Should the West accept Iran's nuclear program?

[Beet]

I don't see sanctions convincing Iran to abandon its nuclear program. I don't see why Iran having nuclear power is the end of the world. They would not give it to terrorists. If they did, they would be finished. The West should not strengthen sanctions against Iran. The West should gradually abandon its policy of sanctions, with limited exceptions, and open up talks with Iran.

[dialectical fetishist]

Yes. It'll make the West think again before they decide to go and bomb some little Middle Eastern country.

[Speaker Dereich]

I don't see how we could allow Iran get nuclear weapons and not allow say, the Saudis, do the same. It'd probably increase the tensions between Shia and Sunni countries and lead to an arms race. Also, we've got to draw a non proliferation line somewhere.

[dead0man]

Everyone in the Middle East disagrees except for Iran and Syria.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Who cares. They are not going to nuke Israel, so it really is not a threat.

[Beet]

I don't see how we could allow Iran get nuclear weapons and not allow say, the Saudis, do the same.

1. I don't think we have any choice in the matter. Iran is making steady progress, and the only thing with even a chance of setting them back would be a disastrous military strike. I read an article in Foreign Affairs recently advocating just such a strike and it was a painful thing to read. It's not a wise option at this point, or at any point for the foreseeable future.

2. Iran still claims they are only pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The IAEA could still be involved in enforcing that, provided that talks are re-opened. But even if Iran were to test nuclear weapons, it does not follow that Saudi must, as the former is on its own, while the latter is behind US protection. It is just like North Korea has weapons but Japan does not test.

It'd probably increase the tensions between Shia and Sunni countries and lead to an arms race.

Not necessarily; the powder keg in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and the eastern Saudi are more likely to raise tensions between Sunni and Shia.

Also, we've got to draw a non proliferation line somewhere.

It's hypocritical for the US to endorse some countries' status as a nuclear power (India) based on their status as strategically favored, while denouncing others' like Iran. The Iranians are smart enough to realize this.

[phk]

Everyone in the Middle East disagrees except for Iran and Syria.

They wouldn't if Iran was a Sunni Arab state.

[dead0man]

1. I don't think we have any choice in the matter. Iran is making steady progress, and the only thing with even a chance of setting them back would be a disastrous military strike. I read an article in Foreign Affairs recently advocating just such a strike and it was a painful thing to read. It's not a wise option at this point, or at any point for the foreseeable future.

Well Stuxnet slowed them down.  There has been a rash of scientists blowing up on their ride home from work.  There has been quite a few explosions at related industrial facilities.  I don't think anybody knows who is doing it or if it's just random violence and sh**tty safety practices, but I like it better than a military strike.

2. Iran still claims they are only pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The IAEA could still be involved in enforcing that, provided that talks are re-opened. But even if Iran were to test nuclear weapons, it does not follow that Saudi must, as the former is on its own, while the latter is behind US protection. It is just like North Korea has weapons but Japan does not test.

IAEA told us a few months ago that Iran's nuclear program was not peaceful, the IAEA can't enforce sh**t.  Japan can start pumping out nukes in very short order, I believe I've heard it could take as little as a few months.  They already have the facilities, the science and the delivery methods.  I don't think the kingdom is anywhere near as close.

It'd probably increase the tensions between Shia and Sunni countries and lead to an arms race.

Not necessarily; the powder keg in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and the eastern Saudi are more likely to raise tensions between Sunni and Shia.

Can't they both raise tensions?

Also, we've got to draw a non proliferation line somewhere.

It's hypocritical for the US to endorse some countries' status as a nuclear power (India) based on their status as strategically favored, while denouncing others' like Iran. The Iranians are smart enough to realize this.

Yes, that's the only difference between Iran and India :giant rolleyes:

Why do you want a Fundie lead state, that has been funding murder all over the region (and world for that matter) for the last 30+ years to have the ability to make nuclear weapons?

[dead0man]

Everyone in the Middle East disagrees except for Iran and Syria.

They wouldn't if Iran was a Sunni Arab state.

Maybe they'd have a few more fans, but they probably wouldn't have been the giant asshats they've been for the past 30 years either.

[Beet]

Well Stuxnet slowed them down.  There has been a rash of scientists blowing up on their ride home from work.  There has been quite a few explosions at related industrial facilities.  I don't think anybody knows who is doing it or if it's just random violence and sh**tty safety practices, but I like it better than a military strike.

They've recovered from Stuxnet already. Assassinations and industrial sabotage will only do so much, but Iran is now only 9-12 months away from the point where nothing will be able to reverse their capabilities.

IAEA told us a few months ago that Iran's nuclear program was not peaceful, the IAEA can't enforce sh**t.  Japan can start pumping out nukes in very short order, I believe I've heard it could take as little as a few months.  They already have the facilities, the science and the delivery methods.  I don't think the kingdom is anywhere near as close.

IAEA said that there was evidence that they were developing nuclear weapons capability, not that the program was not peaceful. Even if they test nuclear weapons, if it is not used, then it is still peaceful. Alternately, if they develop the capability to create nuclear weapons within a few months, but do not do so and do not test, it is still peaceful as well. As for Saudi, it's under US protection so there is no need for them to do anything. Saudi needs to worry more about its own domestic situation than Iran. The Arab Spring showed the fragility of autocratic regimes; one of them (Libya) was even oil-rich per capita.

Can't they both raise tensions?

In theory yes, but in practice, the events on the ground will be more consequential. Even those who speak in dark terms of Iran developing nuclear weapons frame it in terms of what impact it has on events on the ground. The problem in the Middle East isn't a conventional arms race building up into a feared conventional war, and won't be even after the Iranian nuke. The problem is a zillion intrastate/suprastate conflicts that thrive due to weak national governments and religious sectarianism.

Yes, that's the only difference between Iran and India :giant rolleyes:

Actually, yes it is. The US has no qualms about supporting any kind of state, whether that state is autocratic, nuclear-armed, and terrorist-supporting, or not. Just look at Pakistan; arguably the terrorists funded by Pakistan caused far more harm to direct US persons than those funded by Iran. There is no question that if Iran were the primary strategic counter-weight to China, the US not only would not be objecting to Iran's programs, the US would be sending in Westinghouse to build the reactors themselves. The Iranians know this, and even the Sunni Arabs know this. Realpolitik is one thing, but trying to cloak it up in the moral veil of 'non-proliferation' would be a joke. If the US wants to shift to moral appeals, it might as well directly target Iran's human rights violations and lack of democracy as the primary thrust. It would still be hypocritical, but no more than proliferation arguments.

Why do you want a Fundie lead state, that has been funding murder all over the region (and world for that matter) for the last 30+ years to have the ability to make nuclear weapons?

I don't see that we have a choice. Yes, it would be big news, but a military strike would be a far worse option on multiple dimensions. In that sense, the US isn't really losing anything. Attacking Iran was never going to be a good idea, so a development that makes it even harder really doesn't change anything in the final estimation.

[Lief]

All countries have the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs, according to the NNPT signed by every Western state.

[dead0man]

Well Stuxnet slowed them down.  There has been a rash of scientists blowing up on their ride home from work.  There has been quite a few explosions at related industrial facilities.  I don't think anybody knows who is doing it or if it's just random violence and sh**tty safety practices, but I like it better than a military strike.

They've recovered from Stuxnet already. Assassinations and industrial sabotage will only do so much, but Iran is now only 9-12 months away from the point where nothing will be able to reverse their capabilities.

Which is exactly what the region fears.  The sabotage won't stop it, but it certainly slows sh**t down and breeds fear and paranoia in your enemy.  Which is good, especially in an already scared and paranoid society.

IAEA told us a few months ago that Iran's nuclear program was not peaceful, the IAEA can't enforce sh**t.  Japan can start pumping out nukes in very short order, I believe I've heard it could take as little as a few months.  They already have the facilities, the science and the delivery methods.  I don't think the kingdom is anywhere near as close.

IAEA said that there was evidence that they were developing nuclear weapons capability, not that the program was not peaceful. Even if they test nuclear weapons, if it is not used, then it is still peaceful. Alternately, if they develop the capability to create nuclear weapons within a few months, but do not do so and do not test, it is still peaceful as well. As for Saudi, it's under US protection so there is no need for them to do anything. Saudi needs to worry more about its own domestic situation than Iran. The Arab Spring showed the fragility of autocratic regimes; one of them (Libya) was even oil-rich per capita.

Yep, peaceful right up to the point that the Hezzies blow up Tel Aviv.  Yeah, it probably won't happen, but I can certainly understand their concern.

Can't they both raise tensions?

In theory yes, but in practice, the events on the ground will be more consequential. Even those who speak in dark terms of Iran developing nuclear weapons frame it in terms of what impact it has on events on the ground. The problem in the Middle East isn't a conventional arms race building up into a feared conventional war, and won't be even after the Iranian nuke. The problem is a zillion intrastate/suprastate conflicts that thrive due to weak national governments and religious sectarianism.

Yes, that's the only difference between Iran and India :giant rolleyes:

Actually, yes it is. The US has no qualms about supporting any kind of state, whether that state is autocratic, nuclear-armed, and terrorist-supporting, or not. Just look at Pakistan; arguably the terrorists funded by Pakistan caused far more harm to direct US persons than those funded by Iran. There is no question that if Iran were the primary strategic counter-weight to China, the US not only would not be objecting to Iran's programs, the US would be sending in Westinghouse to build the reactors themselves.

Do you seriously think the only thing keeping Iran and the West apart is the fact that they aren't more strategically located with regards to mainland China?  Yeah, Pakistan is F-ed and we really shouldn't have been playing ball with them, thankfully we are finally learning that lesson, but Pakistan is nowhere near as nutso as Iran.  More bi-polar, sure, unstable, of course, but nowhere near the basket case that is Iran.

The Iranians know this, and even the Sunni Arabs know this. Realpolitik is one thing, but trying to cloak it up in the moral veil of 'non-proliferation' would be a joke. If the US wants to shift to moral appeals, it might as well directly target Iran's human rights violations and lack of democracy as the primary thrust. It would still be hypocritical, but no more than proliferation arguments.

Why do you want a Fundie lead state, that has been funding murder all over the region (and world for that matter) for the last 30+ years to have the ability to make nuclear weapons?

I don't see that we have a choice. Yes, it would be big news, but a military strike would be a far worse option on multiple dimensions. In that sense, the US isn't really losing anything. Attacking Iran was never going to be a good idea, so a development that makes it even harder really doesn't change anything in the final estimation.

I don't see how limited military action against Iran is worse than the serious potential that a seriously powerful weapons could fall into the hands of people that wouldn't hesitate to use them.  Clearly YMMV.  And that's not to say that I think we should attack Iran tomorrow or that I think the West (in whatever combination of states you can think of...there could certainly be some interesting bed fellows) will attack.  Because, as you say, there is some potential for some seriously negative fall out from such an act.  Or it could go swimmingly.  But I guess my point is that it shouldn't be off the table.

(Sorry for the length, I'd edit some of our previous conversation but I'm feeling lazy)

[London Man]

All countries have the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs, according to the NNPT signed by every Western state.

[republicanism]

All countries have the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs, according to the NNPT signed by every Western state.

And if Iran had cooperated with the IAEA in the past and led them control their nuclear program, or agreed to the Russian offer to get non-weapons-capable plutonium from them, nobody would deny that right.

If you, on the other hand, don't cooperate at all, and repeatedly tell the world how much you would love to see an other country in the region disappear from the map, things change a little bit.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

NO.

[Beet]

Yep, peaceful right up to the point that the Hezzies blow up Tel Aviv.  Yeah, it probably won't happen, but I can certainly understand their concern.

Part of me wants to say that if the radical Zionists and the Hezzies want to blow each other up, let them go ahead. If the Middle East had its version of the Thirty Years War, perhaps the folly of religious fundamentalism would begin to be exposed. After all, it was war that destroyed Nasserism, so perhaps war can destroy Islamism as well.

If Israel is that concerned they should do what they can. But the West should not support Israel. I know in the context of American politics I'm talking about castles in the sky, but it's the truth. Israel is nothing but a liability for the US and it grows worse with every single day.

]Do you seriously think the only thing keeping Iran and the West apart is the fact that they aren't more strategically located with regards to mainland China?  Yeah, Pakistan is F-ed and we really shouldn't have been playing ball with them, thankfully we are finally learning that lesson, but Pakistan is nowhere near as nutso as Iran.  More bi-polar, sure, unstable, of course, but nowhere near the basket case that is Iran.

Disagreed. Pakistan is far more of a basket case than Iran. To begin with, Iran at least controls its own territory. But continued Western hostility towards Iran can ratchet up tensions and make what you say a self-fulfilling prophecy. A very bad scenario is that the West continues to huff and puff about Iran but is impotent to do anything about it, resulting in a secret war with a nuclear state.

I don't see how limited military action against Iran is worse than the serious potential that a seriously powerful weapons could fall into the hands of people that wouldn't hesitate to use them.  Clearly YMMV.  And that's not to say that I think we should attack Iran tomorrow or that I think the West (in whatever combination of states you can think of...there could certainly be some interesting bed fellows) will attack.  Because, as you say, there is some potential for some seriously negative fall out from such an act.  Or it could go swimmingly.  But I guess my point is that it shouldn't be off the table.

