Israeli one.

But they're our allies, so it's OK.

[Murkwood]

Right, because a hypothetical Iranian nuclear program is worse than a currently-existing Israeli one.

But they're our allies, so it's OK.

Israel hasn't stated they wish to wipe Iran off the map. In fact, the opposite is true.

[Kelinfort]

The actual threat of a nuclear Iran is overblown, it would do no more to harm regional sectarianism than other entities in the region have during the past. Diplomatic negotiations are necessary, and the best way to achieve an end to the program is to rescind all sanctions should UN inspectors be allowed to confirm all nuclear progress above medical isotopes has ended and a continual renewal every six months.

[Murkwood]

The actual threat of a nuclear Iran is overblown, it would do no more to harm regional sectarianism than other entities in the region have during the past. Diplomatic negotiations are necessary, and the best way to achieve an end to the program is to rescind all sanctions should UN inspectors be allowed to confirm all nuclear progress above medical isotopes has ended and a continual renewal every six months.

All sanctions? Iran is still a tyrannical theocratic hellhole. Click over to the "Happy" thread if you want proof.

[Kelinfort]

Right, because a hypothetical Iranian nuclear program is worse than a currently-existing Israeli one.

But they're our allies, so it's OK.

Israel hasn't stated they wish to wipe Iran off the map. In fact, the opposite is true.

Neither has Iran. The speech itself was taken out of context, Mossad's notes itself didn't identify the threat to "wipe the regime off the face of the earth" to mean the actual state of Israel. Besides, he's longer in office.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Right, because a hypothetical Iranian nuclear program is worse than a currently-existing Israeli one.

But they're our allies, so it's OK.

Well, they haven't turned their enemies into parking lots despite something like 30 years of having the capability.

I'm not sure if I trust the Iranian mullah's to exercise the same restraint.

[Kelinfort]

The actual threat of a nuclear Iran is overblown, it would do no more to harm regional sectarianism than other entities in the region have during the past. Diplomatic negotiations are necessary, and the best way to achieve an end to the program is to rescind all sanctions should UN inspectors be allowed to confirm all nuclear progress above medical isotopes has ended and a continual renewal every six months.

All sanctions? Iran is still a tyrannical theocratic hellhole. Click over to the "Happy" thread if you want proof.

Economic sanctions as a direct result of nuclear weapons. Save your moral outrage for the dictatorships the US has backed. We shouldn't support their actions and we should most definitely not come to expect that, but if it is necessary to end their program, then yes.

[Murkwood]

Israel hasn't stated they wish to wipe Iran off the map. In fact, the opposite is true.

Neither has Iran. The speech itself was taken out of context, Mossad's notes itself didn't identify the threat to "wipe the regime off the face of the earth" to mean the actual state of Israel. Besides, he's longer in office.

I disagree. Here are his exact words:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[79] ”

The Iranian presidential website stated: "the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map," and "the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map." [80]

[Vamtrl]

I thought the new pres of Iran said they were backing off nukes?

[Murkwood]

I thought the new pres of Iran said they were backing off nukes?

Rouhani has no power. It's all in the hands of the Ayatollah.

[Vamtrl]

I thought the new pres of Iran said they were backing off nukes?

Rouhani has no power. It's all in the hands of the Ayatollah.

Source bro, cause pretty sure the pres brought things into motion against the clerics wishes. Much faster internet for example.

[Murkwood]

Rouhani has no power. It's all in the hands of the Ayatollah.

Source bro, cause pretty sure the pres brought things into motion against the clerics wishes. Much faster internet for example.

Show me where Rouhani has stood up to the Ayatollah on anything meaningful.

[Murkwood]

Right, because a hypothetical Iranian nuclear program is worse than a currently-existing Israeli one.

But they're our allies, so it's OK.

Well, they haven't turned their enemies into parking lots despite something like 30 years of having the capability.

I'm not sure if I trust the Iranian mullah's to exercise the same restraint.

Israel has shown remarkable restraint, I must say.

[Lindhartia]

No thanks, we dont need more wars.

[Murkwood]

No thanks, we dont need more wars.

Even if Iran gets the nuke?

[Vamtrl]

Source bro, cause pretty sure the pres brought things into motion against the clerics wishes. Much faster internet for example.

