The Iranian threat is completely over-hyped, taken out of context and completely unrealistic.
MarkW2525 said 04/17, 06:37 PM
Iran is not nearly as dangerous, and it's government not nearly as "fanatic" or "insane", as we are told by our government and mainstream media.
DonkeyDude said 04/17, 06:58 PM
Iran???s scramble for nuclear capabilities betrays a desire for more than just electric power. Given Iran???s long-range missile program, as well as Ahmadinejad???s calls to wipe Israel off the map, I???d say the country poses a threat. Not as big a threat, realistically, as Pakistan, but a threat nonetheless. The leadership is fanatical. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs would be dangerously unpredictable. We are talking about a nuclear-armed state with ballistic missiles led by religious zealots. How many times does Ahmadinejad have to warn that Israel "is heading toward annihilation?"
Iran has some 66 million people and an area larger than California, Texas, New York, Michigan and Ohio combined. The ayatollahs now seek to create a Shi'ite empire that will dominate the Middle East. Tehran already is using its vast oil wealth to support the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon and promises support for Hamas in Palestine.
Without some concrete argument from you, it is hard for me to see what I'm missing here...
MarkW2525 said 04/17, 07:21 PM
Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology is completely legit. What's not: the fact they did it for 20 years while researching warhead designs. That implies a possibly doorway to nuclear weapons production, which as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are not entitled to do. Problem; yes. Grave and imminent danger; no... and here's why. First, Iranian foreign policy is extremely pragmatic, they don't take many big risks anymore. Sure Ahmadinejad spews crazy crap every couple weeks but remember, under Iranian law... he's not much more than a figurehead. Every decision he wants to make has to be approved by the parliament and then approved by the Guardian Council (The top Clerics). Additionally, the Iranian public does not and has not supported belligerent approaches to dealing with other countries. The argument that Iran would make any sincere effort to wipe Israel off the map is also bogus because Israel possesses over 200 nuclear weapons that would easily destroy all of Iran and leave it's "Shi'ite empire" in ashes (not to mention the American bombings that would come as well). I'll address the rest of your points because they are good ones, but I'm out of space.
DonkeyDude said 04/17, 09:11 PM
Iran is buying and producing both ballistic and cruise missiles, with help from North Korea, China and Russia, that can reach all of Israel and potentially (in combination with North Korean technology) the US East Coast. They are also processing uranium, purportedly for peaceful electricity-production purposes, despite offers of free nuclear fuel in return for abandoning their nuclear program.
This adds up to nuclear weapons and missiles that can deliver them to increasing distances, in the hands of a country whose "figurehead" has called for the annihilation of our strongest ally in the region. Whether this capability can be achieved in the next few years or a little longer is subject to debate. But the danger is too great not to continue every effort to prevent Iran from completing its development of nuclear weapons.
And as we learned on 9/11, not all attacks come from countries with direct accountability, to whom we could defensibly direct a counter-attack. I'd like to hear your take on Iran's connection to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.
MarkW2525 said 04/18, 11:41 AM
Iran is receiving no material aid from Russia and China in the development of their ballistic missile programs. Iran's newest missiles, which they tested about 2 weeks ago, only have a top range of 1000 miles. Even North Korea's long range missiles, which theoretically could hit the US, failed every test (they exploded at liftoff or over the Sea of Japan).
If you check my comments below I've already covered the issue of the foreign produced nuclear fuel with ShawnF, which would have come from Russia if any deal were to be made, so please refer to those to see my points on that "compromise". Iran would be idiotic to agree to the deal.
And finally, the issue of potential "nuclear terrorism": The prospect of a STATE spending billions of dollars on a nuclear weapons program and then just handing one of those bombs off to a terrorist group is the most misguided possibility that I hear everyday for some reason. Countries build nuclear weapons to deter other countries from attacking them, not offensive use. Not to mention, there are ways to track where a nuclear bomb came from by its chemical signature (which is unique to each uranium plant). Continued in comments!
DonkeyDude said 04/18, 01:10 PM
You evidence an impressive knowledge of the issue, Mark, and I commend you for your rhetorical skills. However, I still have a fundamental problem with your argument.
As far as I can tell, you are saying that no nuclear weapons will ever be fired (by Iran or really anybody), because of a direct nuclear attack by either the target country or its allies. This sounds like Reagan's notion of "peace through power." If that's the case, why don't we let (or even encourage) North Korea, Pakistan, and every country on the planet develop a nuclear arsenal? I mean, they're not going to actually use the weapons; they just want them for deterrent effect. Why have a Non Proliferation Treaty at all? Bombs for everyone!
If Iran wants to develop a nuclear program for the purpose of generating electricity, let them do so under open UN inspection. The justification? There is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest they may be trying to build nuclear weapons, in violation of the Treaty.
If they want fewer restrictions on their nuclear program development, tell them to get a handle on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Shawn, I definitely understand the logic in the conclusion you've come to. But why would Iran want to put all of its nuclear power plant fuel in the hands of another country? What good are your investments on nuclear power plants (Which can cost anywhere from $1-10b) if the nuclear fuel you need to run them can be cut off by the host country at any time, for any reason? Not only is the actual investment of money on the power plants an issue, but what about the monetary losses that would result for businesses and government in the event of blackouts? Then there's the military aspect of how your country would be able to defend itself without electricity if there's a disruption (accidental or intentional)in fuel supply. Finally, the actual act of importing and exporting nuclear fuel is extremely costly and in fact more dangerous because it would require putting the nuclear rods on trains or planes which could be derailed or shot down. No country has ever agreed to such a deal, so it's not surprising Iran refused.
MarkW2525 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Oh really quick, I forgot to mention that Russia would be the country supplying the nuclear fuel to Iran. Given Russia's recent knack for raising energy prices on countries as political punishment for not being "Pro-Kremlin" enough is another reason I'm sure the Iranians were less than excited about the deal.
MarkW2525 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
I might be wrong, but I believe at least 3 of the 5 permanent members (U.S., France, UK) of the UN security Council would be more than willing to supply Iran with nuclear fuel at any given time if they quit enriching uranium. What would the cost be of a nuclear war? Or an (let's hope not) invasion of Iran?
ShawnF | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
None of the three countries you named were willing to supply nuclear fuel, nor would Iran accept any fuel from any of them anyway (Think about it, THE US? Not a chance. England and France? Allies of the US, very little nuclear production of their own anyway). A nuclear war is also an extremely remote possibility that would take extreme stupidity on both sides. The Soviet Union and the US (along with France and Britain) had nuclear weapons pointed at each other for 50 years and nothing ever happened. Pakistan and India are arch rivals and have fought 6 wars against one another, both have nuclear weapons and neither have used them. Additionally, if Iran had nuclear weapons, we would never invade because of the risk involved in a nuclear exchange (hence the entire purpose of building a nuclear weapon: effective deterrence).
MarkW2525 | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Well if Iran continues down this road it will not be good for anybody. How many allies does Iran have on this issue? Like 2? Not good!
ShawnF | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE: So in the incredibly unlikely event that Iran were to ship a nuclear weapon off to say, Hezbollah for use against someone else, The bomb would still be traceable to Iran, without a doubt, just by analyzing the uranium isotopes floating in the sky after a detonation. Do you think the world would sit idly by after something like that? Hell no. Iran would be leveled with a nuclear attack and the country would be nothing. Of course, there are some who want you to believe that Iran's leadership is just crazy enough to do it.; that they hate the US and Israel sooooooo much that they'd be willing to destroy their own country to hurt one of us. If that was the case, why haven't they done it? Simple reason: Pragmatism. In Iran's constitution it theoretically states that Iran must export the revolution to other countries... they haven't, and they haven't even tried. And they've never directly attacked Israel or the United States. Iran supports Hezbollah because it's a strategic decision (keep in mind Hezbollah only operates against Israel when Israel is in southern Lebanon, a place Israel isn't supposed to be anyway, but really likes to break international law and go in anyway). The reason for this is that Israel has made no qualms about it's desire to establish dominance over the Middle East. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, which they built illegally after buying and stealing bomb designs from the US and France. Additionally, Saudi Arabia is a huge strategic threat to Iran because, as you may know, Saudi Arabia exports and promotes Wahhabi Islam; the ultra-conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam that is the interpretation that al Qaeda has built it's platform on. This is bad for Iran because they're Shi'a heretics in the eyes of the Saudis, who want to use religion as a political weapon as a way to weaken Iran and secure a stronger hold on the oil market.
MarkW2525 | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is already one of the weakest arms agreements ever devised. As it stands, our Congress just approved a measure that would allow the export of nuclear technology to India allowing up to 95% (Iran's system only allows for 10%) uranium enrichment. Considering that India is not a signatory to the treaty and the US is, that's illegal. The NPT prohibits the transfer of nuclear technology from signatories to non-signatories because non-signatories don't have to allow inspections. That is kind of getting off topic, but I still see as somewhat relevant. Overall, I'd like to state that given all the information and possible Iranian nuclear weapons program, it still does not live up to the hype associated with the THREAT Iran poses that we hear about everyday because of Iran's pragmatism and social order. The only threat a strong (and even nuclear armed Iran) poses is it's ability to limit US/Israeli hegemony in the region, which is arguably the biggest obstacle towards real political and social reform anyway. Considering the debate is over and I'm gonna lose big it appears *I only have 1 vote* I'd just like to end on these facts: Most Iranians (85%) believe that the construction of nuclear weapons is immoral and anti-Islamic, the government responded by declaring that they are immoral and would never be built by Iran (OF COURSE, the government saying that may not make it true: America loves democracy, but props up monarchies and dictatorships too because it's good for business). And 55% of Iranians have a favorable or friendly view towards the United States and the West, vs 12% in Egypt, the next highest level of approval in the entire Middle East (outside Israel). Overall, I had fun with this debate and I would like to think that I've proved my point that the threat Iran poses is over-rated, though by no means non-existent. I just see the threat that they pose as something similar to that of China or Venezuela. It's more of a nagging pain that questions and limits American ability to flex its muscle globally that in the long run, will probably prove to be beneficial to the world as well as the United States. Hegemonic powers have a very short lifespan when they are left unopposed for very long. Lastly, and I mean it this time, I'm a recent graduate with a BA in International Relations so it's nice to hear that somebody appreciates my knowledge. If you'd like, email me at wellsma6@gmail.com and we can discuss more topics. I actually have a couple research papers on the IAEA and Political Islam you may find interesting. Take care! Great debate!
MarkW2525 | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
To be perfectly fair, Mark, I think your arguments merit much more than just one vote. I honestly think that you won - given that your objective was technically to show that the threat posed by Iran is at least a little bit exaggerated. I had a tougher burden. Your points are well taken, and you've actually given me a lot to think about. I'd actually be interested in seeing some of your academic work; it is truly a fascinating topic to me. Thanks for the great debate!
DonkeyDude | 04/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
Man I agree with you DonkeyDude! Point blank, the UN Security Council offered nuclear fuel to Iran as long as they stopped enriching uranium. Did Iran accept this? No. So if peaceful, electricity production is their motive they wouldn't have passed this opportunity up. Uranium enrichment is a technical, expensive endeavour. So for Iran to continue enriching uranium can only mean one thing, weapons grade material!
ShawnF | 04/17/08
Report Offensive Comment