Iran: what should be done now.

[Xanith]

In light of the breaking of the seals on nuclear facilities in Iran what should be the next step the international community takes? It seems that Europe favors a more slow step-by-step approach to the situation while the US favors a tougher reaction to the latest move by Iran.

With statements from Iran’s leader calling for the destruction of Israel and his ridiculous statements about the holocaust it is quite obvious that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon would be quite destabilizing for the region. So I put it to you, what should the international community do about the growing problem of Iran and nuclear proliferation?

X

[MasterBlaster]

In light of the breaking of the seals on nuclear facilities in Iran what should be the next step the international community takes? It seems that Europe favors a more slow step-by-step approach to the situation while the US favors a tougher reaction to the latest move by Iran.

With statements from Iran’s leader calling for the destruction of Israel and his ridiculous statements about the holocaust it is quite obvious that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon would be quite destabilizing for the region. So I put it to you, what should the international community do about the growing problem of Iran and nuclear proliferation?

X

Nuke em

[demotivater]

I tend to agree we should smack them around a little. But, the majority of Iran are educated, somewhat westernized people who do not agree with the hardline mullahs in power. If those people (the youth) take a stand, they could get the nutjobs out of power. But...I still don't think anyone in that region should have a nuke, it's way to unstable and there are to many fuitcakes. I think we won't have a choice but to take action to keep it from happening.

[just_a_me]

I'm hoping that Europe will take the lead on this decision and that the US will allow Europe a little time to do something about it first.

[demotivater]

I'm hoping that Europe will take the lead on this decision and that the US will allow Europe a little time to do something about it first.

Tee hee

[DeadEyes]

First up you have to prove they're trying to make bombs and not just power stations. Granted its probably a trivial step from making one to the other, but in terms of intenetions they're miles apart. For people to believe any such proof will be difficult after the Iraq WMD fiasco.
The thing is we won't have long to wait. The power stations should be up and running in six months after such time bombing them it not an option.

[MasterBlaster]

The thing is we won't have long to wait. The power stations should be up and running in six months after such time bombing them it not an option.

Why not? Park 10 nuclear subs off of the coast and make them glow. If they want nuclear weapons, deliver around 300 warheads to them.

[just_a_me]

I tend to agree we should smack them around a little. But, the majority of Iran are educated, somewhat westernized people who do not agree with the hardline mullahs in power. If those people (the youth) take a stand, they could get the nutjobs out of power. But...I still don't think anyone in that region should have a nuke, it's way to unstable and there are to many fuitcakes. I think we won't have a choice but to take action to keep it from happening.

Yeah I've known quite a few Iranians and they all seemed like good people to me, but they really should do something about their leader. I guess the same could be said of most countries though.

[Xanith]

Also you have to wonder what Israel is going to do about this. They attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor back in 1981 when it looked as if they were on their way to developing nukes. What do you think Israel is going to do if Iran is going to keep pushing forward with their nuclear program?

Do we really want Israel bombing Iran and possibly starting WWIII? If we wait too long to do anything about Iran you can better believe Israel is going to act.

Also the problem with the whole Iraq situation and the non-belief of the existence of WMD there really puts a damper on any military action being taken on Iran. Perhaps Iran realizes this and is taking advantage of the situation in pushing forth with their nuclear program and the development of nukes. Scary thought to think the rest of the world is essentially handcuffed now from dealing with threats like Iran.

X

[spud]

Due to the last two complete screw-ups I hope that the Arab world sorts it out not the West!

[MasterBlaster]

Also you have to wonder what Israel is going to do about this. They attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor back in 1981 when it looked as if they were on their way to developing nukes. What do you think Israel is going to do if Iran is going to keep pushing forward with their nuclear program?

Do we really want Israel bombing Iran and possibly starting WWIII? If we wait too long to do anything about Iran you can better believe Israel is going to act.

Also the problem with the whole Iraq situation and the non-belief of the existence of WMD there really puts a damper on any military action being taken on Iran. Perhaps Iran realizes this and is taking advantage of the situation in pushing forth with their nuclear program and the development of nukes. Scary thought to think the rest of the world is essentially handcuffed now from dealing with threats like Iran.

X

Israel has already stated that Iran will never have Nuclear weapons. period. They will invade Iran and no it will not start WWIII. Iran has no one in their corner with any significant military. It may turn the mideast into shooting gallery for a few hundred more years. Big deal. It already is, it always has and it always will be.

Due to the last two complete screw-ups I hope that the Arab world sorts it out not the West!

That's a joke I hope. Wow two US screwups compared to thousands of years of screwing up by that regions governments. The Arab world better hope that the US and the UN don't drop the ball and try to sort it out. Personally I think letting anyone inbetween Jerusalem and Kabul have a nuke is about as wise as me giving my 6 month old a box of TNT and a lit torch.

[mendhak]

You're right about the people. I've spent a few years in Iran, the government's rigid stance and their control over the media results in very little exposure to the outside world and vice versa. Iran's a young country in terms of average age of population, and world affairs are quite a backseat matter right now, having to deal with sanctions and a sluggish economy.

The government, and the "spiritual" council, I might add, are a different entity. They enjoy provocation and defiance. Even minor points in their favor are taken as a "victory for Iran in the world arena."

But you have to remember, they're harboring the grudge from way back when the US continued to support the overthrown Shah and failing to maintain the declared neutrality during the Iran-Iraq war (obviously not in Iran's favor), as well as the events that led to Iran Contra and the 444-day hostage crisis.

Mmm... colorful history.

[spud]

That's a joke I hope. Wow two US screwups compared to thousands of years of screwing up by that regions governments. The Arab world better hope that the US and the UN don't drop the ball and try to sort it out. Personally I think letting anyone inbetween Jerusalem and Kabul have a nuke is about as wise as me giving my 6 month old a box of TNT and a lit torch.

Actualy No it wasn't and I dont want a fight Masterblaster I just cant remember any sort of operations in the world that have been succesful. Iraq/Afganastan have been like this for 100 of years and it always goes back to the same.

We cant westernise the Middle East we can only make things worse. In my experiance any third world / religeous dominated country we "liberate" only become's worse.

[mendhak]

Iraq/Afganastan have been like this for 100 of years...

No they haven't. Your statement is the very epitome of historical ignorance.

[spud]

In reference to that mendhak in the history of the west getting involved in other countries affairs it isn't. As when we are there is still people dying and when we leave it goes back to the same people dying for other reasons. If it's not caused by us then religion will fill the gap!

Heard this the other day

Religion is evil, there are bad people and good people in world bad people do evil things and good people do good things, but religion make's goes people do evil things.

[mendhak]

But that wasn't your original context, was it.

[spud]

How long in the history in the last 100 years has "British Forces" been involved in these countries history?

[cilu]

Why not? Park 10 nuclear subs off of the coast and make them glow. If they want nuclear weapons, deliver around 300 warheads to them.

This kind of thinking can only led to holocausts. A-bombs, H-bobms, N-bombs should never be used.

Israel has already stated that Iran will never have Nuclear weapons. period. They will invade Iran and no it will not start WWIII. Iran has no one in their corner with any significant military. It may turn the mideast into shooting gallery for a few hundred more years.

No, Israel will not invade Iran. If Iran is to be invaded it will be by other countries. Israel can not afford to do that.

[PineyWoodsJimbo]

Also you have to wonder what Israel is going to do about this. They attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor back in 1981 when it looked as if they were on their way to developing nukes. What do you think Israel is going to do if Iran is going to keep pushing forward with their nuclear program?

Do we really want Israel bombing Iran and possibly starting WWIII? If we wait too long to do anything about Iran you can better believe Israel is going to act.

X

Yes, we do. I remember those days. It was nice to know that the US did not have to do that kind of job because someone else was already on it.

I'm still waiting for them to get it done this time. It's bad enough the Pakistanis have those weapons. Don't really want to see the list get any longer.

[visualAd]

The European countries and US have no place in dictating which countries can and cannot have a nuclear program when they themselves have nuclear programs.

[yrwyddfa]

The European countries and US have no place in dictating which countries can and cannot have a nuclear program when they themselves have nuclear programs.

Indeed. I think that there are two points of interest that need to be resolved before we resort to mud-slinging and other such wonderful sideline issues such as US-bashing.

(i) Who determines who can have nuclear weapons
(ii) Who determines who can have nuclear power

The answer to (i) is the UN security council. This is a poor solution to an intractable problem. It is understandable that those without look on to those with nuclear weapons and wonder why they can't have them. It is an irony that part of the miltary might of the security council members is based on a nuclear arsenal. Effectively you can't have nuclear weapons and we will ensure you can't have them because we have them and you're scared of us using them.

