War with Iran?

[pcunit2009]

Have any of you been following recent developments with regard to Iran?

Do you think war is imminent, as some commentators are now observing?

Or do you think it's one big ploy / conspiracy to scare the Iranians into abandoning their nuclear ambitions?

Do you think they should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology / weapons?

Do they even have nuclear ambitions? Are we being fed one big propaganda lie?

Do you think we can draw comparisons with the 1930's here? Or even pre-invasion Iraq?

Would you support an attack if there were further 'provocations' / more dossiers published? Or are you firmly against it whatever the cost?

I'm a Brit, but thought it could be an interesting debate / question (It's exam week this week).

I'd be interested to know how Brits, Americans and others feel about this issue which seems to be increasing in coverage as every week passes.

[RichieDayan]

Firsty, I'm of the opinion that war with Iran is a terrible idea. Not only because... well war is awful, but also because there has been no substantial evidence of Iran's nuclear program being used to develop weapons. An idea I've heard is that Iran may want to develop what is called "nuclear latency" (ie the ability to develop nuclear weapons at short notice), which is what the Japanese have. The recent invasion of Libya could lead the Iranians to believe that nulear latency would be a safe bet, considering it is facing growing hostility from the US and Israel. The recent invasion of Libya would have not done much to allay fears. I say this because in the past Gaddafhi agreed to abandon his weapons program in return for a guarantee against agression from the US.
Another argument, whih you can find here, is that Iran wouldn't develop nuclear weapons because it could encourage similar moves from neighboring countries (not that Israel isn't already nuclear) and thus offset the military advantage that Iran enjoys in the region. Yeah, the following blog post is a short but quite reasonable take on things, I think:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/15/stopping_an_iranian_bomb

[Davox]

I don't often agree with Rusty, but I'm with him 100% here.  Why shouldn't they have nukes?  What's it to anyone if they have nukes or not? What are they going to do when they have nukes that they aren't already doing?  Actually use one and see their cities turn to glass in the inevitable counter-strike? 

Iraq had no nukes, got invaded, and they won't be a functioning country for decades, if ever.  DPRK has nukes and the situation there remains unchanged, as crappy for them as it ever was.  If you're Iran, do you prefer the status quo or eventual invasion the next time the US needs a "good" war?
More to the point, if you're the US or a US ally, do you prefer the status quo or a new unaffordable war?

[Jrong]

I'm divided. If I didn't intimately know the power of religious fundamentalism I would be 100% for them having nukes. Having experienced religious fundamentalism in my past, I know just how powerful and dangerous (pick your religion) fundamentalism can be.

Americans listen to money/oil. I think the American government is evil but I can still understand it and (to a degree) people can reason with it. Religious fundamentalists controlling Iran listen to "Allah" as interpreted through their own Imam. There is no reasoning with fundamentalists -- they do crazy #$%@. The Imam can wake up one morning and say: "Allah told me to bomb Tel Aviv" and minutes later both Israel/Palestine and Iran are wastelands. There's no reasoning with "Allah told me".

I could be wrong about the influence of religious fundamentalism in Iran. I would be very happy to be wrong, someone please disprove me if you can.

[Jrong]

OK, it's possible that even within the context of only wanting money/oil, they were short-sighted and stupid in invading Iraq. But, following after money/oil line of reasoning is really predictable compared to "Allah told me so...", isn't it?

[RichieDayan]

The whole being a theocracy thing actually works against nuclear proliferation in Iran's case. The Ayatollah (man who is really in charge... not Ahmedinejad) has been saying for years that weapons of mass destruction are actually against Islam and this forbids the regime from developing them.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-31/news/17515120_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-weapons-supreme-leader

Also, I see the hypocrisy of a select few nations being allowed to have nukes (epecially Israel and India, both of which have not ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty) while others are hounded for even demonstrating that they have the potential to develop them, but I'm a little hesitant to say I think Iran should be able to have nukes.

[Jrong]

The whole being a theocracy thing actually works against nuclear proliferation in Iran's case. The Ayatollah (man who is really in charge... not Ahmedinejad) has been saying for years that weapons of mass destruction are actually against Islam and this forbids the regime from developing them.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-31/news/17515120_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-weapons-supreme-leader

Well, that's strangely comforting -- thanks for sharing the link...

