How would the middle east change if Iran developed the Nuke?

[ivwshane]

So there you have it. The only way you can threaten someone, is by saying something directly to that someone. Turns out we invented the word implicit and thanks to you, we no longer need it. The only way it can be a threat is explicit direct language. How could the world have been so blind.

So, its not racist to say "whites are the best race" because I did not directly say that every one else is crap.

So, when Putin said its not a threat because he did not call out anyone directly. Screw context.

Lol, yeah screw context because that's not important at all.

You don't get to change the definition of the word "threat"...event if it makes you think you "won" an internet argument.

If I'm staring you in the face and I say, "I'm going to kick your ass" that's a threat. If I walk away and tell my friend, "I would have kicked his ass if he tried something", is me talking shit.

If you don't understand the difference then that's in you

 

[chucky2]

OP, the question really isn't what will change if Iran develops a nuke but really what will change when Iran develops/acquires a nuke.

No nation that has the resources and has the desire to go nuclear has been prevented from that happening. The UN will not prevent it, the US cannot even prevent it unless it does an Iraq style takeover of the country, and even then, you must hope the country Leadership remains on the 'no nuke' path.

Iran will eventually be a nuclear power, and whether that happens in 1 year, 5 years, 15 years, or 30 years really doesn't matter, since they will eventually join us on the nuclear world stage. The real question is, what kind of mentality and values will Iranian Leadership have at that time? If positive (relative to US/West) how long will that remain? If not positive, same question? What can be done to make them more positive relative to US/West? What will their Leadership try and push and/or negotiate for once they are nuclear capable?

Israel is both a primary drive and a sideshow at the same time. They're a primary aggressor/antagonist towards Iran, and a sideshow in that no one in TRoTW gives a shit about them, and in the US, the only people that do are some demographics of sheeple and Politicians wanting to get elected/re-elected.

What Israel might want to figure out is what they're going to do with a Jewish population that will expand past even the borders they shouldn't be at now, the increasing Jew to Arab ratio within their borders, and what is going to happen when the US isn't able to sail carrier groups around at will because 100 speedboats, one or two of which have a nuke on board, aren't going to be reliably stopped and no US Politician is going to want to tell the US Public that they just got an entire carrier battle group nuked.

Good luck with the nuclear Iran future...

 

[Fern]

-snip-
And, let's say Israel didn't get a chance to hit back; the US would then nuke Iran. It is not probable for Iran to nuke Israel and walk away a 'winner'.

I don't believe that; not for a minute.

Obama is not nuking anybody, and certainly not Iran.

I don't believe any country in the Western world would either, not as things presently stand.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I wonder where Iran would be today if we hadn't overthrown their democracy and replaced it with a brutal (later toppled) dictatorship. :hmm: Would they be an ally of the free world like the UK? Would we now want them to have nukes? Makes you wonder.

Probably just where they are now.

I'm having trouble thinking of many countries in that part of the world that has had an elected leader for long. Egypt is a good example of what seems likely to happen. After a few years Morsi went for the whole 'Dictator for Life' thing. Otherwise it seems like coups and strongmen.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

No nation that has the resources and has the desire to go nuclear has been prevented from that happening.

Iraq and Syria were both stopped. Israel bombed their facilities.

Fern

 

[michal1980]

I like how pro nuke the liberals have gotten... When it comes to terrorist countries like Iran.

Iran can have nuke.

USA cannot have nuclear plants.


During the cold war the left was all for nuclear disarmament. Now they are actively working to give nuclear arms to the middle east.


And where does it stop, once you allow Iran to get nukes, what happens to Egypt? Saudi Arabia ? the UAE, Syria, etc etc?

So much for nuclear non Proliferation.

Obama is working on the biggest expansion of nuclear weapons in modern history.

Except for the USA, we should disarm.

You conservatives are hilarious. Yes, the typical American libruul wants the US to disarm, and would prefer it if we could jut give our nukes to N. Korea and Iran so they can destroy the entire planet.

Because you're delusional.

How am I delusional?

You liberals lead by Obama are actively working to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.


I don't see any liberals protesting Obama's actions. Only those on the right don't want a nuclear armed Iran.

 

[MongGrel]

Iraq and Syria were both stopped. Israel bombed their facilities.

Fern

I think it was one of the first things Israel ever used F16's for.

Actually scored like 5 out of 6 on target I think.

 

[MongGrel]

How am I delusional?

You liberals lead by Obama are actively working to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.


I don't see any liberals protesting Obama's actions. Only those on the right don't want a nuclear armed Iran.

You sound so ignorant so often, with you're sweeping useless generalizations.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No nation that has the resources and has the desire to go nuclear has been prevented from that happening. The UN will not prevent it, the US cannot even prevent it unless it does an Iraq style takeover of the country, and even then, you must hope the country Leadership remains on the 'no nuke' path.

Iran will eventually be a nuclear power, and whether that happens in 1 year, 5 years, 15 years, or 30 years really doesn't matter, since they will eventually join us on the nuclear world stage. The real question is, what kind of mentality and values will Iranian Leadership have at that time? If positive (relative to US/West) how long will that remain? If not positive, same question? What can be done to make them more positive relative to US/West? What will their Leadership try and push and/or negotiate for once they are nuclear capable?

Israel is both a primary drive and a sideshow at the same time. They're a primary aggressor/antagonist towards Iran, and a sideshow in that no one in TRoTW gives a shit about them, and in the US, the only people that do are some demographics of sheeple and Politicians wanting to get elected/re-elected.

What Israel might want to figure out is what they're going to do with a Jewish population that will expand past even the borders they shouldn't be at now, the increasing Jew to Arab ratio within their borders, and what is going to happen when the US isn't able to sail carrier groups around at will because 100 speedboats, one or two of which have a nuke on board, aren't going to be reliably stopped and no US Politician is going to want to tell the US Public that they just got an entire carrier battle group nuked.

Good luck with the nuclear Iran future...

as usual blowing smoke out your ass....too bad nobody believes you!@

 

[JEDIYoda]

Questioned by the members of a nation who try to exploit Iran's natural resources and toppled a democratically electd president in 1952 to be replaced by a puppet Shah and later armed Saddam to attack, i guess them having a nuke is for their own good

being from Turkey or being a Turkey your at peace with iran having nukes???

 

[JEDIYoda]

You guys need to stop playing Red Alert.

Launching a nuke at another nation is not as easy as of some of you think it is.

Your rationale & realism has been suffocated by your fear and hate of Islam.

If Iran nukes Israel, Israel has an immediate counter response to 'spread the pain'. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran would not just destroy Israel - they would get destroyed as well.

And, let's say Israel didn't get a chance to hit back; the US would then nuke Iran. It is not probable for Iran to nuke Israel and walk away a 'winner'.

So, all that would happen is that Israel would make many attempts to hit and disable Iran's nuclear launch sites - similarly to how Israel murders Iran's scientists. All the while Israel screams on top of it's lungs that Iran will murder and kill Israel.

now that was funny...rofl..hahahaa

 

[Fern]

How would the middle east change if Iran developed the Nuke?

If Israel thought they could destroy the capability they would attack. So it may never get that far.

If Iran gets nukes it will set off a nuclear arms race in the M.E. S.A. has already said they move to obtain nukes.

IMO, if Iran wants nukes to prevent us from attacking them then it means they intend to pursue measures that they believe would compel us to attack them.

Iran has long been very active in the terrorism business. It's stupid to think they wouldn't use their nukes to further their goals.

Iran has long been known to have expansionist desires. They'll use their nukes to that end.

Many over there think the Shia v. Sunni war is coming. It can reasonably be claimed to have already started. Iran will use its nukes here. It doesn't mean they have to actually detonate any. E.g., they can use the threat of nukes to keep Jordan, Egypt and everybody else etc out of the conflict if they move to take over Syria.

Then they have their glorious vision of some world wide apocalypse. Anybody who believe in such stuff will not hesitate to actually use nukes.

And no sane person can rule out that by one way or another, for one reason or another, terrorists could get their hands on them. We already have that threat with Pakistan, no good reason to expand it.

I don't believe Israel will allow Iran to get nukes. I believe they will try to destroy them if at all possible. I think they'll be helped by the Sunni Arab countries such as S.A., Egypt and Jordon.

