Will anyone stop the Iranian nuke?

[Sandman]

Will anyone stop the Iranian nuke?

I'm doubtful that Bush has the support necessary to start a war with Iran - and it would be a war, all this nonsense about a few limited strikes or a swift regime change is painful to read.

It could work if Bush withdrew from Iraq first, leaving that country to its fate and removing US troops from danger, but also removing one of the main 'justifications' for attacking Iran. A hi-tech war to rally America around, with lots of fun missiles and few casualties.

[Deity Dude]

I'm of the opinion Israel won't allow it (with secret approval and backing of the US). Even if it means tacitical nukes to destroy the underground locations.
That probably equates to open war between Israel and Iran. As part of the secret approval the US defends Israel. Not sure if any super-power (China or Russia) openly or passively support Iran at that point. It's gonna happen before Bush is out of office because Israel knows that a new preseidnet will not want to start his/her term with a new war. Bush being a lame-duck has the luxury of not caring what anyone thinks.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
No one stopped NK, Israel, India, Pakistan, Soth Africa, China, France, the UK, or the USSR (not putting the US because they were first and working on it secretly).

Any state that feels they national interests demand they have a nuke will get them unless it is physically destroyed or conquered. The question is how to change that calculation of national interests. Threats of destruction or impoverishment have usually not worked, since they only intensify the logic for getting nukes.

They would if they were credible... Or carried out?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'd have to believe in an Iranian nuke to believe it could be stopped. This administration has no credibility whatsoever. If they say the sky is blue, I grab my umbrella.

So, YOU feel that ONLY the Bush Adminsitration is under the impression that Iran is trying to produce a Nuclear Weapon?

And you HONESTLY feel that Iran is not trying to produce a nuclear weapon?

Or are you looking for ANY excuse possible to take a shot at the Bush Administration, whether or not it has anything to do with what the current discussion is?

There are plenty of valid reasons (and other threads) to put down the Bush Administration without mixing it up with something as important as Iranian Nuclear Capability.

If you really care about America (and the world), then think about America's (and the world's) best interests as opposed to focusing on your problems with one person.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He's not a mod anymore.

Really? Someone should keep me informed of the things I miss when I don't pay attention.

[chequita guevara]

There is no Iranian nuke.

[Winston]

Will anyone stop the Iranian nuke?

Yes, the Mossad.

They've started poisoning key Iranian scientists working on the nuclear program - according to American intelligence sources referenced in today's Sunday Times. First man down was one Ardeshir Hassanpour, who up until his death was very busy producing uranimhexaflouride at a plant in Isfahan.

How tragic.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There is no Iranian nuke.

It's not nice to hog the the incredibly nice drugs you are on atm.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There is no Iranian nuke.

Not yet. I believe that is the point. Will someone stop Iran from getting a nuke?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Come to think of it, ISTM pressure on Libya DID work to get them to drop their program.

It worked because Quaddafi changed his mind on what he really wanted. Which is still in line with exactly what i said, any state that really wants nuclear bombs will get them. A state might change its mind, but then the decision lies inside.

Iran is in a vastly different strategic position than Lybia, plus it has a far more complex regime than a single man system like Lybia's.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


economic sanctions may have worked for both south africa and Iraq in addition to the libyan case you mentioned.

In Iraq the sanctions that worked were extremely harsh, and were only imposed thanks to a singular moment in time, and were only imposed because Iraq had committed the cardinal sin, infringing on another state's soverignty.

We tried bribes for north korea but those resulted only in an ignored agreement.

We said we would bribe NK, but we never paid our full side of the bribe we told them we would give them. Besides, the bribe as far as it went did work. The Uranium program the North koreans were carrying out was small potatoes compared to the plutonium that the bribe kept safe. If NK does have a nuclear arsenal today, its made with plutonium.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


It worked because Quaddafi changed his mind on what he really wanted. Which is still in line with exactly what i said, any state that really wants nuclear bombs will get them. A state might change its mind, but then the decision lies inside.

Iran is in a vastly different strategic position than Lybia, plus it has a far more complex regime than a single man system like Lybia's.

Im presuming what Qaddafi really wanted was to keep his regime secure, and that he did not change his mind about that. What he changed his mind about was how to do that - whether it was better to build nukes, both for deterrence of direct regime change, and to cover expansion of influence in Africa, versus cutting a deal. Similarly presumably the ruling mullahs in Iran want to preserve the regime, and have to weigh a strat of nukes for deterrence and for expansion of influence throughout the ME versus cutting a deal.

Stategically diff position = yes, theyre less vulnerable to conventional attack. But their demography may make them MORE vulnerable to economic sanctions. Diff regime - yes. But thats a problem for them, both ways. If, say, you're Rafsanjani, you have to be concerned BOTH with the antiregime elements on the fringe of the system, who are currently weak, but who could be empowered with sanctions (a threat Muammar didnt have to face) AND you have to deal with someone like Ahmadinajad, who is MORE of a risk to the regime as it pursues nuclear weapons than he would be without a nuclear program(because he tends to provoke outsiders, etc). Another problem Muammar didnt have to face.

[Eli]

Hey LotM, since when are you on a first name basis with Kadaffi?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We may have to investigate this

[lord of the mark]

easier to spell than Kuadaffi, Khaddafi, Kaddafi, Khadaffi, Qadaffi, Qaddafi, etc.

Its almost as bad as Chanukkah, Hanukkah, Hanukah, Chanukah.