Did I do that?
 

I am left to wonder....is the likelyhood of pre-emtive warfare increased dramatically because of the actions of ourselves?

Iran nears nuclear 'point of no return'

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday January 27, 2005
The Guardian

The Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, warned yesterday that Iran will reach "the point of no return" within the next 12 months in its covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons capability.

Tehran denies pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

Speaking in London before a meeting today with Tony Blair, Lieutenant General Mofaz said Iran was the main long-term threat to the world and stressed that it will not be permitted to build a nuclear bomb. "None of the western countries can live with Iran having a nuclear capability," he told reporters.

Gen Mofaz, a hawk in the Israeli cabinet, who has said in the past that Israel has operational plans in place for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, refused to rule out military action.

Mr Blair, speaking in the Commons yesterday, said the Iranian issue was serious. Asked by a former Labour minister, Michael Meacher, to give an "unequivocal and categorical assurance" that Britain would not take part in any attack on Iran, Mr Blair said: "I know of no such contemplation by the United States of America."

In an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, Mr Blair refused to rule out the option of using military force.

With the US bogged down in the Iraq conflict, opening another front in Iran would be risky. Iran's Shebab-3 rockets are theoretically capable of hitting Israel.

The Israeli and US rhetoric has grown more strident in the last week and could be aimed at pushing Britain, France and Germany into taking a tougher diplomatic approach towards Iran.


The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, said last week that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did against Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

Gen Mofaz indicated yesterday that he thought the US rather than Israel should do it: "It is the strongest power that can stop any nuclear power, especially in the hands of an extreme regime."

US officials have confirmed privately a report by the US reporter Seymour Hersh, in the New Yorker, that US special forces have already been in Iran scouting out its nuclear facilities.

Gen Mofaz, who was born in Iran but left for Israel while a child, said: "Iran is very close to the point of no return, which means the enrichment of uranium, and we believe that the leadership of the US, together with the European countries, should stop as soon as possible this military nuclear programme in Iran."

He added that this point of no return would be reached "in less than a year" and that it would only be "a matter of years" after that that it would assemble the bomb .

The Israeli intelligence assessment, shared by the US and Britain, is that Iran could have a bomb by 2007.

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, flew with his German and French counterparts to Tehran late in 2003 to broker a deal with Iran to suspend its enrichment programme. The deal broke down last year when the troika accused Iran of reneging on the deal. A new round of negotiations is under way and expected to drag on for at least a few months.

Like the US, which is equally sceptical, Israel is pushing for the issue to be referred to the United Nations for the imposition of sanctions and deep inspections by UN staff of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Gen Mofaz's comment about "point of no return" echoed a private briefing by Meir Dagan, the head of the Israeli overseas intelligence service, Mossad, to members of the Knesset on Monday. Mr Dagan said Mr Cheney's remark that Israel might make a pre-emptive strike was aimed at pressing Europe to adopt the tougher US approach towards Iran.

Britain, France and Germany have switched to a harder approach towards Iran. A confidential EU document leaked to Reuters and confirmed independently said the troika had told Iran it would be "unacceptable" for Tehran to keep its uranium enrichment programme, even if, as it claims, it is solely for civil purposes.

The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard ground forces, Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said yesterday: "Iran will retaliate against any stupid moves by Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...399378,00.html

My friends and I were talking earlier this week about startting our own country. Maybe buying a set of islands that had a decent natural resource and who we would opne up trade with. We talked about overnmental programs that were better than the ones in use currently. One of my friends mentioned that we could simply avoid trade with the US. I had to remind him that if we had a natural resource, America would be interested in us. Even if we wanted to be economically independant of the US, we wouldn't be. We couldn't be.

