International If Iran was to get a bomb for self defense purposes only would you have less of a problem with this goal in mind ?

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Not an apologist at all as I’m all for going in there and removing those POSs, but has anyone stopped to think what does Iran have to gain by ever proactively nuking Israel when they’re going to get wiped off the planet for their troubles ? Neocons and far right news networks seem to gloss over this talking point.

You are asking that to a bunch of dudes who will give Israel a systematic pass and who are convinced that Iran is a terrorist state. The same kind of tards who believed in invading Iraq

 

[Stoic1]

Would you be comfortable with Hezbollah, Houthis, and Hamas having those weapons?

 

[avenue94]

This stuff has almost nothing to do with what I am talking about, it totally misses the point. This is complex geopolitics; none of this simplistic stuff matters. It would be a really long explanation. If you look at the post of @Islam Imamate on the first page of this thread, he makes a few points along the lines of what I am talking about.

​

It's you who are failing to address any of the points. Islam's point has to do with proxy conflicts and low scale warfare (which I agree with). Feel free to ask to ask him but I suspect he's on the same page as me in thinking that Iran wouldn't suddenly decide it's time to go out in a blaze of glory once it gets nukes.

I also didn't say anything about promises because once again, rhetoric doesn't translate into reality. It serves many purposes. I don't think Iran is going to use nukes first because of international law, but purely out of self interest. And dictators can be counted on to do that more often than not.

So again, the question you don't want to answer: What makes Iran uniquely horrible, or for that matter uniquely undeterrable, compared to any of the other nuclear powers?

 

[avenue94]

I would refer to an actual expert, but they have the habit of blowing themselves up

Ah, so you're talking out of your ass since apparently every Muslim scholar has blown themselves up. lol

Yeah, unfortunately Iran IS Iran, and they are the number one sponsor of terror in the world; believe it or not, that is BAD. Giving bad actors additional powers of persuasion and intimidation through weapons of mass destruction is definitely not smart.

You think Iran is a bigger sponsor of terrorism than the US or USSR during the Cold War? That's insanely ignorant, you might as well argue water isn't wet.

Most obviously the Israelis who are currently carrying out genocide and trying to provoke war with Iran.

I'm not in favour of the Iranians having nukes but then again I'm not in favour of nukes in general, we should IMHO be working to reduce there presence generally.

The issue isn't that Iran should get nukes, it's that Israel is pushing them toward that and hoping that and hoping that the US can magically sanction Iran into stopping. And we can't. There has to be some give and take if we want a more compliant Iran.

There has been some talk of a return to diplomacy recently, can't say I have great faith in it either but I think its definitely prefferable to either the Iranians getting nukes or some kind of large scale attack to stop them from doing so for me.

It's kind of hard to extract concessions from Iran at this point because Trump already gave up our leverage when Iran was complying with the agreement. That's on top of the lack of trust for US agreements at this point.

 

[avenue94]

Would you be comfortable with Hezbollah, Houthis, and Hamas having those weapons?

Nope, and Iran quite clearly wouldn't either. Unless you thikn Iran would be willing to transfer a weapon worth several billion dollars to proxies it can't fully control. You seem unaware that again that the nuclear weapons are scientifically impossible to make untraceable at this point.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

The issue isn't that Iran should get nukes, it's that Israel is pushing them toward that and hoping that and hoping that the US can magically sanction Iran into stopping. And we can't. There has to be some give and take if we want a more compliant Iran.

It's kind of hard to extract concessions from Iran at this point because Trump already gave up our leverage when Iran was complying with the agreement. That's on top of the lack of trust for US agreements at this point.

As I said I'm not at all hopeful that this can be achieved, especially with Trump in power(although Biden did little to try and revive the deal) but it seems like the least worst option.

 

[shinkyoku]

 

[Bobby00]

They just love explosions too much to let them have them.

 

[joy2day]

You think Iran is a bigger sponsor of terrorism than the US or USSR during the Cold War? That's insanely ignorant, you might as well argue water isn't wet.

That argument is absolutely irrelevant and has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

 

[joy2day]

It's you who are failing to address any of the points. Islam's point has to do with proxy conflicts and low scale warfare (which I agree with). Feel free to ask to ask him but I suspect he's on the same page as me in thinking that Iran wouldn't suddenly decide it's time to go out in a blaze of glory once it gets nukes.

I also didn't say anything about promises because once again, rhetoric doesn't translate into reality. It serves many purposes. I don't think Iran is going to use nukes first because of international law, but purely out of self interest. And dictators can be counted on to do that more often than not.

So again, the question you don't want to answer: What makes Iran uniquely horrible, or for that matter uniquely undeterrable, compared to any of the other nuclear powers?

Again, you are so far from what I am saying it isn't even worth talking about. I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a blaze of glory, or using it for mass destruction, I have no idea what you are talking about; you are making this stuff up. I think you are missing the picture on Iran and terror, and the geopolitical implications of a terror state having the leverage of nukes. Your response about terror to that was to talk about the US and the old USSR, which have nothing to do with it. The very basic idea I will say that I think you will understand is that having more bad actors with nukes is not better than having less- at least that makes sense to you, right? You realize there is much more to the idea of having nukes than merely the fact that they could be used, right?

 

[avenue94]

That argument is absolutely irrelevant and has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.

You're argument is that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons beacuse they are uniquely horrific. Yet you are unable to elucidate why or how they are uniquely horrific compared to other nuclear powers.

In fewer words, you are unable to support the core pillar of your argument.

he very basic idea I will say that I think you will understand is that having more bad actors with nukes is not better than having less- at least that makes sense to you, right? You realize there is much more to the idea of having nukes than merely the fact that they could be used, right?

I disagree here actually. A balance of power is more stable and less likely to create conflict. That's a fairly conventional argument in IR circles, even outside of realists. With nuclear weapons specifically, a first strike isn't actual deterrent, it's a second strike. Having a first strike is actually more dangerous.

Now, whether or not a nuclear Iran and Israel would create a balance of power and more stable Middle East is a more tenuous question. I think it would stabilize the region some by deterring Israeli recklessness, but the challenge is Saudi Arabia and its allies. More specifically, the goal should still be that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, but that means hard tradeoffs and concessions from the US and Iran. Otherwise, Iran will just pursue them as there's no real downside at this point.

 

[joy2day]

You're argument is that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons beacuse they are uniquely horrific. Yet you are unable to elucidate why or how they are uniquely horrific compared to other nuclear powers.

In fewer words, you are unable to support the core pillar of your argument.

I disagree here actually. A balance of power is more stable and less likely to create conflict. That's a fairly conventional argument in IR circles, even outside of realists. With nuclear weapons specifically, a first strike isn't actual deterrent, it's a second strike. Having a first strike is actually more dangerous.

Now, whether or not a nuclear Iran and Israel would create a balance of power and more stable Middle East is a more tenuous question. I think it would stabilize the region some by deterring Israeli recklessness, but the challenge is Saudi Arabia and its allies. More specifically, the goal should still be that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, but that means hard tradeoffs and concessions from the US and Iran. Otherwise, Iran will just pursue them as there's no real downside at this point.

As far as the argument that it is actually a good idea for Iran to have nukes, you are joined by zero actual experts on the topic. Apart from former Rep. Ron Paul and a handful of academic proponents like Waltz and Mearsheimer, there is no evidence that any major American political organization or leading national politician supports Iran possessing nuclear weapons. U.S. policy, as reinforced through sanctions and non‑proliferation advocacy by entities such as AIPAC, UANI, and NIAC, remains firmly opposed to Iran’s acquisition of a bomb. There is no one aisle on either side of the aisle, Rep or Dem, that actually thinks that would be a good idea aside from Paul.

As far as why Iran is especially bad- While Syria and North Korea remain on the U.S. State Sponsor of Terrorism list, and despite North Korea’s nuclear proliferation and Syria’s harboring of Palestinian militant groups, Iran’s multi-theater proxy network and annual financial outlays to terrorism far exceed those of any other sponsor, earning it the moniker “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”

Iran’s fusion of ideological motivation, state-directed terror architecture, and extensive proxy financing has created a constellation of militant groups spanning the Middle East and beyond, undermining regional stability more comprehensively than any other state sponsor. International sanctions and designations—even at unprecedented levels—have yet to fully curtail Tehran’s capacity to fund terrorism, underscoring the persistent challenge Iran poses as a state actor prioritizing militant proxy warfare.

 

[avenue94]

As far as the argument that it is actually a good idea for Iran to have nukes, you are joined by zero actual experts on the topic.

It's not an ideal outcome but it also wouldn't make Iran consider national suicide and attack Israel.

Do you struggle to read? Where did I argue it's a good idea for Iran to have nukes?

Waltz and Mearsheimer

Those would be two of the most respected IR scholars of the past several decades, for whatever that's worth.

While Syria and North Korea remain on the U.S. State Sponsor of Terrorism list, and despite North Korea’s nuclear proliferation and Syria’s harboring of Palestinian militant groups, Iran’s multi-theater proxy network and annual financial outlays to terrorism far exceed those of any other sponsor, earning it the moniker “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”

How does their network of terror support exceed either of the two superpowers during the Cold War? Like...the USSR fully backed the Viet Cong, are they not terrorists in your mind?

What is your specific concern as far as Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, should they become a nuclear power. That they'll be more emboldened to back proxies? That they'll give them a nuke? What?

You keep stating a fact (Iran is a major sponsor or terrorism and proxies), but you can't connect the dots as to why that is bad vis a vis nukes.

International sanctions and designations—even at unprecedented levels—have yet to fully curtail Tehran’s capacity to fund terrorism, underscoring the persistent challenge Iran poses as a state actor prioritizing militant proxy warfare.

Did it occur to you that all the pressure from sanctions is part of why Iran increased its proxy warfare so much? They have no incentive to cooperate and Trump gave up all our leverage for no reason by backing out of the previous nuclear agreement. You gotta give them something if you want their cooperation.

 

[joy2day]

Do you struggle to read? Where did I argue it's a good idea for Iran to have nukes?

Those would be two of the most respected IR scholars of the past several decades, for whatever that's worth.

How does their network of terror support exceed either of the two superpowers during the Cold War? Like...the USSR fully backed the Viet Cong, are they not terrorists in your mind?

What is your specific concern as far as Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, should they become a nuclear power. That they'll be more emboldened to back proxies? That they'll give them a nuke? What?

You keep stating a fact (Iran is a major sponsor or terrorism and proxies), but you can't connect the dots as to why that is bad vis a vis nukes.

Did it occur to you that all the pressure from sanctions is part of why Iran increased its proxy warfare so much? They have no incentive to cooperate and Trump gave up all our leverage for no reason by backing out of the previous nuclear agreement. You gotta give them something if you want their cooperation.

Yes, there are two respected scholars who agree, and thousands that disagree, along with our entire government except one guy; there are no major organizations that agree with you in the US. By this text, you show you didn't understand the post you were sent to on the first page of this thread that you said you agreed with; now you are arguing against it. I can't continue this because I don't think you have enough of a grasp to discuss this topic. I don't mean to insult you personally.

 

[SandisLL]

Iran does have the same rights to have weapons and to develop them and test them like North Korea: U.S had proved during decades thath they were impotent both under nice Donald and bad Biden and even previous rulers in U.S.

Total helpless impotence in real life during decades.....


Iran is more tough for long term nut for russian bottlemates in U.S.

 

[Andy Capp]

Not an apologist at all as I’m all for going in there and removing those POSs, but has anyone stopped to think what does Iran have to gain by ever proactively nuking Israel when they’re going to get wiped off the planet for their troubles ? Neocons and far right news networks seem to gloss over this talking point.

They also seem to gloss over the deal Obama already had with Iran that Trump subsequently scrapped for no apparent reason. It's yet another example of a stupid problem at Trump caused all by himself that he now wants to take credit for solving (not that it has been solved yet, of course.)

And yeah, MAD has been a pretty solid deterrent up to now. But you never know with some people.

 

[Lycandroid]

Ah, so you're talking out of your ass since apparently every Muslim scholar has blown themselves up. lol

In all reality everybody knows that Muslims have the market share of suicide bombings

https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/2/1/ksab046/6521891

 

[SandisLL]

They also seem to gloss over the deal Obama already had with Iran that Trump subsequently scrapped for no apparent reason. It's yet another example of a stupid problem at Trump caused all by himself that he now wants to take credit for solving (not that it has been solved yet, of course.)

And yeah, MAD has been a pretty solid deterrent up to now. But you never know with some people.

Why not? U.N proved to be useless and U.S nultiple times without any balls vs any pear level opponent. So lossers living in debts , will instruct world despite they appeared weaklings and lazy, wothout any ability to deal with even a bit too close for them opponents?
U.S does have 0 moral rights here and does have real fear from multiple cpuntries. Real fear and helpless situation while dreaming to have rights to throw their friends under bus and smile in basements with dream popcorn.
Until maybe their grand kids will learn that they aren't world Hegemony.

Nope, and Iran quite clearly wouldn't either. Unless you thikn Iran would be willing to transfer a weapon worth several billion dollars to proxies it can't fully control. You seem unaware that again that the nuclear weapons are scientifically impossible to make untraceable at this point.

In what kind of dream land you are living? Cinema from 1960 s?

Did you had some problems after Boston Marathon or 11/IX?

Most likely no.

 

[avenue94]

In what kind of dream land you are living? Cinema from 1960 s?

Did you had some problems after Boston Marathon or 11/IX?

Most likely no.

?

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Now, whether or not a nuclear Iran and Israel would create a balance of power and more stable Middle East is a more tenuous question. I think it would stabilize the region some by deterring Israeli recklessness, but the challenge is Saudi Arabia and its allies. More specifically, the goal should still be that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, but that means hard tradeoffs and concessions from the US and Iran. Otherwise, Iran will just pursue them as there's no real downside at this point.

I'm guessing the Saudi's would almost certainly try and get nukes of some kind if the Iranians get them, maybe buy them off of someone else? they can't get away with that at present of course but I think a nuclear armed Iran would probably shift international opinion enough that they maybe able to get away with it.

I think the problem as well though is that a lot of the potential for conflict in the middle east between these nations has always been via proxy conflicts and I think you could argue nuclear weapons potentially make that more dangerous, nations feel like they can get away with direct involvement because the threat of their nuclear weapons will hold back opponents from directly confronting them, basically what we've seen happen in Ukraine and what happened multiple times during the cold war.

Beyond how destructive they can be there's always the risk those proxy conflicts spiral out of control as well and you do end up with nuclear weapons being used, it might not have happened yet but that doesn't mean it can't, there were certainly points in the cold war were it threatened to.