• 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!

Iran is heating up . . . [W:259]

Higgins86 said:
The West survived the cold war for the very reason it started, no country will launch nukes as they know it will be their very destruction. Even if Iran were to acquire a short range nuke they wont fire, why would they? They want a nuke for the same reason most countries want a nuke so they can be taken seriously and have more chips on the table.
Click to expand...

Well that's a chance that some of us don't want to take just because some people say they think it won't happen.
 
ChrisL said:
Well that's a chance that some of us don't want to take just because some people say they think it won't happen.
Click to expand...

well if you look at the last 60 years its a safe bet that Iran would not launch nukes unless of course they were attacked first. What makes you think they would launch Nukes and endanger their own being?
 
Sherman123 said:
Certainly Iran has 'rational' reasons for seeking a nuclear weapon, that doesn't mean they should have them. I think an absolutely massive facet of this many overlook is the way in which nuclear weapons would shift the strategic calculus in the region, particularly from Iran's perspective. My point, and the point that many have made, is that a nuclear Iran obviates Iranian fears of regime change and significantly reduces their concern over a conventional strike on their territory.

As a result of this new-found security Iran would be able to more aggressively pursue its regional objectives, which revolve around regional hegemony. It's ability to project proxy forces would aggressively increase on critical fronts including Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Furthermore its ability to use its nuclear capability as a buffer would significantly increase their propensity for launching limited conventional attacks at Gulf targets, or along its periphery in reaction to geopolitical tensions. The underground battle for Iraq being waged by Iranian and Gulf (primarily Saudi) agents, donors, and proxies could become overt. So many things could happen, and we can pretty clearly see many of the ones that would happen, it would be a terrible thing to allow to occur.
Click to expand...
1. I don't think they should have them. As I've said before, it's not in our interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. But again, saying that they "should" have weapons was not the point of my post. I was responding the implication that Iran doesn't have rational reasons for acquiring weapons. I'm glad we agree that it does.

2. I can't speak for others, but I'm not overlooking how nuclear weapons could change the region. In fact, I've made a point to argue and, in some cases, demonstrate with evidence, that the claims about how it would drastically change the region are exaggerated. Now, I agree that nukes would make Iran safer from regime change and conventional strikes. I've said that as well. This is bad for the US because we want to keep all options open, but good for Iran.

3. Your predictions about how Iran would attempt to gain regional hegemony are not realistic, in my opinion. It's neither supported by historical evidence nor the current international system in which the United States can still kick Iran's ass if it tries to expand its reach in problematic ways.
 
Higgins86 said:
well if you look at the last 60 years its a safe bet that Iran would not launch nukes unless of course they were attacked first. What makes you think they would launch Nukes and endanger their own being?
Click to expand...

Who knows why when you have religious fanatics in charge of an entire country and an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Look at the last 60 years of what? Iran hasn't had nukes for the past 60 years, and I don't believe that Iran is like other rogue countries with nukes, such as North Korea. IMO, Iran is a completely different situation. I don't think they are as predictable as you seem to think.
 
ChrisL said:
Who knows why when you have religious fanatics in charge of an entire country and an arsenal of nuclear weapons? Look at the last 60 years of what? Iran hasn't had nukes for the past 60 years, and I don't believe that Iran is like other rogue countries with nukes, such as North Korea. IMO, Iran is a completely different situation. I don't think they are as predictable as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Pakistan and India do
 
Higgins86 said:
well if you look at the last 60 years its a safe bet that Iran would not launch nukes unless of course they were attacked first.
Click to expand...

And if we look at the last 30 years we can see what they would do with nukes (North Korea).
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. I don't think they should have them. As I've said before, it's not in our interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. But again, saying that they "should" have weapons was not the point of my post. I was responding the implication that Iran doesn't have rational reasons for acquiring weapons. I'm glad we agree that it does.

2. I can't speak for others, but I'm not overlooking how nuclear weapons could change the region. In fact, I've made a point to argue and, in some cases, demonstrate with evidence, that the claims about how it would drastically change the region are exaggerated. Now, I agree that nukes would make Iran safer from regime change and conventional strikes. I've said that as well. This is bad for the US because we want to keep all options open, but good for Iran.
3. Your predictions about how Iran would attempt to gain regional hegemony are not realistic, in my opinion. It's neither supported by historical evidence nor the current international system in which the United States can still kick Iran's ass if it tries to expand its reach in problematic ways.
Click to expand...

Good for Iran but probably not very good for it's citizens though, like what Eco said in his post.
 
Higgins86 said:
Pakistan and India do
Click to expand...

They do, but I haven't seen the type of religious insanity displayed by those governments like I have from Iran.
 
ChrisL said:
Iran is the country that does all the ridiculous threatening posturing.
Click to expand...
Actually, Israel and the United States do quite a lot of their own. As I said before, you're just looking at this purely from a Western perspective and that's clouding your judgment. I've also provided you with primary sources and actual resources, but you're still just repeating uninformed talking points which is disheartening.

It is a hostile country, oppressive to it's people.
Click to expand...
Yep.

I believe a lot of terrorists come from Iran too.
Click to expand...
Proof? And how is this relevant to this discussion? A lot of terrorists come from Saudi Arabia and India and there are plenty of terrorists in the United States, Russia and other nuclear powers as well.

And their leaders are not playing with a full deck obviously.
Click to expand...
Proof?
 
ChrisL said:
They do, but I haven't seen the type of religious insanity displayed by those governments like I have from Iran.
Click to expand...

