Christian Science Monitor on the Iran problem

[blankslate]

I considered posting this as a reply in the thread I started about the Economist article on the Iran situation but it grew in length to the point that I feel that the article does warrant it's own thread.


article link
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0216/What-would-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video

According to the article the main reason for acquisition of nuclear arms would be security and not nuclear aggression. Although their conventional aggression could increase toward immediate neighbors (those details are near the end of the CSM article)

A CIA veteran explains why... "If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons," Bruce Riedel, a 30-year veteran of the CIA now at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in January.

"Look at the neighborhood that I live in: Everyone else has nuclear weapons who matters; and those who don't, don't matter, and get invaded by the United States of America," Mr. Riedel said on a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.



Since the proliferation of Nukes every country that has them has refrained from using them because they probably are painfully aware of the consequences of their use.

Iran knows that Israel has nuclear weapons and that attacking them would result in a nuclear launch from Israeli subs.

further more it isn't even clear that they have seriously embarked on developing the weapon aside from showing technical capability via increased levels of uranium enrichment.

Again from the CSM article

Yet American intelligence agencies agree that Tehran hasn't yet decided to go for a nuclear bomb – and that even if it chose to, it would take years to create one and the means to deliver it. Israeli intelligence is also reported to have reached the same conclusion.

Of course the fact that they might very well have not started a nuclear program in earnest it's probably very likely that they are keeping it on the table because of western intervention in the middle east in the past... another quote from CSM

Yet analysts and diplomats note that Iran does have many reasons to develop at least a "breakout" capability – the ability to assemble a bomb quickly should it want to. Tehran has watched modern history unfold around it and no doubt has drawn its own conclusions. Acquiring nuclear weapons helped preserve regimes in North Korea and Pakistan, for instance. But in Iraq and Libya, two nonnuclear countries, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi were deposed. The Iranian media, in fact, tut-tutted last year that Mr. Qaddafi's fatal error was relinquishing his secret nuclear weapons program in 2004.



Regarding the danger to Israel heres's a quote from the CSM article. If Iran were to become a nuclear power, the most immediate question would be what it means for Israel, where warnings have reached histrionic heights.

"Absolutely nothing will happen," says Martin Van Creveld, an Israeli historian and author of some 20 books on military strategy. "Israel has what it takes to deter Iran, and the Iranians know it."

Mr. Van Creveld is implying that Israel's own nuclear arsenal of an estimated 200 warheads would prevent any Iranian first strike. Israel has the only such arsenal in the Middle East, and – unlike Iran's program – it has never been subject to UN inspection or safeguards.

"Say they build one bomb – it's not good enough. They need how many – 2, 3, 5, 10, 20? And that will take them a long time, so it's all nonsense," says Van Creveld. Iran is "not going to commit suicide by dropping the bomb – or even threatening to drop the bomb – on us."

Mr. Van Crevald is of course assuming Iran is a "rational actor" in the region...

He seems to have that in common with our own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
video below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvdmBtiIhIU



This is not to say that there are no dangers with just blithely letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons. They might very well become more bellicose with that capability

Still, Tehran would revel in some NATO conclusions, especially regarding Iran's proxies: "Israel would have to operate in an uncertain environment, in which the fault lines for escalation would be unknown, and as a result escalation control could be extremely difficult."

The report also predicts that an Iranian bomb "would undoubtedly be a game changer for NATO partnerships," while adding the caveat that "since the dawn of the nuclear age, scenarios of rapid bursts of proliferation ... have abounded but never materialized."

elsewhere across the Persian gulf, an openly nuclear Iran would force reactions from many other countries – most notably among the Sunni sheikhdoms that have long feared Shiite Iran.


According to the article it's also unlikely that Iran would decide to give out nuclear devices to terrorists so there is some comfort in that. After all if a terrorist organization detonated one in Israel all eye would fall on Iran and that would be another form of suicide for its regime.


This is a very thorny issue with no clear simple solution. The question is who will we trust to deal with this potential powder keg?

The party that swore that WMD exist in Iraq when to this date no scrap of evidence of a modern Nuclear weapons program has been found?

Or the party who's leader has been surprisingly deft (so far considering his "lack of executive experience) in Foreign Affairs...
Especially in light of the fact that he kept his eye on the ball in regards to Bin Laden? Yeah, you know him, the guy who actually had something to do with 9/11 (Unlike Saddam Hussein had *NOTHING* to do with it...)

 

[JEDIYoda]

Good article!!
I read a similar article but the only point that differerd from your article was that if Iran developes a nuclear weapon there is a huge difference between Iran and all the other countries that have nuclear weapons -- there leaders are verifiably batshit crazy!!

IMO that is something to think about.....anyways good read!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Iran having a nuke gives it leverage in attacking/forcing others in the area. It also provides a backbone to go after Israel and other countries that it does not like. With nukes, no repercussions for unacceptable actions. Providing the local bully with the biggest stick.

 

[trenchfoot]

Iran having a nuke gives it leverage in attacking/forcing others in the area. It also provides a backbone to go after Israel and other countries that it does not like. With nukes, no repercussions for unacceptable actions. Providing the local bully with the biggest stick.

Yes, North Korea being a perfect example of how they shake their nuclear "big stick" at any nation they have issues with, especially their southern cousin, and how they've managed to get the world's most powerful nation to accede to some of their demands.

 

[Fern]

The gist of that article sounds like someone trying reconcile themselves to the fact that Iran is going to get nukes by persuading themselves it's no big deal.

There are a lot of people who don't agree with that; many of them Democrats.

Fern

 

[blankslate]

Iran having a nuke gives it leverage in attacking/forcing others in the area. It also provides a backbone to go after Israel and other countries that it does not like. With nukes, no repercussions for unacceptable actions. Providing the local bully with the biggest stick.

Read the article... Iran having the nuclear weapon would surely make them bellicose but it wouldn't automatically mean they go flying off and use it.

And the Iranian regime knows that if they use the weapon on Israel it'll mean the end of them as well.

There is still the question of whether or not they will actually try to build one... since one of the main motivators for them to do so would be to prevent an invasion or (in their view) bullying by western powers.



The disincentive for them to build one is the the fact that they did sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Yet few analysts see Tehran deciding to cross the nuclear threshold easily. In his testimony, Mr. Clapper said Iran's nuclear decisionmaking is guided by a "cost-benefit approach" – that its rulers would undoubtedly take into account the impact on the country's "security, prestige, and influence." Mr. Chubin says he expects Tehran to continue to quietly put all the elements in place – from stockpiling more enriched uranium that can be pushed to weapons-grade within a few months to improving its missiles – for a future "breakout," if the Islamic regime ever calculates that only weaponization will protect it from US or Israeli threats of attack.

What will likely not happen is that Iran will just one day flip a switch and build a weapon. Ambiguity has long been a part of the country's nuclear strategy. "I don't think there's going to be a day, and then a 'day after,' " says Chubin, author of "Iran's Nuclear Ambitions." "It's going to be blurry as it has been."

There is good reason for its opacity. Once it were to declare that it was a nuclear power, Iran would face all the international wrath and condemnation that would come with it – including for having violated the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory.



Remember General Dempsey has stated that so far they are a rational regime making calculated moves based on what they see as being in their best interests. Ironically attacking them or making it appear that an attack is inevitable is just more motivation for them to obtain the weapon.

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, IMHO, the Cristian Scientist article sheds little heat or light.

Why should we on this forum go ga ga over it as anything that offers any real answers one way or the other?

 

[Fern]

Yes, North Korea being a perfect example of how they shake their nuclear "big stick" at any nation they have issues with, especially their southern cousin, and how they've managed to get the world's most powerful nation to accede to some of their demands.

North Korea seems a very poor example.

They've got China to North and SK on the other side.

Why would they "shake their nuclear big stick" at China?

I don't even see why they shake it at SK. Seoul is right at their border. NK would take a lot of fallout too. Then NK has so many heavy artillery pieces already in a mountain and trained on Seoul that nuke weapons offer them nothing more.

They seem to be merely using them to extort money out of other nations. (Who knows, maybe they're selling some tech to other rogue nations for money too.)

Fern

 

[ericlp]

For what its worth, IMHO, the Cristian Scientist article sheds little heat or light.

