Ahmadinejad speaks, and UN reps walk

Remove all ads!

I heard about this on the radio, and am betting many of you did too -- the article doesn't mention that several countries walked out on his talk (the article maerely says the room was half empty.)

Iran is about to get nukes. What will they do with them once they have them? Can they be stopped? Should they be stopped? The commentator on the radio opined that Obama is too weak on Iran, but to be honest she sounded like a loony during some parts of her presentation.

I like the fact that the Canadian reps walked out -- as one caller said it's good to talk to your enemies, but when the basis of what they say is based on lies, there's little hope of finding common ground.

Thoughts, my friends? Links to better articles than I can find?

 

If America attacks Iran, we can say goodbye to Iraq and Afghanistan. If Israel attacks Iran the same holds true. Even if we don't help them; does anyone think some of our enemies won't claim we did? Or that those claims won't find a receptive audience?

 

Are we prepared to witness a re-enactment of the run-up to Iraq? UN weapons inspectors telling us the other side isn't cooperating, that it's hiding some part of it's program? Will Obama learn from Bush's actions? Will people realize that a repeat of the lead-up doesn't necessarily mean the same end results (i.e. that Iran could actually have nukes)? Will we back away for fear of repeating Iraq, only to find that Iran was seriously pursuing nukes? Will someone attack and confirm that Iran was making nukes, or that Iran was only making uranium for power?

And, yes, this could lead to a major disaster for the US in Afghanastan and Iraq.


EDIT: I hadn't been aware of this yet, but I'm not surprised. AIAA just sent an email including this:

Well, that's not really promising, is it?

 

It's not particularly new, either. Then again, did anyone else have a feeling of deja vu when Obama said with respect to Iran, "all options are on the table?" I don't agree with the people (and yes, such people exist) that say Obama is Bush 2, but the phrase rang an alarm bell in my mind.

We'll see how this plays out. Personally, I think Iran is playing a dangerous game, trying to get more for cooperation by upping the stakes. I am not quite sure what missiles they tested and whether they have sufficient range to hit Israel or Europe. Yet if this all was tested, it means that either a) the test is a ploy to get attention or b) Iran doesn't give even the impression that it cares about the UN. The discussions about inspections to the new site point somewhat at a) .

On the other hand, just because Iran has said it will allow inspections does not mean it actually will, or much about how thorough and successful they will be. Hopefully we can avoid a bigger crisis on that one. Just a reminder, NOG, we should not need to attack in order to confirm if Iran was trying to get nukes or just enriching uranium for power plants. Uninvading a country is rather, shall we say, complicated .

 

Nonsense. It went off without a hitch in Iraq.

 

Unfortunately the reality is that should not and will not are very different things. If a country doesn't cooperate, if it ejects UN weapons inspectors, and if there are serious suggestions (as there are with Iran) that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, what do you do? Basically, the question is would you rather have a second (and larger) Iraqi war, or would you rather have Iran with nukes? Of course, we aren't to the point of making a decition yet, and there are other options still on the table, but I'm guessing they won't get us much.

 

NOG, in the case you describe a war may be necessary. However, your previous statement pretty much ruled out NOT going to war altogether.

If there is a war over the supposed Iranian nukes and there are no nukes, what will have happened is more than tragic. The innocent blood spilled - as there always is - will be on the hands of the invaders. Of course, that simple truism probably wouldn't be mentioned in most media you and I read. An unnecessary war is among the greatest crimes imaginable.

 

I dismissed the idea of there not being a war for two reasons:
1.) I seriously doubt Tehran is going to allow free and open weapons inspections, ever. With that in mind, I doubt we'll find any confirmation of Iran's weapons status without a war or some very good espionage (which may well start a war).
2.) I don't consider the situation remaining as it is to be an end, much less one worth considering. Continuing the current situation only means buying time for something to happen (such as a coup within Iran, or otherwise radial change of leadership, which will probably mean a civil war). Whether that happens next month, in two years, or fifty years down the road doesn't factor into my considerations.

Basically, what I mean is I really don't think it's realistic to expect the current Iranian leadership (Ahmadnejad being more of a figurehead than a policy-setter) to give up it's pursuit of nukes, it's hate of Israel, and/or it's support of terrorism. I think the only way to end it once and for all would be to see a change of regime in Iran. Now, please, don't take that the wrong way. I don't believe for a second that we should change regimes for them, or that we should even encourage a regime change. Depending on how it happens, it may even be wisest for us to not support any other attempt at regime change (be it internal or from another nation). I just don't really see this ending peacefully.

Mind you, I may be wrong, and I kind of hope I am. I would love to find out that all the Iranian regime really wants is some more political influence, and that they're hoping to sell off the threat of nukes and terrorism for that end and then change their ways, but I don't think it likely.

 

For me it comes down to what treaties Iran has signed. I see no problems with them having nuclear power but if they have agreed to not have nuclear weapons then they should not aim for it. On the other hand I am not more worried about Iran getting the bomb than I am of Pakistan or Israel already having it. As for missiles that can reach Israel I say tit for tat. Sure Ahmanidejad is a loon but the Israeli leadership is not much better. In the best of worlds none of them should have any great military capabilities but in some way I think it might be better if they both have similar capabilities so one part don't get tempted to strike without fear of retaliation.

 

Joacqin brings up a valid point. Iran is allowed, just as much as any other country that signed the NPT, to pursue nuclear power as much as it wants. The argument that it may use it as a front for other activities, on its own, is as valid a reason to ban nuclear energy for Iran as it is for any other country. There is no reason to attack unless we can be sure that it using its enrichment for nukes, and so far there has been no conclusive proof. I hope we can wait until we can see if it emerges.

 

Nothing seems to have really changed with Iran, they have never been completely honest about their programme and the world is unwilling to do anything serious about it. Hell, China and Russia even oppose tougher sanctions, showing exactly how dangerous they feel the Iranian nuclear programme.

There seems to be a more or less consensus that Iran is still some distance away from an actual bomb and after that they have a long way to developing a warhead too, so there's plenty of time for the political winds to change in Iran, after all the first signs have allready appeared. Invading them now would be stupid and expensive and probably screw up the region even more.

 

BTA,
not however, just forever. They are required under the NPT to announce their facilities only six months before they go into operation. Iran has not ratified the additional Safeguards Agreement, so whatever stands there is not legally binding. In that sense Iran is operating completely legally.

Their intentions are another matter, and open to speculation and analysis.

The presumable threat Iran poses has more to do with limiting options of current unrestrained actors, in particular Israel, than with real threat to Israel. If Iran attacks Israel, Iran's 4000 year history will burn in nuclear fire. The Iranians are aware of that, and I don't believe they are so foolish as to risk that. Iran was invaded by Saddam not all that long ago, and the memory is still vivid in the members of Ahmedinajed's government of war veterans. Now they are surrounded by enemies, who openly threaten military strikes on them. That means, if they're after nukes, which considering their situation would be plausible, they will use them as everyone uses nukes - as a 'fleet in being', as a deterrent. Their missile games only support that view.

The other scenario is that Iran may want to develop and then retain the option of going nuclear if it becomes necessary, and talks in the meanwhile. They are still a long shot away from a nuclear weapon according to the US intelligence estimate and the current facility, not operational as it is, doesn't change that. And then they would have to face the task of making whatever device they build deliverable.

Talking they way they talk doesn't help to counter their isolation one bit. Iran is already losing the propaganda war, just like Saddam lost it. It is worth keeping in mind that the eventual war on Iraq that led to Saddam's overthrow was an illegal war of aggression. Being the injured party legally didn't help him one bit. Hard power prevailed over law.

My concern is that Iran is behaving profoundly unwise in face of actors in the US and Israel who, no matter whether Iran behaves legally or not, will use hard power to destroy Iran's nuclear program if they feel it is becoming a threat that can no longer be tolerated. When or if that point arises will be decided emotionally, based on incomplete information and under political pressures in possibly self-amplifying inner circles. It can easily get a dynamic of its own. That is what I fear.