Let's say we start that country. Widgitstan. We buy a large island in the East Indian Ocean. We find rich deposits of natural metals, ready to mine. The government allows private organizations from China and Japan to set up mining organizations there. We start up farming communities. Some of the larger communities grow into towns, then a few large cities. The metal industry is in the process of giving way to the technology industries, when we strike oil. Black death. Suddenly, America's being annoyed with us over not trading with them becomes rage for not sharing oil. A slew of economic hitmen (agents from America who come to bribe local officials) come into Widgetstan. The Prime Minister simply says "We are an independant nation that wants to stand on our own two feet. We desire only peace." An "expert" claims that our military (which is quite small) is developing chemical and nuclear weapons. We simply say we are not, and expect to be left alone. America tells the UN to investigate us. The weapons inspectors come in, and they see our weapons programs are negligable. The Widgetstan army only has a small airforce, some tanks, and some armored vehicles. They continue to inspect. For another 5 years, the weapons inspectors come. Every time they come we have to slow all training and r&d to alow them a tour of all facilities. Several assasination attempts fail to kill the Prime Minister, who is now asking for an investigation into the source of the assasinations. Then the US comes forward with satelite pictures of "mobile weapons platforms" that are fake. They scream that we are a threat to America and the rest of the 1st world. The UN insists that the weapons inspectors have found that a WMD program is completly impossible, and thet they will not support any military action. America gives Widgetstan 3 months to disarm. Widgetstan cannot disarm because there is nothing to disarm. On the night of the first of the fourth month American bombers destroy the capitol, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. We insist we have no weapons, and we have no way to defend ourselves from the aggressors. American propoganda blankets our pleas, saying we are trying to make America look like a bad guy. They are telling the rest of the world they are taking down our evil regime. During the ground assault on Widget City, the capitol, civilians take up arms against the American invaders who just killed hundreds of thousands of their friends, families, and countrimen. They quickly are named to be "insurgents" at best, and "terrorists" at worst. They are captured and heald indefinatally without trial at a prison on the otehr side of the planet. We are quickly linked to Osama Bin Laden, with a wonderfully weak paper trail. Widgetstan burns. They reconstruct our country. We now owe America billions upon billions of dollars for reconstruction. The only way to pay back the money is with our oil. America gets a great discount on Widgetstan's oil, and the American government is looked upon by the American public as heros who are spreading the gift of freedom to the rest of the barbaric world.

Widgetstan is now under the economic control of America. They appoint America-friendly officials. The ballot is a choice between an America-friendly doctor, and an America-friendly lawyer. Soon Widgetstan is a third world country, with America suckeling the oil away. Welcome to the American Empire. America propor gets all the resources, and America's slaves get to wither away and die.

Can anyone say that this is unlikely (besides the name of Widgetstan)?

i'd say the name widgetstan is the most plausible thing about it.

Thanks for that informative constructive critisism. I'm glad you avoided posting a small, vague post. I mean if you were to just post one sentence, I wouldn't know what you disagreed with. Thanks again,
Sarcastic Willravel

Great post willtravel. First time I've seen it all summed up in one paragraph.

Nice fiction you write.

The truth shall set you free......

LMAO. Great.

Anyways economics doesnt quite work like that. Countries want to do business with us because we have the most money to throw around. You could decide to trade only with China and that'd be fine, you'd just be missing out on a very big opportunity. If your industry got to the size to pull US interests it meant that you have an opportunity to make much more money with dealing with the US.

Though, it does beg the question why you take the stance of big-bad US while thinking trade with China is ok (Tienamin?)

I agree with irate.

To have any type of growth, you'll need to TRADE with other nations. What is the point of sitting on a mountain of treasure if you can't sell it to someone. Someone preferably with ALOT of money, who will continue to buy, and continue to enrich you and your country.

Once Widgetistan is opened up to international trade, it no longer dictates the rules.
----------------------------------------------------
About Iran, its not, will the US allow Iran to develop wmd, its will the World allow Iran to develop wmd? The US is doing a lot of talking, to scare Iran, but there'll be no US invasion, imo. Not under Bush's watch anyway - not in the next 4 years.