Why should we on this forum go ga ga over it as anything that offers any real answers one way or the other?

The Christain (science)<---Haha yeah ok Monitor is worse than fox news. You'd have to be an idiot to take them seriously since, the whole thing is monitored and edited by the likes of pat robertson... Might as well get your news form the 700 club.

I see no reason why Iran can't have a Nuke. I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

 

[blankslate]

The Christain (science)<---Haha yeah ok Monitor is worse than fox news. You'd have to be an idiot to take them seriously since, the whole thing is monitored and edited by the likes of pat robertson... Might as well get your news form the 700 club.

I see no reason why Iran can't have a Nuke. I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

Oddly enough even though you slam the CSM it has pretty much pretty much the same conclusion as you. Iran having the nuclear bomb will change the dynamics of the reason but all the hysteria around Iran nuking Israel if and when it gets one is just that hysteria.

Israeli citizens who are knowledgeable state that Iran won't attack Israel unless they themselves want to be annihilated.

Read the article before you dismiss it. It is a sober and non-hysterical piece that takes as an objective look at the situation you can imagine.

 

[blankslate]

For what its worth, IMHO, the Cristian Scientist article sheds little heat or light.

Why should we on this forum go ga ga over it as anything that offers any real answers one way or the other?

You can say that, however there is the fact that Iran is purposefully being coy about their nuclear capability as far as whether or not they are developing the weapon.

They are being very calculating in regards to appearing to have the ability to build the weapon and adhering to the NPT so that other nations don't take part in condemning them.

Given the fact that Iran is deliberately obfuscating their capabilities other than announcing milestones in uranium enrichment. No news magazine would be able to print a credible article that claimed to have the answers that you insist are required for it to have "heat and light".

 

[Lemon law]

As Blankslate ash a kinda weird question or is a statement, in saying, " You can say that, however there is the fact that Iran is purposefully being coy about their nuclear capability as far as whether or not they are developing the weapon."

When the fact is and remains, the Iranian nuclear program is at least one to three years away from even having the option to go onto developing nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile Iran is asked to prove they have no such intentions, as Israel and the US ask Iran to prove they have no such intentions by preventing Iran from exploiting their legal rights to develop peace time nuclear power generation.

Its really the Walter Middy question, how does Iran disprove Israeli paranoia? If I buy a bottle of water, can I prove I don't intend to use it to make heavy water? Or If I buy a kitchen knife, can I prove I don't intend it to murder my neighbors. Since Iran is still working with the IAEA, and Israel already has nuclear weapons on the sneak, why should Israel have any voice in the matter? When Israel uses the information gained in the inspection process to target Iranian nuclear scientists, to sabotage the the Iranian peace time process, and threaten to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

As we should also remember this is still the same pander to power toadyism IAEA that declared Saddam had WMD. Oops, can we trust them today?

As we can certainly trust Israel today, a nation that has been at wars involving Israeli war crimes against its neighbors for 64 years, and not an Iran that has fought no wars of aggression against its neighbors for like 3000 years.

 

[a777pilot]

I think I have a solution.

Seeing how, according to these experts, CIA and others, notably Ron Paul, and the CSM, these various countries only want nuclear weapons for their survival. Assuming that is true and using the "fact" that since proliferation no country has ever used a nuke, here is my solution:

Our current Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, has expressed his desire to rid the US of most of our nuclear weapons, soooooooooooooooo, why not just give every country in the world, that is not already a member of the nuke club, some of our nuclear weapons.

There! Problem solved. No more wars.

That was easy.

Next.

 

[Braznor]

Ha ha ha ha

 

[Texashiker]

According to the article the main reason for acquisition of nuclear arms would be security and not nuclear aggression.

Lets say that the above statement is correct. For the sake of discussion lets say that Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon as a negotiation piece with no real plans to use it.

That is short term thinking.

We need to think about 20, 30, 40, 50,,,,, 100 years from now.

The current actions by the US are being compared to the Crusades.

School children in Islam are taught stuff from the koran that happened thousands of years ago. There is a story about a jew that supposedly tried to kill Mohammed. Muslims teach that story like it happened yesterday.

We are dealing with a culture that will bear a grudge for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Lets go back to the bomb issue.

