Iran

[RJM Corbet]

Afghanistan's under control (as good as can ever be achieved there, anyway), Iraq pretty much sorted out, got Pakistan right there boy, Libya's a wrap, Syria? Who cares, no strategic position, no oil, Iran ... watch this space ...

[J-WO]

I'm not war-ga-ga (and I've no other suggestions) but the prospect of Iran with nukes is terrifying. For one, those Mullahs simply aren't percieving things in the same way as the two major powers of the Cold War (in which, I'm sure you'll all have noticed, no one hit the red button)- annihilation would actually be a good thing to those guys. I think, given peak oil and climate change (something people see as being a seperate issue to nukes but really isn't, long term) the chances of a limited nuclear exchange in the next 50 years is high. Iran's ownership of nukes would shift it from being a possibility to being a probability.

Secondly, and very inevitably, Iran would be 'made' in the Mafiosa sense. Cancel all hope of a Persian Spring. The Republic could do what the hell they'd like to their people and the outside world would only be able to watch the shaky mobilephone footage and regret. The boot (to steal from Orwell) would very much be glued to the face of that particular group of humanity for as long as Amadinajhad likes.

Even if a popular rebellion should succeed without foreign intervention, the Mullahs may as well vaporise themselves and large portions of their country as face an international court.

America is highly unlikely to invade. The popular will isn't there and Iran is more like a minature continent than a country. I'll put a grand on the table that Israel will perform a multi-pronged airstrike within the next year (22 months tops) with intelligence from the US, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. From an Israeli perspective it's a clear existential threat and America could weather such a scenario.

[RJM Corbet]

Status of World Nuclear Forces 2011


http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nuke...ukestatus.html

Iran's not included, but that didn't stop 'the west' invading Iraq, on the pretext. I believe the start of 2012 will see 'the west' making increasing efforts to drum up popular will by creating pretexts. I believe the decision has already been made, at the top that, after Libya, Iran comes next. Iran has powerful allies in both Russia and China. The cold war is behind us, but the nukes are still very much there ...

[J-WO]

Yep. It's a bummer alright...

[Talhe]

Originally Posted by J-WO

I'm not war-ga-ga (and I've no other suggestions) but the prospect of Iran with nukes is terrifying. For one, those Mullahs simply aren't percieving things in the same way as the two major powers of the Cold War (in which, I'm sure you'll all have noticed, no one hit the red button)- annihilation would actually be a good thing to those guys. I think, given peak oil and climate change (something people see as being a seperate issue to nukes but really isn't, long term) the chances of a limited nuclear exchange in the next 50 years is high. Iran's ownership of nukes would shift it from being a possibility to being a probability.

Secondly, and very inevitably, Iran would be 'made' in the Mafiosa sense. Cancel all hope of a Persian Spring. The Republic could do what the hell they'd like to their people and the outside world would only be able to watch the shaky mobilephone footage and regret. The boot (to steal from Orwell) would very much be glued to the face of that particular group of humanity for as long as Amadinajhad likes.

Even if a popular rebellion should succeed without foreign intervention, the Mullahs may as well vaporise themselves and large portions of their country as face an international court.

America is highly unlikely to invade. The popular will isn't there and Iran is more like a minature continent than a country. I'll put a grand on the table that Israel will perform a multi-pronged airstrike within the next year (22 months tops) with intelligence from the US, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. From an Israeli perspective it's a clear existential threat and America could weather such a scenario.

I've had the same worries as you, and fear over the potential blowback over a hypothetical attack (I've got family and friends in the Middle-East). However, I don't think Iranian policy is irrational (the leaders of Iran are a different story). I believe they want nuclear arms for two rational reasons; to prevent a potential attack by America/NATO/whoever else (not an unreasonable fear), and to assert dominance over the Persian Gulf and the wider region.

I (unfortunately) think you're right about the prospect of anti-Mullah revolution; not only is the regime strong, it can claim that outside forces would use it to their advantage, or be behind it. Chances of outside intervention are slight; the lack difficulties in attacking Iran (compared to Libya or Iraq) would make a victory successful means no NATO action.

I dislike making predictions, though, and after living through this year, I wouldn't stay too fixed on a possibility. Anyways, that's my two digital cents.

[J-WO]

Your two digital cents are very welcome here!

[svalbard]

If you look at any daily newspaper you will notice plenty of small articles about Iran. It is like an artillary bombardment. The public are slowly getting softened up to a war in Iran. After the disasters in Afghanistan(nothing achieved) and Iraq(country in worse condition now than ever), a war in Iran would be a most ill-concieved idea. But if there is money to be made...

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by svalbard

If you look at any daily newspaper you will notice plenty of small articles about Iran. It is like an artillary bombardment. The public are slowly getting softened up to a war in Iran. After the disasters in Afghanistan(nothing achieved) and Iraq(country in worse condition now than ever), a war in Iran would be a most ill-concieved idea. But if there is money to be made...

And perhaps people like you and me can still do something to bring it to people's notice in time before it's a fait accomplis, and ask people to take notice and persuade their parliamentarians and representatives to take notice and work with whatever small power they have to restrain the dogs of what could easily become 21st Century nuclear war ...

[svalbard]

I am not too sure about that RJM, millions took to the streets before Iraq and were ignored. Bottom line is that war is good for a certain type of buisness and as such conflict is sought. The author Naomi Klein, a younger Naom Chomski, is very good on this. Her book The Shock Doctrine is required reading on modern poltical thought.

[RJM Corbet]

No, you're right, and I don't see myself or most other chrons types as militant crusaders. But I just see this thing unfolding, and when I share my thoughts with people they're like: yeah -- now that you mention it ...

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by J-WO

I'm not war-ga-ga (and I've no other suggestions) but the prospect of Iran with nukes is terrifying.

Why? To really believe that is to believe that the people running Iran are insane. They're not, they're politicians, and their over-riding ambition is to keep themselves in power. Whatever their rhetoric for internal consumption, they are not about to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Israel or anyone else because they know full well what the response would be. The suggestion that the Iranians are fanatical enough to start a nuclear war for fundamentalist reasons (and invite death) ignores history and human nature. This is just the same ignorance and fear that the politicians played upon before the invasion of Iraq. In fact the same scare tactics are used before any conflict in order to soften the people up.

The Iranians want nuclear weapons for one reason only, the same reason all the other Middle East dictatorships wanted them - for self-defense against NATO, Israel and the US.

The real reason the US doesn't want these countries to have nuclear weapons is the exact opposite - they want to retain the ability to enforce their will militarily, and they'd lose that ability aganist any of these countries that have nukes - as can be seen by their dealings regarding North Korea since they got nuclear weapons, which have been entirely diplomatic.

The Middle Eastern countries saw that North Korea was no longer being threatened and understood the lesson perfectly well.

[RJM Corbet]

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nuke...ukestatus.html

Sorry to repeat myself. Check above link ... Iran doesn't have nukes. It's a smokescreen.

But Russia and the US still have 20 thousand between them, then there's France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, N. Korea, in that order ...

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by RJM Corbet

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nuke...ukestatus.html

Sorry to repeat myself. Check above link ... Iran doesn't have nukes. It's a smokescreen.

But Russia and the US still have 20 thousand between them, then there's France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, N. Korea, in that order ...

I didn't say they had them. I said they wanted them (just not for the reasons given by Western countries). I think it's naive to believe otherwise.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

I didn't say they had them. I said they wanted them (just not for the reasons given by Western countries). I think it's naive to believe otherwise.

Of course ...

[Wiglaf]

What nukes would give Iran is the ability to use threats and conventional strikes against their neighbors without fear of retaliation. Think of North Korea's actions against South Korea. Iran would completely control the Strait of Hormuz. They would also have free reign to bully Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and others in the region.
I still don't know why Iraq was invaded. It would have been overkill if there were chemical weapons, North Korea and Iran were bigger threats at the time, and we were to scared to send the necessary troops to Afghanistan and tried to rely on the Northern Alliance for the ground warfare.