Richard M, one of my favourate American right-wingers, asks on Dalythoughts:
What is the best way to deal with Iran? It seems clear that, no matter what sanction we put in place and what threat we make to them, they are determined to develop nuclear technology. It is highly likely, considering their history of supporting terrorism across the globe, they intend to have nuclear weapons. Can we afford to just “leave them alone” and hope they don’t set a nuke off in Tel Aviv or Boston?
It's usually pointless to discuss the morality of bombing which those from the right - they take it as a given that the U.S. should bomb who who it feels like, provided it's in its best interests, so I respond more pragmaticly:
Since you can’t afford to attack them, it’s not like there’s a choice. Oil is at $72/barrel simply on speculation of an attack.
On the other hand, as long as they allow inspections (which they are) there will be lots of warning before they develop anything truly threatening. Regardless of how annoyed the U.S. is about it, they are adhering to the terms of the NPT. If they stop adhering to the treaty then there might be more support for a military solution. Until then you’ll just have to live with it.
You’ll also have to deal with the fact that any country that wants them will soon have the ability to possess nuclear weapons, if not now then in ten or twenty years. Forget Iran, which is relatively stable, worry about Nigeria, Sudan, or just a random well-funded terrorist group. The technology is over 60 years old and it’s a miracle that it’s been keep under wraps for this long. If you look at it that way then you quickly realize how futile it is to fight these silly wars without addressing larger issues that cause instability.
Dalythoughts seems to have been abandoned, and the page where Richard posted has gotten unwieldy, so I've invited him to continue the discussion here.
26 comments:
Hi Ami,
First I resent your insult that the likes of me can't understand the moral implications of using military force....
I actually don't think we have a moral right to use military force against Iran JUST to prevent them from developing a nuke. The use of military force would require a resonable fear that Iran would actually USE such a nuke against us or one of our allies. In other words, we have a moral obligation for self defense. Of course the statements of Iran's president suggesting that they would wipe Isreal off the map, then turn to the US might be considered reasonable fear, but public statements aren't always backed by action and they currently don't have the capability to back up their bravado.
I also disagree that we can't economically afford to attack Iran. Even with $72 oil, our gas prices are under $3.00/gallon (what's the current price in the EU?). It slows us down a bit, but doesn't really stop us. If you mean we don't have the military capacity to take on Iran, I'd suggest we are capable of defeating Iran's military in short order (much like we did in Iraq). Occupying the country afterwards is a larger strain, but we could do it if the need was great (it's not).
But that's really not answering the question of what the US should do. Right now the EU is taking the lead in negotiations with Iran. I think it should stay that way. There are a number of pressures and incentives that should be tried before any military action is even contemplated. Frankly even if Iran does produce a working nuke, a military solution wouldn't be a good idea unless they use it or make a credible threat to use it.
Welcome Brian! I'm glad you came.
I apologize, it wasn't actually intended as an insult, although I guess I see how it could be interpreted that way.
I might actually invite my friends to my blog at some point, and I don't want them to think that my first concern when discussing the deaths of thousands of people is the price of oil. So my statement was directed more at people who know me and might be shocked that I'm so shallow. It was a disclaimer of sorts.
On a blog like Dalythoughts I know that arguments about Iranian casualties won't get very far, so I stick to more practical concerns.
I'm glad that you would only support military force if Iran threatened to use nukes, but 1) how would you know when Iran was seriously thinking of using nukes? 2) I don't think most people on the right agree with you.
The price of oil is $72/barrel now, even though there has been no actual attack and no reduction in supply. My argument is that the price would go much much higher if Iran refused to export and attempted to blockade the Straight of Hormuz. Oil at $140/barrel would drive the U.S. (and Europe) into a recession.
I have no doubt that the U.S. could bomb Iran into the stone ages, but I don't think you can effectively occupy the country. Iraq was an order of magnitude easier, and that hasn't gone so well either. If you can't occupy it, you can't keep the oil flowing.
As for the talks with the EU, they won't get anywhere. The Iranian government has stated clearly and unambiguously that they will develop peaceful nuclear technology regardless of what anybody else thinks. I don't think it's politically feasible for them to back down from that position now, and there seems to be no way for them to convince the U.S. that they aren't developing nuclear weapons. So it's a stalemate.
