FBI stops Iran assasination attempt on Saudi Amb. to US

[Col. Crackpot]

What if the US simply arrested Ahmadinijad the next time he showed up in the US to speak at the UN?

While awesome that would set an awful precedent. And start a shootout in New York with Iranian Security

[Broomstick]

It would also do horrible damage to the concept of the UN.

Yes, I realize the UN's actual effectiveness in the world is quite limited, and at times descends to joke levels, but having a forum for ALL nations, even those that are mortal enemies, to sit down and talk, even if it's through intermediaries (right now, the Swedes are doing that between the US and Iran as the US and Iran have zero diplomatic relations in the way of embassies, ambassadors, etc. at the moment) has some worth. Lack of communications is almost always worse than having some. It's a non-violent way for nations to speak, including being angry at each other, without having bullets fly. It provides a public arena for nations to officially disapprove of the conduct of other nations. Among other, more positive things. It's far from perfect, but right now it's the best we have

But it only functions if the officials that make it up can travel to and from its official site in safety, without fear of abduction or attack, even if the meeting location is in hostile territory.

If you arrest Ahmadinijad on his way to the UN you will destroy the UN because no other government official will feel safe to go there. Leaders who travel to the UN to speak must have immunity or the system doesn't work.

Again, another overreaction to an incident that has killed no one.

[PeZook]

Aside from that, international law and precedent is clear that heads of state, heads of government, senior cabinet members, foreign ministers and ministers of defence enjoy full personal immunity.

A British court IIRC struck down quite decisively a project to arrest Mugabe for international crimes because he was a serving head of state when the proceedings were wrought.

[Simon_Jester]

Now that we know what makes fundamentalist Muslims tick. How does this preclude what Destructionator was proposing, in talking to them as people, rather than "confounding their politics, killing their people, stealing their land, retarding their scientific progress and constantly threatening to blow up their shit"?

Well then, I'll ask you the same question I asked D-13.

What, specifically, do you think the US should be saying to the Iranians, and to which Iranians? What should our diplomats be saying? Should we be talking about democracy, or about something else, or... I don't know. Again, what are the things that you think should be the basis for the US-Iran relationship?

You brought up their radically different mindset as fundamentalist Muslims hostile to secularism, yet Russia and China are just as godless as the UK and the US, and Russia and China are able to communicate with Iran despite them being completely different (maybe not with peaceful secular democracy with iPods, blue jeans, and Hollywood blockbusters for all, but more on authoritarian communist state with tankskis, foot binding, and fried dog).

Not necessarily hostile, just different. Secular democracy is from Mercury, Islamic fundamentalism is from Jupiter, or something like that.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have meaningful or good relations with Iran; I'm saying that it takes a bit more thought than just saying "communication is good" and "Jesus is a prophet of Islam," the latter being the sort of thing one only thinks is important if one has little idea what's important.

At least, that fundamentalist Muslimism doesn't prevent them at all from dealing with Russia or China and some other nations, because their not fucking Iran over in the past is valued more importantly by the fundamentalist Muslimists than their secular godless gaijinism.

Most people are willing to deal with people who will sell them guns and shit, which helps. The US is currently committed to an embargo of Iran- are you proposing to change that?

[irishmick79]

Yeah, I figured as much - just trying to contemplate a proportional response somewhere in between sanctions and bombing. If this plot was indeed sanctioned by upper echelons of the Iranian government, they definitely would be putting the idea of diplomatic immunity to the test. Would there be any possible repercussions in the ICC, or possible expulsions of Iranian diplomats in Europe?

[PeZook]

Yeah, I figured as much - just trying to contemplate a proportional response somewhere in between sanctions and bombing. If this plot was indeed sanctioned by upper echelons of the Iranian government, they definitely would be putting the idea of diplomatic immunity to the test. Would there be any possible repercussions in the ICC, or possible expulsions of Iranian diplomats in Europe?

MarshallPummels idea is the most sensible, IMHO. The US could,in fact, cause a lot of trouble to Iran simply by getting other nations in on it. It shouldn't even be very hard: most arab countries have no great love for Persians, and the EU should be somewhat easy to convince.

[Ryan Thunder]

Fuck it, if they want to develop a bomb, they have a right to defend themselves just as much as we do.

Short version; Nuclear proliferation is bad.

So no, they don't have a "right" to build nuclear weapons. It's bad enough that the nuclear powers have them in the first place, we don't need more of that.

[PeZook]

I don't America protesting Israel's nuclear weapons program, though. Double standard much?

[Ryan Thunder]

I don't America protesting Israel's nuclear weapons program, though. Double standard much?

Well, for what it's worth, I don't support that, either.

[Spice Runner]

PICARD 307:5
snip

I like your analogies. What you say does have merit. I don't understand how the U.S. and Iran can continue to hold such a grudge for so long. Eventually one side must take the first step towards reconciliation. Many nations do business with Iran or would like to and all these moves to isolate Iran causes unnecessary harm to 3rd parties.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

What if the US simply arrested Ahmadinijad the next time he showed up in the US to speak at the UN?

Based on what evidence? The word of some asshole DEA Informant that would get laughed out of a court of law? Especially in light of Fast and Furious unraveling for the BATFE and its potential connection to this case?

[Ryan Thunder]

What if the US simply arrested Ahmadinijad the next time he showed up in the US to speak at the UN?

What if Canada had actually arrested George W. Bush for war crimes when he showed up to visit?

Don't be ridiculous.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well then, I'll ask you the same question I asked D-13.

What, specifically, do you think the US should be saying to the Iranians, and to which Iranians? What should our diplomats be saying? Should we be talking about democracy, or about something else, or... I don't know. Again, what are the things that you think should be the basis for the US-Iran relationship?

You're asking me what specifically should the US be saying to establish diplomatic rapport and perhaps beginning to undo all the decades of bad blood between both nations? Me, provide a list of specific steps? I don't have in-depth knowledge of the nature of fundamentalistic Muslimism and the history of the region, unlike you. I wouldn't even know where to begin, aside from feebly saying "bombing them might be bad" "trying to talk to them might be better".

I'm not saying it's impossible to have meaningful or good relations with Iran; I'm saying that it takes a bit more thought than just saying "communication is good" and "Jesus is a prophet of Islam," the latter being the sort of thing one only thinks is important if one has little idea what's important.

Of course it will take more thought than saying "communication is good" or "we should try diplomacy". For the love of god, look at how the USA and the CIA and the KSA and the UAE and all the other TLAs of ABCs have cocked up the entire ME region (resulting in countless KIAs and MIAs due to IEDs and EFPs and whatnot), and that's after investing more time and brainpower and resources than merely typing up "communication is good" in a keyboard (after copy-pasting some Picard quotes). Look at how many people have died in the last decades, over there and eventually even in your own country. If thinking up of a solution to establish rapport with Iran and get rid of the decades of bad blood was just that easy, a whole lot of people wouldn't have ended up dead.

America and all those other nations involved there have armies of people serving in intelligence agencies and diplomatic agencies and in actual armies who are better than any of us, all trying to figure out how to do things in that region - they have taken more thought than saying "communication is good" or "Jesus was a prophet of Islam" - and look at what all their more-thought-taking, all their best and brightest ideas and efforts, have resulted in. Look at the state of Middle Eastern affairs, the state of US relations with Iran, the state of nations right beside Iran that have been bombed to rubble and are still messed up after nearly a decade of war, the state of your own nation - from your curbed civil rights to your messed up economy to the smoking stumps of skyscrapers in the middle of NYC - that are a direct result of this.

No shit it's gonna take more thought than saying "communication is good" or "Jesus is a prophet of Islam". It's going to take even more thought than the already considerable amount of thought it took to bring us to this current, miserable, state of affairs - and that amount of thought was decades in the making, with billions of dollars funding those thoughts which were schooled in West Point or Cambridge and all the other most prestigious thoughtful schools of thought you can think of.


PS. I don't think Destructionator actually thought that Jesus' being an Islamoprophet was all that important.

[Broomstick]

The reasons I picked nukes are:

1) Nuclear power (as in electricity) is legitimately useful for the Iranian people.

While in theory I'm in agreement with this, the issue is how to allow a peaceful nuke technology while preventing an arms build up.

2) The bomb is a symbol.

It's also a very effective killing device.

3) It's not a big threat to America.

While it is true that the Iranians would have difficulty getting a first generation fission weapon to the US they certainly could put it on a rocket they already have and start a nuclear war in the mid-east, which would benefit no one. It's not JUST about America's safety, or it shouldn't be. Both the Israelis and the Saudis would find Iranian nukes threatening, and likely others as well. It would only provide more incentive for a mid-east arms build up and increase the chances of nukes being used again at some point.

But, besides that, they don't have to build a fission weapon. A dirty bomb using conventional explosives to disburse radioactive isotopes is entirely feasible. Really, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already. They could, in theory, smuggle relatively small and lightweight amounts of isotopes into a target country (yes, even one half a world away) and then use something as simple as ANFO to disburse it in a densely populated area. The capacbility for that is a threat to everyone in the world.

