Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Farnhamia]

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

Actually, I was going to say Saudi Arabia.

I was supporting you.

Then don't support me with riddles, okay?

[Allrule]

Source it.

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

55%
Percentage of respondents who answered "very favourable" or "fairly favourable" when asked how they felt towards America, with Canadians second in line for the most favourable responses (after respondents in the U.S., of course). Overall, 37 per cent of respondents answered "very unfavourable" or "fairly unfavourable."

[Myrensis]

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.

My apologies, when you said:

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".

I thought you meant: "And the reason why there are sanction is because of gross human rights violations. We're talking about a government that endorses the stoning of rape victims for 'adultery'," not "There are pressing gepolitical and nuclear security concerns involving Irans neighbors were they to acquire a nuclear weapon."

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

Our cozy relationship with the benevolent Saudi monarchs predates the overthrow of our pet strong man in Iran by several decades.

[Caninope]

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?

Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are important players in the Middle East. They all receive American aid, funding, or technology. They keep each other in line.

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.

MAD only applies if true destruction can be ensured- I doubt that any nation in the area can actually ensure a true MAD scenario. Also, with an increasing number of nuclear powers, MAD theory may find cracks emerging- Iran could use terrorist surrogates to attack Israel, for instance.

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.

Interesting fact: Conventional war is going away.

[Alyakia]

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

55%
Percentage of respondents who answered "very favourable" or "fairly favourable" when asked how they felt towards America, with Canadians second in line for the most favourable responses (after respondents in the U.S., of course). Overall, 37 per cent of respondents answered "very unfavourable" or "fairly unfavourable."

change to "a lot" or "a significant number" or whatever makes you feel all goey inside to a large enough extent you'll accept the statement

[Costa Fiero]

Iran has nuclear weapons.

Wrong. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. It has ballistic missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. We would know if they did because the Saudis would have acquired them and they haven't.

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.

They've come perilously close a few times. And that is something we want to avoid.

[Ralkovia]

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.


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.

Look at it like this. You were born under the safety net of the United States of America. If you came from Europe, the distinction of you not belonging to Communist Russia, is in direct relation to America fighting against Communism. An American Hegemony is far more stable than any other hegemony at this time.

The World, like most individual ends up following the guy who can do the most for them. America isn't big into "Murder an entire organization and repress them into the dirt" type of hegemony, ala China to Tibet. We're more into assassinate your leader, so he stops making threats. You might not like that we'll kill your leader or start a war because someone is threatening America, but understand the repercussions of a more powerful Iran. You're tied to our economy, no matter how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALA."

If you're upset about that, well that sucks for you. You're more than welcome to try and get away from American influence. However, if you like your current set up. I'd suggest you be very wary of Iran taking power in the middle east.

[Caninope]

Source it.

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

Views of the US seem positive.

[Farnhamia]

Iran has nuclear weapons.

Wrong. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. It has ballistic missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. We would know if they did because the Saudis would have acquired them and they haven't.

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.

They've come perilously close a few times. And that is something we want to avoid.

When? The US and the USSR might have come close over Cuba in the early 60s, but when else?

[Caninope]

Actually, I was going to say Saudi Arabia.

I was supporting you.

Then don't support me with riddles, okay?

I do apologize.

I thought I was being upfront enough about it.

[Caninope]

Wrong. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. It has ballistic missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. We would know if they did because the Saudis would have acquired them and they haven't.



They've come perilously close a few times. And that is something we want to avoid.

When? The US and the USSR might have come close over Cuba in the early 60s, but when else?

False alarms happened several times during the Cold War.

[Alyakia]

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.

Look at it like this. You were born under the safety net of the United States of America. If you came from Europe, the distinction of you not belonging to Communist Russia, is in direct relation to America fighting against Communism. An American Hegemony is far more stable than any other hegemony at this time.

The World, like most individual ends up following the guy who can do the most for them. America isn't big into "Murder an entire organization and repress them into the dirt" type of hegemony, ala China to Tibet. We're more into assassinate your leader, so he stops making threats. You might not like that we'll kill your leader or start a war because someone is threatening America, but understand the repercussions of a more powerful Iran. You're tied to our economy, no matter how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALA."