(ii) In the case of Iran I don't know whether it is windy or not; but they don't have tides, and I'm sure they have plenty of sunlight. They may indeed feel that conventional oil-filled power stations do not provide the energy quotiant that they need to power a failing economy. An economy that's failing, btw, due to the sanctions against the country with a previous government.

It is very close to be a human-right for a citizen to have power in his home. The provision of water is a human right and that needs power . . .

There are arguments on both side of this; I'm sure (and I'm expecting) some sort of rebuttal to this, but we can sling the mud across the tennis court for ever.

One things for sure: we don't know the facts, we only know what's been reported and there is a strong distinction.

[FunkyDexter]

In an ideal world Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium for the purposes of power production. After all, they have as much right to a nuclear power industry as anyone else. However, since they signed an agreement (albeit under a previous government) not to do exactly that, have a recently declared intent to wipe Israel off the face of the map and are sat on 10% of the worlds oil supply (making arguments that they need a nuclear power for domestic use dubious) I think it's understandable that the rest of the world is getting a bit jumpy.

It's worth considering, though, that the current Iranian government has been lobbying to have it's prior agreement lifted - and it's been doing it through the the diplomatic channels we've been trying to encourage the worlds nations to use. They were happy to keep the inspectors in the country to oversee their activities, and still are. It's was the West's ongoing refusal to lift the agreement that led to the Iranians taking unilateral action (breaking the seals) and it's threats of referring them to the security council that have led them to issue an ultimatum that they will expell the inspectors (they haven't yet acted on that).

I do think that ALL nations should try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms, but I'm not sure that extends to denying them a nuclear industry. I wonder if we wouldn't be better allowing them to enrich and keeping the inspectors in.

This is, indeed, a tricky one.

[yrwyddfa]

I do think that ALL nations should try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms, but I'm not sure that extends to denying them a nuclear industry. I wonder if we wouldn't be better allowing them to enrich and keeping the inspectors in.

Nice idea The problems with weapons programmes, though, is that once the knowledge and experience is acquired there's, then, only one way of destroying such knowledge and experience . . . .

Nuclear weapons is about apparent global power. If Iran had nuclear weapons along with ICBM technology then I'm sure that the rest of the world would treat Iran in a completely different light. It may indeed be the case that the people of Iran would expect a much more progressive government given that they would hold the power of such mass destruction and killing, and the unstable(?) regime would collapse under the demands of the people.

This however is, of course, a mighty old risk; and perhaps it's not one that the Western world seems able to accept. The Iranians, though, must be aware that should they ever use those weapons they would be utterly assured of destruction; first wave by Israel, and subsequent waves by Israel's nuclear allies.

This can only lead to one conclustion. If, and that's a mighty 'if' - there's currently no evidence - Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapons programme, they must be doing so for (i) to create a war, (ii) to use as 'bully' power to other nations without such weapons.

Either way is not very pleasant. Philosophically speaking, nearly all technologies can, and are used (and most were developed as a direct consequence of) war. The problem with nuclear weapons is their effectiveness, not their existence. Anthropologically speaking you must always question why it is a nation wants such a terrible weapon, and that includes (at the very least) the US, UK, and France: all of which wield disproportionate amounts of power through the UN over the rest of the world.

[capsulecorpjx]

You know I hear alot that most Iranians are really secular, must like the Turkish. They are a cool and moderate bunch. Its just that the people in power are all crazy and theocratical.

Good luck to them in getting a secular government, because I think thats what many of them really wants.

[mrRee]

while we still not confirm whether Iran is developing their nuklear weapon or not, we can't attack them, I think...

don't be like the poor Iraq...because of the 'mass weapon of destruction', they'd been attacked from left and right(even tho UN didn't allow it)...at that time, North Korea openly declared they got the Nuclear Weapon Program but it seems the attackers are prefer to entertain Iraq more than North Korea...

hmmm...somehow I need a bigger picture...

[MasterBlaster]

while we still not confirm whether Iran is developing their nuklear weapon or not, we can't attack them, I think...

don't be like the poor Iraq...because of the 'mass weapon of destruction', they'd been attacked from left and right(even tho UN didn't allow it)...at that time, North Korea openly declared they got the Nuclear Weapon Program but it seems the attackers are prefer to entertain Iraq more than North Korea...

hmmm...somehow I need a bigger picture...

The US and russia both offered to build them power plants using fuel that can not be converted into weapons. On top of that the offer to lift sanctions was made. Fo some reason Iran wants to use ineffecient technology that is capable of producing nuclear weapons. Hmmm. Dunno, do you think they are trying to build nukes? IfThe UN hadn't screwed up and actually let the US invade Iraq instead of waiting a year there would have been weapons found there. They were verified by inspectors before the invasion talk and there are only two possible places they ended up. Either A: Saddam destroyed them like he said or B: They were sold to Syria. Take your pick which theory is more probable.

Trust me. If we had invaded iraq in time to find the weapons, The tanks absolutly would have rolled into Iran as well.

As far a North Korea goes. That country will destroy its self, or eventually piess china off enough to destroy them.

[nemaroller]

Quite frankly, I'm not concerned about Iran.

Developing a nuclear weapon is one thing, making it land where you want is an entirely different problem. North Korea could certainly hit a few regional targets, but its not like I would ever expect them to create an ICBM - the same applies to Iran.

They certainly aren't capable of hitting any target in North America. And terrorists would have to get the thing close to our borders first, and fortunately, the radioactive signature would thwart its entry through conventional means.

[demotivater]

The ICBM threat is non-existant (at present) - but that doesn't mean they couldn't hit our allies; not to mention our troops stationed in the area. Iran is posing a very real threat. Granted, that's exactly what they want us to think, but that doesn't make it less important. Worst case - Israel hits them, they then invade southern Iraq where the Brits are in control (already massing tanks in southern Iran), shoot up Israel, wait for the rest of the ME to jump on their side and the caca hits the fan. The US would have no problem defeating Iran and any other comers militarily, but the question then becomes, now what.

[vbcode1980]

I think we should end the hypocrisy right now and let Iran develop nuclear weapons.
Countries who have nuclear weapons have no rights telling others they can't have them. period.

No US bashing here, but to be honest I don't trust trigger-happy-George any more with nukes than some Iranian mullah.

[nemaroller]

The US would have no problem defeating Iran and any other comers militarily, but the question then becomes, now what.

Exactly. So we invade Iran and then what. We don't want to have to clean up any other messes - simply to the point that we can't afford it fiscally - and invading one more Arab world country would make all Muslims believe US intentions are criminal against Muslim countries.

Let the Europeans clean this one... I nominate the Danish. They are already up s##@ creek with the Muslims.

[capsulecorpjx]

Eh who cares?

U.S. frankly cannot stomach another military exercise, thats why Iran is doing this.

However, Iran does this at its own peril, as Israel has nuclear weapons.

Europe won't do anything because they are entirely constrained by a horrible beauracracy.

China has good relations with Iran and I think imports much oil from them.

Russia has its own economic problesm to worry aobut.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have never heard anybody in government or the military claim that we have the ability to invade Iran. The army is stretched to the point where units have been stretched beyond normal deployment just to maintain our current levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where would the troops come from for an action in Iran? Army recruitment is dropping off, presumably because of Iraq, and even the National Guard has been deployed for long periods.

People talk tough about attacking Iran. Nobody knowledgeable seems to believe we can do it. Why do you?

Can we afford the military units to invade another country? Can we afford the financial burden of another war? I haven't heard anybody say we can, not even Pat Robertson.

[capsulecorpjx]

I have never heard anybody in government or the military claim that we have the ability to invade Iran. The army is stretched to the point where units have been stretched beyond normal deployment just to maintain our current levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where would the troops come from for an action in Iran? Army recruitment is dropping off, presumably because of Iraq, and even the National Guard has been deployed for long periods.

People talk tough about attacking Iran. Nobody knowledgeable seems to believe we can do it. Why do you?

Can we afford the military units to invade another country? Can we afford the financial burden of another war? I haven't heard anybody say we can, not even Pat Robertson.

Well Iran could always get bombed.

[Valleysboy1978]

Iran have timed this to perfection. The US cannot get involved without being accused of planning an invasion, same as the UK to a lesser degree. If the UN gets involved they have to be very diplomatic (good luck on that one) due to the instability of the region. I can't see how they can be stopped. They have nothing to lose by keeping on going. If there was something we provided them which we could threaten to stop we could have a bargaining chip but it is them that has all the power as they provide us with oil, something they could stop at a whim

[MasterBlaster]

I have never heard anybody in government or the military claim that we have the ability to invade Iran. The army is stretched to the point where units have been stretched beyond normal deployment just to maintain our current levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where would the troops come from for an action in Iran? Army recruitment is dropping off, presumably because of Iraq, and even the National Guard has been deployed for long periods.

They will start drafting again if it comes to that.

People talk tough about attacking Iran. Nobody knowledgeable seems to believe we can do it. Why do you?

For the life of me I can't remember the generals name right now. Any how, his take was we already have Iran surrounded. It wouldn't take much to cut off all food and supplies entering the country and destroy their internal infrastructure via rockets. According to him this will cause a regime change.
That's the only Idea that I've heard that even sounds like it may work. I dunno. Sounds sorta risky to me.

Can we afford the military units to invade another country? Can we afford the financial burden of another war? I haven't heard anybody say we can, not even Pat Robertson.

We can always afford the financial burden. All paying for a war does is move money from one segment of our economy to another. We've peen footing the bill for our current wars for how many years now? How much have your Federal income taxes been raised since then?

[Valleysboy1978]

They won't go to war with them, at least not a military war. The war will be similar to that of the cold war, economical. Cut off trade with them, espionage and such.

[MasterBlaster]

They won't go to war with them, at least not a military war. The war will be similar to that of the cold war, economical. Cut off trade with them, espionage and such.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The cold war played out the way it did because the Soviet Union and the United States were uninvadable (is that a word?) It is very possible to invade Iran now(see my posts from 2-3 years ago on why we invaded the afghans and Iraq first). Messy, but possible. Israel could level the entire country in a couple months and they probably will if the UN holds true to tradition and wuss out. Although I am not a big fan of Israel's government, I wouldn't blame them one bit if they did.

[litlewiki]

everything started because bush thinks that iran can build nukes but what abt israel .it itself has a nuclear plan and has nuclear weapons and no one is talking abt that .why? just because israel is on bush's side.agree that some irans minister said abt nuking israel,but how many really think iran can can do that.
iran is not iraq .it doent have so much that degree of civil strife as in iraq atleast as far as i know .

leave all that take n.korea they have nukes everybody knows but bush is silent because china wont let do anything.its all politics... bush invented wmd's in iraq and now something new in iran .iran also is more united than iraq in terms of military.

as far as the religion is concerned .its their religion their cutoms .who are we to teach them what to do what to not. making friends would solve many problems rather than going to war and nuking everyone around who defies you ...

iran wont just keep quiet if israel takes an action.russia would definetly join in as its a potential security threat to them ...


lets not forget that iraq war has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of inncent people .i completely agree with what happend in afghanistan.it was a genuine cause and everyone supported the U.S led forces

[zaza]

I think many people don't seem to realise that one of the biggest dangers of the Iranian leadership developing nuclear weaponry is not that it will use them on Israel or the USA, but that it will start supplying terrorist groups who can operate without the fear of retribution that would occur if a nation were to attack using nukes. Nuclear technology does not have to be very advanced to create a highly dangerous bomb. It doesn't even have to work properly - it would be enough to spread lumps of radioactive material across an area making it uninhabitable. To whom might the Iranian leadership donate such a device and where might it be used? Maybe a Palestinian militant group or Al-Qaeda against Israel? Probably. Maybe attempting to shut down and permanently contaminate a large chunk of Saudi Arabia's oil production? Potentially. What about some Kashmiri separatist faction? Quite possibly. Chechnya? Perhaps. Those who think that the only likely targets are Israel, the US and the UK should think again before allowing a very dangerous group of individuals to get their paws on knowledge which, once obtained, can't be undone.
There is evidence that Iran is currently supplying terrorist groups in Iraq, simply to keep the West bogged down and distract attention from themselves. I don't think that they can be trusted yet with some of the most dangerous technology we know about.

[NotLKH]

.. bush invented wmd's in iraq ...

Can we all just remember that intelligence reports at that time, both from US Sources, Sources in Iraq, British sources, all indicated that Iraq had WMD's.
And, before Bush entered the White House, Clinton and his staff also believed in the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

And the UN too believed in their potential existance, else why did they insist on continued inspections of Iraq?

Bush didn't lie or invent this information. It was given to him.