I am not going to give a lot of references here, but rather simply state what I feel is going on—based on what I’ve read in the past—and then open it up for discussion.
My thesis is that yes, Iran, despite its repeated denials, is indeed proceeding posthaste to build nuclear weapons, and has or will soon have both the warheads themselves and the delivery capability. The country’s denials are absolutely worthless, and the “inspections” by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are just about as worthless, as inspectors aren’t allowed to visit all sites and also have to give advance warning. (Remember, Iran still has a deal with China, Germany, Russia, France, and the UK.)
What will Iran do with a bomb? Aim it and fire it at Israel. Israel knows this well, and that’s why they’re busy infiltrating Iran’s nuclear program, stealing documents, (probably) killing Iranian nuclear scientists, and playing computer-hob with Iran’s enrichment facilities. Nevertheless, Iran is getting closer and closer to a bomb, even given the Trump-administration’s sanctions as well as Israel’s stealthy program to prevent Iran from getting a bomb.
If it does get a bomb, and it surely will, only Ceiling Cat knows what will come. One scenario is that once Iran is close, Israel will launch a non-nuclear strike against Iran, using fancy non-nuclear bombs, like bunker busters, to destroy its nuclear facilities. This would of course launch a war in the Middle East, which is where I always thought the next big war would happen.
In response to assertions that it would be suicidal for Iran to launch a unilateral strike, and so it has no impetus to build a bomb, I say that one could make the same claim about North Korea, which of course is also pursuing a nuclear program only sixty miles from South Korea—well within range of U.S. missiles fired from submarines. I doubt that fanatical regimes, like North Korea and the theocracy of Iran have the same strategy as the nuclear-armed countries of the West, though I would hope so.
To sum up, I think Iran is single-mindedly pursuing the attainment of a nuclear weapons program, all the while denying it, claiming that its enrichment of uranium is for peaceful civilian use. If you believe those denials, you are fooling yourself. The inspections, too, are a joke, and if you think they’ll keep Iran’s nuclear program “peaceful”, you’re also fooling yourself. Even according to the IAEA, Iran already has 12 times more enriched uranium than permitted under the existing deal, and enriched to a higher degree than allowed.
Has there ever been a country that started a nuclear weapons program and then dismantled it without getting a bomb? Perhaps, but I don’t know of one. And Iran, like North Korea, is not such a country.
I’ll finish with this quote from an article at Reuters:
How close is Iran to having a bomb?
The breaches lengthened the breakout time but estimates still vary. Many diplomats and nuclear experts say the starting point of one year is conservative and Iran would need longer.
David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who tends to have a hawkish position on Iran, estimated in November that Iran’s breakout time could be “as short as 3.5 months”, although this presumes Iran would use 1,000 advanced centrifuges that were removed under the deal.
That discussion presumes that Iran is indeed trying to build a nuclear bomb.
As the Republicans say when they set up their anti-abortion tables outside colleges, “Change my mind.” And yes, I know I’m going against a lot of expert opinion here.
Of course they are. It is plainly obvious that if you don’t want to be f*cked with by the USA, build a nuke (see North Korea).
My understanding is that Iran deal implemented by Obama was slowing down the process, but a bomb was inevitable. Our current braniac president withdrew from the agreement, which has sped up the process.
Republicans such as my Senator Tom Cotton is dying to start a war with Iran. If Iran were to bomb Israel, I think we would obliterate them. Are they smart enough to realize this? Boy I hope so.
Obviously the Iranians will launch their strike against Israel as a false-flag operation. I suspect the evidence will be manufactured to point at the Saudis, which will largely take the US off the table, as there is still significant confusion about how the large majority of the 2001-09-11 attackers were Saudis, but almost none of the fallout falling in Saudi Arabia.
It doesn’t have to be “true” (whatever that means in politics) to be effective propaganda. As President Shrub ably demonstrated when launching an invasion of Iraq (nominally) in response to the actions of Saudi citizens. And when you’re dealing with what is, at least nominally, a democracy, you don’t have to convince a majority of the population, you just need to convince enough people to raise an argument.
Corollary : the Iranians be using a lot of social media to promote and distribute their talking points. That’s got to be worth a good few hundred battalions.
Of course they are pursuing a nuclear weapon and I agree Israel will attack them and may even nuke them first.
Why would Israel nuke them? During the cold war neither the US nor the Soviet Union nuked its enemy. I see having nuclear weapons as of defensive value only. If Iran used a nuclear strike first it would be destroyed, and the mullahs would definitely lose power. Why would we assume that they want to die? Not that there are not some people who would happily die killing their enemy. But I don’t think that these people are running Iran.
I also remember that the US’ war against Iraq was sold to the public with the argument that Saddam Hussein could not be deterred. Is PCC(E) or anybody else making the same argument here?
Why? Because they know Iran is going to nuke them as soon as they can. Israel has a substantial nuclear arsenal but most likely I see them using tactical nukes to take out any launch sites in Iran. And nothing will happen to Israel for it. The West will be relieved that someone else took out the nuclear capability of Iran. It’s not mutual assured destruction like it was between the US and Russia. These are not rational parties that agree to call one another if things heat up and have red phones in their respective offices, nuclear treaties, and diplomatic relations like the US had with the USSR. The theocratic government of Iran may not worry if they are annihilated as long as they take out their enemies first so they can laugh at them from heaven.
Israel is rational, and there’s no way they’ll use nukes. And to the extend we can we shouldn’t let them do something so insane. They are more than capable of taking out Iran’s arsenal with conventional weapons.
At great cost. Flying that close into Iran is dangerous and costly. If there are multiple sites, tactical nukes are the more logical choice. I don’t think using tactical nukes would at all be insane if there were clear indications your enemy was about to launch a nuclear strike on one of your cities.
They don’t know that Iran is going to nuke them as soon as they can. In fact, my opinion, which is based on exactly the same amount of evidence as yours, is that Iran will not nuke Israel because their leaders are not stupid. I think the same applies to North Korea, by the way. Neither government would survive for very long after laughing a nuclear strike.
These weapons are really intended to strengthen their countries’ positions with respect to the USA.
