Probably the least worst call on Iran, sadly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5886122/US-ready-to-help-Gulf-allies-establish-defence-umbrella-against-Iran.html

The United States is ready to help its Gulf allies establish a "defence umbrella" if Iran does not back down over its nuclear programme, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.

Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, said the US was prepared to boost Gulf defences if Iran developed nuclear arms
She said America was still open to engagement with Iran over its nuclear drive but said that if Tehran obtained a bomb, then it would not make it any safer.

"We will still hold the door open. But we also have made it clear that we will take action, as I've said time and time again, crippling action, working to upgrade the defence of our partners in the region," she said.

If the US extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it is unlikely Iran will be any stronger or safer.

"They won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon."

I think that this is a bad solution to the problem of Iranian nuclear ambitions, whose redeming merit is that all the other options I can see are far worse.

:-I think that the claims that Iran is not trying to develope nuclear weapons are optimistic to say the least. At best, it is trying to become a "threshold power", capable of developing nukes in the space of a few months.

:-I do not think that either sanctions or negotiations are likely to be sufficient to prevent this, although they should certainly be tried, and I haven't given up hope completely.

:-I think that war with Iran would be sufficient to prevent this; but absolutely catastrophic and completely unjustifiable, both morally and practically.

:-I do not think the "other countries have nukes, so why not Iran" argument has merit - Iran is far more likely than any of the other nuclear powers to supply nuclear weapons to non-state agents who may be likely to use them.

:-As such the "assume that Iran is likely to aquire nuclear weapons, but try to minimise the amount of harm they can do" approach strikes me as being the least worst possible.

[el_bryanto]

1. I agree with you but i suspect this will not go over well

You already note the key objections - we have Nuclear weapons so why not Iran? Iran is a culture thousands of years old, it has earned our trust, that kind of argument. I hope nobody is foolish enough to argue that Iran wouldn't like to develop nuclear weapons.

Bryant

[ixion]

2. the US and Israel are the nuclear nightmare states, not Iran

all this talk of the 'threat' they pose is ridiculous. The US is the one sitting on the largest nuclear weapons stockpile, and the US is the only one ever to have used an atomic weapon, and the US is the only with with such weapons who has talked about using them again.

Iran has oil, which is the real reason they are a 'threat'.

[el_bryanto]

4. Are you sure that we are the only nation who has talked about using them again?

Really? Russia never did? Pakistan? India? Never?

Bryant

[ixion]

5. of course there is talk

but we're the only ones who've actually made good on it, and we're the ones who continue to work on things like nuclear 'bunker buster' weapons.

Can you blame other countries for wanting to be able to defend themselves?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I think that's the wrong question to ask

The question I would ask is not "can you blame them for wanting to", but "would it be a good thing if they succeeded". I think the two questions have very different answers.

[ixion]

7. the question of success for them is not if but when

hence something of a moot point, IMO.

[el_bryanto]

8. Not an if but a when

That seems like an ill thought out suggestion. For example you could argue that in WW2 we would eventually have developed the Bomb - we set off the first successful one in 1945, but it would have made a big difference if we had set it off in 1942 or in 1948. In that case it wouldn't be a moot point.

Who can say whether the timing of Iran's nuclear program might have similar importance? They finish it in 2011 just in time to give it to Terrorist X or they finish it 2015 under a more moderate regime.

Bryant

[ixion]

9. on a long enough timeline

"terroristX" gets their nuke. It doesn't matter if that's 2011 or 2050.

As for our timing in WWII: The detonation of an atomic device by one country into another would never be a moot point, no matter when it occurred. If we had used it in 1942, there's a good probability, IMO, that it would have accelerated our descent into empire.

The outcomes are the same, despite the variance of the time.

[el_bryanto]

10. That's a very fatalistic way of looking at things

If that is how you feel why bother trying at all?

Are you a believer, who believes that trials and calamities will be followed by rebirth?

But as for your initial point, I don't live on a long enough timeline not to care about terrorists getting nukes. Neither do you. I think it's probably better to try and hold that off for as long as possible.

Bryant

[ixion]

11. more just the nature of things, than a believer

the nature of the universe isn't static, it's dynamic. That is, it's always changing. Our planet wasn't always inhabitable. In fact, for the vast majority of its existence, it couldn't sustain life. Our galaxy will begin to collide with another galaxy a few years down the road. Big change will be happening at that point, that may or may not herald our demise. The consciousness of existence is a temporary and misleading state.

That is: Life's too short for us to be fighting continually, but that seems to be what we do. Civilizations rise and fall, just like the dominant species. And I believe we lost the moral high ground to chastise others on nukes when we bombed Japan with them. Just my opinion, of course.

Admittedly, I'm being very esoteric in this response, but I guess the "am I a believer" question requires such abstraction. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Do you REALLY think the government of Iran would hand over

the product of hundreds of millions of dollars to 'Terrorist X'?

I mean, seriously.

[el_bryanto]

14. Yep.

I do. I don't think they would take a vote or anything; I just assume that the facilities they are likely to create are going to lack the protections or our own or the Russians; and all it takes is a few guys with similar ideological backgrounds giving access.

Bryant

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. In which case it is NOT Iran handing them over, but criminals IN Iran.

There is a difference.

And the far likelier source for terrorist nukes would still be the tens of thousands of soviet nukes.

You are suffering from the deluge of anti-Iranian propaganda. Don't play AIPAC's game. They are fascists who have neither America's nor Israel's best interests at heart.

[el_bryanto]

16. I don't have to play AIPACs game to note that Iran is unstable and dangerous nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. That is EXACTLY AIPAC's game. nt

[el_bryanto]

19. And whose game are you playing?

Or is ok to insult me for agreeing, on this one point, with AIPAC, but wrong of me to question who you might be agreeing with?

Bryant

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. I have not insulted you - if I wanted to insult you, you would know it. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. 'crippling action' is a strange phrase in that context

Either it means crippling Iran, in which case it's offensive; or it means spending so much it cripples the economy of the US. :shrug: Either way, as a way of "working to upgrade the defence of our partners in the region", it doesn't sound good.

On edit: I suppose it could include crippling the economy of Iran.

[Kid Dynamite]

13. 'Other countries have nukes' argument

I wonder:

The country leading the charge against Irans alleged nuclear program is the only one that has ever USED a nuclear weapon on civilian populations. Further, that country threatens to USE nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Iran possibly, maybe, thinking about developing such weapons. And that country has zero intention of disarming itself of its ginormous, unbelievable stockpile of nuclear weapons..even though a small number could presumably destroy the planet. In fact, that country has never shied from bellicose rhetoric of USING its nuclear arsenal and the threat thereof not for defensive purposes but simply to annihilate or catrate anyone and everyone that are opposed to them.

I am curious as to how you navigate through the above arguments without seeing a severe double standard. If its because "they're terrorists!!!!" I wonder what proof you can offer on that front? Further, what of the Middle Eastern view that a certain Western country are the terrorists?

Finally, if devastation is devastation and a certain country intends to devastate Iran, wihtout or without thermonuclear assistance, how does this not pose an existential threat to Iran which they SHOULD be able to defend themselves from? Or do you not view crushing economic sanctions that guarantee immiseration and needless deaths the same as you view suppositional deaths stemming from hypothetical attacks that have no chance of actually ever happening?

[BlooInBloo]

17. As we well know, it's hard when you have crazypeople in power, eh?