Would a Nuclear Iran be so bad?

You're changing goalposts now. You originally said, "do you think there'll be able to transfer nukes over an entire sea?" U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not inspect every ship moving through the waterways (any navigable body of water). For instance, from the Middle East to South or Central America.

Good for you.

We're the only superpower, of course we have dominance over our hemispheric region. That does not, however, equate out to the U.S. being an empire. While we may conquer lands in foreign military adventures, we do not keep the reigns of ownership for very long nor keep the conquered land as our own. We have hundreds of permanent and "lily pad" bases around the world, but they're built and kept at the permission of the host country.

Your "geopolitical observation" said that the U.S. is not a democracy.

1) You, President?
2) Your stance on Israel would doom your chances of becoming U.S. President, among others, I presume.

1) Iran has not been neutral for the last 230+ years, quit reading Press TV articles. They sponsor Hezbollah. They're aiding Assad. They armed the Taliban.
2) I never said nor assumed we were ever neutral. We've stuck our neck out geopolitically for over a hundred years now.

The U.S. has had its eye on Middle Eastern oil since Eisenhower was President, maybe earlier. We aren't really friends with them, we're just sucking up all of their oil. We'll turn our backs on them as soon as their last well is tapped dry and there is no more oil in the ME.

 

I just gave out a link, which among other things destroyed the utterly unbelievable delusion of the lie of Iran's position. Not only hasn't an Iranian spokesperson made any such similar comment, but those to whom the 'comments' are credited to are either totally unreliable, unknown or bias'd.

Believe it or not, Iran has a government. Believe it or not, that government has geopolitical considerations. It's a rational actor on the world stage. If Iran really were as deadset on this so-called "world war of religion"(which at this point, might as well come out of the mouth of a conspiracy theorist). Then they wouldn't need nuclear weapons, they would already use the revolutionary guard, etc and declare war the old fashioned way.

Especially considering that we literally surround them, their lack of aggression in response is the clearest sign possible of Iran's position.

Indeed, much of the religious persecution in Iran isn't against the Jews(to whom makes up a significant minority of their population) but against Christians .

If anything, it's the American Empire and not little Israel that has anything to fear. And yet, in spite of the terrible relations, Iran hasn't really struck back. Despite the harsh sanctions, etc they came back to the table rather than being aggressive in response.

It's obvious from any report on the news(without political interpretation made for your "viewing pleasure"), that Iran's no threat to the continent, nor to Israel or anyone else. Threats actually become real, aggressive, etc. They respond.

If this is to the extent of the "Iranian" response, this is more akin to Cambodia and Vietnam than Soviet Russia.

 

Um, I'm pro-gun rights, actually.

I just don't buy into this idea that Iran is trying to kill us all.

- - - Updated - - -

That contradicts the principle of mutually assured destruction.

 

Do you believe in limiting the amount of bullets my gun can hold?

 

No. Again, just because we disagree on foreign policy doesn't mean I'm pro-gun control.

I tend to be libertarian on most social issues like guns.

 

Well that's good to hear. Do you think allowing a nuclear armed Iran is going to cause a more or less likely scenario in which Israel will feel the need to pre-emptively attack Iran?

 

If Iran was armed with nukes, Israel wouldn't attack them. That's probably a large part of why they wanted nukes in the first place.

Iran is in a position where their main foe has nukes, and they don't. That can understandably make them want their own for defense.

The fact that Israel has made it clear that a pre-emptive strike is on the table only makes it harder to convince Iran that having nukes is wrong, which is why this recent deal with the Iranian government is surprising.

In effect, by agreeing to move away from weaponized nuclear capabilities, Iran is forcing Israel to take a less hawkish approach.

At this point, the ball is in Israel's court. They can either approach this as a milestone for establishing more peaceful relations, or they can make the mistake of continuing hardliner rhetoric, which will likely sabotage the progress made recently.

If they choose the latter route, it will make it clear that Israel isn't interested in peace.

Hopefully, they make the right choice.

 

What is interesting to me is that 6 years ago every liberal on the internet was telling me that Iran just wanted nuclear power for electricity. Have now all the Liberals come full circle and now are admitting that Iran only wanted nuclear capability to create bombs?

 

I think mutual disarmament, a comprehensive, regional pact to establish a Middle East free of nuclear weapons with total access to UN inspectors and severe penalties for violations is the preferable way to go.

 

You must have been very selective regarding who you were supposedly listening to. Who, specifically, werer the "Liberals!" that you consulted at the time?

 

So do you think Iran has created their nuclear facilities in order to make nuclear bombs?

 

No it is not. People need to rid this thinking that because we have them we can't tell others that they can't have them. You have to realize that our crappy and ignorant Western governments are much better and far more mature to handle nuclear weapons than Iran's crappy and ignorant theocracy.

 

If Iran's crazed leadership did not initiate a nuclear exchange, in order to usher in the return of the Twelfth Imam--which I consider to be a very real possibility--it could, at the very least, sell its nukes to terrorists. And it would certainly start a nuclear-arms race in the least stable part of the world, what with the Arab states (in particular, Saudua Arabia and Egypt) being most unlikely to allow Shiite Iran to become the regional hegemon.

Do any of these prospects sound appealing to others?

 

They've been developing nuclear plants since the 1950s with Eisenhower's assistance, and have clearly shown interest in nuclear weaponry from time to time. It's now less likely that they'll be making nuclear bombs in the foreseeable future.

 

Then why hasn't Israel attacked Iran yet? Iran doesn't have nukes. The heated rhetoric between the countries has only gotten worse because of Iran's pursuit of nukes. The only way Israel would actually attack Iran is if they were certain that Iran was days away from a bomb and the Iranians know that. That's why they have scattered their nuclear program across the entire country. You think they did that because they like making things complicated for themselves?

The threat from Israel has remained the same. No words have worked on the Mullahs. The Mullahs knew from the beginning that this whole situation would risk an attack. That is why they scattered their nuclear program. The only time Iran thought nukes were a bad idea was immediately after the 2003 Iraq war. The Iranians really thought that America was serious about stopping WMDs in the region and that is why the Mullahs ordered a halt to the program. However, once it was made clear that America is no longer capable of launching a war like in Iraq, they started their nuke work again.

Yes. But the Iranians win in this situation. They are actually politically isolating Israel. A weak Obama administration and weakened West are now willing to make deals. It is incredible how almost everything is working out perfectly for the Mullahs. Iran gets more freedom to work on nukes, the West gets to wave a paper proclaiming peace, and Israel looks like a warmongering fool.

Iran has never showed any indication that it wants peace.

 

A comprehensive agreement to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone is needed. Give UN inspectors unfettered access to expose violators. No one can be trusted with them.

 

So what is your answer to my question? So do you think Iran has created their nuclear facilities in order to make nuclear bombs?

 

I believe it would be a bad thing. I wish that all nations would destroy their nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and any other weapons of mass destruction and never make any more.

 

Since there is no evidence of an intent to produce nuclear bombs at the time Eisenhower assisted in the creation of Iranian nuclear facilities, one concludes that that was not why Iran created nuclear facilities with the aid of the US.

Subsequently, their intent has varied.

 

Iran is surrounded by nuclear countries such as Pakistan, Israel, and US military bases. It's only fair that they have the right to defend themselves against potential invaders and warmongers. Nukes would be the best deterrent anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

Which nation should be the first one to do so - the USA? Israel??

 

Are you serious???

Please tell us you dont really believe a state sponsor of terror with a nuclear weapon will be a stabilizing force in the middle east.....

wtf?

Saudi will get their own nukes in less than a year....

 

Sure, but you seem to be missing the point that Israel's attitude of pre-emption is what causes escalation to begin with.

The same attitude we had with Iraq caused a lot of problems in the region.

The only real reason Israel hasn't attacked Iran is because we wouldn't back them if they did. If Israel launched an attack on Iran without prior attacks being made on them, we couldn't defend an action like that even with the influence AIPAC has here.

I'd say words have worked quite well given the recent success of the talks between this administration and Iran.

If the agreement upholds inspectors coming into Iran, then it will be much more than just a "paper."

Actually, this recent agreement shows it.

The current leadership of Iran is a lot more moderate than the preceding regime. The Ayatollah is still ultimately in charge, but Rouhani's election shows that the Iranian people tired of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric.

A guy like Rouhani would have been elected the last time around if the Ayatollah hadn't rigged that election. After the various protests that occurred, I guess he figured out that having a somewhat legitimate election was better this time around.

The fact that the Iranian people are interested in peace is why bombing them would be a grave mistake by Israel regardless of their course with their nuclear program. If Israel had gone ahead and attacked Iran a few years ago, it would have radicalized their population.

 

Our government is certainly better than Iran's when it comes to how it treats its own citizens, but when it comes to foreign policy, we spend a lot more time invading and attacking other countries than Iran does.

Even when taking into account the insurgencies and radicals they support, America does even more of it for its own purposes.

Getting North Korea to disarm is relevant, but as far as Iran goes, it's understandable that they want nukes when both of their non-nuclear neighbors got invaded by us.

If I were in their position, I'd probably want them too.

You'll notice we haven't invaded Pakistan, for example.

 

Does that include us?

 

Only if we're human and fallible. That nuclear stuff can be dangerous.