Dailymail: Iran is now a 'nuclear state'

[Larry]

Will weinvade Iran if they have nuclear capabilities?

Question isn't "will we invade Iran if they have nuclear weapons?" We all know that the answer is a resounding "No".

Question is "will we invade Iran if they almost have nuclear weapons?"

That's why I don't understand this announcement. It's like they're begging to be attacked.

[Predicto]

Question isn't "will we invade Iran if they have nuclear weapons?" We all know that the answer is a resounding "No".

Question is "will we invade Iran if they almost have nuclear weapons?"

That's why I don't understand this announcement. It's like they're begging to be attacked.

Perhaps because Amawannjihad is afraid of the discontent in Iran, and knows that if the US or Israel does anything overt, the people will rally to the government and the dissident movement will be crushed once and for all and the mullahs will remain in power a few more decades?

He knows that we aren't going to fully invade. We can't. We don't have the troops for a third simultaneous war and we don't have the bases to hit Iran and we don't have the money and we can't afford the international backlash from yet another war against a Muslim nation.

Plus, he knows that a couple of airstrikes aren't going to stop his nuke program, so what's the downside? He probably HOPES for some airstrikes. Nuke delayed for 3 months. Democratic revolution delayed for 50 years. Good trade off.

[twa]

That's why I don't understand this announcement. It's like they're begging to be attacked.

Kinda like Saddam eh?

Are they also betting like Saddam did we will let it ride with token fuss?

Question is will we?

added

Nice breakdown Predicto

Can we change the equation?

[dwbiggs]

Its simple...there is little we can do to keep them from having nukes...so we just leave them with a little warning. Use the nukes against anybody and there will be little left for that maniac to govern. I mean, what else is there...I'm tired of piss ant countries like this extorting us in exchange for not developing nukes while all along doing just that. As I see it, unless we as a country covert to radical Islam I don't see any other way to deal with this.

[jpyaks3]

He probably HOPES for some airstrikes. Nuke delayed for 3 months.

If Israel or the United States goes through with any airstrikes I can pretty much guarantee that the timeframe for Iran's nuclear program will be moved up, they will have everything going as fast as it can to put together a working nuclear weapon. Right now they are taking their time and doing it in a methodical manner but if we or Israel strikes then that timeframe will be accelerated rapidly. I really think at this point neither we nor Israel are going to be able to prevent them from going nuclear and the best option is to engage Iran with the realization that they will eventually be a nuclear state.

[jpyaks3]

Kinda like Saddam eh?

Are they also betting like Saddam did we will let it ride with token fuss?

Question is will we?

added

Nice breakdown Predicto

Can we change the equation?

Saddam is an interesting case because he had to feign that he had weapons to protect himself from the perceived Iranian and Israeli threat without inviting a major attack from the United States, he obviously failed at that and didn't hold the belief that we would invade based on what he was presenting. I don't think this situation is similar I think Iran is posturing but they know and we know that we don't have the ability to invade or depose the regime they are just saber rattling with the Israeli's as they have the past few years. I really don't think a nuclear Iran changes a whole lot in the region, it will obviously move Iran more towards a hegemony with Israel but that process had already began and has been moving in that manner since we overthrew Saddam in Iraq.

[Perky72]

The only reason I object to Iran having nukes is that they're a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If they weren't I really fail to see the problem (at least, no more of a problem than Pakistan, India, and Israel already possessing nukes). But as they are I support sanctions for noncompliance to that treaty.

The risk of Israel or the US nuking Iran is dozens/hundreds of times more serious and likely than the risk of Iran nuking Israel, if Iran does develop a capable delivery system, or before it even does.

Sorry but at some point "preemptive strike" becomes "belligerant and unjustified act of war", and it's reasons are more about maintaining power imbalance than it is in realistic self-defense.

[Chopper Dave]

Iranian politics are complex. This is nothing more than preening and positioning. The whole process is governed by the idea of mutually assured destruction, on more than just a nuclear level.

