Asherman wrote:. . . what policy would you advise if Iran ignores international pressure to cancel its nuclear weapons program and let that be completely verified by a competent team under United Nations supervision?
The alternatives seem to be:
1. Stop Iran, by one means or another, from acquiring nuclear weapons that will destabilize the region and threaten world peace.
2. Let Iran build and test nuclear weapons to their hearts content, and take the risk that they will not use those weapons to threaten, blackmail, or make a first-strike attack on some other nation
Which is your solution? Alternative One, or Alternative Two. There may be a third alternative, and I'd be interested in what it might be.
Your two alternatives are misleading because there is no proof that Iran is engaged in a "nuclear weapons" program.
Both the United States and Iran are parties to the NPT. International law allows Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes. Iran has the right under international law to develop its
nuclear energy program. This program is monitored by an international police dog.
The United States has no authority to allow or disallow Iran from doing what it has a right to do under international law. If the United States bombs Iran, the United States will be committing an atrocious war crime in violation of international law.
It may disturb you to contemplate this, Ash, but it is entirely possible that in this situation, a failure of diplomacy would leave the United States powerless to legally intervene in Iraq. I do not consider that any other than a legal intervention is acceptable, and failing intervention authorized by the United Nations through an adherence to the Charter, i consider that the United States would be powerless to intervene. I further consider that the United States cannot afford any further illegal wars.
****************************
Apparently, MM, your reading skills are very poor as well. It has been pointed out to Tico and to you, and you both have sedulously ignored, that the Iraqis developed, deployed and used womd subsequent to the 1978 Israeli attacks, and that, subsequent to that deployment and use, and before the 2003 invasion, a war took place, which ended Iraq's womd programs, for whatever the ambitions of the Ba'athists may have been.
Once again, do try to keep up, will ya?
Debra_Law wrote:Your two alternatives are misleading because there is no proof that Iran is engaged in a "nuclear weapons" program.
I know you are aware that England, France, and Germany, disagree with your staunch belief in Iran's peaceful intentions.
Quote:As of February 2006 Iran formally announced that uranium enrichment within their borders has continued. Iran claims it is for peaceful purposes but England, France, Germany, and The United States claim the purpose is for nuclear weapons research and construction.
LINK
And of course you are in conflict with the US government. Read these remarks from John Stern Wolf, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Nonproliferation with the US State Department:
Quote:Take the case of Iran. Iran is an NPT party. It has a safeguards agreement in force. It has signed the Additional Protocol, but continues to delay the early ratification to which it committed last fall. It claimed it would act as if the Protocol were in force, pending ratification, although the March 30, 2004 IAEA Note indicates that Iran continues to try to circumscribe access. It remains for the IAEA to say whether Iran's performance has improved since - we are doubtful.
It is clear now that for 18 years, while portraying itself as in full compliance with the NPT, Iran violated safeguards, engaged in deception and denial, and conducted undeclared, clandestine experiments in all sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran's pattern of deception and denial continued even after the commencement of investigations by the IAEA; we believe it continues to this day. Iran grudgingly admits to facets of its sprawling secret nuclear program only when confronted with evidence that disproves its previous denials. In at least one instance, it delayed an inspection until it could "sanitize" the facility in order to conceal evidence of its unsafeguarded enrichment activities from the IAEA.
Last year I spoke based on U.S. information. This year the IAEA has confirmed these facts. The conclusion is inescapable: Iran is continuing to dissemble and deceive. In the two years since Iran's clandestine program first came to light, and six months after the IAEA Director General confirmed Iran's "breaches of its obligations to comply" with its safeguards agreement, cooperation only comes grudgingly and in response to having been caught. As the IAEA has confirmed, many troubling questions about Iran's nuclear activities remain unanswered.
