Why We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran

On a similar vein, this interview Jon Stewart did with Trita Parsi (National Iranian American Council President) is interesting and has changed my view on Iran somewhat. It really feels like Iran wants to work with us. The interview may be biased, but it would be easy to disprove what Parsi says if it were factually inaccurate.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-8-2012/trita-parsi (couldn't copy the embed for some reason)

 

Great article. Thanks for linking it here. I’m completely in agreement with him that Iran having nuclear weapons isn’t the worst possible outcome to this situation. The only area where I would have liked him to spend a bit more time on was the last part.

I think he gives short shrift to the threat faced by Israel. Any Israeli Mossad head is not going to say that Israel is weak to attack. The perception of strength and second strike capability will be hugely important for Israel if and when Iran develops nuclear weapons. Israel would retain overwhelming military superiority, but Israel’s not a large place so any nuclear detonation in Israel would be ruinous. I think that a distinction should be make between existential threats and actual threats. I agree with the author because while I think that Iran with nuclear weapons poses a theoretically higher threat to the existence of Israel, I don’t think this weakness really matters. As he said, Iran with nuclear weapons is not given a license to be a regional trouble-maker so a nuclear armed Iran is unlikely to create the worst outcome.

Unless it does, of course. The problem with nuclear weapons is the problem with nuclear power in general. We seem to be incapable of assigning accurate values to the magnitude of downsides multiplied by the chance of occurrence. A nuclear armed Iran does undermine the non-proliferation regime and one Black Swan is all it takes. An N-player nuclear arms race in such a small area has got to be more volatile that the traditional 2-player Cold War model.

 

Also, dear god that Wikipedia article is complete junk. The section on Commentary by and about Pillar is the worst part. I cannot stand the faux objectivism of Wikipedia editing standards. You'll have some official say something like the sky is blue and then you have, "However according to blogger Michelle Malkin, X is a a partisan hack and lost lost any hold he/she had on reality if he/she ever had a hold on reality."

 

arguing that Israel should allow Iran the capability to annihilate them at the push of a button, is dumb

 

Well, the US can annihilate the entire world at the push of a button. Does this mean the rest of the world should invade the US just to make sure some rogue POTUS want to see what post-apocalyptic Earth look like?

 

My immediate reaction was to respond in kind and write some insulting post since your post itself is insulting to the idea of discussion. However, I figure I might as well try to engage you so as to not be seen a hypocrite.

Why do you think the U.S. should sacrifice its own sovereignty and its own interests to protect Israel from this existential threat (presuming it is actually any more of the threat than Iran's existence, period)? Why should we protect Israel from Iran and not the other way around? How about India and Pakistan, does your guiding principle apply to that theoretical nuclear conflict as well? And what result with China and Russia?

 

Sure if we were threatening to wipe out an entire population.

How would we be sacrificing our sovereignty defending an ally?

Disagree that it's not in our interest to protect the only democracy in the Middle East.

Israel is a democratic ally, Iran is the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Those are more complicated. Haven't heard any of those regimes threatening to wipe out other countries.

When someone says they want to annihilate you and is developing the capability to do so, are you're supposed to just act as if it won't happen?

 

He wants to wipe out Israel, not Israelis. It may seem a tiny difference to us, but not to Iranians or Israelis. This is not unusual, Israel is pointing 200 nukes at Iran (give or take 100 since they are undeclared).

What does Israel need nukes for? For the countries in its immediate surroundings where it would never consider dropping a nuke? or further the other nuclear nations, who are all peaceful towards Israel? Do you think Iran would do to Israel what the US did to Hiroshima, knowing that 30% of the population are Palestinians, and the rest of the Palestinians are in Gaza and West Bank? Be realistic. It doesn't make sense politically or ideologically or strategically, even for these people.

It's clear from the statements, from AIPAC, from the media, Israel has targetted Iran for millitary action, and Israel is by far the most dominant military force in the region. Who should be scared of who? Are we to believe that Israel is the victim and Iran the protagonist based on an empty threat and one POSSIBLE FUTURE nuke vs a couple hundred nukes? I digress, nukes are not an immediate danger, and more long-term than the American political memory. At present, nuclear power and weapons are the right of every country that has demonstrated responsibility according to an independent review. Should Iran's government become stable in the future, will t he pursuit of nuclear weapons still be a problem? That's the real hurdle that's being avoided here.

Iranians don't hate Israelis. Some Iranians hate Israelis because they have been taught to do so. Regular average joe Iranians are against the same people you are against, but there would be hundreds of thousands of them (people just like you and me) who would die as collateral damage.

Seems to me there should be no special reason to protect an innocent citizen of Israel anymore than an innocent citizen of Iran. So why is it ok that thousands of innocent Iranians would die? To protect a smaller number of innocent Israelis? How is that logical? Do you think the innocent Iranian people are responsible for the antics of their government? Do you think they chose to be born in Iran rather than Israel or that they have any more influence over their aggressive government than even allegedly democratic Israelis do over their government? If you are American, how much control do you have over whether your country goes to war (in a country where the two viable parties opt for war)?

Is an innocent Israeli civilian more of an ally to the US than an innocent Iranian civilian? What chance does that Iranian have of demonstrating his/her tolerance of other people in a country where it has been made undeniably clear (cost: blood of thousands of iranians) that the people don't feel like their voice is communicated through the current political system.

You have to start seeing things from the perspective of humans rather than the perspective of administrative war borders drawn by super powers following a world war which escalated to the point of mass murder and nuclear massacre. That's not asking for much.

Anyways, I've babbled enough. Not all of this is directed at you, started rambling at some point.

 

another idiotic post by mathloon

 

I thought it was a pretty good post.

For a moment, let's consider the perspective of a typical Iranian civilian, since he/she is most endangered by all of this: Two of the most powerful militaries in the world are continually threatening to bomb/invade your country, one of which has just occupied your neighbor. Is it any surprise they would support obtaining any deterrent they can find? And nuclear weapons, its been shown, are unfortunately the best deterrent to getting attacked.

 

Arguing that you can stop them is folly. They have the support of Russia and China. They have a large population. They have mountainous terrain. Even if you nuke them from orbit and start a world war you are probably just delaying the inevitable and inflaming the situation.

The best tactic is economic sanctions, covert actions, political negotiation with the super powers, and subversion of the youth for a future overthrow of the theocracy . With the standing threat of Mutually Assured Destruction of course.

If you think an American armored column is ever driving into Tehran you are delusional.

 

Israel is not the only democracy. They're "democracy" is just as twisted as the Lebanese "democracy." I see Israel as the American colonists with tanks instead of muskets. They have kicked the inhabitants off their land, they have detained them, there is no rule of law in Israel, not for the Palestinians. Yet we call them a democracy like they are some kind of friend to peace. Before anyone goes there, the Holocaust does not excuse this behavior. It may be the reason for their paranoia, but it can not excuse it.

We give $114 billion a year to Israel and most the time they just ignore whatever we ask of them. We feel we owe ito Israel to back them up. I say screw that, the British are the ones who fked this up, why are we wasting our money and time to fund a hypocritical regime who is likely to be more hostile than Iran.

The only interest Americans should have in this is oil. And that shouldn't be taken lightly. Although it is a monetary interest and we're talking about people here, you have to take the industry into account when discussing the Middle East. If Iran and Israel were to attack each other you would likely see destabilization in the Gulf Coast States, further decay in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, another war in Lebanon, and more hostility in Yemen. The entire region is on thin ice, with all the accomplishments of the Arab Spring it would be shameful to allow this to escalate and bring it all down.

This is a very difficult situation, on the one hand we have to worry about our interest, oil is an enormous interest. On the other hand, for all of the wars we've started to promote democracy, we have a real chance here to stand up for democracy and diplomacy. Defund the fake democracies, let Israel destroy itself if that's what she wishes.

 

how did he feel about Soviet missiles in Cuba?

 

I'm not sure I follow you. By being forced to act for Israel we would necessarily be sacrificing U.S. sovereignty. So, burden is on you, how is it not?

Why? Also why should we support a flawed democracy. Why stop there, why not any of the countries one step below designated hybrid states like Turkey, Tunisia and Lebanon? Should we act for their interests as well?

