Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran

In article <clund-777955.14351419012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Even in a revolution where few or no shots are fired, you still probably
have a situation where there's no functioning government for a while.
When that happens, control over the nuclear weapons effectively devolves
onto whoever has physical access to them. Even if they can't launch them
immediately because they don't have security codes (and you can't assume
the system will be that sane; it wasn't in the Soviet Union), they can
still give them or sell them to someone who will eventually figure out
how to circumvent the security.

So, who are these people guarding the weapons going to be? Regime
loyalists, one assumes. Maybe even outright plants by terrorist
organizations. Not a good situation.

> > > 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...

Yes. And I'm not sure we'll see a stable Middle East even if they all
happen. Stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan could actually
encourage revolutions in other countries -- this is, in fact, a stated
goal of building such democracies. Some of these may be peaceful and
orderly... some may not be.

> > > 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.

Neither. We knew they both had infrastructure. Hell, both built their
first reactors with Western help (the US in India, Canada in Pakistan).

> > 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.

It probably won't be an issue. Regular people are generally more
interested in good jobs and cheap consumer goods than in revenge.

> > > > 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.

I'm sure Iran would be able to get off a few launches, but Israel could
probably be talked out of retaliating on any large scale. The Israelis
aren't stupid. They wouldn't want to escalate a conflict.

--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Until Freedom Rings
    ... They will be soundly defeated by Israel. ... Nuke Iran, Blame the Jews ... The current conflict may escalate to ... will be the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Nagasaki. ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • U.S. policy toward Iran has a lot less to do with nuclear weapons, than it does with serving the nee
    ... wolf and a goat", he said. ... Even defenders of Iran view this announcement with ... nuclear weapons bad in itself because the consequences of their use are too horrible ... Musharraf follow suit by building his own relationship with Israel. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • When a lunatic like ahmadinejad gets power
    ... Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever ... since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. ... That something serious may accrue to Iran for this - ... Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • rzydzi pomoga Ameryce tak jak kiedys pomogli Europie
    ... Attacking Iran for Israel? ... nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. ... assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, ...
    (soc.culture.polish)
  • The Iran Factor
    ... Even defenders of Iran view this announcement with trepidation, ... the US seems less concerned with nuclear weapons and more concerned ... Indian government signed on to the war against terrorism. ... follow suit by building his own relationship with Israel. ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)