Iran knows that if they create a weapon and we (we being the US and/or Israel, since our interests are arguably the same) find out about it, we will destroy it. They also know that if they manage to create one without us finding out about it, and they test it, not only will we destroy their nuclear and military infrastructure, but the powers that be that normally tolerate their bull**** like Russia and China will back us in our systematic destruction of their economy, as well. Finally, they know that if they somehow manage to slip a working bomb past us without retaliation, which they can't, and they're dumb enough to use it, which they're not, they will no longer exist. If we don't wipe them off the face of the Earth, which we would, Israel, albeit probably as their death rattle, since they're the most likely target, would turn Tehran into a radioactive parking lot.

So again, Iranian politics is complicated. Both the government and the people have an ingrained belief that they are a major player on the world stage, and they're stuck between the knowledge that they need a nuclear weapon for that to be true, and the knowledge that if they get a nuclear weapon, they're ****ed. It's just tapdancing at this point.

[Predicto]

Iranian politics are complex. This is nothing more than preening and positioning. The whole process is governed by the idea of mutually assured destruction, on more than just a nuclear level.

Iran knows that if they create a weapon and we (we being the US and/or Israel, since our interests are arguably the same) find out about it, we will destroy it. They also know that if they manage to create one without us finding out about it, and they test it, not only will we destroy their nuclear and military infrastructure, but the powers that be that normally tolerate their bull**** like Russia and China will back us in our systematic destruction of their economy, as well.

Just like North Korea?

Finally, they know that if they somehow manage to slip a working bomb past us without retaliation, which they can't, and they're dumb enough to use it, which they're not, they will no longer exist. If we don't wipe them off the face of the Earth, which we would, Israel, albeit probably as their death rattle, since they're the most likely target, would turn Tehran into a radioactive parking lot.

So again, Iranian politics is complicated. Both the government and the people have an ingrained belief that they are a major player on the world stage, and they're stuck between the knowledge that they need a nuclear weapon for that to be true, and the knowledge that if they get a nuclear weapon, they're ****ed. It's just tapdancing at this point.

I agree that it is complicated, but I do not agree that if they build a bomb, they are ****ed. Quite the opposite.

[twa]

. I don't think this situation is similar I think Iran is posturing but they know and we know that we don't have the ability to invade or depose the regime they are just saber rattling with the Israeli's as they have the past few years. I really don't think a nuclear Iran changes a whole lot in the region, it will obviously move Iran more towards a hegemony with Israel but that process had already began and has been moving in that manner since we overthrew Saddam in Iraq.

Oh we could certainly break their back w/o much trouble,predicting the results is another matter:)...invasion is not needed and would be counter productive..

A nuclear Iran changes much and assures more in the area gaining them.

Israel is not the major issue to anyone but Israel;),Iran will continue to use whatever leverage they have to expand influence.

Decision,decisions :fortune:

[Perky72]

Iranian politics are complex. This is nothing more than preening and positioning. The whole process is governed by the idea of mutually assured destruction, on more than just a nuclear level.

Iran knows that if they create a weapon and we (we being the US and/or Israel, since our interests are arguably the same) find out about it, we will destroy it. They also know that if they manage to create one without us finding out about it, and they test it, not only will we destroy their nuclear and military infrastructure, but the powers that be that normally tolerate their bull**** like Russia and China will back us in our systematic destruction of their economy, as well. Finally, they know that if they somehow manage to slip a working bomb past us without retaliation, which they can't, and they're dumb enough to use it, which they're not, they will no longer exist. If we don't wipe them off the face of the Earth, which we would, Israel, albeit probably as their death rattle, since they're the most likely target, would turn Tehran into a radioactive parking lot.

So again, Iranian politics is complicated. Both the government and the people have an ingrained belief that they are a major player on the world stage, and they're stuck between the knowledge that they need a nuclear weapon for that to be true, and the knowledge that if they get a nuclear weapon, they're ****ed. It's just tapdancing at this point.

Mostly correct, and the Iranians are far from "madmen" as is the common scare tactic.

But compare this to Pakistan, who was and is more likely to engage with India than Iran is to engage with Israel, yet "we" allowed to produce nuclear weapons. I disagree that there's no way the US or Israel would allow Iran to produce effective nukes. Not only that the US/Israel is incapable of doing so (which they might be long-term), but that they'd be willing to invade to be sure of it.

This could go like Libya, but Iran has more of a perceived self-defensive reason of their own to actually strive for nukes. They're also in a better position to be a regional power. Finally, they're probably in a better financial position to keep seeking nukes.