Given the evidence by how Israel has reacted to Iranian weaponry in the past and that Iran had proclaimed that they will destroy Israel, I don’t think most Israelis agree with you.
I suspect they are pursuing a home-grown nuclear weapon having been guaranteed (perhaps even given) significant nuclear devices by the Chinese.
Why? To keep the US tied up in the Middle East (where otherwise, they’d have little interest), while China increases it’s influence over the Pacific region.
Yes that would make sense. China plays the long game very well.
“Very well”, or might it just be that they realise they’re in a long game, while politicians with a short-term focus – 20 or 30 years – don’t even realise the length of the game.
Why does this remind me of Gō versus Chess, where the typical length of a chess game – 50-odd moves – gets you into the region where the beginning game and mid-game are overlapping in Gō.
Yes an interesting perspective. The West is playing a different game.
In TransPondian, that would be the equivalent of an American football player waving the “ball” in the air to celebrate a touchdown, then looking aggrieved as the opposing prop forwards hit him high and low, wrestle the ball off him, and hare off to score a try at the other end of the court.
(I may have inadvertently denegrated several sports there. I advertently denegrated three.)
sub.
Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya? Of course, the outcome for Gaddafi doesn’t provide much incentive for another national leader to follow that route.
Beat me to it, Ken: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Yes Ken. And that means that the DPRK (and Iran) would be very motivated not to give up on nukes.
Yeah, you might end up being sodomized by bayonette, and a certain leading American politician might gloat about it.
No. They are building the ability to make the bomb in reasonably short order. This does two things. First, it allows them to go ahead and build the bomb, should relations with their adversaries turn sufficiently bad, and should the Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons be repealed. Second, and probably more important, it’s a helluva bargaining chip in future negotiations. Since the US has outright scrapped the previous agreement and even used its clout to prevent the Europeans from doing all that they pledged, doing the things the West didn’t want is the obvious response.
I predict that if the US maintains a cool but not verge-of-war relationship, and if negotiations drag on, Iran will build everything that (a semi-plausible interpretation of) the Non-Proliferation Treaty allows. And then stop, while negotiations continue.
It is a bit strange but people (experts) were looking for this alleged fatwa forbidding building the nuclear weapon and just couldn’t find it anywhere among fatwas issued by the Supreme Leader.
Juan Cole is pretty expert, I think:
Which is a US government transcription of part of an official Iranian statement to the IAEA in 2005.
The problem is that in the west nobody have seen the original fatwa. Only the texts given as a transcript by the Iranian government. This fatwa is nowhere to find among fatwas issued by Chamenei. See, for example https://www.memri.org/reports/release-compilation-newest-fatwas-iranian-supreme-leader-khamenei-%E2%80%93-without-alleged-fatwa As far as I know when Juan Cole-ideologue disagrees with Juan Cole-expert, the ideologue in him always win.
As Juan Cole explains in the same article:
So your “problem” of “the original fatwa” is no problem at all.
Juan Cole is, unfortunately, mistaken. All binding fatwas by Chomeini and Chamenei are published in special places. Fatwas of much lesser importance are published there so even if it were originally just “oral remarks” it should’ve been published there But.just words said to somebody by an imam (be it Chamenei or anybody else) do not constitute a binding fatwa. What’s more, nobody could find any record of these “oral remarks” either.
I’ll show you my evidence if you’ll show me yours. Wikipedia entry on Fatwa:
Emphasis added. Now show me these “special places”.
There is an online list of official fatwas by Khamenei. This one is not among them. Iranian Foreign Ministry published a list of Ayatollahs’ anti-nuclear weapons fatwas, which does not include Khamenei nuclear fatwa. A bit strange for something of this importance. And even Wikipedia is talking about doubts about its existence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei#Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons
Iranians themselves are doubting: https://www.memri.org/reports/tehran-again-offers-khameneis-nonexistent-fatwa-negotiations-guarantee-it-not-developing
What is really funny in this story is something else: a secular, rational leaders of the Western world were treating a religious verdict as something rational and binding. And so many Western atheists are ready to fight for the “validity” of religious mumbo-jumbo which is supposed to assure their safety.
A rational person expects that irrational people will act on their irrational beliefs, not on rational ones. One of the sources in the Wiki article you just linked admits:
I’ve acknowledged from my first comment that a fatwa is in principle reversible. But that doesn’t mean it’s likely.
The MEMRI report on a list of fatwas includes this at the very beginning of the “Contemporary edicts” section:
That’s a weird way of “not including” Khamenei’s fatwa!
This list does not contain Khamenei’s fatwa. This is only introduction to the list. Khomenei’s fatwa shold’ve been there, not just mentioned in the introduction. But, sorry, I don’t think that the “fatwa affair” is so important. It’s just an amusing detail. Much more important are slogans “Death to America”, “Death to Israel”, or statements like “Israel must be wiped out of the map”. Not to mention finansing of terrorists, killing people (with own citizens in huge numbers) and continuing with both their nuclear and their missile programs.
Continuing with both their nuclear and their missile programs fits my understanding perfectly. We’ll see what happens when a deal is reached, as I think it will, provided that Israel doesn’t sabotage it with unilateral strikes.
Well, they never stopped after the deal was done, only had plenty of money to arm Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and many other terror groups. They also never stopped with neither their nuclear nor their missile program. We have already seen that.
The nuclear deal allowed them to continue developing their nuclear program, up to some limits. I don’t know what limits if any it set on their missile programs.
None. Missiles were never a part of the deal.
South Africa is one country that almost certainly built and deployed nuclear weapons but then abandoned them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
“Has there ever been a country that started a nuclear weapons program and then dismantled it without getting a bomb? ”
South Africa, of course. It dismantled its nuclear arms program starting 1989, before the regime change. (They already had 6 bombs, but they were dismantled too).
You beat me to it by 1 min!
🙂 And bonetired beat me by two minutes …
And Ken beat all of us with the Libyan example.
The Netherlands are an example of a country that had a nuclear arms program, but the aim never was to produce a bomb, so they did not end up with a bomb. It was more about supporting production of ingredients and delivery systems. Pakistan could build it’s nuclear bomb mainly through espionage in the Netherlands.
Not quite that question, but South Africa developed nuclear weapons in the apartheid era, and then dismantled the entire program and the bombs rather than pass them on to post-apartheid governments.
South Africa is one country that almost certainly built a nuclear weapon but then abandoned it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
I think Lybia may be one that gave it up in the past. I would be surprised if Iran did not have the program rolling along. However unlike many here I also believe much of that progress can be laid at the feet of Trump and Israel. Remembering how the Israeli leader begged our govt. not to make a deal with Iran and came crying all over the congress. Frankly the guy makes me sick. He want’s war with Iran and will do just about anything to start it. He just wants us to be involved as well. I say to hell with all them. We can all point figures until they fall off the hand and it makes no difference. People that want to go to war, will go to war.
Randall, aren’t you mixing up Iran and Iraq here and there? If not I do not understand what you mean.
Hah, I see you still have the edit function. I do not have it anymore, to my regret.
If Pakistan managed it, it’s hard not to imagine that nuclear proliferation is the future of the human race, and possibly its downfall.
Except that for the past 70 years or so the policy of mutual assured destruction has prevented it’s use. Nobody has enjoyed going to war over the past 70 years more than the U.S. but notice, even we have not nuked anyone lately. We bomb them and drone them to death but no nukes. The countries that have nukes are not going to give them up so MAD is all we have.
There are always accidents and there were enough near misses during the Cold War that if we had known about it it would have scared the bejesus out of us. I think many of us owe our lives/existence to some brave Soviets. There are also instances of poorly maintained silos that worry me and the lack of whereabouts of some fissionable materials here & there especially when states fail.
Yes, that’s the problem. There’s a great book by Eric Schlosser, “Command and Control”, in which he describes all the near disasters that could have ignited an accidental nuclear war, or at least destroyed a city or two. So far humanity has just been lucky.
Pakistan got The Bomb because the notorious A.Q. Khan stole the design from the West — you know, fair and square.
All’s fair in love and war.
Yes, as said he did that in a country that had a nuclear enrichment program (and a nuclear weapons program), the Netherlands. Earlier I mentioned ‘espionage’ , but that may not be the right term, he studied metallurgy (Uranium is a metal) in Belgium (Leuven) and then went to Urenco enrichment plant in Almelo in the Netherlands. I gather that he did contribute himself to the enrichment process by the Zippe-kind gas centrifuge. He is an actual nuclear scientist in his own right, with a long list of peer reviewed publications, even during his later work in Pakistan. When the Dutch started to get suspicious of his contacts with Pakistani agents he fled back to Pakistan in the mid seventies.
Ironically, although he is considered the father of the Pakistan nuclear bomb, he is seen with a lot of hatred by some fellow Pakistani nuclear physicists and with (apparently) suspicion since he belongs to the Ahmadi sect.
No, that’s written into our genes – we breed too fast.
> What will Iran do with a bomb? Aim it and fire it at Israel.
Not getting invaded and end up like Saddam or Gadaffi is another plausible aim. The US and Israel are dangerous enemies.
> To sum up, I think Iran is single-mindedly pursuing the attainment of a nuclear weapons program
These weapons require a large amount of brain power (3+ SD individuals), an enormous budget, outstanding secrecy and materials. Does Iran have any of these?
> Has there ever been a country that started a nuclear weapons program and then dismantled it without getting a bomb?
Switzerland is one example. There may be others.
“Not getting invaded and end up like Saddam or Gadaffi is another plausible aim. The US and Israel are dangerous enemies.”
Iran has almost two million soldiers, including active and reserved. The idea that anyone is going to want to invade them is almost as absurd as positing that the US and Israel are a dangerous aggressive enemy.
The fact is Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, is led by radical Islamists, and has spoken often and clearly about their intention to destroy both the US and Israel. They have already murdered more than 100 American soldiers. Incredibly, you paint them as victims when they are the guys with the blackest hats in the world.
“These weapons require a large amount of brain power (3+ SD individuals), an enormous budget, outstanding secrecy and materials. Does Iran have any of these?”
Yes, it has all of them.
Speaking “often and clearly about their [the Iranian mullahs’] intention to destroy both the US and Israel” – it’s just words. Of course, they would like to destroy the US and Israel, but even when they acquire nuclear weapons, Iran will still lack the means to carry out these goals. For me it’s that simple. And I don’t doubt that Iran wants to export its brand of Islam. They are bad guys, for sure. But let’s not get carried away.
PCC(E) also could have asked is there any example where the heads of a state went on a suicide mission? Hitler does not count, in my opinion. He was clearly irrational (Germany could not ever have won a war against UK, Soviet Union and the US – this was simply a question of how many soldiers can you put in the field and how much weaponry can you produce). Put differently, do we have evidence for believing that the mullahs are as crazy as Hitler was?
They have a ballistic missile program already capable of delivering a warhead to Israel. These fine fellows were just responsible for the slaughter of half a million people in Yemen. They slaughtered 241 US soldiers in Beirut with truck bombs. They’d like nothing better than to smuggle a nuclear device into the US.
I find it astonishing that people do not take this theocratic regime at their word.
Yes, with Iran’s religious leadership they’re only one brain spark away from launching a nuclear missile. We used to pretend that the US’s solid government, with its checks and balances, would never launch a nuclear missile without the circumstances being truly dire. After Trump, we’re going to have a harder time making that case persuasively. Perhaps it was never really true but appearances matter.
Trump’s not done yet, he may still do something insane in the next 20 days.
That was what I said in my very first comment on this post. Trump seems to be quietly escalating the Iran situation. He won’t do any real retaliation against Biden until after the January 6th showdown in Congress. After all, if he pulled off his coup, he would be hurting his own second term. It’s the two weeks between his coup failure and Biden’s inauguration that are the most dangerous.
That’s a really strange argument. You state that the checks and balances that stop an irrational president from launching a nuclear strike are fictional, but as evidence, you cite an irrational president who has failed to launch a nuclear strike (I’m going to bet my house that he still won’t have launched a nuclear strike in 19 days time).
How can you say something doesn’t work when the thing it is supposed to prevent doesn’t happen?
So, Jeremy, your plan is not to worry about something until it actually happens?
My point is that the usual checks and balances, the ones we advertise to the world, are not likely to constrain Trump or some future Trumpish president. We pretend that a president needs to consult with Congress before going to war but that’s been a joke for a long time. We also think that a president is not likely to want to go to war without consulting our intelligence services and other advisers and cooler heads will prevail. Bush the Younger showed that a president can arm-twist intelligence services to make it look like a decision to go to war is the best move. Trump has gone much further, showing everyone that his decision-making is unilateral and that his motivation is 100% personal. If he held back from a nuclear strike, it wouldn’t be for the millions of people who would die as a result or to protect US standing in the world. Instead, it would be because his closest cronies convinced him it wouldn’t help his reelection prospects. Trump has demonstrated to the world that our system of supposed checks and balances really are not much of a protection from any future president deploying the most powerful military arsenal on the planet on a whim.
How can you say the usual checks and balance are unlikely to constrain Trump? The only datapoint we have is that Trump has not launched a nuclear strike. There are only two possibilities: he hasn’t tried to launch a nuclear strike or he has tried and the checks and balances worked. In the former case, your hypothesis remains untested. In the latter case, your hypothesis has been falsified.
Your speculation that Trump might be stopped by his cronies doesn’t alter the analysis, neither does an analogy with starting a conventional war.
We are clearly talking about the future, right? I am not suggesting that Trump tried to launch a nuclear strike. I have no idea. When we make alliances and treaties with other countries, they judge them based on expectations of future behavior. Trump has put a huge nail in that coffin. Countries can no longer trust that a future president will honor past agreements. We do have several data points on that, right? Even if they can get past that fact, they now know that some future Trumpian president can ignore anybody around them with which they disagree and do whatever they want.
I only mention nuclear strike as the ultimate bad action. My reasoning extends to all kinds of possible actions a president might take. Perhaps the Kurds are a good example, since you like past data points. They learned that the US can abandon them just because the president wants to negate a former president’s actions and/or please a perceived fellow fascist dictator. Surely that will have an impact on future presidents’ ability to make deals. Even now, it will cause Biden trouble in trying to resurrect some form of the Iran deal.
You presented a hypothesis that the Trump presidency (which is mostly in the past, not the future) casts doubt on the effectiveness of the checks and balances in place to stop a rogue president from executing a nuclear strike. I am merely pointing out that your hypothesis is unsupported. Trump’s presidency does not show that the checks and balances are ineffective because he hasn’t started a nuclear war.
I’m not sure why you bring up other things like foreign policy and conventional war to dispute my point. I was referring only to nuclear strikes, which I think is entirely reasonable in a comment attached to a post about nuclear weapons in response to your comment that explicitly referenced nuclear strikes.
I stand by what I said even if we restrict things to nuclear strikes, which I do not. We are talking about the future. The fact that Trump has not started a nuclear war doesn’t come close to guaranteeing that a president like him won’t start one in the future. Trump has proven that such presidents exist and that they are unfettered by checks and balances. This is all I have to say.
Oh yes, Israel doesn’t even want to invade them either as it is very costly and difficult. Tactical nukes are much easier and Israel has them.
Irak and also had powerful armies. And invasion is not the way of the West’s recent ‘humanitarian’ wars. They just finance ‘rebels’, bomb the cities and the infrastructure (even in Europe, they did this to Serbia), and/or throw cluster bombs all over the countryside.
I heard a story when I worked in the Middle East years ago that went as follows: A scorpion asks a crocodile for a ride across the Nile River to get to the other side. “I won’t because you’d sting me, and I’d die,” said the crocodile. “Don’t be silly. If I stung you, I’d drown, and I certainly wouldn’t want to do that,” said the scorpion. “Okay, hop on,” said the crocodile, and they proceeded to cross the river. Half way across, the scorpion fatally stings the crocodile. As the crocodile starts to slip below the surface to his death, he says to the scorpion, “Why did you do that? Now you’ll drown.” “Welcome to the Middle East,” says the drowning scorpion.
Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs and many delivery systems (ballistic missiles, submarine launched, cruise missiles and stealth bomber aircraft). It has the capacity to annihilate Iran umpteen times over, which it would do if Iran launched a nuclear attack. Iran may be many things, but it is not suicidal. It wants nuclear weapons, like most countries, to avoid nuclear blackmail by countries which already have them.
I thought your numbers sounded high, so I did a little Googling and you are correct. Israel is estimated to have approximately 400 nuclear weapons. That’s far more than I would have guessed.
I was thinking what darwinwins pointed out: “Estimates of Israel’s stockpile range between 80 and 400 nuclear warheads, and the country is believed to possess the ability to deliver them in several methods, including by aircraft; as submarine-launched cruise missiles; and the Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles.”
I understand the realpolitik, but I’m hard put to see how the preemptive assassination of a nuclear scientist can be squared with international law.
And I think we USians should approach these matters with the humility of knowing that, during the 75 years nuclear weapons have plagued this planet, there’s been but one nation to deploy them against another.
“but I’m hard put to see how the preemptive assassination of a nuclear scientist can be squared with international law.”
He was also a Brigadier General in the Iran Revolutionary Guards, a recognized terror org.
Is there any evidence that in his role as a brigadier general Mohsen Fakhrizadeh either bore personal responsibility for killing any Israeli citizens or soldiers or was an imminent danger of doing so? If not, then his assassination cannot be justified under international legal standards.
(It probably also bears noting in this regard that Donald Trump himself got in bed with the filthy lucre of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard while building his never-completed hotel in Azerbaijan — something he either knew or should have known through the exercise of even a modicum of due diligence.)
The guy was a general in a terrorist organization and responsible for devising weapons of mass destruction. During the WW2 British and Norwegian commandos conducted multiple sabotage attacks against a civilian Norwegian heavy water plant, a key component in the Nazi nuclear program, killing not just German soldiers but also Norwegian civilians in the process. I’m sure if the Japanese had been able to prevent Hiroshima by killing Leslie Groves, the general in charge of the Manhattan project, they would have done it too.
Has anyone (else) seriously claimed that Gen.Groves was anything more than a project manager? Part of the job of such people is to have “In the event of the death of X” plans in the filing cabinet, for all important “X”.