The economies of Asia are fine to support an up-and-coming little nation. Besides, the claims you make assume a lot about Widgetstan. Widgetstan's government might have full control over trade, both domestic and international. If that's the case, it can easily dictate the rules. Maybe Widgetstan creates widgets, a new computer that costs $20 and can outperform most supercomputers. It sells them to China, Japan (who reverse engineers it, makes it look like anime, and sells it for $15), Russia, and Australia. Just China, Japan, or Australia would be enough to put a ton of money into the Widgetstanian econemy.

I won't be surprised when the US attacks Iran.

First off, that is the way economics work. A government with a lot of power can easily control who they trade with, whether the country is a powerful economic presence or not. The point is that you will trade with America if America wants on of your resources whether you want to or not. That's not freedom.

Because Iraq never wanted to get rid of its oil in exchange for money..

I think certain people need to look at the Pat Buccanan thread regarding us having large sums of money to spend. We don't. We just borrow it and mortgage our future to generations of debt.
If you are going to speak about the United State's buying power (which is very real), kindly do yourself the favor of being honest and aknowledging that our buying power is based on borrowing money, and not much of that is borowed from within either.

Again I hope diplomacy prevails regarding talks with Iran. Christ, Pakistan and India are already testing rockets and have nuclear capabilities. Ooops,..forgot, they are allies.

Hopefully something can arranged before a war is declared. And if Iran is attacked, much like Iraq was with so called bullshit proof, I fully expect them to defend themselves, be it the U.S or Israel who attacks. Afterall George Bush said all countries have a right to defend themselves and their sovereignty.

I don't understand very much about world economics but I heard on the news last night that Japan, France and Germany had federal debt as high or higher than the U.S. as a percentage of GDP. I wonder if most of the economies are operating on borrowed money and how far we can go before everything collapses.

I am just waiting for some Nobel winning economist to blow our minds and change the world and economics as we know it. It has to happen soon, I get that feeling, like something is going to happen, something profound.

And then I woke up.....Hmmmm.....

Are you so trusting? Of course Iraq wanted to sell it's oil. It wanted to make a profit. Now that an "America-friendly" government is in power, the US will get the oil at a much better price. You know that. If they make less profit, they are less likely to survive their destroyed econemy.

Our money is borrrowed money (thank you for a good post, arch13. You da man.). A lot of our money is coming from (ta dah!) CHINA. Money from China is supporting the fight against communism. Oh the hypocracy!

While we probably won't hit an economic wall on the international level, we will probably see a slow rot in countries like the US who insist on borrowing instead of fixing the hemrage. The US, at it's present course, will only be a superpower for another 20-30 years at the most.

if the change is a positive one... i doubt he'll be in the running for the nobel.

however, i am also curious about the next big leap in socioeconomic thought. it seems that we've explored systems that border on the extreme of every spectrum i'm aware of... a new idea with a new paradigm would really be something interesting to explore.

At least this time round the invasion would spread democracy, but Iran's oil has proved problematic in the past too:

"In 1953, Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944, and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax"). Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After over a year of struggle between a variety of different political groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

I seem to remember similar "predictions" 20-30 years ago.

Well, KMA, that's true. We were in an economic war with Russia 20-30 years ago. Had Russia not collapsed, we would have folded. No one can really argue with that. When I said "at it's present course", I meant it. If we change course, the prediction will not apply. At our present course, though, my prediction still stands. I guess we won't know for sure until 2025. I'll meet you back here on TFP then so we can discuss it. :thumbsup:

wr, you're living in a fanasy world. Do you really think the US going to get a "better price" on oil now that there is an "american-friendly" government in charge? Economics isn't about who you like and who you don't like, its about supply and demand. We pay market price for oil, no matter who we buy it from. You have no idea what your talking about.

Ehem.

Anyway,

I've said it on several occasions that if Isreal went in and took out Iran's capability like they did Iraq's, there will be severe condemnation all over the world...publically.

Privately, people will be sighing in relief.

And as much as that appeals to me (it lets us off the hook), I don't think that it is ultimately the best course of action.

Yes, it would get the job done, but it would also damage the peace process AGAIN.

No, I regretably think the best option is for us to do it...just bite the bullet and go in and bomb the living shit out of their nuclear facilities and then tell them, don't do it again.

I know that many will decry this course of action as more American 'warmongering', but the alternative as I see it is a nuclear conflict in the middle east or possibly, a nuke in New York or Boston or Seattle or...

I'm not worried about a nuke ending up stateside as I am in Tel Aviv. That would start a glass making shit storm from which the MidEast would never return.

I don't want anyone to get the bomb, least of all Iran.

But I think you're fooling yourselves if you believe they want it for offensive reasons. Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent against US or Israeli invasion or attack.

The Iranians are not stupid. Indeed, like them or not, in many ways they are a dynamic Arabian country with a realistic viewpoint on geo-politics. You know the US is not the only country in the world that says one thing publicly and does another thing in reality.

So, ideally I should like to see the Iranians prevented from getting the bomb. I'm not sure I support military intervention, as this may inflame issues around the world. If you think the US is hated now, guess what would happen if you attacked Iran? As the song goes "I just don't know what to do...

It always amazes me that we have so many people here who can so easily solve the problems of the world. Let's follow the Ustwo/Daswig approach and just invade, bomb and kill all US enemies. Hell, it's a wonder half of you guys don't get jobs in the Whitehouse; having all the answers as you do.
Mr Mephisto

I really don't think an invasion of Iran is necessary. A revolution is brewing underneath in the younger generation. What they need is support, one way or another.

Not sure I understand this. Can you tell me what you mean by "we would have folded?"

Thanks.

I think we could minimize our involvement in something like that, except that Israel would definitely be buying a lot of weaponry from us.

What I worry about is China. They're ramping up their sub fleet, with the obvious goal of controlling the Pacific west of Hawaii.

Once that's accomplished, watch them drop the hammer on Taiwan. Haven't we agreed to defend Taiwan under such circumstances?

That's where things are going to get really ugly.

Did I stumble into the humor forum by mistake? :lol: :lol:

And in many other ways, they're a country ruled by insane religious fanatics.


Or the Mephisto solution, in which we give the mullahs a big hug, and sit around a camel dung fire singing "Kumbaya."

Nope.

So is the United States. :D

AS much as many here and on the left side of the aisle would like to believe, we are no where near close to being run by religious fanatics as Iran is, that is just a blatant falicy.

Of, course Mojo_PeePee.

I only keed.

Though I know, humor's shunned here in the Politics forum.

USA! USA! USA!

One of our econemies was going to eventually collapse under the trmemdous stress of military buildup and the space programs and such. In a hypothetical situation where Russia's econemy didn't fail, America's econemy would have probably reached a breaking point at which it could no longer supprot the competition with Russia. When this breaking point could have been is anyone's guess, but it was a win/lose cold war.

Isn't that the catch though Will, our economy was such that it wouldn't fold (or didn't). The workers put back into our economy making more room for boom and bust, more wiggle room. Communism didn't afford the reds the same luxuries.

USA! USA! USA!

No you didn't.

Hypothetical situation 1
Iran builds a bomb.
Iran bombs Tel Aviv.
Israel turns all of Iran into a glass desert (they have over 200 nukes apparently)

Hypothetical situation 2
Iran builds a bomb.
Iran lets the world know it has a bomb, and now feels more secure that an attack by Israel or the US is less likely.
US grits its teeth and begins treating them more like North Korea, and not like the next target for the US Military



Which do you think is more likely?

Iran knows that if it ever bombed Israel it would be competely and utterly destroyed. Iran also knows that if it let it be known that it HAS a bomb, then it is highly unlikely it will be invaded. That's why I believe that they want nuclear weapons for their deterrent value, and not as offensive weapons. Just like every other nuclear power in the world.

Absolutely correct. And I never implied otherwise. However, there is a groundswell of "reformist" opinion in their society. One can hope this will only increase.

And when did I say that? You continue to try to put words into my mouth and make silly remarks like that above.

Saying "I'm not sure I support miliary action" is a very different from saying I want to "give the mullahs a big hug".

