Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Eleutheria]

Why is your initial premise that the destruction (not through nucleur war but through the nucleur hegemony of Israel in the middle east) of the exhorbitant paranoid khomeneist theocracy of Iran is a bad thing?

[EnragedMaldivians]

So, from an instrumental point of view would you be willing to concede that acting unethically on the world stage could have a detrimental effect on your world image? And hence that maybe tempering an excessive disposition towards cynical "realpolitik', with moral considerations (for purely instrumental reasons at bottom), is more prudent in the long run?

I mean, it's not like memories of Mossadeq are helping America's negotiations with Iran.

US made the right decision in not supporting South Africa. I don't think the way we act with Iran is at all unethical considering that they have alienated themselves.

I wa just making the broader point that acting like a dick in your foreign policy (Hurr Durr only Realpolitik, killing all our opponents is good strategery Hurrr, sucks2b Mossadeq Hurr) can have detrimental consequences. I wasn't trying to exculpate Irans behaviour or insinuate that America has no right to be frustrated with Iran.

[Vetalia]

So, from an instrumental point of view would you be willing to concede that acting unethically on the world stage could have a detrimental effect on your world image? And hence that maybe tempering an excessive disposition towards cynical "realpolitik', with moral considerations (for purely instrumental reasons at bottom), is more prudent in the long run?

I mean, it's not like memories of Mossadeq are helping America's negotiations with Iran.

Yes, I do agree. But the point isn't that we're acting ethically because we have a moral obligation or desire to but because the pertinent facts support acting in that way.

That being said, the 1953 coup was a wise strategic move as it put a strongly pro-American regime in power. Our biggest mistake was not putting more effort into backing the Shah during the Revolution; even if his overthrow were inevitable we could have preempted the disaster that followed by putting more effort into backing the Tudeh, as a socialist/Communist Iran would be much more amenable and easier to deal with than an Islamic fundamentalist Iran. We dropped the ball on that one, no question.

Offing Khomeni would've been a good move as well, but it would've had to be early to avoid making him a martyr. Overall, a targeted killing policy of Iranian officials during the Iran-Iraq war would've been highly beneficial; neither nation would really be capable of resisting us if we needed to take military action, but overall Saddam was easier to deal with. Shame he decided to be an idiot and invade Kuwait.

[EnragedMaldivians]

So, from an instrumental point of view would you be willing to concede that acting unethically on the world stage could have a detrimental effect on your world image? And hence that maybe tempering an excessive disposition towards cynical "realpolitik', with moral considerations (for purely instrumental reasons at bottom), is more prudent in the long run?

I mean, it's not like memories of Mossadeq are helping America's negotiations with Iran.

Yes, I do agree. But the point isn't that we're acting ethically because we have a moral obligation or desire to but because the pertinent facts support acting in that way.

That being said, the 1953 coup was a wise strategic move as it put a strongly pro-American regime in power. Our biggest mistake was not putting more effort into backing the Shah during the Revolution; even if his overthrow were inevitable we could have preempted the disaster that followed by putting more effort into backing the Tudeh, as a socialist/Communist Iran would be much more amenable and easier to deal with than an Islamic fundamentalist Iran. We dropped the ball on that one, no question.

Offing Khomeni would've been a good move as well, but it would've had to be early to avoid making him a martyr. Overall, a targeted killing policy of Iranian officials during the Iran-Iraq war would've been highly beneficial; neither nation would really be capable of resisting us if we needed to take military action, but overall Saddam was easier to deal with. Shame he decided to be an idiot and invade Kuwait.

See, Iran wasn't particularly anti American until Mossadeqs overthrow (personally, I think his coalition would not have lasted anyway, but that's a tangent). And the idea of the United States backing the Tudeh, especially in light of: the support they gave to the Shah to contain leftists; the fact that Tudeh were basically a fifth column loyal to Moscow; and that this was the middle of the Cold War - is an implausible notion at best.

[Allrule]

I would say the U.S is the most evil nation on the planet.

As opposed to the DPRK. Right...

You act like this "HURR AMERIKKKA IS DA MOST EVIL THING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF EVER EVER" mentality is new...

[Vetalia]

See, Iran wasn't particularly anti American until Mossadeqs overthrow (personally, I think his coalition would not have lasted anyway, but that's a tangent). And the idea of the United States backing the Tudeh, especially in light of: the support they gave to the Shah to contain leftists; the fact that Tudeh were basically a fifth column loyal to Moscow; and that this was the middle of the Cold War - is an implausible notion at best.

More like impossible...maybe Nixon/Kissinger could've pulled something like that off but given how tense relations were with the USSR in the late 70's it was a nonissue. We were also in a strategically weak position as the USSR had utilized both the oil price boom and our own post-Vietnam environment to build up its military to the point of superiority over our own forces, and of course afterwards the Reagan-era buildup was motivated by, you guessed it, opposition to the USSR so any kind of friendly relations with a pro-Soviet regime were impossible.

I'll admit 20/20 hindsight is great for speculation, that's about it.

[Myrensis]

See, a valid reason that Iran shouldn't get the nuke is because Iran doesn't have the recourses or wherewithal to protect the device. Should al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Force 17, or any number of other terrorist organizations ask for a weapon from Iran, I do not believe that they would refuse, or that they would be willing or able to defend it if one such organization tried to take it.

Do you have any basis for this? Pakistan is barely stable and it's entire military and intelligence establishment is corrupt and infiltrated up to it's eyeballs by extremists and their sympathizers, and even they haven't gone so totally off the rails as to hand off a nuke to anyone. Why exactly do you think Iran, which even at the height of the protests was far more stable than Pakistan could even dream of being and maintains a tight grip on it's military and terrorist proxies, is going to drop to the floor and hand over to the keys' to the first wild eyed fanatic with a "Death to America!" T-shirt who demands a nuke?

[Len Hyet]

See, a valid reason that Iran shouldn't get the nuke is because Iran doesn't have the recourses or wherewithal to protect the device. Should al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Force 17, or any number of other terrorist organizations ask for a weapon from Iran, I do not believe that they would refuse, or that they would be willing or able to defend it if one such organization tried to take it.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/05/291152.jpg

this is carrying nuclear warheads

I'm American, and thus speaking from an American's perspective. I can say Britain shouldn't have nukes either if you'd like.

[Caninope]

As opposed to the DPRK. Right...

You act like this "HURR AMERIKKKA IS DA MOST EVIL THING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF EVER EVER" mentality is new...

Well, it always irks me.

[Myrensis]

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/05/291152.jpg

this is carrying nuclear warheads

I'm American, and thus speaking from an American's perspective. I can say Britain shouldn't have nukes either if you'd like.

America shouldn't have them either, for our own safety.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Nawwwww poor Iran feels threatened by a miniscule country thousands of miles away.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Iran getting a nuclear weapon would turn the strategic situation in the middle east on its head in a way that is bad for everyone; especially Iran. Best to do whatever it takes to convince them to get off of that idea.

[Myrensis]

Iran getting a nuclear weapon would turn the strategic situation in the middle east on its head in a way that is bad for everyone; especially Iran. Best to do whatever it takes to convince them to get off of that idea.

Not likely to happen, since it would require, horror of horrors, concessions on our part, which is totally unthinkable. So we will continue to tell Iran that their only options are bow down to America or get a nuke so we can't touch them, then act shocked and appalled when they choose to go with the nuke.

[North Calaveras]

I know what we can do! We can send a strongly worded letter!

[The Imperial Alliance of Free States]

If you are going to cite something, do go ahead and read it, methinks. That source you have for South Korea mentions that they attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, but were never successful and in the end switched back to a policy of conventional arms deterrent. The South never had and does not have nukes. I will not argue that Israel is making an ass of itself in the Middle East, but nuclear weapons in the hands of a nation that is decidedly unstable and sponsors international terrorism does not to me seem to be a good idea at all.

[Rio Cana]

but nuclear weapons in the hands of a nation that is decidedly unstable and sponsors international terrorism does not to me seem to be a good idea at all.

You know, Pakistan seems to fit into your last comment.

[Choronzon]

Foreign Affairs just had a really interesting article on how Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East more stable, not less.

[AuSable River]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

I am always amused with the illogic from pacifists that states that we should trust in dictators who don't trust their own people and enslave and murder them by the tens of thousands.

[The Imperial Alliance of Free States]

1: I don't know if Iran is developing WMD right now or not. What I am saying is that they would be violating a treaty they signed if they did, which is what the OP is calling for.

