Nuclear Iran NOT a threat ???

[Warthogg]

I've long believed Netanyahu's motives for attacking Iran were political and not military.


Wart

Mr. Pardo’s remarks contradict those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly has sought consensus among Israeli officials to attack Iran’s nuclear centers.

JERUSALEM — The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-nuke-threat/

However, Mr. Pardo’s comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.

Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.

[El Laton Caliente]

If you believe that you need to do a little research on the teachings of the Iotolas on the return of the 12th Imam...

[mriddick]

I'm not sure the statements should be considered the true feelings of the government or put out there to present a brave face to the public.

[rshaneck2002]

The world community has done nothing but appease this country since the overthrow of the Shah in the 70s. It is slowing doing a once over of Hitler with much more danger in the size of the bombs they use. It proves once again the treaties they sign at the UN are worthless., every third world country cheats like hell and they all blame the US for their woes. It is all a crock of shit and would be funny if the idea of radicals possiably getting their respective hands on any radioactive material at all. The last time the world appeased a government this much it cost the world dearly,without nukes or human pesticides? Flip a fricking coin. As i have said before, Arab spring my ass, the human community better be real careful with this one, the Arab and Persian world has not exactly been to trustworthy in a few hundred yrs, i am simply amazed how they have held a super grudge over wars of over 1,000 yrs ago and yet the one part of the world who really put a hurt on them(Ghengis Khan)they seem not to blame at all. Basically China today.History tells a much different story.When Truman and the UN created Israel(1948) i am sure they never dreamed of brush wars lasting well over 70 yrs for us. Black gold gentlemen,to bad we seem unable to get a lasting concrete energy policy in this country with the tree huggers reigning supreme,hidden cost so to speak. Humans are like locusts anyway,get enough of them and they turn on themselves and begin to eat each other,proven time and again in human history. Lets hope my ideas are totally wrong but i am not so sure at this point in time, its like watching a spring being wound up way to tight,and they always break in the end.

[rahatlakhoom]

Iran is following protocol in disclosing it's nuclear development as per
UN paperwork, etc. It's not like they are underground with it.

I agree, it's a political ruse. If nukes were not involved, it might take another form
such as human rights violations against women or some other concoction.
Iran is an important strategic chess piece. Unlike Iraq, they will not tolerate an
invasion. To develop nuclear grade bomb material would be a priority in the near
future, and for defense, rightfully so.

Even with nukes, they will be held in check, the MAD doctrine still remains in place.
How would this situation differ from India-Pakistan holding each other in check?

[N/A]

Iran will...Iran won't. Six of one and half dozen of the other.

I think the Persian people would welcome being liberated from their so called "leaders".

[Warthogg]

I think the Persian people would welcome being liberated from their so called "leaders".

Without question that's correct. Iran's population is young and the only people in the Middle East who actually like and admire the US.


Wart

[Warthogg]

Even with nukes, they will be held in check, the MAD doctrine still remains in place.
How would this situation differ from India-Pakistan holding each other in check?

Such a sound and reasoned rationale is not popular here. None the less you are still correct.


Wart

[5.56NATO]

Israel should take care of it by themselves. That being said, any other slamic nation has the cash to buy a wmd from Russia or former Warsaw Pact nations. And the pakis already have nooks. So why not bomb the paks?

[alismith]

My real concern with any terrorist nation having nukes is that somewhere down the line, someone is going to figure a way to make them smaller and more portable. Say, something about the size of a footlocker, suitcase, or backpack. Then some Islamic moron will believe he can earn get 72 virgin goats in heaven if he detonates it in a large, heavily populated, metropolitian center...maybe 5 or 6 morons, at the same time, on a personal jihad to make life better for Muslims everywhere by punishing the Big Satan.

Imagine what 5-6 small nukes would do to Paris or NYC during a large gathering. They wouldn't need any rockets, or planes, or ships...just people walking around looking like Middle Eastern students on educational visas out for a stroll on a fine summer day.

Boom!

[mriddick]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2
With conventional weapons they are threaten our sailors now, I guess with nukes they would do less???

[T2K]

A few thoughts on this in no particular order:

1. I would prefer Iran (and Pakistan and North Korea and others too) not have nuclear weapons. However, what I or others prefer is irrelevant in the matter. These countries have their own wills, ambitions and capabilities.

2. Looking at it realistically (as opposed to theoretically), what options do we have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Sanctions and international pressure are what we are using now. Did that work for North Korea, which is even more isolated? No. Will it work for Iran? Probably not. So, shall we invade...?
I think isolation and cold war with a nuclear-armed adversary is preferable to an invasion, with its associated huge costs in lives and money.

