What to do with Iran?

scaeagles · 01-18-2006, 01:10 PM

Quite the conundrum. A tangled web, most certainly. Many thoughts, in no particular order.

Rice has said there is no point to further negotiations on their nuclear capability. I would agree with that, but what exactly does that mean?

Going to the security council is laughable. The UN is impotent. Iran will be afraid of a security council resolution? I don't think so.

Isreal will not allow Iran to possess nukes. Nor should they, really, when the President of Iran said recently that Israel should be wiped off the map. If Israel takes preemptive action, that will turn ugly very quickly and we could see a wide spread regional war with us backing Israel and Russia backing Iran. Not good.

If Iran has violated the nonproliferation treaty, which I think it is apparent that they have, is that justification for military action on the part of the US an/or NATO? I think the new leadership of Germany means they would be for it, but France I am not so sure. I would have to figure better NATO than Israel in terms of regional stability.

Russia wants a strong and nuclear Iran as a counter to US influence in the region. How far will they back Iran?

We would be fools to allow Iran to acquire nukes.

A conundrum, most certainly.

€uroMeinke · 01-18-2006, 01:14 PM

Isreal did it before to Iraq, I expect them to do the same with Iran - probably with the benefit of American intelligense. In any event they are the clear "bad cop" in future negotiations.

scaeagles · 01-18-2006, 01:17 PM

Yes, they did take out an Iraqi nuke facility in 1980, was it? I think this is a bit more involved. That strike involved two Israeli fighter/bombers, if I recall, but the Iranians have a whole bunch of facilities spread out all over. I have heard extimates that an effective military strike would mean destruction of about 90 facilities.

€uroMeinke · 01-18-2006, 01:21 PM

I don't think they would need to take out the entire program, just where the fuel is being manufactured - I don't think that can be done in a distributed piece-meal fashion. I suspect that's where American Intelligence comes in - I'm sure we could provide the best targets.

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.

Gemini Cricket · 01-18-2006, 01:53 PM

"And Iran, Iran so far away..."

scaeagles · 01-18-2006, 01:59 PM

Could you get away?

Not Afraid · 01-18-2006, 02:01 PM

Damn you and your stupid hairdos.

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, 01:10 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	What to do with Iran? Quite the conundrum. A tangled web, most certainly. Many thoughts, in no particular order. Rice has said there is no point to further negotiations on their nuclear capability. I would agree with that, but what exactly does that mean? Going to the security council is laughable. The UN is impotent. Iran will be afraid of a security council resolution? I don't think so. Isreal will not allow Iran to possess nukes. Nor should they, really, when the President of Iran said recently that Israel should be wiped off the map. If Israel takes preemptive action, that will turn ugly very quickly and we could see a wide spread regional war with us backing Israel and Russia backing Iran. Not good. If Iran has violated the nonproliferation treaty, which I think it is apparent that they have, is that justification for military action on the part of the US an/or NATO? I think the new leadership of Germany means they would be for it, but France I am not so sure. I would have to figure better NATO than Israel in terms of regional stability. Russia wants a strong and nuclear Iran as a counter to US influence in the region. How far will they back Iran? We would be fools to allow Iran to acquire nukes. A conundrum, most certainly.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 01:14 PM	#2
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Isreal did it before to Iraq, I expect them to do the same with Iran - probably with the benefit of American intelligense. In any event they are the clear "bad cop" in future negotiations. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 01:17 PM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Yes, they did take out an Iraqi nuke facility in 1980, was it? I think this is a bit more involved. That strike involved two Israeli fighter/bombers, if I recall, but the Iranians have a whole bunch of facilities spread out all over. I have heard extimates that an effective military strike would mean destruction of about 90 facilities.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 01:21 PM	#4
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	I don't think they would need to take out the entire program, just where the fuel is being manufactured - I don't think that can be done in a distributed piece-meal fashion. I suspect that's where American Intelligence comes in - I'm sure we could provide the best targets. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 01:41 PM	#5
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, 01:53 PM	#6
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	"And Iran, Iran so far away..."
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 01:59 PM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Could you get away?
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 02:01 PM	#8
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Damn you and your stupid hairdos.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2006, 02:41 PM	#10
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