There could be progress if the U.S. gave some sort of a reasonable standard of proof that Iran could meet without giving up civilian nuclear technology. I don't think the current U.S. administration will ever provide that.
... Ami.
Ami,
Good to know I'm one of your favorite right-wingers!
As Brian said, I wasn't trying to say "Bomb Iran," but provoke a discussion. The situation is certainly complex, and hasn't gone the diplomatic route that we engaged in for over a decade in Iraq before the invasion.
What's the answer? Well, the best answer would be the same that would have been the case in Iraq: the world community must come out, denounce Iran's actions and threats, then back up the denunciation with a credible show that they will take the necessary steps to prevent them from actually building a nuke and using it on other nations (such as Israel and the US, which has repeatedly been threatened).
In Iraq, all but the last condition was filled. I firmly believe that, because there was no credible show that the UN would in any way back up their demands, Saddam believed it was meaningless, and his continued obstruction of the inspectors forced the US into the position of just letting Saddam do what he wanted or invading. We disagree as to which was more appropriate, and I'll leave the Iraq question at that.
What I hear from you is "Well, Iran hasn't proven they'd actually do what they're claiming, so we can't really do anything about it." Do I misunderstand your meaning? If so, set me straight.
I think you have interesting points concerning nuclear weapons eventually being much more widespread than they are. You're right, it will be the case in the future. That doesn't mean we quit trying to contain it. Crime is (virtually) inevitable, but we make every effort to stop it. I don't know your position on gun control, but almost everyone believes SOME form of restrictions are appropriate, even if it's as minute as an age minimum, can't carry it into court or police stations, or other minor restrictions. I could come up with several other analogies, but I think you get my point.
As for the "morality" of bombing and the idea that we, the "right-wingers," don't care about Iranian casualties, I think you seriously misunderstand the reasoning of the "right." It's not right or moral to just bomb those you don't like. However, I think it's justifiable when doing so will result in fewer people being oppressed and killed than will die from the bombing. It's also justifiable when doing so will prevent a real threat from growing to the point where it can inflict the death and oppression on its neighbors.
Since I've already gone on too long, I'll wrap up. Feel free to bring any point back up you want to discuss further.
Hi Richard! Welcome!
the world community must come out, denounce Iran's actions and threats, then back up the denunciation with a credible show that they will take the necessary steps to prevent them from actually building a nuke and using it on other nations (such as Israel and the US, which has repeatedly been threatened).
Can you give an example of where they have threatened to nuke anybody? They've consistently said they are interested in developing nuclear power, but not weapons.
What I hear from you is "Well, Iran hasn't proven they'd actually do what they're claiming, so we can't really do anything about it." Do I misunderstand your meaning? If so, set me straight.
Glad to set you straight. Iran is claiming that they're only developing nuclear reactors. So your premise is flawed.
Now there will never be a way to prove this 100% either way, but if you want to place some sort of conditions on Iran, then come up with a standard of proof that you will accept that still allows them to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
The only solution I can think of is some sort of inspection scheme. This is in place today, but obviously it's not enough for the U.S. What would be enough? Put something on the table that doesn't restrict Iran's ability to pursue peaceful technology and maybe there would be a chance.
... Ami.
I don't think we're so far apart on this one. But I'll try to answer your comments.
" 1) how would you know when Iran was seriously thinking of using nukes?"
Good question. First they have to actually have the capability. Right now, no one believes they have actually built a working bomb, but most governments seem to believe they are working on one. Until there is credible evidence that they have actually built a bomb, this is a non-issue. If they were to take military action against a neighbor, then the act of working on a nuke might be considered enough of a threat to justify using the military to destroy thier nuclear program.
Assuming they DO complete a bomb, then we'd have to make a judgement call based on thier public statements and whatever intellegence was available. As we found out in Iraq, Military Intel is often wrong so it's a judgement call.
"2) I don't think most people on the right agree with you."
Really? I haven't heard for serious calls to bomb Iran from those on my side of the spectrum. But then I don't read the more rabid right wing sites.
