"Iran's nuclear Ambitions Topic, revisited" Topic

My first computer back in the early '90s was a Commordore Amiga 500, and I remember wasting away hours playing this highly addictive game:

link

It was such great fun. Note who's on the top left of the screenshot below.

Terrement:
Iran wants nuclear power and may also want nuclear weapons. If they are willing to live with the sanctions in order to get what they want, then they will. The ability of the West to enforce sanctions upon Iran is rapidly diminishing as railways, pipe-lines and road networks are being built and completed in Central Asia as we speak. Iran will soon be able to ship its resources to customers in Russia, China and India economically. The creation of new banking transaction systems to prevent US/Western interference in the financial dealings of other countries is now up and running, so the US will not be able to effectively impose financial restrictions on Iran in the next few years.
Rapidly the only options left to delay Iranian acquisition of a nuclear bomb programme will be military action. But limited military action holds no hope of delaying the Iranian programme by more than a few years. Such military action would likely backfire as it would anger the Iranians so much that they decide that the only way to prevent future attacks is to accelerate the programme and further harden Iranian nuclear facilities.
Thus, the only effective way to stop the Iranians from developing the technology and materials necessary for making nuclear weapons would be a full scale invasion and occupation of Iran to methodically find, disable and destroy an Iranian nuclear Infrastructure. And what about the nuclear scientists and technicians who work in the Iranian nuclear industry? They have broken no laws and are guilty of no crime. What would an occupying force do with them? Kill them? Imprison them? Deport them and forcibly resettle them some place where they could be watched and prevented from using their knowledge? The US public would not long tolerate such action.
The only logical step is to try and cut the best deal possible while the US still has some sanction based leverage left.
States which are either hostile to or neutral towards Western interests want nuclear weapons as a defense against the very real possibility of Western/US military action being taken against them. They want protection from the propensity of the West to use and abuse military action against weaker states and regional 'super-powers'. No other weapons offer that kind of protection so as long as the West/US continues to use military force capriciously and regularly, there will be a national appetite for these types of weapons in the world.
Let us suppose Iran does decide to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons. Would they use them against the US overtly? No, for that would be suicidal and despite the Western hyperbole and spin, Iran is not a suicidal state. Would they use them against Israel? Despite the Israeli position of Strategic Ambiguity, no one doubts that the Israelis have sufficient nuclear weapons to liquefy the densely populated parts of Iran and still have plenty of weapons left over to deter any other state foolish enough to attack Israel with WMD's. Would they attack their neighbors with nuclear weapons? Why? Since US military action has destroyed almost all the local military forces capable of threatening Iran, they do not need to. They can defend themselves conventionally and expand their influence or direct hard-power in the chaotic wake of US-led-Coallition militarism. Would the Iranians smuggle nuclear materials and technology to third-party, non-state actors who could make dirty bombs or functional atomic bombs with which to attack the West? That would be very unwise since it is within the West's power to trace the origins of such radioactive materials back to their source. 'Suicide by World-Cop' is not Iran's style either.
Perhaps the lesson that we in the West must learn quickly is that the opportunities for lashing out at states we disagree with by diplomatic, economic and most especially by militarily means are diminishing rapidly and use of military force will only accelerate hostile and neutral states' desires to acquire a nuclear aegis to protect against such militarism. As Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a chang'in". The US and the West will no longer be able to act like a mono-polar global superpower and the world knows this. The West must now adopt new strategies to promote its interests as it can no longer piggy-back on an exhausted US military and treasury to act as a bully-boy for Western interests. New and creative thinking is needed to build a new tool kit with which to influence the world. Diplomacy, humility, generosity cooperation and consensus-building are the way to the future. We need Metternich's and not MacArthur's now.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod's right. There needs to be a "paradigm shift" in our thinking that we have to resort to military action whenever a perceived "hostile" power like Iran or N. Korea pursues nukes. These countries' possessing WMD's isn't the end of the world and we should not overeact and make things worse, like what happened in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are limits to our power when it comes to keeping nuclear proliferation in check and the sooner we realize that Bush's "New World Order" is over the better.

So in this new paradigm what specifically do we do to deter North Korea or Iran from using nuclear weapons? Also, what do we do if they use nuclear weapons against an American ally? What do we do if a non-state actor uses nuclear weapons that we are reasonably sure came from Iran?
Are you saying that we should allow every nation to have nuclear weapons that want them? Should Cuba, Venezuela be permitted nuclear weapons? How about Argentina, or Egypt, or the new Yemen? Perhaps the non-proliferation treaty is now null and void?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

When did we go from "Iran will not get a nuclear weapon" to, "yes, they are eventually going to get one, even though they claim they don't want one, and ignoring that little ballistic missile program they're working on, but, so as long as it doesn't occur on my watch, that'll be okay"?

[Note – that is a rhetorical question, so no answer is needed, since I already know it]

"That would be very unwise since it is within the West's power to trace the origins of such radioactive materials back to their source".

That used to be true, however, , that is incorrect.

Bunkermeister:
The first question which should be asked is why do nations such as Israel, Pakistan and North Korea want nuclear weapons? It is a defensive impulse to protect themselves against attack from super-powers or hostile neighbours. If China can live with a nuclear armed N. Korea right next-door and Pakistan and India can restrain themselves from going nuclear at every outrage or dispute which breaks out between those two nations, then I think the world and the US will just have to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if that is what Iran chooses to do.
The smarter move might be to try and remove reasons for medium sized powers to want nuclear weapons, by changing economic and geo-political approaches to dealing with foreign nations. If the West and Russia can find their way to deescalate the threat they pose to most nations politically, economically and militarily then the many medium powers might think that nuclear weapons are not worth the trouble or expense of having them. As long as the West and Russia adhere to traditional predatory militarism to achieve their goals then the incentive to go nuclear will be strong and there will be no forcing of the Djinn back into the bottle.
What right does any state or small club of states have to set themselves up as the decision maker for whether other nations can arm themselves with any kind of weapon? If the world decided that the US and the Russian Federation must disarm their nuclear arsenals completely do you think for a moment that either state would agree to such outside pressure. No.
If you want Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Egypt and perhaps even Yemen to not pursue military nuclear programmes then be a part of creating a geo-political system where such nations feel safe enough to forgo such aspirations. The US, France, Britain, Russia, China have no right to tell or force nations to do what they dictate.
Had not the Anglo-American coup foisted an illegal and brutal pro-western royal government upon Iran in the early 1950's then it is unlikely that Iran would have ever signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and would be free to pursue its own nuclear programme with out Western interference. I think when seen from the the Iranian perspective the NNPT was always void as no national consent was ever present and the treaty was signed by what most modern Iranians consider an illegitimate puppet-regime.
Non-state actors will be a problem no matter what happens in Iran. With the disappearance of so much nuclear material and many nuclear weapons out of the collapsing Soviet Union it is likely that Non-state actors will one day get their hands on such dreadful weapons. If they use them then there will be consequences for any nation which helped them. However such consequences must come from a consensus of states to punish the guilty and not be a unilateral and perhaps misguided attack on whatever axis-of-evil state is the flavour of the day (such as Iraq in 2003).

Mako 11:
As you know we don't live in a perfect world and that is why nations have vigorous and effective foreign intelligence services. Such services would eventually figure out who was behind such an attack and then the responsible state backers of the attack would be identified and punished. It might take months or years but it would eventually happen.

Terrement:
I am inclined to agree with you but, I believe that the US is far more likely to not honour such a deal due to the friction between branches of the US government. So then continue with the sanctions and watch as Iran grows more and more hostile precisely at the time when it can get itself out from under the effects of Western sanctions. It will still have that extra revenue to spend on its nuclear programme and will also have a bigger chip on its shoulder. What has been achieved?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson

Rod +1.

Most Iranians don't hate the US. If you think so, you're wrong. And lifting sanctions will remove one (big) reason for those who do hate us, to hate us – or propagandize against us.

Really south. Way down under, all the way to nether lands. :)

Dan

The folks who do hate us will continue to do so.

A popular revolution put them in power. A popular revolution could take them out of power.

Terrement: "Yeah, I know… but there are things more important than Bruce Jenner's life that the news isn't covering. Lots of other topics as well."

Funny how trivial our news focus was perceived to be, even way back in 1959:

link

Dan