The highlighted bit is a (*)(*)(*)(*) good reason for Iran to pursue Nuclear arms.

"As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, nations act primarily out of self-interest."

and Iran's interest is:-

"They guarantee that they are able to deter any significant attack against them."

Being a bit Gung Ho to attack a nation is not likely to disuade a nation from wanting to build up its defence capability.

And those that suppose a military machine is capable of taking on a guerilla army are crack pots. if iran is supposedly arming most of the regions terrorists which sort of tactics is Iran most likely to use?

There is no short term tactics available as occupying and holding the ground is the only option, unless you'd like the global terrorism option? Iraq was supposed to be a short war, but now looks like it will run longer than the "thirty year war".

While ignoring Arab Middle East interests.

So first you need a Democratic Iran before bombing it.

The problem with bombing Iran is that the Persian Nationalistic weltanshuaung will only be more polarised producing a more radical Iran.

People tend to follow the nation flag more closely during wars.

[quote="ashleykennedy";p="401857"]
Maybe so, but the consequences of an Iranian bomb go far beyond that.

If you think Iran is interested only in defending itself then we may as well stop this debate now. If you're not going to approach this political situation realistically, then we're wasting our time. Iran is acting out of a desire to increase its securiy, but more importantly, its own power and influence.

What are you talking about? There is no need to destroy Iran's standing army or "guerrilla forces." The targest are the nuclear installations and ballistic missile caches. Are you suggesting that Iran is going to try use guerrilla tactics to counter an American bombing campaign? Because that would be completely pointless...

Apparently you haven't been following the news lately... Did you not notice America's enormous naval deployment to the Persian Gulf? Did you forget that America has airbases right next door in Iraq? Did you forget that Turkey is a NATO ally and America would likely be able to make use of its airspace? There are plenty of options that do not require any substantial ground deployments.

Yes... That's right... America looks out for American interests, Arabs look out for Arabs interests... What's your point?

Is that what I said? Nope.

The Iranian government WOULD NOT BE TOPPLED BY AN AMERICAN BOMBING CAMPAIGN, BECAUSE AMERICA HAS NO INTEREST IN TOPPLING THE IRANIAN REGIME (I bolded that to make sure you don't miss it this time). What I said was that the campaign needs to be relatively quick so as to cause minimal civilian casualties among Iranians.

Finally, you say something that I can agree with. This is why the attack must be as quick as possible.

__________________
"My generation, dear Ron, swore on the Altar of God that whoever proclaims the intent of destroying the Jewish state or the Jewish people ... seals his fate." - Menachem Begin

Complete ME in flames for a start.

Just because you think that Iran is not allowed to have any national interests is not going to make it so.

Attacking an enemy in any way possible especially with well tried successful tactics??

I also noticed that the US are not winning, even with an enormous naval deployment in the Persian gulf, in Iraq just losing slowly. And I noticed Turkey getting sucked in to the Kurdish region.

Yep Iran has got the retaliatory stikes by surrogate hezbollah.

Well I'm looking out for my interests.

Did I say you said that; no.

Putting a stick into a wasp nest will only get you stung. Your minimal civilian casualties would have to be the complete destruction of Iran or retaliatory actions will ensure that the whole of the ME will be in flames, making absolutely neccessary for Syria to work on Nuclear arms and then where to turn into a mess, there's always Jordan os Saudi after that. Quick campaigns tend to last longer than the next christmas.

It'll all be over by Christmas??

Famous words used in the The First World War, Second World War after that people got to thinking that short wars just don't happen and then Bush tried the same spiel with the 2nd Gulf war; has Iraq finished yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/s...a8875461.shtml

You might want a quick war but Iran may have other plans.

Someone who doesn't take the plans and abilities of their enemy into account is call "the loser".

Do you have any idea what you're talking about, or are you just spewing up random comments in order to appear intelligent? I stated what Iran's interests were (they are the same basic interests as every other nation on Earth) and in response you say that I think Iran has no interests?

So, what you're saying is that if Iran employs guerrilla tactics against an American aerial campaign, they will be successful? Do you even realise how absurd that is? What are they going to do: hide half a million soldiers with AK-47s among civilians and try shoot down an F-22 Raptor?

Did you also notice that has no relevance at all to the topic we're discussing, or did that escape you?

Hezbollah is a bug. Israel employed around 5% of its military and airforce in the previous war. If it comes down to a Mid-East war, you can rest assured Hezbollah will be devastated by the end of it.

That's nice, but again, not relevant in a political discussion in which we must consider the interests of the nations involved. I don't see what bearing your interests have on the decisions made by the United States or Iran.

Did I say you said that; no.

The war can be as long as it wants (I'm assuming you're referring to a greater Mid-East war), but as long as the American operation itself is short it will have the support of the pro-Western youth.

__________________
"My generation, dear Ron, swore on the Altar of God that whoever proclaims the intent of destroying the Jewish state or the Jewish people ... seals his fate." - Menachem Begin

Irans national interest is primarily security.

Almost as absurd as flying 2 air liners into the twin towers? The target would not be an F-22. Note Iraq not many F-22 get shot at in Iraq but the US is not winning. F-22 capabilities are not in equestion, the strategy is.

Turkey is part of Europe. Turkey and Iran share a border along the West Azerbaijan of Iran and Eastern Anatolia of Turkey. The Kurds of Iraq are being supplied with material that is the same chemical compound as that found in use by hezbollah. From the aforementioned it can be found that it is to late. The capability of Iran to retaliate is very large. Larger than the capability of a F-22.

Yeah right. You just dream on.

That's nice to know that the interests of citizens of states have no relationship to the national interests of a Democracy. That's like saying that people in a democracy don't have democratic rights. You know little things like FREEDOM of SPEECH.

Did I say you said that; no.

I wasn't talking of a Greater Mid-East War but with Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan borders and Turkey it might as well be if you add Iran.

It won't be short. And using the Follow the Flag principle the Youth will be pro Iranian (assuming you're talking about pro-Western Iranian youth).

If the choice is between accepting Irans ablity to produce Nuclear Arms with which to threaten israel and a greater Middle east war. Then israel can get threatened.

This should have been done years ago,far too late now.Once the bomb goes off in Europe or even in the US no amount of wailing and "we should have known better" will save you.

One word- Geneva.

I love how the only country to ever utilize a nuclear bomb (and possessess bombs now that are one hundred times worse than the atomic bomb dropped on Japan in WW2), are allowed to tell countries that want to defend themselves (if necessary), that they can or can't have a nuclear bomb.

You sound like a little kid whining because his dad won't let him have a sip of his whiskey.

And no- I'm not arrogant- the analogy f-ing fits.

iran is already waging war against us in iraq and all over the world through their proxy islamoterror agents and have been doing so for decades. If they get nukes, they won't necessarily have to use them directly. They could then sit back and continue to fund and support terrorist proxies, even increase that support and involvement dramatically, while providing their proxies sanctuary and thumbing their nose at anyone that dares complain. They are pure evil so thinking these maniacs are rational is very foolish. Its a country run by a pack of utter lunatics obsessed with an evil ideology created by an evil man who spent his life thieving, raping, murdering, conquering, and dreaming up every possible evil, slimy thing to instruct his savage cult followers to emulate.

The iranian regime's end is soon. This maniac packs of islamobarbarian thugs are simply not going to be allowed to get nuclear weapons, as if its nothing different than one of these islamomorons having a box cuter or sword. America is simply not going to allow it. iran is proceeding toward its doom very rapidly, outright war with the USA.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.