Well, sure, but we're reaching a decision point, yes or no. The bottom line is, Iran's not going to do anything that it knows would result in its own annihilation (ie, blow up Tel Aviv). A war with Iran would be a disaster. It could easily spin out of control. With Iraq now controlled by Shiites, Bahrain a powder keg, and eastern Saudi a powder keg, it could kick off WWIII in the Middle East.

[ag]

Reastically, "not accepting nuclear Iran", at this point, probably, means occupying it (or, at least, bombing it into the stone age with the goal of provoking a regime collapse and a general civil war). I simply don't see what else can "the West" do to prevent this. Unless something big happens inside the country - about which "the West" will have little say - Iran will have the bomb within the next few years. Some of us may still be going through the denial stage - but, honestly, time to try to figure out how to live with this.

[London Man]

Instead, Israel, the West, Iran, and the other Arab states ought to create a sort of conference and declare that the Middle East is a nuclear weapon free zone, which would of course mean that Israel would have to disarm.

Israel will only disarm if there is a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East - they remember 1973 only too well.

[ag]

Instead, Israel, the West, Iran, and the other Arab states ought to create a sort of conference and declare that the Middle East is a nuclear weapon free zone, which would of course mean that Israel would have to disarm.

Israel will only disarm if there is a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East - they remember 1973 only too well.

Exactly. But, of course, it implies that it has to be ready to have a few nuclear neighbors within couple decades - the technology is no longer that esoteric.

[dead0man]

I'm still confused.  Do you guys want EVERY country that is capable of building nukes to get them?  If yes, what is wrong with you?  If no, what makes Iran special? (bonus points if you can answer without using the phrase "zionist entity")



oh and another Iranian nuclear scientist blew up.  Good.

[dead0man]

Even Russia is coming around now.

Russia joins the global struggle against Iran's nuclear program – The Russian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday expressed regret and concern about the launch of an underground uranium enrichment facility in Iran, but has urged all parties to avoid hasty moves.

The ministry said in a statement Tuesday that the launch of the facility near Iran's holy city of Qom demonstrated that Tehran was continuing to ignore international concerns about its nuclear program.

It added, however, that Iran had notified the International Atomic Energy Agency in due time of the launch of the bunker facility.

The ministry said Russia was urging all parties involved in the Iranian nuclear standoff to avoid "ill-considered and abrupt moves," which could undermine prospects for talks with Iran.

Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that oil producers are willing to increase their output if the European Union ends up issuing an oil embargo on Iran. "Though these states won't say it, they are willing to up the production," he said, adding that Saudi Arabia, the main oil producer in the world, already announced that it would "fill any shortages that might occur."

In Washington, Barack Obama's former Middle East adviser Dennis Ross said that the American president is not ruling out a military option against Iran's nuclear program.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Ross said that if sanctions against the Islamic Republic fail, Washington won't hesitate to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Ross noted that Obama views a nuclear Iran as an imminent threat to the international community, and while using force could carry negative consequences, not using force might lead to even greater consequences.

However, the former adviser stressed that the Obama administration will only use force as a last resort and if it becomes completely imperative.

[Jacobtm]

Iran is right between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Pakistan has allowed the U.S. military pretty free reign in their territory, and we toppled Iraq and Afghanistan's government. They are literally surrounded by the U.S. military.

Can you imagine why they might want a nuclear deterrent?

Maybe if we hadn't made it a habit of toppling so many countries, they wouldn't be looking to North Korea for an example of how to properly defend themselves.

I wish there were no nuclear weapons. But as long as we're invading countries left and right, and have more than enough nukes to kill everyone in the world many times over, how can we be surprised that other countries might want to get into the nuke game to protect themselves from invasion?

Iran's government has already toppled by the U.S. and Britain once. They know we're building up to war with them, it's obvious. They're going to try to protect themselves, because we're going to try to destroy them.

Libya showed what happens when you give up your nukes.

Israel on the other hand, shows what happens when you have nukes. Even if everyone hates you, no one can fux with you.

The wheels are already set in motion, they will get a nuke if they want one.

Or it's all B.S. like Iraq.

[London Man]

Libya showed what happens when you give up your nukes.

Libya never had nuclear weapons.

[dead0man]

S.Africa gave up nukes too, look what happened to them.

[London Man]

S.Africa gave up nukes too, look what happened to them.

No-one really knew they had them though. To paraphrase Doctor Strangelove, "What's the point of a Doomsday Weapon if you don't tell anyone you have it?"