Agreement in Iran Nuclear talks

[Mr. Magniloquent]

So, let's refresh. You assert that Iran possessing nuclear weapons increases the chance of catastrophic war, despite being highly skeptical of claims that they are, in-fact, pursuing them. I assert that Iran's lack of nuclear weapons is the only reason why the open aggression against them occurs, while also being highly skeptical of claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Are we caught up?

 

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, and the USA governments are waging a campaign of aggression towards Iran over the false premise of WMDs. I don't care to listen to the lies of a cabal of some of the most evil governments in the world. Even if Iran were developing nuclear weapons, which they are not, it doesn't matter--because Iran is the victim here.

 

Pondering the potential disaster of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is like recoiling in horror that a person being actively mugged at gun-point might potentially acquire a fictitious gun before they've been murdered and robbed. I don't care to debate that. It absurd, and a distraction from what is actually happening, and what matters.

 

[BruceVC]

So, let's refresh. You assert that Iran possessing nuclear weapons increases the chance of catastrophic war, despite being highly skeptical of claims that they are, in-fact, pursuing them. I assert that Iran's lack of nuclear weapons is the only reason why the open aggression against them occurs, while also being highly skeptical of claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Are we caught up?

 

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, and the USA governments are waging a campaign of aggression towards Iran over the false premise of WMDs. I don't care to listen to the lies of a cabal of some of the most evil governments in the world. Even if Iran were developing nuclear weapons, which they are not, it doesn't matter--because Iran is the victim here.

 

Pondering the potential disaster of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is like recoiling in horror that a person being actively mugged at gun-point might potentially acquire a fictitious gun before they've been murdered and robbed. I don't care to debate that. It absurd, and a distraction from what is actually happening, and what matters.

Dude I respect the fact you spend time making these posts ...but I have to be honest I find it really hard to even agree with one thing you say 

 

No offense but I just don't think you understand the political dynamics of the ME ....there are no "good or evil " countries. The countries in the ME have there own ideological and religious objectives that most Westerners dont understand

 

So yes ...Iran cannot  be allowed to get a nuclear weapon because there is a historical and real conflict and  tension between Shia and Sunni in the region. For me its not even the fact I am worried Iran will attack Israel...they know that would be suicidal. No the moment Iran gets a nuclear weapon of course the Sunni countries will need one. The USA is no longer completely aligned to the Sunni countries and Obama has wisely and difficulty realized  that the USA needed to also negotiate with Iran in order for the USA to be able to stop getting involved in the ME

 

Now I don't mean to be rude but if you don't realize how Iran getting a nuclear weapon would upset the region then I'm sorry you just don't understand the history and political reality of the region....and thats okay. Most people don't understand it because it is f***g  confusing because many times certain countries do things that just dont make sense to us 

Edited August 22, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

@ Magniloquent 

 

I have never really gone into detail with you about the history and reasons why the West and mainly the USA does certain things in the ME

 

If you interested I can go into detail but it will be several paragraphs so I'll only make the post if you are interested but by the time I am finished much of what the USA does in the ME will make sense 

[Agiel]

What I see in Iran is...

 

1. A regime that sees value in what those in the nuclear non-proliferation business call "threshold capability," meaning that the program could, if they so choose and they said to hell with the consequences, be re-purposed to produce a weapon in a very short period of time...

 

2. A cynical, fascistic regime that claims by an interpretation of Wilayat al Faqih that its word should override that of its toy democracy, has a history of sponsoring assassinations of those that displease them, on the sovereign territory of foreign nations no less, on an almost yearly basis threatens to unilaterally close the Strait of Hormuz (and has nearly done so once in the past) with world-wide repercussions (Korea, Japan, and even China, hungry for energy as they are, would shed no tears should Operation Praying Mantis be repeated in response to this), and supports Islamic militant groups that does its part to seriously undermine the cause of a free and pluralist Palestinian state, has through mismanagement, greed, and certain parts by design stunted Iran's own economic development (it's telling that Iran's short-erm economic woes would likely be exacerbated _because_ of the lifting of sanctions). A regime who, in my opinion, whose days are numbered because Iran has...

 

3. An educated, fairly cosmopolitan citizenry due to what Christopher Hitchens called a "baby boomerang" as a result of the horrific war in the 80's. One that is expressing significant push-back against the authoritarian regime that rules their country. One that increasingly favours good relations to the west.

 

You may have noticed that hardly anyone has batted an eye at proposals to sell Iran air defence systems and advanced fighter jets. It has been acknowledged that nations are well within their rights to pursue means of defending themselves within the bounds of the NPT, and history is replete with examples of conventionally armed actors triumphing over nuclear-armed  states, primarily through exacting asymmetric costs on the aggressor state (and this effect has only been accentuated with the rise of the "media war"). In contrast to a conventionally armed Iran that forces its neighbours onto a reactive footing, a nuclear armed Iran that neglects its conventional forces in favour of a costly strategic weapons program makes them think in terms of being proactive ("How can we take out Iran's nukes?")

 

 

 

Pondering the potential disaster of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is like recoiling in horror that a person being actively mugged at gun-point might potentially acquire a fictitious gun before they've been murdered and robbed.

 

To better fit that analogy to deterrence, the person being mugged would acquire an explosive vest rigged with enough Tritonal to level three city blocks, haphazardly wired to a leaky car battery (_THIS_ is the danger represented by a nuclear program built outside of international oversight, Israel and Pakistan's included). Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people tried got along with each other while reducing risk (which is, you know, why there was the P5+1 talks to begin with and the US is actively seeking rapprochement with Iran, even if it meant burning some bridges with historical US allies in the region).

Edited August 23, 2015 by Agiel

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I do not view the Iranian State as noble, but there is no credible evidence that they are seeking nuclear weapons. To the contrary, the only real evidence in this situation would be fabrications and false pretexts to engage in hostilities towards Iran by rival State actors. Therefore, provoking WWIII under the farcical pretext that Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons is insane.

 

Furthermore, I do not consider any of the existing nuclear powers to be any more responsible stewards of nuclear technology than Iran would hypothetically be. I view the counter parties involved in this campaign of aggression to be significantly greater dangers to the world, and am less concerned by them being counterbalanced than I am in them furthering their own hegemony. As such, I am indifferent to the non-existent scenario of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. I believe provoking WWIII due to a blatant lie is a greater and more present danger than a fictitious and fallacious hypothetical situation where Iran should acquire nuclear weapons.

 

That's where I stand. I don't believe we have much to discuss beyond that. I think we'll just have to disagree.