Iran's Nuclear Ambitions 1032
selven wrote in with something a bit offtopic for Slashdot, but I figured it's worth a discussion today. He writes "Following Iran's revelation regarding its secret nuclear enrichment plant, western leaders are banding together against it, saying that it violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suggesting serious sanctions against the country if it refuses to back down on its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
Coincidence? (Score:5, Informative)
All this anti-Iran propaganda seems to be coming out at the same time Iran is switching from Dollars to Euros for its oil transactions. Strangely enough, Iraq previously tried this too, just before the 2003 invasion.
Re:Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:3, Informative)
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
Funny how our past sins come back to bite us in the ass.
Operation Ajax.
Re:Mutually Assured Destruction (Score:2, Informative)
They're quantum virgins: their gender depends on the observer.
Re:A question of intent (Score:4, Informative)
> Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Well, no, actually. He did call for the regime to fall [wikipedia.org], a much different meaning. Did Iran threaten Israel with nuclear attack? No.
On the other hand, we had a U.S. presidential candidate singing "Let's Bomb Iran". Why the double standard?
> demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination
Source? (other than Fox News, of course)
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Informative)
The ability to launch a satellite != the ability to launch a nuclear ICBM. The technology required to shrink a warhead to a size that will fit on a rocket is non-trivial, and requires testing.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7866357.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Stating the obvious? (Score:3, Informative)
No, they haven't. You might want to ask yourself who's trying to fool you, and why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel [wikipedia.org]
Re:A question of intent (Score:3, Informative)
Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Score:5, Lying
Re:Coincidence? (Score:5, Informative)
Iran made the switch years ago and now the majority of its oil transactions aren't in dollars.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article1263954.ece
The world didn't end and the dollar didn't collapse. A few talentless and greedy bankers did a lot more damage.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it can.
Do you really think the bullshit in Iraq or Afghanistan is a full showing of force for the American military?
They're political occupations designed to stagnate and fail.
It won't be until the next real war, where American soil is under threat of attack or takeover, that the US military will unleash some of the new toys its been hiding.
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Informative)
Otherwise--it presumably doesn't matter, since there is such absolutely massive pressure *not* to fire a nuke once you have one. The entire point of a nuke is it makes it basically impossible to engage in a war of aggression against your homeland.
When we tell Iran we don't want them to have them--we're really telling them we intend to invade them. Fairness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Do you seriously think Iran would launch at us? Even if they believe in 72 virgins, it would literally be the end of their world within 15 minutes.
CAPTCHA: deterred.
You are talking about a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all muslims to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Ragnarok, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle. Exactly how does MAD deter people who wish to start an end of the world battle?
Re:"Peaceful Use" (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, high ranking UN officials were playing key roles in that "redistribution". Google it. Clinton goes for sanctions through the UN, and the UN guys help Saddam profit from the oil for food program in order to get kickbacks. Bottom line: don't ever trust bureaucracy to do the right thing, and the UN is the biggest bureaucracy on the planet.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Informative)
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
Unless your mythical strategic defence shield is now working and the propaganda machine hasn't started working yet, this is false. In a nuclear war, America is not capable of defeating China or Russia, it is capable of ensuring that both sides lose. Putting China and Russia in the same category is a bit odd, as both France and the UK have more nuclear warheads than China but an order of magnitude fewer than Russia. Both have enough to destroy every major city in Russia or China, even accounting for some missiles being intercepted.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Informative)
If you're an ally, we'd rather you didn't have them but there's not much we can do to stop you acquiring them (India, Pakistan).
What? Pakistan was an ally when it acquired nukes? You may not remember this, but the press was pushing the same stories when Pakistan was busy acquiring the bomb as they do now with Iran. There was massive international condemnation. The same voices were banging on about the "dangers of an Islamic nuke". There were the same stories about Dr. AQ Khan and an underground nuclear black market smuggling network putting the world at risk of nuclear war. The same stories about the dangers of terrorists acquiring those nuclear weapons and using them on Israel or other Western friendly countries. The same voices calling for preemptive military strikes to stop all this happening.
Re:containment theory... (Score:1, Informative)
At the absolute height of the cold war, we massively outgunned Russia and China in conventional and strategic nuclear weapons. The idea that Russia had a bigger conventional force was bad intelligence, as has been known for at least ten years now.
In neither conventional nor nuclear kind of war, right now, would the US need allies against China or Russia because they'd both be fighting a conventional war.
Its this "fighting among the people" crap in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the problem, and historically there's not much evidence that its even possible to win in that situation.
And the financial risk to China is actually far worse than you think. They depend on us for the fundamentals of their economy. We only depend on them for loans and cheap shit that people can live without. They can't start a trade war with us, because we *can* survive it. They can't.
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Informative)
And they continue to. Now that Sadam is gone, a Shiite controlled Iraq is siding with Shiite controlled Iran in insisting that Iran should be allowed a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm...you must have been watching a different war than I was...I don't seem to recall GWB saying that God told the US to invade Iraq, or that it was a Holy War.
Heck, I don't even remember GWB pointing to the Christian bible, and quoting from it that we are commanded by it, to wipe out the infidels.
Damn, I gotta start paying more attention...
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Informative)
Now I admit that in the Ukraine and Georgia, at least, there is some risk of Russia underming those governments (both countries have large ethnic Russia minorities)
There's no large ethnic Russian minority in Georgia - only 1.5% are Russians; it is a typical monoethnic nation-state, and is not threated by a "fifth column" from within. A bigger deal is that it had historically been a part of Russian empire for a long time, and has joined voluntarily back in the day - which is a strong propaganda point. Any Russian encroaches on Georgian sovereignty are based on those talking points, and not on protecting any Russian minorities.
Ukraine is very different matter, largely because the very definitions of "Russian" and "Ukrainian" are disputed - they're largely centered around language issues, and most people in Ukraine are bilingual. The issue is muddied even further by the fact that bilingualism is often forced (the only state language of Ukraine is Ukrainian). The result is that you get numbers anywhere from 88% Ukrainian to 60% Russian (where "Ukrainian" and "Russian" mean "consider Ukrainian language native and speak it at home" vs "consider Russian language native and speak it at home") - the former figure is the official one used in government propaganda, the latter is what Russian nationalists typically subscribe to. Both are way off the mark.
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Informative)
"If you do not begin considering the possibility of maybe one day relatively soon pondering the beginning of the dismantlement of your nuclear program - NOW - you might possibly maybe perhaps one day face SEVERE SANCTIONS ZOMG.
The only thing that U.S. has to do is to say, "well, then, we wash our hands, and if someone *cough, glancing at Israel* wants to deal with the matter, we won't intervene".
Israeli military brass has already stated that, if there's no progress in talks with Iran (where by "progress" they mean shutting down enrichment facilities) by the end of the year, they will likely launch an air strike. Simply because if they wait any longer, Iran will have enough material for a decent warhead.
Re:Mad, you 're mad... (Score:2, Informative)
Israel had already:
1) Fought offensive wars.
2) Fought wars for purely mercantile reasons.
3) Committed crimes against humanity (de-facto apartheid).
4) Generally behaves like a regional bully.
No, I'd surely trust Israel with nukes! I really believe that Israel will use nuclear weapons first to 'defend' itself.
Israel right now has the absolute power in the region. And the absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:4, Informative)
There's a PhD on a mailing list that I get, who spent most of his career in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. One day we got to talking about the Aswan dam (he was there when that project was initiated) and he said that it had nothing to do with Egypt needing the dam; in fact it was quite thoroughly pointed out to TPTB that halting the seasonal floods would RUIN Egypt's delta ecology and fishing/ag delta economy (which it has). But TPTB were determined to have it no matter what, because having a BIG DAM would show the world that Egypt was Just As Modern As Everyone Else. It was essentially a psychological need to keep up with the Joneses, even if it killed them.
I suspect a great deal of the middle-eastern/SW-Asia attitude about nukes is more of the same -- it's a cultural thing where you can't let the other guy show you up by owning something you don't, even if having it will ruin you.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Informative)
Hebrew is like Arabic - they are roughly as close as German and Danish, or Provencal Occitan and Catalan.
Neither Arabic nor Hebrew possess written vowels beyond Alif, with places and stresses for these accomplished through an elaborate system of diacritical punctuation. This is more stressed in Arabic, where the replecation of the exact tonal and accent production is regarded as protecting Koranic recitation from "innovation".
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Peaceful Use" (Score:3, Informative)
Different strokes. Quadaffi is playing his games in the middle of fucking nowhere. Libya is not in the middle of a global strategic hot spot.
You have a strange definition of the"middle of fucking nowhere". Libya is as close to Israel as Iran is, and much closer to the members of the EU than Iran.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who thinks that Iran actually intends to try to blow up Israel is fooling themselves, just like the people who were convinced that Saddam Hussein was trying to get WMD's so he could attack the US. Iran certainly isn't run by a bunch of noble people, but it's not run by a bunch of suicidal wackos either. Suicidal wackos don't end up running countries. The people in power are primarily motivated by a desire to retain their power. You don't retain power by attacking countries that way outclass you militarily.
Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons as a deterrent and as a bargaining chip in negotiations. They're not going to rush to drop one on Israel, and they're not going to hand them out to terrorist groups. If a nuke went off in Israel, Iran would be toast within a matter of hours, and they know that.
Re:containment theory... (Score:1, Informative)
You are talking about a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all muslims to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Ragnarok, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle. Exactly how does MAD deter people who wish to start an end of the world battle?
If I bought that load of BS you are trying to sell, I'd say: same way it did in the 80s with the Reagan Xians.
captcha: "patriot"
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
One thing to remember:
If you live in America, you are living in a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all christians to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Armageddon, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle.
Please provide a reference to that. As far as I know (and I have done some study on this) no major Christian denominations hold that Armageddon is something to be desired or promoted. Many Christians are convinced that Armageddon is just around the corner, but few see this as a good thing (except in so far as they see it as a pre-requisite to the return of Christ).
As far as the "Christian" right being every bit as terrifying as Muslims, when was the last time someone from the "christian" right sawed off someone's head...or flew an airliner into a building...or encouraged a teenager to blow themselves up?
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Informative)
Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq [commondreams.org] (sourced from The Independent)
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers [bbc.co.uk]
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Can't blame them (Score:1, Informative)
His original quote was mistranslated, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel , in which news and people like yourself incorrectly carried on.
Any quote after that was only for political and monetary gains. He makes these statements and the cost of oil goes up because of the speculation of war and less oil output.
Imagine telling your customers "We are going to wipe your drives clean" and then they pay more money for your software.... that would be a sweet deal
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't blame them (Score:2, Informative)
Don't recall where I read it initially, but here's something [google.com] found via google news.
It's all very carefully worded and diplomatic, but it seems to mark a shift in tone.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
Israel is confident that the US would back it up in any action (indeed, Israeli bombers would need to pass over US controlled airspace to carry out the attacks as I understand it, which would make the US complicit even if it didn't supply military aid beyond the tech and money over previous years)..</p></quote>
Once upon a time, Iraq thought that the US would support its invasion of a little country named Kuwait, because of how much we had supported them with money and weapons in their war against Iran. Heck, they even told our Embassador to Iraq before they invaded...
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
I said "Israeli" not "Jewish".
The values of Israel are racist and genocidal - as were those of the former South African apartheid state. I could call South African values bigoted and inhuman, without being accused of hating all white folk, or even all those of Dutch ancestry.
Of course, it is in the interest of Israel's national agenda and ethos to conflate their political raison with the Jewish identity. They have, in fact, been conducting just that PsyOp since Herzl.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Informative)
And the US funds Israel which recently killed 1600 civilians using white phosphorus supplied by the US. This was also in violation of international treaties just like Iran's Nuclear ambitions. When Israel developed their nuclear weapons they violated the same treaty as Iran.
I am not saying I am happy with Iran having nukes, but I am also not happy with Israel having them. Especially when Israel are just as likely to use them. The problem for us is the that if Israel use them against their neighbours, then Russia will be unhappy and may just retaliate against us since we are supporting the country financially and militarily.
Lets not forget that both countries are built on religion and religion has caused too many wars already. Both countries also are moving away from democracy, Iran by rigging elections, and Israel by intimidating non-jewish citizens who try and vote. Both have an armed forces that is becoming more fanatical in the use of embedded religious teachers in with the troops. This is why we should have acted more strongly against Israel when they developed theirs, we set a precedent that we would ignore people breaching the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty if we like the country that was breaching it. This makes it much harder for countries breaching it now to take it seriously when they feel threatened by nuclear equipped neighbours.
We can try and enforce our will by military means alone, but this is a dangerous path since it results in us having to keep our armed forces in place all over the world to enforce our will against the will of the indigenous population. That is certainly not what the founding fathers of the US had in mind when they drew up the constitution.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
No, since you said "walk into crowded markets to blow up 30 of their own innocent people just to wound or kill 2 innocent civilians". That statement does not apply to Israel since the Israeli and Palestinian populations are mostly segregated. Even if you were trying to apply it to other countries, you will find it is not true (hint: the insurgency in Iraq was sectarian in nature, the groups do not consider the population on the other side of the divide as "their own innocent people" any more than the KKK consider African Americans to be "their own innocent people")
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Informative)
Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel
I know you're being edgy and all, but there's a shitload of archeological evidence, as well as many external documents (Roman, Assyrian, etc.) for the existence of the Kingdom of Israel. Coins, ruins, ancient scrolls, what have you not.
It has nothing to do with the Bible. It's about not being an ignorant ass.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
Which is exactly what happened in 1948. Not a lick of US aid. No nukes. 6 Arab armies. All beaten within less than a year by people with half-functioning Czech rifles.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money
The nukes are French, the massive aid only started after 1973, and Egypt gets almost as much... why I do even bother? You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Read a fucking book.
The irony.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
In reverse order, Israel is right now, threatening to bomb Iran if it doesn't comply with their demands re: ceasing uranium enrichment and dismantling the infrastructure to do so. Here is the public channel from Israel: Link [bbc.co.uk]. Quote:
In diplomatic channels it has been stated quite baldly that Israel is ready to start bombing Iran. That's the biggest reason for the US's scramble for a sanctions-based solution.
As regards "Ahmadinejad keeps threatening to destroy Israel", I am unable to find a single verifiable reference. There is a bad translation out of context that gets put around a lot. There's a short discussion on YouTube about this here: Link.
If you disagree with the above links, please try to find evidence that Ahmadinejad "keeps threatening to destroy Israel".
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm getting really bored with this, but, here we go again, when did "Iran" say that? Who is this "Iran" anyway, did the entire 70 million of them rise up and cry it out in one voice? Or maybe it's a misquotation of a speech Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made? You know, the "president" or Iran who has no control over the Armed forces or Foreign policy?
Re:they can't bully Iran (Score:3, Informative)
I have two rational arguments:
- Israel will very likely nuke every major Iranian city if they feel Iran is nearing completion of a nuke.
- Even if Israel is convinced to hold off any attack against Iran, any nuclear power could simply give Hezbollah a nuke and blame Iran. Consider Pakistan, for example. If Tel Aviv is attacked, Israel will naturally respond by nuking Tehran.
In short, because of Iran's connections with terrorists, and because Israel is half-crazy and already has nukes, the equation for Iran is: nukes == death. Only insane leadership in Iran would pursue this option.... D'oh!
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Informative)
That is what they want you to think!
I'm serious. They do want you to think that, just as Saddam wanted you to think he had nukes.
When analysing what countries have done and might do, you have to first look at the politicians who make the decisions. At the end of the day, this has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity: it is all about Power. IE in order to understand what a government is thinking, you must first understand the internal power struggles of that country.
Iran's ruling elite are currently in a state of civil war. The Right, which controls the government, currently has the upper hand, but only by a fragile margin. If the the Right withdraw on the one of their main principals, the principal that everyone is out to get them and that a strong military is needed for their protection, then that might just tilt the scales in the other direction. So to counter any possible suggestion that they are retreating on that principal, they are touting it louder: announcing 2nd reactor, missile tests, etc. I suspect the Right are also hoping that Israel will attack them, thus giving them the we-told-you-so card to play, but they won't attack first because that would tilt the scales the other way.
Israel currently is using the threat to attack Iran as a bargaining chip to keep the US off their back in regards to the settlements, which are needed as ammunition in their own internal power struggles. Attacking Iran would cause Israeli civilian casualties, because Iran will respond and large casualties from a war you started does not go down well at the polls.
President Obama currently lacks the ammunition to force Israel's hand, because all his political capital is caught up in the Health Care battle. Resorting to sanctions is probably a temporary measure until he has capital he needs to threaten Israel's funding.
Russia has its own internal struggles, which I won't go into in detail, but let me just say this: if you think Iran's government is in chaos, that is nothing compared to what is happening behind the scenes in Moscow.
In conclusion: Relax, there will be no war between Israel and Iran, because neither country wants to start one, but they both want everyone else to think they do due internal power struggles.
My prediction: In the long term the Iranian government will fall, the question is when. Sooner with sanctions, later without them. Russia is the key, China - the wild card.
PS You have to hand it to President Obama though. In just a few months his administration has managed to destroy most of the political power the Iranian Right spent decades building, they must really hate him now.