Full Version: Iranian nuclear weapons program
It is highly likely that the Iranians are working towards the construction of a nuclear weapon. Despite diplomatic efforts, no substantial progress has been made in terminating the Iranian nuclear program.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iranian nuclear ambitions were opportunistic in nature and slow in pace. Three factors motivated Iranian nuclear efforts:
1. The utility of such weapons against Israel
2. The option of providing one to terrorists to advance Iranian interests
3. The insurance against attack afforded by possession of such a weapon
None of these three factors provided a compelling case for an Iranian nuclear program. Use of a nuclear weapon against Israel, either directly or through terrorists, would surely trigger a devastating Israeli retaliatory strike. Use of a nuclear weapon against the USA might not trigger a nuclear retaliation, but would certainly bring severe negative consequences to Iran.
The third factor did carry some logical heft; there's no better insurance against attack than a nuke. However, prior to October 2001 there was no rational basis to believe that any enemy might attack Iran. The only possible aggressor, Iraq, had seen its military capabilities crushed in the Gulf War. The Iranian security outlook was solid.
The invasion of Afghanistan weakened the security of Iran. The USA attacked a neighbor and client of Iranian interests. The Gulf War had demonstrated American willingness to take an active military role in Middle Eastern affairs, but America did so at the request of legitimate Islamic governments, with the approval and participation of most of the world, and in response to a clear violation of international law. Moreover, the USA did not occupy Iraq; once it had liberated Kuwait and destroyed the Iraqi military, it terminated military operations.
American military actions in Afghanistan represented a worrying step forward, but again there were fundamental constraints on American policy that were reassuring to any Iranian security analyst. The Americans imposed a clear and limited ultimatum not directed at the survival of the Taliban government. The Americans did not themselves provide the primary ground forces; they provided air support for the pre-existing insurgency. Thus, while the American attack on Afghanistan proved worrisome for Iranian security, it did not provide a compelling case for an accelerated Iranian nuclear program.
The American invasion of Iraq, however, was of a completely different nature. There was no predicating event, no trigger for the invasion. The Americans decided to take out Saddam and that was that. From an Iranian point of view, American justifications based on Iraqi WMD were trumped up at best and fabricated at worst. From an Iranian point of view, the same reasoning that led to the American attack on Iraq could be used to justify an attack on Iran. Indeed, a significant minority of the American public is eager to attack Iran even now.
This leads to the question for debate, which I shall not participate in:
Did the invasion of Iraq provide Iran with a compelling case for building nuclear weapons?
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iranian nuclear ambitions were opportunistic in nature and slow in pace. Three factors motivated Iranian nuclear efforts:
1. The utility of such weapons against Israel
2. The option of providing one to terrorists to advance Iranian interests
3. The insurance against attack afforded by possession of such a weapon
None of these three factors provided a compelling case for an Iranian nuclear program. Use of a nuclear weapon against Israel, either directly or through terrorists, would surely trigger a devastating Israeli retaliatory strike. Use of a nuclear weapon against the USA might not trigger a nuclear retaliation, but would certainly bring severe negative consequences to Iran.
The third factor did carry some logical heft; there's no better insurance against attack than a nuke. However, prior to October 2001 there was no rational basis to believe that any enemy might attack Iran. The only possible aggressor, Iraq, had seen its military capabilities crushed in the Gulf War. The Iranian security outlook was solid.
The invasion of Afghanistan weakened the security of Iran. The USA attacked a neighbor and client of Iranian interests. The Gulf War had demonstrated American willingness to take an active military role in Middle Eastern affairs, but America did so at the request of legitimate Islamic governments, with the approval and participation of most of the world, and in response to a clear violation of international law. Moreover, the USA did not occupy Iraq; once it had liberated Kuwait and destroyed the Iraqi military, it terminated military operations.
American military actions in Afghanistan represented a worrying step forward, but again there were fundamental constraints on American policy that were reassuring to any Iranian security analyst. The Americans imposed a clear and limited ultimatum not directed at the survival of the Taliban government. The Americans did not themselves provide the primary ground forces; they provided air support for the pre-existing insurgency. Thus, while the American attack on Afghanistan proved worrisome for Iranian security, it did not provide a compelling case for an accelerated Iranian nuclear program.
The American invasion of Iraq, however, was of a completely different nature. There was no predicating event, no trigger for the invasion. The Americans decided to take out Saddam and that was that. From an Iranian point of view, American justifications based on Iraqi WMD were trumped up at best and fabricated at worst. From an Iranian point of view, the same reasoning that led to the American attack on Iraq could be used to justify an attack on Iran. Indeed, a significant minority of the American public is eager to attack Iran even now.
This leads to the question for debate, which I shall not participate in:
Did the invasion of Iraq provide Iran with a compelling case for building nuclear weapons?
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 9 2005, 11:32 AM)
Did the invasion of Iraq provide Iran with a compelling case for building nuclear weapons?
So, who's telling us that Iran is building nukes? The same guys that told us about WMDs, Iraq's links to Al Qaida prior to the invasion, Iraq's enriched uranium programs, Iraq's gliders that could bomb us with WMD, mobile weapon labs, secret meetings in Prague, blah fricken blah blah?
In other words, these same intelligence guys couldn't get one thing correct about Iraq, but now we're supposed to believe this same crap with Iran? With our current record, the odds are Iran is wanting nuclear power and while we are looking for ways to spread our imperialism.