4) It might be a legitimate defense tool for them - deterrant, like the rest of us.

May I remind you that deterrent is not the sole purpose of nuclear weapons and they actually HAVE been used in warfare. Twice. I'd prefer not to see that happen again.

5) It's probably inevitable anyway. Might as well get something out of it.

In this case I'm all for postponing the inevitable.

The most important one is the symbolic aspect. "Good guys" (and the Russians) can have the bomb and "bad guys" can't.

Yes, well, the North Koreans have it now, so that blows that theory out of the water.

Anyone can have it IF they manage to build it. Those who already have nukes have an incentive to discourage further proliferation, as the fewer such weapons in the world the less likely it is some regime will pop one off, or that one will fall into the hands of organizations that would make use of it.

We resist proliferation to countries like Iran and North Korea, but at the same time, we look the other way when Israel does it. We don't mind when Britain or France does it.

The difference is Israel, Britain, and France already have the bomb. The ship has sailed, the cat is out of the bag, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. It's not that we "look the other way" it's that once it's done it's done, it's a fait accompli and it can't be undone.

It is perfectly valid to say we don't want even more countries joining the nuclear club. It's perfectly valid for the US, or any other country, to discourage other nations' research programs into that area, or use legitimate channels to make it more difficult (actually bombing facilities, as Israel has done to Iran, is a different matter and questionable). But when the Norks got their nuke to pop it's not like we could run in and take it away from them. Nor can we really stop them from selling the technology and know how if they really want to.

We didn't really want India and Pakistan getting nukes, either, but they have them now anyway.

I think the reality is that going forward more nations will acquire them. At best we can slow proliferation down, not stop it, but that doesn't mean the slow down isn't worthwhile.

You can argue this is wrong, and that the "good guys" should disarm more too, but this is how it appears to be today.

Both the US and the former USSR have reduced their stockpiles. No one who has nukes will give them up entirely but there's nothing but good in reducing the stockpiles to sane levels.

By telling Iran that we're ok with them having a nuclear program too, we're taking a concrete action toward saying they aren't evil; that we're treating them as something closer to equals. They can join the ranks of "nuclear powers".

And... how does that benefit other nations? It's not just about the US, it's about anyone else who feels threatened by Iran. We already know how Israel would feel about it, how about Saudi Arabia? They aren't exactly friends with Iran, are they? There is that whole Sunni/Shi'ite split to worry about.

#3, it's not a big threat to us. Nobody has ever used nuclear bombs in war since WW2, not even the godless insane evil communists bent on destroying our way of life. And they had a mature arsenal.

No, it was the "sane", "good-guy" capitalist democracy that used the bomb on other human beings, or did you forget that? It's not about "good" and "evil" its about a weapon of war. No, they haven't been used since WWII thank god - or good sense - for that!

I'll say it again - MAD only worked because neither the US or USSR wanted to go to war with each other. We were sufficiently at odds with each other that conflict was likely for decades, and certainly occurred indirectly, but neither side really wanted an open, armed conflict with the other (likewise, China, which also joined the club, didn't really want a war with either of the other two). It takes at least two parties to make peace, but only one to start a war. Thank goodness the cold war ended without going nuclear.

It's not like that anymore. India and Pakistan have had their own form of cold war for decades now, and honestly, it's more "room temperature" than cold as they do shoot at each other, now both sides have nukes. Great.

North Korea has nukes now and it's openly antagonistic towards other nations. Technically, the Norks and the US are still at war, and if that cease-fire ever breaks who knows what will happen next?

The Israelis have the bomb, which has long been an issue in the mid-east and scared the shit out of the Arabs once it was official. Well, they haven't used it on anyone, despite constant seige and attacks, so maybe, maybe, they can restrain themselves as long as no one else uses one on them first.

Now we have Iran wanting one.... and Iran is definitely antagonistic towards not only the US but also Israel. They can't easily reach the US, but they sure as hell can reach Isreal... and Saudi Arabia... and a number of other nations. I would like to think the Iranian government is as sane and restrained as every other government that has acquired nukes since WWII, but we don't know that for sure. That's always the risk when someone new joins the club, you don't know if they're going to use them or not.

The bomb is a symbol more than it is a weapon.

If the bomb wasn't an effective weapon it would have no symbolic value.

But, what if they do use it? I'm not terribly concerned.

I sure am.

a) their tech is sure to be low for a long time.

Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki about low tech nuclear bombs. Ask the hibakusha about what low tech nukes can do.

