Preparing for a Nuclear Iran

Beer Moth

Iran is not an alternative concern to the War on Terror, as your first paragraph suggests; it is a central player in the force ranged against us in that very war. Now gifted with nuclear capability, courtesy of our bleeding-heart liberal elite.

Perhaps when one or two Western cities have been levelled, they and our esteemed media Doctors might just twig what is happening.

Go on then, one or two dozen.

DavidDP

"Now gifted with nuclear capability, courtesy of our bleeding-heart liberal elite"

What would your chosen course of action have been?

ndm

I think the primary lesson of nuclear non-proliferation is that two countries which did not sign the treaty (India and Israel) have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons with no consequences while one nation that did (Iran) has been threatened with dire consequences from supposedly developing them. That is the hypocrisy that underlies American leadership in the Middle East - a leadership that is rooted in anti-Islamic bigotry. The real problem with anti-Islamic biotry in America is not Terry Jones' threat to burn a Koran or the anti-mosque protests it is the continued hostility to Iran for doing far less than two American allies have done.

The takeaway from Western threats to Iran is that no country - and certainly no country not considered an American friend - should ever again accede to any limitations on its development of weaponry or ability to defend itself.

victor jara 67

I disagree with this article. There is no way the US will allow Iran to have nukes. Not because they would be insane enough to attack Israel and bring about their destruction. The Mullahs are many things, but they are not suicidal. But because if the aquire a weapon it changes the balance of power in the region away from Israel and its US backers. The other regimes in the region would then have to choose who ally themselves with and probably only the Saudis would be looking Israel's way.

Coupled with this Iran's increased influence in Iraq. The US cannot afford this power shift so its likely to give Israel the green light within the next year.

The consequences nobody can really predict. The only certainty they will not be good.

Baron

The F-15s, Blackhawk copters and stuff are about as useful in defending against a nuclear attack as a wardrobe of second-hand handkerchiefs. The pre-war Poles trained and then deployed hordes of highly skilled cavalry against Adolf’s tank formations when the Austrian corporal launched the attack. If memory serves it didn’t do a lot of good unless heroic death of many in the shortest time counts as a success.

DavidDP @ 8.40:

you and ndm would have wetted yourself with anger if Bush were to sign this deal, what is it that has changed your mind, do let us know.

ndm @ 8.41:

one can only guess what level of sclerotic seizure your brain can cope with, be a good chap though, think hard once more what is it that India and Israel have, and Iran doesn’t, will you please.

also, with Saddam gone, who is it exactly that is threatening your beloved Iran with Ahmediwhatever in charge?

ndm

Baron asks:

-- think hard once more what is it that India and Israel have, and Iran doesn’t, will you please.

Easy. Nuclear weapons. Next question.

Noa Zrk

The usual over intellectualisation and libero-progressive drivel; hand-wringing over which is the lesser of the two evils.
But this US arms deal is mainly about maintaining US defence capability and jobs in St Louis and the mid west and Obama trying to save himself and the Democrats in the November Primaries.

It's irrelevant to the Iranian nuclear weapons issue as the Saudis are incapable of providing an effective independent military deterrent to Iran.
From the Saudi perspective this purchase is the quid pro quo for American military protection, whether from Iran, Iraq or anyone else. Oh yes, and an offset to oil sales.

Aria

U.S. has supplied Saudi Arabia with lots of high tech weapons and jets for decades. I wonder who operates, maintains and repairs this huge machinery army? Seriously!

DavidDP

"you and ndm would have wetted yourself with anger if Bush were to sign this deal, what is it that has changed your mind, do let us know. "

Really?

Anyway, perhaps you can answer my question?

Austin Barry

Victor Jara 67 is correct: the IDF is just waiting for the US green light. Rav Aluf (Chief of the General Staff) Gabi Ashkenazi and his staff at Kirya and Camp Bar Lev have endlessly tuned and refined and rehearsed the attack plans. They are now in place and the IDF is perched on the start line just waiting for the off. That the attack will happen is a certainty, the only question is when.

Ben G

Pace John Buchan, let's hear it for the Iranophobes (of which I am one).

Clear Memories

As one who has spent time in the Middle East and discussed the Iranian bomb with Muslims (for they all are in that region), my biggest concern is their absence of knowledge regarding M.A.D.

Whilst generally happy to support the Iranian intention to obliterate Israel, they fail to realise that every aspect of their religion, let alone their lives, would be destroyed before the first Iranian-launched bomb reached Jerusalem. No Mecca, no Medina, no oil wealth, just a hotter and more uninhabitable desert with glow-in-the-dark camels.

And frankly, powering-up the Saudis will only see them try and occupy Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain and the other minor States around them as they export their own particular brand of medieval lunacy.

Baron

DavidDP @ 7.10:

the answer to your question must be glaringly obvious to anyone who comprehends the futility of waving around a placard ‘Free Iran’, has the guts to have a go freeing her before the religious fruitcakes hold everyone in the region and beyond to ransom.

ndm @ 10.41:

OK, it’s one nil for you for wit, the answer’s wrong though, what I meant was that both Israel and India have more than four letters in their names, Iran hasn’t.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Preparing for a nuclear iran? I'd have thought the softie-liberal answer was perfectly clear: pull down your kecks get a target painted on your bum and bend over.

Another point, with Massie's impeccably liberal good works blogging on the rights of the GZ mosque planners to do as they please, I've been awaiting his "I may find koran burning repugnant but by [deity of his choice] I'll defend to the death the rights of those who wish to do so" blog. But alas not a dickybird. Quelle surprise.

PayDirt

Who gives a shit about “great power” hypocrisy when the Realpolitik is about managing the balance of power in the Muslim world? I’m not so sure the Mullahs are not suicidal. Religions are about one’s attitude to death, and for certain muslims, death in a fight against Jews would be a “glorious” reward. Normally, the West could just let them all fight it out amongst themselves on their own territory, having nuclear capability though makes it different. Testing a nuclear device by Iran would certainly up the ante. In the meantime, does anyone care about the Chinese attitude and likely response to an attack on Iran? The Chinese could scupper global finances at a stroke with their massive dollar holdings. Or maybe the US figures it may be better to strike before the global finances go south again and then retreat into their isolationist economy as they are quite capable of doing. But not before perfecting their capability of keeping the outside world under some sort of control using their robot army/airforce (helpfully based in the Saudi deserts).

Dr Michael Grave

Mr Jara

You say: The Mullahs are many things, but they are not suicidal". Really? You sure?

This from The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html

"The president of a country about to go nuclear is a confirmed believer in the coming apocalypse. Like Judaism and Christianity, Shiite Islam has its own version of the messianic return -- the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. The more devout believers in Iran pray at the Jamkaran mosque, which houses a well from which, some believe, he will emerge.

When Ahmadinejad unexpectedly won the presidential elections, he immediately gave $17 million of government funds to the shrine. Last month Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

And as in some versions of fundamentalist Christianity, the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction. Iranian journalist Hossein Bastani reported Ahmadinejad saying in official meetings that the hidden imam will reappear in two years.

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

As I say: you sure? Why?

Stuart Seacole Smith

Dr Grave: your description of Ahmadinejad's vision of the "reappearance of the 12th imam" puts me in mind of those movies "the mummy", and "the mummy returns". Actually, they were both kind of good, but also in that "shiite" sort of way if you know what I mean!

Anyway, I've no doubt that Amadinnajacket is a couple of falafels short of a mezze, and the idea of his finger hovering over the N button is unappealing to put it mildly.

Beer Moth

David DP

Sorry for the delay.

Quite simply: pursue them more assiduously. To have done so - to have made a better job of it than has been, would have been easy. Don't you agree?

We are just not trying very hard, and that is because we are losing the mind war which drives this conflict.

CaptainNYC

I have talked with several very well regarded US military personnel who have worked with and helped to train Saudi military. Their off the record descriptions (almost exactly matching) was that they would prefer to have their kid sisters fighting next to them, than any Saudi. Saudis have always benefited from high tech US arms transfers - and they have never created a army that can use them. That is why WE had to step in and stop Saddam from invading SA via Kuwait. The arm sales to the Saudis are about keeping our arms industry humming. Which is fine. I have no issues with that. We shouldn't delude ourselves though into thinking it would impact Iran or anyone else. Iran is making a bomb. We need to stop them. Ourselves. The Israelis don't have the resources that we do and we should not put them into the position of risking so much of their existence (via a barrage of missiles on their cities, attacks by Hizbullah, Hamas and probably Syria and possibly even Egypt), to save the western world from a Islamic lunatic with a Bomb. They did that already twice. Imagine if they hadn't stopped Saddam from arming himself with nukes? We owe it to them to take care of it ourselves this time. The results of its outcome are wildly overblown. In five days we could bomb away most of their nuclear infrastructure, destroy much of their army and navy and generally weaken their regime. They would create some havoc for a few weeks and then it would all calm down. Noone is talking about a invasion, so it would not be Iraq or Afghanistan - or WW3. It would be more like when we bombed Libya.

victor jara 67

In response to Dr Michael Grave

Your argument is the traditional "mortal threat to Israel" one currently being sold hard to a gullable American public by the right wing press.

The threat Ahmadinajad and the Mullahs present is always overstated by the neo-cons and likudniks for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

The reason they want Nukes is not to wipe out Israel but to be the main power in the region, they also feel somewhat insecure with 50,000 US troops in Iraq and 100,000 in Afganistan.

The infamous wipe Israel of the map was selectively translated from Farsi by an organization called MEMRI, which is run by an ex Israeli inteligence officer and serves the political purposes of Israel.

What he actually said was I predict the Zionist entity in Jerusalem will disapear like the communist regime in Moscow.

While he is a nasty little despot his elavation to suicidal maniac about to start world war 3 is absurd and done for political purposes

Beefeater

ndm:

"I think the primary lesson of nuclear non-proliferation is that two countries which did not sign the treaty (India and Israel) have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons with no consequences while one nation that did (Iran) has been threatened with dire consequences from supposedly developing them."

You are confused as to what treaties are. If a country is not signatory to a treaty, there are no consequences for it under the treaty if they do not abide by it because they are not required to abide by it. Iran would be in breach of the treaty if it a) started a nuclear weapons program, and b) hid it from the IAEA. Iran, being a signatory, may expect consequences, feeble as they are so far.

The lesson to be learned from the treaty is - as usual - that it is not worth the paper etc. The countries which one would most fear having the bomb are signatories, but simply breach the treaty when the decide to get it (North Korea, Iran). How do you propose the non-signatories like Pakistan, India and Israel should have not been "allowed" to develop the bomb? By ban-the-bomb protests and whose army?

By the way, Pakistan is Islamic and has the bomb. Where was anti-Islamic bigotry when we needed it?

The logical conclusion of your thinking is that every country should have nuclear bombs (for self-defense, of course), but particularly those nations hostile to the West.

Beefeater

victor jara 67:

The reason why MEMRI is so powerful an institution - and so loathed by leftists and assorted anti-Zionists - is that by translating straight without gloss into English the pure, unashamed aggression, brutality and ignorance that the Arab and Muslim world speaks to itself in its own languages, it makes apology for that world by the likes of Juan Cole (who started the "mistranslation" gambit in defense of A'jad) much, much harder.

What was so amusing in that debate was the idea that the disappearance of Israel from "the pages of time", rather than wiping it "off the face of the map", should actually make a difference to the threat to Israel. No doubt the verbally gifted Iranian president wants an end to the political entity of Israel, but as subsequent official utterance make clear, if this has to be done by killing the "occupying" Jews, so be it. His actions in supporting Hamas and Hizbollah in their wipe-out/page-erasing campaign speak just as loudly as his words, and far less ambiguously, than Juan Cole's translation.

Noa Zrk

Aria September 15th, 2010 6:43am

"U.S. has supplied Saudi Arabia with lots of high tech weapons and jets for decades. I wonder who operates, maintains and repairs this huge machinery army? Seriously!"

