Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Vitaphone Racing]

To begin, the US is acting as a rational self actor, unlike most bullies. Then there's the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be against international law. There's the potential issue of it creating instability and/or an arms race in the Middle East.

In short, the US is acting in most people's best interests (perhaps even including Iran itself) by acting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

Iran is already discouraged from war because it lacks any capability to invade post-2003 Iraq let alone another Arab nation. Pakistani-Indian tensions are still very high and North Korea-South Korea relations are even worse.

So no, nukes don't help the situation at all.

[Tovakestan]

if you think that Iran deserves a nuke, consider this, Amihdinijad stated that the holocaust is a myth and that Isreal should wiped of the map, also he states that the U.S. set up 9/11. Secondly, why on Earth do Liberals hate Isreal so much, i suppose that it just goes to show you that Liberals are not anywhere near as free-loving or accepting as they say...i just don't understand why people hate the Isrealis so much, the Jewish went through hell so many times, don't you think they deserve a home where they can feel safe? if not, then go ahead and stay in your little bubble and hate eveything. Besides, the people who hate on Isreal are the same people that hate Nuclear Devices. anyone who thinks giving madmen like Amihdinijad or Kim Jong Un a Nuke obviously want to watch the world burn.

[Sailsia]

if you think that Iran deserves a nuke, consider this, Amihdinijad stated that the holocaust is a myth and that Isreal should wiped of the map, also he states that the U.S. set up 9/11. Secondly, why on Earth do Liberals hate Isreal so much, i suppose that it just goes to show you that Liberals are not anywhere near as free-loving or accepting as they say...i just don't understand why people hate the Isrealis so much, the Jewish went through hell so many times, don't you think they deserve a home where they can feel safe? if not, then go ahead and stay in your little bubble and hate eveything. Besides, the people who hate on Isreal are the same people that hate Nuclear Devices. anyone who thinks giving madmen like Amihdinijad or Kim Jong Un a Nuke obviously want to watch the world burn.

This is the singular most ignorant non-troll post I have ever seen on NS. Ever. I'd make a point-by-point on why this is just drivel but I'm not sure you'll even see this, as I'm not sure you know how to refresh the page to see new posts.

[Costa Fiero]

A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union.

Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States had religious nutters as their respective heads of state. And the world did come perilously close to nuclear war on a number of occasions as already stated. A nuclear Iran would provoke an arms race in the region because Saudi Arabia has already stated that it will acquire nuclear weapons if Iran does so purely to counter Iranian weapons. And remember, these states are not run by clear minds. Not only this, but it may provoke Israel to act and cause another, more destructive war in the Middle East. That is the crucial point which a lot of people have missed.

More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

I don't know if you remember but Pakistan can't even maintain control over its own borders and North Korea shelled an island belonging to the South last year or a couple of years ago.

[Caninope]

To begin, the US is acting as a rational self actor, unlike most bullies. Then there's the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be against international law. There's the potential issue of it creating instability and/or an arms race in the Middle East.

In short, the US is acting in most people's best interests (perhaps even including Iran itself) by acting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

A nuclear Iran could continue to fund terrorist movements and indirectly attack its enemies while other countries, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia themselves pursue nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's totally more stable/

Anyway, instability in the Korean Peninsula probably reached a recent low last year when North Korea shelled a South Korean island, and the US/ROK launched exercises. To be honest, the only reason why the country hasn't imploded is because no one wants to deal with the consequences of millions of starving Koreans fed nothing but propaganda their whole lives.

And Pakistan is a horrible example. They've had multiple coups in recent history. Their military and civilian government is locked in head-to-head combat. The ISI lets terrorists have free reign of certain areas, areas that have gotten scarily close to nuclear weapons facilities. The ISI probably supported Bin Laden, not to mention their support for the Mumbai Gunmen. Indian and Pakistan have had several recent military conflicts, including the Indo-Pakistan War of 1999. Pakistan isn't stable.

[Kalalification]

For all the people out there who are decrying international law, you seem to be forgetting something. We have, in the Middle East, another actor who has no concern for violating international law. They're belligerent, a NWS, and have demonstrated (and directly stated) their desire to keep Arab nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have the capacity to acquire a nuclear weapon because Israel will fuck them up big time if they try. As a matter of realpolitik, Iran stands to gain NOTHING from pursuing nuclear arms. As a matter of international law, they are legally barred from pursuing nuclear arms. And as a matter of common-fucking-sense, we in the West would be much better off without a nuclear Islamic theocracy on our hands.

[Myrensis]

Iran has been blaming America, Israel, and the West for its problems since 1979 regardless of the validity of its claims. I think the Iranian people are ready for their leadership to do something other than blaming the US. The US threatened sanctions against Iran for its continuation of its nuclear program and now it's fulfilling its threats.

It's not entirely unjustified. Given that we, you know, overthrew their democratically elected government and propped up a tyrant with a taste for torturing and murdering his opponents to protect the economic interests of ourselves and our allies. And we've had sanctions in place on Iran ever since those uppity fools thought they could get away with overthrowing our puppet dictator, so let's not pretend the US was content to leave Iran alone until they started pursuing a nuclear program.

The problem is that both sides know that their counterpart isn't going to back down. The US isn't going to stop the sanctions on Iran if Iran continues with its nuclear program, and Iran isn't going to stop their program at the risk of becoming another Libya. That leaves only a change of government, if sanctions help to speed up that process then so be it.

The US isn't going to stop sanctions on Iran until they bow down and agree to be our pets, which isn't going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. Iran isn't going to back down because securing a nuclear weapon means little in the way of changes in their diplomatic or economic status, but effectively nullifies the threat of military intervention against them. And that is indeed one of the negative side effects of what was otherwise a good thing in Libya, we've effectively told the Iranians that even if they cooperate with us we'll still take the first opportunity that presents itself to bring them down.

We've essentially put the Iranian regime in a position where acquiring a nuclear weapon would in fact be their best option, because it secures their hold on power without changing much in the status quo, whereas cooperation with the West leaves them vulnerable with no real tangible benefits.

Iran doesn't have the capacity to acquire a nuclear weapon because Israel will fuck them up big time if they try. As a matter of realpolitik, Iran stands to gain NOTHING from pursuing nuclear arms. As a matter of international law, they are legally barred from pursuing nuclear arms. And as a matter of common-fucking-sense, we in the West would be much better off without a nuclear Islamic theocracy on our hands.

And they're going to stop them how? Seriously, I know how fun it is for pro-Israeli types to get all hot and bothered over the super awesomeness of the IDF, but the "D" is the critical part of that organization. Israel required thousands of tons of US material aid to conduct an ultimately inconclusive two week operation in Lebanon, a neighboring country. The idea that they're going to scour Iran clean of nuclear technology from 1000 miles away is laughable.

[Kalalification]

And they're going to stop them how? Seriously, I know how fun it is for pro-Israeli types to get all hot and bothered over the super awesomeness of the IDF, but the "D" is the critical part of that organization. Israel required thousands of tons of US material aid to conduct an ultimately inconclusive two week operation in Lebanon, a neighboring country. The idea that they're going to scour Iran clean of nuclear technology from 1000 miles away is laughable.

The same way they stopped Syria and Iraq, I imagine. Blow shit up.

Though they could just keep this cyberwarfare thing going.

[Myrensis]

The same way they stopped Syria and Iraq, I imagine. Blow shit up.

It's a nice thought, but seriously damaging or destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities is not going to be a simple surgical strike on single reactors a la Iraq and Syria. Nor is the aftermath likely to be as muted and clean.

[Costa Fiero]

And they're going to stop them how? Seriously, I know how fun it is for pro-Israeli types to get all hot and bothered over the super awesomeness of the IDF, but the "D" is the critical part of that organization. Israel required thousands of tons of US material aid to conduct an ultimately inconclusive two week operation in Lebanon, a neighboring country. The idea that they're going to scour Iran clean of nuclear technology from 1000 miles away is laughable.

Israel has submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles. Israel even has missiles capable of reaching Iran, with nuclear payloads.

[Ralkovia]

Yes, but the true problem becomes, how the World reacts if Israel uses nuclear weapons. The whole point of nuclear weapons is basically "doomsday" scenario. Israel has nukes for a very very simple reason. If it looks like the Arabs get there shit together and mount an organized and large multiple point offensive, Israel can tac nuke them into stopping. That's why Israel has nukes. It wont use them on the offensive. Iran on the other hand would use them or threaten to use them, in the event of lets say...closing the strait of hormuz or bullying OPEC for a bigger piece of the pie.

[Myrensis]

And they're going to stop them how? Seriously, I know how fun it is for pro-Israeli types to get all hot and bothered over the super awesomeness of the IDF, but the "D" is the critical part of that organization. Israel required thousands of tons of US material aid to conduct an ultimately inconclusive two week operation in Lebanon, a neighboring country. The idea that they're going to scour Iran clean of nuclear technology from 1000 miles away is laughable.

Israel has submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles. Israel even has missiles capable of reaching Iran, with nuclear payloads.

We're talking about Israel preventing Iran from getting a bomb, not their ability to retaliate if Iran uses one.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive mass nuclear strike on Iran, which would be a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Even the US would have to cut them loose after that. Outside of the fundamentalists who think Israel needs to be around to prepare for the 2nd Coming of Jebus, even the staunchest Republican is not going to be able to sell "Well of course Israel had to launch unprovoked nuclear strikes all over Iran, what if the Iranians had done something, someday!??"

[Mandicoria]

ITS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!! Its to keep its current regime in power by basicly telling other nations "Come at me bro". That's why they need it so bad, and it will be very very Bad if they get it.

[Myrensis]

Yes, but the true problem becomes, how the World reacts if Israel uses nuclear weapons. The whole point of nuclear weapons is basically "doomsday" scenario. Israel has nukes for a very very simple reason. If it looks like the Arabs get there shit together and mount an organized and large multiple point offensive, Israel can tac nuke them into stopping. That's why Israel has nukes. It wont use them on the offensive. Iran on the other hand would use them or threaten to use them, in the event of lets say...closing the strait of hormuz or bullying OPEC for a bigger piece of the pie.

Why would they suddenly become that stupid? There's a reason the US is the only nation in the world that has ever used nukes offensively, and that's because at the time we were the only ones who had them. In the modern world multiple countries have nukes and in particular the US, China and Russia essentially put an umbrella over their allies and have a vested interest in keeping things from getting out of hand. If you're going to use nukes as anything other than a deterrent, it had better be over something you are willing to see your entire country go down in flames for. You really think Iran is going to decide that "Either we get a bigger share in OPEC, or we all die in a rain of nuclear fire!!" is a reasonable course of action?

[Farnhamia]

Israel has submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles. Israel even has missiles capable of reaching Iran, with nuclear payloads.

We're talking about Israel preventing Iran from getting a bomb, not their ability to retaliate if Iran uses one.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive mass nuclear strike on Iran, which would be a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Even the US would have to cut them loose after that. Outside of the fundamentalists who think Israel needs to be around to prepare for the 2nd Coming of Jebus, even the staunchest Republican is not going to be able to sell "Well of course Israel had to launch unprovoked nuclear strikes all over Iran, what if the Iranians had done something, someday!??"

I agree. Now, the US might let the Israelis get away with a conventional strike on Iranian nuclear installations. We'd have to make stern noises and probably clean up some of the fallout, but that wouldn't set the world on fire, I don't think. The Sunni Arabs would make the appropriate noises, too, but in their heart of hearts I think they'd let it go. Filthy Shi'ite heretics, don't you know.

[Kalalification]

It's a nice thought, but seriously damaging or destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities is not going to be a simple surgical strike on single reactors a la Iraq and Syria. Nor is the aftermath likely to be as muted and clean.

Israel knows their own capabilities better than anyone else does. I seriously doubt that they're making empty threats.

[Ecans]

Forget the arguments about Israel’s' bomb etc. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Iran MUST NOT have "the bomb" They seek regional domination and the destruction of another nation. Unstable religious fascists who cannot be trusted rule the downtrodden masses. Screw their rights. They are a threat to any and all people who do not hew to their warped view of the world and how it should be run.

[Socialist EU]

Forget the arguments about Israel’s' bomb etc. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Iran MUST NOT have "the bomb" They seek regional domination and the destruction of another nation. Unstable religious fascists who cannot be trusted rule the downtrodden masses. Screw their rights. They are a threat to any and all people who do not hew to their warped view of the world and how it should be run.

Iran couldn't destroy Israel if they tried their hardest.
And it was reported in the news recently about US having 13.6 tonne bunker busters.

The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/adds ... story.html

[Angleter]

To begin, the US is acting as a rational self actor, unlike most bullies. Then there's the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be against international law. There's the potential issue of it creating instability and/or an arms race in the Middle East.

In short, the US is acting in most people's best interests (perhaps even including Iran itself) by acting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

MAD and all that stopped a direct war between the US and Soviet Union (good thing), but in doing so it caused both countries to resort to intervening all over the world to get as many countries as possible on side, resulting in various proxy wars, coups and revolutions, and nasty foreign-backed governments. Likewise, Iran is seeking to expand its influence across the Middle East against America, so as to 'liberate' the Middle East from American (and other Great Power) dominance, and put itself 'on the map' as a competitor to the Great Powers and the de facto leader (or one of them) of all the developing nations who've been historically aggrieved by the Great Powers. Any curtailment or abolition of the Israeli state would be a huge prestige boost for them too, but nuking Israel (or anyone) is out of the question. In practice, Iran's foreign policy goal means propping up Assad in Syria; consolidating Hezbollah in Lebanon; supporting Shia movements or governments in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Eastern Saudi (thus also giving Iran and allies control of vast oil reserves), and Yemen; and making alliances with Sunni groups with American-allied rivals, such as the Muslim Brotherhood against the military in Egypt, and Hamas against Fatah in the PA. It's also involving itself with the Afghan government, and it probably envisages a role for itself in the Subcontinent and Central Asia too, given their historic Persian ties.

None of this, particularly when both sides can try and paint themselves as patrons of the Arab Spring, is really desirable. The question is, therefore, whether you think an attack on Iran and ensuing full-on US/Israel/Saudi vs. Iran melée is likely without an Iranian bomb, and whether you think no danger of that happening is worth the likely strife caused by a more powerful and assertive Iran.

[Corporate Councils]

It's not entirely unjustified. Given that we, you know, overthrew their democratically elected government and propped up a tyrant with a taste for torturing and murdering his opponents to protect the economic interests of ourselves and our allies. And we've had sanctions in place on Iran ever since those uppity fools thought they could get away with overthrowing our puppet dictator, so let's not pretend the US was content to leave Iran alone until they started pursuing a nuclear program.

I can fully agree that Ajax was a complete blunder. The US enjoyed good relations with Iran and even Mossedegh and it was believed that we were going to support his cause at the onset of his conflict with the UK.

As for sanctions against the Islamic Republic, we didn't really hit them with too many sanctions until 95', yeah we froze as many of their accounts as we could because that's what countries do when your embassy is being held hostage. It should be noted that most of those assets were returned to Iranian control after they returned our hostages(1). The 95' sanctions under the ILSA were actually in response to the Iranian nuclear program and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah(2). If you can provide any evidence counter to this, feel free to do so.

The US isn't going to stop sanctions on Iran until they bow down and agree to be our pets, which isn't going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. Iran isn't going to back down because securing a nuclear weapon means little in the way of changes in their diplomatic or economic status, but effectively nullifies the threat of military intervention against them. And that is indeed one of the negative side effects of what was otherwise a good thing in Libya, we've effectively told the Iranians that even if they cooperate with us we'll still take the first opportunity that presents itself to bring them down.

Though I don't recall anybody asking Iran to bow down and be our pets outside of internet strawman arguments, I will agree with the rest of your statement as that's exactly what my own statement contained.

We've essentially put the Iranian regime in a position where acquiring a nuclear weapon would in fact be their best option, because it secures their hold on power without changing much in the status quo, whereas cooperation with the West leaves them vulnerable with no real tangible benefits.

The current Iranian government was founded on the basis of noncooperation with the West, we're the "Great Satan" remember? From the onset they placed themselves in a hostile position. Also, Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would not leave the status quo unchanged. Saudi Arabia will purchase nuclear weapons (probably from Pakistan), and Turkey will pursue them given its neo-Ottoman maneuverings. That gives us 4 nations, each dominated by a different religion or ethnic group, trying to position themselves as the Middle Eastern power. Even if they don't launch their own nukes, that powerful of a defensive weapon insures them against the consequences of any agressive operations. Also bear in mind, most of these enmities in the Middle East go back much further than Israel or the US, even though they might try to use Israel-the West-the US as a boogeyman.

It is a bad thing for the US and Israel if Iran gets the bomb, but it would be far worse for the Middle East.

[url=(1)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations#Economic_consequences_of_the_Iran_hostage_crisis[/url]

[url=(2)]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_Libya_Sanctions_Act[/url]

[Ralkovia]

Yes, but the true problem becomes, how the World reacts if Israel uses nuclear weapons. The whole point of nuclear weapons is basically "doomsday" scenario. Israel has nukes for a very very simple reason. If it looks like the Arabs get there shit together and mount an organized and large multiple point offensive, Israel can tac nuke them into stopping. That's why Israel has nukes. It wont use them on the offensive. Iran on the other hand would use them or threaten to use them, in the event of lets say...closing the strait of hormuz or bullying OPEC for a bigger piece of the pie.

Why would they suddenly become that stupid? There's a reason the US is the only nation in the world that has ever used nukes offensively, and that's because at the time we were the only ones who had them. In the modern world multiple countries have nukes and in particular the US, China and Russia essentially put an umbrella over their allies and have a vested interest in keeping things from getting out of hand. If you're going to use nukes as anything other than a deterrent, it had better be over something you are willing to see your entire country go down in flames for. You really think Iran is going to decide that "Either we get a bigger share in OPEC, or we all die in a rain of nuclear fire!!" is a reasonable course of action?

You understand how OPEC works right. I'm assuming you don't, because it's the only way you could confuse what I said. OPEC is an oligarchy. All the members operate together. They're all pretty much equal. One of them steps out of line, the other members fuck them over. Iran with a nuclear weapon can influence the smaller nations in OPEC to follow them in reducing oil and increasing prices. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is pretty much large and in charge, thanks to the US's backing.

Throw away the idea that Iran will use the nuclear weapons. It most likely won't. It's the fact that they possess them and can use them. By having nuclear weapons, they increase their influence and power in World Politics. This is bad, because their aims and goals are opposite of our own.

[Pravengria]

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

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, I mean it's not as if Hitler didn't sign paper as well then take over half a of Europe.

[Corporate Councils]

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

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, I mean it's not as if Hitler didn't sign paper as well then take over half a of Europe.

And look what happened to him for it, but I'm sure it's cool. He was probably just resisting Western Imperialism, never mind the whole totalitarian dictator thing.

[The Two Jerseys]

Why does Iran need nukes? It's simple: bargaining tool.

We've already seen the Iranian leaders acting crazy (threatening to wipe Israel off the map), so they want the rest of the world to think they're crazy enough to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike. Then the next time they want something from anyone else, Iran will show up at the negotiations acting like a bank robber with a bomb (the old "give me what I want or I'll blow this place sky high" routine). And the rest of the world will have to cave in, because (as they want us to see) Iran just might be crazy enough to do it.

[New Embossia]

Iran with Nuke=Taliban/Al Qaeda with nuke.

Simple as that.