Legitimate peaceful nuclear activities do not require denial and deception. The NPT regime contemplates the possibility of providing nuclear assistance to those who abide by their Treaty commitments and seek assistance for genuinely peaceful purposes. No country with peaceful nuclear intentions needs to engage in the duplicity and dishonesty that characterize Iran's relationship with the IAEA. Iran still claims that it has no interest in nuclear weapons. At the Second Preparatory Committee, in 2003, we heard several statements from Iranian representatives that Iran's nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. Evidently, we were to believe that Iran's covert, nuclear program was peaceful - contrary to ample evidence of military involvement and weapons intentions. The United States believes that the facts, taken as a whole, show that Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons, and that this intent coupled with the clandestine activities reported by the IAEA lead to the conclusion that Iran has violated Article II as well as Article III of the Treaty. How long will the international community accept Iran's dissembling and deceit regarding these violations of core obligations?
LINK
Setanta wrote:Apparently, MM, your reading skills are very poor as well. It has been pointed out to Tico and to you, and you both have sedulously ignored, that the Iraqis developed, deployed and used womd subsequent to the 1978 Israeli attacks, and that, subsequent to that deployment and use, and before the 2003 invasion, a war took place, which ended Iraq's womd programs, for whatever the ambitions of the Ba'athists may have been.
Once again, do try to keep up, will ya?
Wrong. I have not ignored the fact that Iraq developed, deployed, and used WMD subsequent to the 1978 airstrike, and your assertion of that fact either shows your inability to comprehend what you read, or your willingness to mislead in these fora.
If that were so, Tico--and it is not--you would not have attempted to assert, as MM has attempted, that i contradict myself in saying both that the Israeli attack did not end Ba'athist womd programs, and that there were no womd programs in Iraq in 2003. Yet you have attempted to claim that i have so contradicted myself--willfully ignoring the occurence of the 1990-91 Gulf War, and its subsequent UN resolutions and inspections regime. The evidence of your constant attempts to mislead in these fora is inescapable.
Setanta wrote:If that were so, Tico--and it is not--you would not have attempted to assert, as MM has attempted, that i contradict myself in saying both that the Israeli attack did not end Ba'athist womd programs, and that there were no womd programs in Iraq in 2003. Yet you have attempted to claim that i have so contradicted myself--willfully ignoring the occurence of the 1990-91 Gulf War, and its subsequent UN resolutions and inspections regime. The evidence of your constant attempts to mislead in these fora is inescapable.
This discussion started when you made the remark that absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Since we have a historical precedent, I pointed out that Iraq was prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons because of the 1981 (not 1978) Israeli airstrike. What event, if not the airstrike, did more to cripple Iraq's nuclear ambitions? The Gulf War? The subsequent UN resolutions/inspections? No, those came too late .... it was the airstrike on the reactor, a maneuver you insist we should not attempt in Iran. The loss of that reactor seriously damaged Iraq's nuclear program. It is quite likely that had Israel not taken that action, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons in 1991.
You characterize it as a short-term solution -- which it is -- yet even though the "short-term solution" was effective in Iraq, you insist it won't be effective in Iran, and we shouldn't try it. You discount the effectiveness of the airstrike, characterizing the 1981 attack and a future attack on Iran's reactors as comparing apples to oranges
vis-a-vis who was constructing the reactor: Germany (although it was actually France) vs. Iran. Nevertheless, the 1981 airstrike was effective, as you are forced to admit.
1. The United States is not engaged at this time in any "illegal wars", nor has it been in recent memory. The Gulf War was "concluded" with a Cease-fire conditioned upon certain Iraqi promises to comply with conditions. Iraq failed to comply with the conditions, acted in an obstructive manner to prevent inspections required by the Cease-fire, and fostered the international belief that it either still possessed WMD (in violation of Cease-fire conditions, or was in the process of obtaining them). These violations were continuous and extended over more than a decade over the increasing objections and concerns of the United States and the U.N. After 9/11, Iraq was given numerous warnings and opportunities to fully comply with conditions of the Cease-fire. Saddam apparently didn't believe that the U.S. had come to the end of its patience and would take serious direct action. U.S. intervention in Iraq was clearly legal, if unpopular with those who favored letting Saddam continue to stir up trouble in the region.
2. DebraLaw writes, "Your two alternatives are misleading because there is no proof that Iran is engaged in a "nuclear weapons" program." It is possible that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but that would contradict their own statements, and their production of highly refined weapons-grade radiological materials. If they aren't interested in building nuclear weapons, why have they so eagerly sought the advice and assistance of nuclear experts in Pakistan and Korea? They may truly be interested only in the generation of atomic power for peace, but since they are sitting on top of one of the worlds largest oil reserves why the rush to construct plants whose primary purpose seems enrichment, not generation of electricity? The DPRK, an Iranian ally< fooled UN nuclear inspectors while producing nuclear weapons, so might the Iranians efforts be hidden away. Iran may be as innocent as the new driven snow, but it doesn't seem so in the eyes of many experts around the world who have become increasingly alarmed at the Iranian program.
The burden of proof, in this case, lies with the Iranian government. To deceive the world into believing that they wish to acquire nuclear weapons, and that the Iranian governmnent strongly favors any measure to insure the absolute destruction of Israel, is dangerous ground to tread.
3. Set, why not just simply say that you favor leaving Iran to develop and test whatever nuclear weapons it pleases? Diplomatic efforts to get Iran to curtail its nuclear weapons program(s) have been made, and are continuing. One may hope that they will see the danger of their path and step back. That isn't very likely given the totality of the circumstances. The inability of the UN to get Iran to abandon their efforts to build nuclear weapons is highly probable. That only leaves two alternative: Intervene in some manner, whether are not "legal", or two; leave the Iranians to develop and test nuclear weapons.
Once that choice is made, it implies acceptance of certain risks. If Iran is left to acquire nuclear capability, and later makes a first-strike on Israel, what response options will then exist? If Islamic terrorists explode a nuclear device in Los Angeles Harbor, and the radiation signature shows the weapon to have originated in Iran, what options do you think any administration will likely follow? Is the risk of thousands, perhaps millions, of lives worth the risk of Iran having possession of nuclear weapons? If you must choose between two bad alternatives, do you choose the one that will immediately cost say, a thousand lives, or instead to you choose the alternative that may a short time later cost a hundred thousand lives? These are not easy choices, and there is NO RIGHT answer in the absence of perfect knowledge. Nor is the choice one that can, or should be made, by a poll or plebisite.
4. The word "subsequent" is far too easy to mislead. We were taught in a course on legal writing to avoid that word as an invitation to having our briefs challenged and likely overturned on appeal. Clarity demands use of words that are unambigous, and the current disagreement between Set and Tico are a pretty good demonstration of that premise.
Asherman wrote:1. The United States is not engaged at this time in any "illegal wars", nor has it been in recent memory. .... U.S. intervention in Iraq was clearly legal, if unpopular with those who favored letting Saddam continue to stir up trouble in the region.
I don't think we should start arguing about that again and again - continuous repitition doesn't change the facts: it was a war without UN mandate.
I don't think a "limited" air strike is an option. For several reasons.
I'd agree that we have a historical precedent. The 1981 strike on the Osirak reactor definitely harmed Iraq's ability to acquire nuclear WMD. The downside to this is that Iran has noticed this, too. And therefore, Iran has spread its research to at least two dozen sites throughout the country. And we are not talking about sites like the Osirak facility. Given the lack of reliable humint from Iran, I would doubt that the US have the ability to destroy each and every site in one swift attack.
Next problem: the United States are vulnerable. Not in terms of military capability. But in several other ways. Like using its influence among the Iraqi Shiites. Or using its influence on Western oil markets. Iran currently supplies 4 million barrels a day. If Iran would chose to remove that share, there would be no way it could be replaced, in short term. If the OPEC countries would go to their limits, they could replace something like 1 million barrels. Not enough.
But the gravest danger is, I think, that a direct attack would backfire. Like, in a grand-strategy sense. Certainly, it might slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. In a best-case scenario. But it would probably rather unite the country behind efforts to actually get a bomb. After all, when your country is attacked in a first-strike, aggressive attack, you are apt to see the necessity for defense that goes beyond conventional weapons. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians would see a US first-strike attack as an aggressive act of war.
It would be a diplomatic disaster--but I still think people aren't giving propers to Iran with Nukes.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Asherman wrote:1. The United States is not engaged at this time in any "illegal wars", nor has it been in recent memory. .... U.S. intervention in Iraq was clearly legal, if unpopular with those who favored letting Saddam continue to stir up trouble in the region.
I don't think we should start arguing about that again and again - continuous repitition doesn't change the facts: it was a war without UN mandate.
For one who doesn't think we should start arguing about that again, you seem to be doing a fine job of it.
Ticomaya wrote:
For one who doesn't think we should start arguing about that again, you seem to be doing a fine job of it.
Just experience - improved by learning from your responses.
old europe wrote:But the gravest danger is, I think, that a direct attack would backfire. Like, in a grand-strategy sense. Certainly, it might slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. In a best-case scenario. But it would probably rather unite the country behind efforts to actually get a bomb. After all, when your country is attacked in a first-strike, aggressive attack, you are apt to see the necessity for defense that goes beyond conventional weapons. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians would see a US first-strike attack as an aggressive act of war.
Certainly the preferred course is for the UN to grow a pair and draw a firm line in the sand. Of course the UN has shown itself to be a paper tiger in the past, so that's probably not going to happen.
Lash wrote:It would be a diplomatic disaster--but I still think people aren't giving propers to Iran with Nukes.
I don't think it would be a
diplomatic disaster. That's more or less what we are having now - referral of the matter to the UN Security Council etc.
I'd say it would rather be a strategic disaster. It would ultimately demonstrate to everyone that there is a
necessity to be prepared against an agressor. By all means available. And if the other side has nukes, you better had nukes, too. If the other side is willing to attack you in a first-strike attack, you'd rather be prepared to do the same thing. That nutjob Ahmadingsbums was, after all, elected in the most democratic election in Iran's recent history. People see a
need to be prepared. To be armed. Because if you're not... well, just look at Afghanistan. Or Iraq. And then, have a look at North Korea.
Ticomaya wrote:old europe wrote:But the gravest danger is, I think, that a direct attack would backfire. Like, in a grand-strategy sense. Certainly, it might slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. In a best-case scenario. But it would probably rather unite the country behind efforts to actually get a bomb. After all, when your country is attacked in a first-strike, aggressive attack, you are apt to see the necessity for defense that goes beyond conventional weapons. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of Iranians would see a US first-strike attack as an aggressive act of war.
Certainly the preferred course is for the UN to grow a pair and draw a firm line in the sand. Of course the UN has shown itself to be a paper tiger in the past, so that's probably not going to happen.
Agree with you on the first part of your statement. However, when you describe the UN as a paper tiger, that might, in part, be owned to the efforts of rather influential nations to repeatedly undermine the UN's missions.
Apart from that, the course the UN took re Iraqi WMD seems to have been rather successful.
OK. I see how you characterize the misstep of acting.
Would you address the consequences of not acting?
Asherman wrote:1. The United States is not engaged at this time in any "illegal wars", nor has it been in recent memory.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The invasion of Iraq constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is signatory, and which organization was created by the United States to facilitate its war effort in the 1940s. There is no United Nations Security Council Resolution which authorized any nation to go to war with Iraq for an alleged failure to comply with the inspections regime, and there is no
good evidence that Iraq was not complying with the inspections regime in late 2002 and early 2003.
Lash wrote:OK. I see how you characterize the misstep of acting.
Would you address the consequences of not acting?
No, you don't see. You assume, incorrectly, that acting = "preventive" military first strike.
