Iran's Nuclear Threat

[Az]

Actually, There are plenty of compelling moral reasons not to attack Iran unlike Iraq: like the amount of casualties on both sides.

[GePap]

Well, like North korea, Iran could always, once the plant at Bushewer (spll) is completed, pull out of the NPT in three months time.

And I agree with MtG, even if Bush were to get a second term, Iran would not be atarget for US invasion, or even attack. As for what israel does, the Iraninas would probably not loose to much time even if Israel attacked these facilities, and it would be worse if they atatcked the nuclear power plant. All it would do, besides a few months lost, is strengthen the hard-liners in Tehran.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
Actually, There are plenty of compelling moral reasons not to attack Iran unlike Iraq: like the amount of casualties on both sides.

Yeah, who cares about the war in Iraq? it's just iraqis dying. It's not like they're americans or israelies or anything.

[Ted Striker]

Why don't we let our Israeli friends take care of this one like they did to that reactor in the 1980s? A quick air strike will do the job.

Though, if I was Iran, I'd be rushing a nuke program out the door as soon as I could, what with huge American forces now in TWO surrounding countries. (Iraq and Afghanistan).

[GePap]

A quick aristrike probably won't do it, given that the Iranians have several nuclear facilities, including one being built by Russia. Such an atatck would not end an Iranian program, but would surely cause grave diplomatic damage to Israel and the US (us in particular).

[Ted Striker]

When it comes to things like this, Israel is sort of like immune in terms of diplomatic damage. That's why I thought it was better for them to do it instead of us.

Of course you are right though that any action the Israelis do is seen as being supported by the US in terms of Arab eyes.

[GePap]

That's the thing Ted, we are the ones likely to catch hell, and we will be the ones in Iraq at the time. And as I said, since such an attack is extremely unlikely to mean the end of an Iranian program, it would be more counter-productive than not, since any attack on iran would be a green light for the hard-liners to get tough on reformist elements, thus lengthening the lifespan of a regime that is not all that secure internally.

[Ted Striker]

It's still an option on the table, though, and it's going to be the Arabs that are going to be pissed. Since Bush already pissed them off with the Axis of Evil, the damage has already been done. Had he not included Iran in that speech, I would be inclined to agree with you, but he's already laid it out on the table and there is not much going back. (I would have preferred a quieter approach with the Iranians).

I would see an airstrike from Israel as being worth the diplomatic risk.

And about the hardliners, they are existing on life support. Even with the recent election, it's only a matter of time before those old geezers simply die off and the kids take over.

[Sirotnikov]

Well, like North korea, Iran could always, once the plant at Bushewer (spll) is completed, pull out of the NPT in three months time.

I don't think they would do that. Deception is the best strategy. While intelligence agencies will certainly know Iran has nukes, there's no reason to announce it.

Then Iran could organize lots of liberal airheads marching with banners saying "Iran has no nukes".

And I agree with MtG, even if Bush were to get a second term, Iran would not be atarget for US invasion, or even attack. As for what israel does, the Iraninas would probably not loose to much time even if Israel attacked these facilities, and it would be worse if they atatcked the nuclear power plant. All it would do, besides a few months lost, is strengthen the hard-liners in Tehran.

I never suggested an attack on Iran.

I said that Iran are likely to become a target of action, as compared to the inaction stance taken by US towards Iran for 20 years now.

Obviously this will be done covertly, as any overt action will cause more resistance than use.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Pekka
I agree with MTG. I think they are bigger threat than Iraq.

But by far the largest threat to US supremacy in the world is China - long term. As far as attacking the cities or nuking the largest threat is not the state but terrorists, or mad scientists and such

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why don't we let our Israeli friends take care of this one like they did to that reactor in the 1980s? A quick air strike will do the job.

Won't Iran be more prepared for this than Iraq was?

[Odd]

Seeing the difference in how the Iraq and NK problems are handled I think the message is clear: get a nuke as fast as you can, because if you survive the process you will be respected.

Now, there´s anyone in the world who believes that Iran, sitting over all that oil, would build a nuclear plant to produce energy?

It will be very hard avoiding national states to put their hands on a technology that´s almost 60 years old though.