What to do about Iran?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I think that it is no longer possible to take Iran's denials that it is trying to aquire nuclear weapons any more seriously than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's (now-retracted, I think) denial that there are any homosexuals in Iran.

I think that, unless they are stopped by outside intervention, these ambitions will succeed.

I think that Iran succeeding in aquiring nuclear weapons would be a catastrophe far worse than any of the other countries which currently have them doing so, because Iran would be much less unlikely to use them, or to supply them to proxies to use.

I think that a war between Iran and the West would be an even bigger catastrophe, for obvious reasons, probably making the occupation of Iraq seem like a picnic in the park.

I that short of such a war, there is no real prospect of preventing Iran aquiring nuclear weapons.

I cannot see any way round this, and am therefore pessimistic.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Theres only one problem with your logic... Iran may have already been ...

given nukes by either Russia or North Korea so stopping them from getting them is insane, especially if it entails using Nukes on them to stop them.

[glowing]

10. I'll go on your take, Gosh, I wish I'd kept the article that had been

forwarded to my e-mail. Essentially, a top Russian military general was at a conference, and said they already had them.

On that note, a few nuclear weapons compared to our stock pile and DU weapons... I think we are still the biggest terrorists that the world has. No one wants a mushroom cloud, but knowing that another country has them gives them a bit of a diplomatic edge on saying, please don't start a war with us.

If any mad man is stupid enough to dessimate the world (Georgie Porgie), then I'm not sure what would stop them. It would suck. It would ruin this world. I don't think most people want this to happen....Which is why I'm not sure why so many here are so complicit about Depleted Uranium. Its lots of mini-mushroom clouds that are adding up to more hazards than the big one's at this point.

[Strelnikov_]

15. I have been wondering about this myself

It would be one explanation of their confidence in the face of a 'superpower' led by a deranged cabal.

Another explanation would be that they are simply crazy brave.

[glowing]

16. I don't think they want to use them... Its suicide no matter who uses them

This is why I object to Depleted Uranium.... Its murder because these guys don't have a clue when they go in that they are using deadly stuff that can have lasting effects.

This one woman, who's gone into hiding now for her own safety, had her husband come home from the first Gulf War....The first time they had sex, his sperm burned her so badly, she had to go to the emergency room... He has since died from cancer and she suffered from cervical cancer. She started to make a stink about it, and they threatened her life... She is now laying low for her children's safety. What this govt is doing to its people is disgusting. Everyday I is another day of lies and insecurity.

[DangerDave921]

17. Terrorists

Did I read your post correctly? We are the biggest terrorists the world has? I read something like that, and that's when I start to think DU may not be the place for me.

You really don't like America, do you?

[glowing]

19. If you were in Iraq and 1 million of your fellow country men had been killed

and 3 to 4 million displaced, I'd be fearful of America. If you were subjected to Rendition, captured on the side of a street and disapeared to be tortured, wouldn't you be fearful. Our own govt sat idly by watching its own citizens die in its streets after Katrina. Yes, the most powerful country in the world, is also one of the most feared in this world. We have brought a lot of destruction, devastation, despair, and death to many people in many countries, all while screaming Patriotism this and God ordained that. God made the whole world, not just the United States of America.

Perhaps you are not ready to be here or are a troll. I don't much care. Once you open your eyes, read the constitution, and look over the treaties we have signed condoning torture and weapons of mass destruction (which we use everytime one round of depleted uranium round is shot off, and realize that Bush has systematically destroyed our liberties and freedoms, you will realize, we are a terrorist state.

Its carefully hidden through the lies on Faux and American Idol...

[DangerDave921]

21. troll?

OK, so I'm a troll because I don't believe the US is a terrorist country? No, I'm just a middle of the road dem who still thinks this is a great country that has done a lot of good for the world. And I think our motivations, while not perfect, are usually well-intentioned.

Which one of your own personal liberties and freedoms has Bush destroyed? What can't you do now that you could have done the day before he was sworn in? I just don't buy all this doom and gloom junk.

Our government sat idly by watching people die in Katrina? There were certainly mistakes in planning and implementation, but I don't think anyone was sitting idly by just watching people die. And how would that be characterized as terrorism?

Of course innocent people die in time of war. It is an awful thing. But people have died in every war the US has ever been involved in, going back to the founding of this country. How does this make the US a terrorist state? Were we a terrorist country during WWII when we liberated Europe and defeated Hitler, just because innocent civilians were killed?

If you equate being a Dem with hating America, then I must respectfully disagree.

[glowing]

22. You are just not ready to face the realities of America.

From the United Nations:

"The General Assembly resolution 49/60,<9> adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:
“ Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them "

I think the United States at times and presently (illegaly occupying a country) is defined as a terrorist. The CIA has covertly acted, and still does, in ways to change other countries political spectrum (banana republics?). Anyway, we cause fear towards others. We have power on a global scale that no other country has stood up to. I think there are ways to change the present mind-set of gloom and doom and it starts with rounding up the criminals in the White House.

I never said "I hate America". I can wipe the flag wrapped around the cross blinders out of my eyes and discern for myself that the things the govt is doing in our name (for the people, by the people) of freedom and democracy is wrong, illegal, and wholly disgusting. Patriotism is always questioning and using the checks and balance system to ensure that we remain a Republic practising democracy.

[Selatius]

2. Let Iran keep its bombs if it wants them.

The atom bomb historically derives most of its effectiveness not in its use in war but as a form of deterrence. Otherwise, the likelihood of war between the US and the USSR would definitely have been higher. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead anyway.

[Avalux]

3. Why do you think Iran would be more likely to use nukes?

I am trying to follow your reasoning, but it's faulty. A lot of other countries have nukes, including Russia (who can't account for all of them), Pakistan, India, etc. etc. The only way to dissuade Iran from developing nukes is to work with them diplomatically and give them a stake in the outcome of Iraq. And we don't work with Ahnadinejad, we work with the religious leaders as the have the power.

Short of that, if Iran develops nukes, we deal with it. We don't take out the country and kill it's people.

[Buzz Clik]

4. I had to check the URL of this site -- I thought I'd landed at Fox News.

The Bush administration is slowly convincing the country that preemption is an acceptable approach. Bullshit!

[angstlessk]

5. We want them to NOT have nukes..and they want us to NOT attack them

their request is a guarantee that america will not attack them if they give up their nukes.and we refuse that guarentee..so, they MUST GET NUKES or we will attack them...

THAT IS THE LOGIC MY FRIEND!

[closeupready]

6. I don't even think a war would permanently keep them from acquiring them eventually,

at some point, because you'd basically have to colonize them, wouldn't you? Short of that, a war would just forestall the day's arrival. Which would be good, but is there a cost that would be not worth it? I mean, we're already flirting with bankruptcy and we've lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq - can we afford even more such costs by warring with Iran?

The message that has been sent by the War in Iraq is that your sovereignty is at risk without nukes (which is exactly what Gore writes in his book Assault on Reason, coincidentally). Maybe we can work to reassure people that even without them, their sovereignty will not be at risk??

[JackintheGreen]

7. The IAEA might disagree with you

According to Reese Erlich , a journalist who has written extensively on Iran, the IAEA says Iran is currently enriching no more uranium than it needs for its power plants. It is not enriching enough to produce nuclear weapons and is years from being able to do so. Would it like to possess nuclear capabilities? Sure. Is it an immediate threat to us or to the Middle East? Doubtful.

Remember, they have a huge conventional army and could have already swarmed over Israel if they wanted to. Like any other political organism, Iran's first instinct is to survive, and destabilizing the Middle East, particularly by attacking Israel, would do nothing faster than wipe Iran off of the map. Israel would retaliate, probably with nukes. So would the U.S. So might several European nations. They stomp and fume and saber-rattle, but they aren't anywhere near as insane as our administration would have us believe.

Also remember: everything that Bush et. al. said about Iraq to justify the war has been proven wrong. Everything! So don't be so quick to believe them about Iran.

Your point about supplying nukes to third parties is more worrying, but again, if it could ever be traced back to Iran, they would be wiped out.

[Hydra]

8. Did you forget a sarcasm tag?

NK has nukes and missiles to deploy them. We talk to NK and offer them goodies for their nukes.

Iran has no nukes and is unlikely to have them within 5 years, unless as poster further up mentioned, Putin sent some over as a housewarming gift(which would be a good move on his part). Given that we have little fear of Iran deploying said non-existent nuke, we are happy to plan to bomb them into the ground, perhaps even using nuke tipped cruise missiles.

Let's try this instead- lets get serious about alternatives to oil and quit making trouble in the mid east? Of course, Bush doesn't want this- he wants to bomb Iran into the stone ages, and little boots gets what he wants, almost without exception.

[LakeSamish706]

9. And it's not likely to stop with bombing Iran.. he will move on to the next...

country on the list... Whomever that might be doesn't really mater to these thugs.. The more death the better.

[Hydra]

11. as you say, it doesn't matter

but it's Syria. They were going their next to "hunt for Al-Qaeda" when Iran started flipping us the bird.

The Neocons were so surprised that they said something like "We aren't concerned about Iran," if I remember correctly. It took them about 2 weeks to get with the program. Best moment of the war, IMO.

[SergeyDovlatov]

12. Come on. Putin went to Iran, Looked into Ahmadinejad soul and declared: "All Clear!"

[SergeyDovlatov]

13. What makes Iran less rational, then say China or Russia or Pakistan?

I am questioning your assumption on Iran likelyhood of using Nukes directly or indirectly.
It is not very well publicized, but Iran was an ally of US in the war on Taleban:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/41149.pdf#xml=http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/pdfhi.txt?query=Iran&pr=default&prox=page&rorder=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&rdepth=0&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&id=46e3903a30

Iran tacitly supported the U.S.-led war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda by offering
the United States search and rescue of any downed service-persons and the
transshipment to Afghanistan of humanitarian assistance. Iran has since moved to
restore Iran’s traditional sway in western, central, and northern Afghanistan where
Persian-speaking Afghans predominate. Iran is believed to be supporting local
Afghan strongmen, such as former Herat governor Ismail Khan, and others.
President Bush has warned Iran not to seek to exert influence over the new
government of Afghanistan. Apparently seeking to deflect the U.S. criticism, in
March 2002, Iran expelled Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, an opponent of the new Afghan
government. The expulsion followed a February 24, 2002, visit to Iran by Afghan
leader Hamid Karzai; the two countries agreed to broad cooperation. (See CRS
Report RL30588, Afghanistan: Post-War Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

[Strelnikov_]

14. "catastrophe far worse than any of the other countries"

Than Pakistan? Than North Korea?

I would prefer that they do not obtain these weapons. However, the Reich hyperventilation that Iran poses a 'unique' threat is unwarranted. They appear to me to be much more rational actors than NK, and MUCH more stable than Pakistan.

On edit: Unless the goal is to steal their oil and natural gas, that is.

[MadHound]

18. Congratulations, rather than looking at the evidence objectively and logically

You've allowed yourself to become swayed and influenced by the mass media, the same MSM that cheerleaded this country into Iraq. Yet you are trusting them on Iran:eyes: You know what they say, fool me once. . .

Let me lay a few things out for you. First of all, Iran is desperately in need of an energy infrastructure. They are still recovering from the Iran-Iraq war, where their original nuke plant(approved by the US at one point) was destroyed. They have no oil refineries, so a hydrocarbon base is out. That leaves nuclear.

The IAEA actually has had incredible access to Iranian nuclear facilities, and they have declared time and again that Iran is not building a bomb, merely a peaceful nuclear program designed to provide electrical power.

In addition, the method that Iran is going about enriching its uranium, gaseous diffusion, is a long slow process. The US and other nuclear powers gave up enriching to weapons grade with this method because it takes so long. It is a slow, but adequate method for enriching to fuel grade, but for Iran to enrich to weapons grade, it would take a long, long while. The best estimates from observers and scientists state that if Iran is going for a bomb, they're at least ten years away.

Stop buying into the hype friend, this is simply the old WMD arguement repackaged for Iran. Once again the warhawks are trying to scare the American public into fighting another illegal, immoral war so that the corporatists running this country can get their hands on that Iranian oil. Please, do your research, look at the facts of the matter, and you will see that Iran is not a nuclear threat.

[jmp]

20. Leave them alone?

Nah, that would be too rational.