Oh, don't even bother with that - ask the survivors of the Goiânia accident, or the Mayapuri one, what a little radioactive isotope spread around even accidentally can do to people. Or any of the other accidents that have occurred over the years with a little dust being mishandled, then imagine the damage from a deliberate spreading of that shit.

It doesn't have to be high tech to kill people. Got that?

Actually delivering a bomb to the United States won't be easy.

But it is possible.

b) we can nuke them right back.

I'm sure that will be of consolation to folks dying of radiation exposure here in the states, not to mention it will be a pleasing outcome to everyone downwind of our fucking retaliation! Are you mad? Or just totally insensitive to human suffering?

I take it you wouldn't mind YOU city being the one nuked, then? Since they're just a "symbol" and "low tech" and thus somehow you won't be as dead as if killed by a "real" or "high tech" weapon?

Teh stoopid. It burns.

They might be insane fundamentalists, but I doubt they actually want to die.

Given the number of suicide bombers in recent decades that is a dangerous assumption to make.

c) our high tech military might be able to shoot down their missiles or intercept their carriers or whatever the hell they do

Well, it might....

Except why do you assume they'll be flying in the weapons? There ARE other ways to get things to the States, you know. It's not as quick, but it might be more effective.

d) if it does hit, we'll survive. America is a big, strong country. Even in the worst case scenario, we'll probably win.

Again, I'm sure that will be of consolation to the dying and the families of the dead.

Yes, America would survive as a nation - assuming the whole situation doesn't melt down into a world-wide free-for-all of flying atomics - but the loss of even one city would not be trivial. Tell me, which city are you willing to sacrifice? New York? Chicago? LA? Washington, DC? YOUR city perhaps?

But let's assume that no, they don't target the US. I wouldn't be complacent about the loss of Israel, or of a significant portion of Saudi Arabia either. It won't be reports filtering in over weeks, and black and white photos of people with kimono patterns burned into their flesh. No, this time we'll see it LIVE, on CNN and Al-Jazeera and a hundred other networks, live and in color, cities burning and people dying, the flesh falling off their limbs and their agonized cries for water for a thirst that can't be quenched on YouTube. People dying over hours, days, even weeks, doomed but conscious, numbering in the thousands.

That is not trivial. That is not OK. That is a level of horror I hope the world doesn't have to see in my lifetime. It doesn't matter where that might happen, it's hellish regardless of which city dies.

Your smug "oh, we can retaliate" - my god, you want more than one such horror on this planet? Seriously?

There's a reason why some weapons are considered off-limits even in warfare - images of cities filled with the dead, whether from disease, gas, or fire, is horrific beyond the "ordinary" horrors of bullets and roadside bombs. It's not that they can't be used - they certainly have been, that's why we know how bad they are - but for the most part no one really wants to escalate things to that level.

Unfortunately, the generation that remembers WWII and what that sort of war is really like is dying off. That leaves us with idiots LIKE YOU who trivialize the consequences of such weapons, thinking that the trade-offs are somehow acceptable.

All in all, it's unlikely to actually hurt anybody. The consequences of that would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt anyone else, and it hasn't happened yet in history.

You. Are. An. Idiot.

Even peacetime nuclear technology can and does kill. The Goiânia accident involved medical equipment, arguably the least harmful of the nuclear technologies yet it can and does kill people.

The more atomic weapons in the world the more likely it is one will be used.

Who the fuck cares if Iran would lose in a hypothetical nuclear exchange? I'm not sure if you could call what happens to the "winner" actual winning. Survivors, yes, there will be survivors but my god, I don't think you understand what even one WWII level warhead actually does.

The origin of the quote is disputed (usually attributed to Nikita Krushchev), but from the Cold War comes the phrase "The living will envy the dead" in relation to nuclear warfare. I realize it's easy now to poo-poo some of the more outrageous claims of the cold war, but it's a phrase worth thinking about. I'm not sure I'd prefer to be the survivor of an atomic attack, with a lingering death in an apocalyptic wasteland, rather than a quick death. Even if that wasteland is limited to merely one city.

#4, Iran has been invaded a lot of times, including by a force using weapons of mass destruction upon them. I can understand their desire to deter that from happening again.

Yes, and it has done nothing to mellow them out or make them less belligerent towards their neighbors.

It takes at least two parties to make peace, but only one to start a war.

[irishmick79]

What if the US simply arrested Ahmadinijad the next time he showed up in the US to speak at the UN?

What if Canada had actually arrested George W. Bush for war crimes when he showed up to visit?

Don't be ridiculous.

Does Canada have an active arrest warrant out for him? What statutes would Canada charge him under? War crimes are much fuzzier when compared to a direct assassination attempt on an individual, at least in terms of broad legal strokes.

At least with the Iranians, there would be very specific provisions of US law which could be used for indictments (namely conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to murder a government official).

[Simon_Jester]

You're asking me what specifically should the US be saying to establish diplomatic rapport and perhaps beginning to undo all the decades of bad blood between both nations? Me, provide a list of specific steps? I don't have in-depth knowledge of the nature of fundamentalistic Muslimism and the history of the region, unlike you. I wouldn't even know where to begin, aside from feebly saying "bombing them might be bad" "trying to talk to them might be better".

Well, then we're both ignorant. And so are a lot of people, it seems. I'm not surprised people who go "NO TRUCE WITH THE MUSSULMEN!" don't know what they could say to Iran to reduce their level of pissed-offedness, since it goes without saying that they're ignorant of these things.

But I'm disappointed when people who are for trying to make Iran the US's buddy don't have any idea how to go about it. If their policy is simply "live and let live," which is basically your position I think, I'm OK with it. But if they seem to want to go on with silly platitudes in place of serious proposals, and quote Jean-Luc Picard as an authority on international relations, then it bothers me- rubs me the wrong way.

I don't expect any one person to know what to do off the top of their head, but an outline would be nice. D-13 actually turned round and started to outline something (basically, abandon the US policy commitment to nonproliferation when it comes to Iran).

The reason I ask for this is because I use it to spot people who know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion. An opinion about whether we can all just get along (maybe we can, maybe we can't, I dunno). People with uninformed opinions, whose thoughts on foreign affairs are limited to "can't we all just get along, see we're all actually pretty much the same!" and who try to use this to refute other people's detailed arguments about what can and cannot be done, aren't in the same league. They don't have informed opinions, they just have wishes and ignorance.

Their wishes may be noble wishes, and their ignorance may be benevolent ignorance, but they're still ignorant wishful-thinkers. Granted, that's better than the "we can bomb Iran and they'll turn into a democracy!" crowd, who are ignorant wishful thinkers, but with ignoble wishes and malevolent ignorance, which is worse than noble wishes and benevolent ignorance. But still, ignorant wishful thinking is not something I want to base my opinions on if I can help it, so I look for signs of knowledge.

But, besides that, they don't have to build a fission weapon. A dirty bomb using conventional explosives to disburse radioactive isotopes is entirely feasible. Really, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already. They could, in theory, smuggle relatively small and lightweight amounts of isotopes into a target country (yes, even one half a world away) and then use something as simple as ANFO to disburse it in a densely populated area. The capability for that is a threat to everyone in the world.

If I had to guess, it hasn't been done because there's not a lot of incentive to do it for the people with the resources to make it easy. Making radioisotopes is easy if you have a nuclear program, but none of the nations with a nuclear program actually profits from making dirty bombs and using them on people. Also, I suspect, because the isotopes that make good dirty bombs are mostly short-lived and thus hard to store (and radioactive as hell to handle in quantity).

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, like I said, the best and brightest of so many nations have thought long and hard on how to deal with this, and the best they got gave us wars, puppet (also-theocrat) regimes, non-puppet theocrat regimes, terrorist attacks, systematized assassinations and torture, economic ruin, the destruction of nations, hundreds of thousands dead, and pretty much all the worst things in the Bible.

Those for trying to make Iran the US's buddy don't have any idea how to go about it precisely because the "NO TRUCE WITH THE MUSSULMEN!" crowd has so thoroughly fucked up the relations between both nations for the last few decades. Those who want to make them buddies wouldn't even know where to start. It's like that episode of Voyager when the Vorlons sabotaged the hyperdrive, and Jean-Luc Picard said a profound quote on some such on how despite good intentions on wishing to fix it, Sulu couldn't because malevolent actions have made it so hard for good intentions to be carried out and that those who mean well wouldn't even know where to start.

[MKSheppard]

before going on to seize a US embassy and holding US diplos hostage.

That there, is the crux of the US-Iranian blood feud. Iran hasn't helped matters with it's proxy Hizbollah; which has attacked US targets twice in 1983 and then once in 1996; along with hitting the Israeli Embassy in Argentinia in 1992.

[Shroom Man 777]

We're gonna go exchanging blame on the US and Iran tll infinity. But, mind you, the USA was already interfering in Iranian affairs long before there was an Islamic Republic of Iran actually existing.

[Samuel]

They've had their governments overthrown by American and British agents for daring to exercise their national sovereignty.

In fairness, it turns out the CIA wasn't entirely responsible. The CIA tried, but they are... slightly incompetant. We did help train the Iranian secret police though.

The Iranians have had weapons of mass destruction used on them, by Saddam Hussein. Iraq had the backing of the United States when he did that, by the way.

And we quashed their attempt to get the UN to declare it a war crime. The US can be dickishly evil when you piss us off.

[Broomstick]

Both the Israelis and the Saudis would find Iranian nukes threatening, and likely others as well.

Why are you so concerned about the Israelis and Saudis feeling threatened, but you don't care about the Iranians feeling threatened?

Oh, I care about the Iranians feeling threatened, and I care about their response to feeling threatened. If they were saying "Oh, Israel and Saudi Arabia are hostile towards us, that's why we want to build up our military" I'd be perfectly OK with that, because it's sensible. If they said "our enemy Israel has the bomb, so we want one to, in order to deter Israel" that, too, would be rational (though not necessarily the best course of action), especially since Israel has, indeed bombed Iranian facilities in the past.

Pakistan, for instance, was pretty clear that they wanted nukes because India had them, and they and India are, indeed enemies. That really does look like a deterrent excuse. North Korea wanted them because they actually are at war, technically, with a nuclear power. That's not what I hear coming out of Iran, though. It's all about America the Great Satan, not about the nuclear power that is actually on their doorstep. It's about denying facts of history like the Holocaust of WWII, and who was responsible for 9/11. This makes me question how rational their leadership is, and what their actual motivations are. I do keep in mind that my information about Iran is slanted, but even so, I'm not encouraged by what I hear.

We raped their land in WW2.

And.... this is relevant because....?

A LOT of nations got "raped" in WWII. Compared to Japan and Germany, though, Iran got off easy. Next you'll bring up the European crusades.

The source of the current grievances between the US and Iran is the US support for the Shah, and the Iranians seizing the US embassy and taking hostages. You really don't have to go back further than that though, of course, people do.

They've had their governments overthrown by American and British agents for daring to exercise their national sovereignty.

So have a lot of other places, but most of them aren't building nukes and aren't denying facts about WWII. What makes Iran different?

The Iranians have had weapons of mass destruction used on them, by Saddam Hussein. Iraq had the backing of the United States when he did that, by the way.

Uh-huh... are you under the illusion that Iran is the ONLY country to be subjected to such things? Certainly, they have ample reason to have loathed and feared Saddam, but the US didn't start the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam did. The US certainly did NOT suggest Saddam use chemical weapons against anyone. (Admittedly, they also didn't protest when it did happen, the truth was the US would have been happy if both those countries destroyed each other.) Iraq was a client state, but Saddam was never the complete puppet sometimes suggested. On top of that, the USSR did as much if not more of the arms supply to Iraq during that war than the US did. If it was a proxy war, as you suggest, it was far more than just the US on Iraq's side. And China happily sold weapons to both sides.

Keep in mind, too, that as early as 1982 Iraq was willing to end the war and restore the borders to the pre-war locations. It was Iran that turned down that offer and said nothing less than a complete overthrow of the Iraq government and its replacement with a Shi'a regime would be acceptable - which stance by Iran prolonged that war an additional six years. It was hardly the poor, defenseless, peace-loving Iranians being ruthlessly oppressed by the rest of the world, they contributed willingly towards the conflict as well. A restoration of prior conditions was not enough, they insisted for six more years on spreading their influence and system and wanted to, essentially, turn Iraq into THEIR client state. And while the Iraqis were despicable for using poison gas, it was the Iranians who turned to human-wave suicide attacks and advances. In other words, the current regime has a history of inspiring suicide operations.

In other words, within recent history the current regime has shown a willingness to inspire suicide attacks. You stated that you didn't think the Iranians would use a nuke because they didn't want to die, yet there is the evidence that your belief may be untrue. Whether it's the leadership's willingness to sacrifice thousands of people in the revolutionary cause, or a potential for the leadership itself to be suicidal, that is a threat that has not been recently seen in the Israelis or even most of Iraq, and certainly not as official policy in Israel, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, or another other nation bordering Iran.

They are under constant threat of being bombed by random Americans on the Internet and even our people in Congress.

They are under constant threat from their neighbors as well, and far more likely to be attacked by those neighbors than "random Americans on the Internet".

Why is it ok for all of us to threaten them, for us to take open and lethal action against them, but some huge crime if the Iranians want a means to defend themselves because they might threaten somebody else with that means at some point?

First of all, the threat is not hypothetical - their leadership has repeatedly threatened several nations, albeit verbally. From 1979 onward the words coming from Iran have been about conflict, not about learning to live with our differences.

Second, no, it's not OK for anyone to threaten anyone else.

Third, outside of the Iran/Iraq war, name specific incidents where the US took "open and lethal action" against Iran. I'm not counting the Persian Gulf War because, get this, it was a war, Iran had been mining international waters which was fucking up shipping for everyone in the area, and the direct US action came after Iran shot a few missiles at the USS Stark. Yes, the US shot down a civilian airliner, but apologized, claiming it was a mistake. Well, yeah, shit like that happens in a war zone. Again, given that the Iranians had already shot up the Stark at that point the Americans were a little concerned about direct Iranian attacks even while in international waters. In other words, Iran shot at the Americans first, which really wasn't too smart on their part.

It is perfectly valid to say we don't want even more countries joining the nuclear club.

Of course, but how do you think it makes them feel? Iranians are people too. They have as much a right to be on this Earth as Americans, Israelis, or anybody else.

Wah-wah-wah - it's not just the US that wants to suppress nuclear proliferation. The current nuclear club is pretty clear on that, and wants to keep the number of such nations as limited as possible.

On top of that, your suggestion that NOT having nukes someone means a nation has "less" right to be on the planet is... bizarre. No one is suggesting that. No one believes that. Absolutely the Iranians have a right to defend themselves, but they do not have a right to particular weapons systems.

How does it make them feel? Poor babies - maybe if their leadership where a little less verbally hysterical people would trust them more. Right now the Iranian "leadership" is doing more damage to Iran than external enemies are. No one is planning to invade them, taking their territory or attacking them right now but you wouldn't guess that from their words.

I would like to think the Iranian government is as sane and restrained as every other government that has acquired nukes since WWII, but we don't know that for sure.

Yeah, and I don't know for sure that there's not an Islamic fundamentalist who doesn't fear death climbing in my window right now to murder me with his bare hands.

Oh, please - it has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism in general, it has to do with some people currently in power in Iran who are happy to use propaganda to further their own ends, who have historically shown a willingness to kill their own for their ends, and who seem to actively enjoy stirring the pot of international relations.

I love the way the pacifists in this thread are the ones getting the most flames.

Pacificism is fine, as long as you don't take it to stupid extremes.

No, I don't want to see anyone get killed. And guess what? Odds are the 75 million people in Iran don't want to die either.

Oh, really? Look up "basij" sometime. Tens of thousands of Iranian basiji marched across minefields to clear them, or into enemy fire, which chanting about how wonderful martyrdom was going to be.

Iranians have demonstrated a pretty strong willingness to die for the cause. The Basiji still exist, by the way, and are still very willing to die for the current regime.

That's the way the deterrant aspect works. They sit down and ask themselves "do we all want to die so we can punch (not even destroy!) the United States"?

And they answer "no, I don't want to die. Let's not do that."

Except tens of thousands have demonstrated that they are willing to die. You are making the mistake that they think like us, that their culture is like ours. To die combating the enemy is a quick ticket to heaven for them, a heaven as real to them as this world.

Given the number of suicide bombers in recent decades that is a dangerous assumption to make.

About 30,000 Americans commit suicide every year.

Yes, but there's a marked difference between someone suffering mental illness and someone martyring themselves for a cause, believing it grants them an express ticket to heaven. When I said "suicide bombers" I wasn't talking about mentally ill people, I was talking about people willing to die for a cause. Just like in the Persian Gulf War tens of thousands of basiji died for the cause.

Yes, America would survive as a nation - assuming the whole situation doesn't melt down into a world-wide free-for-all of flying atomics - but the loss of even one city would not be trivial.

Yup, and do you think the people in Iran don't feel the same way?

They don't want to die any more than you or I.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that some Iranians feel a "martyr's death" is a ticket to heaven, and they're willing to die for it. So no, I don't think your notion that "they don't want to die any more than you or I" is valid, certainly not for all Iranians.

The more atomic weapons in the world the more likely it is one will be used.

Intuitively, that seems obvious, but that's not true historically. The atomic weapons WERE used when there were very few of them in the world.

Since then, the number has grown, and they haven't been used again. A reason for this might be that the other guys have them too, and nobody really wants to die.

Except some people DO want to die. Some people want to die for their cause, they believe they will be rewarded for suicide attacks with an eternity in paradise.

