the USA, Israel, and national interest

xp the concern about pakistan is just that -- that stability might fail and non-state agents could get access to the nuclear arsenal. but it's pretty clear that as long as they remain stable, they aren't going to use their weapons. i don't know that it's the same dynamic for Iran.

If it came to losing power in Iran, or a nuclear exchange

i wouldn't even put these in the same bucket. the green and reformist elements in iran were just as pro-nuke as the government and clerics

i think there are possible iranian administrations that wouldn't be quite as frightening re possession of nukes as the current one. like i wrote above, if iran was saying, "we need nukes as a deterrent," even that would be a totally different situation than the one currently at play.

I'm just not sure why attacking them makes any sense, though.

― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), donderdag 17 november 2011 20:13 (28 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^ This sums it up for me, perfectly. Iran's hateful rhetoric is one thing, but it seems to stem from frustration more than anything, from being a paper tiger, than from posing a real threat of actually preparing an attack on Israel. I don't think Iran is capable of it; I've not seen any proof even hinting at the fact that they are capable.

Looking through Israel's eyes, I can't see any good coming from a pre-emptive strike, in whatever way. Geopolitically speaking it would be extremely bad timing, too, with the 'Arab spring' flame dulling and flaring up still. It would only confirm the idea that Israel can do whatever they like, being backed by America, damaging the millions of people in Iran that are gaining energy - inspired by other masses of 'the people' in the region that have overthrown their regime - getting ready for the next revolution in Iran. Because it's on the way. It may take way longer than other countries in the region, but it's coming, I'm sure of that.

Attacking Iran would polarize things immensely, throw back all the progress made in the region to come to a democratic model.

What do you mean by 'capable'?

By 'capable' I mean 'capable'... ?

Like you don't think they have the capability to enrich enough uranium to produce militarized nuclear weapons? Or you don't believe they are emotionally capable of making the decision to nuke another country or what?

The former. I don't think Iran is technically capable of creating nuclear weapons and being able to use them.

Even if they were I think the likelihood of them doing so is pretty low.

I assume you're basing that off something? Bc it seems very clear to me that Iran is capable of creating nuclear weapons and if it weren't for sanctions/stuxnet/etc, would be well on the way to doing so (and may be well on the way to doing so right now). xp Like, is it controversial to say that if left to their own devices (punz), Iran would develop nuclear weapons?

My ex-Israeli-general grandfather-in-law told me he didn't think Iran would nuke Israel.

I think the chance of any state using a nuke is really low.

And I'm not even sure that Iran would be the most unstable aggressive country with one if they had one so really who cares.

Yeah, it seems like the greater danger is a nuke falling into the hands of a non-state actor.

I think that if you had a local nuclear weapon-pursuing state that said about your country, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region," you would care about their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Even if you weren't sure whether or not they'd actually use them.

As pointed out above I don't feel like even if Israel should really really care about this (like in an "ohmigod we are all not safe way" I don't think its best interests are served by attacking Iran (or for that matter anyone). But diplomacy isn't exactly Israel's strong suit either so go with what ya know, I guess.

And I'm saying right now in this thread if any Canadians ever say anything mean about the US again, I will support doing anything to prevent those maple syrup loving mofos from getting a nuke too.

i think israel doing the right thing by trying to stop the iranian nuclear program using "soft" methods like hacking

im not sure the iranian program is "advanced" enough to require bombing, and a bombing program guarantees a response, but doesnt guarantee the end of iranian nukes, i.e., the country has lots of sites, hidden sites, etc.

re: triumphalist/eliminationist rhetoric: the world lived through krushchev

I think Krushchev is a great example of how terrifying and debilitating the threat of a nuclear exchange can be, and esp wrt the Cuban Missile Crisis a great example of how close countries can come to a nuclear exchange. The lesson from Krushchev isn't, "Well, we survived him so we no longer need to be worried about nuclear exchanges." The lesson is "Holy shit, that was close. Let's try not to get into that situation again."

...by starting a war?

as "terrifying and debilitating" the threat of nuclear war can be, im not sure its quite as "terrifying and debilitating" as what would have happened if wed bombed russia's nuke sites

If you believe that Iran doesn't have the ability to wage any kind of war on Israel, then 'starting a war' isn't actually on the table at all. What is on the table is a limited bombing of nuclear sites similar to the bombing in Syria in 2007. And that as a last resort.

Let's try not to get into that situation again.

really nothing we can do but suck it up and deal imo

"The lesson is "Holy shit, that was close. Let's try not to get into that situation again.""

Yes, excellent plan. Bomb away then.

And the USSR had actual functioning nuclear weapons. They weren't trying to covertly develop them. If we had been adjacent to the USSR, subject to 'eliminationist' rhetoric from them, and had intelligence that suggested they were trying to develop nuclear weapons, I imagine an airstrike would have been on the table then too, and without the benefit of hindsight (that thank god a nuclear exchange never happened) it would have been the right move imo.

between iran's missles, hezbollah, and hamas, im not sure that i believe that iran "doesn't have the ability to wage any kind of war on Israel"

? "we" who? europe was right there!

xp

Is this guy always this "BOMB BOMB BOMB, it's the right thing to do"?

The lesson is "Holy shit, that was close. Let's try not to get into that situation again."

I beleive we all actually agree on this. How to get to, or nudge towards the 'not again' is the point.

I assume you're basing that off something? Bc it seems very clear to me that Iran is capable of creating nuclear weapons and if it weren't for sanctions/stuxnet/etc, would be well on the way to doing so (and may be well on the way to doing so right now). xp Like, is it controversial to say that if left to their own devices (punz), Iran would develop nuclear weapons?

― Mordy, Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:04 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Are you basing your assumptions on something? The "it seems very clear to me that" part? The sanctions, first and foremost, have to do with Iran not letting people in to check up on them. Which doesn't equal that they actually have nuclear weapons ready for use. Stuxnet is pro-level (contra) espionage and bordering on digital warfare, but it doesn't make a case for them having nuclear weapons ready to use.

really nothing we can do but suck it up and deal imo

Yes, excellent plan. Bomb away then.

These aren't actually arguments, you know? I get they're kinda snarky retorts in a dialogue but what exactly are either of you trying to prove? a) No one has to suck up anything -- there are a number of options on the table that range from unconventional technological covert actions like Stuxnet to international pressure and sanctions to, at the far end of the scale, something similar to Operation Orchard. b) Yes, bombing Iran is a last resort and one that carries a lot of risk and potential repercussions. No one in this thread (at least certainly not me) is suggesting that bombing Iran is the right thing to do. I don't know what the right thing to do is! But I acknowledge that the equation here -- balancing the potential risks of an airstrike against the potential risks of a nuclear armed Iran -- does not have obvious answers.

if you dont think bombing iran is the right thing to do what are we arguing about

Are you basing your assumptions on something?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-08/middleeast/world_meast_iran-nuclear_1_nuclear-program-iaea-report-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a critical report Tuesday saying that it has "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear program and has obtained "credible" information that the Islamic republic may be developing nuclear weapons.

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the report said. "After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

I don't know! That's what I was asking these guys. I don't know what they're arguing. I guess they're arguing that an airstrike can never be considered as an appropriate response to Iranian development of nuclear weapons and I'm arguing that it shouldn't be taken off the table.

If we had been adjacent to the USSR, subject to 'eliminationist' rhetoric from them, and had intelligence that suggested they were trying to develop nuclear weapons, I imagine an airstrike would have been on the table then too, and without the benefit of hindsight (that thank god a nuclear exchange never happened) it would have been the right move imo.

― Mordy, Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:43 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Key question is do you believe you/Israel (I'm confused by your usage of "we"), are/is at this point now? Do you support a so-called pre-emptive strike?

I don't have an stake in this one way or another to have an argument. I don't care if Iran gets a nuke (and I wouldn't if I leaved in Israel either). I think more (or alternately less) countries should have nukes btw. But I find the "oooh we care about the safety about our peoples" rhetoric from Israel and the US ridiculous given how little both these countries care about the safety of other peoples.

between iran's missles, hezbollah, and hamas, im not sure that i believe that iran "doesn't have the ability to wage any kind of war on Israel"

Mordy and I concurred that Israel is already in a cold war w/Iran. The possibility of another Six Day war + Iraq + Iran is the only way it could turn into another conventional war (I love 'conventional' as an adjective. It makes me think of a bunch of soldiers w/stick-on name tags that say, 'Smile, I'm here to slaughter you) which is highly, highly unlikely given the fraught relations w/Iraq.

Israel holding out the possibility of striking like a cobra-ninja is smart. Actually doing so; less so.

leaved hah lived

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

I am sorry, but this reminds me a little bit too much of Colin Powell's mistake about Iraq. I don't mean the IAEA has a political agenda or stance, but they basically only signal that there is more progress than "previously known".

Options:

International community continues and stiffens sanctions.

Possible results:

Delgitimizes already shakey regime. May cause more internal chaos even among political class. Bad side: Russia unlikely to ever fully support. This is essentially their Monroe doctrine territory and they will be dicks about it.

mordy i think we probably do disagree since your range of options are all "doing something to stop x from happening", which i don't think is possible.

i think we need to start thinking of what life will be like in a world with iran having some kind of nuclear capability, because that world is going to be real at some point. it can be delayed, but probably not stopped, even by bombing. bombing might well hasten it.

this technology is 70 years old, if a nation wants to have a nuclear bomb it can get one. america's ability to cause iranians to want one less is basically zero.

^^^ this

Options:

Israeli strike (for shits and giggles, let's assume success or realtive success - I kind of trust the Tsahal to be pretty badass)

Possible results:
Bad PR pretty much all around including the sovereignty-minded Chinese, the NIMBY Russians and the Arab/Muslim world, much of which is undergoing very useful and helpful reform.

In Iran? Who tf knows but it wont be good amongst the Greens many of whom support Iran being able to do anything that Israel/Russia/France/Britain, etc... can do, not to mention those newcomers in Pakistan.

Ok Max, that's the disagreement. I believe that Israel should do something -- tho I am not saying that something should be an airstrike -- and the other side of the argument here is that Israel shouldn't do anything but prepare for a nuclear armed Iran bc it's inevitable.

If we had been adjacent to the USSR...

Key question is do you believe you/Israel (I'm confused by your usage of "we"), are/is at this point now? Do you support a so-called pre-emptive strike?

― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre)

Ftr, the 'we' in that example is the United States, of which I am a citizen, and not 'we' Israel, of which I am not a citizen.

(I don't believe I've ever used 'we' to describe Israel since I don't consider myself a part of the Israeli State - tho I may have accidentally. I certainly don't consider myself an Israeli in any way and have no plans to make Aliyah now or in the future.)

they could always do both, delaying actions aren't necessarily a bad thing. unless they make the situation worse, which they might.

the 'inevitability' is the crux of it. if the iranian's having a bomb is not inevitable, then all the strategic calculus changes. but i think it basically is.

xp

I'm not sure that I believe that a nuclear weaponized Iran is inevitable. I do believe that a nuclear weaponized Khamenei is preventable tho, and desirable.

Options:

Non-Israeli entity strikes sites (let's assume more or less successfully. Regardless, it will delay the day they actually have anything)

Like Shamir's decision not to respond to Iraqi SCUD provocations, this negates some of the anti-Israeli concentration on the issue and makes it international.

Does it make Iran want nukes less? Not one bit. "Poor us. The world hates us."

Does it keep them from getting one? For the time being.

Domestic Iranian politics? Manna from heaven for the establishment. However, who is the establishment? I think it's increasingly clear that it isn't Ahmedinejhad. Does this expose the mullahs as the un-democratic, un-progressive force that they are in so brutal a way that the people abandon them or do they cleave to them from nationalism? Who tf knows.

Likely? No, but man I would love to see a Republican candidate or just a neo-con squirm on this.

I'm an ex-commie turned moderate liberal, so I think the secret to politics is to make as many ppl as possible as rich (comfortable) as possible and make sure the poor are sufficeintly tended to that they become relatively tame. The problem w/sanctions is they hurt and offend the very people who should be rising against this repressive state. Otoh, the patriotism of an ancient ppl like Iran probably cannot be sounded. They are immensely proud and bitter about the West, going back to Alexander