Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Israel has that much faith that Iran wouldn't do it, nor can they take the risk. Iran does not need nuclear weapons except to pose such a threat to Israel, and if they insist on developing them they should realize that, along with their president's statements, is provocation enough for Israel to act.

Iran is probably going to find out the truth in the line, "if you build it they will come".

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we were speaking across eachother. I meant pre-nuclear.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Israel has that much faith that Iran wouldn't do it, nor can they take the risk. Iran does not need nuclear weapons except to pose such a threat to Israel, and if they insist on developing them they should realize that, along with their president's statements, is provocation enough for Israel to act.

Iran is probably going to find out the truth in the line, "if you build it they will come".

[/ QUOTE ]

Every leader of every nuclear nation on the planet realizes that nuclear war is a losing proposition. If I was Iran I'd be trying to get nukes asap in order to make sure Israel didnt try any sneaky business. Certainly Israel has been far more expansionist and agressive in the past 50 years than Iran.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I was Iran I'd be

[/ QUOTE ]

You attempt to think rationally here. But would a rational government be making statements calling for the elimination of another state, while defying international pressure to cease its nuclear ambitions?

Re: Iran
 

Hi Riddick,

I just don't see a compelling reason to allow our sworn mortal enemies (the Iranian government) to arm in such a manner that they could cause us or our allies the gravest of harm. If that means kicking their heads in, militarily speaking, well that's just a damn shame.

Re: Iran
 

This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, M. I just wonder about the current viability of the air strike option.

I really have no idea how effective it could be. But I've read in a couple places that the Iranian facilities are in very deep underground bunkers and that we don't even have that great intelligence about where all the facilities are. That could be faulty, but it seems to at least be an unresolved issue.

I also think that the administration has really put itself in a bad spot vis-a-vis Iran through its Iraq policy. Not only will a more actively hostile Iran be much more capable of destabilizing the situation in Iraq, but more open antagonism between the US and Iran is really going to jeopardize whatever chance we have of nurturing the future development of a reasonably pro-US Shiite government.

So I don't really have an answer. But I think the Bush administration has put us up the creek without a paddle.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I was Iran I'd be trying to get nukes asap in order to make sure Israel didnt try any sneaky business. Certainly Israel has been far more expansionist and agressive in the past 50 years than Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though Israel has possessed nukes for some time, and now apparently also has a submarine launch option as well, Iran never has had to fear such a nuclear attack unless they provoked it. So they truly don't need nukes themselves, and trying to get them will only likely bring about the attack you are assuming they would deter.

If your actual point is that any nation *should* have the right to develop nuclear weapons, then that is fine. But they should realize that doing so can likely be a self-fullfilling trigger for their own doom.

Re: Iran
 

MMMMMM,

I don't come in this forum much, but I'm trying to interpret your use of "we" in this thread. I can't figure out if you are US or Israeli.

thanks.