That's because U.S. media doesn't spend its time playing up stupid comments by Indian or Pakistani leaders. Those leaders are also a bit more savvy about not putting their foots in their mouths. It's also been over 35 years since India developed a nuclear weapon. And over 25 years since Pakistan developed its own. India’s initial test was even conducted in the Rajasthan state bordering Pakistan explicitly as a show of force against Pakistan, pretty much forcing Pakistan to race for nuclear weapons. I imagine that that felt like an enormous existential threat to Pakistan recently coming off a war where they had lost territory to India. Indian leaders have said they wanted to annihilate Pakistanis and Pakistanis have threatened to annihilate Indians, it just happened behind closed doors or before the advent of the Internet.

One of the main architects for the nuclear program of Pakistan, AQ Khan, was quoted recently in Newsweek saying:

This is how other non-nuclear states think. By Iran’s estimate, it is Israel right now that poses the existential threat to Iran, as does the United States. Going by some dumb threats made by a head of state is a stupid way to conduct foreign policy. Better to look at actions. As the author of the original article says, Iran has so far showed itself to act rationally. Why would it suddenly act irrationally and attempt to wipe Israel off the map when it had nukes? Why would it act any differently that any other country who has developed nuclear weapons? Is it somehow more likely to act worse than Russia, who less than a century back showed no compunctions about letting its own citizens die? Or China who did the same but only half a century ago? I don’t think so, it will get nuclear weapons, its regional power will increase meaning Israel’s regional power slightly decreases, and that will likely be that. No one erases anyone.

The United States is always declassifying documents shedding light on direct threats made by U.S. presidents against other countries. We’ve seriously contemplated using nuclear weapons against countries deemed to be threats faced by at least three presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Should we be invaded or bombed by someone, you know, just in case? I don’t think anyone here should be doing any bombings based on what some threat by an official. Actions are what matter when it comes to foreign policy.

Wait, when has Iran credibly said it wanted to annihilate the United States? Even if they have said something, have they acted in any way to show they plan on annihilating us completely the second they develop a nuclear weapon? When have they done anything aggressive to us commensurate to what we have done to them? Look, the Indian-Pakistan situation has given us somewhat of a blueprint already. Israel (presumably) developed nuclear weapons first, Iran feeling threatened by Israel develops its own. No one attacks anyone and future interactions between the two countries are conducted under the overhang of nuclear weapons. Minor skirmishes are acceptable under this framework, but nothing that escalates.

 

Sanctions don't work, they just piss off the populous and make the anti-US rhetoric even stronger. Covert actions are what brought us to this situation. The superpowers only care about themselves, their government is getting to their youth before and better than we are. We're losing this battle. Back out now, put your best best effort into diplomatic negotiations and pray.

 

I largely agree with the analysis of the article but more than that I don't think there is realistically much we or the Israelis can do to stop Iran from getting a nuke if they are determined to do so.

It's not going to be easy to bomb Iran's nuke facilities and even if we do they can build new ones. A land invasion of Iran would be suicidal and highly doubtful we have the capabilities to do so. More than likely we will have to live with a nuclear Iran.

 

Watched an interview with an ex-mossad chief on msnbc and he's convinced that Iran is a rational actor that is not likely to attack Israel. He does not see any reason why Israel should attack Iran at this point. I'm sure this guy can't just say things in the public without some sort of approval, so if he says this, it carries a lot of weight.

 

I saw part of the 60 Minutes interview with Meir Dagan, that is probably the same guy you saw, and he said exactly the same thing.

I've also heard a few other analyst say that Iran might not develop a nuke pointing out that Ayatollah Khamenei has said on a few occasions that nuclear arms are un-Islamic. It's very possible that Iran would like to get to the point of having the capability to make one but not do so.

 

This is asinine. The U.S. can wipe any nation from the planet in a land war. Remember Iraq's "Elite" guard? Yeah they stonewalled the Iranian's for decades and we rolled through them and their military so quickly and efficiently it boggled the worlds minds.

We can't OCCUPY other nations. History shows no-one can effectively do that without brutal tactics.