Iran is quite a bit farther from Israel than Iraq which Israel has struck before, and Israel alone likely couldn't strike all Iranian production plants. Not with sorties due to range, and they may not have enough ICBMs or ICBMs with nuclear warheads to cover much. Israel turning Tehran into a parking lot isn't really a certain outcome even if that was the intent. Might depend on whether they can get a sub close.

[Chopper Dave]

Mostly correct, and the Iranians are far from "madmen" as is the common scare tactic.

But compare this to Pakistan, who was and is more likely to engage with India than Iran is to engage with Israel, yet "we" allowed to produce nuclear weapons. I disagree that there's no way the US or Israel would allow Iran to produce effective nukes. Not only that the US/Israel is incapable of doing so (which they might be long-term), but that they'd be willing to invade to be sure of it.

This could go like Libya, but Iran has more of a perceived self-defensive reason of their own to actually strive for nukes. They're also in a better position to be a regional power. Finally, they're probably in a better financial position to keep seeking nukes.

Iran is quite a bit farther from Israel than Iraq which Israel has struck before, and Israel alone likely couldn't strike all Iranian production plants. Not with sorties due to range, and they may not have enough ICBMs or ICBMs with nuclear warheads to cover much. Israel turning Tehran into a parking lot isn't really a certain outcome even if that was the intent. Might depend on whether they can get a sub close.

Allowing Pakistan to get nukes is the mistake that creates the precedent for stopping Iran from getting nukes. Unfortunately, we were so heavily engaged with the Soviet Union during the South Asian nuclear arms race that we weren't in a position to stop it from occurring.

I generally agree with your assessment of the situation; I guess where our opinions differ is in the conclusion. First of all, I think you're overstating the self-defense aspect of this. Even at the height of the Cold War the US and the USSR weren't building nukes for self-defense's sake. Neither were India and Pakistan, or for that matter China, really. France and Britain didn't build them for defense purposes either. I don't even think you could call North Korea's nuclear weapons program self-defense driven, though who the hell knows what they're thinking? Israel's is arguably the only nuclear weapons program since WWII to have been implemented for defense purposes. The idea that Iran has a larger perceived need for nuclear capabilities than any other country in the world is wrong, at least at the governmental level; of course Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are selling the working, religious poor a bill of goods that they need nukes to protect themselves from Israel and the US, but it's naive to think that they themselves believe it to be true.

Additionally, though you've agreed with the idea that the Iranian government isn't crazy, you don't seem to give them credit for that lack of insanity. It's why they said they CAN build one, not that they're going to. It's why they've used the stalling tactic of alternating cooperation with non-cooperation. Honestly, it's probably why they don't have one by now.

It goes back to the idea of mutually assured destruction, on every level. Yeah, they can build one, but we will most likely take it out. Even if we don't, if they test it, we'll hit them with every non-military tactic we've got, let alone any possible military retaliation. And, even if they decide to go beyond that, they would have to abandon the realm of sanity to use a nuclear weapon on anyone, let alone a US ally.

Ultimately, it's both easier and equally effective to saber-rattle about creating nukes than actually create nukes. To keep the huddled masses in line, it is in the Iranian government's best interests to be on our **** list, but only up to a certain point. A tangible, working nuclear weapon is that point. We, and the rest of the world, become too much of a problem for them once they've got a bomb, especially since it's a bomb they, and everyone else in the world, know they can't use.

Edit: Also, you seem to know more about the military specifics than I do, so I'll cede you the Israeli-built parking lot point. However, if Iran were to nuke Israel, Tehran would still end up a parking lot; it'd just be made in the US of A.

[Predicto]

It goes back to the idea of mutually assured destruction, on every level. Yeah, they can build one, but we will most likely take it out. Even if we don't, if they test it, we'll hit them with every non-military tactic we've got, let alone any possible military retaliation.

I still don't know why you believe this.

[Smoot Point Really]

"I've come to wish you an unhappy Birthday

because you're evil and you lie

and if you should die

I may feel slightly sad

but I won't cry."

[Chopper Dave]

I still don't know why you believe this.

