Without wanting to downplay the seriousness of Iran's nuclear program, this is incorrect on two counts. Firstly, Iran has not enriched to weapons-grade - the highest levels it has gone to is just under 20%, which is still LEU (Low-Enriched Uranium).
Secondly, there are other uses for weapons-grade HEU other than weapons - for example, Brazil enriches to weapons-grade to produce fuel elements for its nuclear submarines (HEU is used in naval reactors so that they can be more compact). Iran doesn't have naval reactors, though.
Some people would argue that Iran with weapons grade uranium could reasonably increase the chances that 50,000 Americans will die in the next 10 years by more than 1 in 10,000. That suggests the US could reasonably kill 5 Iranians to deal with the threat. However, Iran would respond to such action which suggests a more limited response such such as planting a virus is reasonable as long as the US can get away with it.
PS: That's how these people think, rare events vs lot's of deaths = covert and deniable action.
I think a nuclear armed Iran would greatly decrease the probability of Americans being killed by Iranians.
The logic is simple: nukes bring a country into MAD (mutually assured destruction) mechanics. Most likely Iran would use Israel as a hostage since it would not have the ICBMs necessary to attack the US directly. It would be like North Korea and Japan, only "Japan" would be nuclear armed.
I consider invasion of Iran by the US the most likely vector for Iranians killing Americans. MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea.
(I don't buy neo-conservative anti-Muslim ideology around suicidal leaders for a second. NK is far worse in this respect, IMO; that whole country is being led on a suicidal basis.)
>MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea
I thought MAD only worked with rational players. Do we know the people who would hold the levers would be rational? We (the west) don't seem to have the same feedback network (i.e. spies) we could depend on as we did with the USSR. That and we had the "red phone" thing. Dunno if that was more gimmick than actual tool.
>I don't buy neo-conservative...
We don't know what the control structure behind such threat there would be. Can one person cause a launch, conversely, can one person override a launch order?
Yes, I believe that leaders who are able to control a country are rational players.
(I think nuclear weapons are probably the greatest ever contributory factor to world peace in absolute terms. I'm certain that the 20th century would have been far, far bloodier throughout its span had they not been invented.)
The (claimed) risk isn't that Iran would use nuclear weapons against the US in any official capacity. The risk is that Iran will simply leak nuclear weapons to a proxy terrorist organization (i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) If you accept the US government's claims that Iran has used state sponsored terrorism as a political and social tool, then it follows that a nuclear armed Iran is a large risk to the United States.
I never said the claimed risk was that Iran would use nuclear weapons against the US - you seem to be attacking a straw man there. I believe the risk is that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel in retaliation to an attack on itself.
I don't buy Iran arming terrorists with nukes either. Both the US and USSR have used state sponsored terrorism as political and social tools, but never armed them with nuclear weapons. Without extremely plausible deniability, the repercussions of MAD would reach through if such weapons were ever used.
I think Iran sees nuclear weapons as its ultimate defense against continuing belligerent and threatening rhetoric from the US. And from my perspective as a neutral observer, it's hard to disagree with them. I think it's inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons, and the sooner that reality is dealt with on a rational basis, the better. If anything, the US should be bargaining with Iran to get a quid pro quo in return for acceptance of nuclear armament.
This is silly thinking. The only thing that a MAD based stalemate is better than is a nuclear holocaust. Otherwise it's worse than every other option.
The Cold War was better than WWIII but it wasn't something to be cavalier about, over a hundred million people died due to the oppression in communist countries, and a far larger number of people's lives were irrevocably damaged by over a half century of tragedy. Even if a nuclear armed Iran likely won't end in a nuclear war that doesn't give license to simply pretend as though the prospect of a nuclear armed Iranian regime is anything other than a huge step backward for the world.
I think well over 100 million people would have died if the US could have attacked the USSR in conventional warfare, if nuclear weapons had never been invented; actually, I think the USSR would have overrun Europe, the US would have been driven back, and communism would have had even more victims to feast upon.
