[matty b]

In recent news, Iran has been accused by the US, EU and Israel of developing nuclear weapons.

However, as the West pose sanctions on Iran's ability to trade oil with the west, Iran bites back with the threat of a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz - where 35% of global oil is traded.

So - what poses more of a risk to the West?

[Aj12]

Nukes would give them the ability to close the straits without too much in consequence provided they had second strike capacity and could hit the US. But I would say the ability to close the straits is almost a potent deterrent as nuclear weapons given the world wide economic damage it would do. Though the Iranian navy does not have the capacity to keep the straits closed indefinitely, I think the US navy said they could reopen the straits in about a week or two and as soon as they shut the straits Iran loses all international support from countries like China.

[@Sam]

Hormuz would give them the opportunity to launch an economic first strike if they tied it with one of the European economy’s bad days, which would cause a stutter in any response outside of the US, Britain and France who have warships in theatre to deal with it – considering that the likely clearance plans involve significant NATO involvement from places like Italy and Spain. Either way they would lose, it is just a question of how hard they can hit the west before falling themselves.

[Teofilo]

I think the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran is limited, and has been grossly and deliberately exaggerated in certain corners.

[cl_steele]

its a tricky one ... if they did develop nukes they could potentially hit israel and the oil fields of Saudi if they did the first the chances are theyd get a bomb land right back on top of them either from Israel [if they do have nukes] or from the Americans if they did decide to squash the oil capital of the world but the chances of them ever doing such an act is negligable, unless they can magic up an arsenal of any meaningful size they know the doctrine of MAD and know theyd be flattened if they ever struck a NATO member or ally especially the saudis ... the ability to close the straights is limited, there armed forces whilst expanding would be erazed by the US especially considering they have an entire fleet sitting next to the straights ... so baring that in mind both of these 'threats' from Iran arent worthy of much thought as either way they are both relatiely inconsequential considering the amount of arms being aimed at them...

[King Kebab]

Nukes without a doubt I think.

If Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, the West would destroy them within a month.

[t0ffee]

What poses least risk to the West is not interfering with Iran and letting them have the means to defend themselves.

Secondly the thing that poses the least risk to the west is completely nuclear disarming Israel.

The Iranians simply don't have the technology to have long range nuclear weapons. They want them defensively - so they can say 'if you invade us or nuke us, we will nuke you (if you are Israel or another power in the region).

The threat to the Western powers is 'if you invade our country physically, we will drop nuclear bombs on your army and occupational force in Iran.'

Essentially all they want is nuclear strike back capacity against the regions aggressive power (Israel, who have nukes), and to make it politically and practically possible for their country to actually be occupied (this last one is the most significant).

[King Kebab]

I agree Israel should get rid of their nuclear weapons. However, Israel feel they need nuclear weapons to repel attacks from countries in the region that want then wiped off the face of the planet. It is very hard convincing them to give up their nuclear weapons.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by t0ffee)
What poses least risk to the West is not interfering with Iran and letting them have the means to defend themselves.

Secondly the thing that poses the least risk to the west is completely nuclear disarming Israel.

The Iranians simply don't have the technology to have long range nuclear weapons. They want them defensively - so they can say 'if you invade us or nuke us, we will nuke you (if you are Israel or another power in the region).

The threat to the Western powers is 'if you invade our country physically, we will drop nuclear bombs on your army and occupational force in Iran.'

Essentially all they want is nuclear strike back capacity against the regions aggressive power (Israel, who have nukes), and to make it politically and practically possible for their country to actually be occupied (this last one is the most significant).

Iran, the most destabalising force in the Middle East and run by a very aggressive regime, are not seeking weapons in self defence. You can usually analyse a government by what they say and what they do, and everything they have said and done, from comments about the annihilation of Israel to the funding of terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, have been geared at provoking Israel. You may claim that the Iranians do not have the technology for long range weapons, but you are wrong. You may also think that Israel are the aggressive power in the region, yet despite having had nuclear weapons for many decades now and also having been embroiled in several high-intensity conflicts since then, Israel have not actually used these weapons yet, nor is there any evidence that anyone in power actually considered it.

[Aj12]

Can we not have this turn into another thread about Israel please. Stay on topic

[MxSK]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Iran, the most destabalising force in the Middle East and run by a very aggressive regime, are not seeking weapons in self defence.

