Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran

In article <znu-813B34.11211218012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <clund-D59A1C.10320018012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Mind you, I'm not saying this wouldn't get really messy. I'm just saying
> > > it's probably better than letting the Iranians get nuclear weapons.
> > I don't agree with that. There is no guarantee that Iran would share
> > it's nukes with various terrorists.
> Yes, I agree, they're not that stupid. However, the current Iranian
> regime is fairly likely to fall within the next couple of decades. Even
> if it falls to a more liberal government, pretty much anything could
> happen to its nuclear weapons during the likely chaos of the
> transitional period.

I'm not sure there would be much chaos either. If nobody interferes,
the current regime will most likely fall in a "velvet revolution"
rather than in a bloody mess.

> > But there is no question that a violent intervention with Iran is
> > very likely to start a conflagration in the ME that could very well
> > spill out all over the place.
> I think we pretty much have to work under the assumption that there are
> going to be conflagrations in the ME in the future no matter what the US
> does.

Maybe, maybe not. If the US sticks with Iraq for another decade (or
whatever it takes) for the country to stabilise itself, and
Afghanistan is put back together, and Israel doesn't do anything
stupid, then things might work out OK.

Hmm.. those are three very big "if"s...

> > The world might be able to prevent Iran from getting nukes for a
> > while, but they / we can't prevent them from getting nukes forever.
> > If the Iranians really want this, then it's only a matter of time
> > before they do. High-tech will always become low-tech with time. How
> > far should one go to prevent Iran from getting nukes? How much will
> > they hate the world when they do?
> What you say is true in principle, but it's going to be a pretty long
> time before anyone can make nuclear weapons without some fairly large
> and obvious infrastructure.

Was it India or Pakistan who developed their nukes in complete secrecy
and the world didn't find out until they tested one? We're already
there.

> We don't need to prevent Iran from getting
> nuclear weapons forever. We only need to prevent Iran from getting
> nuclear weapons until it has something resembling a stable, modern
> democratic government, at which time Iran either won't want nukes, or we
> won't particularly mind if it has them.

That wouldn't matter one bit if the people represented by that stable
modern government hates Israel and the US for what they've done to
them to prevent the current regime from getting nukes. Present-day
Iranians still remember the Shah and what he did to them.

> > > Yes, but my impression is, Israel would be willing to risk it, rather
> > > than let the Iranians get nukes.
> > There's doubt of that. IIRC US diplomats had their hands full
> > preventing Israel from responding to Saddam's scuds. It don't think
> > they'll be able to stop the Israelis from responding to Iranian
> > missiles.
> Well, yes, I'd assume that if Israel struck Iran's reactors, it would
> also strike missile sites as part of the same attack.

The ones they could find. But aren't most missiles launched from
mobile pads these days? They could all be safe underground at the
moment.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: August 22 -- Does Iran have something in store?
    ... Iran has beaten the Taliban and Saddam ... Middle East, and to those who claim Iran is not a real democracy ... You know any Iranians? ... I want only Israel to win because there is no other just society in the ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Better than fiction!
    ... Iran does not. ... I wonder if he was actually talking about Israel as a single ... rights ordinary Iranians had under the Shah. ... I understand that Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, is ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Better than fiction!
    ... Iran does not. ... I wonder if he was actually talking about Israel as a single ... He held a conference of Holocaust deniers. ... rights ordinary Iranians had under the Shah. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime" (for Israel, of course!)
    ... while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. ... She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. ... Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, ... New book challenges US support for Israel ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Could Iranian nukes control Strait of Hormuz?
    ... >>>Would not Iranian possession of nukes give them defacto political ... >>>at will, in an instant, being done in such a way that Iran could not be ... >>>through the straits only at the will of Iran. ... The idea of the Iranians ...
    (sci.military.naval)