Why an army of US (or British, German or French) expats services Saudi Arabia and indeed keeps the entire oily arab world running. You don't think the lazy sods are interested in anything other than spending their unearned income do you?

Saudi Arabia is a tiered society, Saudis at the top, US and Western European expats, keeping the place running are next. At the bottom of the heap are the third worlders, Pakistani & Indonesian muslims, Philipino Christians, all treated like slaves, or worse.

When I was there the saying was:-
"Only two things work in Riyadh, Patriots and Ex-patriots".
I doubt much has changed.

ndm

Beefeater writes:

-- You are confused as to what treaties are.

Not at all. The World could easily have imposed consequences on those countries that did not sign the NPT such as banning arms exports to them. To the contrary, they were rewarded for not participating in the treaty.

Beefeater ends with:

-- The logical conclusion of your thinking is that every country should have nuclear bombs (for self-defense, of course), but particularly those nations hostile to the West.

This is certainly true from a realist local perspective - even if globally undesirable. There is no reason that only a select few nations should have the ability to defend themselves from existential threats. In the face of a hostile US which has invaded both its neigbors in the last ten years it is rational for Iran to seek the strongest defence it can get. Mad as the Iranian President may be his madness has not caused anywhere near the level of human destruction that piss-poor American leadership of the West has caused in the last 65 years.

victor jara 67

In response to Beefeater.

I agree Iran poses a threat to Israel, its the level of threat we disagree about.However attacking them would likely strengthen the Mullahs rather than weaken them.
Obama is correct in trying to isolate Iran by trying to get a settlement between the Israel's and the Palestinians, however it is unlikely to succeed as HAMAS are excluded , which plays into Iran's hands.

You are incorrect to lump HAMAS and Hezbullah together. While HAMAS take their money and weopans they have not sold their soul to them like Hezbullah.

HAMAS are Sunni Arab and are spiritually and ideologically closer to the Saudis. Also an ex Israeli inteligence officer said of them they were essentially Palestinian Nationalists and not part of the global jihad.

If the west and Israel were smart they would be working at ways to bring HAMAS into the process and also isolating Iran from popular support in the Arab world as it tries to carry the banner for resistance against Israel which is appealing on Arab st.

Beefeater

ndm:

The World includes Russia and China - and North Korea and others - who export arms and have a different perspective on the interests of the World. I thought getting the World to agree was the very problem at issue.

As for your bitter assertion that human destruction since 1945 was caused by American leadership to a greater extent than by mad A'jad, well, what can I say? Give him a few decades, he is young yet? And he is about to get a very efficient humanity destroyer. But quite aside from the obvious foolishness of the comparison, your hostility/threat assessment audit is not based on generally accepted rationality principles. In his religious bigotry, A'jad sees the ideological threat to Islam posed by America as being far more dangerous than the military one. And in fighting the ideological threat, Iranian leadership does not weigh Iranian -or Muslim - deaths. That love of death has to be weighed by America in deciding on military action. You display a distressing lack of humanity when you excuse murderous bigotry by legitimizing its paranoia. You are giving your blessing to the World being taken hostage.

Incidentally, America could get itself out of the ethical/strategic jam Alex Massie so well describes by supporting the one stable, non-repressive and democratic nation in the region, and supplying it with sufficient bunker-busters to de-nuke Iran.

fifer

NYC has the germ of the truth in his response. The West is skint, and even the DoD / MoD are having to face up to it. The US wouldn't sell hardware to Iran, but, frankly, anyone short of that is going to be welcome these days. If they didn't, they'd just buy Eurofighters or MiGs anyway.

Logical123

It is extremely dangerous to ship so much military gear to one of the most volatile areas of the world. Iran is no danger to anyone. It has not attacked another country for at least 300 years and there is no evidence that it is developing nuclear weapons (please provide the evidence if you disagree). If it were, then all these weapons would be useless against them anyway. It is clear that the Obama administration looks at these deals as a "jobs program." Also, by sending all these weapons and associated advisors and trainers, the US is planning to control the lands of these despotic rulers even more.