Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Myrensis]

Firstly, Russia Today isn't a very good news source as it routinely uses the opinions of a well known conspiracy theorist as fact. Secondly, Imadinnerjacket, like the rest of Iran's leadership, is batshit insane. And the reason why there are sanctions is because of gross human rights violations. We're talking about a government that endorses the stoning of rape victims for "adultery".

Oh, are we pretending now that the US actually cares about human rights as anything other than a useful propaganda tool against people who annoy us?

Saudi Arabia tends to make Iran look like a liberal western democracy, yet for some odd reason we give them millions in military and economic aid rather than sanctioning the hell out of them and threatening invasion and regime change. Why? Because they are generally good little lap dogs for us, and if a few schoolgirls have to be pushed back into burning buildings by religious police for trying to escape while immodestly dressed..well, that's a small price to pay for the glory of AMURRRIKA.

[The Zeonic States]

Personally i think iran is showing remarkable tolorence for this agruably unprevoked assaults across its borders, i mean for a nation supposedly led by a madman bent on destory isreal, He has a valid reason to go to war now.

Yet He has not done so, I think that speaks measures about the man, of course this could just be a PR stunt show Iran as the victim and if it is, So what they literally have a foreign military assault them within their own borders and kill their own citizens if that had happened to the United states of England they would have declared war within three seconds of the assault.

So perhaps if they were a nuclear power maybe nations would respect other nations borders a bit Better, You know certain jewish nations that seem to think that just because America is kissing their ass every one else should

[Vetalia]

And that's why everyone hates the U.S. The Iraq-Iran War was in 198-1988. Iraq and Iran are close to each other. Iraq only had a nuclear reactor. In fact, Iraq NEVER had weapons of mass destruction in their possession. And don't cite Kuwait. Nuke that nation and the fallout would damage Iraq just as much, if not more.

Iraq definitely did have and did use weapons of mass destruction in its possession, that's a fact. Chemical weapons, not nuclear, but WMDs nonetheless.

The U.S needs to be fair and even handed. Currently, the U.S is about to lose the alliance between South Korea and them because of the U.S being dicks to South Korea. Currently, every Middle Eastern nation hates the U.S because the U.S is siding with Israel.

No, we need to act in a way that best suits our interests. If being fair and even handed is beneficial to our interests, we act that way, and if being unfair is beneficial we act that way.

[Indira]

An interesting idea. On one side, Iran is a hostile nation to the West and is probably willing to use a nuke if it thinks it can use them against Israel without the US wiping them out. On the other hand, ever since the US invaded Iraq, I imagine that it leaves Iran feeling threatened and a nuke would make them feel more secure

[Alyakia]

No, we need to act in a way that best suits our interests. If being fair and even handed is beneficial to our interests, we act that way, and if being unfair is beneficial we act that way.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, this is why a large majority of the world hates you? Not some irrational hatred because they're crazy and will just hate America no matter what?

[Caninope]

My opinion is that fairness and the independence of the Middle East don't matter to me.

Far more important are the ramifications for the US, and the stability of the system.

Hey, at least you're honest!

I should add this as a side note: in foreign policy, I do have some neoconservative tendencies, and in IR I find myself in the camp of the liberal realists (or English School) most often. So it is important to note that human rights do indeed matter to me. But the "fairness" of a country having nuclear weapons and another not having it doesn't matter to me.

While some people (most notably Kenneth Waltz, for who I hold the utmost respect) has argued otherwise, my personal opinion is that the US should attempt to stop such a situation from arising.

Could you explain how it would threaten the stability of the system without mentioning Israel going crazy?

I wish I could find my older posts on it, because I've made some good posts on it before, but since I can't, I'll just give a quick run through. The entire system is currently based on the hybrid unipolar/multipolar situation we're currently in. Iran getting the nuclear weapon would move it further from the unipolar end and towards the multipolar end, something that is bad (see the hegemonic stability theory). This causes the system to go kind of bonkers if the hegemon or superpower cannot intervene. Do you think a nuclear Iran would have let the US go into Afghanistan? As an American citizen, this is doubly bad.

