el retorno
Member
You post this in every damn thread.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Iran Update: Failed IEAE inspection, Preemptive Strikes and SL declaring no nukes
- Thread starter el retorno
- Start date
- Status
You post this in every damn thread.
HAL_Laboratory
Member
This image again? Doesn't even really apply here.
Refrigerator
Member
Run a clandestine nuclear weapons program to ensure the stability of the regime from external threats. Stall international monitoring and endure international opprobrium (including sanctions) as much as possible without materially affecting the timetable towards nuclearization.
Once nukes are acquired? Gloat. Strengthen ties with Iraq to make up for vacuum of American power. Encourage active diplomacy with Saudi Arabia to dissuade them from nuclearizing while signaling to Israel that any pre-emptive strike on them would eventually lead to MAD. Publicly announce the rationality of your actions and that your nuclear arsenal would only be used for defensive purposes.
Don't you?
He posts everything in every thread.
I agree with him though. Iran has the right to keep secret installations from prying eyes unless they're presented with proof of wrongdoing. It's like the people that instantly believe someone is guilty if they exercise their fifth amendment rights.
Because it fits. This is the same damn argument. Does anyone REALLY think the rhetoric would be ratcheted down if Iran decided to let the IAEA go anywhere and everywhere they wanted? Really? Don't be so naive.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Had to chuckle at this part.
"We can't find the nukes!"
"Then they must have secret facilities we don't know about!"
"WAR!!!"
Refrigerator
Member
Dare to dream!
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Every country has things to hide, insofar as they want certain information to remain private. It's trivial to imagine that the facility in question is doing something Iran wants to remain secretive about that isn't nuclear, and isn't illegal at all.
It's clearly a Cobra Command installation.
el retorno
Member
Yes because the us´s retoric is not what it was with Iraq. Bush was much more harsh. Obama keeps trying to prevent going to war.
HAL_Laboratory
Member
When there is a site suspected of harboring nuclear weapons development being intentionally blocked off, it raises some questions. So why not just reveal the facility? It's not like the IEAE is looking for UFO wreckage or classified intelligence.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
hence the sanctions. Which reminds me that China and Russia veto the most crippling sanctions. If I'm not mistaken they also vetoed any action on the Syria situation. Off topic I know just thinking outloud/typing.
empty vessel
Member
Your country wouldn't last long. There can be no "moving on," just as there was no "moving on" from Iraq despite its compliance. This is about regime change. Iran exercises independence from the West (read: has a government that looks after the interests of the Iranian public rather than the interests of elite Western capitalists), and that is intolerable.
But she never stuck her hand up his ass.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Parchin is a ballistic missile site. Iran's long range missiles serve as a good deterrent against invasion/air strikes as Israel plus several US military bases are within range.
Therefore it makes complete sense for Iran to not want other countries to find out how many missiles there might be or what kind of bunker they're under or anything else like that. Showing the IAEA the Parchin site may instill some temporary confidence but it could also make the country more vulnerable.
That is why it is reasonable to not show that particular military site. Unless there is proof that Parchin has any relevance to the nuclear program, then how can you justify that it's fair game for inspectors?
They've got something planned- with Pakistan's help, they could get nukes really , really quickly.
Russians do already in regards to arms reduction treaties.
Fusion Pizza
Member
Wow, that is some amazing tech!
Rex Banner
Member
This is the exact kind of reasoning that trigger-happy "bomb Iran" types like to ignore. They take everything they see or read in the news at face value despite the fact that almost every military action ever has had ulterior political/strategic motives other than the ones presented to them through scary words like "sanctions" and "inspections". Could there be other reasons why country X wants to attach country Y? Naaa, this is good vs evil man, let the war drum beat.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
And I actually do believe that the nuclear program is aimed at producing the infrastructure needed for making a nuclear weapon. But I don't believe Iran wants to actually go forward with making one.
I think that Iran wants to have the ability to make (or threaten to make) a nuclear weapon quickly if it actually gets attacked. But they know that the instant they kick out the IAEA inspectors and start enriching to the high levels that are in bombs, that Israel and the US would essentially interpret that as declaration of war against them and scramble some air strikes. They could only start making the nuke when it is clear that war would be inevitable without one because then the clock will count down on how long your nuclear sites can stand against bunker busters.
So I believe it is logical (and yes, optimistic) that Iran just wants to have a civilian program that can be easily repurposed. It makes the most sense since they would get all the deterrent benefits of a nuclear weapon without actually crossing the line into making one.
I think that Iran wants to have the ability to make (or threaten to make) a nuclear weapon quickly if it actually gets attacked. But they know that the instant they kick out the IAEA inspectors and start enriching to the high levels that are in bombs, that Israel and the US would essentially interpret that as declaration of war against them and scramble some air strikes. They could only start making the nuke when it is clear that war would be inevitable without one because then the clock will count down on how long your nuclear sites can stand against bunker busters.
So I believe it is logical (and yes, optimistic) that Iran just wants to have a civilian program that can be easily repurposed. It makes the most sense since they would get all the deterrent benefits of a nuclear weapon without actually crossing the line into making one.
and i still never read it
when Iran becomes american I might give a shit
empty vessel
Member
I think this is good speculation as to what Iran is doing. It'd be the minimum that I would do if I were in a leadership position in Iran and concerned with preserving Iran's independence. I would actually consider building a bomb, but the fault for that would lie entirely with the US and the West, who amply demonstrated their commitment to regime change in 2003 when they invaded Iraq and deposed its government, at great cost to Iraqi lives. It's entirely defensive in nature.
mercenar1e
Member
Oh there are quite a few places we could come from.
Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq clearly said they won't let the United States use their countries to attack Iran, i can see Saudi Arabia giving them the ok.. but that would probably be the biggest mistake they could ever make lol
how accurate are Iranian made missiles? attacking Iran is a dumb move
do you actuly believe the iranian goverment cares about its people, and not the survival of its regime?
if I may use an example here, the development of nuclear weapons which would cement the goverment in place but also lead to major sanctions that would hurt the iranian people dearly?
That's not the best foreign policy though.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Does American really can commit another war since apparently the economy is screwing with it pretty badly?
In fact, can anyone really afford to commit such a war?
In fact, can anyone really afford to commit such a war?
Alpha-Bromega
Member
i think also of the human beings too
ElectricBlue187
Member
The best missiles photoshop can supply. And a nice big LOL at thinking Iraq and Afganistan can tell the US not to do any goddamn thing they want
I suspect the deficit will eventually be solved with money printing and the pain that comes with that- fiat money goes a long way.
A large part of the cost of Iraq/Afghan was the occupation moreso then the war itself. The US will be punishing Iran not occupying it (then again, occupation of Iraq didn't do that much good, and I suspect it was mainly to try and stop Iraq from going hard Islamist)
el retorno
Member
No. It doesn't give two craps about its people, it's government cars about its religion and mantaining power. Look at its human rights record to its own people, look at its reaction to demontrations by its own people.
That is not a government that "looks after its own people."
Also they made those "western capitalists" pretty rich by selling them oil. Just not the US.
empty vessel
Member
As much as any other government. Most Iranians view their government as democratic and trust it.
The Afghanistan war killed Americans. Does that mean that the US government does not care about American people?
Nonsense. You could trot this trope out, with slight changes, to describe every government in the world. I find this interesting because you are the product of propaganda. This is what it is all for, to get you to parrot incredibly stupid things like this. As if the Iranian government were somehow uniquely different from all other governments on the planet.
does the US goverment care less about the soldiers killed in afghanistan then trying to achieve its goals there? absolutely.
does the iranian goverment care more about the survival of its regime then the wellfare of millions of its citizens? yes.
do you disagree?
empty vessel
Member
I agree that the Iranian government is not meaningfully different from any other democratic government, if that is the point you are making. Which strikes me as a banal point.
Already on it lol.
Not much to be said really. People know my stance on this.
I disagree with you, I think the Iranian goverment would go much farther then many other goverments out there to hang on to its current power structure, since iran isnt a true deomcracy with so much of its power in the hands of the religous leaders.
I disagree that the reason iran is targeted is because it takes care of its citizens, rather then the fact it has a radicaly different set of ideals then the west and the fact that it funds organizations that oppose western intrests.
Refrigerator
Member
Do you have any data to verify that claim? Considering the outsized role/power of the the Supreme Leader I find it hard to believe there's much institutional respect of the Government among its citizens at all - especially amongst the college educated.
el retorno
Member
That's all it is. If I don't think Iran is the same as the US i've just fallen for the propaganda.
I don't think the Iranian government is unique, there are a lot of undemocratic countries out there, but it cares about its people less. The West doesn't kill its own people for being gay. The US and the west let their people protest, The West has actual democratic elections, the West lets women go out without covering themselves, the West has a free press, the West has real religious freedom.
The West governments are better and care about its people more Iran's. That's not propaganda.
Iran cares as much about its people as Syria's. Though something tells me that you think they too care about their people.
TheContact
Member
The wife of the assassinated nuclear scientist in Iran said that her husband's ultimate objective was the assassination if Israel. Peaceful nukes, right?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4193784,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4193784,00.html
el retorno
Member
Totally peaceful. BTW his goal to destroy Israel was done by contructing "peaceful civilian nuclear power."
I'm not sure how the whole Nuclear weapons things works but does every state which is signed to the NPT have to give access to the IEAE when they want to inspect?
Does the IEAE ever inspect the sites of USA, Britain, France, China and Russia or can these states develop as many Nuclear weapons as they want?
Does the IEAE ever inspect the sites of USA, Britain, France, China and Russia or can these states develop as many Nuclear weapons as they want?
No, they're different. You can't seriously think that tactics that work against one will work against the other.
FortunateSon
Banned
Didn't you hear in this thread itself? Completely peaceful nuclear power.
Ain't nothing wrong with that.
empty vessel
Member
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php
yarden said:
Iranians disagree with you about the democratic nature of their government. I find the presumption on the part of Westerners that they know better than Iranians what is good for Iran to be disturbing.
Incidentally, no Western country is a "true democracy," as long we're applying purity tests.
You live in Iran? Do you believe Americans know what is best for Iran more than Iranians do? Do you believe most Iranians believe that Americans know best how to govern Iranians?
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Clearly this is made up news as it displays Iran in a negative light. Maybe this was another mistranslation and just made to look like Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.
- Status