Is Iran a Threat? - Page 6




 
--
Is Iran a Threat?
 
April 16th, 2012  
RayManKiller3
 
Is Iran a Threat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Do you think for one moment that if NPT was in place at that time and Russia had hundreds of nukes that the US would not develop them?

It's all too easy now that the US has a stockpile capable of killing every living thing on earth several times over, to forbid other countries from wanting to have a mutually assured destruction defence against their enemies.

huh? So you are saying you want me to re-think history a different way? I am not sure as it would all depend on what is going on and who was President.

MAD only works when both countries have nukes and not every country applies the MAD policy that U.S did during the Cold War (the Soviets didn't for example). Their policy was limited nuclear war... Such a thing isn't truly possible. MAD policy is always a second strike policy, never a first one. Thank god General MacArthur didn't get his way lol.

It would be understanding what your saying if it was U.S unilaterally barring Iran from nuclear weapons, but this isn't so.
April 16th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Because they had thousands of nukes before NPT was created. U.S/NATO, Russia, and China do not need nukes to threaten or defend against any nation except each other. I suggest you look at the track record U.S has when it comes to disarming its nuclear weapons.

I will have you know Russia and U.S (not sure about the other 3 countries) have been decreasing their nuclear arms steadily. You never want to fully destroy your nuclear stockpile when some other adversary country still has theirs. As I said earlier in this thread, if some country is getting a nuke (or believed to be getting a nuke), then the countries that already have it is going to have a hard time convincing it's people to go through with more disarming processes.

I do not know if Iran is in fact trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and I do realize the west could make this go a little easier, but Iran can also end it just as the west can. If you ask me, it is like Iran is begging for an airstrike. I am not sure if Israel will hold off long, especially after the U.S elections.
Alright -- but could Israel really, with the support of the US, attack Iran, as some argue, or could the US go directly to war with Iran as the result of increasing tension in recent months?

The following is always said in the Middle East: Significant powers always build their policies according to 50 years in the future. In other words, analyzing the events of today based only on the conditions of today is a big mistake.

As the region tries to redesign itself of its own volition, Western powers re-stake their own positions based on these moves, and all sorts of new scenarios are implemented.

In the meantime, all sorts of fronts portrayed for years in the region as threats are, in fact, now coming to power. And while major Western powers said nothing when the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which was overwhelming victorious in democratic elections in 1991, was crushed by a military junta that year, now they say nothing as movements similar to FIS come to power in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco.
There can be little doubt that some significant national powers, first and foremost many Western countries, are made very uncomfortable by the spread of parties that tend toward Islam, a trend that began in Turkey, throughout the region.

After all, these are the same powers that have controlled much of the region for over 200 years and who, when parties that are both religious and nationalistic are in power, will have a difficult or even impossible time making regional leaderships do their bidding.

And when you add to this the economic and political warmness that will develop in the region between these leaderships, the situation becomes a true nightmare for Western nations and other significant powers.

Alright, so how will these aforementioned powers protect their strength and influence in the region? How will they try and prevent new unions from springing up between regional countries?

The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, which began in 2001 and in 2003, either intentionally or accidentally served the cause and interests of Iran. The excuse for entering Afghanistan was al-Qaeda, whose very existence, not to mention its leadership cadre, was questionable. At the same time, the reason for invading Iraq was chemical weapons, which turned out not to even exist.

The only real result from the US entry into these countries was the leaving of the countries with enormous problems, the likes of which could never be solved. Though it theoretically entered Afghanistan to fight against terror, what the US will leave behind in that region is two countries that experience terror every day, which leaves countless dead: Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it officially pulled out of Iraq around this past New Year’s, what we have now is an Iraq literally split into three parts.

These results really only benefit Iran. Prior to the American invasion, Iran was literally squashed between Pakistan-Afghanistan and Iraq. But now, it has become the greatest power in the region. Did the US and other Western nations not know that when the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were overthrown, Iran would emerge as the winner?

