Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

Maybe, but the vernacular Western term for the Revolutionary Guard is just that; Pasdaran. It is not accurate Persian, I get that; but nor is saying MI6 really but people still do (it's SIS).

 

I guess more than anything I just find it corny when people use random native words in the middle of English and it annoys me. I understand it for names of places and such. (Although we commonly use the translated name "Red Square"...) But surely we can just translate it when we're talking about regular words. I mean, I wouldn't say that I've learned to speak Rússkiy. That's just silly. I would say I've learned to speak Russian. What's the point of retaining the native terms for foreign government institutions anyway? Should I refer to the Norwegian Foreign Ministry as UD because that's the Norwegian abbreviation? I don't see the point of it.

 

Because in secret squirrel-ville, that's just how the cookie crumbles?

 

You’re forgetting that people probably wouldn’t even know, like when Obama and I think Bush both stopped Israeli attacks on Iran, with the press only picking up on it later and reporting it in whisper-voice.

And Iran won’t attack Tel Aviv, or any other city in Israel in that way.

Iran is also not an existential threat to Israel, despite Israeli fears and the ambitions of some Iranians.

Vaderize, over the years you seem to have become more of a doomer I could be completely wrong, but I don’t think Israel-Iran tensions are the most pressing issue in foreign relations. It’s just a Cold War.

 

More like a realist. Israel and Iran are two bullies who refuse to back down. Eventually, one of them will throw a real punch. Right now, they’re just shoving each other in the chest, each one daring the other to “make a move.” It could certainly deescalate, or even stay the same, but the risk of a miscalculation—and war—are rising.

That’s not “doom”, it’s keeping one’s eyes open. We’d all like to convince ourselves nothing really bad will happen, but the truth is, we have absolutely no control over whether or not it does.

 

We're just going to have to explain it to them that Israel has gone completely insane and needs to be reigned in, just like what Reagan and the first Bush did...and the need for doing so is even more pressing now. It's for Israel's own good.

 

Absolutely yes. The Netanyahu government has become the very thing it claims to be fighting against. He needs to go--the sooner the better.

 

Nah, just keep Palestinians in hopelessness for just a little bit longer and you can annex all the occupied territories. Keep your eye on the prize, don't quit on me now.



The rest of this post used to be a rambling mess, and I don't know where I was going with it, really.

 

Another angle of looking at it is that, emboldened by a lack of political and economic consequences due to the US shielding them, Israel does a pre-emptive nuclear strike on an Iran that doesn't have nukes. It sounds absolutely insane but I think Netanyahu might reckon they can get away with it. After all, Israel has got away with quite a bit and its politicians aren't shy to invoke the Holocaust as justification for acts in the present.

It'd be the bad decision to end them all and would truly render Israel a beyond the pale pariah state.

Nukes are strange, strange things - when one side has them and the doesn't there tends to be greater instability. Counter-intuitive as it sounds, when both sides have them, MAD tends to exert a sobering up. It was expected Pakistan and India would go up in flames when both got nukes, but it didn't happen. Even North Korea is making tentative steps away from a punch-up. It wouldn't be anywhere near a comfortable set-up, but it might be more manageable than the present.

The one thing that would need a very close eye on is Iran creating and then selling nukes to terrorist factions, but if they had nukes, on the basis that nukes guarantee national sovereignty like nothing else - see Iraq - they might cease that shadowplay entirely.

I'd see the problem as being bigger than one really bad politician - Barak, Shimon, Netanyahu isn't an exception.

(Sure, there's loads of Americans who don't like Trump, so ditto Israelis for this type of politician (and indeed, lots of Brexit loathing Brits), but it's the extreme bunch that are running things and keep getting elected.)

 

It simply wouldn't be more manageable. It would inevitably devolve into all the countries in the region going for nuclear arms. One country having nuclear weapons means an imbalance in power, but it doesn't necessarily make the situation less stable, it just means everyone else needs to be watched for possible development of nuclear weapons. It would be ideal if Israel gave up their weapons. Short of that it's better if only one nation has them, because I sent no reason why Israel would utilise it's nuclear weapons.

 

Why do the other countries need nukes? Has Iran made public its ambition for an empire? That would be a driver, but I'd more suspect that of Saudi Arabia.

What's likely driving Iranian policy is a desire for self-preservation - they see Iraq get whacked with no nukes, North Korea doesn't because it has nukes so that forces other options to be used. If you're the Iranian government, what conclusion do you draw from that?

With the caveat that it ended nearly 30 years ago now, people need to look to and remember the lessons of the Cold War on nuke management. No one would say there were not a couple of occasions when it got very scary, but it also worked for 40 years. Technology does not slow down, it can't be totally controlled, it can only be managed and, most of the time, management will be playing catch-up.

 

No doubt they want them for self preservation. That doesn't mean they won't use them for expansion against Saudi Arabia (who have said they will go for nuclear weapon in the event of Iranian nuclearisation). Iran getting the bomb can only make the situation worse, with the potential for a nuclear exchange greatly increased, rather than only Israel having them. One country pointing a nuclear weapon at someone is far less likely to result in nuclear war than two pointing at eachother.

 

Iran doesn't want actual nukes. Iran ideally wants the optics of not having nukes, with the option to build nukes on short notice if it deems them necessary, commonly referred to as "the Japan option". The nuclear deal they've agreed to prevents them from this option, however, since they're not allowed to enrich uranium above 3.67%, whereas nuclear bombs require 90% enrichment and above.

 

And they shouldn't have the option of building them on short notice. Nuclear non proliferation is important and every state which has nuclear weapons or has the ability to make them on short notice is one too many.

 

Then go for the other, harder, but much more beneficial option if you pull it off - convince them that they don't need them.

Now, that's massively difficult because Iranians know their history and the last few decades of it is basically them being screwed with by the US and UK! Also, just about every time a more moderate Iranian politician gets in, western politicians tend to screw 'em over by lumping them, in with an 'axis of evil', because they have to go slower than we'd like. They then fail and a hardliner replaces them and the west acts all innocent, all 'oh, how did that happen?'

Most Iranians likely don't want a war, would likely quite like a freer state, but also without other powers poking their nose in - a long game with Iran will pay dividends if we but have the patience and fortitude to stick with it.

 

I don't disagree that that would be the best approach for the West to take?

The question you posed is whether allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon would stabilise the situation. The answer is an emphatic no.

 

More scary commentary from Giuliani.

Yeah, Iran’s gonna negotiate with the US now. Tell me another one.

 

Every state with the infrastructure for nuclear enrichment and the knowledge of how to operate said infrastructure, already have this ability regardless of your preferences. The aforementioned Japan falls into this category, as does Germany. Indeed, any country with nuclear energy plants that produce their own fuel fall in this category. This includes little Sweden. The only way to prevent Iran from having this capability is to totally destroy their enrichment infrastructure, which is spread out, and kill anyone with the knowledge of how to operate it. Good luck with that. There is no way to prevent Iran from having this capability short of permanently occupying it, especially since Iran even sources its uranium from domestic mines.

 

In any area of the world, yeah, it couldn't possibly work. The Middle East though... If there's any area where all bets are off, that is it.

Who is looking for a war? Israel. What will make Israel back off? The US could rein them in, but won't, so that leaves?

I wouldn't put it past Iran to, as an option of last resort, to say they have a secret bomb. Why? Because Netanyahu would believe it. Probably use it to screw Iran over with sanctions but Iran's view might be that they're used to those now and sanctions are less worse than war / invasion.

 

I'm not really sure what you're tilting at here? No one disagrees that Israel is unacceptably being proactive and the US isn't doing enough to stop them. That doesn't mean Iran getting a weapon would in any way make the situation better. It will only make it worse. Israel having weapons and being an **** is preferable to theocratic regime's pointing them at each other.

With stringent observation it is totally possible to keep them from developing a weapon. If they were put in a position of wanting to quickly make one I doubt they would be given the window given the people who they have as enemies.

Germany and Japan being under the US umbrella, them getting a weapon or having the potential to easily get one doesn't upset the power balance that Iran or Saudi Arabia getting one would.

 

Luckily, they already are under stringent observation, and the provision of the deal that allows random inspections of even undeclared facilities (the Additional Protocol to the NPT) will remain in place forever. Their uranium stockpile will be capped at 300 kg until 2030, which effectively makes weaponisation impossible, and their uranium mines and mills will be monitored until 2040, which will make increased fuel production detectable until then.

 

Which is why I support the continuation of the deal?

 

Which is why we're debating a problem that doesn't exist?

 

We're discussing whether Iran getting the weapon would be more effective in stabilising the region than then not having one.

 

The region which would prefer Persians didn't interfere in Arab affairs? That one?