Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

Iran is liberalizing, and Iran's liberalization is the only chance to truly end this conflict. Anything else will perpetuate the current situation with only quantitative, not qualitative differences. Thus we need to support the liberalizers within Iran, and what Bibi's doing is the precise opposite of that.

[Sheb]

What Helgo said. Honestly, Bibi's on my list of world leaders I'd kill if I had a Death Note.

[Rez]

Iran is liberalizing, and Iran's liberalization is the only chance to truly end this conflict. Anything else will perpetuate the current situation with only quantitative, not qualitative differences. Thus we need to support the liberalizers within Iran, and what Bibi's doing is the precise opposite of that.

The only way to support their liberals is to enable the government that oppresses them to develop nuclear weapons!  I like this logic.

What Helgo said. Honestly, Bibi's on my list of world leaders I'd kill if I had a Death Note.

Classy.

ed. Anyway, I'm done veering on this tangent.

[Frumple]

Obviously not the only way, but giving the country a deterrent against other ones (like, perhaps, israel) that want to just up and kill them all, liberal elements included, definitely sounds like a means of support t'me.

[nenjin]

The election of Rouhani does not signify change until Khamenei is no longer Supreme Leader.  Khamenei commands the military and the intelligence services.  Khamenei is a common thread over the past 34 years of Iranian politics and he is the most senior religious figure in that theocracy.  He said that Israeli leaders aren't human and suggested that the Holocaust never happened... last year.  Iran is liberalizing, but why do I have to tell people that young, liberal movements don't necessarily control their government's policies and secret goals?

I didn't mention that but yea, the Ayatollah is basically the biggest road block to Iran and anyone else ever getting along. As long as Iran is still a theocracy at its core, that from time to time likes to spout of the usual DEATH TO ISRAEL, I don't expect anyone to come to the table with the best intentions.

That said "gun-boat diplomacy" hasn't done us any favors internationally before, I don't expect it to do any different here. Great, so Israel is glad we're with them, meanwhile we alienate more of our allies who want something other than an Israeli-steered solution that is us asserting our ability to destroy Iran if they don't do exactly what we and Israel want. Bibi says it's about a better deal, which I think is a fantasy. A better deal in Israel's mind is a deal Iran won't take.

Preemptive aggression has gone pretty well, unsurprisingly, considering our training, technical, and logistic advantages.  I think Netanyahu and war hawks are arguing for gunboat diplomacy, not nation-building or condescending colonialism.

Gone well if you consider reinforcing the world's perception of America as the world's bully/police a positive outcome, yes. Obama has basically spent his entire presidency trying to refute that ideal, and I expect he'll continue to until he's out of office.

[Sheb]

Iran is not even really out to create nuke, just keep the capability to do so. And negotiations have made progress. Walking out on them and bombing Iran would accomplice exactly nothing.

[Helgoland]

Iran is liberalizing, and Iran's liberalization is the only chance to truly end this conflict. Anything else will perpetuate the current situation with only quantitative, not qualitative differences. Thus we need to support the liberalizers within Iran, and what Bibi's doing is the precise opposite of that.

The only way to support their liberals is to enable the government that oppresses them to develop nuclear weapons!  I like this logic.

I'm against allowing Iran access to the bomb - in fact, I'm probably one of the hardliners here, seeing how I'd support an Israeli first strike on Iran if they ever got close to that bomb - but you certainly don't support liberal elements in Iran by making the hardliners appear to be right. And you don't prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb by giving the Iranian (Irani?) government reason after reason to pursue it; you prevent it by erasing the need for such a bomb. And that can only happen by building mutual trust - something that Bibi appears hell-bent on preventing.

Fakeedit: Having a nuke and having the capability to get one in a short time is identical in practise. That's the reason Japan and Germany don't need a nuclear program: Everyone knows they'd have one immediately if they wanted one.

[Sheb]

I disagree. Even rushing a nuclear program takes months. That's more than enough time to have Marines in Teheran. Also, I though the reason Germany didn't need a nuke was that it was under the US nuclear umbrella.

[Lord Shonus]

I disagree. Even rushing a nuclear program takes months. That's more than enough time to have Marines in Teheran. Also, I though the reason Germany didn't need a nuke was that it was under the US nuclear umbrella.

If you have a breeder reactor or enrichment centrifuge, the knowledge (which isn't hard to get) and the necessary manufacturing equipment (piss easy, the stuff I have access to on a daily basis could probably manage it); making a functional nuclear bomb would be a matter of weeks, not months, most of which would be spend collecting the necessary explosive metal. Further, the only warning anyone would get that it was being built would be when it went off.

[nenjin]

Which you know, if Iran was the isolated extremist crack pot they're traditionally made out to be, they probably would have tried to walk one or more of those into Israel by now.

[Helgoland]

I'll stick to what I know: Germany has plenty of fissile material around (lots of old reactors, and if necessary we could probably send BND agents to steal some from other countries in our neighborhood), we have enrichment facilities (in my home town even, if memory serves), plenty of good physicists, and our manufacturing equipment is practically memetic. 'breakout potential' I believe it is called.

Even rushing a nuclear program takes months. That's more than enough time to have Marines in Teheran.

Only if you notice in time. Who says you will?

Also, I though the reason Germany didn't need a nuke was that it was under the US nuclear umbrella.

Are you really willing to bet your national security (yes, your national security - if Germany falls, Belgium won't hold for long) on the US's willingness to let its sons die for Lithunia? I'm much more comfortable knowing about the French and British nukes, but even those aren't something I'd totally count on.

[mainiac]

I didn't mention that but yea, the Ayatollah is basically the biggest road block to Iran and anyone else ever getting along. As long as Iran is still a theocracy at its core, that from time to time likes to spout of the usual DEATH TO ISRAEL, I don't expect anyone to come to the table with the best intentions.

Look at the Soviet Union at the end of the 80s, look at Cambodia just a few years ago.  When a dictatorship thaws and loosens up it doesn't just wipe the slate clean (that would require bloody revolution).  It's a bunch of small things that signal a shift.

[Zangi]

Great, so Israel is glad we're with them, meanwhile we alienate more of our allies who want something other than an Israeli-steered solution that is us asserting our ability to destroy Iran if they don't do exactly what we and Israel wants. Bibi says it's about a better deal, which I think is a fantasy. A better deal in Israel's mind is a deal Iran won't take.

FTFY
Sure, certain groups within the US wants to destroy Iran(perhaps at the behest of Israel, cause they can do no wrong), but they ain't the ones currently in control of foreign policy.  Of course, that may change later...

As for Iran, I'm of the opinion that there is a core of pragmatic heads within the leadership who will marginalize the crazy-nuke-Israel-no-matter-anything-else sort and go with the MAD doctrine everyone else follows...  Which is probably just as bad a scenario in Netan's opinion anyways...

[nenjin]

Look at the Soviet Union at the end of the 80s, look at Cambodia just a few years ago.  When a dictatorship thaws and loosens up it doesn't just wipe the slate clean (that would require bloody revolution).  It's a bunch of small things that signal a shift.

As for Iran, I'm of the opinion that there is a core of pragmatic heads within the leadership who will marginalize the crazy-nuke-Israel-no-matter-anything-else sort and go with the MAD doctrine everyone else follows...  Which is probably just as bad a scenario in Netan's opinion anyways...

I put these two together because they kind of hand waive the completely unambiguous threats that still sometimes come out of Iran...as long as some vocal power in the Iranian government with any sort of authority keeps saying "Death to Israel", it's hard for the other half of people not willing to be open minded to see them as anything other than a threat. And, I mean, that's the threat of threats. It's not like NKs threats, they're expressing an underlying political philosophy that is "Fuck Israel." You can thaw and marginalize all you want, but for a county like Israel, and for people who do want to hang Islam out to dry, statements like that are all the ammunition they'll ever need to keep this thing going. Although Khomeini isn't as vocal as he used to be, I think even just last year he said the same overall goal was the complete elimination of Israel. He and others like him don't reset the cooperation clock when they do that...but they do prevent it from ever moving beyond a certain point.

So that level of vitriol has to be dealt with, and it will probably taken a couple generations for it to work itself out of the political culture of Iran, to the point none of these people hold power anymore and marginalized. Assuming it, Israel or half the world isn't a smoking crater that point.

FTFY

Any sort of US military engagement to protect Israel from Iran would pretty much be perceived as us achieving what we want as well (other than protecting Israel.) It's hard to say you don't have a vested interest in an outcome when you're attacking an entire country. And depending on who wins the election, the desire to attack Iran might go from right-wing crackpot saber rattling to US Foreign Policy.

[RedKing]

If you have a breeder reactor or enrichment centrifuge, the knowledge (which isn't hard to get) and the necessary manufacturing equipment (piss easy, the stuff I have access to on a daily basis could probably manage it); making a functional nuclear bomb would be a matter of weeks, not months, most of which would be spend collecting the necessary explosive metal. Further, the only warning anyone would get that it was being built would be when it went off.

Well, that and the massive increase of activity during the building of it. It's not that easy to build one quickly AND undetected.

I don't think the American people have the stomach for yet another war in the Middle East. We've been blowing up camels for the better part of 13 years now, shit's getting old.
And I think another propaganda campaign to convince us that Iran has intent to nuke the US is going to fall flat. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us twice...won't get fooled again. Or something.

Frankly, *my* foreign policy stance is "Fuck Israel". Cause seriously...fuck those guys. Nothing against the Israeli people, but you guys really need to pick better leaders, ones who don't use their protected special snowflake status to be a dick to everyone around them. I still maintain that if we started drawing down our multi-billion dollar annual defense subsidy to Israel, you'd see a hell of a lot more conciliation on their part to the Arab world.