Jump to content

Should we fear Iran ?


Pirilao
 Share

Recommended Posts

Should we fear Iran ?

 

The U.N. nuclear agency declared Iran had failed to halt nuclear work by a Thursday (August 31) deadline. Tehran defied the threat of sanctions by vowing never to abandon a programme the West fears could give it atom bombs. U.S. President George W. Bush said Iran must face consequences for failing to meet the deadline and must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why fear Iran ?

 

All speeches I could hear from Irani President are frank, simple, responsible.

 

We should all believe in Irani good faith.

 

Anyway, should Iran not respect its commitments, EU is very close to, and has enough water to stop any possible fire.

 

I recommend to let Iran show its teeth. That will stop some vipers.

 

I just add one point.

 

Iran has no choice.

 

Should Iran ever make (if they really can do it, what I doubt) a nuclear bomb, what do you want it to do with it ?

 

EU ? Forget about as previously explained.

 

Iran itself ? Come on.

 

So there is no danger at all.

 

Atomic bomb is just a middle-aged purpose.

 

Just wake up, dear friends... and pray for not knowing what man can do after "atomic bomb". F...

 

But, nobody sleeps. Surely not EU. So, let's invite Iran to have, whenever it wishes, a good whisky...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why fear Iran?

 

Confirmed! The Iranian government serves as a catalyst for instability in the Middle East, thus Middle Easterners have a reason to fear them. They encourage and equip the Shiite militias in Iraq to cause trouble, not only against Coalition forces but also their Sunni neighbors. Any nation who has troops in Iraq has reason to be wary of the Iranians...unless y'all just hate your own soldiers. In wihch case, look away, look away...

 

Sweden has soldiers there...they don't have a choice whether or not they join the Army, for that matter. I worked with a few of them on a traffic control point outside of Samarra.

 

We made the mistake of ignoring India and Pakistan...now both are nuclear-equipped and capable of blowing each other away. And it doesn't even have to be their governments that authorize the use of it. There is no foolproof 'safety net'. That's just Hollywood dreaming up a few plot twists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mongol-Swedes:

 

True, Iran is a source of instability in the Middle East. But Iran is a piece too big to chew. There is nothing anyone can do against an iranian nuclear program.

 

The best way to deal with this, is to draw lines and divide the Middle East into influental zones between the US and Iran, just like between the soviet union and the US. The US has to sacrifice Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan, but it should be able to hold the sunni nations on the arabian peninsula and Kuwait.

 

Iran wants to be recognized as a regional power and now, after the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are blown away they are one of three regional powers in the middle east (besides Israel and Turkey; Pakistan is bound to India).

 

If they develop nuclear weapons, what can be done:

 

1.) A surgical strike against nuclear installations, with Air Force or ground commando cells.

Best case scenario: The program is stalled for a few years but cannot be stopped. After that Iran will decentralize the program even more and push it more.

Worst case scenario: The strike doesn't stall the program. Iranian terrorists begin with a fresh offensive against western targets. Iraqi insurgents are supported by iranian military, the US force in Iraq is a sitting duck.

 

2.) A full strike with occupation against Iran.

Best case scenario: I can't think of one.

Worst case scenario: Iraq tenfold. Necessary force for occupation: 1 million +. Extreme number of insurgents. High number of casualties. War will take very long (heavy terrain, many mountains, many hiding places). People of Iran against occupation. Massive terrorist strikes against the western world.

 

3.) Economic embargo

Best case scenario: Nuclear program is stalled a little.

Worst case scenario: Nothing happens, oil prices rising, shiite islam spreads even further.

 

4.) US/Iran-talks with creating of spheres of influence

Best case scenario: US and Iran don't interfere anymore in each others spheres of influence. Oil production stable, Arabs in fear of Iran seek refuge in US protection. Iran's leadership has to defend expensive nuclear program internally. Unified stance against US breaks up into many different political groups.

Worst case scenario: Iran takes over half of the middle east and tries to influence US controlled zone. Because of Arab fear against Iran (Iranian = Persians, old hate between them (Iraq/Iran-war 1980-88) that won't really work.

 

I take option 4...

Edited by Tamurin (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that would give more power to Iran, but also more problems.

 

Just imagine if the US would have to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of a deal with Iran. I doubt very much that Iran wouldn't have the exact same problems in both countries. There are many in Iraq who don't want an iranian puppet state. And the warlords in Afghanistan don't bow to Kabul, Washington or Teheran.

 

This is not the first option for the US, but in the end there are only two options for Washington:

Fight a war you cannot win against a country that will never break

or make a deal with a country you've hated for decades.

 

And I can't imagine the US taking the war option. Despite Rumsfelds blabla, the US doesn't have the power to conquer Iran right now. Destroy - yes. Conquer - no. And without conquering there is no stopping of the program. It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we fear Iran ?

 

Appsolutly not.

 

A country should not have to fear another. Perhapse hate, but never should a country be at a point where it has to fear another. Nuclear/atomic/hidrogen weapons are athing of the past, they can only get bigger, and no one would dear us one, with fear of retaliation. The best oppsion would be to give every country nukes and then not a soul on the planet would use one for fear of retaliation.

 

Anyways, like I said before. My belif is that no nation should have to fear another. When that does happen, it creates a cold war situation, or a world war one situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Albert Einstein

 

 

Iran is a silly country. It own leader is so progressive as having a blog, yet internet acces is restricted for the rest of the nation. This whole conservatism won't last though, but I think it may take a while. The young generation seems to be pretty Western-orientated.

 

If the girls dare to wear lipstick under their burqas, altough they could be punished for it, than the future of the ayatollahs is very much in danger.

 

So, to conclude, lipstick = solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not fear Iran, nor should we try to force their hand. When you get people spouting threats at eachother, the situation escalates until soon we're waving guns around and eventually one will go off and all hell will break loose.

 

Please note this realistic scenario:

 

WORLD: "Stop building nukes."

IRAN: "No."

WORLD: "Stop building nukes or else."

IRAN: "Psh, forget you guys!"

WORLD: "Damn it Iran, don't make us come over there!"

IRAN: "You wouldn't dare! We have a gun!"

WORLD: "We have MORE guns, b*tch!"

IRAN: "Yeah, well YOUR MOM!"

*WWIII Erupts*

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If war ever did break out in Iran it would be similar to that in Iraq. Iran does not have nukes, their an isolated nation, so it will take years before they have any progress in their development. And there is no way Russian or China would help Iran. Every day China becomes more wester friendly, and Russia is already part of the west now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western-friendly and Western-faithful are two different things.

 

For example, ol' Kim Jong Il loves things Western; he owns nearly all Academy Award recipient films, just to name a few Western things he is friendly with. But certainly he is not faithful, i.e. missile tests and military build-up.

 

What's to say that Russia and China might not one day say they've had enough with the West? Despite being as powerful as they are, they are as powerful as they are, and could very well oppose any agreement Western nations propose if someone a little froggy gets at the reins of either country.

 

And if the neo-conservative movement continues to grow in my country, and reckless policies like what the world has been enduring lately continue to dominate the Oval Office, then that will only encourage folks in the Near and Far East to get even froggier and jump again, possibly with a graver attack than 9/11 (much of which, I have begun to consider, may have been propagated by my own government, in more ways than one).

 

And the risk isn't only to America. Fool's dream, really. Hell, the people of Denmark have certainly earned the contempt of Iranian hard-liners who presently run the country.

 

Considering Iran's nuclear program. I guess all y'all figured that India and Pakistan are a seperate issue, but I guess I did not make it clear what I was trying to say. We underestimated their own programs. We never believed they could acquire the materials, people, and other assets to develop their programs as well as they have in as short a time as they did, but they did it, to everyone's surprise (generally speaking).

 

Iran has not always been a reasonable country. If they're willing to sacrifice their population in human wave attacks against the Iraqis, what difference would it be to sacrifice them again? The Blood of the Martyrs fountain, a water fountain that runs red water and commemorates the efforts of the Basij brigades in the Iran/Iraq war still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, MS, with the western-friendly and western-faithful-thing.

 

And you're right, Iran was willing to sacrifice its people in the last war. However, what the west fails to understand is the mechanism of unification.

 

Right now, the west hopes that Iran will break and drop its nuclear program. To support that hope the more "western-orientated" forces in Iran are quoted and the west hopes that this opposition might force the government to break.

 

But the mechanism works different.

First, the iranians are a proud and patriotic people. The national media and the government have made this conflict with the west a matter of national pride. The west appears as a force that is denying Iran's right to develop a technology the west possesses. Therefor (you can see that all the time in history) the opposition allies itself with the government to achieve a common goal against a common 'enemy'. There won't be anything coming from the opposition against this program.

 

On the other hand, the so-called "western-orientated" forces in Iran aren't exactly western-orientated. They just want a more open kind of islamic republic, but definitely not a western liberal democracy.

 

Saying that:

As long as the west opposes the nuclear program, the iranian government will have the people of Iran unified behind itself. As soon as this opposing stops, the following will happen:

1.) The iranian government will celebrate its 'victory'. This is something we'll have to accept.

2.) The pressure on the nuclear scientists will decrease, time won't be such an issue.

3.) The people and politicians of Iran will begin dealing with other problems of the country. Soon the president and his government will face real opposition on other political fields again. The unified Iran will break up into the fractions it has always been.

4.) Pragmatic politicians and organization will begin questioning the very expensive nuclear program. Now that they have the free choice, they can decrease funding or even stop it.

5.) When Ahmadinedschad is thrown out of office in the next elections, maybe the west can arrange a deal with a more reasonable government in, say 2009-2013...

 

This is a much better way of dealing with this than the brutal confrontation now.

 

And just look at this: Iran's options with nuclear weapons.

 

1.) Threatening others

Question: Who? All neighbours are under protection by a nuclear power or have nuclear weapons themselves (Pakistan, India, Israel as nuclear powers; the Arabs, Turkey, Afghanistan under US protection, caucasian and central asian nations under russian or chinese protection).

 

2.) Using the weapons

Question: What is to be gained? A nuclear first strike by Iran would definitely provoke a counter-attack, a devastating one. Iran would be obliterated after it.

Plus: Many nations have missile defense systems (Israel, US) or are in the process of developing them (Russia and China are definitely having secret missile defense systems in development, maybe even India).

 

3.) Giving them weapons to terrorists

Question: What is to be gained? Such a weapon could be traced back to Iran and that would also provoke a devastating counter-attack.

 

4.) You cannot hide

A nuclear program is completed by a successful test. Such a test cannot be hidden from the outside world and the current government won't hide the fact that Iran would be part of the small group of nations having nuclear weapons. That means that strategic surprise isn't possible and the outside world can adapt to this new fact.

 

That means, that Iran won't gain anything from nuclear weapons. So, I say again: Let's withdraw and leave them alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument with the A bomb is very easy to understand:

 

If we remember the Manhatten project needed from 1942- 1945 to construct first a socalled Felmy reactor but after the possibility of a nculear reaction was proofen just one year more to construct the A bomb, that cannot be that difficulot and in fact: It isnt That difficult.

(The Manhattan Project was continued after 1945 and 5 of the scienteist received Nobel prices for that "invention")

 

President Bush is starting again to bring out that argument ever and ever again:" We must not allow Teheran to develope a nuclear weapon"

 

Much was taken out of former European and later German projects, but there was non experience jet. Today. Each student for physics learns and understands how to construct a nuclear reactor or an A bomb

 

Its very easy:

 

JUST:If Teheran would HAVE THE BOMB what is just much more easy to develope than they tell us, then everyone would aks why it has not arready have attacked Israel or the allied forces in Iraq with it.

 

The greatest arguments that would justify an attack to Iran would lose its value.

 

It makes only a sense as long as people claim and the public and uN believes Teheran has NOT THE BOMB

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, believe me, Tamurin, I know direct confrontation is not an option. To be honest, I know more than, most likely, everyone else here how that will likely go down; it's my job to know these things.

 

ANYWHO, what I was trying to say is that we cannot simply just ignore this threat and put it off as nothing. I cannot and will not accept allowing a scenario to take place where Iran gets a bomb off on somebody, ANYBODY. I don't care if they use it directly against the Taliban; nuclear weapons are simply wrong.

 

I personally am abhorred that we still have these things around, and I am overwhelmingly fustrated, at times, by the fact that dismantling these weapons will only create more radioactive waste for the world to deal with for many milleniums to come, and nothing with any strength is being done to deal with this Apocalypse waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know direct confrontation is not an option

 

Very good that we agree on this one.

 

I personally am abhorred that we still have these things around

 

Well, they are around and they will always be around (except they will one day be replaced by better weapons). Since 1945 we have lived in a world with nuclear weapons and there won't be a world in the future without this technology. It's common knowledge and we have to deal with their existence.

 

That said: Believe me, I don't want a nuclear armed Iran any more than you do. But in the end there's nothing we can do about it. A military or political confrontation won't work - it's only going to rally the iranian people behind Ahmadinedschad, nothing else.

The terrorist threat won't grow if Iran has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has and when President Musharraf is replaced or killed, the pakistani taliban will make their move. That's dangerous enough - a nuclear armed Iran won't be any more dangerous than that. On the contrary: Future iranian governments can only be better for us in the west. Future pakistani governments can only be worse.

 

The big threat is Pakistan, not Iran. But the sad truth is: There's nothing we can do about both nations - except build the goddamn missile shield we all need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big threat is Pakistan, not Iran. But the sad truth is: There's nothing we can do about both nations - except build the goddamn missile shield we all need.

Or:

- bomb them first.

- go live somewhere else.

- fuel internal unrest.

- buy them out.

- create another enemy for them (China?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- bomb them first.

 

Would only stall them a little, would increase their resolve and fuel terrorism against us.

 

- go live somewhere else.

 

No! I like it here! cool.gif

 

- fuel internal unrest.

 

I guess that is already done. But if it comes out...see "bomb them first"

 

- buy them out.

 

Religious and nationalist fanatics cannot be bought.

 

- create another enemy for them (China?).

 

Problem is these guys are buddies. Just look up "SCO" or "Shanghai Five".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Coop...on_Organization

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is quite correct to say that they are legally allowed to develop civilian nuclear power. The problem arises that develping that does give you the material for making bombs - waste products of fission power stations are perfect for bombs. This is true for everyone but western nations like to weep that info under the carpet.

 

It remains extremely two faced to deny technology to a nation because of what you say they might do with the side effects of it whilst saying that anyone who already has it is fine. Nowonder all the small nations that have reason to fear the west are desperate to get nuclear technology. From their point of view it is a get out of jail free card and the only way to garruntee they don't get attacked.

 

I am not condoning the development of these weapons and I would rather we all disarmed but, really, such a misguided and contradictory set of policies are just asking for trouble. It would be better to assist them to build safe, civilian plants than push them to develop it underground and go straight for weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why fear Iran? No, we should fear that 8 or 9 countries, that are above all! They certainly have power to destroy half of the world, and put the other part in underwears. Gentleman we are talking about exclusiveness!! Few but powerful countries explore nuclear power, and it's not to healthy mainly for their economy other countries enter in this run as well. The other side of the question is the persistance of Iran in is will to continue is nuclear enrichment and the US doesn't want it. The Supreme Leader of Iran is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not George W. Bush and the ONU. Iran is a free country depending on itself, if they want to do that let them do, they don't have money to dress its own people correctly they are not so reach like that to keep going with their plans for many year unless they were sucessful in selling nuclear bombs and all that stuff to other countries or Organizations.

This is the Democratic Logic of the Question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are assuming Iran will use nuclear technology for the production of energy.

 

But that's not true. They will definitely build nuclear weapons. Why should one of the richest nations regarding oil resources need nuclear power plants?

 

This is not about exclusiveness or George W. Bush. This is about pragmatic politics. There is no safe way to deny Iran nuclear weapons. The only choice we have is to accept it and close this "political battlefield" as soon as possible, because the longer this conflict lasts, the more Ahmadinedschad gains from it.

 

It was never possible to deny other countries nuclear weapons forever. Now we have to ensure that we have a working missile shield when Iran has working nuclear weapons that can be carried by working long-range missiles.

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...