And so we have today an Iran that acts not only as the final authority on the Persian Gulf but which is also on the verge of becoming a real voice in the goings-on in the eastern Mediterranean. Iran’s name is on tongues everywhere, from Iraq to Lebanon, from Bahrain to Yemen.

Will such an Iran really allow stability to come to the region or let strong ties develop between Sunni nations? The answer is no: Iran, which throughout its long history has gone to war only with other Muslim nations, will do as it has done for centuries now and forge new alliances with Western nations while preventing ties from developing between Sunni ones.

As a result then, neither Israel nor the US will want to see the elimination or even heavy damaging of Iran by staging attacks, as it is a nation for which they will have a need in the future.
April 16th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Your leaders have said :

1. That Israel, UK and the USA must be destroyed.
2. Nuclear research is for peaceful purposes.

Are they both true or false? And if only one is true then why are they lying?
A German proverb says: “Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.”
--
Is Iran a Threat?
April 16th, 2012  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Alte
Alright -- but could Israel really, with the support of the US, attack Iran, as some argue, or could the US go directly to war with Iran as the result of increasing tension in recent months?

The following is always said in the Middle East: Significant powers always build their policies according to 50 years in the future. In other words, analyzing the events of today based only on the conditions of today is a big mistake.

As the region tries to redesign itself of its own volition, Western powers re-stake their own positions based on these moves, and all sorts of new scenarios are implemented.

In the meantime, all sorts of fronts portrayed for years in the region as threats are, in fact, now coming to power. And while major Western powers said nothing when the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which was overwhelming victorious in democratic elections in 1991, was crushed by a military junta that year, now they say nothing as movements similar to FIS come to power in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco.
There can be little doubt that some significant national powers, first and foremost many Western countries, are made very uncomfortable by the spread of parties that tend toward Islam, a trend that began in Turkey, throughout the region.

After all, these are the same powers that have controlled much of the region for over 200 years and who, when parties that are both religious and nationalistic are in power, will have a difficult or even impossible time making regional leaderships do their bidding.

And when you add to this the economic and political warmness that will develop in the region between these leaderships, the situation becomes a true nightmare for Western nations and other significant powers.

Alright, so how will these aforementioned powers protect their strength and influence in the region? How will they try and prevent new unions from springing up between regional countries?

The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, which began in 2001 and in 2003, either intentionally or accidentally served the cause and interests of Iran. The excuse for entering Afghanistan was al-Qaeda, whose very existence, not to mention its leadership cadre, was questionable. At the same time, the reason for invading Iraq was chemical weapons, which turned out not to even exist.

The only real result from the US entry into these countries was the leaving of the countries with enormous problems, the likes of which could never be solved. Though it theoretically entered Afghanistan to fight against terror, what the US will leave behind in that region is two countries that experience terror every day, which leaves countless dead: Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it officially pulled out of Iraq around this past New Year’s, what we have now is an Iraq literally split into three parts.

These results really only benefit Iran. Prior to the American invasion, Iran was literally squashed between Pakistan-Afghanistan and Iraq. But now, it has become the greatest power in the region. Did the US and other Western nations not know that when the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were overthrown, Iran would emerge as the winner?

And so we have today an Iran that acts not only as the final authority on the Persian Gulf but which is also on the verge of becoming a real voice in the goings-on in the eastern Mediterranean. Iran’s name is on tongues everywhere, from Iraq to Lebanon, from Bahrain to Yemen.

Will such an Iran really allow stability to come to the region or let strong ties develop between Sunni nations? The answer is no: Iran, which throughout its long history has gone to war only with other Muslim nations, will do as it has done for centuries now and forge new alliances with Western nations while preventing ties from developing between Sunni ones.

As a result then, neither Israel nor the US will want to see the elimination or even heavy damaging of Iran by staging attacks, as it is a nation for which they will have a need in the future.
Interesting post.

Iran is a very large country, about the size of Alaska, the nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground. Even with the special deep penetration bombs provided by the US, the operation may stall the Iranian efforts – such as they are – only for a few months. The price may be too high for such meager results.