"The price of oil is $72/barrel now, even though there has been no actual attack and no reduction in supply. My argument is that the price would go much much higher if Iran refused to export and attempted to blockade the Straight of Hormuz. Oil at $140/barrel would drive the U.S. (and Europe) into a recession."
I agree that much of the current high price of oil is based on fear rather than any real shortages (though there's not much excess capacity in the system). If Iran refused to export, it would cause a spike in oil prices, but probably not double the current high price. I don't think their output is enough of the world's supply to cause that. However, I don;t doubt that $140 oil would cause a worlwide recession.
If Iran attempted to blockade the Straight, that would probably be considered an act of war by most of the UN security council (not to mention the Arab countries that use it).
I agree with your assement of the potential outcome of the EU talks. It's likely the outcome would be the same with the US leading them too. If there were some way for Iran to prove that they were not building bombs, only civilian reactors, they wouldn't be a concern. Unfortunately, they've rejected every proposal that would limit their activities to only peaceful purposes. Their rejection of Russia's offer to enrich their uranium to fuel level specs but not weopons grade comes to mind.
Brian: Building a bomb is trivial once you have enriched uranium. Fortunately the infrastructure for enriching uranium is pretty massive, so it should be possible to detect when uranium is enriched beyond what is needed for nuclear energy.
I have no idea how high the price of oil would go, but the demand is fairly inelastic. People have to get to work. So even a small decrease in supply can have a large effect.
Blockading the Straight of Hormuz is certainly an act of war, but so what? If you're being bombed anyway then you don't have much to lose.
Iran hasn't rejected the measures that are actually required of them under the NPT, namely inspections.
... Ami.
"The only solution I can think of is some sort of inspection scheme. This is in place today, but obviously it's not enough for the U.S. What would be enough? Put something on the table that doesn't restrict Iran's ability to pursue peaceful technology and maybe there would be a chance."
You make it sound like it's only the US that is concerned about Iran building bombs. The EU negotiations are based on the belief that they do have a weopons program. Are they only negotiating to sooth our concerns? Iran has at various times said they are only building civilian nukes and at others times that they have the right to build bombs. They can't have it both ways. There have been proposals that would allow them to build power plants, but not bombs (see the previously mentioned Russian fuel proposal). They have accepted some proposals, then rejected the them a few days later.
Brian: Honestly, I think the EU is at least partially in this to sooth the U.S.
I don't recall Iran ever saying that they have the right to build bombs. They do keep saying that they have a right to nuclear technology, which is certainly true under the NPT. That's why countries signed the treaty to begin with.
I agree that the Russian fuel proposal seemed like a reasonable compromise, but Iran is negotiating from a position of considerable strength. If you want them to accept restrictions beyond what's required in the NPT then there needs to be some sort of incentive. Maybe a non-agression pact from the U.S. would do the trick.
... Ami.
Ok, I can see at least one area we're having communication problems on this, and it's my fault. I will attempt to correct this.
First, let's be clear about what Iran is saying. Iran is saying (A) nobody will stop them from having nuke tech (not necessarily weaponry), (B) their program is for peaceful means, and (C) they want to destroy Israel and the US. Perhaps there are other things, but I think these are the most important at the moment. Feel free to add anything that is relevant.
We can be assured of (A) through their actions, and (C) isn't the kind of talk that should simply be dismissed, especially when it's repeated many times to many audiences. In fact, (C) seems in opposition to (B), especially when you consider their forces wouldn't be capable of (C) if they really meant to follow (B).
I firmly believe they want nukes in order to sell or use them to destroy the US and Israel. I think their belligerance on this issue, and rejection of any plan (such as Russia's, which I think would be acceptable) that's been proposed shows this. Their extensive history of state-sponsored terrorism, as well as their pledge to support the terrorist Hamas gov't, is at best problematic, and at worst a direct threat to the world.
As for some sort of monitoring plan, I have two words for you that should show why that's not a good idea: North Korea. If you want more details, I'll be happy to provide them.
As for the most reasonable solution, I'd go with what Russia has proposed. It allows them a peaceful program (which they don't need for energy purposes, but that's beside the point), but also makes production of weapons-grade material nearly impossible. Sure, it's not my preference, but I already know I'm not going to get what I want out of this.
Care to address my response to your morality question?
Richard: I suspect that Iran would like to have the option to get nukes at some point in the future, but actually possessing nukes is useless for them, and frankly, too risky:
1) They can't actually use the nukes because they would be wiped off the face of the earth.
2) If anybody found out that they did possess them then they would, at the very least, be subject to heavy sanctions. (Which is one reason not to impose sanctions now - you lose that deterrent.)
As for the morality question, the bar you set is very low: "will prevent a real threat from growing to the point where it can inflict the death and oppression on its neighbors".
By this standard you can bomb anybody.
... Ami.
Richard: Regarding North Korea....
My understanding is that they developed whatever weapons they have after inspectors left. Are you saying there were actually inspectors on the ground that missed the developments?
Richard: I suspect that Iran would like to have the option to get nukes at some point in the future, but actually possessing nukes is useless for them, and frankly, too risky:
I wholeheartedly disagree, Ami. For a current example, let's shift to North Korea for a minute.
Back in '94 (or sometime around then), North Korea was making the same comments (minus annihilating the US and Israel). We made two nuclear facilities for them, with certain restrictions (inspections, mainly). When they decided the time was right, they kicked out inspectors and proclaimed that they did, indeed, have nukes. Further, they have started using those nukes as bargaining chips. Threats of sanctions have been met with threats to use/sell the nukes, and the int'l community has done nothing.
Do you have any reason to believe the same thing won't happen in Iran? I have several reasons to think it would, or would be worse. Iran has, for decades, been a known state-sponsor of terrorism. Their elected leader is known to have participated in terrorist actions (the Iran Hostage Crisis), and continues to make hostile claims and threats. Need I go on?
I don't believe Iran is worried about the consequences because they have plenty of precedent to show that nobody will do anything to them if they get a nuke and threaten to use it.
As for the morality standpoint, you are wrong that my conditions that make bombing justifiable could be applied almost anywhere. I think, however, I need to further define "real threat" to show what I mean.
A "real threat" would be one where the leadership has displayed undisputably brutal and repressive behavior towards their own nation (such as Saddam's gassing the Kurds, the mass graves, etc.), has the capability to inflict serious damage on its neighbors and has demonstrated a real desire to do so. Under this criteria, we couldn't bomb any EU nation, Russia, China (they seem willing to not invade Taiwan at this point), Syria, and so on. The key to this is the instances can't be ambiguous.
As to North Korea, my understanding is that they had just about everything ready to go before they kicked out inspectors. All they needed to do was actually put it all together. As your other post points out, it's getting the materials that's the problem, not putting it all together.
Richard: Yes, as I understand it they had things ready to go and actually started enrichment after the inspectors were kicked out. My point is that, as long as you have people on the ground, it's pretty difficult to hide enrichment.
In my view what happened in North Korea is a classic case of the U.S. overplaying its hand. The U.S. never eased sanctions, so it had no bargaining chips to play when North Korea pulled out of the NPT. All stick and no carrot is useless.
Iran is currently a developing country with actual economic ties to the rest of the world. They have something to lose if they go too far.
Also keep in mind that the president isn't a dictator like Kim Jong-il. I don't understand how the power structure works (it seems horribly complicated, and I doubt what's written down reflects actual practice), but the president certainly can't go invading countries by himself.
Under your moral critia, would bombing the U.S. would be ok? The U.S. has a history of supporting terrorists (the Taliban, for example), has recently invaded another country, and is threatening to do so again. And nobody can argue that it's not a threat militarily.
... Ami.
Under your moral critia, would bombing the U.S. would be ok?
Ok, you missed the "undisputably brutal and repressive" factor. There aren't systematic murders, there isn't massive censorship of opposing views, and so on.
Do you want examples of why Iraq fit, Afghanistan fit, and why I think Iran doesn't (yet, but getting closer)?
Iran is currently a developing country with actual economic ties to the rest of the world. They have something to lose if they go too far.
I think they believe the world needs them more than they need the world. If you think you have the advantage, why be fearful of losing anything? Also, if you don't think anyone would actually act against you, why worry about empty threats?