If you're upset about that, well that sucks for you. You're more than welcome to try and get away from American influence. However, if you like your current set up. I'd suggest you be very wary of Iran taking power in the middle east.

All those leaders assassinated by America, who have been making threats against America, even worse, credible threats. *assassinates leader* *installs dictator* *dictator makes opponents disappear*

Okily dokily!

[Costa Fiero]

My apologies, when you said:

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".

I thought you meant: "And the reason why there are sanction is because of gross human rights violations. We're talking about a government that endorses the stoning of rape victims for 'adultery'," not "There are pressing gepolitical and nuclear security concerns involving Irans neighbors were they to acquire a nuclear weapon."

My post was a bit of both. But I am more concerned with the potential consequences of Iran acquiring said weapons than it's human rights violations. Human rights violations are terrible, but the possibility of a nuclear arms race, in the current instability in the Middle East, is actually quite terrifying.

Our cozy relationship with the benevolent Saudi monarchs predates the overthrow of our pet strong man in Iran by several decades.

And it's only stronger now because of Iran's hostility. Supporting the Shah was more along the lines of scoring another proxy against the Soviet Union and more oil deals.

[Ralkovia]

Look at it like this. You were born under the safety net of the United States of America. If you came from Europe, the distinction of you not belonging to Communist Russia, is in direct relation to America fighting against Communism. An American Hegemony is far more stable than any other hegemony at this time.

The World, like most individual ends up following the guy who can do the most for them. America isn't big into "Murder an entire organization and repress them into the dirt" type of hegemony, ala China to Tibet. We're more into assassinate your leader, so he stops making threats. You might not like that we'll kill your leader or start a war because someone is threatening America, but understand the repercussions of a more powerful Iran. You're tied to our economy, no matter how much you put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALA."

If you're upset about that, well that sucks for you. You're more than welcome to try and get away from American influence. However, if you like your current set up. I'd suggest you be very wary of Iran taking power in the middle east.

All those leaders assassinated by America, who have been making threats against America, even worse, credible threats. *assassinates leader* *installs dictator* *dictator makes opponents disappear*

Okily dokily!

And you get electricity to run your home for another day. Okily Dokily?

[Alyakia]

All those leaders assassinated by America, who have been making threats against America, even worse, credible threats. *assassinates leader* *installs dictator* *dictator makes opponents disappear*

Okily dokily!

And you get electricity to run your home for another day. Okily Dokily?

Oh please.

[Pope Joan]

There is a dangerous aggressive nation in the Mideast, a destabilizing force which threatens all its neighbors, and possesses nuclear armaments and an effective air force.

That nation is Israel.

Any of Israel's neighbors are perfectly justified in trying to keep pace with the Zionist threat.

[Ulvena]

*snip*

Egypt hates America (the Clinton visit), Israel has more than a few American politicians in their hands, and the Saudis need America to stay in power. That's not keeping each other in line. Iran needs the ability to keep both Saudi Arabia (nobody wants to attack Saudi Arabia, merely make sure they're not only pandering to U.S interests) and Israel in check.

[quote="Caninope";p="10437054"
Our role as world policeman/hegemon generally helps keep stability. It's far better than a multipolar system.[/quote]

Oh you so funny. Keeping stability means inciting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Keeping stability means forcing Chavez to nationalize oil to keep the U.S from robbing them blind? Keeping stability means purposely keeping Korea apart so the U.S can sell our nation crap? Keeping stability means killing national leaders and not respecting the sovereignty of nations? Or listening to the U.N for once? Keeping stability means denying funding to UNESCO because they support helping Palestinians?

If it wasn't for the U.S being a not so bad place to live (even that's going away) and them formally being technological pioneers, I would say the U.S is the most evil nation on the planet.

[Alien Space Bats]

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.

Actually, the NPT requires nuclear signatories to work towards nuclear disarmament - which the U.S. is doing by working to negotiate nuclear weapons reduction treaties such as START.

---

It would not be in Iran's best interests to develop nuclear weapons; such an acquisition would reduce Iran's freedom of action in international affairs considerably.

That said, the world should not insist (as Israel and American conservatives are now) that Iran abandon the use of nuclear energy as a means of power generation. Iran needs to reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas just like everybody else, and Iranian gas exports could help reduce coal use worldwide.

For that reason, I support diplomatic efforts to dissuade Iran from building nuclear weapons. Note that the word "dissuade" is diplomatic parlance for any and all non-violent means to achieve a negotiated settlement; it does not (and should not be taken to) imply passive toothlessness.

Diplomacy works.

---

Israel should be persuaded to admit its possession of nuclear weapons and join the NPT; India and Pakistan should also be pressured into joining the NPT.

The reasons for this are simple: We are fast approaching potential disarmament levels low enough that Israeli, Indian, and Pakistani reductions will be needed to maintain balance and speed global disarmament. Unless all nuclear armed nations join the protocol, we're going to run into a wall where further disarmament on the part of the nuclear "establishment" (the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China) is impractical.

[Alyakia]

All those leaders assassinated by America, who have been making threats against America, even worse, credible threats. *assassinates leader* *installs dictator* *dictator makes opponents disappear*

Okily dokily!

And you get electricity to run your home for another day. Okily Dokily?

we export electricity and have the largest oil reserves in the EU please assassinate our leader and install a dictator who will torture/kill me for not being right-wing enough so everyone can get the electricity thanks

[Ralkovia]

And you get electricity to run your home for another day. Okily Dokily?

Oh please.

Your success, the continued success of Europe, and the fact that you live in an economy where no one is starving to death are directly in relation to America's success. If you want to hate us, that's your onus. However, in the mean time, we'll continue making sure the power doesn't change from the West side of the World to the East side of the World. I assume you like Western values though.

[Costa Fiero]

Any of Israel's neighbors are perfectly justified in trying to keep pace with the Zionist threat.

You seem to conveniently forget that Saudi Arabia hates Iran as much as it hates Israel and is also willing to acquire nuclear weapons to counter the threats posed by Iran. A nuclear monopoly in this case is a good thing because it prevents an arms race which creates more instability. And in the current situation in the Middle East, any further instability is very, very detrimental.

[Ulvena]

When? The US and the USSR might have come close over Cuba in the early 60s, but when else?

False alarms happened several times during the Cold War.

The Cold War were ALIENS! Nah, just kidding, just remembered a funny story I read. ANYWAYS...

The Cold War was a far different time period where it wasn't a battle of nations. It was a battle of ideologies. A battle of who can control the world more firmly and not die. The U.S won that battle but now it's a different playing field. The world is more globalized and more aware of how the U.S is exploiting them.

[Alyakia]

Oh please.

Your success, the continued success of Europe, and the fact that you live in an economy where no one is starving to death are directly in relation to America's success. If you want to hate us, that's your onus. However, in the mean time, we'll continue making sure the power doesn't change from the West side of the World to the East side of the World. I assume you like Western values though.

america, the shining bastion of western values and western civillization, protecting the world from the eastern menace. please fund more raping of nicaraguan nuns.

tbh people were starving en masse here far before the ussr existed. maybe if america was top dog then, no one would have starved? food for thought.

thomas sankara cried at this post

*is shot in back by british army*

[Ralkovia]

Your success, the continued success of Europe, and the fact that you live in an economy where no one is starving to death are directly in relation to America's success. If you want to hate us, that's your onus. However, in the mean time, we'll continue making sure the power doesn't change from the West side of the World to the East side of the World. I assume you like Western values though.

america, the shining bastion of western values and western civillization, protecting the world from the eastern menace. please fund more raping of nicaraguan nuns.

tbh people were starving en masse here far before the ussr existed. maybe if america was top dog then, no one would have starved? food for thought.

thomas sankara cried at this post

Remind me where you live?

[Alyakia]

america, the shining bastion of western values and western civillization, protecting the world from the eastern menace. please fund more raping of nicaraguan nuns.

tbh people were starving en masse here far before the ussr existed. maybe if america was top dog then, no one would have starved? food for thought.

thomas sankara cried at this post

Remind me where you live?

~*the british isles*~