I wouldn't trust them.
oh yeh when was the last media piece you read about the danger of Pakistans Nukes, bet you have read more about Iran's which dont yet exsist.
I see Pakistan as more as a threat personally the whole country is in a power struggle
By historical evidence, I was not only referring Iran, but also to the history of how nations have used nuclear weapons. For the most part, nations haven't used nukes to get regional hegemony and threaten people. They use them as deterrence, period. It is also isn't supported by the current international environment because Iran could not get away with doing whatever it wants because the United States still has the power and will to stop it. Nukes aren't some magic potion that automatically gives a state that power to do whatever it wants. If that were the case, Israel would have crushed Iran by now.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.
Exactly. They fear tipping the scales and they will continue to have the fear with nuclear weapons.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.
And this is where the problem is. You think that nuclear weapons will stop them from being afraid. However, it won't. The reason they are afraid now is because they know other states are bigger and more powerful. When they get nuclear weapons, other states will still be bigger and more powerful. Moreover, the history of nuclear weapons does not support the notion that Iran will just go crazy with their nukes.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.
Iran: We Can Hit 35 US Bases in 'Minutes' - ABC News
This may be the next President's first challenge. So help me God!! If we send troops in there, I'm marching in the streets.
Here's the thing though, again. I've provided evidence to support my claims - actual reports of Iran's nuclear programs, reports of the nuclear programs of other ME countries, the opinions ME CIA analysts, academic research, the history of nuclear weapons use by nuclear powers and so on. You have provided ... nothing. You just keep repeating talking points and not responding at all to the reports and research that I've provided. Because of that, your claims don't actually mean anything. Hopefully, you look at the sources I provided and find more information for yourself, but I'm frankly no longer interested in a conversation where I put effort into providing evidence and you don't.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.
well I served in the British army so not sure what the American army was saying but my Army was saying right " lets go get this bastard"
Here's the thing though, again. I've provided evidence to support my claims - actual reports of Iran's nuclear programs, reports of the nuclear programs of other ME countries, the opinions ME CIA analysts, academic research, the history of nuclear weapons use by nuclear powers and so on. You have provided ... nothing. You just keep repeating talking points and not responding at all to the reports and research that I've provided. Because of that, your claims don't actually mean anything. Hopefully, you look at the sources I provided and find more information for yourself, but I'm frankly no longer interested in a conversation where I put effort into providing evidence and you don't.
Good for you Maggie. Our troops have suffered enough.
Iran has a history of blustering behavior to get attention and to stir up support within the country....the sanctions might actually be hurting them more than we think.
I'm not sure how you think nations with nuclear weapons behave, but the prevailing doctrine in both academic and strategic literature and policy analysis is a litany of references to the strategic implications of a nuclear weapon state and how such capability augments the capacity of a country to behave assertively and forcefully within its periphery and abroad. The most highly cited example in history is that of the US and USSR for obvious reasons. Moreover there are plenty of contemporary or near past examples to examine. I'm not sure what you are getting at. This is not a discussion of MAD, that is a separate issue and a valid one.
Furthermore you have missed my point. I'm not saying Iran would pass along chemical weapons to Hezbollah, that probably would cross a redline even if the state had nuclear weapons and would incite a like minded retaliation. The issue is that Iran has consistently, since the 1979 revolution, sought regional hegemony with a religious-nationalist tint. In pursuit of this it has incited and attempted to foment rebellions in Saudi Arabia and along the Gulf littoral, it has battled for control over the future of Iraq in the hopes of winning another firm ally, extended ties to the Houthi rebels of Northern Yemen as a possible conduit for Iranian power to upset Saudi power in Yemen and Najran and Asir, it has pursued the creation of strong proxies in Lebanon to balance against Israel and to assist in the cementing of power with Syria, and of course it has funneled weapons and aid to Hamas as a means to counterbalance the GCC backed Palestinian Authority, etc etc.
A nuclear weapon would significantly reduce Iran's reasons for limited its assistance to these groups and in restraining its activities abroad. Why? Because a nuclear option no matter how weak massively reduces the prospect that a Western or Gulf coalition will strike back at you. It adds a tremendous layer of doubt to every possible conventional or unconventional encounter.
US bases are less than 200km from Iranian borders, I would damn well hope their missiles can hit in far less than 35 minutes. :roll:
Well we would have to worry IF we were going to invade. But we are not.
we?
why is the US always talking about war?
I thought that Armajinedad wanted to eradicate Jews?
They seem to love him in Iran
View attachment 67135188
LOL! If you expect me to believe some picture, you must be delusional.
actually that picture is quite believable, it's just Dishonestly Uncontexted.LOL! If you expect me to believe some picture, you must be delusional.
actually that picture is quite believable, it's just Dishonestly Uncontexted.
A'jad has regularly met with ultra-orthodox anti-zionist Jews.
Namely, Fringe groups 'True Torah Jews' and the more famous 'Neturei Karta'/NKusa/jewsnotzionists.
Thus you see their garb.
These Jews have shown up at his Holocaust denial conferences as well.
Useful ijots.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ahm...&sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Klown was caught Lyng a few pages ago about there being "1.5 Mllon Jews in Iran".
When caught, he bluffed with the more exact/authoritative "1.47 mllion."
There are 8500 Jews left in Iran, 1/10th as many as when the Islamst revolution started in 1979.
Persian Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOL! If you expect me to believe some picture, you must be delusional.
Surely not all of the photos are forgeries?
It looks like a life long romance
And after all, there are over 30 Synagogues in Iran today - heard of any protests or bombings at this places of worship? I didnt think so. Looks like the US and Israel are just addicted to power, dominance and war - up to their old tricks again
View attachment 67135191View attachment 67135193
Thanks! I love these funny photos. LOL!
and current nuclear programs in the Middle East say the same.