To have a significant effect (say, 2 weeks or more), they’d need to have taken out Groves, a large part of his head-quarters staff, and a lot of the records of the project. The HQ staff being a particularly awkward target, being of necessity very often in transit between sites.
Britain was in a war at the time that constituted an existential threat and so was Japan. When you’re not at war, there’s supposed to be due process. It’s illegal to go round killing people just because you think they might be doing nasty things. You are supposed to bring them to trial to answer for their crimes.
It’s getting really hard to tell the difference between the good guys and the terrorists.
Is it your contention that the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was both jus ad bellum and jus in bello so as to satisfy the requirements of international law for a preemptive assassination?
The hot-war hypothetical and example you cite are plainly distinguishable.
Even so, if the Japanese had sent commandos to Los Alamos to assassinate Robert Oppenheimer or one of his team during WW2, do you doubt that that act would have been charged as a separate war crime before the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal?
just because the US government defines an organisation to be “terrorist” doesn’t make it so. Any more than France’s revolutionary guard in 1794 was a “terrorist” organisation. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar….
I would be more surprised if they were not making nuclear than if they were. They would use it if they had half a reason as well.
I don’t know the answer to your question but I think there’s a more immediate question to worry about. Is Trump going to start a conflict with Iran in his remaining weeks in office solely to screw with Biden’s administration?
Paul if you were a general would you carry out orders to attack Iran?
The military top brass knows that Trump is a sick egoistic asshole. I don’t think they would blindly follow orders that will hurt the US.
I don’t think it matters what I would do. We can hope that the top brass would refuse such an order from Trump but I don’t think it is that simple. First, Trump can get rid of anyone that he knows won’t follow his orders. He’s show the desire and the ability to do this over and over again. Second, it wouldn’t be a massive attack without provocation but an escalating situation that only requires hot heads on both sides. If our troops are attacked by Iran, would our Trump-hating generals really not follow an order to counter-attack? I’m pretty sure they would. Trump only needs to supply plausible arguments as to why the escalation is necessary. The top brass would follow his orders unless it was obvious that Trump had lost his mind. Trump has spent his entire life convincing people he’s not crazy.
I think the jig is up for Trump. Rational people now know that Trump is bonkers, and that his egoism is pathological. If you have an ounce of patriotism in yourself than you aren’t going to do something damaging just to salve Trump’s ego.
It’s easy to forget that about 1/3 the country doesn’t think he’s bonkers and still hopes that he can be reelected.
Close to 50%, wasn’t it? Certainly a lot more than 33%.
Oh, hang on – we might be in fair agreement if you’re talking about the electorate and I’m talking about the votes cast.
Forty percent of all Americans (and 77% of Republicans) believe Joe Biden won the election through fraud, despite the utter dearth of evidence supporting that contention.
Those numbers should be discomfiting to sane and sober people everywhere.
That’s a perfect scenario for a false-flag exercise
That raises the specter of, say, Russia carrying out a ‘false flag’ operation, pretending to be an Iranian attack.
Oops chris, didn’t see your comment. Sorry.
Sometimes the fog comes first in the fog of war. Practically anything can serve as a match that lights the fire when so many players are primed to take action. Sorry for mixing metaphors.
Mebbe so, since Trump’s sui generis.
But in most instances, someone who’s risen far enough up through the military ranks to wear stars on their shoulders would as lief gnaw off a leg as refuse a direct order from superior officer, let alone from the commander-in-chief.
It’s unsettling to think that that might be all that stands between us and nuclear Armageddon.
Why am I thinking of Vogon poetry?
I have not yet looked at the comments above.
But as of now, I think their main aim, much like North Korea, is to have this capability as a deterrent. It is in their view a final stopgap to prevent overthrow from an outside enemy. This is the same motivation as any other country who has these weapons, really.
They have sponsored or actually committed a great many attacks all over the world. A great deterrent might be to kill fewer people in other countries. rather than become even more of a threat.
They are a strict theocracy, which in itself makes them likely to do irrational things.
They have sponsored far less attacks all over the world than the many US allies I know, like Saudi Arabia, the sponsor of racical Sunni fundamentalist Islam all over the world.
I can’t see that that was the what motivated the USA nor Nazi Germany from developing nukes. In fact I thought Germany gave up the project when they realised it would not produce a weapon before their projected end to the war.
I do not pretend any expertise, but from several recent analyses that I have read, I think the more immediate concern is that Iran has achieved near parity with Israel in non-nuclear strike capacities. That is why Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia are beginning to get so friendly. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
That’s the notion that landed us the Mujahideen transmogrified into al-Qaeda.
Parity with Israel? I find that very hard to believe. The Israeli air force is the best there is anywhere and would make short work of Iran.
Yes, in a way, but it would only take a nuke or two that survives the initial attack to destroy most of Israel. With nukes, Iran has the perfect deterrent.
Only a nuke or two to destroy Israel? Just how small do you think Israel is, and how powerful nukes are?
One of the compelling reasons for MIRVs is that you can do a whole lot more damage over a wider area with ten smallish nuke than one or two whoppers.
A couple of nukes, one in each of Israel’s two biggest cities would cause a huge loss of life. You can argue with someone else about whether that’s enough to “destroy Israel”. That’s an argument not worth my time.
You sure you don’t want to qualify that remark, Airman Schenck? 🙂
AH, you got me.
I agree with many of the comments above; but we should also note that Israel is not Iran’s only enemy. All its Sunni neighbours, including Saudi Arabia and a number of minnows, are at odds with Iran and its policy of fomenting discord among their neighbours.
I hold no brief for the Trump administration, or most of what it’s done, but I think that the (maybe fragile) cooperation deal that Kushner and co have built between Israel and a number of Muslim governments might ensure that Iran, if it ever succeeded in building a nuclear weapon, would never dare to use it.
Oh joy! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/iran-says-trump-is-trying-to-fabricate-pretext-for-war The anniversary of the assassination of Qassem Suleimani is on Sunday…
“Has there ever been a country that started a nuclear weapons program and then dismantled it without getting a bomb?”
Let me turn that around. Has there ever been a country (other than ours) that actually used their bomb?
The answer to that is a resounding “no”. These countries are wisely building bombs as deterrents, to save themselves. Libya is a good example of what happens when a small country gives them up. It does not seem reasonable to expect a country to give up a bomb when their next-door enemies have nuclear arms. .A stand-off between equals may even be the best rooute to peace.
The US hypocritically demands that other nations disarm while we ourselves keep upgrading our bombs and delivery systems. We have very little moral authority here. And if we hound and destroy the nations that are close to the bomb, this will only reinforce the view that possession of a bomb is the only thing that can save a country.
We need to accept that countries will get bombs, and we need to make sure they know that using the bomb assures their immediate destruction.
“ Let me turn that around. Has there ever been a country (other than ours) that actually used their bomb?”
Yes, the USA believes they can invest $740 BN into their military next year (another record), outspending the next dozen or so nations, but it’s always someone else who has to cut back. The US needs inflated threats as a lifeblood to keep their military apparatus flush in money.
Trump destroyed most of our moral authority. Although he didn’t actually do too much, no one really believed he would hold back under the right circumstances. He’s a proven bully with the nuclear codes and talks constantly about how powerful his military is and how he’d like it to be even more powerful. Anyone who claims that this was just talk, and part of Trump’s brilliant negotiating strategy, just hasn’t been paying attention these last four years. He’s not playing 3-D chess.
Certainly not. The brief answer: it was fading away during Vietnam, but held up thanks to excessive Hollywood propaganda in the 1980s and in contrast to the Soviets. Reagan Era Iran-Contra, ludicrous but true stories of drug trafficking, funding of terrorists and death squads, regime changes of democratic leaders, oil wars etc. destroyed the positive image for good. In my school years in one earlier gulf war, the US was seen as the bad guy in my generation. Support and sympathy for the US was very high after 9/11, briefly, but plummeted quickly thanks to Iraq War based on lies. Then Obama, black sites,
tortureenhanced interrogation, Snowden leaks, tapping of phones of allied leaders (e.g. Merkel) — nope, Trump didn‘t destroy much. I see him rather as the true face of America.The Iraq war certainly threw away some of our credibility but our allies went along with it so it can plausibly argued to be an “honest mistake”. I certainly wasn’t in favor of it and it always seemed Bush junior was trying to finish his daddy’s war.
I still maintain that Trump has severely diminished the US’s standing in the world. Most of it comes from turning his back on our allies and agreements made by former presidents simply for spite or ignorance. We will certainly tell the rest of the world that Trump was a one-off occurrence but they will note that our supposed system of checks and balances was non-existent when it comes to foreign affairs. They can correctly observe that even a sane future president is free to ignore their predecessor’s commitments. This was always there, of course, but now Trump has demonstrated it for all to see.
Not all allies. The US is an amazing country, but it needs different politics. Start to treat its citizens better and join the international community (and stay there, not leave for preemptive wars when convenient). I think both can go hand in hand. Less wars might leave more money for healthcare and education. But that’s unlikely, Biden’s OBM is Neera Tenden, who once argued that the US should loot oil from countries it bombed (Lybia in her example).
Canada didn’t. We supported in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq and didn’t send troops there. Thank goodness….there would have been a lot of us killed for nothing.
‘The Iraq war certainly threw away some of our credibility but our allies went along with it so it can plausibly argued to be an “honest mistake”.’
In Australia’s case I think our gov’t went along with it because they thought it was what was required to retain protection under the US’ nuclear umbrella. It was pretty obvious that the justifications presented were bogus and the decision was pretty unpopular with the public.
You forgot gitmo.
The thing that worries me is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, not a rational regime. Gaddafi or a Pakistani or a North Korean dictator want to survive so they won’t use a nuke, the ayatollah believes in Shia eschatology and the coming of the Mahdi (messiah) so he will use the nuke so that the Mahdi will come and establish the Kingdom of God. There’s no reasoning with the irrational. European politicians in the 1930s thought Hitler was rational too and tried to make a deal with him, look where it got them.
Iran launch a strike on Israel?
I can’t see the Israeli neighbours being on board with that but threats with a big club is a definite.
Why Iran would strike knowing it would come out of a bash with no limbs is beyond me. I don’t think their neighbours would be ecstatic about that either…
But with arses quite capable and willing to do for the glory of their god and turf and damn everything else, lets hope those other human traits, huff and puff, is sufficient.
Pinker’s civilisation and pacification process is always sitting on a knife edge.
I consider the Iran nuclear deal to be one of the biggest foreign policy failures of the Obama administration (among others, like the “line in the sand” for Assad’s use of chemical weapons). We were basically paying Iran to continue denying that they were building a bomb, while doing basically nothing to prevent it. The deal had no upside for us or the world and only Iran benefited. We might as well have just paid for their program directly. Furthermore, Iran has and is continuing to openly defy many aspects of the deal that can actually be confirmed with little to no repercussions, so it doesn’t seem like anyone even cares to enforce it. I was glad when Trump rescinded it.
I worry that the Biden administration and Democrats generally will take a reactionary position toward anything done during the Trump administration, like cancelling the Ira deal and, for another example, rescinding the executive order from President Obama that vastly increased the purview of Title IX, forcing colleges to institute kangaroo courts (among other things) under the threat of losing federal funding (which really just meant that the colleges were forced to do it because colleges that rely on federal funding wouldn’t survive if it was suddenly withheld. Plus, lawsuits).
I hope President Biden and his team take a more measured approach, but I do worry that the few good things done during the Trump administration will be automatically undone “because Trump.”
Unfortunately, every scenario run seems to suggest that no matter what, Iran will develop nuclear weapons capability. The only thing we can do is slow it down. That’s what the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran Deal) was meant to do. Now Iran sees that all deals with the US carry no weight, thanks to Trump, so that is finished and we now have an accelerated plan, which pushes everyone to consider alternatives, none of which are very good because they involve either direct or indirect intervention and it’s all a bad idea.
The world seemed to think that Iran had been following the rules of JPOA up until when Trump blew it up. Of course, they might have been violating it but no evidence has been shown, of course. Since he blew it up, they’ve been moving ahead with their nukes. Can you really blame them? Trump practically invited them to do so.
Trump and others seem to think that they can make Iran drop the very idea of nuclear weapons merely by their desiring of it. “After all, we’re America!” This ignores the reality of the situation. The JPOA was perhaps the best we could have done to slow them down. Slowing them down certainly doesn’t sound like an ultimate solution, and it isn’t, but the ultimate solution was really not attainable as Trump has shown. Instead, he’s made things worse as he often does. Slowing Iran’s nuclear program gives the opportunity for other forces to come into play. One possibility is that Iran’s regime changes their position over decades. Perhaps they restore a more democratic government. Anything is possible with time. The JPOA bought that time.
“I consider the Iran nuclear deal to be one of the biggest foreign policy failures of the Obama administration …”
Hear, hear!
“We might as well have just paid for their program directly.”
Obama actually gave the Iran regime $1.7 billion in cash and gold.
To replace it with what exactly? If the Iran deal delayed Iran’s development of The Bomb even marginally, it was foolish simply to withdraw without something else on the table. (And, FWIW, that we “paid” Iran for the deal is right-wing propaganda; we merely unfroze Iran’s own assets that were seized after the Revolutionary Guard’s 1979 attack on the US embassy in Tehran. That’s what civilized nations do when they negotiate in good faith.)
Was the Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action optimal? Oh, hell no. But it was the best to be had under the circumstances — or so were convinced three of our closest allies (England, France, Germany) and the EU, as well as China and Russia. And Iran was in compliance with the JPCA according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The world instantly became a more perilous place once Trump unilaterally withdrew from it.
We didn’t just unfreeze Iran’s assets, we paid them interest on those assets. We have also given the money back (with interest) for all the weapons the Shah regime ordered that weren’t delivered after the Shah was overthrown and the Iranians seized our embassy. This all may be a common diplomatic practice but with many standing judgments against Iran in US courts for their terrorist attacks on US citizens it could have been handled differently. The Obama administration, however, was ready to concede anything to get Iran’s signature on the deal.
I know almost nothing of Iran. What I do know is that the situation is far from this one-sided view presented here. Iran is a military theocracy that is oppressing its people and indeed declared to want the erasure of Israel. That cannot be allowed. But I doubt that they’d win anything by nuking them. Aside of retaliation, Iran is practically surrounded by US bases, and can’t do anything.
Meanwhile, Israel is not exactly a passive victim. Both Iran and Israel are engaged in a proxy war. Israel is a humanist, democratic state (which is great), it also pursues its own military interests that are beyond mere self-preservation or protection.
Just recently, the US killed Qassim Suleiman. He was highly respected general for his successes against the Islamic State — yet another problem America had more than one hand in creating, when they first funded islamic terrorists, then destoyed Iraq. The role of America (and Israel is viewed as a vassal) is less than great when it comes to Iran. To deter Iran from responding to the assassination of their general, the USA threatened to destroy 52 sites, including sites of cultural significance. Yes, the US is not beneath bombing cultural targets.
Let’s get some perspective. America’s great friend in the region, was once this guy …
He was removed by the revolution, which was subsequently hostile towards the West. But America was always fond of dictatorships if their aims didn‘t contradict American (i.e. corporate) interests, and a buck could be made. Of course, the US sold weapons to the theocracy under Khomeini, circumventing an arms embargo (this would enter history as Iran-Contra Affair) to earn black money to support the right wing terrorists in Nicaragua called “Contras” so they murder the leftist and install a right wing government that would welcome US corporate money.
There aren’t many people left who think the US is the good guy there. The Europeans and the international community should take over and the US should take a few steps back. In proper context, the diplomatic routine was a way forward and could help normalise relations, which would eventually have to lead towards Iran accepting Israel. However, surrounding them with hostile bases, placing embargo (other than weapons) on them and terror attacks on their people will have the opposite effect. A tiger when constantly prodded with a stick cannot leap out of the cage. But a nation with nukes could strike eventually when not given a way out. Diplomacy is the answer here.
I don’t like conspiracy theory, but admittedly it becomes just a joke when it is self refuting.
My own authority in the area is of course Hans Blix, that used to be the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He is a diplomat, but that implies he does have insight into the political context:
[ https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/b5Qle5/hans-blix-press-pa-iran-har-ekonomiska-motiv ; 25 MAJ 2019]
Has it even been two months since the discovery of several secret nuclear development facilities in Iran, obviously in existence for many years?!? Hans Blix does not seem to know what he is talking about.
Why do you think Iran’s theocracy is different from all other theocracies, which are basically another way for the wealthy and powerful to exploit the people of their country? Why do you think Iranian elites would deny themselves the luxuries they currently enjoy to go to a war they have no chance of winning?
Of course, you are right. But reason is sometimes powerless against paranoia.
Paranoia is imaginary fear of being watched and persecuted, no?
Here a list of US presence surrounding Iran. There are about 60.000 US troops in the region. And the US is killing Iranian officials, like the General Suleiman last year.
I didn’t mean Iranian paranoia.
That 60,000 is about 1/26th of what Iran has.
And Iran has been killing US troops in Iraq. But of course you don’t mention that.
Of course, had the US had not invaded Iraq on a manufactured pretext, Iraq would not have become a war zone and US troops would not have had any casualties there.
And? The Iranians have been killing US troops long before Iraq. Look up the Iranian attacks on the US peacekeepers in Beirut in 1983 and the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia in 1996 (the Khobar Towers bombing). Iran has considered itself at war with the US (the Great Satan) since the Islamic revolution. Just because only under Trump has the US finally wizened up to it doesn’t change the facts.
I think you mean “wised up”; it merely seems as though we’ve all shriveled with age while time is being measured in Trump years. 🙂
Seriously? There are bread lines in Iran. Meanwhile, they fund billions of dollars annually for terrorism. You can not judge this regime using a rational yardstick.
That said, the Iranian public is an entirely different matter. These are innocent people subjected to a brutal theocratic regime for decades. Nobody – including Israel – wants to harm the Iranian public. These simplistic scenarios people use to downplay the nuclear ambitions of the regime because of MAD do not take this into account.
“Seriously? There are bread lines
in Iranthe USA. Meanwhile, they fund billions of dollars annually for terrorism. You can not judge this regime using a rational yardstick.”Fixed, $740 BN to be exact.
16 billion a year:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96198796@N05/48496088536/in/album-72157707143215584/
Actual bread lines:
https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1331242772741959681
Iran’s actually using the bomb would invite complete destruction of their country. Have you heard of MAD? Look it up. Iran want’s never to be invaded by anyone, Israel, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, whoever, and having a bomb means never having to worry about being invaded.
They have no worries about being invaded without the bomb, now that Iraq is in shambles. And no country wants to use the bomb on Iran, because the people of Iran are modernists who hate their leaders. It’s only the Iran regime that every nation on Earth wants replaced.
Meanwhile, back in Crazyville, that theocratic regime is bankrupting their country to sponsor ideological Islamic terrorism. They really are that dedicated to destroying the enemies of Islam. Blowing up Tel Aviv (And possibly NYC) would fulfill their every dream. That they could care less about their people is on full demonstration every day.
Mmmmm, that only works for the US if they can get, say, 50 warheads on US soil, which I reckon they are a LONG way off. The US could drop hundreds on Iran almost instantly. They have only one chance at standing against the US, and that would be a first strike on nearly all US bases in the region.
If Iran strikes a US ally a similar problem pertains, retaliation from the US could be swift and devastating.
“Mr President, I’m not saying we won’t get our hair mussed.”
I haven’t read all the comments on this post yet so forgive me if this repeats someone else’’s contribution, but I would like to mention Daniel Ellsburg’s book The Doomsday Machine. It’s been a while since I read it, but two things linger in my memory. 1). Nuclear weapons are used in every day, the fact that they are not fired notwithstanding; 2) I a hot war breakers out in which nuclear weapons are actually fired, it will be the end of civilization, if not life on the planet. Ellsburg’s book is well worth a read.
Whilst citing, you might make the effort to get Dr. Ellsberg’s name right.
You’re correct! I’m embarrassed.
Couldn’t help myself:
Yes, I loved “Dr Strangelove”, although Pete Sellers appears to be overdoing is a bit (only slightly) now. Still a great comic actor. Apart from Dr Strangelove himself he also played RAF Group Captain Lionel Mandrake and president Merkin Muffley in that film.
Of course you couldn’t help yourself, Ken, everybody thinks of Dr Strangelove when nuclear MAD (or a Doomsday machine) is mentioned. And you have no free will not to help yourself 🙂
I particularly like Dr Strangelove’s suggestion that the sex ratio of those destined to survive should have a male/female ratio of 1/10. Laura Betzig would approve from a biological pov.
They are not denying it, on the contrary, ever since Trump killed the treaty and Europe, bullied by the US, could not follow up on their promise to protect Iran from the economic fallout of the sanctions, Iran said they no longer felt bound by the treaty and would now pursue enrichment.
But before that, all experts outside the US and indeed everyone except US neocons (whose track record of correct foreign threat assessments is as bad a can be) were convinced that Iran had indeed halted the military part of the program.
Don’t you remember the same kinds of arguments were used to ‘prove’ the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
Had the Obama policy been followed through, Iran would have stopped there. But now it’s too late, they have lost all trust. And the moderates within Iran have lost their credibility, they will not be reelected.
The whole history of US foreign policy in the past 30 years means the only way to protect your regime and your country if the US doesn’t like you (which is the case with Iran ever since Iran got rid of the US-installed dictator) is to develop a nuclear bomb for self protection (attacking Israel is only the last strategic option when a war against you has already started, see Iraq, when did the Scud rockets fly?).
Disarmament didn’t help Saddam, it didn’t help Gaddafi.
Remember Iran is the country where a democratically elected social democrat was eliminated by the CIA to install an all-out heritable dictatorship. Iran is the country that has suffered under sanctions ever since they toppled their ‘Shah’ dictator for a semi-democratic Islamist regime more moderate than lots of US allies. Iran is also the country that the US has waged a puppet war against with Saddam Hussein and poison gas (Rumsfeld armed Saddam!), Iran is the country whose ‘opposition’ in the guise of the people’s mujahedin militias were transferred to Albania for future use, and live there fully financed by the US.
Netanyahu is a right wing populist whose perspective is narrow and influenced by his own popularity concerns. One doesn’t have to follow him on everything.
Don’t get me wrong, I think destroying Iranian (military) nuclear facilities is at least defensible for a neighbor. But making the whole of the Iranian people suffer for decades for not being a US pet regime is a crime. The sanctions are evil and they don’t help. On the contrary, they also make the need for (civil) nuclear power greater which inevitably leads to weapon capabilies.
The hawks are the ones who botched this.
Since WW2 nuclear weapons have always been a defensive/deterrent weapon. In relation to Iran and Korea we should try to see international relations from their perspective. To them, the rest of the world is against them. Why wouldn’t they therefore want the most effective deterrent available?
Of course. And WE have to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of fanatical regimes.
So much for MAD and Iran being interested in nuclear bombs as ‘deterrents’:
[Iran’s former President and founding fathers of the Islamic State] “Hashemi Rafsanjami, a supposed moderate, had boasted to an American journalist that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons and use them to attack Israel, they “would kill as many as five million Jews.” He estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own bombs, Iran would lose only about 15 million people which he said “would be small ‘sacrifice’ from among the billion Muslims in the world.”
I’d like to see the original Rafsanjani words in context. Usually, public bluster about how Israel can be wiped off the map while Muslim losses are smaller relative to the total population are in the context of Israeli preemptive strikes that Iran wants to prevent by pretending they then will launch then their whole nuclear arsenal (that they don’t actually have yet or that may already have been destroyed) without restraint.
On another occasion, Rafsanjani talked about a 100 million dead Muslims not being too great a sacrifice (context: Israel attacks Iran). If Iran were serious about destroying Israel at all costs, why hasn’t Iran launched all of of it’s conventional capacity yet? Why has it accepted so many attacks without massive counterstrikes on Israel? It had war pretexts galore over the decades.
Also, doesn’t Israel have the best air defenses in the region?