What if Iran gets nuclear weapons?

[herakles]

Well first and foremost, any bum on the street can tell you that launching a nuclear strike would result in a counterstrike. Make no mistake, the leaders of Iran are intelligent. Terrible, but intelligent. They wouldn't do something that would result in the annihilation of their people - not that they care about the people, but they care about the MONEY of their people. You can't really rule over a pile of dead bodies. The people of Iran are also just one bad day away from taking the country from the government (see 2009 elections).

You forget on thing Iran believes in martyrdom. They would send wave after wave of children into Iraqi mine fields during the Iran Iraq war int 1980s. Also what makes you think that Iran will launch a missile? Ever heard of dirty bombs? Iran can and will gave a dirty bomb to Hamas or Hezbollah.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Oh it would be an easy case for a law student. Iran sponsors terrorism, and there are 100's of attacks because of it. We know this. Are you naive enough to believe that those doing the attacks now would not use a WMD if they had access to them?

Case closed.

I said the part about law school because you keep using debate fallacies to defend your points - those don't hold up in a court of law and I'll keep calling them out as you present them. "Case closed"? Just because you say so? And yet you go on to expand your post - kind of hypocritical no? Yes, Iran sponsors terrorism. So does practically every country in the world, and in my opinion they should ALL be held accountable for that.

So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're implying Iran will give a nuclear weapon to Hamas, is that correct? You cannot condemn someone for a crime they have yet to commit. If we DID want to talk about dealing arms to the terrorists, perhaps we can take a second look at Bush Sr and Reagan? Let's just say Iran weaponised Hamas (which I believe they did, and they should be held accountable for this), those weapons were given to them by Israel, which were given to them by the USA specifically to forward to Iran. Numerous cables have said that Reagan knew Iran would give them to Hamas. Essentially, Reagan was giving weapons to Hamas to try to secure the freedom of Americans, and the irony is that the only American hostage they returned was dead.

Because the Nations in the middle east do not trust Iran.

So you think that because they don't trust Iran they're going to get WMD in order to prevent Iran from strong arming them? Logically, why would Iran take the position of the aggressor when they are blissfully playing the victim on an international stage?

Why am I even baiting the bait of your use of slippery slope fallacy??

Really, then why was there a revolution years back, and why is the head man a religious type? Let's not act like there are free elections in Iran. Let's not pretend the Ayatollah, which translates to high rank cleric doesn't run the country. Their leader unless he's overthrown MUST be a muslim cleric. No other minority group or sect will be in charge.

Just because a Muslim man claims to be the interpreter of the Qur'an does not make it so. Just because 1% of the Muslim population is oppressive and committing terrorist acts, that does not mean that the religion is to blame.

They clearly use hate religion in their politics.

Calling Islam a "hate religion" is extremely bigoted. You've been warned by a moderator once.

They clearly threaten other nations. You are either blind to the facts or very pro Iran / Muslim.

Either/Or Fallacy. I'm actually neither Iranian nor am I Muslim. I do not support any political bodies. This is a topic I know VERY well. At the jump I've got a series of questions for you so that I can gage your understanding of the history and politics here, because so far you've only come off as having a very basic understanding of it.

Do you like their religious legal system based on secular and Islamic law? Do tell.

No I do not like their legal system, nor do I believe any legal system should be based on religious laws because it's all up to the interpretation of the religion. Islam is not violent or peaceful. You chose to take peace or violence from it.

Are you happy with Iran and how they burn our flags and took USA hostages? Show your colors, why not?

Clearly you've been asleep for thirty years. The only flag civilians burn in Iran now is the flag of the Islamic Republic. The hostages the Iranian Government takes now are domestic political prisoners (students opposed to the regime) and Baha'is - this is bad, but I'm saying you clearly only care about American lives. Human lives have equal worth. You want to take the altruistic position? Take it - but do it with use of the facts.

If you want to use Wiki in this conversation, its a quick way to show your points are mistaken and mine are correct.

WikiLeaks, not WikiPedia. These are actual leaked cables between government officials that were posted online and proven. But ya sure, please show us all how the leaked cables in which the Saudis call for action against Iran are mistaken.

Iran is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor; Iranian and Afghan boys and girls are forced into prostitution domestically; Iranian women are subjected to sex trafficking in Iran, Pakistan, the Persian Gulf, and Europe; Azerbaijani women and children are also sexually exploited in Iran; Afghan migrants and refugees and Pakistani men and women are subjected to conditions of forced labor in Iran; NGO reports indicate that criminal organizations play a significant role in human trafficking in Iran

Sex trafficking is not a problem unique to any one of those countries. Sex trafficking is a global issue, even in the USA and Canada. I can tell you this from having met a woman who was forced into that life at one point. What's your point in bringing this up?

I keep answering your questions, but now I have a series of questions for you - don't google the answers, just post based on your understanding. Be completely honest, and if you don't know the answer you can just say I don't know:

1. Who is Ferdowsi? (What was the social and cultural impact he had on the Persians)

2. What are the correlation between the caliphates and colonialists (if any)?

3. Who is Mohammad Mosadegh? What significant events in history happened surrounding this?

4. What event(s) sparked a resurgent interest in Islam in Iran?

5. When and how did the Islamic revolution happen?

6. Who did Jimmy Carter support during the Revolution?

7. What was Khomeini's position on the hostage situation?

8. How did Bani-Sadr and Reagan play into the hostage crisis?

9. Why are Israel and Iran enemy states?

10. What was the result of the Iran/Iraq war as per public opinion of the Islamic Regime?

11. How does George Bush Sr play into questions 9 and 10?

12. What is the plight of the Baha'is in Iran?

13. What major event happened in Iran in 2009?

14. Do you think a pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel or USA would be the solution to the current issue with Iran?

15. In what order would you rank the value of American lives, Israeli lives and Iranian lives?

16. Why is sex trafficking relevant to whether or not Iran will get nuclear weapons?

17. What is Iran's relationship with Saudi Arabia?

18. What part did the Mujahidin play in the Revolution and the Iran/Iraq war?

19. What is the difference between Persian and Iranian?

20. Are the interpretations of a religion absolute or based on an individual's bias?

You forget on thing Iran believes in martyrdom. They would send wave after wave of children into Iraqi mine fields during the Iran Iraq war int 1980s.

That wasn't a "religious" martyrdom - it was one for their kindred. Iranians are taught from a very young age that their ancestors died to preserve their culture and heritage. Before Iraq invaded Iran, public opinion of the Islamic Regime was quickly dropping out. There were murmurs of another military coup to overthrow the acting government. When Iran came under attack, it became their obligation to their ancestors and their people to defend the nation. The army was focused on combating an outside force, political prisoners were released and conscripted, and the new government was legitimised out of necessity.

It's extremely tragic, and people forget that in the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq was the instigator - and they were funded by USA.

Also what makes you think that Iran will launch a missile? Ever heard of dirty bombs? Iran can and will gave a dirty bomb to Hamas or Hezbollah.

That's a fair point, and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen, but you can't punish someone for a crime they've yet to commit.

Also if we were going to hold countries accountable for arms dealing (which I think we should), that would also have to include the United States.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I honestly don't see Iran nuking Israel in the immediate future, barring some sort of bizarre Doctor Strangelove scenario. Though come to think of it Netanyahu does remind me of General Ripper... but I digress.

Still, let's say Iran does get a bomb. That's going to give it a new attitude. It's going to make Saudi Arabia insecure. Then Saudis will want a bomb. Then we get an arms race. Their proxies will want weapons and or protection. Throw in air strike happy Israel, and the crazy train that is ISIS, what's left of that chemical weapons using mass murderer Assad's half of Syria, and it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

[YT]pZoMIS3cFRA[/YT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZoMIS3cFRA

 

[herakles]

That wasn't a "religious" martyrdom - it was one for their kindred. Iranians are taught from a very young age that their ancestors died to preserve their culture and heritage. Before Iraq invaded Iran, public opinion of the Islamic Regime was quickly dropping out. There were murmurs of another military coup to overthrow the acting government. When Iran came under attack, it became their obligation to their ancestors and their people to defend the nation. The army was focused on combating an outside force, political prisoners were released and conscripted, and the new government was legitimised out of necessity. .

