What to do with Iran?

Ghoulish Delight · 01-18-2006, 01:41 PM

I'm trying to decide what Sharon's sudden departure means for the whole situation. I can see it going either way. A major new party on the verge of a major shakeup just lost the man who was essentially its entire foundation. Meanwhile, while the peace effort seems to have a little more steam than it has in a long time, it's in a total limbo state and the recent riots haven't helped.

So, whatever government ends up shaking out now that Sharon's incapacitaed, I would not be surprised whether they either decide that there's too much instability at home to risk getting into it with Iran right now, or decide that getting into it with Iran is just the thing they need to take the focus off the instability at home.

scaeagles · 01-18-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I would not be surprised whether they either decide that there's too much instability at home to risk getting into it with Iran right now, or decide that getting into it with Iran is just the thing they need to take the focus off the instability at home.

I see it as a broader calculation. I do not think that Iran's leadership would hesitate to nuke Israel. I see it as an issue of survival, not as one of political calculation. How many nukes would it take to completely destroy Israel? It isn't a very big place.

Alex · 01-18-2006, 02:41 PM

I'm sure that if nothing is done eventually Israel would do something. I'm also sure that having Israel do it is the surest way to ensure another 30 years of instability.

If a military operation is performed it would be best if one of the European NATO countries did it, even better if we could get another Middle Eastern country (or Russia) to do it while making it clear they have the support of Europe and the United States.

Whether it is effective or not, it would be best to have a U.N. Security Council resolution in support of action to destroy Iran's military capabilities.

Personally, I feel that the decision to develop nuclear weapons is a legitimate one for a sovereign nation and that such persuits are not sufficient grounds for violating national sovereignty. Iran should just say they are no longer signatory to whatever anti-proliferation treaties would otherwise constrain them.

01-18-2006, 01:41 PM	#1
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	I'm trying to decide what Sharon's sudden departure means for the whole situation. I can see it going either way. A major new party on the verge of a major shakeup just lost the man who was essentially its entire foundation. Meanwhile, while the peace effort seems to have a little more steam than it has in a long time, it's in a total limbo state and the recent riots haven't helped. So, whatever government ends up shaking out now that Sharon's incapacitaed, I would not be surprised whether they either decide that there's too much instability at home to risk getting into it with Iran right now, or decide that getting into it with Iran is just the thing they need to take the focus off the instability at home. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 02:41 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm sure that if nothing is done eventually Israel would do something. I'm also sure that having Israel do it is the surest way to ensure another 30 years of instability. If a military operation is performed it would be best if one of the European NATO countries did it, even better if we could get another Middle Eastern country (or Russia) to do it while making it clear they have the support of Europe and the United States. Whether it is effective or not, it would be best to have a U.N. Security Council resolution in support of action to destroy Iran's military capabilities. Personally, I feel that the decision to develop nuclear weapons is a legitimate one for a sovereign nation and that such persuits are not sufficient grounds for violating national sovereignty. Iran should just say they are no longer signatory to whatever anti-proliferation treaties would otherwise constrain them.
	Submit to Quotes