[sejongthefabulous]

Isn't the reason Iran can get away with so much because of their Ayatollah/President system. The president takes the heat for all that is non-holy and the Ayatollah takes the heat for all that is 'Islamic Tradition'.
Just because America is the only country that has used nukes argument is a very scary and misleading one to make. That's like saying a 50 year old with 35 years driving experience and 1 accident is worse than a 12 year old with no driving experience and no accidents.
America has gone longer than any other country without using their nukes if you look at it another way.
Iran needs to be punished. If sanctions fail to work they must be stopped. The are a dangerous country that refuses to follow international norms and they regularly threaten other countries. As soon as they commit any act of war they need to be stopped quickly.

[anichion]

All this war talk is just Kabuki theater.
The Iranians don't want an actual bomb- they just want Israel and the Arab world to think they can build a bomb. They don't want to destroy Israeli- they just want Israel afraid that Iran can destroy it. It's all agitprop to keep Iran relevant in world affairs, and keep its people and Arab people distracted from their totalitarian gvts that Iran supports.
The US isn't completely interested in war, otherwise we would have gone to war 5+ years ago when evidence suggested that Iran was funding and training some Iraqi insurgent groups. However, playing up the war angle makes good politics, especially with stemming military defense budget cuts.

On a related note, it's no surprise that one of the top games released this year is a first-person shooter about a hypothetical invasion of Iran, though in the story it's not about Iranian nukes (instead, stolen Russian nukes) and not about the Mullahs (they're already disposed at the time of  the war).

SO, we'll see missiles from Lebanon hitting Israel, Israeli spies blowing up Iranian scientists, US drones in Iranian territory, and spy squirrels (it was a claim made by Iran a few years back) for the short to mid term.

[RichieDayan]

Isn't the reason Iran can get away with so much because of their Ayatollah/President system. The president takes the heat for all that is non-holy and the Ayatollah takes the heat for all that is 'Islamic Tradition'.

Iran isn't getting away with anything. In fact, the complete opposite is happening. Iran is being told that it must comply with standards that key US allies in the region (again I point ot Israel) are not being held accountable to.  Israel is a much more immediate threat to peace in the Middle East and a bigger aggressor in the region. I shudder to think of what the reaction would be if Iranian jets routinely flew into the neighbouring territories to bomb reactors, released stuxnet -like computer viruses which destroyed Israeli powerplants and assasinated Israeli scientists. Here's a great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmqwnNASUO0   

I think anichion's assessment is pretty spot on. I don't think Obama wants to be tied up in another war, especially mid-campaign. However, I would mention that there is a split over attacking Iran in Israel. Israeli military and intelligence leaders have stressed that an attack on Iran is ridiculous. The Political leaders (Netanyahu and Barak) are a different story. I do hope the political class listen to their military leaders in this case.

[bobrocket]

Would the US invade because of nukes or would it be an excuse, I don't see them invading North Korea who seems to be trying really hard to dong chim them.
If they keep invading country's sooner or later the rest of the world is going to say f**k em.
Country's are probaly stock pileing for war because the might find themselves on next in line on the hit list.

[flasyb]

This has been coming for months. Since before the US accused Iran of paying a Mexican drug cartel to bomb the Saudi embassy. I still don't believe that. Now, the Iranians failed to adequately protect the British embassy in Tehran. Everybody knows the could have done - they've put down much larger protests and aren't afraid to stop protesters with bullets - but they decided not to because they wanted revenge on the UK and it's allies for ratcheting the anti Iran scaremonger over nukes, MORE sanctions and the (I think absurd) Saudi embassy story.

It looks like the major Western powers are trying to cut Iran off further in preparation for an attack. Iran is a sovereign nation and its rulers have some sizeable balls so Iran isn't having any of it. It fights back. I really really hope that the UK, France and USA tone it down a bit and Iran totally opens up to weapons inspectors. I don't want the UK to dive into another war.

@ pcunit2009
As a fellow Brit who usually has the BBC world news service on in the background at home, the recent coverage has reminded me of this bit from the Day Today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

[jaspar]

In response to the "If we've got nukes, why can't they have them?" option, I think that there is a strong case for non-proliferation:

Nuclear weapons are very powerful. Think of a bar full of disagreeable people. A fight breaks out. The best fighter—probably the strongest person—is likely to win. This fight is dangerous and could certainly get out of hand, but there are fundamental limitations to the amount of damage that can be inflicted. Now imagine that one person has an automatic rifle. How much more damage can this person do? How much collateral damage? How many bystanders will be shot? What if two people have assault rifles? 3? 4? 10?

If you didn't pickup on it, guns play the role of nuclear weapons in my analogy.