However, there are other consequences, two of which are laid out in Global Trends 2025 (PDF Warning). If Iran gets the bomb, then that creates a security dilemma in the Middle East. Countries (not just Israel) will feel threatened, and perhaps even abandoned by the US, and will then pursue the bombs themselves. It's conceivable that a scenario will eventually develop where a nuclear weapon gets set off in the Middle East, be it in a low yield attack or accident, should multiple nations develop nuclear weapons. The other consequence is that a nuclear Iran may grow emboldened by the prospect of a bomb. The US will be limited in how it can respond to a nuclear Iran, as will Israel, so what's to stop Iran from launching attacks, especially through indirect means?

Kenneth Waltz and our resident NSG'er, ASB have both argued against that latter point, but they've neither convinced me, nor gotten rid of the former point. I just think the risk is to create to allow it.

[Caninope]

Farn, would you like to take a guess at who one of the biggest enemies of Iran, and it's nuclear program, is?

Is it ... Israel? Your turn. Guess who never signed the NNPT?

Actually, I was going to say Saudi Arabia.

I was supporting you.

[Ulvena]

Well currently, Israel is breaking humanitarian laws and Iran isn't creating nuclear weapons at the moment.

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

Iran being a Middle Eastern heavyweight may actually make the Middle East MORE stable due to the shift in power so Israel treads more carefully.

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.

[Caninope]

And that's why we should prevent them from getting one. Iran's going to hate us regardless of what we do, so we might as well keep them from hating us and having a nuclear weapon.

"My opinion is that fairness and the independence of the Middle East don't matter to me.

Far more important are the ramifications for the US"

why does iran not like me i do not understand

He didn't say that, I did.

[Costa Fiero]

Oh, are we pretending now that the US actually cares about human rights as anything other than a useful propaganda tool against people who annoy us?

Are you pretending to have read the thread thus far and therefore make an uneducated guess on what my post was? I am against Iran having nuclear weapons because of what the Saudis will do. They are just as batshit insane and have no problems with acquiring nuclear weapons when Iran does because it hates Iran as much as it hates Israel. If there was to be a nuclear war in the Middle East, it would definitely be between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia tends to make Iran look like a liberal western democracy, yet for some odd reason we give them millions in military and economic aid rather than sanctioning the hell out of them and threatening invasion and regime change. Why? Because they are generally good little lap dogs for us, and if a few schoolgirls have to be pushed back into burning buildings by religious police for trying to escape while immodestly dressed..well, that's a small price to pay for the glory of AMURRRIKA.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's how the current status quo works.

[Ulvena]

No, we need to act in a way that best suits our interests. If being fair and even handed is beneficial to our interests, we act that way, and if being unfair is beneficial we act that way.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, this is why a large majority of the world hates you? Not some irrational hatred because they're crazy and will just hate America no matter what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFlOZFSIsMQ

[Ralkovia]

Here's the thing. No one the Middle East really wants Iran with a nuke. Understand it like this, the US is familiar boon. It keeps the Middle East pretty much fractured and all the sides at a normal level of power. Israel isn't expanding outward taking Jordanian or Syrian land. No one in the region is too powerful. It's good. It means no one is backing anyone out in the open.

Now Iran with a nuke means that they get to do what they want. You know how America can't put troops in Pakistan, which means that the terrorists have a base to hide in. That will be the situation in Iran. Meaning that putting sanctions on them or doing anything with them becomes harder as we try to avoid becoming nuclear ash. Let's say they want to close the strait of hormuz. Non-nuclear Iran gets pwned and the World goes about its business. It becomes a stand off with a nuclear Iran. We have to hand over whatever they demand, because they have the ability to use nuclear weapons to enforce it. That is not good.

A nuclear Iran is good for only people who have a problem with the entire Western Hemisphere.

[Alyakia]

Hey, at least you're honest!

I should add this as a side note: in foreign policy, I do have some neoconservative tendencies, and in IR I find myself in the camp of the liberal realists (or English School) most often. So it is important to note that human rights do indeed matter to me. But the "fairness" of a country having nuclear weapons and another not having it doesn't matter to me.

