nuclear bump

Nuclearisation promises Iran freedom from direct western interference, which is why it has been one of their primary goals for decades now. I doubt they would sacrifice that independence for the destruction of Israel, particularly when the destruction of Israel would mean the inevitable failure of the Shi'ite master plan.

particularly when the destruction of Israel would mean the inevitable failure of the Shi'ite master plan.

If it isn't the destruction of Israel and its allies, then what is the Shi'ite master plan? I always the destruction of Israel WAS the Muslim master plan, the one getting brown sheets soiled in the middle of the night, the jihadist's wet dream.

If it isn't the destruction of Israel and its allies, then what is the Shi'ite master plan? I always the destruction of Israel WAS the Muslim master plan, the one getting brown sheets soiled in the middle of the night, the jihadist's wet dream.

Okay... I'm sure this is something you'll cover later in the course if you do any Arab diplomacy. There's a big difference between the goals of Shi'ia Islam and the goals of the largely US-style-secular Sunni states. I think it would take too long to explain here.

about two years ago, i found an english translation of an irani publication recounting the events of a gathering (retreat? convention? can't recall exactly) of what was characterized by the translator as iran's major revolutionary guard student organization.

among the key speakers was a guy identified (once again, by the translator) as an unofficial--due to being considerably older and not a student as i recall--but very powerfully influential mentor or shotcaller. in his speech, he promised it would not be that much longer before iran would be able to produce easily portable nuclear devices with which someone (or a buncha someones) sittin among them today would very likely be selected for the honor of evening up the score with those who'd ripped off iran in the past. he then predicted first on the list were anglo-saxons.

i wish i could find it again. i've spent a while searching but so far no good.

i wish i could find it again. i've spent a while searching but so far no good.

Am I allowed to believe you at face value because what you're saying fits with my preexisting mindset? Or do I have to wait until you confirm that?

The fear isn't really that Iran will start a nuclear war with anyone. That doesn't happen, obviously. The fear is that they will point their missiles, and then do what they like, with all the rest of us knowing that if we make much of a stink they'll fire them at Israel.

It's like gambling with a big stack. You can't bluff with a few chips. You go all in and the other guy laughs because he can absorb the damage. The damage they could do to Iran before they were stopped now isn't small, mind you, but it isn't anything that would put a black mark on history.

If you look at international politics, nuclear weapons are just bluff material. If they decide to invade, say, Lebanon later, the US would be vastly more hesitant to get involved. Why? Mainly because Iran wouldn't even need to fire a missile. They could just load it onto a boat and hand it over to someone in an undisclosed location.

The Middle East is sitting there, bristling with weapons and hate, and the only reason they can't attack Israel is because there is a nuclear imbalance. If both sides were nuclear powers, no one would want to use them and face the same in return, so it shifts back down to military might.

So, for that reason, a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranians would most certainly mean attacks on Israel. Non-nuclear attacks, mind you, but then what are you gonna do about it, huh? It's like fistfighting someone while their brother holds a gun on you, and your brother holds a gun on him. You're gonna be a lot less apt to disrespect the Marquis of Queensbury. In terms of standard combat of numbers and strength, Israel is at a disadvantage when dealing with the Arab world as a whole.

I tend to mostly agree with Bakerstreet.  Iran cares less about Pakistan, India and China.  None are a direct threat to them, and again, neither are american allies to the north and west.  But they are a counter balance to Israel and would give them a carte blanche for non-nuclear agression.

Except, the wild card here are the mad mullahs.  They really have no conception of global politics, and since they ultimately control Iran, they could go off half (or full) cocked and use them.  I think that joker in the deck is what has most of europe and Israel most concerned.  And I beleive with good reason.

An increase in power by any state should be treated with suspicion and should be dealt with as soon as possible. Assume the possession of power means an intention to use it.

Iran's motives and intentions are clear. They announced yesterday that they are enriching uranium to the level which is used in light water reactors. Keep them centrifuges running, and guess what you've got?

The scary thing about Iranian nukes is that they fully intend to use them.

There is no way they would spend the time and resources to enrich uranium, metallize it, and NOT use it. They ain't gonna sit on these nukes. They can hit Israel - target #1. If they could hit the US with SCUD technology, they would - target #2. They certainly could cripple the oil market by blowing up some Saudi or Kuwaiti fields or refineries - target #3.

So unless we'd like to see Israel (and perhaps some competing Mideast oil fields) turned into glowing glass craters, the international community had better get off its collectively-secure butt.

I thought it was because they hate Freedom™. That's what the President says.

An increase in power by any state should be treated with suspicion and should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Then who is going to deal with the United States in it's constant attempts to increase power and dominance in the world? I think you probably meant "An increase in power by any state other than the United States should be treated with suspicion and should be dealt with as soon as possible." Otherwise, I'll take your statement as it stands as giving blanket permission to any nation in the world to do whatever they can in "dealing with" the power of the United States. Including building nukes.

Probably more like "should be treated iwth suspicion by everyone but its own citizens, who are quite properly trying to increase their own power".

This puts the whole issue back in the realm of competition between different cultures, value systems, and communities. And that is exactly where this issue should be dealt with.

Of course each nation should concern itself with increases of power by its neighbors, and deal promptly with such increases as best it can.

And if it can't deal? Then consign it to the ash-heap of history, with all the other failed states and ideologies.

Iran deals with increases in U.S. power by sponsoring terrorism and actively working to undermine U.S. interests. This is as it should be.

The U.S. deals with increases in Iranian power through geopolitical means such as the U.N. security council, and also by threatening direct use of force. This is also as it should be.

Finally, both nations will reach some sort of compromise. To the extent that the Iranian people rule their own nation, they can choose for themselves how they will compromise with the Americans, and vice-versa. (To the extent that people don't rule their nations, their first order of business is to revolt, even if it means paying with their own blood for their children's freedom.)

But all this is the way of the world. I'd have a big problem with it, except that it seems to be hard-wired in human nature, so there's not much to do except make the best of it and stop whining.

"Then who is going to deal with the United States in it's constant attempts to increase power and dominance in the world?"

Every state does, even our allies. While we hug up to Britain, we have nasty trade disputes with them. While we rattle sabres with China over Taiwan and their horrid human rights problems, we offer them most favored trade nation status. Saudi Arabia invites us in when it is in their interest, and when it isn't they make the strategic decision to deny us presence there.

You can't think this is a one way street. No one can stop us from having nukes, granted, but that isn't because they don't feel they have the moral obligation, it is because they simply can't do anything about it. Why do we have horrid trade imbalances, we're just lax? Of course not, we're being leveraged.

Just go back and look at our relationship with France for the last 50 years. A piddly nation that has no capability to invade us and impose their will, with a population akin to California, and a GDP to match. The timeline of our relationship, though, is a pock-marked battlefied of attack and counter-attack in terms of international diplomacy and economics.

That's how they deal with us, and if you look at our steel industry, gas prices, etc., I think you'll find they do a lot more harm than you think.

I see your point, Baker, and I'm hoping to have time to come back and talk about it some more later.