Right now, America, Russia, France, the UK, China, India, and Pakistan are known to have nuclear weapons. Israel is a wildcard but the evidence is strong that they possess them. North Korea claims to have them, but who knows.

The trend has been towards nuclear disarmament. This needs to continue. We need to get rid of the nuclear powers club, not expand its membership.

Also, I know that us westerners like to view the middle east as one homogenous bloc, but it's not. Iran certainly has regional rivals. Rivals who might step up their own nuclear programs to keep up with Iran.

[pcunit2009]

@ flasyb

I don't get the BBC where I live, but I've been following it on the internet and I have to agree with your comparison.


If truth be told, the idea of an Iranian nuclear bomb does concern me. Not because I think they are stupid enough to attack Israel (for that would be suicidal) but because it would spark a regional arms race where the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc... develop their own nuclear weapons. For me, the more countries without nuclear weapons, the better. We're better off keeping it to the elite club of nations where possible.

so @ jaspar - I totally agree with you.

On the other hand, I do think it would be absolutely nuts to launch any attack on Iran for a lot of the reasons listed above. The Arab Spring isn't over yet, if Syria falls eventually - it'll be interesting to see if there are developments in Iran. A western/Israeli strike on Iran would almost certainly put an end to the arab spring, and have the reverse effect to some extent.

I think the whole Mexican cartel, kill the saudi ambassador plot was a little ridiculous.

I can see a war being cooked up by the media, and can definitely see the comparisons with pre Iraq 2003. Or even the 1930's. The west is struggling at the moment, and there's nothing like a big war to get our economies going again is there? Or to distract the electorate from domestic problems and austerity by focussing our attention on a regional war in the middle-east. I'm not convinced of it, but this argument does hold sway.

I hope I'm wrong.

I wish Iran would publicly back down from developing a nuclear weapon, and be less hostile to Israel e.g. the Iranian President threatening to eliminate the 'Zionist' regime, does no favours to Irans image and hardly creates goodwill. At the same time, I wish the US and it's allies would back down as well. It takes the bigger man to walk away from a fight, but at the moment all I can see is a young, lean, athletic man and a big, strong powerful man squaring up to each other with neither willing to compromise or back down. The slightest miscalculation could have grave consequences.

This worries me. Only time will tell....

[sejongthefabulous]

Iran needs to be punished.

For what?

They need to be held accountable for their crimes, least we send the message to the world that rouge states don't have to respect international norms. Every time we let them get away with some action, they become more and more emboldened.

[Davox]

Iran needs to be punished.

For what?

They need to be held accountable for their crimes, least we send the message to the world that rouge states don't have to respect international norms. Every time we let them get away with some action, they become more and more emboldened.

Interestingly enough, if you were from Iran, Iraq, or at least a few dozen more countries (many in Central or South America) whose sovereignty has been violated, democratic process overthrown, etc in the last 60 years or so, you can say this same exact statement about the USA.

[woman-king]

It's going to happen eventually, I think Western powers will stall it out as long as possible through attempts at diplomacy, etc., but at the end of the day they seem dead-set on becoming a nuclear power, and that is simply not something the US (or the UK) will allow to go unchecked.  It's going to be Iraq Part II, although on an encouraging note I believe Iran is, in many ways, in a much better position to pull off a transition to democracy than Iraq was/is.  The process of getting there is probably going to be costly and bloody, though, and not something I feel enthusiastic or particularly supportive about . . . but something I personally think is sadly inevitable. 

ETA: And I did choose #4, partly because it was the most intelligently-worded example and also because I think it's the unfortunate reality.

[flasyb]

http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20111211000138

The USA seems to be gathering support against Iran. They're pressuring South Korea to impose sanctions. Looks like fuel/heating prices will be going up soon. I wonder what other countries are being pressured by the USA to impose sanctions.

[terivinix]

That's sad to hear, because Korea and Iran have a surprisingly positive relationship these days.

Am I the only one who thinks the US would lose in a war with Iran? At best, it would be another Vietnam.

[flasyb]

That's sad to hear, because Korea and Iran have a surprisingly positive relationship these days.

Am I the only one who thinks the US would lose in a war with Iran? At best, it would be another Vietnam.

I don't think the US and its allies would actually invade Iran as they did Iraq. I suspect they're just looking for an excuse to bomb the Iranian military and destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program. They might bomb its nuclear power plants too. I think they're much more likely to want to set it back a few decades rather than get caught in another Vietnam.