Grow up.


Mr Mephisto

If the mullahs are warm and cuddly then I want to have a hug....hehehe...

*comic relief*

Ok, back to subject. That's an interesting question:

Nuclear weapons as offensive or defensive?

It really is too ambiguous isn't it? If it's defensive in nature (as a deterrant), it still has an offensive "effect" as it triggers an arms' race (usually i.e.- US-USSR, India-Pakistan).

If we try and analyze it at a state level, we can look at Iran's track record of foreign policy making.

Are they defensive dominant, offensive dominant? Neorealist convention says that when there is balance or equality (in military capability etc), that is states are roughly equal, then war will occur. So, if Iran tries to balance Israel by procuring nuclear weapons, war becomes more likely (in theory mind you).

If one state has overwhelming power and everyone knows it (unipolar in as a regional hegemon), then othere states will not bother trying to counter balance. So accordingly, would the MidEast be more stable and peaceful if we arm Israel even more? And definitely keep nukes out of IRan.

As a deterrant or defensive dominant alignment, then presumably we would have to have a bipolarity in the region. That is, Israel and Iran would have to be waaaaaayyy above all the other regional players to be the bipolar regional superpowers. According to the neo-realist, this would create a stable and peaceful region.

Unless.....one of the powers desires global hegemony..

Anyways, I think Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

I'm not really too sure I follow your arguments jorgelito, but I agree Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

I can understand why they want them though. As I said above, I believe Iran wants them to deter any attack. Over 50 years have proven that they act as such.

Do you really think the US would have invaded Iraq had Hussein had nukes?


Mr Mephisto

Mr Mephisto,

I prefer Hypothetical Situation 3:

Iran develops a bombbut doesn't publisize it and give said bomb to a terrrorist group that moves it around and around until it can't be traced back to Iran and THEN it is used to blow up Tel Aviv.

How could Israel retaliate without knowing for certain that it was Iran and not a rogue Soviet weapon, a South Korean weapon, or ??

Plus, now Iran MIGHT have a bomb with which to retaliate themselves if it WASN'T them in the first place.

Terrorism on a NUCLEAR scale.

I really think you are wearing blinders in this particular case.

You prefer Hypothetical Situation 3? I presume you mean you fear it? :-)

But in all honesty, I don't think this would happen. I grant it's possible, but in my opinion, extremely unlikely and a conjecture that is bandied about to frighten the public and drum up support for potential military action.

It would be mind numbingly stupid for Iran to develop a bomb and then NOT publicize it. If a "mystery bomb" suddenly exploded in Tel Avid, you can be damn sure that Israel would respond by nuking Iran. Everyone knows this.

Also, why does everyone think that a nation would simply hand over it's most prized weapon, what it's most important technology, it's most proud achievement to a bunch of amateur paramilitaries?

Finally, how am I wearing blinders? To what am turing my back or avoiding? You automatically assume I want to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Or is it you assume I don't think they'll use them?

The answer to the former is "I don't"
The answer to the latter is "I don't"


Mr Mephisto

One would think the unsecured arsenal of the former Soviet Union would be more worrisome in the above scenario #3. Iran has yet (as far as we know) produced the materials, let alone created a device.....whereas the Soviets are unsure where all thiers even are.

Well,

I think you have blinders on to how much Iran hates Isreal and to the history of their support for terrorist organizations world wide.

As to "prized technology", a first generation implosion type device is fairly advanced, I agree, but a gun type device is not that complicated.

Which a couple of thousand and enough bomb grade plutonium or uranium and I could make one in my garage.

It won't wipe out a city, but it will certainly take out several large down town blocks as welll as creating some nasty fallout.

The tough part is of course, getting the material in the first place.

And THAT is what I fear will happen.

I agree that the Iranians wouldn't be stupid enough to give the terrorists the former type of weapon (too traceable), but I think they are FULLY capable of giving them the enriched material for the latter type.

And again, can Israel afford to retaliate if they (and the majority of the world) aren't convinced it was Iran WITH proof?