Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Iran won't fear attack, because of the nukes, and won't fear sanctions, because they have oil, and those hardly work anyways. I'm not sure, but I also think they will have little effect on Iran, as it is not very west reliant.

So, what do you suggest we do about Iran getting nukes?

[chequita guevara]

They said the opposite of that too. Any country attacking Israel with chem weapons is putting its existence at risk.

[Winston]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not really, considering Israel has attacked its neighbors more often then not.

That's still a matter of interpretation. And tell me, how often has Israel attacked with the expressed intent of eliminating other nations, which is where nukes as a deterrent come in handy, as has been the Israeli experience, contrary to the time before they had them.

Also please answer from the post you quoted, if Iran doesn't decide to attack Israel, what do they have to fear from Israel's nukes (allegedly the reason why they have a "right" to acquire nukes of their own).

[Pekka]

"They said the opposite of that too. Any country attacking Israel with chem weapons is putting its existence at risk."

No, it was not in general. It was during some operation by the US in ME. MIght be this latest war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Ramo]

They'll get nukes. And there's isn't a damn thing we can do about it. It doesn't matter much anyhow, Khamenei has acted relatively rationally (unlike, say, Kim Jung Il).

Anyways, disaster #389390390390390390390 of the Bush Presidency.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
That's still a matter of interpretation. And tell me, how often has Israel attacked with the expressed intent of eliminating other nations, which is where nukes as a deterrent come in handy, as has been the Israeli experience, contrary to the time before they had them.

They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

Also please answer from the post you quoted, if Iran doesn't decide to attack Israel, what do they have to fear from Israel's nukes (allegedly the reason why they have a "right" to acquire nukes of their own).

Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

[Winston]

I think Pekka hit the nail on the head there.

1) We don't want any more nations to have nukes than those who already have them. No more.

2) Iran is not a friendly state no matter how you look at it outside of Islamic fundamentalism, and so arguing that they have a right to acquire nukes is just... well, 'unwise'...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
arguing that they have a right to acquire nukes is just... well, 'unwise'...

Who's arguing they should have them?

[Winston]

They've attacked Palestine with the intent of destroying it. They attacked Egypt with the intent of overthrowing it's government. They attacked Syria with the intent of destroying it by fracturing into multiple states. So at least three times.

That was the expressed intent of Israel? Or just something you dreamt up on occasions where Israel took military action to ensure its continued security in the face of hostile neighbours?

Because Israel is an historically aggressive state and has attacked its neighbors unprovoked on several occassions.

That is where we differ. I don't consider the military and political climate and actions of the neighbouring countries, with which Israel has been faced for the past half century to be "unprovocative". They want to and have always wanted to eliminate Israel as a state and as a nation, therein lies the inherent provocation. Which again gives Israel the casus belli to take preemptive military action if they feel their national security is being undermined.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


LIES!!!!

Israel has never said any such thing. You want to know why? Because Israel maintains that they do not have any nukes, despite the fact the world knows better.

They have stated repeatedly that they "will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the region.". The meaning of which is percisely what Pekka stated.

Well you're wrong. If they admitted it, the U.S. would automatically slap sanctions on them. Because Israel doesn't admit it, the U.S. can officially pretend Israel doesn't have them, and is thus not obligated by law to impose sanctions.

sanctions go out the window if the US has reason not to impose them. eg, the US waiving sanctions against Pakistan in order to get assisstance in Afghanistan.

[Winston]

Also, if Syria would follow Egypt's example and sign a peace agreement with Israel, I think everybody could sleep a little more safely. It wouldn't solve all problems of course, but it'd serve to promote a relaxation of tensions in the entire region.

[Last Conformist]

If I were in Iran's shoes, I'd want nukes. So I can't really fault them for seeking them.

Now, I happen not to be in said shoes, and would rather prefer if they did not get them. Since they conveniently signed a li'l treaty obliging them to not get them, I can even pretend to be moral about. But it's highly unclear to me what - excluding military attack - can really be done to stop them, except convincing them they don't want any. (Good thing I'm not on the diplomatic team - I'd be trying to make them accept a position I don't agree with!) And rhetorics nonewithstanding, it's somewhat reassuring that Iran hasn't started any wars for ages.

I suppose the real question is whether the risks involved in stopping them by violence would be worth it. I think not; Tehran doesn't seem to be any more suicidal in practice than Beijing (whose rhetorics a few decades ago were as fiery as anyone could ask for).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I suppose the real question is whether the risks involved in stopping them by violence would be worth it. I think not; Tehran doesn't seem to be any more suicidal in practice than Beijing (whose rhetorics a few decades ago were as fiery as anyone could ask for).

Who has the means of stopping them? Don't forget that our military might is tied down next door fighting "insurgents" in bloody street battles. We don't have the military capability for a military solution to Iran at this point.

Besides, we shredded our "political capital" on the issue of foreign interventions with the Iraq war. Given the alienation of our traditional allies and the debacle that has ensued, nobody else is going to want to go near Iran.

All this despite the fact that Iran has always and obviously been the real threat in the ME. Now it's a threat that is emboldened.

[Sirotnikov]

Not really, considering Israel has attacked its neighbors more often then not.

Yes, lets count the amount of times we did that.
1982.
1956 (because france and britain stupidly dragged us into this)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Not really, considering Israel has attacked its neighbors more often then not.

Yes, lets count the amount of times we did that.
1982.
1956 (because france and britain stupidly dragged us into this)

1967