A nuclear armed Iran is inevitable, IMO. The only means of trying to stop it - bigger and bigger threats, short of invasion no-one has the stomach for - seem to me to only guarantee this, because they reinforce the motivation for getting there.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a postdoc in Nuclear Physics and he said that the type of reactor Iran chose to build only makes sense if you are trying to make a weapon... Something to the effect of better/more standard nuclear power is easier/cheaper/more efficient than what they were doing.
...or energy production. But, yeah, let's just say they're going to make a nuclear weapon, so that we can be "justified" when we invade them for their resources.
Look, you can say that Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons (I would prefer they didn't).
You can say that the US only cares because of oil (I'll agree with you), though you only mean Iranian oil while I mean Iran's pressure on the gulf states and their oil trade.
But you can't legitimately say that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapons program. Too many secret facilities, too well protected, for their program to be merely civilian.
Well, Iran's leaders have stated that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. At least Israel has a legitimate reason to what they are doing and then some.
No they haven't. That convenient mistranslation is widely reported because it suits the narrative of the major political powers [1].
They've essentially said the current political regime in Israel must / will disappear. However that sentiment is less useful if your aim is to portray the Iranian state as an aggressive, modern-day Nazi regime though.
Anyway that aim (essentially portraying Iran as a country dedicated to the extermination of Jews in the Middle East) completely falls apart in the mind of anyone who cares to review the facts: Iran houses the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside Israel, with population estimates ranging between 30,000 and 90,000 people (most sources put it at 75 000) [2], and they are represented in the Iranian parliament.
The current Iranian regime is certainly terrible, and can and should be condemned for many reasons, but pushing the notion that Iran threatens Israel with genocide is pr-fueled nonsense. Useless for intelligent discussion, but handy for manipulating public opinion.
You either see Israel as an intentionally aggressive religiously driven racist (different license plates, voting laws, roads, id cards, laws) nuclear state with a colorful history of terrorism, espionage, invasions,
spying, and assassination convictions in multiple countries, or you choose to ignore all of history and blindly support it. Either way, please stop acting surprised when people claim Israels' foreign policy is antagonistic, as if her detractors are mistaken and fabricating... as if Chomsky and Kofi Anaan are liars...
You don't like Israel, fine. To what in my post do you object? How do I act surprised?
BTW, the _government_ of Israel has never been religiously driven, rather it has always been security conscious. The racism, nuclear deterrent, invasions, and assassinations are all a result of security policy (what do you call terrorism?). Condemning countries for espionage/spying (twice!) is kinda strange - all countries engage in espionage. The most egregious, in both this respect and invasions is the US. Do you perchance live on land stolen from Mexico or the American Natives? Enjoying a standard of living dependent on world wide projection of military power? Even if you don't, I think Israel receives a disproportionate amount of criticism for the amount of evil it does.
Israel was founded by Lehi, Irgun, and Haganah. The evacuation plan which led to the population growth of Israel was invented by Irgun commander Ze'ev Jabotinsky. The sixth prime minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, was also a commander in Irgun. Irgun and Lehi led to Herut, which is now the modern controlling Likud party in Israel. Lehi also had Yitzhak Shamir who became prime minister in the 1980s.
Lehi is famous for the Ankara document which proposed a pact with Nazi Germany to help start a totalitarian state (their words) in Palestine, to fulfill Zionism. They sponsored multiple sabotage and espionage operations against the British and in the Middle East. They were instrumental later in the invasion of Iran in 1942.
Lehi assassinated politicians in Britain and was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.
Irgun is an even easier case to make. Its motto: a hand holding a rifle with the words "only thus" underneath it. It was self-described as a terrorist organization by spokespeople from it at the time (1940s) and openly spoke of terrorism as the only effective way for a Zionist state.
So yes, Israel exists because of terrorism and is deeply rooted in it at a fundamental basis.
The whole point is that to point out that the current political manifestation known as Israel is a danger for the geopolitical stability of the region is actually a valid observation that historians will see as clear as day in 500 years. I know how politically unwise it is currently, but that doesn't make the reality false. There's lots of bitter pills out there.
Your CounterPunch source seems to have quite an agenda. It goes on to claim that Iran has no nuclear weapons program at all- a claim that is not well supported by all the things we see Iran doing.
