This conversation has been carried over from another thread.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Bearing in mind they will and have violated the agreement they signed (NPT), the sanctions and ire from the other treaty partners are very understandable. They are lying clearly and breaking an agreement. But speaking practically, it really doesn’t matter.
Our only option is war at this point and each side knows it. Keep in mind I am basing this off the fact that outside of completely destroying them, they will get a bomb. It is only a matter of time. To think that they will not is foolish. Sanctions have failed pretty much everywhere they have ever been tried (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.) and the fact that even dirt poor and backward North Korea and Pakistan developed nukes you would be crazy to think relatively wealthy Iran won’t get one at some point.
The question then becomes are we willing and able to go to war and topple yet another regime? If not we need to get happy with the idea that they WILL get a nuke. Assuming they will and we are not willing to start another war, we need to try and normalize relations as quickly and effectively as possible via trade and mutual dependence. I wouldn’t exactly call China a best friend, but you can sure as shit bet they would never attack us at this point because even if they won their economy would be ruined and the ruling class would be in trouble or broke, both outcomes they do not want.
At this point we have not tried this, because we refuse to (at least publicly) admit war and regime change are our only real options for stopping a nuke.
[/quote]
Some points:
-The current administration and the previous DID try some form of engagement, which I’m sure you are aware of.
-Time is important. As the Arab Spring showed, events can change quickly. Delaying for another few years can open options. “all out war” and “acceptance of a nuclear Iran” are not the only two options available.
[quote]
I would venture a guess I know about as much about Iran and its government as anyone on this board does. [/quote]
That is a bold statement, and not one I would make. There are some very knowledgeable people on this board. Personally, I’ve read a few books, but that is all. May I ask why you have the confidence to make this statement?
I think the worry is that they will misstep or error in such a way that war is unavoidable. See the article I posted above.
[quote]
Obviously they have supported covert attacks against us, but so have we against them. I was referring specifically to a serious, non-defensive, threat of open war. I have never seen such a statement but perhaps all the Iran scholars on this board can point it out to me. Happy to change my opinion on this point just haven’t seen the evidence. [/quote]
Fair enough. But I have heard a bit of “death to America,” “wipe Israel off the map” (mis-translated…of course), and threats against ships. The recent threats to attack American ships if they re-enter the straight sounded like a threat of open war to me. But I’m assuming you will disagree with that assessment. So we will have to agree to disagree.
I think the US has always striven to have high principles. I also think you are being naive if you think that the US has forgone realpolitik. There was a short window where the US did not do a lot of assassinations. That time seems to have passed.
Of course they do, but as Orion’s articles so pointedly showed there is a difference between excusing and understanding why they are acting the way they are. Of course they are never justified in killing and flouting international agreements, but to think that there are not some pretty good reasons for it is fantasy land stuff. They fancy themselves a sovereign state like all the rest and as I have said they value their power. If they feel threatened they will act accordingly, right or wrong, just as we are doing.[/quote]
As you said above, you believe we should ignore their transgressions. In your opinion, they should not have any blowback from us for their actions.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE in particular. You could argue they are not theocratic in the same way, but highly religious states with Islamic legal codes. All corrupt and all self-serving. They do what all theocratic groups do and pretend piousness in public but are as dissolute as anyone else behind closed doors. [/quote]
You are correct, I would argue they are not theocratic in the same way.
We are talking open, nuclear war here. They are definitely dabbling in terrorism, but I am ashamed to say we are too by pretty much any objective measure or at least our Israeli friends are. Assassinating scientists, cyber attacks, and blowing up facilities are all things we are seemingly up to or supporting. Can we with a straight face claim the moral high ground here?
[link removed for formatting][/quote]
Yes, I think we can. And yes, I believe covert actions are necessitated and acceptable.
I have family in Japan. I have friends in South Korea. So I guess I don’t see NK as “harmless.”
[quote]My argument is this in a nutshell:
Iran will, at some point, get a nuclear weapon. It is not a matter of if but when. The regime is interested in a nuke for the same reason North Korea is. They want to further entrench their regime and have leveraging power. This is not ideal but so it is. They do not want a nuclear war or to destroy Israel, really, because they know this will mean their own destruction. They are as a group every bit as crass and self serving as every other religious theocracy or ruling class throughout history (think Popes, Communists, monarchs, etc.). If they got a nuke they would not use it unless backed into a corner where they would have to choose between using it or being destroyed.
Understanding their inevitable attainment of a weapon if we do not have the stomach for war then we need to stop backing them into a corner so that they will have fewer and fewer reasons to be belligerent. Increase economic ties and create as much mutual dependence as possible. Make them fat and happy and they will become docile just like China, North Vietnam and all the rest. [/quote]
I want to write more about your comparisons to China and North Vietnam (sic), but I’m out of time.
Basically, I think that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. They are a rouge, terrorist state. Their leaders have repeatedly threatened Israel and the US. But basically, I agree with Bush/Obama in trying to get time. I understand why SM wanted greater involvement with the protests (but I’m not sure they would have been successful).
Sorry, I should write more, but the wife is calling and I have to go.