2: I do not care about what the United States or Israel are doing.

Of course, the U.S is creating nuclear weapons themselves and so is Israel. The U.S is breaking the treaty and it's not even a blip on the radar. Yet Iran does it and it's the biggest crime of the century.

Are you trolling? For one thing, earlier you mentioned that the Americans are about to have a serious falling out with the South Koreans. Source?

For another, the Islamic Republic of Iran is democratic the same way Russia, the DPRK and the PRC are. They're not. Elections are held, the results just don't make a difference.

Third, the US is no longer making nuclear weapons. In fact, in accordance with the latest round of arms treaties, they are getting rid of a large portion of the arsenal. Upgrading existing weapons, maybe, but I doubt it. Manufacturing new ones? Source?

And finally, since you're trolling apparently everyone else on this thread gets to as well. That is your logic on the Iranian weapons program. The Israelis are breaking humanitarian laws (actually I think they stopped), so Iran gets to break the NNPT and develop weapons of mass destruction. And don't tell me it's a civilian program, it's not.They are well past both the technology and enrichment thresholds needed for any legitimate civilian research or medical programs. If so why are they continuing at a breakneck pace? And if it is so legitimate and civilian, why won't they let the rest of the world see what's going on inside and give the Americans a bloody nose?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Foreign Affairs just had a really interesting article on how Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East more stable, not less.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... n-takedown

Haven't read it yet. But for anyone else that does want to.

[The Imperial Alliance of Free States]

but nuclear weapons in the hands of a nation that is decidedly unstable and sponsors international terrorism does not to me seem to be a good idea at all.

You know, Pakistan seems to fit into your last comment.

No offense, but got any brilliant ideas on how to get them out of their hands? However true that I had an unintentional double entredre?

[Choronzon]

Foreign Affairs just had a really interesting article on how Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would make the Middle East more stable, not less.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... n-takedown

Haven't read it yet. But for anyone else that does want to.

Thanks, but this is not the article in question.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... t-the-bomb

It appears the full thing is not online, but it was the cover story for the July/August edition for any who wish to seek it out. Its called "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb," and its by Kenneth Waltz. Basically it argues that a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the region rather than decrease it. It argues that currently Israel can run around and destabilize the region because they're the only nuclear state, and uses India and Pakistan as an example of a conflict that de-escalated rather than escalated when both states had nukes. Iran, like all states, is a rational actor and we pretend Iran is different only at our own peril. The article also argues that Iran would not wish to arm third party, non state actors with the technology because its expensive and dangerous so it would wish to keep a close reign on its nuclear arsenal (like all nuclear states want to), and non state actors are unreliable.

[The Imperial Alliance of Free States]

1. Iran is also breaking humanitarian laws also. Does this mean Israel is justified to maintain their nuclear arsenal?



2. Firstly, Iran is not a Middle Eastern heavyweight. It likes to think it is, but it isn't. That lies with Saudi Arabia, which detests the regime in Tehran immensely. They hate Iran as much as they hate Israel (probably because the Iranians are of a different sect of Islam to Saudi Arabia) and have openly stated that they will acquire nuclear weapons if Iran does. Which will push other nations there to do so also and create an arms race. As I already have said.

And the Saudis already have the weapons (albeit outdated ones) to strike Tehran with ease.

1. But Iran isn't corrupting a superpower to help them. Iran has no interest in attacking Israel unless they're inevitably going down anyways. Iran, in a sense, isn't causing instability in the Middle East. Israel and the U.S are causing instability in the Middle East by instigating these things. That and the Shia-Sunni conflicts of course.

2. Saudi Arabia. Ah yes. You realize they hold power because they spread money to their citizens and suck up to the U.S, right? And Iran isn't a heavyweight? Why? They can block the Strait of Hormuz, they have a lot of oil. Sure, the Saudis do too, but again, so does Iran.

No Iran has plenty of interest in attacking Israel. The military is smart enough to know that will end their careers the bloody way and the civilian government is just sane enough to know that without the military's support they will fall faster than a rock.

And on Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, there was once a thread on that. To my memory, the general consensus, correctly, was, "Sure, they could. But witin a week the Americans would wipe the floor with them."

[EnragedMaldivians]

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... n-takedown

Haven't read it yet. But for anyone else that does want to.

Thanks, but this is not the article in question.

My mistake and I just noticed its talking about something else. Mind linking the article you are referring to? I'm quite interested.

Edit - thanks.

[LawL LawL Land]

"Not likely to happen, since it would require, horror of horrors, concessions on our part, which is totally unthinkable. So we will continue to tell Iran that their only options are bow down to America or get a nuke so we can't touch them, then act shocked and appalled when they choose to go with the nuke."

Well, that brightened my day a little.

Now, there is little reason why anyone asserting that a nation "needs the Nuke" should be generating, nor trying to generate, productive discussion (as this thread has clearly shown, with more than enough ad-hominem about other nations, to boot) as the whole concept of "needing" nuclear weapons is flawed, and is only conceivable through a suitably biased lens. Like-wise, those who oppose will be viewing through their own, equally biased lenses, and here and there someone throws something at another, another feels insulted, and plenty of arguments are misinterpreted, poorly constructed, or founded upon faulty reasoning.

But, if we are to give into the inevitable counter-productive heated-discussion, then I will give my two cents.

So far, everyone who has asserted Iran will be utilizing nuclear weapons openly in long-range strikes should be immediately ignored, as they lack an ounce of proper reasoning. No nation in the world would ever deploy nuclear weapons unless suitably threatened, as the use of such prompts identical response, thus generating the MAD scenario. Regarding the lack of technology of Iran to engender this MAD scenario, were they to acquire nuclear weapons any time soon, I will concede this: No Western nation should feel directly threatened by the prospect of Iranian nuclear arms impacting their soil as missile-defense systems of the West would make any potential in-bound nuclear weapons look like arrows and sling-stones fired from the Neolithic era. However, the MAD scenario can still run its course as all it takes is the utilization of nuclear weapons by either Islamic nations or Israel to affect the entire world. Even if the rest of the world (ie. those who have not launched, nor were targets of, nuclear weapons) remained neutral, which in all likelihood would not be the case, the use of nuclear weapons would precipitate nuclear fallout-related issues all across the world, not to mention the likelihood of nuclear warfare in the Middle-East interrupting the flow of oil into global markets.

Now, this may not be MAD for the world, but it surely would be for all those immediately involved, and that is, I'm almost 100% sure, enough incentive for the Iranians to maintain their nuclear arsenal as a weapon of last resort, and the restrict their usage to retaliatory strikes (much in the way Israel has, as of late).

Next-off, those who cite the production of nuclear weapons by signatories of the NPT as being grounds for development of nuclear weapons by other nations need to stop pretending the NPT prohibits all manufacture and maintenance of nuclear arsenals. The keyword of the name really should be "Proliferation," but people continue to substitute its actual meaning with that of "Prohibition" for the sake of adding (phony) ammunition to their argument. And, as per a previous poster, the aforementioned people either conveniently forget or are completely ignorant of the presence of grandfather clauses within the treaty provisioning the continued development and production of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-related technology by those in possession prior to the treaty.

And, as my time is running short, I'll add one more thing, the likelihood of Iran dishing out nuclear weapons to terrorists is about as likely as the USA providing nuclear weapons to the Mujahedeen. It's simply not going to happen. If they were willing to give nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations, not only would the entire world look down upon them, but I think they would have a few problems of their own. For starters, a terrorist organization with nuclear weapons no longer requires some powerful benefactor to continue to aid them, as they would have all the leverage they need for compliance in their new hardware. Next, the Iranians would not be able to track and maintain information on the location of the nuclear weapons, and this should be, for any nation in the world, of huge concern. The relation between the US and Afghan Mujahedeen fighters, Iran and the terrorists they support, etc, are very ad-hoc alliances made due to a common foe, Iran doesn't even have full control over the terrorist organizations as of now. And, as previously stated, to distribute nuclear weapons about like candy would relinquish much of the bargaining chips Iran currently holds.

On a final note, if you're attempting to produce a response to a discussion you actually intend to participate in, rather than just flame or troll, do be sure to check your post and see that it's comprehensible, and not just anger-driven jibberish pock-marked with poor spelling, no punctuation, and a pall of stupidity. (Not that I've seen any of the aforementioned in this thread...)