MAD only works when no one really wants to die. If one party doesn't care, doesn't fear death, or worse yet, believe their death will be rewarded it won't work.

Who the fuck cares if Iran would lose in a hypothetical nuclear exchange?

The Iranians might! They're people too. Unbelievable, I know.

Nice taking the quote out of context. The point is, there aren't really any winners in a nuclear exchange.

[Bakustra]

Wait, are you really saying that because Iranians launched suicidal charges in the Iran-Iraq war, they are fundamentally different and universally long for martyrdom? Hundreds of thousands of Americans volunteer to risk their lives for this country, without even the belief that they will be guaranteed passage into a paradisical afterlife for doing so. Thousands of people volunteer with the International Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, and other medical relief organizations to risk their lives without even a means of self-defense. I think that you're relying on Orientalism here; pretending that willingness to martyr oneself for a higher ideal is fundamentally different when Muslims/Iranians do it.

Of course, you can't prove this; instead you're going to appeal to the fundamental inhumanity you believe Iranians to have, because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fucker and nations poorer and closer to the US haven't embarked on nuclear power programs. Shame on you for attempting to exile them from the human race.

But, what if the Iranian motivation in getting the Bomb is to protect their country from the USA, then? To stop us from having the luxury of being able to advocate for the casual destruction of their means of self-defense without looking like a pack of suicidal jackasses? Would you be okay with it then?

[MKSheppard]

Wait, are you really saying that because Iranians launched suicidal charges in the Iran-Iraq war, they are fundamentally different and universally long for martyrdom?

You forgot that many of them were basically youth with plastic keys to paradise.

[Stark]

Wait, are you really saying that because Iranians launched suicidal charges in the Iran-Iraq war, they are fundamentally different and universally long for martyrdom?

You forgot that many of them were basically youth with plastic keys to paradise.

Do you think that answers the question? He's asking about your attitude, not trivia.

[MarshalPurnell]

The Iranian government and the Iranian people are not one and the same. The present Iranian government bases its entire legitimacy on its hostility to America, and as a real authoritarian oligarchy (seriously, the mullahs are loaded and the IRGC controls a large part of the economy) has a lot of need for legitimizing symbolism. While all governments ultimately retain power by force, the iron fist is rather more important in maintaining the system of rule prevailing in Iran. In other words, the Iranian government has little reason to seek accommodation with the United States, and little inclination to do so. Additionally our strategic objectives are ultimately incompatible; Iran wants to control the Persian Gulf, the carotid artery of the world economy, while much of American power is tied up in keeping it an open waterway. Iran also wants to build on its leadership position in the Shi'a world to expand its influence in the Arabian peninsula and Iraq at the expense of existing Sunni elites, which would only reinforce its control of oil supplies if it gained the straits.

An Iranian nuclear bomb is thus an extremely bad idea because the Iranians will not use it for "defense." They will use it to challenge the prevailing status quo in the Middle East, which is of course vitally important to the entire world economy. A hostile power exercising control over the oil supplies of the area and shipping through the Straits of Hormuz is a nightmare scenario. Of course, the Saudis have no intention of acquiescing quietly and will almost certainly buy into the Pakistani nuclear program in response to a Persian bomb. So, Iran will have the bomb, Saudi Arabia will have the bomb, and Pakistan will be producing more nuclear weapons. Which means India will build more nuclear weapons to keep up. Which may mean that China feels the need to expand its nuclear arsenal. And back to the Middle East, it would rip the rug right out from under Turkey's "neo-Ottoman" foreign policy, a bid to become the Sunni champion while bridging the gap to Iran, at a time when Turkey's admission to the EU is looking more and more like a dead letter. And it would mean that if Egypt wanted to reclaim its status as the leader of the Arab world it too would need nuclear weapons, and in any case a nuclear-armed Sunni Arab block would almost certainly form to oppose the Shi'a Iranian nuclear power. And since the Shi'a populations in Arab countries are already restless and Iraq is a natural zone of conflict between the two, the dynamics would probably be very dangerous indeed.

Note of course the Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. However the Israelis have been cagey about, neither denying nor confirming their nuclear status. The Iranians would almost certainly detonate a test bomb for the entire world to see, and would not be subtle in using it in threats. While Israeli possession of the bomb changed nothing in the region's power balance, as no Arab coalition could defeat Israel in an existential war anyway, Iranian power would be massively increased by a nuclear weapon, and American commitment to uphold the status quo in the face of the threat posed by that concomitantly devalued. Fortunately it seems Iran is still years away from having a nuclear weapon, but proposing to actually speed that up is stupid beyond words.