It is a "religious" act in the Ayatollah. Also Iranian youth tried to uprise a couple of years ago and it was HORRIBLY put down. One my Iranian/Persian friends told me that 1000s where killed. Obama conveniently forgets that.

It's extremely tragic, and people forget that in the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq was the instigator - and they were funded by USA..

That war a proxy war between Iran and the US. It started off as land grab by Saddam but it quickly escalated into a Holy War on Iran's part hence why they threw CHILDREN into Iraqi minefields to clear space for their army. IF a nation is willing to throw away it's children away like that what makes you think that will treat Israel's and the US's children better!???

That's a fair point, and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen, but you can't punish someone for a crime they've yet to commit.

Also if we were going to hold countries accountable for arms dealing (which I think we should), that would also have to include the United States.

You are being naïve. We can't allow the Iranians to even have the option let along do the act.

 

[herakles]

I honestly don't see Iran nuking Israel in the immediate future, barring some sort of bizarre Doctor Strangelove scenario. Though come to think of it Netanyahu does remind me of General Ripper... but I digress.

Still, let's say Iran does get a bomb. That's going to give it a new attitude. It's going to make Saudi Arabia insecure. Then Saudis will want a bomb. Then we get an arms race. Their proxies will want weapons and or protection. Throw in air strike happy Israel, and the crazy train that is ISIS, what's left of that chemical weapons using mass murderer Assad's half of Syria, and it's a recipe for disaster.

Iran will never launch nukes but they will most likely use dirty bombs on Israel through Hamas or Hezbollah.

 

[Kelly]

I honestly don't see Iran nuking Israel in the immediate future, barring some sort of bizarre Doctor Strangelove scenario. Though come to think of it Netanyahu does remind me of General Ripper... but I digress.

Still, let's say Iran does get a bomb. That's going to give it a new attitude. It's going to make Saudi Arabia insecure. Then Saudis will want a bomb. Then we get an arms race. Their proxies will want weapons and or protection. Throw in air strike happy Israel, and the crazy train that is ISIS, what's left of that chemical weapons using mass murderer Assad's half of Syria, and it's a recipe for disaster.

Well that would be pretty stupid if they did considering the nuclear fall out would, for all practical purposes, destroy that region.

 

[Kelly]

Hmmm...

OK, so according to this video, the Ayatollah Khamenei issued a Fatwa saying that they could not develop Nuclear Weapons...yet in order for this to happen, it has to be published, it is not published anywhere.


AND if it was and is in effect, then why is Obama setting up a deal that will give Iran a Nuclear Weapon within 10 years??????

And how will we know what the deal actually says since it looks like it will not be made public?

So confusing...

 

[Asteroid-Man]

It is a "religious" act in the Ayatollah. Also Iranian youth tried to uprise a couple of years ago and it was HORRIBLY put down. One my Iranian/Persian friends told me that 1000s where killed. Obama conveniently forgets that.

Again it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ayatollah - it had everything to do with the fact that they were defending their motherland. Clearly you have no concept of Iran's socio-history. And yes, the students were put down and they knew the Ayatollah would fight them, yet they still tried to reclaim their motherland. You just proved my own point. The people's influence is with their cultural preservation, not a religious obligation to the Ayatollah.

That war a proxy war between Iran and the US. It started off as land grab by Saddam but it quickly escalated into a Holy War on Iran's part hence why they threw CHILDREN into Iraqi minefields to clear space for their army. IF a nation is willing to throw away it's children away like that what makes you think that will treat Israel's and the US's children better!???

Again, it wasn't a "holy war" regardless of what the Ayatollah may or may not have said. The vast majority of the Iranian military were anti-regime. Hell, a lot of them were political prisoners. The Regime tried to run a religious/theocratic propaganda campaign to gain support, but it wasn't until the political prisoners were released and that they started playing "Ey Iran" publicly that support rallied behind the regime in defence of the nation.

The "throwing children into minefields" is just more propaganda (very much in line with the whole "Iranians used children in sweatshops to glue shredded documents back together" ******** after the hostage crisis).

You are being naïve.

It's not naïvety, it's justice. You cannot condemn someone for a crime they haven't committed. The reality is that if Iran get's nuclear weapons, they'll actually have a voice on the international platform.

We can't allow the Iranians to even have the option let along do the act.

And you're being xenophobic. The United States is not the autocratic ruler of the world.


I'm going to give you the same series of questions I gave Taarna because I keep answering your questions, and you seem to know very little about Iran. Don't google the answers, just post based on your understanding. Be completely honest, and if you don't know the answer you can just say I don't know:

1. Who is Ferdowsi? (What was the social and cultural impact he had on the Persians)

2. What is the correlation between the caliphates and colonialists (if any)?

3. Who is Mohammad Mosadegh? What significant events in history happened surrounding him?

4. What event(s) sparked a resurgent interest in Islam in Iran?

5. When and how did the Islamic revolution happen?

6. Who did Jimmy Carter support during the Revolution?

7. What was Khomeini's position on the hostage situation?

8. How did Bani-Sadr and Reagan play into the hostage crisis?

9. How did Israel and Iran become enemy states?

10. What was the result of the Iran/Iraq war as per public opinion of the Islamic Regime?

11. How does George Bush Sr play into questions 9 and 10?

12. What is the plight of the Baha'is in Iran?

13. What major event happened in Iran in 2009?

14. Do you think a pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel or USA would be the solution to the current issue with Iran?

15. In what order would you rank the value of American lives, Israeli lives and Iranian lives?

16. Why is sex trafficking relevant to whether or not Iran will get nuclear weapons?

17. What is Iran's relationship with Saudi Arabia?

18. What part did the Mujahidin play in the Revolution and the Iran/Iraq war?

19. What is the difference between Persian and Iranian?

20. Are the interpretations of a religion absolute or based on an individual's bias?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Iran will never launch nukes but they will most likely use dirty bombs on Israel through Hamas or Hezbollah.

That's just the same scenario though. I don't see Israel just sitting back and going 'oh, well' if dirty bombs start going off in Tel Aviv.

With the way things are going, Iran is best off pulling a "Saddam" and letting everyone think they're crazy. The regions is falling into their favor enough already without a single dirty bomb being thrown.

 

[SV Fan]

3. Who is Mohammad Mosadegh? What significant events in history happened surrounding him?

You probably could pinpoint all of the problems in Iran to when Britain and the US pushed people to overthrown this guy. Looking at history it seems like he is the perfect "secular" leader we could use in that region today. His only crime was he gave the middle finger to Britain(who somehow nudged us to help them) when it came to how he was going to control Iran's oil supplies.

 

[Rocketman]

I didn't read through this thread, so I'll just ask this question based on the title of the thread... Is Iran not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Is America the only country in the world that should be allowed to have them? I just get really annoyed by the idea that America is the hero and that every other country is the enemy... yet the hero can have weapons of mass destruction while others can not. Seems like Orwellian Doublespeak.

 

[chamber-music]

Iran wouldn't nuke Israel. Nuking one of the worlds holiest sites to Muslims as well as Jews and Christians is a non starter.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I didn't read through this thread, so I'll just ask this question based on the title of the thread... Is Iran not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Is America the only country in the world that should be allowed to have them? I just get really annoyed by the idea that America is the hero and that every other country is the enemy... yet the hero can have weapons of mass destruction while others can not. Seems like Orwellian Doublespeak.

I believe Iran did sign a no nukes treaty. So yeah.

I understand not wanting a bunch of India-Pakistan situations in the middle east considering
how long the hold grudges.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

You probably could pinpoint all of the problems in Iran to when Britain and the US pushed people to overthrown this guy. Looking at history it seems like he is the perfect "secular" leader we could use in that region today. His only crime was he gave the middle finger to Britain(who somehow nudged us to help them) when it came to how he was going to control Iran's oil supplies.

A lot of for sure, certainly not nearly all of. I'm convinced he would've eventually become a dictator anyway - his rise to power was eerily similar to Emperor Palpatine haha

I understand not wanting a bunch of India-Pakistan situations in the middle east considering
how long the hold grudges.

Smh

 

[Batman jr.]

Yeah, attack Iran.

Attacking Irak was succesful, just like meddling in the so called Arab spring.

W's war on terror killed more than 1 million people in three countries.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Smh

What? Is it not? I'm not saying it's unique.