The West generally is already not in favour of the Iranian regime, and as Iranian talk is not helping, that means there will be little opposition against a strike on Iran. The effects would reverberate for a long time.

 

It is my understanding that in the past Israel has just gone in and taken out facilities in neighbouring Arab countries if it felt threatened. I'm pretty sure that if there's any evidence that the Iranians are developing nukes, the Israelis will go in there and blow it up. The repercussions of that would be severe, but if I were living in Israel, I wouldn't want to take the risk of a wingnut like Ahmadnejad having the bomb. I'd take my chances.

Ragusa, I respect that you believe that Iran is not that crazy. Given the stakes, though, I'd hope you'd respect why the average Israeli wouldn't want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

As I said, while Israel doesn't fear an Iranian attack, they do fear Iranian nukes. They hype the former to make the case for being able to pre-empt the consequences of the latter.

They fear no longer being able to dominate their neighbourhood, which is the cornerstone on which they build their national strategy. Problem with that is that, with or without Iranian nukes, it is probably not sustainable. They already greatly depend on US money and arms to sustain that posture. If they are no longer able to dominate, then they'll be forced to compromise (like, horrors, 'land for peace' or on 'right of return'). A guy like Netanyahu, coming from the Israeli special forces as he does, has internalised that. For someone like Netanyahu that is unacceptable. They will go to great lengths to prevent that from happening.

Israel also fears, that, in the case of a Grand Bargain between the US and Iran (something I strongly support) the US would have to make concessions towards Iranian and Arab views, and would no longer unequivocally support Israel but really hold them to task over the Palestinian issue. In that light, the Israeli stance is either us or them. On that front, they can rely on the zealous collaboration of Mr. Ahmedinejad, who can be counted on to say the worst thing at the most damaging time. Again, in this scenario the looming threat to Israel is again them being forced to compromise.

 

Truth be told, it isn't that hard to make a nuclear weapon if you have the materials, and making a warhead deliverable on the missles they've just tested shouldn't be hard to do in secret. Iff Iran has facilities capable of producing sufficiently enriched uranium (and that's the real if), producing a nuclear warhead capable of landing on Israel would come pretty quickly. It's a good point, though, that any such attack would be responded to with the complete demolition of at least the major military and governmetal centers of Iran, if not cultural and civilian centers as well. Whether they're crazy enough to do that or not, well, I'm honestly not sure.

I think one of the other big threats with Iran obtaining nukes that no one has mentioned yet is the terrorism link. Iran supports terrorism through groups like Hesbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While the lack of Iran's chemical and (likely) biological weapons in the hands of such groups is encouraging, a nuke is a whole different matter.

 

I doubt Iranians are stupid enough to entrust terrorist rabble with nukes.

 

NOG,
you talk about the dire threat from Iran as if Iran had nukes.

The facility in Quom was known to US intelligence since 2006. Yet the 2007 NIE on Iran [PDF] predicted with moderate confidence that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program or intends to acquire nuclear weapons.

They have reiterated it since. So nothing to fear before after 2013 - 2015. So why the sudden rush?

Interesting is the timing of the disclosure of the secret facility in Quom. Have you looked on your calendar lately? US-Iran talks are scheduled to start October 1.

What we do see here is people trying to torpedo Obama's intended talks with Iran. That includes pro-Likud zionist types like Dennis Ross in the administration, and of course the neo-cons like Bill Kristol: "Obama’s message of weakness". They want to push Obama to take a hard line stance on Iran and kill any negotiations in the cradle and pre-empt a Grand Bargain. They may well succeed, even though I hope they won't.

This is a manufactured crisis.

 

The Intelligence reports are interesting, but I think you're misinterpreting the timing. This didn't come up from a conservative blog or something. It's Iran that tested a missle capable of reaching Europe just days before the UN Summit. It's UN reps that walked out on Ahmadnejad. And, incidentally, it seems to be the international community that's worried about Iran getting Nukes, the US gov't included.

It may not be an immediate threat, but it is something that people are legitimately worried about.

 

As for the first section - you err.
As for the second section - presumably.