Obama's contempt for Israel and its leaders is clear, and it's long standing. But I wonder if it's driven by Israeli settlements or his concern that Israel will strike Iran if needed and possible. Obama seems to think he'll have some great foreign policy legacy if he gets a deal with Iran. If having the Senate nixing it will look bad, what kind of 'bad' would it look like if his deal led to attack on Iran by Israel and others?

Fern

 

[Meghan54]

I seem to remember joining the USMC in 1980 watching Iranians burning US flags.

Can you blame them, though? After all, what you witnessed was pretty much a direct result of over 20 years of being forced to endure a government the people didn't elect.....after the U.S. and England engineered an overthrow of the duly elected Iranian government in 1953. So no surprise there was and is lingering distrust, to put it mildly, of the Western governments.

 

[Fern]

Liberals and Obamaphiles need not bother to read this post. It has links they won't approve of.

The US media has lately seemed to be ignoring, or just very late, with some important news as regards the US foreign policy. I am, in particular, referring to the whole Obama v. Netanyahu vis-a-vis Iran. The State Dept's funding of One Vision, it being staffed by former Obama campaign officials and working with v15 to campaign for Netanyahu's opponents was in foreign media long before it got here. Seems to me it only hit our media after the bipartisan Senate vote to investigate.

Here's another possible example:

Laurent Fabius — once François Mitterrand’s youngest Prime Minister; today’s François Hollande’s seasoned Foreign Minister — is “fed up with Barack Obama’s nuclear laxity” regarding Iran, a Quai senior diplomat told Le Canard Enchaîné’s usually well-informed Claude Angéli, who can be relied on to give the unvarnished French view on matters foreign. “Just as in 2013, France will oppose any agreement too favorable to Iran if this turns out to be necessary. Fabius made this very clear to John Kerry when they met on Saturday March 7th.”

This, Angéli points out, is far from the “soothing communiqué” issued at the end of the Kerry-Fabius meeting in which both men supposedly “shared” the same view of the Iran negotiations. The communiqué itself may have come as a surprise to a number of French MPs and Senators from their respective Foreign Affairs Committees. Fabius himself, in a meeting last week, made extremely clear his deep distrust (“contempt, really,” one MP says) of both John Kerry and Barack Obama. Another of the group quotes Fabius as saying: “The United States was really ready to sign just about anything with the Iranians,” before explaining that he himself had sent out, mid-February, a number of French ‘counter-proposals’ to the State Department and White House, in order to prevent an agreement too imbalanced in favor of Iran…

French diplomats are no angels, and they haven’t suddenly turned 180 degrees from their usual attitude of reflexive dislike toward Israel. They worry, however, that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club. French diplomats may not like Israel, but they do not believe Israelis would use a nuclear device except in a truly Armageddon situation for Israel. As for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey going nuclear, however, they see terrifying possibilities: irresponsible leaders, or some ISIS-type terrorist outfit, could actually use them. In other words, even if they would never express it as clearly as that, they see Israelis as “like us,” but others potentially as madmen.

https://hotair.com/headlines/archiv...bamas-being-dangerously-naive-about-iran-too/

Now if accurate, contrary to liberals' assertion here, France and possibly others are NOT supporting Obama's efforts.

BTW: The author of the above piece is Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, well known (outside of the USA) French journalist:

She has been a regular polutical commentator for the BBC since 1986 and was Paris Bureau Chief of The European newspaper between 1990 and 1998, a job she held before that for the London Sunday Telegraph for three years. She worked for the London Sunday Times between 1981 and 1986. She was on the launch team of the French edition of Fortune magazine, and started her career on Vendredi-Samedi-Dimanche (for whom she covered the 1980 Reagan campaign and the Iran hostage crisis as US correspondent) and France-Soir. She has contributed to the Wall Street Journal Europe editorial page, to Prospect in London, to Valeurs Actuelles in Paris, to The National Interest in Washington, and is on the editorial board of the forthcoming French quarterly Responsa.

I'm also seeing reports that Obama is prepared to agree that Iran can have 6,000. If so, that's likely going to be a problem. However, we should wait to see what, if anything, about this is reported in more mainstream media.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/...centrifuges-for-continued-uranium-enrichment/

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

When you have to preface your post with "it has links they may not approve", it may be a sign you are stuck in the right wing bubble.

Are you guys just so fucking stupid that you will believe anything so long as it's not from a "liberal", or is the bubble you live in so strong that even the thought of questioning what you are told is completely removed from your brain?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/02/right-wing-smear-baselessly-links-obama-admin-t/202384


There is a reason why when you search for this shit only right wing websites come up and it's not because of the "lame stream media", as your puppeteer palin would have you believe, it's because it's not based on fact.

Liberals and Obamaphiles need not bother to read this post. It has links they won't approve of.

The US media has lately seemed to be ignoring, or just very late, with some important news as regards the US foreign policy. I am, in particular, referring to the whole Obama v. Netanyahu vis-a-vis Iran. The State Dept's funding of One Vision, it being staffed by former Obama campaign officials and working with v15 to campaign for Netanyahu's opponents was in foreign media long before it got here. Seems to me it only hit our media after the bipartisan Senate vote to investigate.

Here's another possible example:


https://hotair.com/headlines/archiv...bamas-being-dangerously-naive-about-iran-too/

Now if accurate, contrary to liberals' assertion here, France and possibly others are NOT supporting Obama's efforts.

BTW: The author of the above piece is Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, well known (outside of the USA) French journalist:



I'm also seeing reports that Obama is prepared to agree that Iran can have 6,000. If so, that's likely going to be a problem. However, we should wait to see what, if anything, about this is reported in more mainstream media.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/...centrifuges-for-continued-uranium-enrichment/

Fern

 

[sportage]

Oh boy....
A lot of uncertainty would there be.
A nuke is one thing, but more important, how would Israel act/react?
First strike? Very plausible.

And what about the US.
That too would totally depend on whom is president.
Gut reactions. Illogical thinking.

What would happen more so depends on the reactions of others.
America, Israel, and no doubt the Soviets as well.

If any of the players mentioned above outside of Iran itself were to fear a threat to stabilization in the region, I'd fully expect the aggressor not to be Iran but more so a first strike from the US and or Israel.
And no doubt Iran would react with full force within their power. I.e. a nuclear reaction.
And there you have it. WWIII.
Yep. A lot of uncertainty and a huge dose of the unknown.

 

[Oric]

being from Turkey or being a Turkey your at peace with iran having nukes???

Sure why not,

We are at peace with Iran since 1542 ! Not even border skirmishes.

Iran is not a delusional, aggresive country like it is being portrayed here. 473 years of peace !

 

[Pipeline 1010]

If I walk away and tell my friend, "I would have kicked his ass if he tried something", is me talking shit.

That most certainly is a threat. When word makes it back to me, I will feel threatened. I will avoid trying something because I don't want to get my ass kicked by internet badass ivwshane and his atomic fists.

 

[nanna]

pakistan has nukes. india has nukes. north korea has nukes. all three of these nations are actually less technically advanced than iran, the only reason iran hasn't succeeded yet is we have put massive pressure on their economy for decades on them to try and destroy their regime from the ground up

Iran is more technically advanced than India ?

 

[yllus]

Unless there's a full-scale invasion, you can only delay Iran from getting nuclear weapons - not stop them. That's just a fact of how they're dispersing and protecting those facilities. And since nobody is going to invade Iran, Iran is going to become a nuclear power within the next ten years.

So - then what? I think there's a slim chance that it actually improves things: Iran realizes that threats they utter now carry real weight, and hopefully starts to moderate from within with that in mind. They may be arch conservatives, but they're not a suicide cult (even the Ayatollahs). They may sign up useful idiots to put bomb vests on and attack the West, but they're looking to die of old age themselves. So nukes aren't going to fly without a really good reason.

The U.S. and the West will have to start moderating their comments towards Iran too - if they push it too far and make Iran think an invasion is imminent, we will see nuclear weapons used.

All in all, I'm not pleased about Iran becoming a nuclear power, but it's an inevitability and I choose to hope that it actually leads to good things instead of war.

 

[CZroe]

Unless there's a full-scale invasion, you can only delay Iran from getting nuclear weapons - not stop them. That's just a fact of how they're dispersing and protecting those facilities. And since nobody is going to invade Iran, Iran is going to become a nuclear power within the next ten years.