Iran develops a nuclear device, or 2 , 3 or 4 of them.

20 years from now some radical movement overthrows the government, seizes control of the military along with the nukes,,,, what then?

 

[blankslate]

Lets say that the above statement is correct. For the sake of discussion lets say that Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon as a negotiation piece with no real plans to use it.

That is short term thinking.

We need to think about 20, 30, 40, 50,,,,, 100 years from now.

The current actions by the US are being compared to the Crusades.

School children in Islam are taught stuff from the koran that happened thousands of years ago. There is a story about a jew that supposedly tried to kill Mohammed. Muslims teach that story like it happened yesterday.

We are dealing with a culture that will bear a grudge for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Lets go back to the bomb issue.

Iran develops a nuclear device, or 2 , 3 or 4 of them.

20 years from now some radical movement overthrows the government, seizes control of the military along with the nukes,,,, what then?

Why is it short term thinking. Every other country who has the nuclear weapon has never used it against any other country.

As for radicals taking over Iran.... well then maybe we shouldn't have been so foolish as to let the CIA help overthrow a legitimately elected Iranian government in the early 50's (that coup was a far more recent occurrence than the crusades and some few people are alive who can remember those events).

Huh? maybe?

Citizens of a country that has had shady shit like that happen to them have long memories. We are not without guilt when it comes to that region. And it does have an impact on our options today.

 

[EagleKeeper]

As we can certainly trust Israel today, a nation that has been at wars involving Israeli war crimes against its neighbors for 64 years, and not an Iran that has fought no wars of aggression against its neighbors for like 3000 years.

If as you state, Iran's conflicts have all been self defense against an enemy trying to destroy it; what is the difference from Israel which has in its lifetime been attacked multiple times by enemies determined to destroy it.

Or is it just because it is Israel that it is wrong?

 

[blankslate]

If as you state, Iran's conflicts have all been self defense against an enemy trying to destroy it; what is the difference fro Israel which has is lifetime been attacked multiple times by enemies determined to destroy it.

Or is it just because it is Israel that it is wrong?

Israel has every right to ensure their survival. As for wrong in that area? neither Israel or their adversaries are without guilt in terms of their most egregious actions.

That being said in regards to the Iranian question... It is not yet necessary for leaders of Israel to be talking as if they're on the verge of launching an aerial attack against Iran.

Especially since, unless military analysts are just wildly wrong, Israel doesn't have the conventional munitions that can guarantee a destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. Keep in mind that Iran with a nuclear weapon doesn't automatically mean that they will attack Israel with a nuke either.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Israel has every right to ensure their survival. As for wrong in that area? neither Israel or their adversaries are without guilt in terms of their most egregious actions.

That being said in regards to the Iranian question... It is not yet necessary for leaders of Israel to be talking as if they're on the verge of launching an aerial attack against Iran.

Especially since, unless military analysts are just wildly wrong, Israel doesn't have the conventional munitions that can guarantee a destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities. Keep in mind that Iran with a nuclear weapon doesn't automatically mean that they will attack Israel with a nuke either.

Will Iran with a nuke capability ease the rhetoric against Israel and not increase its support to those that continue to attack it?

If she has a nuclear shield; then who will stop her from doing what she wants when she wants. Rhetoric can easily change into actions when there is no containment.

There are two other nuclear hot spots in the world and both have a nuclear counterbalance that controls aggressive behavior.

Iran's track record indicates no.

 

[blankslate]

Will Iran with a nuke capability ease the rhetoric against Israel and not increase its support to those that continue to attack it?

If she has a nuclear shield; then who will stop her from doing what she wants when she wants. Rhetoric can easily change into actions when there is no containment.

There are two other nuclear hot spots in the world and both have a nuclear counterbalance that controls aggressive behavior.

Iran's track record indicates no.

Remember it is not known *if* they are actively developing a nuclear weapon, although they take great pains to ensure the outside world that they can do so if they wish to concentrate their efforts on that goal.

As far as support for their proxies such as Hezbollah. Remember if Hezbollah attacks Israel with any sort of device all eyes will immediately turn to Iran and I doubt anyone will bat an eye over Israel's subsequent retaliation.