If Pakistan's radical elements in the government had control, it would lock down like nK. But even the central government, with combined efforts, cannot control the warlord lands let alone the semi-informed citizens.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. I don't think they should have them. As I've said before, it's not in our interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. But again, saying that they "should" have weapons was not the point of my post. I was responding the implication that Iran doesn't have rational reasons for acquiring weapons. I'm glad we agree that it does.

2. I can't speak for others, but I'm not overlooking how nuclear weapons could change the region. In fact, I've made a point to argue and, in some cases, demonstrate with evidence, that the claims about how it would drastically change the region are exaggerated. Now, I agree that nukes would make Iran safer from regime change and conventional strikes. I've said that as well. This is bad for the US because we want to keep all options open, but good for Iran.

3. Your predictions about how Iran would attempt to gain regional hegemony are not realistic, in my opinion. It's neither supported by historical evidence nor the current international system in which the United States can still kick Iran's ass if it tries to expand its reach in problematic ways.
Click to expand...

In what way is it not reflective of historical evidence or contemporary political behavior on the part of the Islamic Republic? In terms of nuclear weapons providing strategic invulnerability which leads to more aggressive proxy behavior, as well as skirting the conventional edge one need only look to the US and USSR, and in the modern day Pakistan and North Korea. While Iran today has made it a clear point of its foreign policy to extend its influence as aggressively as possible, and Iranian commentators and policy analysts consistently reflect upon the need for Iran to regain its place in the sun and to lead the anti-US anti-Saudi axis in the region which would eventually be in the ascendancy in their vision.

Plainly speaking, of course they desire regional hegemony but have been limited and relatively restrained in their ability to act. Why? Because they fear both conventional and asymmetric counter stroke. Why aren't they, and why didn't they pump guns and agents to the Houthi in Yemen? Why have they been so placid with regards to the Shia demonstrations and clashes in the Eastern Province and in Bahrain? Why have they been so keen to keep a tamp on Hezbollah and to limit their arms flow to Hamas? It goes on, and on. Because they fear tipping the scales too far and incurring an American or Gulf led counter stroke. Either conventionally, or through the arming of paramilitaries in Iran, or direct action against Iranian proxies.

With that fear obviated by nuclear security Iran would be much more aggressive, and much more capable and unconstrained to use its 'deadly swam of mosquito forces' in all forms. They could surge weapons to Hezbollah and see them used on Israel or the Lebanese government with impunity, knowing retaliation against them will be tremendously limited. They can send military formations to Iraq without fear of the spillover crossing back into Iran. They can arm the Shia in the Eastern Province with explosives, and send weapons and IRGC agents to Yemen, why? Because the ability to act against them has been more or less taken off the table.
 
ChrisL said:
Good for Iran but probably not very good for it's citizens though, like what Eco said in his post.
Click to expand...
You're just making unsubstantiated claims. Thus far, out of the two of us, I'm the only one who has actually provided sources for my claims (the IAEA, etc.). What do you think the implications of that are?
 
ChrisL said:
They do, but I haven't seen the type of religious insanity displayed by those governments like I have from Iran.
Click to expand...

really? A pakistani gov official this week called for the death of an American citizen! Lets not forget as well America didnt even let Pakistan know they were going in for Bin Laden because they cant be trusted! The whole country is a breeding ground for Islamics and politicans who dont lean that way are attacked.
 
Higgins86 said:
really? A pakistani gov official this week called for the death of an American citizen! Lets not forget as well America didnt even let Pakistan know they were going in for Bin Laden because they cant be trusted! The whole country is a breeding ground for Islamics and politicans who dont lean that way are attacked.
Click to expand...

Okay. Thanks for that info. So don't you think we should do something to stop another rogue country from obtaining nukes?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You're just making unsubstantiated claims. Thus far, out of the two of us, I'm the only one who has actually provided sources for my claims (the IAEA, etc.). What do you think the implications of that are?
Click to expand...

I think that you are MUCH too optimistic about Iran. Why anyone would think they are the victims here, I don't know. Iran is a country run by religious extremists. They would be completely unpredictable with this kind of power. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay. Thanks for that info. So don't you think we should do something to stop another rogue country from obtaining nukes?
Click to expand...

Pakistan is not really rogue. Iirc, the US had a lot to do with the logistics and security of Pakistan's nukage. They don't refuse inspectors, what UNSCRs is Pakistan in violation of? We use its bases to fly gear. The regime is rather well behaved with India and the whole disputed territory thing.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay. Thanks for that info. So don't you think we should do something to stop another rogue country from obtaining nukes?
Click to expand...

well my point being is that Pakistan are an unstable country WITH nukes and yet thats fine but yet you worry about Iran who are a country who dont yet have them and they are a threat!?
 
ecofarm said:
Pakistan is not really rogue. Iirc, the US had a lot to do with the logistics and security of Pakistan's nukage. They don't refuse inspectors, what UNSCRs is Pakistan in violation of? We use its bases to fly gear.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust them.
 
Higgins86 said:
well my point being is that Pakistan are an unstable country WITH nukes and yet thats fine but yet you worry about Iran who are a country who dont yet have them and they are a threat!?
Click to expand...

Who the heck said that it's fine? And yes, again, Iran is a country run by religious extremists (I keep typing extremities instead of extremists - LOL).
 
Higgins86 said:
well my point being is that Pakistan are an unstable country WITH nukes and yet thats fine but yet you worry about Iran who are a country who dont yet have them and they are a threat!?
Click to expand...

Pakistan =/= Iran, see my post #117.
 
ChrisL said:
Who the heck said that it's fine? And yes, again, Iran is a country run by religious extremists (I keep typing extremities instead of extremists - LOL).
Click to expand...

yeh the media and the politicans say its fine!
 
I don't think anyone feels comfortable with Pakistan having nukes either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom