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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have the utmost belief that IRI is too clever to work against its own interest. If it was that stupid, it would have collapsed long ago, instead of becoming a regional power despite the embargo and all the US pressure against them.
Their interest is Israel being a convenient scapegoat, and a useful propaganda tool for their agenda and interest. The status quo serve them perfectly for that. A war against Israel, which would be inevitable should any terrorist organization use Persian nukes, would be absolutely disastrous and would lead to the end of IRI, or at least an Iran in ruins even if by some trick I cannot even imagine they would manage to win the war. Not a profitable outcome.

How is that any different, then, with their logistical support to Hezbellah/Hamas? Or, even the Shia insurgency in Iraq/Yemen? Their actions, imo, just pushes past the idea they're wanting to establish their "spheres of influences".

 whembly wrote:

How is that any different, then, with their logistical support to Hezbellah/Hamas? Or, even the Shia insurgency in Iraq/Yemen? Their actions, imo, just pushes past the idea they're wanting to establish their "spheres of influences".

I already addressed this earlier in the thread. Supporting a terrorist group that fires rockets and mortars across a fence, or performs the occasional suicide bombing helps them keep up their "We fight against the Zionist occupation" street cred (and keeps their arab neighboors from suddenly remembering that the Iranians are Persian and focusing their ire on the IRI) and doesn't generate the risk that Israel will retaliate with a full-scale military strike on Iranian soil. The IRI provides money and some armament to Hezbollah and Hamas, but not enough to provoke Israel into starting a shooting war. Iran gets to poke Israel. Israel gets to bomb Hamas. Hamas gets to die for the struggle. Everybody is happy.

A nuke going off anywhere in Israel? Or a dirty bomb going off? Israel would respond in only one way: nuke whichever country provided the bomb/radioactive material to the terrorists.

And Iran knows this. Iran knows that if they give a nuke to someone who uses it against Israel, or if they help someone else build a nuke to use on Israel, that Israel will not be satisfied until at least three Iranian cities are replaced with mushroom clouds. The IRI isn't suicidal. They know the consequences of using a nuke on Israel, and they know that they will lose any war with Israel (conventional or nuclear). The IRI has no interest in using a nuke on Israel, or giving a nuke to someone who will.

Er...hezzbullah and Hamas also control independent countries now. Hezzbullah is one of the main forces keeping Asad in power in Syria.

if they give a nuke to someone how would Israel know?
Once the nuke goes off, whats left of Israel?

squidhills wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How is that any different, then, with their logistical support to Hezbellah/Hamas? Or, even the Shia insurgency in Iraq/Yemen? Their actions, imo, just pushes past the idea they're wanting to establish their "spheres of influences".

I already addressed this earlier in the thread. Supporting a terrorist group that fires rockets and mortars across a fence, or performs the occasional suicide bombing helps them keep up their "We fight against the Zionist occupation" street cred (and keeps their arab neighboors from suddenly remembering that the Iranians are Persian and focusing their ire on the IRI) and doesn't generate the risk that Israel will retaliate with a full-scale military strike on Iranian soil. The IRI provides money and some armament to Hezbollah and Hamas, but not enough to provoke Israel into starting a shooting war. Iran gets to poke Israel. Israel gets to bomb Hamas. Hamas gets to die for the struggle. Everybody is happy.

A nuke going off anywhere in Israel? Or a dirty bomb going off? Israel would respond in only one way: nuke whichever country provided the bomb/radioactive material to the terrorists.

And Iran knows this. Iran knows that if they give a nuke to someone who uses it against Israel, or if they help someone else build a nuke to use on Israel, that Israel will not be satisfied until at least three Iranian cities are replaced with mushroom clouds. The IRI isn't suicidal. They know the consequences of using a nuke on Israel, and they know that they will lose any war with Israel (conventional or nuclear). The IRI has no interest in using a nuke on Israel, or giving a nuke to someone who will.

You're trying to sound reasonable on something that ought to be considered batgak insane.

You really can't reason with folks like these... I mean, this is exactly the scorpion vs frog parable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

if they give a nuke to someone how would Israel know?
Once the nuke goes off, whats left of Israel?

Israel is not a tiny, tiny country.... I'll take more than 1 bomb to "wipe them off the earth".

 Frazzled wrote:

if they give a nuke to someone how would Israel know?

Because Mossad would find out and tell them. Or, even if Mossad doesn't find out, Israel would just say "It was the Iranians" and fire a few nukes back. Who would blame them, at that point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

You're trying to sound reasonable on something that ought to be considered batgak insane.

You really can't reason with folks like these... I mean, this is exactly the scorpion vs frog parable.

If you're referring to Hamas and Hezbollah, you may be right. If you are referring to the IRI as "batgak insane" then you don't know enough about the IRI to have an informed discussion on this topic.

squidhills wrote:
utomatically Appended Next Post:[/size]

 whembly wrote:

You're trying to sound reasonable on something that ought to be considered batgak insane.

You really can't reason with folks like these... I mean, this is exactly the scorpion vs frog parable.

If you're referring to Hamas and Hezbollah, you may be right. If you are referring to the IRI as "batgak insane" then you don't know enough about the IRI to have an informed discussion on this topic.

What makes you more qualified than me?

Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?

 whembly wrote:
What makes you more qualified than me?

ITT:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/642469.page#7722962
Ask your co-worker to give a look at this thread, and watch his reaction.
(Oh, and I am not Squidhill, but I completely agree with what he wrote so far.)

 whembly wrote:
Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?

Who said anything about taking them at their word? Did any of us pointed to Iranian declaration as something to be taken literally? Actually we explicitly called those posturing, meaning they should NOT be taken at their word.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What makes you more qualified than me?

ITT:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/642469.page#7722962
Ask your co-worker to give a look at this thread, and watch his reaction.
(Oh, and I am not Squidhill, but I completely agree with what he wrote so far.)

This isn't a schlong measuring contest... just genuinely curious why he's so dismissive.

Oh, and... what's your point?

 whembly wrote:
Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?

Who said anything about taking them at their word? Did any of us pointed to Iranian declaration as something to be taken literally? Actually we explicitly called those posturing, meaning they should NOT be taken at their word.

... I don't even...

 whembly wrote:

What makes you more qualified than me?

Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?

I've studied the history of that part of the world (and the US involvement in it) for a few years now (not in an academic capacity, I will admit) so I've got a good handle on what things are like historically and culturally over there. You once referred to the Iranians as an apocalypse cult (or something very close to it) which shows a pretty strong lack of understanding on the subject. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's just the sort of thing that shows your knowledge of Iran is limitted.

It's not about taking them at their word. It's about understanding what their goals are and how their actions serve those goals. Iran does not want to destroy the west, or rule the world, or actually burn Israel to the ground. They want to be a dominant power in their area, but the same can be said of most countries. Most nations want to be able to call the shots for their particular part of the world, whether they choose to use economic means or military means or cultural means. Dominance means security.

The US dominates the North American continent (and a few other places as well). Does that make us evil or insane?
Germany dominates Western Europe through economic means. Does that make them evil or insane?
China is close to dominating the Pacific Rim (give 'em a decade and it'll likely be theirs) through a combination of economic means and military means. Does that make them evil or insane?

Iran supports Bashar Assad. Why? Because he is a guy they can control, who shares a border with them. If they support/dominate the guy on their border, then that's one border that they won't be invaded across (ISIS notwithstanding). So even though the rest of the world has turned against Assad, they still support him, in the hopes that he will beat ISIS and hold onto the country, thus keeping one of their borders secure. Does that make them evil or insane? Well, the US has supported dictators that are widely considered "evil" (one of them was even Iranian!) to secure our interests.... was the US evil or insane?

Iran supports terrorist groups that attack Israel. This serves Iran's goals of keeping arab ire directed away from them. Iranians are muslim, but they aren't arab, they are Persian. That distinction may not mean much to us here in the US, but in that part of the world it is important. Persia used to be an empire with the arabs under their heel, and memories are long in that part of the world. Without Israel to focus on, Iran's neighboors might start to realize they don't like the idea of a resurgant Persian Empire... So, yes, Iran supports terrorist groups against Israel. Terrorist groups that, it should be noted, have no actual chance of succeeding in toppling Israel. Does that make them evil or insane? Well, the US has supported terrorist groups before (remember the Contras?) because it served our interests to do so. Does that make the US evil or insane?

Iran worked to undermine the US occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. They supported the religious militias that we were engaged in combat with in several cities (although, once we started paying the militias more than the Iranians the attacks died down). Does that make them evil or insane? Before you answer, try looking at the Iraq war from an Iranian's point of view: It's 1986 and Soviet Russia just invaded and overthrew the government of Mexico. Yes, the government was corrupt and despotic and evil, but now a country that you are enemies with has a large military force situated on your border and can invade you with little effort. Should the US just sit back and wait to see if the USSR chooses to attack? Or should the US try to destabilize and stymie the Soviet occupation to keep their military off-balance and too wrapped up battling an insurgency to consider marching into Texas? Would fething with the Soviets make the US evil or insane?

Iran is not insane. That is a simple fact. They may or may not be evil, but that can be said about a great many countries on the world's stage. What is clear about the IRI is that it's leaders are involved in realpolitik. they do what works to further their nation's interests. That's why they are working with the US against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, becuase a stable and secure Iraq and Syria means two stable and secure borders for Iran. That's why they are working against the US in Yemen, because controlling Yemen would increase their sphere of dominance over that part of the world.

Do we trust Iran just because Iran tells us something? No, of course not. We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest. Bucking the unified international community isn't in their self-interest, especially since the sanctions have hurt them so much. Trying to play a shell game and give inspectors the run-around like Saddam did isn't in their self-interest (especially since they saw that playing the shell game got him deposed an killed). The IRI isn't insane and it isn't trying to bring about the End of Days. It's a country like many others that engages in some pretty shady things to keep itself secure and to expand it's influence. If you want a genuinely evil and insane country to worry about, you'll have to look at North Korea.

But of course, they already have the bomb, don't they? Why isn't more time spent worrying about them?

sqiddy... I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and yet on it's merits you're making all the sense of the world.

However, it's the:

We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest.

Line assumes that we're dealing with rational people.

I'm not ready to go there... it isn't all about Iran. It's about the stability of the region. A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.

Just about every major nation there is affluent enough to buy the materials/expertise to weaponize nuclear materials. Here's the big concern... that region suffers religious/sectarian strife often enough, that having access to these bad boys is going to be harrowing.

Yemeni government fell recently guys. What if Yemen had nukes prior to it's downfall?

Many of you opined? MADD policy would work in this region...

Are you sure? Really, really sure?

Or, do you care enough?

Frankly, if major states have power in that region, I don't think MADD would be enough... I think we'd need a "trip wire" force permanently, ala in South Korea, to keep everyone honest.

 whembly wrote:


I'm not ready to go there... it isn't all about Iran. It's about the stability of the region. A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.

OK, see this is a different debate to the one we've been having (or that I thought we were having). Now that I know where you're coming from, I think I can engage you in a more meaningful discussion.

You are absolutely right to be worried about nuclear proliferation, in that bombs can end up in the hands of crazy people when a government collapses. That is why Pakistan gives me night sweats. Not that they might nuke India (MADD works when it's between nations) but that when (not if) the goverment totally collapses, some crazy Bin Laden wannabe will scoop one up and set it off.

I absolutely believe MADD works (all the evidence supports this), but for MADD to work, the people with the bombs have to be a) stable nation states and b) sane. ISIS is neither of these things. Boco Harum is neither of these things. Al Shabab is neither of these things. Hamas and Hezbollah are neither of these things.

So I agree that nukes should never end up in their hands. And you are right, unstable nation states that collapse can't guarantee their bombs won't fall into the hands of crazy people. I absolutely agree unstable nations shouldn't have nukes.

But Iran is stable. And sane. As for Yemen, the collapse there surprised a lot of people. It had been brewing for a while since the Arab Spring, but the speed at which it happened was a shock. Prior to the collapse, I would've characterized Yemen as reasonably stable. A lot of other people would, too. Which leads to another concern: how do you tell if a country is stable enough to own nukes? The answer is: you don't. It's not 100% foolproof. Yeah, there are some red flag indicators (a current armed insurgency going on inside the borders is one such tip-off) but nobody is sure when a sudden political shift could lead to a civil war or government collapse. I mean, look at the US... to an outsider it looks like we are probably a decade away from such a collapse... we have all of the guns in the world, and we have two political parties that spend more time screaming that the other party is trying to DESTROY AMERICA than actually fixing all the fundamental problems the country has... A foreigner could be forgiven for thinking the US is headed toward a governmental collapse. Are we stable enough to own nukes?

Preventing countries from getting nukes is a good and noble endeavor. But the genie was let out of the bottle too long ago and he can't be put back inside. The only way to prevent a nation from trying to develop the bomb is to address the reasons why they want it in the first place. North Korea? They want it to hold over South Korea and Japan so they can bully them around. Pakistan wanted it to beat India with. India wanted it to beat Pakistan with. We wanted it to beat Japan with. The USSR wanted it to keep us from beating them with it.

And Iran...? Well, there's a very good argument that Iran only wants it to keep Israel from using it's own nukes as an unspoken threat in the Middle East. Of course, the counter argument is that Iran wants it so that Israel won't try to stop Iran from taking over the Middle East. So, self-defense or expansionist millitary clout: why does Iran want it? Can't say for certain. Maybe a little from column A and a little from column B. I can say that the fact that Israel has it at all is a factor in Iran's efforts to get the bomb, and that's the elephant in the room that nobody in the government (on either side) is interested in talking about.

Frankly, if major states have power in that region, I don't think MADD would be enough... I think we'd need a "trip wire" force permanently, ala in South Korea, to keep everyone honest.

Or, even better, we get gone and stay out of there. We are not the world's policeman.

 Frazzled wrote:

Frankly, if major states have power in that region, I don't think MADD would be enough... I think we'd need a "trip wire" force permanently, ala in South Korea, to keep everyone honest.

Or, even better, we get gone and stay out of there. We are not the world's policeman.

Ron Paul... is that you? (he's a Texan)

I'm afraid, that isn't possible.

Sure it is. All "advisors" get on a plane and leave. Gas that puppy up. Its the one thing Obama was doing right until Libya happened.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sure it is. All "advisors" get on a plane and leave. Gas that puppy up. Its the one thing Obama was doing right until Libya happened.

Then expect more Libyas.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sure it is. All "advisors" get on a plane and leave. Gas that puppy up. Its the one thing Obama was doing right until Libya happened.

Then expect more Libyas.

Hillary is that you?
You mean where France and Britain start bombing a dictatorship, dragging us into it and having that country turning into a charnel house of violence and terrorism.
Seems if we had done the Fraz plan it would have never happened.

 whembly wrote:
This isn't a schlong measuring contest...

No, that is answering your question.

 whembly wrote:
However, it's the:

We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest.

Line assumes that we're dealing with rational people.

Because we are.

 whembly wrote:
A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.

Like a nuclear North Korea was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Like a nuclear Israel was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.

 whembly wrote:
Yemeni government fell recently guys. What if Yemen had nukes prior to it's downfall?

If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. They fell because they were not, and the fact they were not stable is already enough to make sure they could not get any.
Nobody would have been okay with letting them get nuclear weapons. Your friends from the CIA would likely have arranged a revolution or a coup d'état before the program could have even started, and all the scientists involved would likely have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, it's the:

We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest.

Line assumes that we're dealing with rational people.

Because we are.

I'm arguing differently.

 whembly wrote:
A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.

Like a nuclear North Korea was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Like a nuclear Israel was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.

que? China has it... South Korea / Japan by proxy, has it too (The US). Not a good example.

 whembly wrote:
Yemeni government fell recently guys. What if Yemen had nukes prior to it's downfall?

If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. They fell because they were not, and the fact they were not stable is already enough to make sure they could not get any.
Nobody would have been okay with letting them get nuclear weapons. Your friends from the CIA would likely have arranged a revolution or a coup d'état before the program could have even started, and all the scientists involved would likely have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back .

wut? "If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. " Says who?
You've been watching too much Jack Bauer's "24" or Alias.

 whembly wrote:
I'm arguing differently.

No, you are saying differently without any argument supporting your views.

 whembly wrote:
que? China has it... South Korea / Japan by proxy, has it too (The US). Not a good example.

China had it before. That is how the rest of the middle east will get the nuke: by proxy (the US) or by proxy (Iran).

 whembly wrote:
wut? "If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. " Says who?

Anyone with sense?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm arguing differently.

No, you are saying differently without any argument supporting your views.

I have... you just don't agree.

 whembly wrote:
que? China has it... South Korea / Japan by proxy, has it too (The US). Not a good example.

China had it before. That is how the rest of the middle east will get the nuke: by proxy (the US) or by proxy (Iran).

Which is what I'd like to avoid.

 whembly wrote:
wut? "If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. " Says who?

Anyone with sense?

Silly statement. You're saying that had Yemen had nukes, they wouldn't be overrun now.

That's asinine.

I'm with squidhills on this one.

If that terrible nightmare day of Israel being nuked by Iran ever happened, Iran would be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah's head would be on a pole.

Every country in the region would give the green light to a massive American bombardment of Iran and the 100,000 marines ready to invade at the back of it. The Saudis would probably join in. Most of NATO would be there.

The Iranians are not stupid - they attack Israel, they sign their own death warrant.

 whembly wrote:
I have...

No, you have not.

 whembly wrote:
Which is what I'd like to avoid.

You would like to avoid countries having “nuke by proxy”? Why?

 whembly wrote:
Silly statement. You're saying that had Yemen had nukes, they wouldn't be overrun now.

Uh, no. I am saying the exact same reason that lead to the Yemeni being overrun now would have prevented them from getting nuke.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with squidhills on this one.

If that terrible nightmare day of Israel being nuked by Iran ever happened, Iran would be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah's head would be on a pole.

Every country in the region would give the green light to a massive American bombardment of Iran and the 100,000 marines ready to invade at the back of it. The Saudis would probably join in. Most of NATO would be there.

The Iranians are not stupid - they attack Israel, they sign their own death warrant.

100K worth of Marines eh......US is at pre WWII level military strength.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm with squidhills on this one.

If that terrible nightmare day of Israel being nuked by Iran ever happened, Iran would be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah's head would be on a pole.

Every country in the region would give the green light to a massive American bombardment of Iran and the 100,000 marines ready to invade at the back of it. The Saudis would probably join in. Most of NATO would be there.

The Iranians are not stupid - they attack Israel, they sign their own death warrant.

100K worth of Marines eh......US is at pre WWII level military strength.

Ok, maybe not 100,000 marines, but with your $600 billion annual defence budget, I'm sure you could cobble together an army group.

You're the expert on the US military, but from the top of my held I could cobble together a force consisting of:

101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, 1st infantry division, 2 armoured divisions (you still have tanks don't you ) at I'm sure you have at least 3-4 marine divisions as well.

Plus the usual signals, engineering, artillery stuff, special forces etc etc


Add 4-5 British divisions and a combination of European divisions, and I'm sure the 100,000 mark could be achieved.

 Jihadin wrote:
US is at pre WWII level military strength.

I would hope so, because wouldn't it be pretty weird to build your military up to the levels needed to fight 3 countries simultaneous during the largest conventional war in history and then consider that the "normal" mark and where we should stay? "Well, we're at 41% of GDP, lets leave it here, guys".

 Ouze wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
US is at pre WWII level military strength.

I would hope so, because wouldn't it be pretty weird to build your military up to the levels needed to fight 3 countries simultaneous during the largest conventional war in history and then consider that the "normal" mark and where we should stay? "Well, we're at 41% of GDP, lets leave it here, guys".

Its a side point, but Ouze is correct.

wat?

Al-Arabiya is reporting Iranian forces seized a U.S. cargo ship with 34 sailors and took it to Bandar Abbas port http://t.co/l1hxjAxeJx

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) April 28, 2015

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/politics/iran-seizes-commercial-ship-u-s-official-says-no-americans-on-board/index.html

O.o

It's not a US ship.

Anyway, whatever. It's obvious retaliation for the US blocking the Iranian ship from entering Yemen a few days ago- the Marshal Islands ship will likely be held for a week or two and then released. It's a non-incident.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's not a US ship.

Anyway, whatever. It's obvious retaliation for the US blocking the Iranian ship from entering Yemen a few days ago- the Marshal Islands ship will likely be held for a week or two and then released. It's a non-incident.

Basically... it is.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/173999.pdf

Interestingly enough... there's very few "US flagged" merchant ships in the world. Flagging under a country like Liberia, Panama or The Marshall Islands are popular for that reason... while the US has very strict regulations, work rules and pay requirements.

That's like saying we shouldn't care about Puerto Rico if they get invaded. (they also operate as Free Association to US).

One is an independent country with its own sovereign government in a free association with the United States, the other is a United States Territory. One of the falls under US jurisdiction and has United States citizens, the other one doesn't.