WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT?

@engineer,

Yes indeed I am lumping Iran with all the other bad actors in the world. Why wouldn't I?

Let's see:

They just got finished rigging an election and killing and maiming their citizens who peacefully protested the election fraud.

They are now engaged in the process of imprisoning and torturing not only the Iranians who protested, but members of their families as well.

They routinely imprison any Iranian who criticizes their regime.

There is nothing even approaching a free press.

Religious persecution has been institutionalized.

As a nation, they fund terrorist groups around the region, if not the world.

They are actively engaged in the process of killing American soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Etc, etc, etc.

I have to laugh at those who insist on referring to them as Persians, as if they are, somehow, legitimate heirs to a great civilization. Not that you have, but you do seems bound and determined to grant them a rationality they have not evidenced.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn, you are absolutely right about all the events in Iran... and absolutely wrong in comparing them to countries like Saddam's Iraq or Pakistan. Iran is a brutal theocracy, but it is a controlled one. Iran is the complete opposite of an out of control dictatorship. It is rigidly controlled and rigidly planned. Saddam and his ilk wildly swing about while the ayatollah's are playing geopolitical chess, trying to manipulate the pieces to their advantage. Iran has never directly attacked their neighbors... ever. It's not in their political interest to do so. Of course, they do fund proxies to fight on their behalf (mainly Hezbollah) but they are far from the only country to do this. They typically work in the background and are very careful not to provide their proxies with significant weapons without significant controls. Despite how much you may dislike their government, there is no evidence that they would do something as utterly stupid as supplying a terrorist organization with a nuclear bomb. I think Israel's saber rattling on Iran just served to further prop up the Ahmadinejad by allowing opposition to him to be framed as unpatriotic. To me it looks like Israel and the US get played by Iran on a regular basis. I think the only way to really get a favorable outcome vis-a-vis Iran is to improve our chess instead of raising our fist.

And no, that's not going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon if they are determined to get one, they are just too easy to make. They will succeed just like Pakistan, India and N. Korea. If you really want them to not produce nuclear weapons, you're going to have to offer both carrots and sticks.

1 Reply

"Former Carter National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski made news in an interview implying that the US should be prepared to militarily confront any Israeli planes headed for a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities they suspect to be developing nuclear weapons."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-lipscomb/maybe-brzezinski-is-half_b_294990.html

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

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?

You tell me.

1 Reply

@engineer,

How fortunate for us that they are anal retentive bad guys.

Most dictatorships are rigidly controlled and rigidly planned.

Nazi Germany was rigidly controlled and rigidly planned.

You are making the ridiculous argument that a nation like Iran has some sort of rational reserve.

How many countries would bet their security on the assumption that they could actively aid in killing the soldiers of the most powerful nation on earth and not suffer severe retribution?

Now, as it turns out, it has been a good bet, but are you really trying to suggest that it was the move of a geo-political chess master? What have they gained in comparison to what they might have lost?

There is this absurd fantasy that Hannibal Lectors as people or nations actually exist. They do not. Iran is not some masterfully subtle manifestation of evil. A brutal thug can be shrewd, but he is still a brutal thug and his reliance on violence and oppression will ultimately lead him to disaster.

Perhaps you have confidence in the rationality of the Iranian Theocracy, but I don't and neither does Israel, and if Vegas was taking bets on this scenario, your's would be the long shot by far.

If the US and Israel is getting played on a regular basis by Iran it is because neither country is willing to reduce itself to their level, but this is not something Iran can rely upon forever.

How many times do nations like North Korea and Iran have to play us before we realize they have absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith?

If we don't have the guts to call their bluffs they will continue to have their way. At some point your masterful Persian chess players will get too cocky and go too far. Unfortunately when this happens a great many people will lose their lives in proving me right and you wrong.

1 Reply

One way to possibly prevent any military action by Israel is to place a U.S. miltary base close to Tel Aviv, with the consent of Israel.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

One way to possibly prevent any military action by Israel is to place a U.S. miltary base close to Tel Aviv, with the consent of Israel.

Because US military bases in the Middle East are never attacked.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The world would be a safer place if no one had nukes. True.

It would be a safer place if only the US had them. Bullshit.

Geeze, you forgot Israel. I wonder why, Finn.

0 Replies

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

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.

Do the Taliban have a specific location against which to "massively retaliate?" A specific location is helpful for the deterrent effect to work. The deterrent effect works best when it boils down to "if you nuke our country, we'll nuke yours." It's less effective when the bombers have no specific address. Also, we might not even know who had set off the bomb.

0 Replies

The West should not interfere with Iran's internal affairs for it provides fuel to extremists so the reformists in opposition lose as the Mullahs point to foreign Satanist countries trying to destroy Iran.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

That's a fair viewpoint. And, while not everyone in Iran necessairly wants a nuclear weapon, there is probably not a one that wants the US, or anyone else telling them what they may or may not do.

I don't agree with you, but it is a fair point. I'm not optimistic about those reformists being especially influential, but I've been wrong before.

1 Reply

@roger,

I think GWB really helped the Mullahs by painting Iran as being part of the axis of evil. The reformists and the general Iranian population were just about had it with the mullahs. GWB set back the reformist movement by a decade or two.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

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?

You tell me.

The NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, does not prohibit the development of a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. We cannot assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. More facts must be gathered before we may speculate about "what is most likely to happen next." The options you placed on the table, e.g., launching pre-emptive strikes against the Iranian facility, are highly premature and are reminiscent of condemnable cowboy tactics used by our former president, G.W. Bush.

3 Replies

Interesting phenomenon here:

The conservatives are in power in Iran now. They are nationalistic. They believe that a strong military stance (of which a nuclear weapon could be a part) is necessary. They paint the enemies of their country as "evil" and claim that they are impossible to negotiate with (outside of presenting a military threat).

The liberals in Iran are want the government to talk to other nations (including Israel and the US whom the conservatives consider enemies). They are asking for military restraint and prefer to avoid war.

Not surprisingly, the conservatives in the U.S. want pretty much what the conservative in Iran want. You could take Finn's posts-- change a couple of words (Iran to US for example), and they would be pretty darn close to what the Iranian conservatives say. The Iranian Finn would be ranting about how evil the US is and want his government to take a strong military posture.

Now this is the irony.

The conservatives in Iran help the conservatives in the US get elected (you will certainly see this in next years campaign rhetoric). And, conservatives in the US help the Iranian conservatives stay in power (Iraq has been pretty much the best thing for them imaginable), and talks of Israeli air strikes don't hurt either.

If you want the "reformers" to have any standing in Iran, making sure the corresponding reformers, who will tamp back the bellicose rhetoric and work to open dialogues, the are in power in Washington.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I suggest that Iran has a national reserve because they have demonstrated one. Why don't you feel this way about Israel? Israel has a recent national history of attacking their neighbors and repressing their minority population. They have nuclear weapons. Their actions routinely cause negative diplomatic issues for the US. They actively spy on the US while taking our military aid. Israel is our ally only so long as we support their actions. When we suggest that they are a bit out of line, they scream invective at us. This doesn't bother you?

That is not to say that Israel is bad or even mostly bad, but they aren't saints and their overt hostile actions against other countries in the region are driving them to pursue nuclear weapons. Just like Pakistan and India drove each other to nucs and irrational fear of the US drove N. Korea to nucs, Israel is driving Syria and Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

One thought for you. Iraq had chemical weapons for years. They never used them against Israel. Iran is a far more rational country than Iraq ever was. Why do you think they would initiate a first strike, either directly or through intermediates?

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

The NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, does not prohibit the development of a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. We cannot assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. More facts must be gathered before we may speculate about "what is most likely to happen next." The options you placed on the table, e.g., launching pre-emptive strikes against the Iranian facility, are highly premature and are reminiscent of condemnable cowboy tactics used by our former president, G.W. Bush.

OK, but making a hidden factory for generating peaceful nuclear technology doesn't make much sense to me.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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.

Screw fairness, how about just some common sense? There is no right to prevent them from having nukes either, and in many cases simply no acceptable way to prevent it. If Iran really wants nukes they will have them and there's nothing reasonable that anyone can do about it to stop them.

Quote:

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.

The world would also be a safer place as long as the powers that be continue to recognize that they can't really do anything about it.

If Iran wants nukes no matter what the cost, the only way to stop them is all out war with them. Such a war represents a greater threat to the world than Iran having nukes. It would likely kill as many people as the nuke boogeyman threat could and it just doesn't make sense to kill that many people just on the mere possibility that such a threat exists.

If Iran wants nukes they will have them, and there's nothing that Israel or the US can do to stop them. Quite frankly I think they'd be foolish not to develop nukes given the history of aggression from the nuclear club that want's to try to keep it exclusive and be the only ones threatening people with them.

The greatest threat to world peace is the US. As the most powerful military in history we have very little to loose when starting wars and not much to cause second thoughts. A nuclear deterrent is a no-brainier for folks like Iran and North Korea. We put nukes on the Korean peninsula first and it is foolish to expect nations to accept being threatened by nukes and not wanting to develop their own. They should and they will. They can't deter our aggression with conventional forces, and would spend a lot more money trying to do so, so it makes sense for them to develop a nuclear deterrent.

3 Replies

@okie,

From Okie's link:

Quote:

If the Israeli Air Force can fly 21 times over a clunky freighter with US Navy markings moving at five knots flying three American flags in broad daylight and then spend two hours killing Americans trying to sink it in repeated attacks, our equally clearly marked bases in Iraq are vulnerable to a "mistaken attack" as well.

That's blindingly obvious - and besides, after the WMDs debacle in Iraq and the decade-long slow bleed in Afghanistan, all we need is opening a third front. Does anybody ever look at a map, like where the Persian Gulf is located, and how much of our daily petroleum supply transits through it? Who cares if Iran has a couple of nukes, North Korea got some, so do the Indians, the Israelis, the Pakistanis and counting.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Who cares if Iran has a couple of nukes.

Everybody should care anytime a madman has access to the button, especially when that madman has said that Israel should be wiped off the map. If you lived in Israel, what would you then advocate?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Everybody should care anytime a madman has access to the button, especially when that madman has said that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Quote:

Engineer:
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.

1 Reply

WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN NEXT?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know