[quote]Bismark wrote:
Iran is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear powers don’t welcome peer competitors. It is untenable to argue that Russia is actively aiding Iran to get the bomb.
Three Reasons Why Russia Won’t Wreck the Iran Nuclear Negotiations
Hmmm. Reputable subject matter expert analysis vs. a quip from an online newspaper decidedly not known for its foreign policy expertise. Regardless, the article in question does zero to evidence your claim that Russia is actively aiding Iran in its proliferation efforts. A plethora of credible sources demonstrate that the opposite is true.[/quote]
The Brookings Institute is a left-wing think tank. If you want to position yourself to the left of Huffington Post on foreign policy that’s your business. I have better things to do than argue with a kid regurgitating his professor’s tripe.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Iran is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear powers don’t welcome peer competitors. It is untenable to argue that Russia is actively aiding Iran to get the bomb.
Three Reasons Why Russia Won’t Wreck the Iran Nuclear Negotiations
Hmmm. Reputable subject matter expert analysis vs. a quip from an online newspaper decidedly not known for its foreign policy expertise. Regardless, the article in question does zero to evidence your claim that Russia is actively aiding Iran in its proliferation efforts. A plethora of credible sources demonstrate that the opposite is true.[/quote]
The Brookings Institute is a left-wing think tank. If you want to position yourself to the left of Huffington Post on foreign policy that’s your business. I have better things to do than argue with a kid regurgitating his professor’s tripe.
[/quote]
Everything is left wing propaganda if doesn’t jive with your confirmation bias. Regardless, the fact that the Brookings Institution as a whole leans slightly to the left doesn’t change the fact that it is more reputable of a foreign policy source than any you have ever cited on this forum. If I look, I can most likely find a similar article from RAND. Did you even read the article in question, or so much as look at the author’s CV? I would argue that she is painting Russia in a Realpolitik light, a very “conservative” position in international relations.
Again, I’m waiting on empirical evidence that Russia is aiding Iran in its efforts to become a nuclear weapons state, which is a bold claim to say the least.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, I’m waiting on empirical evidence that Russia is aiding Iran in its efforts to become a nuclear weapons state, which is a bold claim to say the least. [/quote]
Try looking in every major media source. Russia is building two nuclear power plants for Iran and threatening to derail disarmament talks. Surely you’re not going to contend that the power plants are solely for energy supply? You’ve already conceded that Iran is hedging for the bomb. Even if Iran does not use the bomb it will completely destabilise the ME. The Sunni states will respond by going nuclear themselves and Iran will feel secure and emboldened enough to expand their terrorist operations. Who in their right mind wants a nuclear arms race in the ME?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, I’m waiting on empirical evidence that Russia is aiding Iran in its efforts to become a nuclear weapons state, which is a bold claim to say the least. [/quote]
Try looking in every major media source. Russia is building two nuclear power plants for Iran and threatening to derail disarmament talks. Surely you’re not going to contend that the power plants are solely for energy supply? You’ve already conceded that Iran is hedging for the bomb. Even if Iran does not use the bomb it will completely destabilise the ME. The Sunni states will respond by going nuclear themselves and Iran will feel secure and emboldened enough to expand their terrorist operations. Who in their right mind wants a nuclear arms race in the ME?[/quote]
Russia has not only failed to aid Iran’s efforts to proliferate, it has actively impeded it. If Russia wants Iran to be a NWS, why hasn’t it simply given the Islamic Republic the bomb? It doesn’t necessarily follow that Arab states will themselves pursue nuclear capability if Iran goes nuclear. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan didn’t when the DPRK tested an atomic device. They didn’t do so when Israel obtained the bomb, although some were fighting a war against Israel at the time. Many Arab states are and will be hosting American forward deployed forces for the foreseeable, which extends the nuclear umbrella over them. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity to quickly enrich weapons grade uranium if it decides to go nuclear, a compromise which may assuage its security concerns.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, I’m waiting on empirical evidence that Russia is aiding Iran in its efforts to become a nuclear weapons state, which is a bold claim to say the least. [/quote]
