Jump to content

The Iran nuclear crisis


Recommended Posts

As some of you know, the USA and European Union are putting pressure on Iran because of its nuclear programme. The BBC is covering the crisis here.

 

Iran is arguing that it is only interested in nuclear technology for power generation purposes, but it is worth remembering that Iran has vast oil reserves, and it would be cheaper to make use of its oil than develop nuclear power plants without Western technological help.

 

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons bearing in mind that it has a leader who has made some very aggressive rants against Israel and Iran is almost certainaly helping the insurgents in Iraq?

 

This time, I don't think the USA will launch an invasion without strong support from the international communiy as the American armed forces are overextended across the world, however a few bombing raids are another matter.

 

What I find ironic is that Iran is probably trying to develop nuclear weapons to prevent an American led invasion, but in doing so is making the prospect of such an invasion far more likely :lovetammy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Iran wants to contribute to the terrorism scene, then a few nukes would achieve that. How they would deliver them, I don't know: any launches would most likely be shot down. Suicide bombers with nukes attached really do pose a serious threat, however, I don't know if you could make such an explosive that portable.

 

Can anyone see Iran invading America, with their huge armies and technological weapons? They aren't even threatening to do so.

 

Having nukes might deter an invasion, though. Although it would be difficult to fire them on neighboring countries, it would be very easy to use them inside Iran and nearby. Wouldn't be my first choice of a defensive weapon, but I reckon it'd work.

 

Can anyone see America invading Iran, with their huge supply of oil and their bad international image? I'll bet Saddam would say yes.

 

More likely, if they were planning on making nukes, they would stockpile them. Much like the USA and USSR have been doing for however long now (the leaders of both being roughly as trustworthy as that of Iran). I mean, look what happened with Iraq - turns out Saddam was true to his word after all, and the only ones with weapons of mass destruction were the American forces invading.

 

Then there's the possibility that the plants are, in fact, for power generating, or even medical and research purposes. The fact that Iran has oil supplies doesn't really change the odds here, because I'd say it's much better idea to export the oil then it is to make your own people pay top dollar for it (as they are less willing to do so then those outside the country).

 

That and it would help reduce pollution, which could raise the image of Iran amongst other countries of the world. So long as nothing goes wrong, nuclear power is far more green then coal or oil burning.

 

When you get right down to it, no one knows, and the only way to find out is to either trust them (the "risky" way) or invade them (the "safe" way). Which do you think people will choose?

 

I find it vagually humorous that everyone acknowledges that if an invasion does begin, it'll be sparked off by Bush. You're right though, he'll need better international support this time around. It's all a matter as to whether he gets it or not. Even if he doesn't, I'd say it's a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is arguing that it is only interested in nuclear technology for power generation purposes, but it is worth remembering that Iran has vast oil reserves, and it would be cheaper to make use of its oil than develop nuclear power plants without Western technological help.

 

 

I seem to remember Britain finding oil and then selling it as the profit generated outweighed it's usefullness.

 

Lets be honest, I, just like the Iranians am worried that America will take over the world.

 

If Iran begin a terror campaign they could be wiped from the planet in the blink of an eye by the west so I don't see it as a problem. The bigger worry is will the west want all that lovely oil and will they make up lies and stories again to get at it? And then there will be even more crazy terror groups popping up in our lavatories.

 

Leave it alone but keep a close watch on it is my feeling. In the mean time get everything in place for target practice. :lovetammy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons bearing in mind that it has a leader who has made some very aggressive rants against Israel and Iran is almost certainaly helping the insurgents in Iraq?

 

That's just a local political tactic. Iran's leaders are rational, like all world leaders. They have no intention of commiting suicide, and not will use nuclear weapons in any roll aside from a deterent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just a local political tactic. Iran's leaders are rational, like all world leaders. They have no intention of commiting suicide, and not will use nuclear weapons in any roll aside from a deterent.

 

 

I really don't think so either. In the case of Iran using nukes, everybody and their grandmother would just be ITCHING to retaliate the same way. It would be the end of Iran.

 

However, according to an aquaintence of mine who has worked in the region (Iran, Syria, Saudi etc.) as an engineer for 15 years, the long-bearded bastards in Teheran would actually like for a limited-scale war with the Americans. They feel the pressure of liberal forces within Iranian society, and figure that a nice little war with the Great Satan would be just the thing for uniting the Iranian people under their leadership once again. If that is true, then bombing Iran might be unwise for the Americans.

 

They should stage some kind of coup in Iran, if they're not actively trying now. It worked in Chile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India and Pakistan both developed nuclear weapons last decade, and so far they have managed to avoid nuking each other despite the continuing problems over the ownership of Kashmir. America and the Soviet Union managed to avoid a nuclear war during the Cold War despite idealogical differences and the disintergration of the Soviet Union, so there is reason to hope that the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine (or MAD for short) will hold true with Iran as well.

 

Along with many people, I can't help noticing that the nuclear stand-off started when America and Britain led by Tony "This is the first generation that will never experience war" Blair invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. As the military dictatorship of Pakistan has gone from being an enemy of democracy to a valued regional ally when 9/11 shifted international priorities, Iran is feeling a little bit surrounded at the moment. Hence, Iran is well motivated to help insurgents in Iraq and develop nuclear weapons.

 

However, according to an aquaintence of mine who has worked in the region (Iran, Syria, Saudi etc.) as an engineer for 15 years, the long-bearded bastards in Teheran would actually like for a limited-scale war with the Americans. They feel the pressure of liberal forces within Iranian society, and figure that a nice little war with the Great Satan would be just the thing for uniting the Iranian people under their leadership once again. If that is true, then bombing Iran might be unwise for the Americans.

I find this worrying because recent US administrations have not had a good record of understanding the situation of the Middle East. The highlights reel for Iraq includes:

 

1. Arguing that an invasion of Iraq was necessary because of all those WMDs. The failure to find any WMDs has convinced many people that Bush & Blair are liars.

 

2. Erroneously thinking that killing Uday and Qusay Hussein meant finishing off Saddam's dynasty. Sorry, but his heir apparent was/still is Ali Hussein, who has a lot of respect from the tribes living near the SYrian border because that's where his mother comes from.

 

3. Not realising that Saddam wasn't bluffing about invading Kuwait back in 1990. Saddam felt he had no choice because Kuwait was causing a glut in the world oil supply (thus hurting Iraqi exports) and Iran was dragging its heels about demobilising its forces. Saddam regarded America as his ally back then and he asked the US ambassador if America would object if it came to war. If the ambassador had said "We would object, but here's a few million dollars to keep your country ticking over in appreciation of your sacrifices in containing Iran", the Iraq related problems of the last 15 years would have been entirely avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of the USA staging a coup of some sort is a laugh. They still haven't sorted out the fallout from hte last one they put in place.

 

I don't think the morale of the US forces is up to handling another theatre of operations.

 

I think the US would be going in alone if they decided on an aggressive solution. Even the UK is now wary of following in their shadow when it comes to intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that Iran's an entirely different case from Iraq. Not only would invading Iran just tell the entire world that United States was waging war against Islam, Iran also has a decent military. Saddam hadn't gotten around to rebuilding his since Kuwait. Iran would lose, but the conflict would most likely inflict ten times the casualites on US Forces that Iraq has caused, and the American public couldn't take that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A news article came on showing a whole bunch of Iran folk apparently chanting "death to America", and it seems this time Germany isn't against invading. I guess we're going to war, then.

 

This is an interesting one, because no one can claim it's a "liberation" mission. If invading Iran can be "justified", then everyone will consider the Iraq invasion justified by default.

 

I hate to admit it, but I can't see any easy solution to this. Whether or not Iran gets invaded, there's going to be trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try to keep this post simple I've broken into down into parts:

 

1) There are still some 10,000 nukes placed on missiles all over the world, ready to be fired upon minutes. All it takes to fire them is for one side to think that it is under attack and WW3 nearly started a couple of times because of bogus alerts.

 

2) I see no moral authority on those countries who possess nukes and now want to stop others from having them. It can be argued that Iran is ruled by crazy fundamentalists but mistakes happen and stupidity is not restricted to authoritarian regimes. Plus, the Non-Proliferation Treaty states that nations should dismantle their nuclear weapons, something that is conveniently forgotten when applying it to other countries.

 

3) Iran has all the cards. It can be attacked or even invaded to prevent it from developing nukes but it would send the price of oil skyrocketing and would most likely turn the entire area into turmoil. It has vast oil reserves that China and India and the rest of the world want, it has its own uranium and most likely the knowledge to build bombs.

 

4) What would it do with the nukes, if not attacked? Well, it would be bloody stupid to give them to terrorists: a) they could lose track of them and finding the nukes being used against themselves; b) any nuclear detonation could be examined to find out the origin of its fuel. Retaliation would surely follow, and the same if it decided to eliminate Israel, since it has some 200 nukes of its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting one, because no one can claim it's a "liberation" mission.

 

Dude, GWB can rape a 10 year old girl on national TV and then claim that he was liberating her from her oppressive virginity with his Penis of Freedom. If the government wants this war, it sure as hell wouldn't be difficult for them to conjure up some justification or other AND make it look good to the American public.

Say what you want about ole Georgie, he certainly knows his propaganda better than anybody else in the western world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he will struggle to get support this time though. In view of the lack of Iraqi WMDs, it is going to reqire a lot of effort to convince the American people and oher countries that an invasion of Iran is neccessary of the grounds that it is developing its own WMDs. Think of the little boy who cried wolf.

 

Even trade sanctions will be hard to impose because the world has to get oil from somewhere, and the Iraqi oil industry has been severely disrupted by the ongoing war there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fairly old news. Apparently, Blair tried to talk Bush out of bombing some TV station that Bush thought supported terrorists.

 

The station did get bombed, American forces deny it was intentional.

 

Some journos leaked the story of the conversation and so got arrested for hindering military progress or something.

 

Why is it that the more Bush's image gets shot to pieces, the more likely it seems he'll get another term in office? He must have figured this out, as he's not improving. :lovetammy:

 

Edit:

 

Various news articles, some relevant, some just interesting.

 

Britons charged over 'Al Jazeera bombing' leak

Georgian jailed over attack on Bush

US rules out Iran military action

Bush urges peaceful Iran resolution

US bans new talks with Iran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that's what everyone said last time around..

 

I think it's time I enlighten you as to a little piece of legislation that President Truman enacted, in which he limited all future presidents to being able to serve no more than two terms in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's time I enlighten you as to a little piece of legislation that President Truman enacted, in which he limited all future presidents to being able to serve no more than two terms in office.

 

If a president put the rule in place, why couldn't another president remove the rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran's leaders are ANYTHING but rational, they are hard line nutjobs who've squashed the younger generation's attmept at liberalization

 

Eliminating an internal political threat. Vicious, but certainly rational. It's in the current governments best interests.

 

and their premier has publicly called for Israel to be wipe dout...

 

Buying local support. Again, perfectly rational. Politicians always say things that don't intend to do.

 

The theory of rationalism is quite clear. A state will always act in its own best interests, and there's no scenario where deploying nuclear weapons is in your own best interest. Suicide rarely is in your own best interest.

 

If a president put the rule in place, why couldn't another president remove the rule?

 

It would require a constitutional ammendment, which is an incredibly difficullt thing to pull off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...