Show me where Rouhani has stood up to the Ayatollah on anything meaningful.

I asked first bro.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not like Iran would go around lobbing nukes at everyone in the neighborhood. Best Korea hates the US and it's allies near them but they haven't gone psycho and wiped a bunch of cities off the map. I fail to see how Iran getting nukes would be a threat to anyone, Israel has nukes as well so it's not like they'll attack each other ciz of that little MAD thing. Like Kelinfort pointed out, Iran has never threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

[Lindhartia]

No thanks, we dont need more wars.

Even if Iran gets the nuke?

1. They wont because they have no interest in it anymore.
2. Even if they would have one they wouldnt use it.

[Syonanto]

"دکتر استرنج" seems to be "Dr. Strangelove" in Persian, so there's that.

It literally says "Doctor Istranj". Not sure if that's how they translate the title of the film or the name of the character into Farsi.

[Murkwood]

Show me where Rouhani has stood up to the Ayatollah on anything meaningful.

I asked first bro.

But you made a different claim from the mainstream, so the burden of proof lies on you.

[Syonanto]

Iran hates Israel with a passion, and any nukes used by Iran would be directed at US ally Israel

Which would no doubt be followed by swift retaliation by the US and its allies.

The Iranian government are not suicidal, nor are they idiots. What makes you think they would undertake such an action, knowing it would mean the destruction of them and their nation?

IF Iran were to develop nuclear weapons (and that is presently an "if", since there is no solid evidence that this is what they are doing), they would most likely use them the way that other countries presently do: as a deterrent to invasion. Given the recent history of the region, frankly, one can understand why they might consider this a prudent step to take.

Incidentally Iran has not started a war in over two hundred years. That's a lot more than can be said for Israel.

The Iranian nuclear program presents a clear and present danger to Israel, and must be stopped.

What about Israel's undisclosed number of nuclear weapons? Does this not present a clear and present danger to Iran? Would this justify an Iranian attack on Israel to destroy their nuclear program?

[The House of Xavier]

Rouhani has no power. It's all in the hands of the Ayatollah.

Source bro, cause pretty sure the pres brought things into motion against the clerics wishes. Much faster internet for example.

The Iranian constitution (not actually sure)? Or the fact that he hasn't seriously opposed anything the Ayatollah supports.

I do agree with you (OP), though for different reasons. I don't see the current regime in Iran as a real threat. I see it as another Pakistan. A nation that could crumble, give rise to the extremists and give them access to the bomb. The Ayatollah and all his ramblings aside, I view him and the Iranian government as rational actors. I don't view leaders of ISIL in the same light or AQ.

[Murkwood]

Iran hates Israel with a passion, and any nukes used by Iran would be directed at US ally Israel

Which would no doubt be followed by swift retaliation by the US and its allies.

The Iranian government are not suicidal, nor are they idiots. What makes you think they would undertake such an action, knowing it would mean the destruction of them and their nation?

IF Iran were to develop nuclear weapons (and that is presently an "if", since there is no solid evidence that this is what they are doing), they would most likely use them the way that other countries presently do: as a deterrent to invasion. Given the recent history of the region, frankly, one can understand why they might consider this a prudent step to take.

Incidentally Iran has not started a war in over two hundred years. That's a lot more than can be said for Israel.

The Iranian nuclear program presents a clear and present danger to Israel, and must be stopped.

What about Israel's undisclosed number of nuclear weapons? Does this not present a clear and present danger to Iran? Would this justify an Iranian attack on Israel to destroy their nuclear program?

But Israel has shown restraint, restraint that Iran doesn't seem capable of.

[Padnak]

The actual threat of a nuclear Iran is overblown, it would do no more to harm regional sectarianism than other entities in the region have during the past. Diplomatic negotiations are necessary, and the best way to achieve an end to the program is to rescind all sanctions should UN inspectors be allowed to confirm all nuclear progress above medical isotopes has ended and a continual renewal every six months.

All sanctions? Iran is still a tyrannical theocratic hellhole. Click over to the "Happy" thread if you want proof.

Compared to most of the middle east, Iran is one of the most reasonable nations in the sand pit...

I think the problem is a circular one; Iran hates the west so the west puts sanctions on iran which make Iran hate the west more etc etc etc