Try looking in every major media source. Russia is building two nuclear power plants for Iran and threatening to derail disarmament talks. Surely you’re not going to contend that the power plants are solely for energy supply? You’ve already conceded that Iran is hedging for the bomb. Even if Iran does not use the bomb it will completely destabilise the ME. The Sunni states will respond by going nuclear themselves and Iran will feel secure and emboldened enough to expand their terrorist operations. Who in their right mind wants a nuclear arms race in the ME?[/quote]
Russia has not only failed to aid Iran’s efforts to proliferate, it has actively impeded it. If Russia wants Iran to be a NWS, why hasn’t it simply given the Islamic Republic the bomb? It doesn’t necessarily follow that Arab states will themselves pursue nuclear capability if Iran goes nuclear. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan didn’t when the DPRK tested an atomic device. They didn’t do so when Israel obtained the bomb, although some were fighting a war against Israel at the time. Many Arab states are and will be hosting American forward deployed forces for the foreseeable, which extends the nuclear umbrella over them. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity to quickly enrich weapons grade uranium if it decides to go nuclear, a compromise which may assuage its security concerns. [/quote]
Russia is playing a double game. They feel the need to keep pretences up. However they now appear to be dropping all pretences in the face of Obama’s weakness. And in case you haven’t noticed there’s a civil war raging in the ME between the Shia and Sunnis with Iran and the Gulf states/US as proxies. If Iran goes nuclear the Gulf states will too.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Again, I’m waiting on empirical evidence that Russia is aiding Iran in its efforts to become a nuclear weapons state, which is a bold claim to say the least. [/quote]
Try looking in every major media source. Russia is building two nuclear power plants for Iran and threatening to derail disarmament talks. Surely you’re not going to contend that the power plants are solely for energy supply? You’ve already conceded that Iran is hedging for the bomb. Even if Iran does not use the bomb it will completely destabilise the ME. The Sunni states will respond by going nuclear themselves and Iran will feel secure and emboldened enough to expand their terrorist operations. Who in their right mind wants a nuclear arms race in the ME?[/quote]
Russia has not only failed to aid Iran’s efforts to proliferate, it has actively impeded it. If Russia wants Iran to be a NWS, why hasn’t it simply given the Islamic Republic the bomb? It doesn’t necessarily follow that Arab states will themselves pursue nuclear capability if Iran goes nuclear. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan didn’t when the DPRK tested an atomic device. They didn’t do so when Israel obtained the bomb, although some were fighting a war against Israel at the time. Many Arab states are and will be hosting American forward deployed forces for the foreseeable, which extends the nuclear umbrella over them. Iran already has achieved breakout capacity to quickly enrich weapons grade uranium if it decides to go nuclear, a compromise which may assuage its security concerns. [/quote]
Russia is playing a double game. They feel the need to keep pretences up. However they now appear to be dropping all pretences in the face of Obama’s weakness. And in case you haven’t noticed there’s a civil war raging in the ME between the Shia and Sunnis with Iran and the Gulf states/US as proxies. If Iran goes nuclear the Gulf states will too.[/quote]
Again, that is conjecture that lacks historical precedent. I provided empirical evidence that Russia is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime, even in regards to a state it enjoys warm relations with in Iran. Fears of a wave of horizontal proliferation once a new NWS emerges existed in the past, and they have all failed to materialize. The American nuclear umbrella will be sufficient.
Again, that is conjecture that lacks historical precedent. I provided empirical evidence that Russia is a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation regime, even in regards to a state it enjoys warm relations with in Iran.
[/quote]
Lol bullshit. Russia built the Bushehr reactor and just announced that they’re building two more. They’ve also threatened to derail the disarmament process.
[quote]
Fears of a wave of horizontal proliferation once a new NWS emerges existed in the past, and they have all failed to materialize. The American nuclear umbrella will be sufficient.[/quote]
India/Pakistan? You really have little understanding of the ME if you think the Gulf states won’t go nuclear in response to the Iranians. Iran is seeking regional dominance and the Sunnis hate and fear them to an extraordinary degree. Also Salafists aren’t the most peace loving people either.
Again, that does not prove that Russia is seeking for Iran to go nuclear. Disarmament process? There are no weapons to liquidate. Regardless,Ryabkov stated “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes. But if they force us into that, we will take retaliatory measures here as well.” Russia has historically played the Iran card when tensions between it and the US flare up. The US supplied 25 tons of weapons grade highly enriched Uranium to 30 states (among them, Iran) under Atoms for Peace. Surely America wasn’t striving for those states to join the nuclear weapons club.
Steven Pifer, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2012:
“The Russians do not want to see Iran with nuclear weapons, but the level of urgency about this question in Moscow is less than it is in Washington. For the United States, a nuclear-armed Iran is a nightmare scenario. Russia, on the other hand, has had a more normal relationship with Tehran over the past 35 years. For the Russians, an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a very negative development, to be sure, but they believeâ??correctly or notâ??that they could cope with it, much as the United States has sought to deal since 1998 with an openly nuclear Pakistan. Moscow probably will not go as far as Washington would like in further pressuring the Iranian government, but that does not diminish the fact that the Russians have come a long way in supporting mandatory UN sanctions.”
Orders of magnitude. Notice I said wave. The states at war with Israel in the 1960’s did not seek the bomb after Israel went nuclear. In present day Southwest Asia, the presence of American forward deployed forces extends the nuclear umbrella over the states hosting them. Extended nuclear deterrence will be sufficient to curb proliferation.
‘In 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who has served as the Saudi intelligence chief and as ambassador to the United States has suggested that the kingdom might consider producing nuclear weapons if it found itself between the atomic arsenals of Iran and Israel. In 2012, it was confirmed that Saudi Arabia would launch its own nuclear weapons program immediately if Iran successfully developed nuclear weapons. In such an eventuality, Saudi Arabia would start work on a new ballistic missile platform, purchase nuclear warheads from overseas and aim to source uranium to develop weapons-grade material.’ - Reuters
The US gave uranium to Iran before the Iranian revolution.
2010 - ‘In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race…’
'In 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who has served as the Saudi intelligence chief and as ambassador to the United States has suggested that the kingdom might consider producing nuclear weapons if it found itself between the atomic arsenals of Iran and Israel."
According to Wikipedia, where you grabbed this quote, this is from the New York Times. One civil servant saying “might consider” hardly warrants the fatalism of regional proliferation you’re espousing.
“In 2012, it was confirmed that Saudi Arabia would launch its own nuclear weapons program immediately if Iran successfully developed nuclear weapons. In such an eventuality, Saudi Arabia would start work on a new ballistic missile platform, purchase nuclear warheads from overseas and aim to source uranium to develop weapons-grade material.’ - Reuters”
This section has no citation. Also from the Wikipedia entry “Nuclear Program of Saudi Arabia”.
“The US gave uranium to Iran before the Iranian revolution.”
The point wasn’t supply of HEU to Iran, it was to undermine your assertion that NWS who provide nuclear expertise and materials to NNWS necessarily seek to give them nuclear capability.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
2010 - ‘In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race…’[/quote]
I do agree that a nuclear weapons free zone would be the best case scenario for Southwest Asia, but it would require Israel to relinquish her arsenal of at least 60-80 nuclear warheads. Are you ok with that? Even if this did occur, nuclear deterrence would then be replaced with conventional deterrence, which is inherently much less stable.
‘Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, ‘we will get nuclear weapons,’ the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.’ - BBC
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
2010 - ‘In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race…’[/quote]
I do agree that a nuclear weapons free zone would be the best case scenario for Southwest Asia, but it would require Israel to relinquish her arsenal of at least 60-80 nuclear warheads. Are you ok with that? Even if this did occur, nuclear deterrence would then be replaced with conventional deterrence, which is inherently much less stable. [/quote]
Israel’s nuclear weapons don’t concern me because:
a) They’re not batshit
and
b) They’re exclusively for deterrence
The same cannot be said of Iran. Additionally, as I have stated before, Islamic fundamentalists are not rational actors so traditional Cold War deterrence theory does not apply.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
2010 - ‘In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race…’[/quote]
I do agree that a nuclear weapons free zone would be the best case scenario for Southwest Asia, but it would require Israel to relinquish her arsenal of at least 60-80 nuclear warheads. Are you ok with that? Even if this did occur, nuclear deterrence would then be replaced with conventional deterrence, which is inherently much less stable. [/quote]
Israel’s nuclear weapons don’t concern me because:
a) They’re not batshit
and
b) They’re exclusively for deterrence
The same cannot be said of Iran. Additionally, as I have stated before, Islamic fundamentalists are not rational actors so traditional Cold War deterrence theory does not apply.
