• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

EagleAye said:
Even on this site, we have many people who think Iran is utterly harmless, and therefor blameless. They claim that Iran has done nothing wrong to anyone. When others offer that Iran has supplied arms to Hamas and Hezbollah, supplied fighters and IEDs into Iraq, supplied weapons to the Taliban, and supplied tanks and arms for the civilian massacre in Syria, these smart enough to know facts are tossed aside as preposterous. The counter is it's only the US doing bad things in the world so we should stop falsely accusing Iran.

And who would it be that tells us Iran passed a nuke to Hezbollah? The CIA. Well nobody wants to believe anything the CIA says. I always hear, "oh yeah and they CIA got it right about WMDs in Iraq, right?" So our primary source of information wouldn't be accepted anyway.

This would show that we are NOT smart enough to know where Hezbollah would get a hypothetical nuke. It tells Iran that a good chunk of American society is fooled into believing Iran would never do a bad thing or even a dumb thing. So this tells Iran they could quite likely get away with claiming innocence of delivering a nuke to Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the government/military doesn't consult DPF when making these sorts of decisions. :)
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I would not say that Iran is "harmless," but I think that they are not the threat that the media and so many pundits are trying to make them out to be. While they may be able to launch some rockets and do a lot of saber-rattling, they are not, in any way, an existential threat to either the United States or Israel.

I don't think that Iran would be so stupid as to hand off a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas because it is already common knowledge that Iran funds both organizations and that if either group were to get a nuke, we'd already have a good idea of who gave it to them using the process of elimination.
Click to expand...
I'm saying you specifically think Iran is harmless, but a lot of people apparently do. While their military strength is not a significant threat, it's their practice of arming and supplying militants, terrorists, and otherwise fanatics that constitutes the real threat from Iran. This has generally been glossed over because this small scale practice isn't an existential threat to anyone, as you say. But once Iran can make its own nukes, then Iran will constitute a severe existential threat. Their attack will not be an easily defended missile attack, it would be a nuclear warhead aboard a ship or a panel van, which is far harder to defend against. Remember, the goal is not retribution after a city has been obliterated, it's preventing the destruction of a city at all!

And while US intelligence indicates Iran does not have a weapon nor have they definitively decided to assemble one, intelligence also shows they have collected many of the pieces necessary to build a nuke should they so choose to. So if we trust that intelligence is right that they aren't building a nuke, we should also trust intelligence that says they're collecting the pieces for nuke.

Even if Hezbollah destroys Haifa, and it would seem logical that Iran supplied the weapon, we still see a lot of people NOT accepting the idea that Iran could do any wrong. People are refusing to even trust our intelligence services. So even if the CIA points an accusing finger at Iran, we'll see many people accusing the CIA of bias against Iran. They may even refuse the chance at retribution. Understand that Iran reads the US press too. And they can see a certain ambiguity in the American mindset. They may read this as a weakness in American solidarity that Iran could exploit and get away with a nuclear terrorist act.

Mr. Invisible said:
Actually, I'd have to disagree as in his recent speech to AIPAC, Obama stated

I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power: a political effort aimed at isolating Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored, an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.​
(Transcript of Obama?s AIPAC speech - POLITICO.com)

In addition to this, Obama stated in a recent interview with The Atlantic that "both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities" and "that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a 'profound' national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran." (Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff' - Jeffrey Goldberg - International - The Atlantic)

So not only do you have Obama saying that we'll still use military force, but in addition to this, that he has completely and totally given up on even attempting to contain Iran of they do get a nuclear weapon. I don't know about you, but that is pretty pro-war rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Obama MUST maintain a strong stance in regards to Iran. If he takes the military option off the table, then negotiations have no hope of success. If Iran sees they have unlimited time to draw out negotiations they will never negotiate in good faith. Why would they? So the threat of military strikes must remain present to insure that the preferred option of diplomacy has a chance at all. Obama isn't beating war drums, he's actually doing the best thing possible to give peace a chance.

And while Obama still considers military strikes possible, he's made it extremely clear that attacks are the last resort. Diplomacy is his preferred method. This isn't beating war drums in the slightest, it's pushing for a peaceful settlement. Observe:
President Barack Obama and the Republican presidential hopefuls clashed Tuesday over how to address Iran's nuclear program. The Republican contenders accused Obama of weakness, while Obama blasted back that presidents do not launch wars lightly.
[...]
"We have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically," Obama told his first news conference of the year. "We are going to continue to apply pressure even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through where they can rejoin the community of nations."
Click to expand...

While Obama is under considerable pressure to attack, he is resisting and insisting on diplomacy
Santorum sharply criticized the joint offer by the United States, European countries, Russia and China to resume talks with Iran on its suspected nuclear weapons program as "another appeasement, another delay, another opportunity for them to go forward (with developing a nuclear weapon) while we talk."

Romney assailed the administration's go-slow approach on Iran, saying "the only thing respected by thugs and tyrants is our resolve, backed by our power and our readiness to use it."
Click to expand...
Republicans clash with Obama on Iranian response - Yahoo! News

So it's clear to me that Obama wants diplomacy, not war. His actions of resisting Netanyahu and even other members of government make this obvious.
 
EagleAye said:
This suggestion is compelling, because this whole morass over Iran is causing a lot of trouble and tension for everybody. Maybe it would be easiest to take this suggestion and rely on MarineTpartier's backup plan of using intel for forewarning?

BUT then this leaves us in an uncomfortable conundrum. Your source, Philip Giraldi, says we shouldn't trust the IAEA report because they get their intel from other people. He doesn't specifically know who, but guesses it comes from the CIA and Israel. This doesn't say much about bias from the IAEA, but does suggest bias from the CIA and Israel. Which means we shouldn't trust our own intel, which means we also can't trust our own intel about an impending launch from Iran. This compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke.

If we look at it the opposite way, we could trust our intel to give us accurate warning about a potential attack. But then if we trust the CIA about that, shouldn't we trust the CIA when we they provide intel about Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA?

We can't say, "let 'em have the nuke," and trust in our intelligence services when, we want to believe in Philip Giraldi who essentially says don't trust in intelligence services! And if we do that, how can we trust a Pentagon report that get's its information from, Philip Giraldi's other people?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough nor did I provide enough detail in what I was talking about. I am speaking of the US Navy boats that we deploy to the Black Sea. They would be the intel gatherers I speak of. All it takes is Iran to launch a missile, that ship picks it up, shoots it down, now Iran has made itself a pariah that no gov't would deal with. Not even China. Also, Russia agreed to the terms of us deploying that boat for that reason. Thats why I don't see the big deal about Iran having a nuke. WE CAN SHOOT IT DOWN! My opinion of this has evolved substantially now that I have done some research on their program and how we would defend against it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough nor did I provide enough detail in what I was talking about. I am speaking of the US Navy boats that we deploy to the Black Sea. They would be the intel gatherers I speak of. All it takes is Iran to launch a missile, that ship picks it up, shoots it down, now Iran has made itself a pariah that no gov't would deal with. Not even China. Also, Russia agreed to the terms of us deploying that boat for that reason. Thats why I don't see the big deal about Iran having a nuke. WE CAN SHOOT IT DOWN! My opinion of this has evolved substantially now that I have done some research on their program and how we would defend against it.
Click to expand...

When it comes to nuclear-tipped SSMs, that's actually very little problem. ABMs in Turkey and Israel could also kill the missiles. This method is the least likely way for Iran to use nukes if they get them. It easily points guilt at Iran, so they're not likely to use it. They would possess such weapons as a symbol of prestige more than practical use.

What Iran would most likely do is hand a warhead over to a wild-eyed fanatic, happy to go meet Allah. Somebody with no concept of geo-politics or the ****storm that would come from lighting off a nuke from a panel van in Tel Aviv.
 
EagleAye said:
When it comes to nuclear-tipped SSMs, that's actually very little problem. ABMs in Turkey and Israel could also kill the missiles. This method is the least likely way for Iran to use nukes if they get them. It easily points guilt at Iran, so they're not likely to use it. They would possess such weapons as a symbol of prestige more than practical use.

What Iran would most likely do is hand a warhead over to a wild-eyed fanatic, happy to go meet Allah. Somebody with no concept of geo-politics or the ****storm that would come from lighting off a nuke from a panel van in Tel Aviv.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. Why would Iran build a nuclear weapon as a symbol of prestige and power and then hand it over to a "wild eyed fanatic"? Its the either/or, thats the point. They can't build the nuke, then give it away. As soon as someone uses the nuke, they know everyone will look at them. Sure, the nuke will have been used but it will also be the end of Iran as we know it. On the other hand, they can build the nuke and hold on to it in order to intimidate the entire region. I'm going to take a guess and say the power hungry ayatollah's are going to pick the latter course of action.
 
MarineTpartier said:
You just contradicted yourself. Why would Iran build a nuclear weapon as a symbol of prestige and power and then hand it over to a "wild eyed fanatic"? Its the either/or, thats the point. They can't build the nuke, then give it away. As soon as someone uses the nuke, they know everyone will look at them. Sure, the nuke will have been used but it will also be the end of Iran as we know it. On the other hand, they can build the nuke and hold on to it in order to intimidate the entire region. I'm going to take a guess and say the power hungry ayatollah's are going to pick the latter course of action.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't hand over a whole missile, just the warhead, which could fit into a crate.

If Iran develops the capability to build their own nukes, they'll not stop at just one. They might make 20 to fit on missiles for prestige, and another 5 to give to the wild-eyed fanatics. This will do their real work.

And Iran may "believe" they couldn't be held culpable. A lot of Americans don't trust the CIA as far as they can drool. But if Iran gave a nuke to a suicide bomber, it would have to be the CIA that tells us where the warhead originated. And already people don't believe what the CIA says, so why would they believe when the CIA says Iran supplied the warhead? Iran could always claim Chechen rebels stole it from Romania. And there's plenty of Americans that would buy that hook, line, and sinker.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
They wouldn't hand over a whole missile, just the warhead, which could fit into a crate.

If Iran develops the capability to build their own nukes, they'll not stop at just one. They might make 20 to fit on missiles for prestige, and another 5 to give to the wild-eyed fanatics. This will do their real work.

And Iran may "believe" they couldn't be held culpable. A lot of Americans don't trust the CIA as far as they can drool. But if Iran gave a nuke to a suicide bomber, it would have to be the CIA that tells us where the warhead originated. And already people don't believe what the CIA says, so why would they believe when the CIA says Iran supplied the warhead? Iran could always claim Chechen rebels stole it from Romania. And there's plenty of Americans that would buy that hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...

Some estimates have said that Iran is as far away as 2015 in developing enough weapons grade uranium for one bomb. So, if it would take that long to develop for one bomb, it would take at least 100 years to develop enough uranium to fit 20 rockets. A lot can happen in 100 years. Regime changes can happen. Islamic terrorism could cease as we know it. Who knows what happens. So why jump into a war with a country with one nuke who can only produce one missile every 6 years or so?
As far as the CIA. It doesn't matter what the American people think about them. They don't get the information that elected officials get. Thats why we elect them, to make those decisions about whether a CIA intel lead is credible or not. They don't always get it right, but neither would we. I would wager most Americans don't even know what a Chechen is nor do they know Romania is even a country.
I think we should take the JFK Cuban Missile Crisis approach to this. JFK decided against using force, and thank God he did. This would be a very different world had he acted aggressively. This world would be very different if we attacked Iran.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Some estimates have said that Iran is as far away as 2015 in developing enough weapons grade uranium for one bomb. So, if it would take that long to develop for one bomb, it would take at least 100 years to develop enough uranium to fit 20 rockets. A lot can happen in 100 years. Regime changes can happen. Islamic terrorism could cease as we know it. Who knows what happens. So why jump into a war with a country with one nuke who can only produce one missile every 6 years or so?
Click to expand...

Once they develop the material to make one warhead they'll be only months away from more. It's getting the process setup that's really time-consuming. They could have enough started on simultaneous processing for 20 warheads for all we know. So once one is ready, 20 more are just about ready.

MarineTpartier said:
As far as the CIA. It doesn't matter what the American people think about them. They don't get the information that elected officials get. Thats why we elect them, to make those decisions about whether a CIA intel lead is credible or not. They don't always get it right, but neither would we. I would wager most Americans don't even know what a Chechen is nor do they know Romania is even a country.
Click to expand...
Hehe. Very true.

MarineTpartier said:
I think we should take the JFK Cuban Missile Crisis approach to this. JFK decided against using force, and thank God he did. This would be a very different world had he acted aggressively. This world would be very different if we attacked Iran.
Click to expand...

This is my preferred route too. I'm only saying military action might be necessary, but I hope (I really hope) we don't need to. Now is certainly NOT the time to attack. We still have time for diplomacy. Sanctions seem to be doing their work from what I can see. The JFK route looks like it might win the day. I certainly hope it does.
 
Last edited:
Mya said:
Iran is cleaning house .... trying to erase evidence of tests of a small experimental neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion.... before talks begin


Images may suggest Iran is cleansing site - World - The Boston Globe
Click to expand...

VIENNA - Satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear weapon trigger, diplomats said Wednesday.

...

Two of the diplomats said crews at the Parchin military site may be trying to erase evidence of tests of a small experimental neutron device used to set off a nuclear explosion. A third diplomat could not confirm that but said any attempt to trigger a so-called neutron initiator could only be in the context of trying to develop nuclear arms.

The diplomats said they suspect attempts at sanitization because some of the vehicles appeared to be suited to carting off soil.

The images, provided by member countries to the atomic agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, are recent and constantly updated, one of the diplomats said. The diplomats all requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the information.
Click to expand...

Only in the context of this insanity does one find evidence of a nuclear program in the presence of a dump truck.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
The vast majority of acts of terrorism conducted by extremist Muslims are carried out against other Muslims. All of the wars (except the ones started by us) that Middle Eastern nations have fought in since WW2 have been against each other. And often, violence in the Middle East, such as the actions of Saddam that caused the Gulf War, were Sunni vs. Shiite. They're FAR more interested in fighting each other than attacking us. Iran wants us alive, prosperous, and buying their oil.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true at all.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians

The fact is that they are murdering quite a variety of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom