Convince me that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel

[egslim]

The question I've been asking myself is thus: If Iran gains a nuclear weapon, is it at all likely that they would 'wipe Israel off the map', ensuring their own obliteration?

Now, I know some people are going to tell me that there are many Armageddon minded members of this regime, who would not mind the destruction of their country as it would bring on the Apocalypse etc.

To believe that, you have to assume the Iranian government is religiously fundamentalist to the point where religious fanatacism outweighs rationality in the most extreme degree. After all, mass national suicide is pretty much the most irrational action a government can take.

But all evidence indicates Iran is far more rational than that.

- People point at Iran's advocacy of suicide bombers to indicate evidence for the country's irrationality.
But for a low-tech country with a high birthrate, the use of suicide bombers in war is the most rational course of action. Unless you enjoy massive military superiority, the reality of war is many of your soldiers will need to sacrifice their lives for victory. Suicide attacks are often far more effective than normal attacks, if you have to sacrifice lives it makes sense to do so in the most effective way possible.
However, the purpose of such individual sacrifice is collective victory. So individual suicide attacks are in no way evidence for a desire to commit mass national suicide - on the contrary, their purpose is to protect the nation.
- Iran is a theocracy, and has numerous religious policies.
True. But Iran also has a number of policies where rationality trumps religion. For example, when the birthrate reached a number where it looked as overpopulation might become a real problem, the country adopted family planning policies. Iran also has a state condom factory. Incidentally, Teheran has about 3,000 plastic surgeons, and more women attending university than men. The country just isn't as crazily religious as many Americans seem to believe.

All evidence indicates the Iranian government is quite rational in its decision-making, but the country is also proud and therefore unlikely to respond well to threats.

The country is about as likely to launch a nuclear strike at Israel as the Soviet Union was to strike the US.

 

[egslim]

Nobody will benefit from a nuclear arms race in the middle east and if Iran breaks the NPT then at least some of the middle eastern countries will certainly follow just for their own self preservation

Another major war in the middle east won't do much good either, and a minor war would have only limited effects at best.

In addition, there is no hard evidence Iran currently actually has a nuclear weapons program. And the country is far larger than any other Gulf state, so a nuclear arms race there would undoubtedly hurt Irans strategic position. Unless it feels threatened by the US, Israel is too far away to pose a threat.

 

[egslim]

The first thing Iran will do after getting a nuke is not bomb Israel, but invade Bahrain, and the next Gulf state, and the next...

Why?

Iran has quite a large number of internal problems, it is after all a developing nation. There's no reason to believe it will follow an expansionary foreign policy.

Post-revolution Iran gutted its military by jailing many of its soldiers. When Iraq invaded they were released and had to swear an oath of loyalty to the new regime, so they could help defend the country.

But new regimes with expansionary desires don't start by gutting their military.

I can make a pretty safe bet that the first country to invade another after (if) Iran obtains a nuclear weapon will be the US. No idea who will be the target, though.

 

[scissorhands]

Iran has quite a large number of internal problems, it is after all a developing nation. There's no reason to believe it will follow an expansionary foreign policy.

Yes, and its not as if countries with internal problems have ever decided to make them external ones.
I hope you are joking.

 

[scissorhands]

And the country is far larger than any other Gulf state, so a nuclear arms race there would undoubtedly hurt Irans strategic position. Unless it feels threatened by the US, Israel is too far away to pose a threat.

Having more land mass hurts Irans strategic position?
Israel is too far away to fire ballistic missiles at Iran?
Is that your view?
I mean its fairly hard to work out what you are saying here.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. But would this be reason (Turning away from the OPs question slightly) enough to launch a preemptive attack on their nuclear sites?

It could be. But the answer depends on all sorts of questions, some of which you and I are in no position to answer (like how well we can target their nuclear facilities) and some of which there are no definitive answers to (like what your risk tolerance is).

 

[angrysoba]

No Islamic dictatorship threatening to destroy Israel has gotten a hold of nuclear weapons, yet.

No, but the question could be posed, "Has any dictatorship threatening to turn Seoul into a Sea of Fire ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictatorship threatening India ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any country threatening to blow up Pakistan ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictator threatening to "bury" the West ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictatorship threatening Taiwan ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" and the answer to each question is yes. Did it end up with nuclear war? The answer is no.

We may not like the idea that any of these countries have nuclear bombs but none of them have been used? We have to fashion a "special pleading" case to make the example of Iran different.

I would still recommend trying to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons. That is the whole point in having an NPT and an IAEA and our hallowed and venerable traditions of international law which we expect everyone to abide by scrupulously.

Nor have children gotten a hold of them. I don't feel we should allow children to get them, either, just because nobody has proven they will misuse them.

Would children with nukes threaten Israel? I suppose they might if they were close enough and weren't careful.

We don't have to prove an evil, nasty dictatorship would misuse them.

I think that is the idea of the thread. Make a convincing case for a nuclear-armed Iran being a grave threat to Israel. What you're saying is, "No! I don't have to."

We would have stopped the Soviets and China from getting nukes, too, if we could have.

Now the bottom has just fallen out of your argument.

The Soviets and China were clearly dictatorships headed up by mass-murdering psychopaths and yet both of them got the bomb and the grave threat never materialised.

It may indeed have been the best thing to prevent both of them getting the bomb but it still remains that the world wasn't eradicated.

We have not much evidence for thinking Iran will be different but...

"...but, what if you're wrong!!!!???"

 

[McHrozni]

No, but the question could be posed, "Has any dictatorship threatening to turn Seoul into a Sea of Fire ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictatorship threatening India ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any country threatening to blow up Pakistan ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictator threatening to "bury" the West ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictatorship threatening Taiwan ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" and the answer to each question is yes. Did it end up with nuclear war? The answer is no.

Iran has been a grave threat to Israel since 1979. What you're trying to say now is that it would pose no greater threat to Israel than it has, because no nuclear-armed dictatorship ever started a nuclear war. For good measure you also include those countries that have no capacity to launch an attack in the mix, I don't know under what justification.

If we examine your argument we quickly find that you only focused on one aspect and ignored another entirely. Pakistan has shared nuclear technology with North Korea. Iran has very friendly links with countries that pose far greater threat to Israel than North Korea posed to South Korea. Pakistan has shared their technology with a country whose system is inherently opposed to pretty much everything it stands for, so why wouldn't Iran share their technology with entities it is in bed with, both politically and ideologically? Indeed, it is a stretch to say that wouldn't happen. No need for a special plea or anything, just Iran doing what it does best - sponsoring terrorists and blaming Jews.

A nuclear-armed Iran doesn't need to launch nukes at Israel to present a lot graver threat to Israel than current Iran does.

McHrozni

 

[Toontown]

Not to mention the fact that Israel poses a far greater threat to a nuclear Iran than to non-nuclear Iran. As would other Arab states who would elect to follow suit if Iran goes nuclear.

Iran is more safe militarily and more viable economically if it keeps it's untrustworthy paws off the nukes.

If the Iranian regime does not know the above, it is collectively stupid beyond measure. If the regime knows this and goes nuclear anyway, then the regime will have demonstrated irrationality.

But what if I'm wrong, and the regime actually does have well-considered, rational reasons to threaten and piss off other countries while lying and cheating on it's NPT obligations, bringing crippling sanctions and isolation upon itself, and then going nuclear? Gosh, maybe we just don't understand the superior, inscrutable logic generated by an ayahtollah's Allah-sorted brain.

We don't absolutely know anything, really, so let's let them go nuclear and then we'll find out. After all, that's how a true civilization operates. Unless I'm wrong.

 

[Skepticemea]

How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 30 years?

 

[McHrozni]

How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 30 years?

Two. How exactly is this related to the nature of Iranian threat?

McHrozni

 

[Toontown]

How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 30 years?

As many as they thought they could get away with, including the ones they used terrorists against, primarily Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.

How many terrorists has Iran trained, armed, and financed in the last 30 years? Start with Hesbollah and Hamas, then work your way down.

But I'm sure your argument (such as it is) will be a source of great comfort to all the surrounding countries, especially, Israel, when Iran tests it's first nuclear weapon. They'll all be thinking, "Holy crap! I sure am glad Iran hasn't invaded any countries in the last 30 years! What a relief!"

Unless I'm wrong. So we should wait, do nothing to annoy them, and see what happens. And then, if something bad happens, we'll know something bad did in fact happen. But we won't know what is going to happen next, will we. So we'll have to wait and see again...

I hope none of you are planning on having any children, because it looks like we're going to be doing a lot of waiting and seeing in the, uh..."foreseeable future".

Because that's the way a true civilization operates.

 

[IDB87]

But for a low-tech country with a high birthrate, the use of suicide bombers in war is the most rational course of action.

So Iran is a low-tech country now? Please show your work. The Black Tigers were created out of the LTTE because they could not afford to buy artillery or airplanes and had to rely on unconventional tactics. Ditto for most insurgent groups in the Middle-East.

AFAIK, Iran can afford and has access to airplanes, artillery, and tanks.

Unless you enjoy massive military superiority, the reality of war is many of your soldiers will need to sacrifice their lives for victory. Suicide attacks are often far more effective than normal attacks, if you have to sacrifice lives it makes sense to do so in the most effective way possible.

So now you're moving the goalposts. First suicide bombings is a legitimate tactic from a low-tech country who has little to no access to force multiplying hardware. Now suicide bombings is legitimate tactic from a country who does not enjoy massive military superiority. So, please define your position - is it one, the other or both?

The Leonidas Squadron was created by the Nazis, but was not used before 1945 because it was seen as a waste of resources and manpower. 1945 - Battle of Berlin, they were used, with little to no impact on the battle whatsoever. In other words, their waste demonstrates the irrationality of throwing away manpower and resources in suicide sorties when a state no longer enjoys massive military superiority and their defeat is inevitable.

Why weren't Nazi suicide bombers flooding across the streets of Berlin towards Soviet positions?

However, the purpose of such individual sacrifice is collective victory. So individual suicide attacks are in no way evidence for a desire to commit mass national suicide - on the contrary, their purpose is to protect the nation.

If the policy is implemented and encouraged by the State, there are a few things that need to be considered:

The state has no access to heavy weaponry and has to rely on sheer manpower and asymmetric warfare to achieve its goals (Iran has access to heavy weapons and force multipliers)

or

The state has run out of heavy weaponry and force multipliers and has to rely on sheer manpower and asymmetric warfare to achieve victory when in reality it serves to only prolong the conflict.

or

The state has access to heavy weaponry and force multipliers, but uses its power to encourage individual sacrifice via suicide bombings due to a fundamental religious doctrine believed by the leaders of said state.

Any thing else we need to consider re suicide bombings?

True. But Iran also has a number of policies where rationality trumps religion. For example, when the birthrate reached a number where it looked as overpopulation might become a real problem, the country adopted family planning policies. Iran also has a state condom factory. Incidentally, Teheran has about 3,000 plastic surgeons, and more women attending university than men.

Was this the result of Iran shifting its policies towards Western style education, or the result of Iranian youth coming into power and demanding the change? Honestly curious, because as far as I knew education in Iran was still heavily influenced by Islam.

 

[IDB87]

But new regimes with expansionary desires don't start by gutting their military.

Stalin would disagree with you.

 

[McHrozni]

Why?

Iran has quite a large number of internal problems, it is after all a developing nation. There's no reason to believe it will follow an expansionary foreign policy.

Back in reality, starting a conflict abroad is a time-tested method of quieting internal dissident. Argentina did that in 1980, Cambodia a few years before that, it's plausible to believe it was behind Saddam's decision to invade Iran, it's the main reason for North Korean hostility towards South Korea and practically the sole reason for hatred of Israel in Iran. It's also alleged to be the reason for US wars of the past decade by many who would agree with you on Iran.

Indeed the only reason to believe Iran won't launch any wars of aggression or try to rule over foreign lands through proxies - as it is already doing in Iraq - is that they would be risking their own destruction. This is changed if they were to have nuclear weapons.

I can make a pretty safe bet that the first country to invade another after (if) Iran obtains a nuclear weapon will be the US. No idea who will be the target, though.

Context isn't your strong suit, is it.

McHrozni

 

[Beerina]

No, but the question could be posed, "Has any dictatorship threatening to turn Seoul into a Sea of Fire ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictatorship threatening India ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any country threatening to blow up Pakistan ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictator threatening to "bury" the West ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" or "Has any dictatorship threatening Taiwan ever got hold of a nuclear bomb?" and the answer to each question is yes. Did it end up with nuclear war? The answer is no.

We may not like the idea that any of these countries have nuclear bombs but none of them have been used? We have to fashion a "special pleading" case to make the example of Iran different.

The point is you shouldn't let that situation happen again, by standing aside. Just because nothing bad happened...so far...doesn't mean you should just ignore it and cross your fingers.

If you can stop bad people from getting powerful weapons to begin with, you should.

 

[Beerina]

How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 30 years?

Don't forget that they also occupy themselves, so to speak, lording murderously over their own people.

That alone is sufficient to deny them nukes.

 

[Toontown]

Meet your new boss. More of a grave threat to Israel than your old boss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/w...nuclear-sites.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

"Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammad Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said Tuesday, “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”"

Be very quiet and do as you're told. You don't want to endanger those "national interests" of theirs.

 

[angrysoba]

Meet your new boss. More of a grave threat to Israel than your old boss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/w...nuclear-sites.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

"Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammad Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said Tuesday, “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions.”"

Be very quiet and do as you're told. You don't want to endanger those "national interests" of theirs.

Where on Earth does Iran get off accusing anyone of threatening them?

Apart from the pages of just about every US, European and Israeli paper?

I don't think it is too surprising that the Iranians will be making statements about protecting their national interests when the possibility of bombing the country is casually discussed all the time these days. What is your reading of "national interests"?

I think it is something of an inversion to take these statements as proof that Iran is a threat.

 

[Toontown]

Where on Earth does Iran get off accusing anyone of threatening them

Apart from the pages of just about every US, European and Israeli paper?

Ayahtollahs threaten, they get threatened back. What did they expect? What did you expect?

I don't think it is too surprising that the Iranians will be making statements about protecting their national interests when the possibility of bombing the country is casually discussed all the time these days. What is your reading of "national interests"?]

I wouldn't call it a "casual" discussion at all. I would call it a tense discussion, borne of near-desperation. The Jew-hating, strait choking, religious fanatic terrorist bastards are going nuclear. If that happens, they've got us all by the chokepoint. Not just Israel.

I think it is something of an inversion to take these statements as proof that Iran is a threat.

When combined with the failure of the IAEA mission in Iran reported in the same article, one might easily conclude that Iran is a looming threat to the entire region, and a threat to the free flow of the world's supply of the critical oil.

Does Iran have to be a grave threat right now, or it doesn't count? Perhaps you think that way. I dont. And countries don't. Countries actually take looming threats seriously.