So, the answer is no. We've weakened ourselves to the point of impotency. We have neither the resources or global support to take on a country like Iran. If I can figure this out, they surely can. They can spend that money much more wisely in say, nuclear power so they can profit more off of long term oil exports to countries that struggle with nuclear power.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jul 9 2005, 11:32 AM)
Did the invasion of Iraq provide Iran with a compelling case for building nuclear weapons?
The American invasion of Iraq, however, was of a completely different nature. There was no predicating event, no trigger for the invasion. The Americans decided to take out Saddam and that was that. From an Iranian point of view, American justifications based on Iraqi WMD were trumped up at best and fabricated at worst. From an Iranian point of view, the same reasoning that led to the American attack on Iraq could be used to justify an attack on Iran. Indeed, a significant minority of the American public is eager to attack Iran even now.
The US-Iranian relations were obviously never strong(in this I mean 1979-present). I think three things led to the Iranians new more public aggressiveness in trying to attain nuclear weapons.
1. They were worried about being placed on the so-called axis of evil.
2. The most aggressive of these nations in building and stock-piling these weapons (North Korea) was being treated with the most respect by the United States.
3. In committing a limited army to Iraq the United States lost its ability to easily make a move on Iran for the short term. And as indicated by the above post, even thought Iran fits the bill for the war we were sold in Iraq (is aggressively pursuing WMDs and has a clear and long demonstrated history of sponsoring and abetting attacks against the United States (including letting many 9-11 bombers come through its borders without giving them a passport stamp)) that selling action against Iran at this time would be very difficult to do.
So I think in realpolitik terms, Iran read the tea leaves and made the right move for them. Proliferation will get rewarded and will be likely to keep American troops from their soil. If the Americans intended to move in before they could finish making a weapon, we couldn't be in a weaker position to act now even with troops in countries on two sides of the Iranian border.
QUOTE
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iranian nuclear ambitions were opportunistic in nature and slow in pace. Three factors motivated Iranian nuclear efforts:
1. The utility of such weapons against Israel
2. The option of providing one to terrorists to advance Iranian interests
3. The insurance against attack afforded by possession of such a weapon
1. The utility of such weapons against Israel
2. The option of providing one to terrorists to advance Iranian interests
3. The insurance against attack afforded by possession of such a weapon
I fail to see how this order or list of factors you have given have been eliminated or replaced. Israel is still a major component of Iranian foreign policy. The other two remain unchanged in my mind as well.
QUOTE
The third factor did carry some logical heft; there's no better insurance against attack than a nuke. However, prior to October 2001 there was no rational basis to believe that any enemy might attack Iran. The only possible aggressor, Iraq, had seen its military capabilities crushed in the Gulf War. The Iranian security outlook was solid.
Did you forget about Israel? Remember when Iraq thought having nuclear power would be fun? What did Israel think in return? So I am going to have to kindly and utterly disagree that Iran had no rational basis to believe a future preemptive strike could occur.
QUOTE
The invasion of Afghanistan weakened the security of Iran. The USA attacked a neighbor and client of Iranian interests.
It did? You care to elaborate on this theory a little bit? I think the Afghan war had quite the opposite effect. I would think that watching the US march into Afghanistan and start blowing the Taliban up would have been something of a cause for celebration in Tehran. I don't think Iran was ever as fond of the Taliban govt. as you seem to be portraying them..in fact I would assert the argument that they were bitter enemies.
QUOTE
The Gulf War had demonstrated American willingness to take an active military role in Middle Eastern affairs, but America did so at the request of legitimate Islamic governments, with the approval and participation of most of the world, and in response to a clear violation of international law. Moreover, the USA did not occupy Iraq; once it had liberated Kuwait and destroyed the Iraqi military, it terminated military operations.
Oh I think the US had shown it's willingness long before that. Also the US/UK did occupy Iraq after the war "ended" with the no-fly-zone..which was also claimed by many govts to be a clear violation of international law too.
QUOTE
The American invasion of Iraq, however, was of a completely different nature. There was no predicating event, no trigger for the invasion. The Americans decided to take out Saddam and that was that. From an Iranian point of view, American justifications based on Iraqi WMD were trumped up at best and fabricated at worst. From an Iranian point of view, the same reasoning that led to the American attack on Iraq could be used to justify an attack on Iran. Indeed, a significant minority of the American public is eager to attack Iran even now.
It was not just the Americans who invaded Iraq..and before you belittle the British presence and the UK/US coalition in Iraq...I think it is important one to consider..especially since you seem so keen on trying to understand the Iranian mindset. I personally am not too convinced on your opinion of the "Iranian POV" I think it is a lot more complex and intricate then you feel it is. I think many things the US has done in the ME recently can be seen as advantageous to Iran. I don't believe that the Iranian govt. thinks like the Iranian people and I think Iran is suffering horribly financially right now as she also is socially. I think if anything the US/UK presence in Iran give the Iranian govt the opportunity to better sell or sex up their propaganda to go against the world and pursue the bomb. Do I believe this will be successful..that I am unsure of.
The Iranian govt. just tightened the noose on the people of Iran. It will be interesting to see how they respond..because the greatest threat the US poses in Iraq to the Iranian govt is not one of guns and bombs.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.