"Liberate Qods (Jerusalem) through Karabala" died after the 8 years of horror against Saddam.

Extremely aggressive and horrifically brutal domestically, but its foreign policy is ideologically defensive. This is the United States assessment.

For example, Pentagon Report just released yesterday; reaffirmed what they've been saying for the last 10 years:

There has been no change to Iran's strategies over the past years...
Iran's security strategy remains focussed on deterring an attack, and it continues to support governments and groups that oppose US interests...

Iran's principles of military strategy remain deterrence, asymmetrical
retaliation, and attrition warfare.

Iran's military doctrine remains designed to slow an invasion; target its adversaries'
economic, political, and military interests; and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities while
avoiding any concessions that challenge its core interests. Iran over the past year publicly
threatened to use its naval forces to close the Strait ofHormuz in response to increasing
sanctions and in the event Iran is attacked. Iran also has threatened to launch missiles against
U.S. interests and our allies it1 the region in response to an attack and has issued threats to
support terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

Department of Defence Full PDF here:
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/dod-iran.pdf
(It also goes through the improvement in ballistic missile technology which you alluded to and goes through its activities (as specifically as an unclassified document can) in the region which can be considered against "US interests".)

That's not to defend their activities, but the idea that they have an aggressive foreign policy is wrong. That doesn't mean they have a "nice", "clean" or "innocent" foreign policy, far from it as we all know.

They aren't about to attack anyone, nor are they a grave threat to anyone. It's laughable to suggest otherwise, and I would ask why someone would have so little faith in US power. That's remains true even if they decide to militarise the nuclear program (this won't happen in the foreseeable future).

Also, to those who posted above... WHY would they close the strait once they HAVE nukes? That's ridiculous analysis and makes no sense.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Iran, the most destabalising force in the Middle East and run by a very aggressive regime, are not seeking weapons in self defence. You can usually analyse a government by what they say and what they do, and everything they have said and done, from comments about the annihilation of Israel to the funding of terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, have been geared at provoking Israel. You may claim that the Iranians do not have the technology for long range weapons, but you are wrong. You may also think that Israel are the aggressive power in the region, yet despite having had nuclear weapons for many decades now and also having been embroiled in several high-intensity conflicts since then, Israel have not actually used these weapons yet, nor is there any evidence that anyone in power actually considered it.

It is only destabilizing to Western fuel interests.

er Israel have been quoted many time as saying that they will do anything in their power to stop the 'Iran threat'.

Look at Israel in Palestine to see how aggressive and territorial they are.

[Aj12]

(Original post by t0ffee)
It is only destabilizing to Western fuel interests.

er Israel have been quoted many time as saying that they will do anything in their power to stop the 'Iran threat'.

Look at Israel in Palestine to see how aggressive and territorial they are.

It's hardly just destabilising to the west, otherwise China would not be warning Iran not to pursue nuclear arms and not to shut the straits

[tehFrance]

A nuclear Iran is laughable, the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz on the other hand is not and thus is more serious in my opinion.

[doggyfizzel]

Well as has been said Iran with a nuclear strike capacity could close the Straits without fear of direct military action. Currently they cannot close the Straits for any period if they hope to keep countries like China on side.

Its sad we have got embroiled in this, I see this as a middle eastern power problem not a world wide one. Its a problem for Israel and the US. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is unstoppable. Its only a matter of time until a country pursing them acquires them.

[rafale]

No one poses any threat. It is typical BS fed to the western public to keep them frightened. How else would millions of Americans earn their paychecks if it wasn't for producing weapons and wars? Thanks to Military Inc. And before you start bashing me, i have lived and studied in the USA, and i know how spoon-fed Americans are.

Seriously, grow up. You really think Iran is going to use Nukes if they have them? I am from Pakistan, and i am pretty sure, Pakistan will wipe them out if Iran used nukes against any country.

Nukes are just deterrent....and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is a clown.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Iran, the most destabalising force in the Middle East and run by a very aggressive regime, are not seeking weapons in self defence. You can usually analyse a government by what they say and what they do, and everything they have said and done, from comments about the annihilation of Israel to the funding of terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza, have been geared at provoking Israel. You may claim that the Iranians do not have the technology for long range weapons, but you are wrong. You may also think that Israel are the aggressive power in the region, yet despite having had nuclear weapons for many decades now and also having been embroiled in several high-intensity conflicts since then, Israel have not actually used these weapons yet, nor is there any evidence that anyone in power actually considered it.

I disagree completely with calling the Iranian regime 'aggressive' when you consider that Iran's last invasion was in 1798.

But this isn't my point. I've began looking at the Iranian nuclear programme fiasco from a different angle. Here are a few things I've noticed:



The difference between the map above and a map of the Middle East in 1948, with Israel surrounded by hostile states, is not too dissimilar. I suppose the only difference is that Israel's neighbours, say Egypt and Syria, were not invaded by a country hostile towards Israel. Iran's neighbours, on the other hand, were. Sure, the U.S. may have had its reasons, but imagine what the conversation and tone is like amongst key Iranian regime members - something along the lines of 'we're going to suffer the same fate unless our defence measures are able to repel any would-be attackers'.

At which point anyone in favour of airstrikes usually says something along the lines of 'But don't you get it? If you allow the Iranian regime that much breathing space (1) it will remain in power for the foreseeable future and (2) it will be able to begin nuclear blackmailing countries'.

(1) If you begin bombing Iran the people are likely to rally behind their government, and the regime will accelerate, or begin, its nuclear weapons programme, ergo you will achieved the opposite of what you had originally planned.

(2) Three of Mossad's current or ex top brass have come out and said that Iran is a rational actor and that it does not pose an existential threat to Israel. The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, has also said that he thinks the Iranian regime is rational. In other words, these men think Khamenei isn't stupid enough to nuke Tel Aviv.

The bottom line, however, is that Israel developed its nuclear programme to counter the threat of its hostile neighbours. Fast-forward sixty years and the Iranian regime is doing exactly the same thing. The anti-Israel rubbish the regime spews is to rally the people, it's rhetoric, it's not going to happen.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Aj12)
It's hardly just destabilising to the west, otherwise China would not be warning Iran not to pursue nuclear arms and not to shut the straits

But throughout his visit, Mr. Wen repeated that China’s business deals with Iran — its No. 3 supplier — were separate from diplomatic questions and that sanctions threatened global trade more than any individual nation.

Its just words though really in light of this. Probably saying it for some political end, but really rules out any action against them and suggests that other countries stop their action against them.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by t0ffee)
It is only destabilizing to Western fuel interests.

er Israel have been quoted many time as saying that they will do anything in their power to stop the 'Iran threat'.

Look at Israel in Palestine to see how aggressive and territorial they are.

So you give me an example of one of the least aggressive occupations to exist as an argument that Israel are more aggressive than the Iranians, despite the fact that the Iranian regime has killed more Iranians since 1979 than Israel has Palestinians since the 1940s?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Stalin)
I disagree completely with calling the Iranian regime 'aggressive' when you consider that Iran's last invasion was in 1798.

But this isn't my point. I've began looking at the Iranian nuclear programme fiasco from a different angle. Here are a few things I've noticed:



The difference between the map above and a map of the Middle East in 1948, with Israel surrounded by hostile states, is not too dissimilar. I suppose the only difference is that Israel's neighbours, say Egypt and Syria, were not invaded by a country hostile towards Israel. Iran's neighbours, on the other hand, were. Sure, the U.S. may have had its reasons, but imagine what the conversation and tone is like amongst key Iranian regime members - something along the lines of 'we're going to suffer the same fate unless our defence measures are able to repel any would-be attackers'.

Yes. The USA maintains military bases all over the world, most notably in Germany, yet it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say that the existence of US bases in Germany is a 'threat' to the German people. The same applies to bases in the Middle East. It is conspiratorial to suggest that these bases presuppose a US invasion of the countries that surround them. The Iranian regime has been investing in global terror networks for years, totally countering any claim you may make that the regime is not aggressive. What non-aggressive regime massacres tens of thousands of its own citizens and spends a great deal of capital propping up terrorist organisations?

The British Parliament is currently convening to discuss the matter of the almost one thousand men, women and children hanged in Iran in the past three years for simple crimes like being a homosexual. ("The official 170 forms of punishment include limb amputation without anaesthetic and gouging out eyes with a spoon-like instrument.") Furthermore, 120,000 political prisoners have been hanged since the 1979 revolution according to their findings (that's about 10 times the amount of Palestinians killed by Israel in an armed conflict lasting over sixty years, to put it in perspective.).

Secret executions are very much widespread in the IRI. "The [UN] report gives a detail of the executions carried out in 2010-11. It says that nearly 300 secret executions were carried out in the Vakilabad prison of Mashad in the year 2010. While the officially announced executions were 200 in the same year." This is not to mention the mass execution of political prisoners which took place in 1988. (The extensive report is available here.) 30,000 were killed in one single sweep, according to the Telegraph. ("Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.")

Iran is also a major funder of international terrorism, and this funding is precisely what endangers the British people and our allies abroad - notably Israel, but also the ordinary citizens of the country of Lebanon which has been torn apart by violence stemming from the actions of Iranian-backed terror groups, not to mention the occupation of Lebanon by Syria which was also promoted by Iran. Iran funded the recognised terrorist organisation Hamas to the tune of $150 million in 2008 alone. Iran was described by the CIA as the foremost state sponsor of terrorism according to Matthew Levitt in his book Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. He writes, "Iranian involvement in the weapons smuggling incident of the Karine-A - a ship located with Iranian weapons that was intercepted by the Israeli navy en route to Gaza in 2002 - is also well documented. The White House described evidence of Iran's role in the Karine-A incident as 'compelling,' a conclusion echoed in the statements of CIA head George Tenet, senior State Department officials, and even European officials." He goes on: "Iran also runs terrorist training camps of its own in Lebanon, aside from the Iranian-funded camps Hezbollah operates there. In August 2002, Tehran was reported to have financed camps under General Ali Reza Tamzar, commander of the IRGC activity in Lebanon's Beka'a Valley. These camps were designed to train Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and PFLP-GC terrorists in the use of short-range Fajr-5 missle and the SA-7 antiaircraft rocket. The IRGC training program, which reportedly costs Iran $50 million annually, was said to include training for Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists to carry out 'underwater suicide operations.'" As affirmed in the US Supreme Court case Susan Weinsten et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran et al., "the Islamic Republic of Iran gave the organization at least $25-50 million in 1995 and 1996, and also provided other groups with tens of millions of dollars to engage in terrorist activities. In total, Iran gave terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, between $100 and $200 million per year during this period." The country also gave the terrorist organisation Hezbollah $200 million in 2009, not to mention much more on numerous occasions. Iranian support for Hezbollah is just as well-documented as their support for Hamas, if not more. Iran's total disrespect for the security of the people of the Lebanon and the surrounding area, if not the entire Middle East, is astounding and worrying.

And we're supposed to believe that this sober, rational, non-aggressive regime will become even more rational when they get the bomb?

At which point anyone in favour of airstrikes usually says something along the lines of 'But don't you get it? If you allow the Iranian regime that much breathing space (1) it will remain in power for the foreseeable future and (2) it will be able to begin nuclear blackmailing countries'.

(1) If you begin bombing Iran the people are likely to rally behind their government, and the regime will accelerate, or begin, its nuclear weapons programme, ergo you will achieved the opposite of what you had originally planned.

(2) Three of Mossad's current or ex top brass have come out and said that Iran is a rational actor and that it does not pose an existential threat to Israel. The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, has also said that he thinks the Iranian regime is rational. In other words, these men think Khamenei isn't stupid enough to nuke Tel Aviv.

The bottom line, however, is that Israel developed its nuclear programme to counter the threat of its hostile neighbours. Fast-forward sixty years and the Iranian regime is doing exactly the same thing. The anti-Israel rubbish the regime spews is to rally the people, it's rhetoric, it's not going to happen.

I don't think the remarks of Dempsey or Dagan have much sway in the grand scheme of things. They are important figures but there are many within those organisations who say exactly the opposite, even years ago. A majority of Israel's security establishment applies full meaning to the word 'existential' - most have made it clear that they believe the threat to be exactly that. Anyway, abstaining from attacking would be a disaster not just for the long term survival of the Israeli state but for international law itself. Letting the regime continue with enrichment would make a mockery out of the IAEA, the European Union, the UN and the entire sanctions regime, not to mention that the Revolutionary Guards and the extremist faction of the Iranian government only stand to gain from the continuation of their nuclear policy. I also think that the majority of the Iranian youth will not support the regime at any cost - even after an Israeli strike.