A Deal With Iran

[pocketfullofshells]

It's not that a nuclear Iran would aim to "compete" with the United States persay - its that they would have far more leverage "compete" with countries like Egyp, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey - upsetting the balance in the Middle East. Already we see comments by Egyptians and the Saudis they will reevaluate their own nuclear program should Iran obtain a weapon.

A nuclear armed Iran just throws gas on the fire of an already volatile region - something that should be avoided.

would it though? The only thing a nuke would do it give it a defense against US and Israel attacking it....Most sane people know its not like they will get the bomb and just start throwing them around. if we wanted no nukes in the middle east, we should have held Israel to that standard as well....but since we did not....som

If Iran ultimately wants a bomb they will get a bomb. We must ensure that such a path is incredibly painful for them and make it as difficult as possible.

And the fastest way to get them to have one is the Republican israel plan...to bomb Iran. So they go more underground, end any agreement on sanctions with the rest of the world we have now...and do so with the knowlage that not all of it would be destroyed...it would hit back...and it would redouble its efforts as proof the only thing that can secure their nation is the bomb. Its alot harder with Inspectors and the world watching. Also leaves alot less dead.

 

[Aus22]

pocketfullof shells, I agree with you if you atomic bomb Iran many other countries in the Middle East will get an atomic bomb as a means of defence.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

pocketfullof shells, I agree with you if you atomic bomb Iran many other countries in the Middle East will get an atomic bomb as a means of defence.

I did not say nuke Iran. But if we Do bomb the sites for nuclear projects....it would give them more reason to come up with one. After all...there is a reason we bitch about North Korea...and do nothing. ( that and that they could kill 100,000 in the first hour or 2 of a war with just artillery aimed at Soul and the rest of South.

 

[BigRob]

would it though? The only thing a nuke would do it give it a defense against US and Israel attacking it....Most sane people know its not like they will get the bomb and just start throwing them around. if we wanted no nukes in the middle east, we should have held Israel to that standard as well....but since we did not....som

Its highly unlikely that a nuclear Iran would act irrationally or would be handing out nuclear weapons to proxies - but that is not the issue. A nuclear armed Iran dramatically alters the balance of power in the region and can easily embolden their support for proxies - with less fear of any potential retaliation. I think we can agree that Iran will act rationally - but so will the Saudis and the Egyptians etc. None of them want to see a nuclear armed Iran as it dramatically alters their own influence in the region.

And the fastest way to get them to have one is the Republican israel plan...to bomb Iran. So they go more underground, end any agreement on sanctions with the rest of the world we have now...and do so with the knowlage that not all of it would be destroyed...it would hit back...and it would redouble its efforts as proof the only thing that can secure their nation is the bomb. Its alot harder with Inspectors and the world watching. Also leaves alot less dead.

That is not the Republican plan...but setting that aside for a moment one might wonder why Israeli strikes on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities went unanswered if what you asset is automatically true?

 

[dogtowner]

Its highly unlikely that a nuclear Iran would act irrationally or would be handing out nuclear weapons to proxies - but that is not the issue. A nuclear armed Iran dramatically alters the balance of power in the region and can easily embolden their support for proxies - with less fear of any potential retaliation. I think we can agree that Iran will act rationally - but so will the Saudis and the Egyptians etc. None of them want to see a nuclear armed Iran as it dramatically alters their own influence in the region.



That is not the Republican plan...but setting that aside for a moment one might wonder why Israeli strikes on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities went unanswered if what you asset is automatically true?

Prior actions were an irritant to the populace as what they already saw as a waste of money went totally belly up. And the mullahs had to wratchet up the oppression. Seeing far less popular spending get buried might just arab spring the clerics for good.

 

[Aus22]

Whether you bomb Iran with Nuclear bombs or other bombs you take sides in the Middle east war. This will make Iran resist more , hot up the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yeman and encourage other middle eastern countries to take precautions so they will not be bomb. This will start an arms race in the Middle East.

 

[BigRob]

Whether you bomb Iran with Nuclear bombs or other bombs you take sides in the Middle east war. This will make Iran resist more , hot up the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yeman and encourage other middle eastern countries to take precautions so they will not be bomb. This will start an arms race in the Middle East.

This is a rather simplistic view of the world - and ignores the power balances and infighting among parties within the Middle East. If Iran was in fact bombed there would be plenty of Middle Eastern nations that would support the move.

But the idea that anyone would use nuclear weapons as a first strike on Iran is absurd.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its highly unlikely that a nuclear Iran would act irrationally or would be handing out nuclear weapons to proxies - but that is not the issue. A nuclear armed Iran dramatically alters the balance of power in the region and can easily embolden their support for proxies - with less fear of any potential retaliation. I think we can agree that Iran will act rationally - but so will the Saudis and the Egyptians etc. None of them want to see a nuclear armed Iran as it dramatically alters their own influence in the region.



That is not the Republican plan...but setting that aside for a moment one might wonder why Israeli strikes on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities went unanswered if what you asset is automatically true?