In my view what happened in North Korea is a classic case of the U.S. overplaying its hand. The U.S. never eased sanctions, so it had no bargaining chips to play when North Korea pulled out of the NPT. All stick and no carrot is useless.
Hold up a minute. No carrot? We were sending them massive amounts of fuel and food, as well as building the nuclear power plants for them. That was a pretty big carrot, imo. By their own words, while we gave them that carrot, they were working on the tech they needed to build nukes.
Richard: Yes, as I understand it they had things ready to go and actually started enrichment after the inspectors were kicked out. My point is that, as long as you have people on the ground, it's pretty difficult to hide enrichment.
Perhaps you are more informed on this than I am. My understanding is that they already were enriching a small amount and to a certain quality (not sufficient to build bombs) before kicking the inspectors out. Am I wrong about this?
Also keep in mind that the president isn't a dictator like Kim Jong-il. I don't understand how the power structure works (it seems horribly complicated, and I doubt what's written down reflects actual practice), but the president certainly can't go invading countries by himself.
You know, you're right about that. I don't think he would be able to invade another country without the express approval of the theocracy (which I presume he has). I don't think he'd be talking the way he is if he didn't.
You know, I forgot one other criteria for making bombing justifiable: A reasonable amount of effort is made to resolve the concerns through diplomatic means. A reasonable amount would likely involve at least several months, if not years, of efforts used to dissuade the leader of the nation.
As for theoretical casualties in Iran (and actual casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan), I think every single death of coalition forces or of civilians is a tragedy.
Hi Ami. Congratulations on starting your own site. (Hi Brian and Richard, too. The active thread at Gerry's site *has* become a bit sluggish lately.)
I think I approach this issue from a somewhat different perspective from what's been discussed above. For starters, I don't believe that the Iranian government is just itching to immolate foreign nations with nukes, which unfortunately is the belief that the Bush Administration and the US right are pushing. As Ami noted, if they did use nuclear weapons against Israel or some other nation they would become an isolated nation at war with the world - and would lose that war.
I do suspect that Iran wishes to create nuclear weapons - or at least the capability of quickly producing them - as the ultimate goal of their nuclear program. The country sits on top of one of the largest known reserves of oil in the world, and if their interest was simply in modernization then they could build a huge - and quite efficient - infrastructure based on the use of that oil. However, I simply don't see Iran using their future nuclear weapons aggressively unless they're pushed into desperate straits (i.e. not until after a foreign army invades, and even then only if it looks like defeat will be certain otherwise).
There's a common and widespread perception in the US - not limited to the right - that the Iranian government is an unstable group of wackos. This is fed in part by most Americans' last real perceptions of Iran: the seizing of the American embassy in 1979 and the ensuing hostage crisis. However, Islamic rule of Iran has now lasted as long as the reign of the Shah after the CIA helped eliminate his enemies in 1952, and the nation is far more stable than it was during the Shah's final years. The leaders know what they're doing - for the most part - in running a country.
Here's a link to an interesting article discussing Ahmadinejad's posturings on nukes. Eli (the author) points out that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric can largely be explained by domestic and regional political considerations which outweigh global political concerns. I'd add to this that calls by Iranian leaders for the destruction of Israel can also be explained by this: it costs Iran nothing to make the threat (they're already pariahs) and if some poor (mostly Palestinian) schmucks decide to turn up the heat on Israel either through suicide bombs or other forms of violence that doesn't hurt Iran's interests one bit.
Good to see you here, Indy!
What I really don't get about your position (or Ami's) is the assumption that the development of nukes by Iran would cause them to be isolated by the world community. I think recent current events in the world point to nothing happening to them in that case. Also take into account that they have something the rest of the world wants (oil), and I don't think they fear any isolation.
Now, the question becomes what happens if they use a nuke. I think they understand that there would be serious consequences for that if it's tied directly to them. Because of that, I think they'd sell the nuke to a terrorist organization, then claim they weren't involved when it was detonated. Given an excuse, I think most nations would simply turn the other way.