So - then what? I think there's a slim chance that it actually improves things: Iran realizes that threats they utter now carry real weight, and hopefully starts to moderate from within with that in mind. They may be arch conservatives, but they're not a suicide cult (even the Ayatollahs). They may sign up useful idiots to put bomb vests on and attack the West, but they're looking to die of old age themselves. So nukes aren't going to fly without a really good reason.

The U.S. and the West will have to start moderating their comments towards Iran too - if they push it too far and make Iran think an invasion is imminent, we will see nuclear weapons used.

All in all, I'm not pleased about Iran becoming a nuclear power, but it's an inevitability and I choose to hope that it actually leads to good things instead of war.

It's only an inevitability without war or force which, for some reason, isn't even a consideration. There's a reason Bush listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together as "The Axis of Evil" and then knowingly invaded the only one of those three without a real nuclear program (just pretending to have a secret one well enough to convince Iran): He was trying to intimidate the other two to kill three birds with one stone.

The world turning against our calls to war has emboldened both North Korea and Iran, so it has backfired, but they both did suspend their programs in the years immediately following so you can't ignore that the show of force and the willingness to follow through will get results.

Whatever happened to "Never Again?" How can we allow them to have it while openly threatening Jews and Israel? Yes, I said "allow."

 

[yllus]

It's only an inevitability without war or force which, for some reason, isn't even a consideration. There's a reason Bush listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea together and then invaded the only one of those three without a nuclear program. He was trying to intimidate the other two to kill three birds with one stone. The world turning against our calls to war has emboldened them, so it has backfired, but they both did suspend their programs in the years immediately following so you can't ignore that the show of force and the willingness to follow through will get results.

I suppose that force isn't a consideration because an invasion would have to be followed by at least as long an occupation as Iraq received. Iraq has about a population of about 35 million and that didn't exactly go well. Iran's population is double that at around 75 million and is far more united behind their government that we'd like to think. An occupation wouldn't go well.

Whatever happened to "Never Again?" How can we allow them to have it while openly threatening Jews and Israel?

We have no other options than to let them threaten.

 

[CZroe]

I suppose that force isn't a consideration because an invasion would have to be followed by at least as long an occupation as Iraq received. Iraq has about a population of about 35 million and that didn't exactly go well. Iran's population is double that at around 75 million and is far more united behind their government that we'd like to think. An occupation wouldn't go well.



We have no other options than to let them threaten.

So, the U.S. can have a Cold War with Russia and posture and threaten and escalate with the ability to back it up, no matter the cost, to the point of mutually assured destruction and we can't do that with Iran? Then the U.S. is no longer a superpower either.

Iraq was a failed attempt to take care of North Korea and Iran for cheap. It didn't work. Now we have to pony up.

Gots ta have are Government-subsidized healthcare and cellphone at the expense of allowing World War 3 and Holocaust II.

It isn't the government's job to make sure we aren't hungry or sick or lonely. That is society's job, and society does not equate to government. This is the government's job and this is what they are failing at.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well we can certainly see in this thread the most fearful of the intentions of others, those who project their own hidden self hate of themselves on others, terrified that the other will be able to do to them what they have created to protect themselves from fear have created. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword because we always create what we fear.

The hope of humanity is in the hands of those who trust in themselves enough to trust in others. There is only the healthy state of self love and the psychopathy of self hate. Doesn't look like humanity has much of a chance, and yet, and yet a capacity for real comprehension occasionally does shine through. May it be so here.

 

[CZroe]

Well we can certainly see in this thread the most fearful of the intentions of others, those who project their own hidden self hate of themselves on others, terrified that the other will be able to do to them what they have created to protect themselves from fear have created. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword because we always create what we fear.

The hope of humanity is in the hands of those who trust in themselves enough to trust in others. There is only the healthy state of self love and the psychopathy of self hate. Doesn't look like humanity has much of a chance, and yet, and yet a capacity for real comprehension occasionally does shine through. May it be so here.

Are you completely oblivious to what the future would be like if every nation had nuclear weapons? How can you not see that this will trigger more and more to obtain the bomb? Nuclear proliferation CANNOT be allowed. And this isn't just some imagined nightmare of those you disagree with politically: it's what Iran SAYS they will do with it. Get it? They can't be allowed to have it... EVER. Not now and not in 10 years. It doesn't matter how slowly we allow it to proliferate. It is a completely unacceptable outcome. Period.

"Self hate." Laughable.