Moreover, it is quite certain that with the beginning of a war, missiles will rain down on Israel – not only from Iran, but also from Hizbollah, and perhaps also from Hamas. The amount of death and destruction would be prohibitive.
April 16th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamidreza
I think your questions have been answered by Yossarian and Der Alte greatly but my question hasn't been answered yet.
Why the west countries have thousands nukes? they want those just for defence or they can use those as a threaten ?
The thousands of nukes are thousands to much. Russia and the US have already reduced their nuclear arsenal and probably will continue to do so when further agreements are reached. The last thing the world needs are more countries with nukes. So if we can put a stop on new nukes then we can start at reducing the present ones, if not, we will be fighting a running battle.
April 16th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
Interesting post.

Iran is a very large country, about the size of Alaska, the nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground. Even with the special deep penetration bombs provided by the US, the operation may stall the Iranian efforts – such as they are – only for a few months. The price may be too high for such meager results.

Moreover, it is quite certain that with the beginning of a war, missiles will rain down on Israel – not only from Iran, but also from Hizbollah, and perhaps also from Hamas. The amount of death and destruction would be prohibitive.
No one has a a crystal ball to predict what is going to happen in the ME. There are to many variables. US elections, Israel, Syria, Sunni gulf states and even an attack of a madman (religious or not).

Hezbollah and Hamas recently said that they won't help Iran in a war with Israel.
If a war starts between Iran and Israel, the latter will have his full army and part of its air force to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas, and they know it.
April 16th, 2012  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
No one has a a crystal ball to predict what is going to happen in the ME. There are to many variables. US elections, Israel, Syria, Sunni gulf states and even an attack of a madman (religious or not).

Hezbollah and Hamas recently said that they won't help Iran in a war with Israel.
If a war starts between Iran and Israel, the latter will have his full army and part of its air force to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas, and they know it.
When I read this entire post, I will say that "der alte" has one. He has some interesting reviews.

Israeli military planners probably calculate that Hezbollah would attack. They would prefer to preempt such an attack, and at least take out the most dangerous and long-range missiles before they could be launched. That calculation argues for striking Iran and Lebanon simultaneously, in the hope that the first blows would weaken both adversaries and compel an early ceasefire. That means Israeli resources would be stretched from the start with two wars.

The political implications of hitting Iran and Lebanon simultaneously are significant. Sympathy for Persian Iran may be limited in the Arab world, but sympathy for Arab Lebanon would be higher, especially if Israel were to strike first. Israel can expect condemnation from many quarters for any attack on Iran; it would get more if it were also at war with Hezbollah, and bombing Beirut.

The bottom line is that Israeli planners have to contemplate a multifront war from the moment of a strike on Iran. The more variables in any planning process, the more likely you will face unanticipated consequences and unpleasant surprises once the action begins. The devil is always in the details.
April 16th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
That calculation argues for striking Iran and Lebanon simultaneously, in the hope that the first blows would weaken both adversaries and compel an early ceasefire.
I don't think Iran would want to so quickly endanger these parties. Not on an buddy buddy basis, but because to Iran, these to NGO's act as Iran's foreign assets in many way.

Supplying Iran with the abilities and resources similar in SOME ways that the U.S. and other western powers have by luxury via a dedicated Special Forces Community that is under control of the goverment.

Iran doesn't have much to be picky choosy over in terms of foriegn support, especially support already on the ground and familiar with a particular area.
April 17th, 2012  
Isabel57
 
If we would turn that in a Belgium delegation visiting Iran, it would be the same.
April 17th, 2012  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
huh? So you are saying you want me to re-think history a different way?
No, I'm asking you to stir your own brain and think about what I said for yourself.

You know and I know, that there is no way that the US would allow a potential enemy to develop a nuclear arsenal without arming themselves in a similar manner.
 


Similar Topics
Israel test-fires missile as Iran threat looms
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions
Iran's Military