As for the political leadership, I think they want a confrontation. Why? Because they think the other side will back down, and to be seen facing down the rest of the world will increase their influence in the ME. It's the same template as Venezuala's Hugo Chavez encouraging the harassment of the US Ambassador (which has been videotaped) (the harassment, not Chavez encouraging it) in Venezuala. Have I missed something?
What I really don't get about your position (or Ami's) is the assumption that the development of nukes by Iran would cause them to be isolated by the world community.
I've made no such assertion, Richard.
Now, the question becomes what happens if they use a nuke.
They would then become an isolated nation at war with the world - and would lose that war.
I think they'd sell the nuke to a terrorist organization, then claim they weren't involved when it was detonated. Given an excuse, I think most nations would simply turn the other way.
That defense didn't work for the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11, and then we were only talking about jets and 3,000 dead civilians. Deaths from such a terrorist nuke would (presumably) be far greater. The US and UK wouldn't let them get away with that, and neither would the Russians, given their ongoing war against Muslim rebels in Chechnya. I think even the French would see the wisdom in not turning a blind eye to a nation which supplies nukes to terrorists.
As to your last paragraph, I view the aggressive rhetoric of Ahmadinejad and Chavez mostly as a ways of keeping or enhancing their domestic power by using the US as a foreign bogeyman and the fear of that bogeyman as a ways of quelling opposition in their nations. It's really no different from Bush and his jingoistic warmongering on the same topic, both in purpose and in tone. After all, is there any justification for the US using a first strike nuclear attack to take out Iranian facilities which are still years away from producing enough material for an A-bomb? Not among civilized people. Bush is pushing this issue right now with an eye towards the 2006 midterm elections, hoping once again to use fear to manipulate the electorate into electing a Republican Congress.
Welcome Indy! Great to see you here!
Thanks for that blog link, I think it was very astute and informative.
I have to run to catch a boat, but I'll start an open thread and hopefully you guys will stick around for the weekend and keep things alive while I'm gone.
... Ami.
Ok, that was an incorrect assumption on my part, Indy. Your post clearly stipulates use, not just creation. My apologies.
Perhaps I missed it, Indy, but I don't remember Pres Bush claiming he was going to use a nuke first strike on Iran. I remember him saying all options are on the table and members of the press bringing up that option, but not Pres Bush proposing it.
The rhetoric of Chavez and Ahmadinejad is very different from Pres Bush's "all options are on the table." One is "Death to the US," and the other is "We'll do what it takes to stop them from nuking people."
Here's my vision of what would happen if Iran develops a nuke: Iran sells the nuke (possibly a suitcase nuke) to a Hamas-type group (very possibly Hamas, but any terrorist group bent on Israel's destruction will do). This group sets it off in Tel Aviv, causing massive death and destruction. Iran is immediately suspected, but it's a suitcase nuke, which is Russian tech (some of which are missing). General confusion on the true source reigns, but the UN eventually comes down (maybe within a week) with a condemnation of the attack and sanctions on Iran. An inspection is begun to find if any uranium is missing in Iran, with the full sanction of Iran (to "prove their innocense").
In the meantime, radicals in most ME countries (specifically Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and so on) either seize power or already have control of the country and unite behind Iran (they are likely behind the bombing, and want to join in the jyhad against Israel).
Once the general upheaval settles down within a month, threats to cut the world off from oil come up if they don't lift sanctions immediately and cease inspections. Consensus can't be reached in the UN, and any invasion of Iran would be an invasion of the entire ME. The US and several allies invade, and other nations (China and N Korea, for instance) invade their neighbors, putting us in a position to either abandon the other nations or abandon any hope of success in the ME.
Richard, I see several problems with your reasoning. First, I'm not at all convinced that Iran will turn over nuclear weapons to terrorist groups once they have them. Second, I don't think that radical groups would successfully seize power in all - or even most - of the nations you list; at present radicals control none of those nations. Third, I do not see nations which are predominantly Sunni and Arab following the lead of Iran, which is Shia and non-Arab, even if they are led by radical Islamists.
What's happening right now is a lot of extremist blustering by the leadership of both nations, and the main purpose of that blustering is to mute domestic opposition (for instance, the more Bush and his domestic allies can raise fears about Iran, the less attention will be paid to their incompetent management of Iraq). You're right that the Bush Administration hasn't positively affirmed that preemptively nuking Iran is one of the options they are considering, but when asked specifically whether this is something they are considering their response is "all options are on the table" which to me is a tacit admission that preemptively nuking Iran is an option being considered.
Indy,
As for your first point, I think Iran would hand off nukes if it got them what they wanted. Certainly they'd keep some for themselves, but they'd make some to sell, too.
Your second point is a legitimate point of contention, but ultimately I disagree. Saudi Arabia basically holds the radicals off by buying them off, and I think they'd fall if the thugs took a shot. Iraq is already almost in the terrorist camp, if we believe things there are as bad as you think they are. Why wouldn't they fall? Syria is run by radicals already.
None of those countries would fall without a spark, but I think the first shot in jyhad against Israel (a nuke suitcase set off in Tel Aviv, for instance) would do it.
As for the other countries not following Shi'as, they would do it if they went to war with Israel. If presented with a chance of destroying Israel, most Islamic groups would follow anyone giving leadership.
All of what I suspect is based on various Islamic groups hating Israel and Israelis. Could be I'm wrong, but remember that almost no ME country acknowledges Israel exists in the ME (oh, sure, some like Egypt have diplomatic relations and say they acknowledge Israel, but that's not what they teach their children, as illustrated by their textbooks showing the country Palestine where Israel is, and Israel nowhere to be found).
I'll agree that the bluster is partially for domestic consumption, but I don't think that's all of it.
Finally, don't you think there's a world of difference between blatantly advocating the destruction of another nation and refusing to rule out a nuclear strike, but only when the question is thrown at you? I don't think it's responsible for us to say "No, we won't nuke under any condition," as there could be a situation that may call for it. I'd consider it a last option, but I'd never rule it out.
Richard, I'll turn your question around. Don't you think there's a world of difference between a government that's actively considering a preemptive nuclear strike - against a non-nuclear nation, no less - and a country whose leaders have rattled on publicly for decades about destroying certain non-Muslim nations without ever actually attempting to put their rhetoric into action? Iranian support for groups fighting Israel to date has been similar in nature to US support for groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua or Marxist Angolan government back in the 70's and 80's: some money, some training, some weapons, and a lot of moral support to the locals whose continued fighting is in the nation's interest.
Clearly, we disagree on what the Iranian government would do were they to build nuclear devices. I, for instance, do not see the Iranians turning over nuclear devices to terrorists to do with as they please under any circumstances. If the Iranians ever build nukes they would want to retain control over when and how they are used, and by giving these devices to terrorists they would be giving up that control.
Indy,
Where are you getting the BS about the US using a first strike nuke asgainst Iran? No one with any sense is suggesting such a thing.
Some people are suggesting the use of surgical air strikes on their nuclear facilities (conventional) or sending in the 4th ID, but it's FAR too premature and unjustified to really do anything like that.
Don't you think there's a world of difference between a government that's actively considering a preemptive nuclear strike - against a non-nuclear nation, no less - and a country whose leaders have rattled on publicly for decades about destroying certain non-Muslim nations without ever actually attempting to put their rhetoric into action?
I think your premises (is that a word?) are incorrect in this statement. I don't think we're actively considering a nuclear strike, just refusing to declare it's out of bounds. I don't think the idea would even be out there if reporters didn't continually ask a question they already have the answer to.
Also, I think Iran has, in fact, been actively trying for Israel's destruction through funding various terrorist groups who have the goal of destroying Israel, and have been doing so for decades. Saddam did the same think with openly funding the families of bombers engaging in murder. I think the only reason they haven't been more obvious about it is because they know (A) they'd lose against Israel, and (B) after losing, they'd be shunned by the ME countries (for losing) and the rest of the world (for invading).
As for whether they'd sell a nuke or not, I think they'd be careful about wo they sold it to. They'd probably only sell it to one or two of the orgs they've been funding for the last 20-30 years. I'd say Hamas would be a likely person to sell it, because they've funded them for a long time and now they run the Palestinian gov't.
Post a Comment