If we wanted balance in the middle east, it should have started with Israel... Because that is the move that pushes Iran and then Saudi Arabia to want the bomb....and kills any sense of fairness by us to say you can't have it...we have it...and we let your enemy have it...but no you can't have it. And its not like we can say Israel is a good agent...on the world stage outside of the US hey are viewed as ignoring international law, human rights abuse and terrorism....aka just want Iran is.

and as for Iraq and Syria...Iraq kinda had a little skirmish with Iran at the time...so maybe they felt it best not be Germany and fight a 2 front war?

And Syria is not Iran...

But if you think Israel will keep bombing people and no one will hit back...that same logic says Iran can launce missle attacks on Israel and Israel will not fight back...since they did not in the gulf war....its not sound logic to base a choice on war or not over.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is a rather simplistic view of the world - and ignores the power balances and infighting among parties within the Middle East. If Iran was in fact bombed there would be plenty of Middle Eastern nations that would support the move.

But the idea that anyone would use nuclear weapons as a first strike on Iran is absurd.

Same could have been said about US Useing a nuke on China in the Korean War....but If MaCarthur had his way....and if you listen to the hawkish Republicans....Especially the bible thumping ones....they don't seem to see it as a bad idea..after all you can always nuke who ever you want when you think God will just save your ass.

 

[BigRob]

If we wanted balance in the middle east, it should have started with Israel... Because that is the move that pushes Iran and then Saudi Arabia to want the bomb....

Israel is alleged to have built their first nuclear weapon in 1966. It is your assertion that after over 50 years of being a nuclear power other nations in the region suddenly feel threatened?

and kills any sense of fairness by us to say you can't have it...we have it...and we let your enemy have it...but no you can't have it.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is what says Iran cannot have the weapon...

And its not like we can say Israel is a good agent...on the world stage outside of the US hey are viewed as ignoring international law, human rights abuse and terrorism....aka just want Iran is.

"Good" is irrelevant. What matters are our interests in the regions.

and as for Iraq and Syria...Iraq kinda had a little skirmish with Iran at the time...so maybe they felt it best not be Germany and fight a 2 front war?

There is a lot of fairly good evidence that Israel and Iran coordinated on the attack. Iran decimated Iraqi air units in the Western part of the country negating Iraqi capability to respond in a meaningful way. In fact, Iran attacked the site a full year before Israel did.

And Syria is not Iran...

That doesn't mean they cannot respond in some fashion.

But if you think Israel will keep bombing people and no one will hit back...that same logic says Iran can launce missle attacks on Israel and Israel will not fight back...since they did not in the gulf war....its not sound logic to base a choice on war or not over.

I said nothing of the sort - and that is clear from my comment. I simply called into question the assertion that we could automatically expect Iran to "hit back" in some overt fashion.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Israel is alleged to have built their first nuclear weapon in 1966. It is your assertion that after over 50 years of being a nuclear power other nations in the region suddenly feel threatened?



The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is what says Iran cannot have the weapon...



"Good" is irrelevant. What matters are our interests in the regions.



There is a lot of fairly good evidence that Israel and Iran coordinated on the attack. Iran decimated Iraqi air units in the Western part of the country negating Iraqi capability to respond in a meaningful way. In fact, Iran attacked the site a full year before Israel did.



That doesn't mean they cannot respond in some fashion.



I said nothing of the sort - and that is clear from my comment. I simply called into question the assertion that we could automatically expect Iran to "hit back" in some overt fashion.

what in Iran's History has shown that it would not hit back? If one plans to make a major military attack on a nation....and expect not to be hit back it better have a pretty good reason to think that no response is likey...and evry peice of evidence in Iran says they would hit back. Iran would hit back...the only question would be how hard. It may even pretend its not them, but it will be.

Also yes Israel has had the bomb for some time...but its a key driver in others in the area wanting it as well....and has been for some time...hence why Iraq Syria Iran the Sauds for a time, all tried....and will keep trying so long as tere is nothing to prevent it...like Inspectors....even if we bombed them, or Israel...it would just increase their drive to have the bomb and drive it deeper underground. Former head of the Mossad even said it this plan would slow them down far more then bombing would.

 

[Aus22]

I agree with Pocketfullof shell. Iran would resist if attack. It has a mean a separate country for two thousand years. It was not occupied by the Romans. It will always defend itself.

 

[Cruella]

Why does no one want to take them at their word?

Who would trust that Iran wouldn't use nuclear weapons to usher in the 12th Imam? Ayatollah Khamenei has talked about this several times, along with wiping Israel and the U. S. off the map. They are not afraid to become Martyrs in the process.

 

[Aus22]

The Australian government has just agree to share Intelligence with Iran so somebody must trust them. This is to find information on Australians serving with Isis in Iraq.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The Australian government has just agree to share Intelligence with Iran so somebody must trust them. This is to find information on Australians serving with Isis in Iraq.

Enemy of my enemy,,,ISIS hates Shia...Iran is Shia...Iran fights ISIS....so will help anyone fight them, hell even the US maybe if they could hide it