[/quote]
You sidestepped my post. According to your source, a nuclear arms race is inevitable in SW Asia unless it is established as a nuclear weapons free zone. Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal, and must disarm before such an agreement can be established. The source you espoused contends that Israel’s nuclear monopoly has an inherently destabilizing effect in the region. I didn’t ask for your opinion of Israel’s arsenal, but if you were OK with Israel disarming.
a) Iran’s preeminent goal is its continued survival
and
b)Iran is not pursuing the bomb for offensive reasons, but primarily for deterrence purposes.
The Iranian regime does in fact operate as a rational egoist. It doesn’t seek nuclear capability to commit preemptive state suicide.
You sidestepped my post. According to your source, a nuclear arms race is inevitable in SW Asia unless it is established as a nuclear weapons free zone. Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal, and must disarm before such an agreement can be established. The source you espoused contends that Israel’s nuclear monopoly has an inherently destabilizing effect in the region. I didn’t ask for your opinion of Israel’s arsenal, but if you were OK with Israel disarming.
[/quote]
I quoted the King of Saudi Arabia on their nuclear intentions because you dismissed his nephew Prince Faisal as a ‘civil servant.’ I was not expressing my agreement with his demand that Israel disarm. Funnily enough I consider Wahabists somewhat biased when it comes to the state of Israel and somewhat sceptical as to their intentions.
The stated goal of the Iranian regime is the annihilation of ‘the little Satan’(Israel). They have also stated that a 9th century Imam in suspended animation in a well will come back to life and help them. In light of this, their global terrorist apparatus and their perfidy, I am somewhat sceptical that the Iranian regime comprises rational actors or to be trusted with nuclear weapons. I am also concerned about the Gulf states going nuclear and their nuclear arsenals falling into the hands of apocalyptic Salafist Arab Spring militants.
I wasn’t dismissive of the Prince’s statement. On the contrary.
You wrote - ‘In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race…’
According to the source, whose view you espoused when you posted his statement, Israel’s extant nuclear weapons present an equal if not greater security dilemma to the region as the Iranian nuclear program.
Iran seeks the collapse of Israel as a political state, not the annihilation of its citizens. But hey, I fully expect you to slap up that overused used mistranslated Persian to prove the genocidal intent of Iranians toward Israel. Muhammad al-Mahdi is believed by Twelver Shias to be a messianic figure who will return, along with Isa (Jesus Christ), to bring peace and justice to humanity, not to aid Iranians to achieve their geopolitical goals. Belief in him is no more irrational than the Jewish belief in a messiah to come or the Christian belief that Christ will return to fulfill the same.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I wasn’t dismissive of the Prince’s statement. On the contrary.
You wrote - ‘In January this year, Saudi Arabia’s former ambassador to the U.S., Prince Turki al-Faisal, said in an interview with The Associated Press that unless a zone free of weapons of mass destruction was created in the Mideast there would “inevitably” be a nuclear arms race…’
According to the source, whose view you espoused when you posted his statement, Israel’s extant nuclear weapons present an equal if not greater security dilemma to the region as the Iranian nuclear program.
[/quote]
I already said I don’t espouse his view on disarmament. I was quoting him to show Saudi Arabia’s intent to go nuclear in response to Iranian breakout.
Lol. This is why you have no credibility on the subject. Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier, chants ‘death to Israel’, claims the west is controlled by ‘filthy Zionists’ and he funds, trains and arms genocidal terrorists. Additionally, even if what you claim is true, the destruction of the state of Israel would inevitably lead to the annihilation of Israeli Jews as the majority of Palestinians are…how should I put this? Crazy genocidal fuckers.
[quote]
But hey, I fully expect you to slap up that overused used mistranslated Persian to prove the genocidal intent of Iranians toward Israel. Muhammad al-Mahdi is believed by Twelver Shī’ite to be a messianic figure who will return, along with Isa (Jesus Christ), to bring peace and justice to humanity, not to aid Iranians to achieve their geopolitical goals. Belief in him is no more irrational than the Jewish belief in a messiah to come or the Christian belief that Christ will return to fulfill the same.[/quote]
Again you are showing your ignorance. If you knew anything about 12er eschatology you would know that they believe they need to hasten the arrival of the Mahdi by creating chaos and war against ‘infidels.’