Could you explain how it would threaten the stability of the system without mentioning Israel going crazy?

I wish I could find my older posts on it, because I've made some good posts on it before, but since I can't, I'll just give a quick run through. The entire system is currently based on the hybrid unipolar/multipolar situation we're currently in. Iran getting the nuclear weapon would move it further from the unipolar end and towards the multipolar end, something that is bad (see the hegemonic stability theory). This causes the system to go kind of bonkers if the hegemon or superpower cannot intervene. Do you think a nuclear Iran would have let the US go into Afghanistan? As an American citizen, this is doubly bad.

However, there are other consequences, two of which are laid out in Global Trends 2025 (PDF Warning). If Iran gets the bomb, then that creates a security dilemma in the Middle East. Countries (not just Israel) will feel threatened, and perhaps even abandoned by the US, and will then pursue the bombs themselves. It's conceivable that a scenario will eventually develop where a nuclear weapon gets set off in the Middle East, be it in a low yield attack or accident, should multiple nations develop nuclear weapons. The other consequence is that a nuclear Iran may grow emboldened by the prospect of a bomb. The US will be limited in how it can respond to a nuclear Iran, as will Israel, so what's to stop Iran from launching attacks, especially through indirect means?

Kenneth Waltz and our resident NSG'er, ASB have both argued against that latter point, but they've neither convinced me, nor gotten rid of the former point. I just think the risk is to create to allow it.

Unfortunately, I'm not all too sympathetic to your hegemony or your admitted self-interested attempts to maintain hegemony. Although, again, it's good you're not denying it exists.

"If Iran gets the bomb what will stop them going crazy and invading everyone?! They're nuts! Aaaaa!" is also something I'm not that sympathetic too.

[Caninope]

So if Iran's ratification of the NPT means they can't have nukes, why don't we say the same for America?

Because there are these things called grandfather clauses. If a nation has nuclear weapons before they join, they got a free pass.

[Caninope]

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.

The US nuclear weapons program is grandfathered into the treaty, and Israel isn't a part of it.

[Alyakia]

"My opinion is that fairness and the independence of the Middle East don't matter to me.

Far more important are the ramifications for the US"

why does iran not like me i do not understand

He didn't say that, I did.

I know. I'm just using it as an example.

[Caninope]

Firstly, Russia Today isn't a very good news source as it routinely uses the opinions of a well known conspiracy theorist as fact. Secondly, Imadinnerjacket, like the rest of Iran's leadership, is batshit insane. And the reason why there are sanctions is because of gross human rights violations. We're talking about a government that endorses the stoning of rape victims for "adultery".

Oh, are we pretending now that the US actually cares about human rights as anything other than a useful propaganda tool against people who annoy us?

Saudi Arabia tends to make Iran look like a liberal western democracy, yet for some odd reason we give them millions in military and economic aid rather than sanctioning the hell out of them and threatening invasion and regime change. Why? Because they are generally good little lap dogs for us, and if a few schoolgirls have to be pushed back into burning buildings by religious police for trying to escape while immodestly dressed..well, that's a small price to pay for the glory of AMURRRIKA.

No, many policymakers care about human rights immensely. Our hands are just usually tied.

[Caninope]

No, we need to act in a way that best suits our interests. If being fair and even handed is beneficial to our interests, we act that way, and if being unfair is beneficial we act that way.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, this is why a large majority of the world hates you? Not some irrational hatred because they're crazy and will just hate America no matter what?

Source it.

[Ulvena]

1. Here's the thing. No one the Middle East really wants Iran with a nuke. Understand it like this, the US is familiar boon. It keeps the Middle East pretty much fractured and all the sides at a normal level of power. Israel isn't expanding outward taking Jordanian or Syrian land. No one in the region is too powerful. It's good. It means no one is backing anyone out in the open.

2. Now Iran with a nuke means that they get to do what they want. You know how America can't put troops in Pakistan, which means that the terrorists have a base to hide in. That will be the situation in Iran. Meaning that putting sanctions on them or doing anything with them becomes harder as we try to avoid becoming nuclear ash. Let's say they want to close the strait of hormuz. Non-nuclear Iran gets pwned and the World goes about its business. It becomes a stand off with a nuclear Iran. We have to hand over whatever they demand, because they have the ability to use nuclear weapons to enforce it. That is not good.

3. A nuclear Iran is good for only people who have a problem with the entire Western Hemisphere.

1. Nobody in the Middle East wants America or Israel, nuclear nations, to even exist in the Middle East. Israel is doing what they want. And how is no one in the region too powerful if only one nation is getting all the support without any mind to the other nations unless they only serve American interests?

2. No, Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons (is Pakistan considered part of Asia or the Middle East?). M.A.D doctrine. Not only that but with that, they can discuss more fairly. Perhaps get China involved as well to make sure things go smoothly. As long as Israel controls the stockpile (Pakistan is busy with India and look at them. They're not fighting as much any more now that both parties have nukes), true stability can never come.

An interesting fact: Two fully capable nuclear nations never have engaged in full scale warfare ever. At least off of the top of my head.

[Ulvena]

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, this is why a large majority of the world hates you? Not some irrational hatred because they're crazy and will just hate America no matter what?

Source it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/america/poll.html

[Wirbel]

Here's the thing. No one the Middle East really wants Iran with a nuke. Understand it like this, the US is familiar boon. It keeps the Middle East pretty much fractured and all the sides at a normal level of power. Israel isn't expanding outward taking Jordanian or Syrian land. No one in the region is too powerful. It's good. It means no one is backing anyone out in the open.

Now Iran with a nuke means that they get to do what they want. You know how America can't put troops in Pakistan, which means that the terrorists have a base to hide in. That will be the situation in Iran. Meaning that putting sanctions on them or doing anything with them becomes harder as we try to avoid becoming nuclear ash. Let's say they want to close the strait of hormuz. Non-nuclear Iran gets pwned and the World goes about its business. It becomes a stand off with a nuclear Iran. We have to hand over whatever they demand, because they have the ability to use nuclear weapons to enforce it. That is not good.

A nuclear Iran is good for only people who have a problem with the entire Western Hemisphere.

Thank you for saying that, Ralk!

[Republic of Omar]

We should get the heck out of the middle east and let them sort it out.

[Costa Fiero]

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.

That seems a bit misguided, seeing as Sunni-Shia violence has been occurring basically since the religion split into the two sects (which is way, way before the colonisation of the Americas). And Iran does have the backing of two superpowers: China and Russia, the latter because of Iran's geopolitical situation.

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.

The Saudis hold power because of two reasons: Mecca and Medina. The two holiest sites in Islam. If Iran does something stupid to Saudi Arabia, the shitstorm will be massive. They know this and therefore they are trying to unite the Persians and the Arabs (because they hate each other) against Israel, which is the only thing that the Arabs can agree upon.

[Caninope]

Unfortunately, I'm not all too sympathetic to your hegemony or your admitted self-interested attempts to maintain hegemony.

Our role as world policeman/hegemon generally helps keep stability. It's far better than a multipolar system.

"If Iran gets the bomb what will stop them going crazy and invading everyone?! They're nuts! Aaaaa!" is also something I'm not that sympathetic too.

It's a great thing I didn't say that.

What I instead said was that Iran could very well attack others, perhaps indirectly. Iran already gives funding to terrorist and militant groups, and I have every expectation that Iran would step it up, should they have nuclear weapons.

[Ulvena]

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.

1. That seems a bit misguided, seeing as Sunni-Shia violence has been occurring basically since the religion split into the two sects (which is way, way before the colonisation of the Americas). And Iran does have the backing of two superpowers: China and Russia, the latter because of Iran's geopolitical situation.

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.

2. The Saudis hold power because of two reasons: Mecca and Medina. The two holiest sites in Islam. If Iran does something stupid to Saudi Arabia, the shitstorm will be massive. They know this and therefore they are trying to unite the Persians and the Arabs (because they hate each other) against Israel, which is the only thing that the Arabs can agree upon.

1. That's why i included the Shia Sunni conflict. However, the current brouhaha is from American influence.

2. Nobody wants to do anything bad to Saudi Arabia. It's Israel everyone has a beef with.