Seeing as how Iran is still viewed as a "rational player" in the middle east it is highly doubtful that Iran would pass a nuke to a terrorist organization.

Secondly in the near future Iran cannot hope to match Israel's estimated number of nuclear weapons and they know Israel would retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack. So until Iran's real leader's are deemed batshit crazy they won't use a nuke on Israel.

So while Iran is Israel's adversary/enemy in the middle east. We have to address these more pertinent points than the ones you brought up.

Is Iran's nuclear program an existential threat to Israel? Should Israel launch an attack that likely will not damage Iran's program significantly and surely set Iran on the path (*if* they are not actually on it) toward building a nuclear arsenal?

Despite Iran's bluster the answer for both is no. Not until Iran becomes an irrational player in the region. Keep in mind that no country who has obtained nuclear weapons in the past 60 years has suddenly gone crazy.

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't think the danger in Iran having a nuke really lies in them actually using a nuke on Isreal or some other country. They know that the results of that action would be catastrophic for them in every way.

The real danger is in iran being essentially shielded from consequences for their actions, and they would get increasingly bolder in their terrorist activities. A functional weapon is a great deterrent to foreign action.

 

[blankslate]

That's the problem and conundrum... Iran has been purposefully obfuscating whether or not they are actually developing a weapon.

Remember they are a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and developing a weapon would surely earn them condemnation and possibly harsh sanctions from other nations. So right now it seems that they are walking that fine line between making sure they have the capability and not putting it to use yet.

While Iran being able to have more influence in the M.E. is undesirable for us. It was also undesirable for us for China and Russia to develop nukes yet even in those early days no one used a nuclear even though it was pretty close at times.

It is likely that everyone can adjust, even if it is less than a favorable position for Israel and the west than it was before.

This is why it's not as easy as just saying "Yeah Israel go bomb the shit out of them."
Because we don't know that they are developing the weapon at the time of this post.

Yet Iran learned the lesson from Israel's bombing of Iraq's facility and spread it out and hardened the locations. They may be blustering and while there is no definite confirmation of a weapons program on top of a nuclear power program there is room for negotiations.

If Israel strikes and likely doesn't eradicate Iran's facilities then they will definitely start work on the weapon's program, and there will be not chance for convincing Iran to open up their facilities to inspectors. There isn't an easy answer to the problem.

Right now I'm also sure that an Israeli strike has more disadvantageous outcomes than advantageous ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Christain (science)<---Haha yeah ok Monitor is worse than fox news. You'd have to be an idiot to take them seriously since, the whole thing is monitored and edited by the likes of pat robertson... Might as well get your news form the 700 club.

I see no reason why Iran can't have a Nuke. I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Christian Scientists, and the CSM, are a whole different kind of Christians than Fundie Whacks. Their perspective is unique, and highly intellectual. Hell, just reading any of their articles shows that.

 

[Thump553]

The Christain (science)<---Haha yeah ok Monitor is worse than fox news. You'd have to be an idiot to take them seriously since, the whole thing is monitored and edited by the likes of pat robertson... Might as well get your news form the 700 club.

I see no reason why Iran can't have a Nuke. I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

You do realize that Pat Robertson has absolutely nothing to do with either Christian Science or the CSM, don't you? The CSM has long been recognized as an athoritative and very analytical voice in foreign affairs. (Certainly more thought out than Ron Paul's bumper slogan type policies). Heck, I've reading them off and on for over forty years and I'm about as agnostic as they come.

 

[blankslate]

I think I have a solution.

Seeing how, according to these experts, CIA and others, notably Ron Paul, and the CSM, these various countries only want nuclear weapons for their survival. Assuming that is true and using the "fact" that since proliferation no country has ever used a nuke, here is my solution:

Our current Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, has expressed his desire to rid the US of most of our nuclear weapons, soooooooooooooooo, why not just give every country in the world, that is not already a member of the nuke club, some of our nuclear weapons.

There! Problem solved. No more wars.

That was easy.

Next.

Kind of facetiously funny... however...

Every other country in the world doesn't have a stable rational government.

Iran is rather stable and is deemed a rational player by rather authoritative people and entities that the U.S. government gives credence too.