WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now that it has been revealed than Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility and the US,
UK and France have jointly denounced the effort, what is most likely to happen next?

1) Obama, Sarkozy and Brown successfully coerce or cajole the Iranians
into abandoning their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons?

2) Israel launches pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities?

3) Iran demonstrates its nuclear weapons capability by detonating one underground?

I'm betting on #2, because #1 is not going to happen and the Israelis cannot wait for #3.

YES; for them, it is literally a matter of life and death.

It is for us too; think nuclear 9/11.

If Laden had been ABLE to nuke us on 9/11, he 'd have DONE it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I am betting against #2, and I hope to goodness I am right.

Israeli preemptive strikes would be a great win for extremists on all sides.

1 Reply

If Laden had the nukes and the delivery system to do it,
he 'd wipe out all life on the North American Continent.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I am betting against #2, and I hope to goodness I am right.

Israeli preemptive strikes would be a great win for extremists on all sides.

Yeah; will u explain that to SADDAM ?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If Laden had the nukes and the delivery system to do it,
he 'd wipe out all life on the North American Continent.

And if we had some beer, we could have pizza and beer, if we had pizza.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If Laden had the nukes and the delivery system to do it,
he 'd wipe out all life on the North American Continent.

And if we had some beer, we could have pizza and beer, if we had pizza.

Cycloptichorn

Call Papa John; he delivers.

Laden will deliver too, if he CAN.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

What about number 4: Nothing?

1) Without Russia and China signing on, you really can't bring pressure on Iran. The US doesn't have any interactions now, so has no leverage. France and the UK enjoy their US free playground. They're going to talk big and do nothing. Russia and China might take baby steps to putting pressure on Iran, but nothing that's going to be effective.
2) Both the current and the last US administrations have made clear that they do not support unilateral action. Given that the Israelis are already weary of Obama, they certainly aren't going to give him a pretext for lessing his already tepid support for Israel.
3) Iran doesn't have any capability to demonstrate. If they develop it, they will follow Israel's lead and quietly let everyone know they have it without actually demonstrating it. The Iranians are actually fairly astute politicians and know where the real line that they can't cross is.

Iran is going to continue to claim that their nuclear policy is for civilian use, the US is going to continue to say that it is not, Europe is going to continue to agree with the US, Russia and China are going to continue to support the US position in public while dragging their feet and saying that we should pursue a negotiated solution while their companies import Iran's oil and Israel is going to continue to try to get the US to attack Iran. No change.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If Laden had the nukes and the delivery system to do it,
he 'd wipe out all life on the North American Continent.

And if we had some beer, we could have pizza and beer, if we had pizza.

Cycloptichorn

Call Papa John; he delivers.

Laden will deliver too, if he CAN.

What's the point of even bringing this up, in this thread?

I mean, who gives a ****? There will always be people out there who are threats to others. It isn't as if this problem will go away. Getting all afraid about it, acting as if it's some sort of new crisis, is a little ridiculous and reactionary. But, this is coming from someone who derives his sense of personal safety from an inanimate object, so I guess I'm not shocked.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If Laden had been ABLE to nuke us on 9/11, he 'd have DONE it.

Some people like to lump Bin Laden and the Iranian government together. That is a very poor linkage. Iran is very selective on which terrorists they fund and the extent of funding they get. Iran's support for terrorism is based on very rational decisions and is not generally driven by fanatic hatred. I have absolutely no concerns about Iran providing nuclear weapons to Bin Laden. If that is your major concern, I'd sweat Pakistan a lot more.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What's the point of even bringing this up, in this thread?

I mean, who gives a ****? There will always be people out there who are threats to others. It isn't as if this problem will go away. Getting all afraid about it, acting as if it's some sort of new crisis, is a little ridiculous and reactionary.

I think someone could say that about just about every thread. This is as good a topic for an afternoon chat as anything else. You can always ignore it if you're not interested.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What's the point of even bringing this up, in this thread?

I mean, who gives a ****? There will always be people out there who are threats to others. It isn't as if this problem will go away. Getting all afraid about it, acting as if it's some sort of new crisis, is a little ridiculous and reactionary.

I think someone could say that about just about every thread. This is as good a topic for an afternoon chat as anything else. You can always ignore it if you're not interested.

I'm not against the thread, but as you stated above, the inclusion of Bin Laden in the thread - a totally unrelated point.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think Obama should have a 'beer summit' to help iron out these possible catastrophes. Of course, Muslims don't drink beer so that could create yet another set of problems.

And what does Bin Laden have to do with any of this???

1 Reply

@NickFun,

NickFun wrote:

I think Obama should have a 'beer summit' to help iron out these possible catastrophes. Of course, Muslims don't drink beer so that could create yet another set of problems.

A hookah summit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@engineer,

Do you whistle past graveyards too?

Well, we agree on #1, and I'll be quite interested to see if anyone does not.

If you believe that Israel is more concerned with the temperature of Obama's support than nukes in the hands of Iran, then I think that you have gravely misjudged them.

Israeli's do depend upon and greatly value their nation's unique relationship with the US, but I feel certain that they will not roll the dice on their existence, by counting on the US to prevent Iran from attempting to do what its president has called for - wiping them off the face of the earth. Obama may consider Israel a vassal state, but they have repeatedly shown that they are willing and capable to take actions that do not please the US.

They took out installations in Iraq and Syria which they believed presented a nuclear threat, and at least publically, the US didn't approve.

The most pressing influence on their decision to act is not today's revelation (they probably were already aware of the facility), but the impending arms deal between Russia and Iran that will provide the Iranians with the means to shoot down invading Israeli jets. It's quite possible that The US change in policy concerning missile defense in Europe was one element of an agreement whereby the deal might be quashed and an Israeli strike, at least, postponed.

We can be certain that Israel has a detailed plan for carrying out raids on Iran nuclear facilities which they probably could launch tomorrow if they so chose. If they believe the Russian arms deal is going to go forward, I feel certain they will launch their attack on Iran.

Assuming the Russians aren't able or willing to sneak the weaponry into Iran in the middle of the night, Israel will almost certainly delay any decision until after the talks with Iran in early October. I doubt they have any more confidence that we do that the US and Europe can dissuade Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions, but they have to allow the charade to play out.

If politically abandoning the Poles and Czechs was the price to pay for killing the Russian/Iranian arms deal, it will only temporarily prevent an Israeli attack. Iran doesn't need the deal to continue its nuclear program, only to better protect it from the Israelis. With or without the deal, Israel will not allow Iran to go nuclear. Since there's virtually no chance the West can coerce Iran to stop their program, eventually Israel will attempt to do so militarily.

You may be right about Iran not actually demonstrating they have nukes by exploding one underground, but I doubt it.

Israel was low key because a demonstration on their part would have caused a much greater stir internationally than will one by Iran. In addition, Israel developed the weapon for deterrence while I believe Iran is doing so to enable it to expand its influence, and therefore needs to demonstrate what it has. Plus, I don't think they will be able to resist a spectacular show of power.

In any case, whether they demonstrate the capability or not, the effect of their having it will be the same for Israel and the rest of the world.

1 Reply

Can anyone say neuclar deterant. What do you think would happen to afganistan and packastan if the taliban set off a atomic blast in the U.S.. Bush started a war on much less intelligence than we have on the packs and the afgans. They know that if a atomic bomb were set off here our government would have no choice but massively retaliate.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Israeli's do depend upon and greatly value their nation's unique relationship with the US, but I feel certain that they will not roll the dice on their existence, by counting on the US to prevent Iran from attempting to do what its president has called for - wiping them off the face of the earth.

That statement about "wiping them off the face of the earth" is a mistranslation that has taken up a life of its own. What Amadinijhad said was that Israel would fade into the sands of time. The NY Times mistranslated that and Amadinijhad enjoyed the ensusing outrage so much that he didn't bother to correct them. The reality is that Iran is NEVER going to initiate a nuclear attack on Israel because a) they would be completely destroyed by Israel and the US with the complete approval of the world and b) there is no benefit to them. Iran is a very pragmatic country. There leaders routinely act in their best interest as they see it. When that means working with us, they work with us. When it means sticking their thumb in our eye, they do that. Iran as the great Satan is just as much a media and government creation as US the great Satan.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

We can be certain that Israel has a detailed plan for carrying out raids on Iran nuclear facilities which they probably could launch tomorrow if they so chose. If they believe the Russian arms deal is going to go forward, I feel certain they will launch their attack on Iran.

I think that would be disasterous for Israel. You might be correct, but I hope Israel has more common sense than that.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Israel was low key because a demonstration on their part would have caused a much greater stir internationally than will one by Iran. In addition, Israel developed the weapon for deterrence while I believe Iran is doing so to enable it to expand its influence, and therefore needs to demonstrate what it has. Plus, I don't think they will be able to resist a spectacular show of power.

Once again, I think you are lumping Iran in with the petty despots around them. When you look at Amadinijhad you might think of Saddam, but Amadinijhad is not the Iranian government. In many ways he is a figurehead. Iran fully believes that they are developing a weapon for deterence. (Yes, I believe they are developing a weapon). As you point out, they face a very real threat from Israel and feel that only with a counter threat will they be able to keep Israeli planes from their airspace. Plus, detonation of a nuclear device will prop up Israel and drive Sunni Arab states towards the US. Hardly a win for their diplomatic efforts.

1 Reply

ACORN provided the technology for Iran's nuclear program.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now that it has been revealed than Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility and the US, UK and France have jointly denounced the effort, what is most likely to happen next?

Is the facility designed for an energy program or a nuclear weapons program?

2 Replies

@rabel22,

There is virtually no direct threat to the US from Iranian nukes, but that doesn't mean the US and its interests are not threatened by a nuclear Iran.

Presumably we take our alliances somewhat seriously and so any threat to a US ally is a threat to us.

Bush warned the world that terrorist attacks on US soil that can be traced back to any given nation will result in serious consequences for that nation. There's no reason to be certain that Obama subscribes to this doctrine at least unless the connection is irrefutable, and there is no certainty that an Iranian nuke detonated by terrorists in the US can be irrefutably connected back to Iran.

Understanding that history is replete with examples of nations taking actions against their self interests for the promise of increased power or just because of the insanity or stupidity of their leaders how can anyone be sanguine about the Iranians never using their nukes?

It is clear that Iran has designs on being the predominant power in the Middle East and exerting influence far beyond what is favorable to our interests in the region. It is also clear that nukes will go along way towards furthering those designs.

The mere fact that the prospect of a nuclear Iran may lead to an Israeli attack and the geopolitical mayhem that could cause is a reason to not want them armed with nukes.

Let's say a nuclear Iran makes it past an Israeli attack what is the likely response from it's neighbors? Capitulation or their own place in the Nuclear Family.

Are we going to resist Saudi Arabia's efforts to obtain nukes if Iran has them? Will we refuse to help them develop them?

Will Israel be content with the small arsenal of nukes they now have or will they feel compelled to build a deterrent that promises to destroy the entire region if they are attacked by Iran?

It is ridiculous to argue that Iran is incapable of using its nukes, but needs them to deter Israel. Israel is more likely to use nukes than Iran?

Their is no native right to nukes, and there is every reason to prevent new members of the nuke club. That it is represented as a matter of fairness is insane.

The world would be a safer place if no one had nukes. It would be a safer place if only the US had them. It would be a safer place if only the US, Russia and China had them. It would be a safer place if Pakistan and North Korea did not have them. It will be a safer place if Iran never gets them.

2 Replies

WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know