I'm talking about this serious issue with Iran's nuclear development. I agree that the Russians constantly watch over Bushehr so they won't make a bomb, but these guys are really dangerous. Especially because US and Israel say that an attack would be very probably. And an attack over Iran, would mean the start of WW3. What do you think? Should they or shouldn't they attack Iran?

World War 3? I doubt it. The Middle East is too unstable. It'll be a couple of countries, against Iran. And frankly, I think I'd worry more about North Korea than Iran, in some sense. Kim Jong Il is a complete nutcase. And he's getting old; it won't be long before his son takes his place. But what will his son do? Would he be even more provocative? Would he actually go ahead and declare war on South Korea? Or the US even? And what would China do if that happened?

Think of ALL the stuff we get from China. Now imagine China gets pissed, and starts to cut trades with the US. Now imagine all the stuff we USED to be getting from China but aren't anymore?

I think North Korea is more worrisome than Iran, in large part because a transition of power will be coming soon, and because of China's favor of North Korea and how US-Chinese diplomacy and trade could be affected by a war with North Korea.

Edit: However, a war with Iran would be harder to fight, as they, I'm sure, have a stronger military than North Korea. Plus I think it's land-locked, isn't it?

Hmm, I guess you're right. Never worried about North Korea, lol.

Let's see... Israel, arguably the most violent and well-armed nation in the Middle East, is allowed to have the bomb, but Iran can't even develop nuclear power?

Yes, Iran is run by a bunch of guys with questionable sanity, and yes, nuclear material can be used for unscrupulous purposes. But to deny them a source of nuclear power if they want it seems like a bad idea. It's a blatant double standard, for one thing. There's also the danger that any bans will drive the whole thing underground. If your enemies are playing around with enriched uranium, would you rather a) accept that they're going to try to develop the technology and know what they're doing with it; or b) impose a ban, pretend they're not doing anything with it, and live in denial until there's a catastrophic problem?

a, I guess.

Another war in the Middle East is most definitely not a good idea. I don't know much about Iran's nuclear developments, but if they do have nuclear weapons, they would not launch them unless they were completely bonkers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a war where both sides are using nuclear weaponry, mutually assured destruction is guaranteed?

I don't think they're that dumb, either. They know if they launch a nuke, they'll have so much fire on their ass.

Honestly, this frightens me. The rhetoric that come from Iran is absolutely terrifying. I worry that they are just unhinged enough to mean it.

thing is, they arent as afraid of dying for a cause as we are.

I don't quite understand this. The government may be extreme, and may enjoy annoying the living hell out of the USA, but they would not be willing to sacrifice an entire country for 'a cause'. And who are 'they', if you don't mind me asking? The Iranian government? The people?

It simply makes no sense. The USA has enough nukes to destroy Iran a hundred times over, and could launch a counter attack within seconds and even destroy the missiles before they hit their targets. This was possible in the '80s, I'm not quite up to date with the latest weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps, but I still don't think they'd enjoy the thought of losing a war against us. If they actually do something, it may well shock the world into some serious countermeasures, possibly outside of talk and sanctions.

Actually, that was Reagan bluffing. We never had it within our capabilities to shoot down missiles before they hit, but telling the Soviet Union that we did made us look invincible. It helped prevent Russia from launching nukes and starting a war that everyone would regret. Iran thinks somewhat differently, in that they are fanatically devoted to their purpose, beyond cares of living or dying, so the same tactic isn't likely to work.

The Iranian government might think like that, but I don't think all the Iranian people do. The recent election protests suggest the people aren't as bellicose as their leaders.

Unfortunately, the people of a country often get painted with the same brush that's used on their leader. I'm sure there are a large number of people in the U.S. who could speak about the frustration they felt between 2000 and 2008...

fakepeeps: Yes, poor choice of words. I realize that not everyone in the country is fanatically devoted to some sort of religious war, but, unfortunately, the government has far too much power over the people and the government is fanatical.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for clarifying. But then again, that was in the '80s, I'm sure there have been significant developments in defensive weaponry since.

