Iran

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, not that much. containment, economic/diplomatic sanctions, covertly fermenting/encouraging democratic insurgency, etc.

Also any bunker-busting missile type technology that might be helpful in destroying buried nuclear weapon technology should be on sale or given to our closest and most trusted allies. this one seems pretty obvious though.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, the US repeatedly called for the end of the legitimate Iraqi government while at the sam etime defying international pressure by continuing anti-ballistic missle technology. Funny how the US can do one thing, then comdem another nation for doing the same stuff.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
, Iran never has had to fear such a nuclear attack unless they provoked it. So they truly don't need nukes themselves,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure thats fine reasoning from an Israeli point of view, but from the Iranian its crazy. Relying on the whim of people you see as mortal enimies to decide your fate is ridiculous

[ QUOTE ]
hmm, the US repeatedly called for the end of the legitimate Iraqi government while at the sam etime defying international pressure by continuing anti-ballistic missle technology. Funny how the US can do one thing, then comdem another nation for doing the same stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I am certain that the US government's intentions to eliminate a legitimate government did not include wiping out all of its citizens, I can't say the same for the intentions of the Iranian president, and therein lies quite a stark difference.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmm, the US repeatedly called for the end of the legitimate Iraqi government while at the sam etime defying international pressure by continuing anti-ballistic missle technology. Funny how the US can do one thing, then comdem another nation for doing the same stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I am certain that the US government's intentions to eliminate a legitimate government did not include wiping out all of its citizens, I can't say the same for the intentions of the Iranian president, and therein lies quite a stark difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran seeks the destruction of the Israeli state, not the destruction of all the Jews.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran seeks the destruction of the Israeli state, not the destruction of all the Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why Israel cannot allow Iran to develop nukes. But the key point you are missing is that Israel is not committed to the destruction of Iran and only will attack them if threatened by Iran developing those weapons or in response to Iranian funded/supported terrorist action against Israel. THAT is why Iran does not need nukes, because it has not TRUE fear of an Israeli attack if it does not provoke same. Only their wish to keep supporting terrorists against Israel which might provoke such a response could cause them to legitimately fear Israeli military action. So all Iran has to do is not support anti-Israeli terrorism and it need never fear an Israeli attack.

[superleeds]

Why doesn't Iran just want nukes for the same reason all other countries* who have them wanted them. Namely leverage.

* I grant that the USA and USSR are special cases.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iran seeks the destruction of the Israeli state, not the destruction of all the Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why Israel cannot allow Iran to develop nukes. But the key point you are missing is that Israel is not committed to the destruction of Iran and only will attack them if threatened by Iran developing those weapons or in response to Iranian funded/supported terrorist action against Israel. THAT is why Iran does not need nukes, because it has not TRUE fear of an Israeli attack if it does not provoke same. Only their wish to keep supporting terrorists against Israel which might provoke such a response could cause them to legitimately fear Israeli military action. So all Iran has to do is not support anti-Israeli terrorism and it need never fear an Israeli attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very strange view on hte matter. Every nation has the rightto develop their technology in any way they see fit. It is not the job of the Israelis to decide if Iran should or should not have a certain technology. The very idea that people think they should is part of the reason people hate Israel.

Iran should be able to keep their own nuclear arsenal for the same reason every other nation has one, self defense. Not a single nuclear nation would admit that they will ever pull a first strike policy. If the Israelis commit to a first strike policy then they must reap the consequences of their agression. This may be more terroist funding or an outright attack.

By not letting other nations have the ability to defend themselves you get super powers which could roll over everything. America could never invade Iraq if Iraq had nukes, likewise Iraq could of never invaded Kuwait if Kuwait had nukes. Nuclear proliferation would be the single greatest step towards world peace.

Note: Obviously this is a faux peace because it is extorted through MAD. However peace is peace.

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

All valid concerns, and I suspect we should be moving much faster in Iraq (faster Saddam trial; more anti-insurgent strikes; faster Iraqi security training; elections, at least, will be soon) so that in a few months it might be more stable, and we might strike Iran if needed. Issuing Iran an absolute ultimatum during a window of time (after substantial Iraqi progress is seen, yet before Iran reaches the full enrichment cycle) may be the best bet.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S.A.

Iran's hardliners in parliament, in passing a bill requiring the state to enrich uranium, broke out into shouts of "Death To America!" as the bill was passed. Iran also has long backed Hezbollah, whose slogan is "Death To America!". Additionally, Iran is indirectly acting against us in Iraq, supporting the training or supplying of foreign fighters there, and contributing to the deaths of Americans with, among other things, "shaped explosives."