N.Korea has nukes and we still are having to pay service to naval exercises when they decide to trade missiles across each other's coast.

Let's not add nukes further into the ME situation.

 

[herakles]

What? Is it not? I'm not saying it's unique.

N.Korea has nukes and we still are having to pay service to naval exercises when they decide to trade missiles across each other's coast.

Let's not add nukes further into the ME situation.

You waste your time. Liberals think that appeasing our enemies is the way to go especially if their Messiah Obama says so. Even though Iran didn't have to concede a damn thing!

 

[Asteroid-Man]

What? Is it not? I'm not saying it's unique.

N.Korea has nukes and we still are having to pay service to naval exercises when they decide to trade missiles across each other's coast.

Let's not add nukes further into the ME situation.

I'm shaking my head because what you said was prejudiced, xenophobic and borderline racist. "Considering how long they hold grudges"

You waste your time. Liberals think that appeasing our enemies is the way to go especially if their Messiah Obama says so. Even though Iran didn't have to concede a damn thing!

Nice use of ad hominem, too bad I'm not a Liberal. I'm not making baseless arguments here - I gave you a full response to your last post and you're now coming back with insults. If you can't be civil, don't bother posting in the thread.

 

[Thundercrack85]

AM, you shouldn't tell people who can and can't post given your history here.

In any event, I question what more we can really do to stop Iran. I see bombing them as only rallying the country around the leadership. Even if the bombing campaign does damage their enrichment program, it's just a temporary setback. If anything, that might push them to finally break out.

Let's see how the talks pan out. We can always bomb them later.

Israel can't stop Iran. Only America can.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'm shaking my head because what you said was prejudiced, xenophobic and borderline racist. "Considering how long they hold grudges"

Are you serious?(maybe grudges is too simplified a way to put it)

They have a long history against each other. It's just a fact. I didn't say anything about us being better or they're lesser. I didn't way their culture is fueling it.

The simple fact is that many of these countries have long histories.

We(American and the West) caused/fueled some of it, but the facts are these.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

AM, you shouldn't tell people who can and can't post given your history here.

In any event, I question what more we can really do to stop Iran. I see bombing them as only rallying the country around the leadership. Even if the bombing campaign does damage their enrichment program, it's just a temporary setback. If anything, that might push them to finally break out.

Let's see how the talks pan out. We can always bomb them later.

Israel can't stop Iran. Only America can.

I don't think Israel is interested in stopping Iran because of nukes.

I think they fear a major change in the board. We are kind of do for some kind of major geographic/economic upheaval. Israel sort of knows how things work in this arrangement. If Iran gets a diverse economy going, they won't be paying major attention to Israel(at least not in terms of nukes).

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

In one statement, a group of 30 U.S. specialists on nuclear security endorsed the framework as a “vitally important step forward” that will “strengthen U.S. security and that of our partners in the region.”
“We urge policymakers in key capitals to support the deal and the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with the agreement,” wrote the signatories, who included Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official and past negotiator on the Iran talks and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Thomas R. Pickering.
Pickering and Einhorn also were among 50 former diplomats, defense officials and political leaders who signed a separate statement which, in more cautious language, urged Congress to stay patient and “to take no action that would impede further progress or undermine the American negotiators’ efforts.” The statement was released by The Iran Project, an independent organization that tries to improve U.S.-Iran ties.
Rushed action by Congress could derail negotiations, “creating the perception that the U.S. is responsible for the collapse of the agreement; unraveling international cooperation on sanctions; and triggering the unfreezing of Iran’s nuclear program and the rapid ramping up of Iranian nuclear capacity,” declares the statement, which listed former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, a foreign policy mentor to Obama when he was a senator, among its signers. “Such a situation could enhance the possibility of war.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...s-endorse-iran-deal-116697.html#ixzz3WgQwBIz6

From Politico

 

[Victarion]

Yeah, attack Iran.

Attacking Irak was succesful, just like meddling in the so called Arab spring.

W's war on terror killed more than 1 million people in three countries.

Worse. You remove the secular tyrants and it opens the floodgate for the fanatic-tyrants. In a lose-lose situation, I'd rather the former be left in power over the later.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's easy to say that, but I don't see that being sustainable.