Even if the article is correct, Ahmadinejad has said things like "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" and "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." The simplest interpretation of these statements is that Ahmadinejad strongly supports military action against Israel. (Unless you think Ahmadinejad is talking about a more peaceful way for Israel to "vanish from the page of time?")
Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population? That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel.
> Also: who cares if Iran has a Jewish population?
It's a simple fact to illustrate that Iran is not bent on destruction of the Jewish people. Cultivating that idea in the public mind is the aim of that mistranslation, because the false idea of a genocidal Iran garners more worldwide support for the Israeli Government.
> That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to Israel.
The only people threatened in any serious way by the Iranian regime are the Iranian people themselves. The idea that Iran poses a threat to Israel or the West is merely the public story to garner support for any military action.
Iran is surrounded by the largest military super-power in history, and has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons. Iran's military posture is defensive, and all serious military analysis does not regard Iran as a threat. A politician talking things up for a domestic audience does not qualify as a serious threat, but it certainly helps feed into a narrative for Western audiences.
The nuclear ambitions of Iran are also clearly defensive. North Korea remains untouched where Iran's neighbour Iraq is completely overrun. Obtaining nuclear-power status delivers much more political leverage, but that's it. Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.
> Iran...has a hostile and aggressive neighbour who is armed with a significant number of nuclear weapons.
There isn't a single time in history Israel has gone to war or engaged in military action except to address a direct threat to its own security. Aggressive? No. Hostile? Only when threatened, which Israel constantly has been.
Geographically, Iran is nowhere near Israel. Israel has no realistic way of projecting force as far as Iran, and no reason to initiate a nuclear strike.
> Iran's leaders know any move to aggression would quickly result in military annhilation by Israel / US.
If that's the status quo, then it's in the interests of the world to keep it that way. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will be free to act with aggression against its neighbors, including Iraq, because the US will have no means to stop them.
Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians and Saudi-backed militias and NATO soldiers. Iran sends weapons and money to Hamas in Gaza. Iran funds and sends weapons to Hezbollah, a paramilitary and political organization that has metastasized in Lebanon, accused of assassinating the Lebanese president. Iran sends weapons and money to Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.
Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?
I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.
> Iran has insurgents and clerics in Iraq actively attacking Sunni civilians...
Yes it does, as outlined in the Defense Intelligence Agency's statement on Iran's military power (from 2010)[1]. However I simply said Iran's military posture is defensive, which it is:
"Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external threats, particularly from the United States and Israel." and "This reflects its defensive military doctrine, which is designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities"
A more recent analysis from the US military (from 2012)[2] also concludes: "However, it is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack".
The actual military analysis is very clear that Iran is not a military threat, but the narrative for public consumption is that Iran is a major threat. That's the difference between reality and public relations.
> Can you explain what is to be gained by pushing apologist rhetoric for the Iranian regime?
What apologist rhetoric? I specifically condemn the regime in an earlier comment. It is certainly possible to point out facts (such as "Iran's military posture is defensive") without condoning or supporting the Iranian regime. It seems where I type "Iran's military posture is defensive", you read "Iran is a good actor", which is a very different sentiment (and one I don't hold!).
> I'm genuinely curious to know what you personally gain or what is gained 'in the abstract' by sugar-coating Iran's international ambitions. There seems to be a certain faction within the left that is very bent on this mission and I'm hoping you can explain the rationale behind it.
What sugar-coating? I've simply observed in this thread that the Iranian regime is not genocidal, and has a defensive military posture. I've also said the current regime is certainly terrible. It appears you think that striving to understand the geopolitical reality rather than buying in to the pr story immediately makes someone a 'left' Iranian regime sympathiser, which is rather odd (and untrue).
In terms of Iranian strategies and ambitions, it's really worth looking at the military context Iran is operating within[3]. The "Iranian Threat" is not an existential threat to Israel or the world (which is how it is portrayed in the media), but simply a threat to US interests in the region. Iran naturally wants to enhance and assert its regional influence, which obviously conflicts with US regional ambitions.
The reality is a war with Iran would be a war of aggression for territorial gain and subjugation[4], but to make the action palatable to the public it needs to be perceived as a war of self-defense. As much as I despise the Iranian regime, I agree with the statements at the Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
The Jewish and Armenian members of Parlament are just puppets.
Iranian regime only tolerate tiny minorities, because they do not represent any threat, while large minorities like Azeris and Kurds are forcefully iranized and denied any signs of cultural and ethnic autonomy.
That suggests there was a first attack in this conflict; AIUI, the Israel vs. middle east conflict is centuries old, and this is just the latest chapter of escalation and posturing. Once could also argue that Iran is justified in wanting to eliminate Israel because Israel is acting to prevent Iran's growth.
Don't mistake my words for wanting to live in Iran -- I just find myself disgusted when we westerners use a ridiculous double standard when judging our own behavior as compared to that of some country we don't like.
It's more than judging "behavior," Iran has specifically said that they want to wipe Israel off the map. More than once. So it is, or it may be a matter of life and death, not just tolerating someone's odd choice in clothes, or whatever.
Is Iran bluffing, are Iran's leader rational or brainwashed religious fanatics? When all it takes is one nuke, why should Israel wait to find out?
Many in the US have said the same thing about Iran. When all it takes is one nuke, why should Iran wait to find out? See the hypocrisy? Existential threats work both ways. Are those US talking heads and politicians "brainwashed religious fanatics?" A more important question is why Iran('s government) wants (or claims to want) to eliminate Israel, and how to change their mind (or their government) peacefully.
Ostensibly, Iran's theocracy wants to eliminate the State of Israel (not the land itself, duh) because it's a non-Muslim occupier of Muslim land. That is what they say, and it is inline with their religious texts.
Israel has never threatened to nuke anyone. It has stated that it is preparing for a potential MAD situation, but that's not a threat - it's a defensive move. Israel does not state that Iran has no right to exist or that its regime must be changed or anything of the sort. I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense. They proclaim Israel as their enemy _in the name of other Muslims_, because they are a big defender of Islam from the Western invaders, not because they are directly threatened.
>I don't think Iran can legitimately claim they have an existential fear of Israel and any attack on Israel is in their own defense.
300+ Israeli nuclear weapons, undeclared, and Israel not a signing member of the NPT pact. This is more than an existential threat - its a real threat of destruction. Why else would the Zionists invest so heavily in these weapons?
I think that Israeli Nuclear Weapons are quite a valid threat towards Iran, and every single other life on the planet.
Israel should sign, ratify, and obey the NPT. They should declare their nuclear inventory (which includes subs, by the way.. far more threat to Europe than Iran.)
Until Israel does this, it can not exert rights over who should, and should not, have nuclear weapons, and any posturing over the 'threat' posed by Iran is simply an effort to obfuscate the Israeli threat, itself, to the world at large.
Yep, the whole situation is just sad. Until both sides lower their egos, empathize, and treat each other as they would want to be treated, it's just going to be an endless cycle of conflict. Humanity deserves better.
if I was Iran's leader I'd want a nuke, as the ultimate weapon. If I was Israeli's leader, I'd everything to to stop them from getting it. Both sides understand this, it's business, so let the cat and mouse games continue. Who said what and when doesn't even matter
Even if Iran's goal is to build a nuclear weapon -- which, from all rational reports, doesn't seem to be the case -- I'm having a hard time sympathizing with a country that already has several hundred nuclear warheads trying to prevent another neighboring country from acquiring one.
Whatever I cite will never be good enough for you because you believe in the BS "finders keepers" colonialist mindset of occupation. No text, however sacred, no higher-power or imaginary friend can grant you dominance over others and their land. It's simply immoral to fly people from all over the world, so they may replace a forcibly expelled population.
You made a claim. You don't have sources -- and when questioned, you attack the one asking.
Why shouldn't we write you off as just another hate propagandist?
And if I would write an argument, not that you deserve the chance to change the subject:
Please explain why the land area lost in present Israel was worse than most other land area losses after the world wars? They have been let go, they are accepted. I'd say e.g. Karelia was a worse change, from any moral evaluation.
The main reason I can see that the Palestine question survived to this day, is because the refugees' lives where destroyed by the Arab states which forced them to live in camps, etc.
You make it sound like that is a bad thing.