Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why Iran Will Go Nuclear
GBU28    2/15/2005 1:34:08 AM
Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005 Why Iran Will Go Nuclear The fact that eight or nine countries have nukes creates an irresistible incentive for others to join the club By TONY KARON http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,1027246,00.html Try 4 Issues of TIME magazine FREE! North Korea has unexpectedly declared itself a nuclear state — although the fact that they have made the announcement verbally rather than through the more traditional route of actually testing a bomb leaves room for a measure of skepticism over just how nuclear they are. Still, the move signals the failure of the Bush administration's six-party talks strategy; Pyongyang is now restating its longstanding demand for one-on-one dialog with Washington, and the U.S. will likely find that South Korea, China and Russia all endorse this call for the administration to drop its aversion to talking directly to the regime of Kim Jong-Il. Hardliners in Washington are claiming vindication, arguing that the North's announcement shows that talking to the regime does nothing to deter it from the nuclear path. They may be right, although China and South Korea may be inclined to read the latest North Korean announcement as simply a new game of brinkmanship designed to push Pyongyang to the top of Washington's foreign policy concerns. The hawks in Washington can point to the fact that the North pursued its weapons program in secret even when it was committed to a deal with the Clinton administration as evidence that Kim Jong-Il is engaged in a game of deception designed to buy time, win concessions and go nuclear anyway. The hardliners have a tougher time, however, selling their own remedy, which involves tightening the economic noose around North Korea in the hope of forcing the collapse of its regime. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld noted Thursday that "I don't think that anyone would characterize the leadership in that country as being restrained," which would suggest that if it does, in fact, have nuclear weapons and has repeatedly used blackmail and brinkmanship as instruments of foreign policy, then trying to slowly starve it to death may not the most rational course of action. And initiating a direct military confrontation remains almost unthinkable, not only because analysts estimate it could cost up to one million lives but also because the government of South Korea would be adamantly opposed. North Korea's nuclear announcement certainly blindsided Washington, which had hoped to restart the six-party talks next month. U.S. attentions were elsewhere, most notably on stopping Iran from doing what North Korea claims to have done. Frankly, the administration's chances of stopping Iran from joining the expanding club of nuclear-armed states may not be much better than its prospects of holding back North Korea. On her European tour this week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put forth the idea that Iran now faces a united front of the U.S. and Europe pressing for an end to its uranium enrichment activities. But Dr. Rice may be mistaking the general desire of the Europeans to mend fences with Washington, and their general dismay at the idea of Iran emerging as a nuclear state, as support for the Bush administration's approach to dealing with the problem. That would be wishful thinking, although hardly the first time the Bush administration had been guilty of such miscalculation over matters Middle Eastern. Rice's upbeat assessment requires ignoring the obvious signs that if the U.S. does pursue confrontation with Iran, it will almost certainly do so with even fewer allies than it had over Iraq. The Europeans certainly don't want Iran to go nuclear, and France, Germany and Britain are leading a diplomatic effort to dissuade Tehran from engaging in uranium-enrichment activities that could be used to build a bomb. Their motivation is not simply because they abhor the emergence of yet another nuclear-armed state in a very unstable part of the world, but also because they fear that the consequences to global security of military action by either the U.S. or Israel to stop Tehran. The Europeans are pursuing negotiations, but also making clear — with increasing urgency — that diplomacy can't work unless the U.S. joins the process. But Dr. Rice repeatedly emphasized during her tour that Washington has no intention of joining the diplomatic effort, which is openly scorned by administration hawks. Indeed, even as Rice touted diplomacy, she also gave plenty of hints that her administration prefers the option of regime-change in Iran — a position that effectively undermines the European negotiation position. That's because the basis of the diplomatic effort is not a "do as we say or else" ultimatum, but rather to convince the regime in Tehran that it faces no strategic threat to its survival, and can therefore manage fine without nukes and instead enjoy the fruits of reintegration into the international community. By staying out of th
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gammerlaan    RE:Why Iran Will Go Nuclear   2/16/2005 4:45:17 PM
I think both Noth Korea and Iraan are using the Nuclear Threat as a dilpomatical bargaining chip. By claiming to have nuclear capability they have something to offer the West. And they can ask for something in return. What we should do is ask our best diplomats to deal with this threat and to "persuade" these countries to stop the development of these weapons. I see a lot of openings for some very fruitfull discussions with these countries, especially with Iraan.
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    Dumb, Dumber & Dumbest [plus an edit by Sysops]   2/17/2005 12:13:00 PM
DUMB: >>I see a lot of openings for some very fruitfull discussions with these countries, especially with Iran.--gamey< DUMBER: >>"Why Iran Will Go Nuclear -- In other words, get used to it". -GBU'(812) DUMBEST: >>Diplomacy and the pursuit of regime-change simply cannot coexist in a single strategy for very long<
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Why Iran Will Go Nuclear   2/17/2005 1:41:04 PM
Maybe. But what can we offer these countries? North Korea wants "assurances" that we won't invade them. We have given them assurances. Now they want a treaty. What, exactly, does Iran want? Economic development? Okay, sounds good. Dropping the sanctions? Not sure what for; they don't work anyway and haven't for the past 30 years, but okay. An apology? For what? We haven't done anything to them. The problem is that both of these nations are run by bullies and lunatics. Give a bully your lunch money one day, and he will want it again tomorrow, with interest. Give a mouse a cookie and the little turd will want milk. The same lesson applies to the mullahs of Iran and Kim Jong-il. The mullahs want their version of shari'a spread across the land in some sort of pan-Shi'a movement, which even most Shi'a believe is insane. Kim wants South Korea. Both want the means to live in luxury, killing those who disagree with them and don't jump when they say so, and have the West foot the bill for their excesses. Both want a war, because they are under the mistaken impression that wars are fun. Both should know better--I doubt the wounds of the Korean War have fully healed from the land in North Korea, and the horrible losses of the Iran-Iraq War weren't that long ago. We can give these people all that they want, and they will want more. When will it reach the price that we are no longer willing to pay? I'm all for diplomacy, but there had better be some teeth behind it, otherwise Kim and the mullahs will laugh all the way to the bank. The line with both nations should be that they can either end their nuclear program, after which we will be happy to explore trade, economic aid, and treaties. If they don't end their nuclear program, then at best they can expect complete isolation. At worst, they can expect war. I don't like it, and you don't like it, but arming themselves and being what they are was their choice, not ours, just as remilitarizing Germany and occupying the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechslovakia was Hitler's choice, not anyone else's.
 
Quote    Reply

oded    RE:Why Iran Will Go Nuclear   2/19/2005 6:03:29 PM
'It's hard to imagine why Tehran would accept the current nuclear status quo. (Indeed, every time it is pressed on the issue, it raises Israel's nuclear capability as a prime concern.)' I dont get it, why do the crazy mullahs need nukes? Are they really being threatened by their neighbors? Would Israel really threaten Iran if they didnt sponsor terrorism, threaten to destroy Israel or seek nukes? The source of their fears is their own aggressive stance. They are only seeking to hold on to their power from the inevitable march of time, freedom and secular westernism. The other nations in the nuclear club have shown reasonable restraint and responsibility,while the Mullahs are a horse marching to a tune of a different color. They have already threatened the destruction of Israel, a threat that proves their imbalance given their mutual assured destruction. Diplomacy wont work as the sticks are limited and they have plenty of carrots. They are in the drivers seat, having plenty of oil and plenty of suiters. The only realistic hope short of war is regime change and I believe that has to come from within. We must do whatever we can to help make this happen.
 
Quote    Reply

gammerlaan    RE:Why Iran Will Go Nuclear   5/19/2005 6:06:57 PM
"Diplomacy wont work as the sticks are limited and they have plenty of carrots. They are in the drivers seat, having plenty of oil and plenty of suiters. The only realistic hope short of war is regime change and I believe that has to come from within. We must do whatever we can to help make this happen." Sometimes you kill your enemy by attacking him, sometimes by embracing him.... In this case I suggest the last option. Iraan is too big to be invaded. Besides, it will only lead to anti-American and anti-European sentiments. Economically developing the region will eventually lead to a demise in Mullah power. The silent majority will eventually take over and take up the leadership. Don't forget that Iraan is an islamic REPUBLIC. So there is a democratically chosen government and president. The only problem is the (constitutional) influence of the Ayatollah. Mr Khatami neads our help. He wants to change Iraan, but his hands are tied by Khamenei. I suggest starting (secret) talks with him. Hey mr Middle Finger (on Watch): We're here to discuss things, not to insult. So do me a favour and behave, ok? I assume your an adult, so please behave like one.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics