So which way will the coin fall?

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Rolex
It's interesting to me that Washington and London are more concerned about Iran than Iran's neighbors are. Just as Washington is more concerned about North Korea than the South Koreans are. There seems to be a culture of overreaction. I don't think there is any doubt that Ahmadinejad is unsophisticated and clumsy, to say the least.

Now, I'm not an advocate for Iran, but any negotiation requires honestly putting yourself in the shoes of the people across the table to better understand your own position and options - how they will be received, what are their fears and goals, what are the misconceptions of your position and even misconceptions of their position.

So let's step back from the brink of overreaction for a minute and try to understand why Iran seems intent on building a nuclear arsenal and why it is boldly defying intervention. And let's talk about the history of Iran, the US and the UK, so we can understand how leaders like Ahmadinejad come to power and why they find support from their people by thumbing their noses at the west.

Specifically, how the UK history of colonizing the Iranian oil, the CIA-led coup against the secular government, the US and UK deposing of Reza Shah I and the US encouragement of war against Iraq (costing a million Iranian lives) and subsequent double-cross by arming Iraq has built a culture of frustration at the west.

Those facts and history provide the backdrop for understanding their position. It's also important to understand that the inconsistency of foreign policy regarding nuclear nonproliferation has fueled Ahmadinejad's strength. Iran does not harbor Al Qaeda or Taliban-trained suicide bombers, like Pakistan has done and continues to do, yet no one is advocating military intervention.

Pakistan, India, Israel and China are not signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet they surround Iran. India and Pakistan have even received nuclear cooperation agreements with the US in spite of their refusal to sign the treaty.

I would say that inconsistency of foreign policy and continued outside influence in the affairs of Iran would be key parts of their position.

Good points.

I hate you.

On a brighter note.. if I was Iran, I'd wanna be buddies with Russia and China, and pull an Abramoff. Done right, Iran would wind up with everything it wants, we'll be unable to do dick-all with China and Russia propping up Iran with an oil and gas for bombs and bullets via mutual defense treaties.

We'll even lose the 'hearts and minds' battle on the homefront.. the soccer moms and stay at home stock trader dads won't wanna send their kids and cash off to another middle east dirtpile.

we're screwed.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Rolex
It's interesting to me that Washington and London are more concerned about Iran than Iran's neighbors are.  

Really? You have no idea (  find it interesting) why the US and Britain should be concerned about Iran?

Iran's neighbors have nearly zero reason to be concerned about Iran, with the exception of Israel.

[Toad]

I don't disagree with your historical recitation Rolex. With the exception that I do believe Iran is harboring A-Q, either turning a blind eye to them or giving them some support. People I know back from Afghanistan have told me that they're quite certain A-Q use Iran as a safe refuge, just as A-Q do in the Pakistan border areas.

However, I do think Ahmadinejad is an idiot for provoking Israel.

Without the "wipe them off the map" comment, I think this situation would progress as NK, Pakistan, India, Israel and China did. Fact is, nobody wants to screw with a nation that has nukes. Undeniable, proven by recent history; and the "world community" (UN) can do jack-all to stop a nation bent on having nuke weapons. The UNSC isn't going to authorize any invasion of any country to stop them from joining the nuke club.

Without the "wipe them out" comment, this would go to the UN, angst and anger would be expressed and Iran would join the nuke club and the world would go on.

I think  Ahmadinejad put his foot in it. I'm not sure the Israelis will let them become a nuclear power after that. An attack by Israel would be handled the same way. Shock, outrage and horror by the bystanders and the world would go on.

Because.... whose gonna screw with Israel? They have nukes.

It's quite a club for the members and I'm not suprised so many would like to join.

[RAIDER14]

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Because.... who's gonna screw with Israel? They have nukes.

Indeed, an easy concept to grasp - more nukes = less war!

[Saintaw]

lol Beet

[storch]

Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed, an easy concept to grasp - more nukes = less war!

in which case britian will be disarming shortly no doubt.  ask saw to send you some white cloth, preferrable with a nice lace border.  

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Indeed, an easy concept to grasp - more nukes = less war!

Indeed.

At first, only the US had nukes; we used two.

Since that time, more and more countries have armed with nukes and there hasn't been a single World War since. Looks like it does work!

And, if there is an Israeli strike with "small nuke" tipped deep penetrators, Iran will be denied entry into the club, at least for a while. Considering Iran is attempting to be a Sharia-run nation with nukes and a world full of infidels, that may indeed "=less war" as well.

[Jackal1]

The recent banning of CNN by Iran sort of caught my eye. I feel it is a "testing of the waters", so to speak, checking for a reaction or non-reaction. I think it is very possible that we will see more of this on a larger scale in the future. The first step of isolating their people from the rest of the world in order to be able to feed them any info that they wish without outside influence. When and if the time comes for action on this they will be hand in hand with Russia. On that you can bet.

[beet1e]

Storch - no, I said MORE nukes = less war! Indeed, I am vehemently opposed to unilateral disarmament, which is why I've never suggested.... well, you know what. In 1983, a General Election in Britain was fought with this very issue at the top of the list of issues over which the election was fought. Margaret Thatcher saw the folly of unilateral disarmament. And thankfully, so too did the electorate. Maggie won with a 144 seat landslide. The other party wanted to disarm in the vain hope that Russia would follow suit!

Originally posted by Toad
Indeed.

At first, only the US had nukes; we used two.

Since that time, more and more countries have armed with nukes and there hasn't been a single World War since. Looks like it does work!

Yes, YES! I've finally found something we can agree on! BTW, I hope you noticed that I waited 24h+ before having that bit of fun in your thread.

And, if there is an Israeli strike with "small nuke" tipped deep penetrators, Iran will be denied entry into the club, at least for a while. Considering Iran is a Sharia-run nation with nukes and a world full of infidels, that may indeed "=less war" as well.

Given that the facilities are so spread out/underground, how feasible would it be for Israel to disable Iran's nukes?

[lazs2]

beet made a very good observation...  since the nuke... we have ended one huge war and made it impossible for the huffy, barborous little your-0-peans to start any more wars out of their decaying little countries.

They have been good little boys.

lazs

[FiLtH]

If Iran nuked Israel, wouldnt there be 3 headed Iraqis running around?

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Given that the facilities are so spread out/underground, how feasible would it be for Israel to disable Iran's nukes?

The GBU-28 was developed for Desert Storm.

A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth.

Since then it has been improved and the Israelis have a record of improving our improvements. They've had them for almost a year now.

As for spread out numerous underground targets, we sold them 100 GBU-28's.

Israel also has three German Dolphin class submarines, each reportedly capable of launching 24 nuclear tipped Harpoons. They would be in range of many of the facilities from the Gulf of Oman. There's a rumor going round they've been rehearsing that one.

As I said, a very stupid comment by Ahmadinejad. Probably every other country would dismiss that remark as just another politician blowing smoke. I'm not sure Israel would do that.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Toad
The GBU-28 was developed for Desert Storm.



Since then it has been improved and the Israelis have a record of improving our improvements. They've had them for almost a year now.

As for spread out numerous underground targets, we sold them 100 GBU-28's.

Israel also has three German Dolphin class submarines, each reportedly capable of launching 24 nuclear tipped Harpoons. They would be in range of many of the facilities from the Gulf of Oman. There's a rumor going round they've been rehearsing that one.

As I said, a very stupid comment by Ahmadinejad. Probably every other country would dismiss that remark as just another politician blowing smoke. I'm not sure Israel would do that.

I thought AGM-84's were Anti-Ship Missiles?  

Karaya

[mora]

Originally posted by Toad
Israel also has three German Dolphin class submarines, each reportedly capable of launching 24 nuclear tipped Harpoons. They would be in range of many of the facilities from the Gulf of Oman. There's a rumor going round they've been rehearsing that one.

Actually they are fitted with an indigenous Popeye cruise missile, which might have a range up to 1500 km.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm