Hope on Irans nuke.

Hope on Irans nuke.

We thought it important to present the Other side,

on Iran's Nukes.

We think they should be taken out. G

Thomas P.M. Barnett offers hope:...

 

I would dial down all this..

First, Iran has never had any real interest in Israel, one way or the other. Jewish-Persian relations have been, throughout history, awfully benign. Since the 79 revolution, Iran uses Israel to cloak its push for Shia empowerment in the region, preferring that lead to triggering, as such efforts always do, a Sunni backlash. As such, what Iran says about Israel is pure propaganda, to be swallowed at risk of stupidity.

Honest negotiation never happens. The foundation to my thinking is common interests, nakedly defined. Iran doesn't give a shit about Israel, but only Saudi Arabia. Iran hates the Salafists, and fears their impact. Iran greatly fears U.S. invasion and seeks nukes to prevent it. Iran greatly benefited from ours wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and offered to help in both. We refused, and we got the current dynamic of aid to our enemies.

Iran's achievement of nukes is meaningless. States have never gotten anybody to do anything threatening nuke strikes. Israel has 200 plus warheads and a very advanced missile defense system, meaning there is no existential threat.

As for mini-nukes, that's a tactical myth in the sense that high-end conventional bombs have the very same impact, so crossing the line to nukes is worthless, given the trouble it would cause any state.

Israel may well strike Iran's sites soon. It will set them back months, not years, because Iran will redouble its efforts. It will be a meaningless event and not change the underlying reality of Iran wanting and achieving protection from U.S. invasion (already accomplished by our tie-down in Iraq and Afghanistan).

As for the martyrdom angle, it's also hyperbolic. Extrapolating national suicide from suicide bombers didn't make sense for Japan in WWII and it does not make sense here. Iran seeks regime survival above all else, and there's no such thing as an untrackable nuclear signature, meaning Iran cannot pass a nuke to terrorists and not have it tracked back, meaning retaliatory strikes would follow and deterrence still holds.

It's not particularly useful, after 64 years of learning how to live with the bomb, to go all wobbly over a Shia version. But some people love fear and bathe in it daily.

I'm not that person.

 Tom also has some interesting material on deterrence on this page.

SOURCE:

We think this Regime should not get Nukes.
The Mullahs are loosing power and the IRCG
is creating another dictatorship.

The risk / reward ratio just isn't good.
One of these rogue nations is going to
get Nukes and USE THEM.
Not If but When.

Sanctions did not work on N. Korea and won't work

on Iran, Attack,Take out the nuke material.

There is a new revolution brewing in Iran,

it needs time to take effect.

And produce a reasonable Regime.
If this Regime gets a Nuclear Umbrella
they will crush the Iranian people.


If Tom is wrong those will be some
very hard words to eat.

Gerald

From Internet Anthropologist Think Tank:

Iran to export nukes

IRAN's internal nuclear struggle:

Iran's Nuclear weapons umbrella

Islam at risk if Regime gets Nuke

.

 Follow UP: 12.17.09

BOLTON: Well, I'll just underline the reason to be alarmist. If the rest of the world sees that North Korea can keep its nuclear weapons, they see that Iran is capable of defying United States and getting nuclear weapons, they see Hugo Chavez still completely unplugged and growing closer and closer to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran -- let's not forget Venezuela has its own uranium deposits -- then the lesson, I think, for would-be proliferators around the world is clear. You can get nuclear weapons, and the United States and others will not act to stop you.

And if those constraints don't have any force, then I think we're going to see a lot more countries with nuclear weapons, and I think that raises the risk of global instability by an enormous factor.

SOURCE: FOX NEWS:

.

.