Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:
There are many ayatollahs, but the there is only one Supreme Leader of Iran.

A man frequently referred to as the Ayatollah in the context of discussions regarding Iran.

 Seaward wrote:

A man frequently referred to as the Ayatollah in the context of discussions regarding Iran.

Khomeini?

 dogma wrote:
Khomeini?

No, I believe he's dead.

Khamenei.

 whembly wrote:
What have they've done that they ARE trustyworthy?

Gotten pumped in the ass by economic sanctions.

Thing is, you can't trust any country to act out of an enlightened self interest of the whole of humanity. But you can trust every country to act in their own best interests. And right now Iran knows that it cannot keep a nuclear program secret, and the response to discovering they have a nuclear program is economic sanctions that hurt the country considerably, and destabilise the regime.

That's a good basis for a deal.

It is increasingly my opinion that there are a subset of posters who, when confronted with a problem, pull out a binder called "How to fix problems", in which there is a single sheet of paper. On that sheet of paper is the following flow chart:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What have they've done that they ARE trustyworthy?

Gotten pumped in the ass by economic sanctions.

Thing is, you can't trust any country to act out of an enlightened self interest of the whole of humanity. But you can trust every country to act in their own best interests. And right now Iran knows that it cannot keep a nuclear program secret, and the response to discovering they have a nuclear program is economic sanctions that hurt the country considerably, and destabilise the regime.

That's a good basis for a deal.

I'm not so sure I'd agree that Iran knows it can't keep a nuclear program secret. It knows that everybody's going to suspect it of having a nuclear program no matter what it does, but it also knows the case is going to be difficult to make, and it knows that the West doesn't have the stomach for an actual fight over it right now.

The ability of sanctions to effect change is overrated. Iran's (likely accurate) calculus is that their only path to regional dominance, or even parity with Israel, runs right through nukes. There's been little to suggest they'd wind up giving up on that goal for much of anything.

MarsNZ wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, I hear a lot of people saying that we can't trust the Iranians. Therefore this deal sucks.

What have they've done that they ARE trustyworthy?

What have we done that they should trust us?

If I were them, the lesson I learned from Iraq/Afghanistan/North Korea is that no nuke = no chance.

Wait... you forgetting about Iraq / Afghanistan already?

Their human rights abuse (women, non-muslim, gays)?

Not to mention that we're the devil incarnate...

LOL, did you just imply the US went to Iraq/Afghan to clean up the human rights record?

wowow

I wasn't. I was implying, if a country has a nuke it is safe, and if it doesn't and US decideds to use force, that Nukeless country has no chance.

MarsNZ wrote:


LOL, did you just imply the US went to Iraq/Afghan to clean up the human rights record?

wowow

What the feth are you talking about? o.O

I was inferring about Iran's influences over those regions. (sending fighters, teaching bomb makers, killing gays, treatment of women, etc...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

I wasn't. I was implying, if a country has a nuke it is safe, and if it doesn't and US decideds to use force, that Nukeless country has no chance.

Eh... even if Iran announces that they have nukes... they ain't safe. Either the rest of the world (or Israel by itself) would simply take 'em out OR enough mid-east countries acquire nukes themselves to implement some sort of MAD doctrine. The fear here is that would Iran care about the MAD doctrine?

 Ouze wrote:
It is increasingly my opinion that there are a subset of posters who, when confronted with a problem, pull out a binder called "How to fix problems", in which there is a single sheet of paper. On that sheet of paper is the following flow chart:

I think the sad thing is the people concerned are proud of their attitude.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not so sure I'd agree that Iran knows it can't keep a nuclear program secret. It knows that everybody's going to suspect it of having a nuclear program no matter what it does, but it also knows the case is going to be difficult to make, and it knows that the West doesn't have the stomach for an actual fight over it right now.

It doesn't have the stomach for a fight, sure. But the sanctions are almost effortless to the rest of the world, and crippling to Iran.

And that means Iran is banking on the hope that no-one even half proves that development is on-going. Given Iran's efforts so far, that'd be a terrible bet to make.

The ability of sanctions to effect change is overrated.

Will the sanctions effect regime change? Probably not, but that's a mile away from the only measure of effect. They've got 15% unemployment, and there's riots in which people have died, it's pretty safe to conclude the sanctions are having a serious effect.

Iran's (likely accurate) calculus is that their only path to regional dominance, or even parity with Israel, runs right through nukes.

Yeah, not it's their path to parity with Israel. And from there its speculation on your part that that parity is worth continued economic stagnation. Now, that may be the case, but it is also quite probable that it isn't, and so it's safe to conclude that outright rejection of any possible success through negotiation is fairly blinkered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... even if Iran announces that they have nukes... they ain't safe. Either the rest of the world (or Israel by itself) would simply take 'em out OR enough mid-east countries acquire nukes themselves to implement some sort of MAD doctrine. The fear here is that would Iran care about the MAD doctrine?

"They have a nuke, let's take 'em out" is not a thing that countries do. Because then they shoot that nuke at you and thousands of people in your own country die. Which is why countries want the bomb, of course, it basically makes you invasion proof.

And if Iran got a nuke then a MAD doctrine would develop - because Israel already has the bomb.