3. Whenever I hear people start talking about how "xxx people want to be liberated" I think of Iraq and Cheney's (or was it Wolfowitz?) stupid comparisons to France 1944. Question: We all think Obama and much of our federal government suck, right? So, you would be cool with China or Canada or whoever invading and "liberating" us then? Right, I didn't think so.
NOTHING unites a people or gives support to an unpopular gov't like foreign attack.

4. In summary, we live in the real world with real money and real blood. Invading or attacking Iran preemptively would be nuts and contrary to US interests. We need to add Iran to the list (with Pakistan and North Korea) or countries that we work, with allies, to contain and counter using economic, covert and other means.

[N/A]

3. Whenever I hear people start talking about how "xxx people want to be liberated" I think of Iraq and Cheney's (or was it Wolfowitz?) stupid comparisons to France 1944. Question: We all think Obama and much of our federal government suck, right? So, you would be cool with China or Canada or whoever invading and "liberating" us then? Right, I didn't think so.
NOTHING unites a people or gives support to an unpopular gov't like foreign attack.

4. .

From my readings, there are many in Iran that would like to be liberated of their present form of government. It is not a popular government, it is a government in control.

[LAGC]

From my readings, there are many in Iran that would like to be liberated of their present form of government. It is not a popular government, it is a government in control.

I predict shit will jump off in Iran within 5 years, if we do nothing. The more that social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) permeate Iranian society, the more the people find their voice and speak out, just like they have in Syria and Egypt and Libya.

Really, all this saber-rattling against Iran only helps keep the regime firmly entrenched in power, as they can simply point to foreigners wanting to come in and wage war upon them, justifying their authoritarian rule. Only once the external threat is taken off the table, will the people's eyes be opened to what's really going on internally in that country.

[T2K]

N/A - I do not doubt that at all, in fact I agree. However, there are many in Iran that support the current gov't also. How does the US benefit from inserting ourself into their civil conflict? We would, in fact, be strengthening support for the current regime by proving them right. See my analogy above about Obama. There also were many Iraqis that wanted to be "liberated" from Saddam Hussein too.

[Warthogg]

A few thoughts on this in no particular order:

1. I would prefer Iran (and Pakistan and North Korea and others too) not have nuclear weapons. However, what I or others prefer is irrelevant in the matter. These countries have their own wills, ambitions and capabilities.

2. Looking at it realistically (as opposed to theoretically), what options do we have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Sanctions and international pressure are what we are using now. Did that work for North Korea, which is even more isolated? No. Will it work for Iran? Probably not. So, shall we invade...?
I think isolation and cold war with a nuclear-armed adversary is preferable to an invasion, with its associated huge costs in lives and money.

3. Whenever I hear people start talking about how "xxx people want to be liberated" I think of Iraq and Cheney's (or was it Wolfowitz?) stupid comparisons to France 1944. Question: We all think Obama and much of our federal government suck, right? So, you would be cool with China or Canada or whoever invading and "liberating" us then? Right, I didn't think so.
NOTHING unites a people or gives support to an unpopular gov't like foreign attack.

4. In summary, we live in the real world with real money and real blood. Invading or attacking Iran preemptively would be nuts and contrary to US interests. We need to add Iran to the list (with Pakistan and North Korea) or countries that we work, with allies, to contain and counter using economic, covert and other means.

Invading or attacking Iran preemptively would be nuts and contrary to US interests.

True. However, US actions in the Middle East are too often based on what's best for Israel and not what's best for the US.


Wart

[American Rage]

I've long believed Netanyahu's motives for attacking Iran were political and not military.


Wart

Wart, may I ask how old you are?

I inquire b/c Iran has been at war with America since 1979.

Furthermore, they believe that for the Madi (thier Jesus figure) to come, the world must be bathed in blood, according to thier beliefs.

You can believe that the Iranians are harmless all you want, but I'm not buying it.

[T2K]

Nobody is saying they are harmless. Nobody is saying North Korea is harmless. No one said the USSR was harmless.

The point is - how do we deal with them in terms of the USA's best interests? Preemptive warfare, which seems to be the preferred choice of some? Or economic and diplomatic measures backed by military strength? The latter worked against the USSR...

I can't see a "win" scenario for the US attacking or, worse, invading Iran preemptively.

[Warthogg]

Nobody is saying they are harmless. Nobody is saying North Korea is harmless. No one said the USSR was harmless.

The point is - how do we deal with them in terms of the USA's best interests? Preemptive warfare, which seems to be the preferred choice of some? Or economic and diplomatic measures backed by military strength? The latter worked against the USSR...

......how do we deal with them in terms of the USA's best interests?

May not be possible. AIPAC controls the Congress when it comes to the Middle East and AIPAC's sole interest is in the "best interest" of Israel.

I can't see a "win" scenario for the US attacking or, worse, invading Iran preemptively.

Nor can I. I'm not even sure there is a "win scenario" for Israel.


Wart