Because, first of all, it's basically our stated position. I don't really feel like going through all the various policy speeches by various governmental officials over the past however many years saying as much, but they're out there, and I have no doubt you've at least been exposed to a few of them. Even under the false assumption that you haven't, the myriad of sanctions we have imposed and that we've tried to impose on the regime for their nuclear weapons program also illustrates this.

Second of all, it's definitely Israel's position. Even if we talk big and fail to back it up, Israel, if possible, will act.

The point is, there isn't any government in the world, save for the top leadership of the Iranian government, that wants an Iranian nuclear weapon to come into existence. Someone, be it the US or Israel or some sort of NATO coalition or even revolutionary actors within the Iranian government, will be there every step of the way to stop Iran from getting a bomb. They may not be successful in the end, but it will slow them down a whole hell of alot, possibly even enough for the revolution that's been allegedly coming for 25 years to occur and make it a moot point. And even if they do get one, they'll never use it, and as long as that's the case, it's not worth the trouble they're going to run into if they do develop a bomb. Which is why I believe that, in the end, it'll just be the same old dog and pony show, and they'll progress to the next point in the process where they don't have a bomb, and then on to the next point in the process where they don't have a bomb, and so on and so forth. It's just not worth it for them to have a nuclear weapon.

[PCS]

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/US-Dismisses-Irans-Nuclear-Claims-84180242.html

US Dismisses Iran's Nuclear Claims

The Obama administration on Thursday said it does not believe that Iran can enrich uranium at the level it claims it can. White House officials say work is underway for stronger international sanctions against Iran.

The Obama administration is brushing aside Iran's claim that it has enriched uranium at a higher level, possibly high enough to make a nuclear weapon.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Thursday statement is based on politics, not physics. "He says many things and many of them turn out to be untrue. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich [uranium] to the degree to which they now say they are enriching," he said.

*click link for more*

[Perky72]

Allowing Pakistan to get nukes is the mistake that creates the precedent for stopping Iran from getting nukes. Unfortunately, we were so heavily engaged with the Soviet Union during the South Asian nuclear arms race that we weren't in a position to stop it from occurring.

I generally agree with your assessment of the situation; I guess where our opinions differ is in the conclusion. First of all, I think you're overstating the self-defense aspect of this. Even at the height of the Cold War the US and the USSR weren't building nukes for self-defense's sake. Neither were India and Pakistan, or for that matter China, really. France and Britain didn't build them for defense purposes either. I don't even think you could call North Korea's nuclear weapons program self-defense driven, though who the hell knows what they're thinking? Israel's is arguably the only nuclear weapons program since WWII to have been implemented for defense purposes. The idea that Iran has a larger perceived need for nuclear capabilities than any other country in the world is wrong, at least at the governmental level; of course Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are selling the working, religious poor a bill of goods that they need nukes to protect themselves from Israel and the US, but it's naive to think that they themselves believe it to be true.

Additionally, though you've agreed with the idea that the Iranian government isn't crazy, you don't seem to give them credit for that lack of insanity. It's why they said they CAN build one, not that they're going to. It's why they've used the stalling tactic of alternating cooperation with non-cooperation. Honestly, it's probably why they don't have one by now.

The reason I think it differs is that Iran can afford to more easly take the "keep building" choice vs. the "get a bunch of aid in return for giving up the program" choice that Libya made. That's where the seesaw will turn, whether Iran views getting nukes more attractive (militarily, politically, financially) than getting concessions, or at least a stop of sanctions.

Whether self-defense is a real reason? Well, the Iranian saber-rattling is so far only that. Israel/US saber-rattling could by followed by actual saber-thrusting. If Iran getting nukes for self-defense isn't a valid reason, then surely attacking Iran before they even get them isn't valid self-defense either. If Israel/US bombing Iranian nuclear production plants is valid "self-defense", then surely Iran actually making nukes is valid self-defense for them, if it could prevent that sort of strike.

What scares me is that the US and Israel are heading towards a self-fulfilling prophecy, where by insisting that Iran is an actual threat, and attacking it, it becomes an actual threat. Whereas if it wasn't attacked it wouldn't be. It's like trading a 5% real nuclear Iranian threat for a 75% real non-nuclear Iranian threat. It's a very destructive and dangerous choice to make, and if it is still a good choice, it would only be a good choice if it's ensured that iran never, ever builds nukes in the future.

It goes back to the idea of mutually assured destruction, on every level. Yeah, they can build one, but we will most likely take it out. Even if we don't, if they test it, we'll hit them with every non-military tactic we've got, let alone any possible military retaliation. And, even if they decide to go beyond that, they would have to abandon the realm of sanity to use a nuclear weapon on anyone, let alone a US ally.

Ultimately, it's both easier and equally effective to saber-rattle about creating nukes than actually create nukes. To keep the huddled masses in line, it is in the Iranian government's best interests to be on our **** list, but only up to a certain point. A tangible, working nuclear weapon is that point. We, and the rest of the world, become too much of a problem for them once they've got a bomb, especially since it's a bomb they, and everyone else in the world, know they can't use.

That's where the precedents of nuclear states doesn't favor this idea though. Which states that had no nukes but then got them found they were in more trouble than previous? Pakistan actually got billions in aid and became a political partner of the US, and had all sanctions removed. If we really thought the precedent of allowing them to get nukes was a mistake, it's sure an odd way to show it currently by rewarding them. Israel is in a great defensive position and it hasn't hurt their claims for needing to use traditional military retaliation as a necessity, or also getting aid. India hasn't faced any problems and has even received aid for nuclear development that is arguably against the NPT.

Without making examples of problem (or likely to use nukes) states that do get nukes despite international objection or concern, future states will only be deterred during the nuke-making process, not after it. The future of states that have gotten nukes so far is very positive. And I think it'd be the same for Iran once/if they got semi-strategic nukes.

Supporting your position though is the saber-rattling. If Iran were going with my position yeah, they'd probably simply develop the nukes in complete secret, withdraw from the NPT, not announce enrichment goals. But again, a self-fulfilling aggressive policy from US/Israel might make Iran's theatrical saber-rattling turn real. It's a tough situation no doubt for all involved.

Edit: Also, you seem to know more about the military specifics than I do, so I'll cede you the Israeli-built parking lot point. However, if Iran were to nuke Israel, Tehran would still end up a parking lot; it'd just be made in the US of A.

Absolutely, if they do nuke Israel no question about that. The question I have is whether we or Israel will nuke Iran or particular Iranian sites for even getting close to getting a nuke, which is what a lot of people think we should do.

[Chopper Dave]

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/US-Dismisses-Irans-Nuclear-Claims-84180242.html

US Dismisses Iran's Nuclear Claims

*click link for more*

I guess I'm not the only one who thinks Iran is just thumping their chest. This is better for them than having a nuke, because it keeps Iran's poor in line with the regime by keeping the regime at odds with us, and it keeps them from being so at odds with us that it hurts them in any way.

[Chopper Dave]

The reason I think it differs is that Iran can afford to more easly take the "keep building" choice vs. the "get a bunch of aid in return for giving up the program" choice that Libya made. That's where the seesaw will turn, whether Iran views getting nukes more attractive (militarily, politically, financially) than getting concessions, or at least a stop of sanctions.

Whether self-defense is a real reason? Well, the Iranian saber-rattling is so far only that. Israel/US saber-rattling could by followed by actual saber-thrusting. If Iran getting nukes for self-defense isn't a valid reason, then surely attacking Iran before they even get them isn't valid self-defense either. If Israel/US bombing Iranian nuclear production plants is valid "self-defense", then surely Iran actually making nukes is valid self-defense for them, if it could prevent that sort of strike.

What scares me is that the US and Israel are heading towards a self-fulfilling prophecy, where by insisting that Iran is an actual threat, and attacking it, it becomes an actual threat. Whereas if it wasn't attacked it wouldn't be. It's like trading a 5% real nuclear Iranian threat for a 75% real non-nuclear Iranian threat. It's a very destructive and dangerous choice to make, and if it is still a good choice, it would only be a good choice if it's ensured that iran never, ever builds nukes in the future.

That's where the precedents of nuclear states doesn't favor this idea though. Which states that had no nukes but then got them found they were in more trouble than previous? Pakistan actually got billions in aid and became a political partner of the US, and had all sanctions removed. If we really thought the precedent of allowing them to get nukes was a mistake, it's sure an odd way to show it currently by rewarding them. Israel is in a great defensive position and it hasn't hurt their claims for needing to use traditional military retaliation as a necessity, or also getting aid. India hasn't faced any problems and has even received aid for nuclear development that is arguably against the NPT.

Without making examples of problem (or likely to use nukes) states that do get nukes despite international objection or concern, future states will only be deterred during the nuke-making process, not after it. The future of states that have gotten nukes so far is very positive. And I think it'd be the same for Iran once/if they got semi-strategic nukes.

Supporting your position though is the saber-rattling. If Iran were going with my position yeah, they'd probably simply develop the nukes in complete secret, withdraw from the NPT, not announce enrichment goals. But again, a self-fulfilling aggressive policy from US/Israel might make Iran's theatrical saber-rattling turn real. It's a tough situation no doubt for all involved.

Absolutely, if they do nuke Israel no question about that. The question I have is whether we or Israel will nuke Iran or particular Iranian sites for even getting close to getting a nuke, which is what a lot of people think we should do.

I get what you're saying with the Libya comparison. I don't doubt that they'll "keep building." That's the saber-rattling I'm talking about. But there's a threshold that's not worth crossing for them, and it's actually having a nuke.

As far as the self-defense issue goes, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's a big ****ing bomb, of course it's for "self-defense." But it's not actually for self-defense. It's political. And if they're ACTUALLY trying to defend themselves from our attack, given that we both agree that their government is more sane and logical than it appears, the best course of action for them to defend themselves is to stop building nukes.

Regarding prior nuclear-state precedents, the only precedent that is relevant is that we don't want another internally unstable state sponsor of terrorism to possess nuclear arms, like Pakistan. Other than that, there is no precedent. The Soviet Union was the first to get them besides us, and it was a different point in time with no ICBMs and no NPT and pretty much all battles fought were proxy wars with the USSR. As I'm sure you well know, that's when the concept of mutually assured destruction was introduced. So, anyway, the Soviet precedent doesn't apply. We were fine with Israel, France, and the UK getting them, because they're stable allies. India was a slightly less stable ally, but an ally, and a democracy, nonetheless (they're not in the NPT, by the way, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand; sorry, I just like refuting stuff). Pakistan, again, is a problem, but, again, given the whole Cold War thing, we couldn't really do anything to stop them, and strategically, there wasn't any point in punishing them for nukes after the fact.

I think, as is always the case in geopolitics, there's what is said, and there's what is meant, and there's what is done, and the saber-rattling, in this case, is basically what is being said. It isn't worth it for anyone involved to escalate things past rhetoric.

Also, there's no way Israel nukes Iran first. Not when the US is Israel's main financial and military benefactor.

[Perky72]

It seems like we mainly disagree in some basic premises or likelihoods, but are mostly in agreement on how things may work out otherwise. Thanks for the good discussion.

(they're not in the NPT, by the way, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand; sorry, I just like refuting stuff)

Ah, I meant a violation on the US' obligations under it. Refutation refuted! :pfft:

[Chopper Dave]

It seems like we mainly disagree in some basic premises or likelihoods, but are mostly in agreement on how things may work out otherwise. Thanks for the good discussion.

Ah, I meant a violation on the US' obligations under it. Refutation refuted! :pfft:

Refutation noted.

I guess the optimist in me hopes that I'm right.

[Larry]

US Dismisses Iran's Nuclear Claims

Really, really, really hope that's true.

Wish I could be certain of our intelligence's ability to prove a negative.

[Prosperity]

I really doubt its true. Seems like BS to me. But who knows

[twa]

I really doubt its true. Seems like BS to me. But who knows

Do you think them incompetent or incapable?:evilg:

They have had a massive investment into the process for a long while(along with willing paid outside help),if by chance they are not at the 20% mark it is because of sabotage working.

[Prosperity]

Do you think them incompetent or incapable?:evilg:

They have had a massive investment into the process for a long while(along with willing paid outside help),if by chance they are not at the 20% mark it is because of sabotage working.

yes I do think them incompetent and incapable for the most part, but what the hell do I know?

Anyway, the timing of the announcement makes me think it's more for internal propaganda purposes. A few airstrikes wouldn't be the worst case scenario for them in either case.