The general opinion in the Middle East about the whole ordeal is that America isn't under any real threat from Iran, and just see it as a way of pissing off the American government and a way of creating more stability in the area. This isn't necessarily my opinion, but this certainly seems to be what most people believe in Egypt, at least.

And could it be possible that the common perceptions of the Iranian government are somewhat exaggerated? For example, Gammal Abdel Nasser was dubbed 'the next Hitler/Mussolini' and was often portrayed as a monster/evil dictator during the Suez Crisis, even though that wasn't necessarily the case.

You're wrong. MAD game theory only works when both sides have a certain saturation/effectiveness, reach, and preparedness for nuclear attack.

For instance: Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The US has nuclear weapons. US ICBM's certainly have the distance and targeting ability to reach Pakistan and saturate the entire country with nuclear weapons with a low instance of error or misfire. Pakistan, on the other hand, does not have ICBMs and their targeting/efficiency numbers are probably much lower unless they're maintaining their weapons with the aid of a foreign power. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that with limited resources Pakistan has focused its air defense on its border with India. MAD is not in effect: The US could strike at Pakistan and obliterate it entirely before it could reply in kind, with a statistically marginal chance of significant damage in return.

That's not saying that nuking Pakistan might not lead to someone else nuking the US, just explaining that MAD works with game theory, and it's not some simple fact of "I've got them and he's got them, so this is how it works."

Note, this is scenario building is significant with Iran too. Iran's best missiles might be able to reach Europe or the Far East, but no further. Furthermore, Iran's really not in a position to launch nuclear missiles from submarines or from bombers that it doesn't possess from forward bases that no one would give them. Iran's significant threat as a nuclear power is as a destabilizing/arms race provoking/terrorist providing one. Otherwise a nuclear Iran is merely a well-defended one. As brilliant of a military power as the US has, the deterrent factor of a nation with nuclear arms pretty much means we're not going to march our army over there and roll them over.

A nuclear armed Iran means that what happened to Iraq never happens to Iran unless we're really pissed. It means sanctions might only work to a certain point, and after that the nuclear armed nation gets desperate and just pulls the trigger out of spite even if it doesn't have a clear military road to victory.

On the other hand, having nuclear weapons implies other things policy-wise too. Nuclear powers are expected, with vast and ominous warnings, not to lose track of them. A terrorist "accidentally" getting their hands on an Iranian nuke, whether they get to use it or not, is probably as good as a death sentence pronounced upon the Iranian people. Seriously, all bets are off. Even if the US didn't get directly involved you can bet that every nation ever affected by terrorism (which is about all of them) wouldn't be talking about simple "sternly worded letters of condemnation." The wrong flavor of terrorist getting an Iranian nuke could have everyone from India to Russia to Saudia Arabia all in a race to carpet bomb Tehran. You've got nukes? You better reign in your batshit insane fearless leader a little too. Craziness + nukes makes people nervous, and suddenly expansive talks about how you're going to slay the Great Satan or eradicate Israel take on a more serious tone.

As I say all of this, I'm still in favor of letting the Iranians do whatever they like. I mean, it's either just enough rope to hang them with and make a beautifully illustrative example of "No. Seriously. We weren't kidding," or its so much responsibility that it forces Iran to grow up in its politics for once and for all. Hey, and there's still a chance they just wanted nuclear power over there so that they could sell every last drop of oil. I'm cool with that. That's thinking ahead. And if they've got some notion of running out the nuke factory and out nuking the rest of the world, holding us all hostage? That's cute, but it won't work out that way. You make a bunch of nations nervous and you're not armed to the teeth right out of the gate and you're toast.


Not especially in the area we're talking about. There's been some investment in that area, but it's been hit or miss (pun intended.) We've got some air-based anti-missile missiles that would be useless against many larger missile platforms (such as one might lob across an ocean), we've got Patriot (which isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing and it's actually been deployed with mixed success), and we've got the still-as-yet-to-be-deployed airborne laser that's going to be a crapshoot as to whether or not it actually works as paid for. There's the "missile defense shield" system too, but that's all on paper and the actual tests have been highly questionable. That sort of suggests the actual system deployed for the missile defense shield is probably more to do with A. Pork or B. Sensor deployment.

There's not much need for these sorts of systems anyways, from a policy standpoint at least. There's no one close to shoot missiles at us that doesn't provoke a total war stop-drop-and-crap-your-pants response, and anyone who isn't close doesn't have good missiles or they don't have enough to hurt us beyond "10,000 dead in NYC = Smoking hole & millions irradiated elsewhere."

Who are we in an arms race against for WMDs? No one. We've got plenty and probably the best maintained and targeted. A WMD response against the US is suicide still, and no one else is on track at all for catching up and overwhelming that advantage for at least 10 years - and only ten years for major players like China or India maybe. You can do a lot with a billion people and an industrial economy. Russia still has the juice to varying judgments of dangerousness, but I think that particular ship's sailed for now. Russia's more likely to nuke the same sort of people we want to nuke than throw anything our way for a long while now. We're not exactly bosom buddies, but we've had decades to learn how to politely not blow up the world together now.


It depends on what you consider the political power in Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's by all appearances exactly as crazy as he sounds. The clerics who may or may not be pulling his strings or supporting his regime? Who knows? The Iranian military? Probably overrated both by much of the world and its own analysts. Iranians on the street? No, I don't think they've been covered in the media properly. I think, from talking with a few Iranians, that at least some of the extreme anti-Americanism in populist Iran is either misdirected anti-Isreali sentiment and/or something akin to the patriotism one shows sports teams. "We've been told that you're against us. We like us! Go us! Down with you!" It happens in the US too.

Ooh, thank you for the information about weaponry, this makes a lot more sense now! From what I understood from the first post, it seemed that people are worried that Iran could launch an attack on the USA.

Just to clarify, is the cause of all this worry that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the bombs would get into terrorist/the wrong hands?

Also, my previous point about the exaggeration was just due to from the little I know about history, it seems that if a country is pissed off with another country, they portray their leaders as evil maniacs. Which makes sense obviously, because you'd want to win the support of your people if you were to take action against said country.

And apologies if I'm not making much sense, I'm not a skilled debater (at all), but I do like to contribute a little.

Edit: I found this article on the situation, and thought I'd share.

Last edited by Nabila_Ici : 26th Aug 2010 at 12:20 AM.

It truly baffles me to see that, after thousands of years of battling, Middle Easterners (or some particular countries, anyway) still haven't found a neutral ground on the issue of the holy cities. You know who else battled each other for millennia? Europeans. But instead of initiating another fruitless war or battle, they've decided to settle their cultural and spiritual differences, open their borders, and form a powerful alliance. Now we have the European Union, which for all of its flaws, is a big step forward.

Why hasn't anyone stepped in to say "Hey guys, these are holy grounds, and maybe none of us are good enough to still hang around here."? Why don't they do what the Chinese did with the Forbidden City, open the cities to the public, and keep the cities holy while celebrating God, instead of trying to wipe anyone who lives there off of the map? Hell, it's already a tourist attraction, so this should have been the next logical step. Nobody dies in an escalating pissing contest, and everybody can enjoy the heritage of their ancestors who lived in the cities. Win-fucking-win.

Of course, I should know better than to think this will happen. It's not about making the best choice, it's about making the "right" choice.

The way I see it, a lot of those countries are still in the grumpy teenage stage. They're surly, they don't want to be around anybody else (or share with anyone else), and they think they're right and everybody else is wrong. You could say the exact same thing about Western countries a few hundred years ago, though. We had our adolescent temper tantrums, too (the only difference being that, when we stomped our foot in our bedroom, it didn't cause a chain reaction that made the whole house collapse... but that's simply a result of globalization, and can't be blamed on the Middle East alone).

If you're really interested in the question of "why", Element Leaf, you might like a book called The Fall by Steve Taylor. It's about how humanity went a bit insane about 6000 years ago, and never truly recovered (especially in places like the Middle East).

Elemental Leaf: I think there is a little bit of a difference between Europe and the Middle East. For one, I don't think there is much holy ground in Europe. Certainly not holy to the current major religions. Stonehenge might have been holy to the druids, but there aren't too many druids around anymore.

The Middle East is also pretty far behind, technologically and culturally speaking, probably because they sit on holy land and became both insular and backward due to frequent wars over it. When they are devoting so much time and effort to war, they aren't putting a lot into cultural and scientific development. Most of us sitting on the outside think it would probably be best if they just tried to get along and opened their borders, but we have had periods in history with similar types of feuding. Family feuds weren't uncommon in the American South, England and France did not like each other for a long time, and even in modern times, Japan and China compete over possession of Taiwan. The Middle East has yet to make it past the petty rivalries and it may take an extra long time because religion is the driving factor in the rivalries and religion is a strong force.

Except that this really isn't an issue for Iran directly. They're not Arabic, they're Persian. The Middle East and Islam is not this monolithic entity that one negotiates with or assumes is coherent as if they aren't individual countries or religions involved.

Mostly the countries that have significant issues with Israel are more properly the fertile crescent nations - Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, & Syria (plus Egypt, because they were on the other side.) These are places that have either lost land, could stand to gain land (including valuable ports), or allied with other neighboring countries because everyone wants to get along with their neighbors unless they're killing them. You could strip away religion in the conflict entirely and still get the same enormous threat of violence here - Israel basically stole a country and then kicked the ass of all the people who were pissed about it. Think about if someone came around from across the world, declared some really valuable farmland and coastline on your country their homeland, and took it. Even if you didn't have issues with the way they practiced their religion, you'd probably be plenty pissed. That Israel was formed as an exclusive nation for Jews and pretty much Jews only? Whether you're sympathetic or not, it's understandable that this is a political issue.

But then there are the cultural and religious issues, which are important to get straight too. The hard-line Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia aren't going to have a lot good to say about any progressive nation. That might include Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Egypt on a bad day and even cause issues for Saudi Arabia itself. Not all Muslim sects are that way though. Shia Alevis in Turkey are quite moderate, for instance. I'm not even going to get into the divide between Nation of Islam in the US and Indian Ahmadiyyans. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. While they all practice the same basic faith they have important practical and doctrinal differences.

The Sunnis in Egypt and Syria aren't the Shia Twelvers in Iran who aren't the moderate Shia Alevis in Turkey, and Arabic Shia Twelvers from somewhere else in the Middle East aren't the same as Persian Shia Twelvers and all along the Mediterranean coast you're sometimes dealing with even more complex relationships - these are places with significant cultural influx from Europe, for instance, and it's a mistake to think that the British and French and Greeks and Africans somehow filtered through these places without leaving cultural markers. How come they don't get along? Why are there still political issues with Quebec in Canada, and a Civil War in the US - people from different regions have different things they value and desire.

Strangely, some of the organizations that hound the Western world most avidly? They're actually examples of people in the Middle East getting along with each other. Hamas, for instance, isn't successful because it's really exclusive. The very word Hamas? Hebrew.

Mostly I think that a lot of the issues with the whole region are the same sorts of issues that plague Africa really. They're poor. Or they're poor except for the utterly batshit insanely wealthy, which is maybe worse. The less vocal and empowered your middle class is, the more dangerous political activism is. That's even true in the US with its diminishing middle class and rich-poor divide.

I'm 100% Persian and I think we should attack Iran, just so the government will change. The president is like seriously mentally ill so I wouldn't doubt it if he actually does use nuclear weapons.

I am not afraid of Iran attacking US, but US attacking Iran. If US attacks, Russia will nuke US, then NATO will fight with Russia, and there we are, WW3!!!

Whaaat? Where did you hear that from?

From Vanga, the Bulgarian harbinger! no really, from her.