Promises from Iran

[CapelDodger]

I would've thought it is in Iran's foremost national interest not to need nuclear weapons in the first place.

That would be in everybody's national interest.

Their policy continuosly and unnecessarily pushes them towards conflict with countries who have, or are believed to have, sizable nuclear arsenals against which Iran currently has no reply and against which it can not defend

If you want peace, prepare for war. Those countries are open to temptation while they have the advantage.

I think Iran's best policy is to have the capability to make a bomb within a few years so that a reply can be expected soon, just not immediately. Actually making a bomb is unnecessary.

Considering what Iran's actually invovled in right now, with the Sunni-Shia post-Ottoman shake-out thing, nuclear weapons are the last thing they need.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

To say anything else would be to admit that they'd been strong-armed into concessions against their national interest, which is what happens to defeated parties. Rouhani and the negotiators wouldn't survive a week if they said that.

It's hard for me to see that Iran is in any sense a defeated party. It seems to me they are the chief beneficiary of America's war in Iraq.

This deal strikes me as a capitulation, or an acknowledgement of reality, on the part of the West.

 

[angrysoba]

It's hard for me to see that Iran is in any sense a defeated party. It seems to me they are the chief beneficiary of America's war in Iraq.

This deal strikes me as a capitulation, or an acknowledgement of reality, on the part of the West.

Or a capitulation to reality?

 

[angrysoba]

That would be in everybody's national interest.

If you want peace, prepare for war. Those countries are open to temptation while they have the advantage.

I think Iran's best policy is to have the capability to make a bomb within a few years so that a reply can be expected soon, just not immediately. Actually making a bomb is unnecessary.

Considering what Iran's actually invovled in right now, with the Sunni-Shia post-Ottoman shake-out thing, nuclear weapons are the last thing they need.

I think this is referred to as breakout capability.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's hard for me to see that Iran is in any sense a defeated party.

Quite. Some reactionaries in Iran might present it as a capitulation, of course; it would be crazy and implausibly inept of Rouhani to feed that pack.

It seems to me they are the chief beneficiary of America's war in Iraq.

This deal strikes me as a capitulation, or an acknowledgement of reality, on the part of the West.

End of an era. The Iraq War called the West's bluff. Once done it can't be re-done, and who would want to?

Welcome to a future of drones and IED's.

 

[angrysoba]

I would've thought it is in Iran's foremost national interest not to need nuclear weapons in the first place. Their policy continuosly and unnecessarily pushes them towards conflict with countries who have, or are believed to have, sizable nuclear arsenals against which Iran currently has no reply and against which it can not defend.

McHrozni

I think I have heard these talking points before. I don't like the Iranian regime, but to argue that if they quietly sit and behave themselves internationally they will have no problems from their neighbours seems to me a form of intimidation that many countries would not put up with and it also seems to be at odds with recent history. Iraq's failure to bluff that they had WMDs and Libya's relinquishing of their own proved fatal to their regimes, while poor old Ukraine have to sit and watch their own dismemberment and depletion of their sovereignty. North Korea on the other hand may appear to be a country that it would be too dangerous to invade (although probably few people would want to) and Pakistan is even more so a dangerous country with nukes.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think this is referred to as breakout capability.

That's the chap.

It's less important to have weapons than it is to have the capacacity to build them when you need them. That way you go to war with an up-to-date army. Not, like Mussolini, fighting a 1940's war with a 1920's state-of the-art army that he couldn't afford to trade-up.

In the nuclear case, the prospect of your target being able to hit back in the near-term, and having a massive incentive to do so, should give one pause.

 

[Trakar]

It would surprise me, yes.

Not only would it surprise me, I would expect international condemnation and action against Israel, and be completely dismayed and upset at any U.S. intervention to thwart or shield Israel from the consequences of such action.

 

[McHrozni]

That would be in everybody's national interest.

True, that.

If you want peace, prepare for war. Those countries are open to temptation while they have the advantage.

You don't prepare for war by actively making new enemies and throwing threats and insults around, while flouting international treaties and pretending you aren't. You provoke war in that way, but not prepare for it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I think I have heard these talking points before. I don't like the Iranian regime, but to argue that if they quietly sit and behave themselves internationally they will have no problems from their neighbours seems to me a form of intimidation that many countries would not put up with and it also seems to be at odds with recent history. Iraq's failure to bluff that they had WMDs and Libya's relinquishing of their own proved fatal to their regimes, while poor old Ukraine have to sit and watch their own dismemberment and depletion of their sovereignty. North Korea on the other hand may appear to be a country that it would be too dangerous to invade (although probably few people would want to) and Pakistan is even more so a dangerous country with nukes.

I'm reasonably certain Iraqi and Libyan WMDs wouldn't save them from the intervention. This certainly was the case for Iraq in 1991, when they did have and use chemical weapons, and still faced as invasion. Libya would be in a worse position still.
North Korea wasn't invaded for decades while it didn't have nukes, there is zero reason to believe their nukes offer them any measure of protection. Their best defense is a run down, bankrupt, impoverished country with a brainwashed and uneducated populace that would be hell to modernize. They're safe by the virtue of being totally unwanted. Nukes don't even factor in, there is no way they'd get invaded nukes or no. The nukes may easily be a factor in their eventual demise, if Kim acts crazy enough though.

McHrozni

 

[CapelDodger]

You don't prepare for war by actively making new enemies and throwing threats and insults around, while flouting international treaties and pretending you aren't.

In what way is Iran doing this? Are you perhaps confusing it with Russia?

If you think the Iranian issue with the Gulf states is new, check out who bank-rolled Saddam's invasion of Iran. New enemies in Syria have rather made themselves. As for international treaties being flouted, they're doing what now?

You provoke war in that way, but not prepare for it.

Something the US Republican Party should get its head around. Can't see it happening myself, though.

 

[CapelDodger]

North Korea wasn't invaded for decades while it didn't have nukes, there is zero reason to believe their nukes offer them any measure of protection. Their best defense is a run down, bankrupt, impoverished country with a brainwashed and uneducated populace that would be hell to modernize. They're safe by the virtue of being totally unwanted. Nukes don't even factor in, there is no way they'd get invaded nukes or no. The nukes may easily be a factor in their eventual demise, if Kim acts crazy enough though.

Nukes might finally prompt China to put the whole damn' thing to sleep. They'll have to one day.

 

[McHrozni]

In what way is Iran doing this? Are you perhaps confusing it with Russia?

Calling for destruction of Israel several times per year, for instance.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/09/iran_s_khamenei_israel_must_be_annihilated.html

There is no reason for that ... no reason other than that their regime keeps it's people united in the face of a manufactured foreign enemy. You know ... the very thing US allegedly does with terrorist boogeymen and whatnot. Except that they're doing it to maintain power, whereas power in US changes hands quite often.

Nukes might finally prompt China to put the whole damn' thing to sleep. They'll have to one day.

They haven't so far and it's been nine years. Chances are they'll just keep what China does best - maintain status quo and postulate it's better than the alternative.

McHrozni

 

[Trakar]

Calling for destruction of Israel several times per year, for instance...

About as often as Republican congressmen call for the bombing of Iran, for instance:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...an-now-pushes-bogus-obama-conspiracy-theories

 

[McHrozni]

About as often as Republican congressmen call for the bombing of Iran, for instance:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...an-now-pushes-bogus-obama-conspiracy-theories

It's the age old question about the chicken and the egg. Here, like then, it's blatantly obvious which came first (egg and Iranian hostility, respectively).

Clearly if a country declares itself your enemy and calls for destruction of your allies for the heinous crime of existing, you will see blow back.

As Chomsky put it, you push and keep pushing, and some people will push back.

You will also notice it's one of the loonier US representatives, who has all sorts of crazy ideas. His calls to bomb Iran are understandable, but come from someone who is unhinged and - much more importantly - not in a position to give the orders. This is most unlike Iran, where the ideas to destroy Israel come from the Leader himself.

McHrozni

 

[Peter May]

The quote you provided does not appear in the article you linked to, so I don;t know why you think the BBC would be able to verify a translation of something they haven't published. Did you mean to link to a different article?

If you go here;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32176399

and wait a bit, first comes an Indian ad, then comes the voice over translation, OK.
During this voice over translation comes, “We will keep our promises within the framework of our national interest”.
I have written to the BBC as to the validity of the translation, they have been known to be wrong.

 

[Peter May]

Sort of. In time, the truth tends to come out. (example: watergate, sikes picot, etc)

Skeptic Ginger: Uh, that cartoon version of reality is, to be charitable, oversimplified.

However, in your defense, some of the rhetoric might lead one to leap towards that conclusion.

A few years ago I took the position (and posted it in various commentary on JREF forum discussions) that I believe that Iran seeks their nuclear capability primarily to have a credible deterrent, and I stick to that assessment. It would leave them more free to act in the conventional arena if the nuclear deterrent back up is on hand.

In other news, a few years ago Dr X in Pakistan demonstrated quite clearly what a load of rubbish the NPT has come to be. I eagerly await the Saudis calling a press conference to report that they have established a nuclear deterrent (most likely having gotten a few Pakistani items in a discrete fashion). The primary audience for that announcement would be Iran, but the Israelis and their supporters will likely think that it's all about them.

That will really get the screaming and moaning going. Popcorn sales would skyrocket.

I'm not talking about a truth that “will out”, I'm talking about the fact that
a truth, or falsehood for that matter does not change with the passage of time.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's less important to have weapons than it is to have the capacacity to build them when you need them. That way you go to war with an up-to-date army.

Until you have demonstrated that you have them and know how to make them work, you don't have much of a deterrent.

I'm not talking about a truth that “will out”, I'm talking about the fact that a truth, or falsehood for that matter does not change with the passage of time.

Given that the passage of time also induces change, and therefore facts and truth can change over time I am not sure what kind of objective / universal truth you are looking for.
Not that big of a deal for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[trustbutverify]

Meanwhile in Iran, Sadegh Zibakalam continues to blast away:

A high point in their debate was when Zibakalam said the world is suspicious of Iran over its anti-Israel bellicose. “Brazil, Argentina and India all have nuclear programme but Iran is the only country which has announced it wants to destroy Israel... who has given us the duty to destroy Israel?” Zibakalam said. “Israel has never said it wants to destroy us ... Even Palestinians recognise Israel. We are more catholic than the pope.”

His conservative debate opponent, Hamid Rasaei, had an interesting view of the deal:

Rasaei, in his part, rejected President Hassan Rouhani’s comments that the Lausanne agreement was a win-win outcome. “Even illiterates, hawkers, or even taxi drivers in Iran know that a decision is up to him [Obama]... Not only we did not win, but we were defeated.”

Zibakalam sharply disagreed:

Zibakalam fired back by saying that Rasaei’s problem with the talks does not stem from the details of an agreement but from his ideology, accusing him and his sympathisers of making a career out of anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism. “You give that away from these people and they have nothing to say,” Zibakalam said.

 

[Trakar]

...This is most unlike Iran, where the ideas to destroy Israel come from the Leader himself.

As opposed to those who are merely the Republican party's candidate for President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg