Iran Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

PREFACE

CHRONOLOGY

Sept 2002: Work begins on Iran's first reactor at Bushehr.
Dec 2002: Satellites reveal Arak and Natanz sites triggering IAEA inspections.
Nov 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows tougher inspections.
June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating.
Nov 2004: Iran suspends enrichment under deal with EU.
Aug 2005: Iran rejects EU plan and re-opens Isfahan plant.
Jan 2006: Iran re-opens Natanz facility.

It is this final development that has me (and several million others worldwide) a little concerned. The Natanz enrichment plant was shut down by the UN in 2003 during strict inspections of the country.

Now, it appears that Seyyed Ali Khamene'i really, for lack of a better term, doesn't give a damn about what the United States or the rest of the industrialized thinks about his actions. PARADE Magazine published its annual "Top 10 Worst Dictators in the World" segment. As expected, Sudan's al-Bashir, North Korea's Kim Jong-il, and Burma/Myanmar's Than Shwe claimed the #1, 2, and 3 spots respectively. Ayatollah Khamene'i placed 9th, however, if he tears his country with him into a national war (which is quite possible) we might see him move on up the list.

So begs the question: "what do we do?"

I really don't see the Bush administration in a good light for this situation.

1) Their unilateralist attitudes scare me. More and more we see the effects of a dominant GOP failing to adhere to public opinion. And, despite how fickle it may be, the opinion of the electorate should always be considered over presidential zeal.

2) Their confidence is just too great. Condoleezza Rice is a perfect example of this. She was quoted as saying that Iran has "crossed the threshold," this says to me that there's no turning back. She's also quoted as saying that "Iran is in dangerous defiance of the international community." In short, she has called them out.

This is also the first time that we as a country see ourselves unprepared for a conflict. Bluntly, we don't have enough troops to stomach a war with a capable opponent like Iran. All roads would, therefore, lead to a draft if we declared war.

But it's a Catch-22 as well. Do we sit around and wait long enough for the EU to take action while the problem in Iran festers? Looks like we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place.

Curious, very curious...

[*kryogenix*]

We let Israel's airforce do its thing.

[innovation]

Ugh, I really haven't been keeping up with this issue as much as I should. But from what I know, it looks like the U.S. should support continued negotiations with Iran (especially since it seems at least somewhat receptive to the Russian proposal) while simultaneously encouraging countries like China, Japan, India, etc. to put more pressure on Iran.

And if negotiations absolutely cannot be made, then action by the UNSC might be appropriate, although China and Russia are hesitant about imposing sanctions.

As for war, it's a last resort only, of course. All other measures must be exhausted for military action to take place.

Honestly, what Iran needs is a new government, but I'm not really sure how that would happen. There has been growing resentment from its public, however, so.. who knows? It might turn into a revolution eventually.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Aren't they saying that they're only doing this so they can instate nuclear power in their country? Why can't they do that? Wouldn't it lead to more industrialization, thus making them more like us and Western Europe? Isn't that what we're aiming for?

[*kryogenix*]

Aren't they saying that they're only doing this so they can instate nuclear power in their country? Why can't they do that? Wouldn't it lead to more industrialization, thus making them more like us and Western Europe? Isn't that what we're aiming for?

Well, the fact that the president wants Israel "wiped off the map" is bothering me. That, and the fact that North Korea said they were only doing it to get nuclear power, and now they have nuclear weapons.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, we have nuclear weapons. We could just as easily attack them as they could attack us.

[*kryogenix*]

Well, we have nuclear weapons. We could just as easily attack them as they could attack us.

We have more to lose in a nuclear war. It is in our best interest to prevent nuclear war. Thus, it is in our best interest to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Then why would we have them if we're trying to prevent any existence of them?

[*kryogenix*]

Then why would we have them if we're trying to prevent any existence of them?

Can we trust everyone else to drop their guns if we drop ours? So far, we've been limiting our nuclear arms and getting rid of our WMDs, but it would be foolish to just give up nuclear capability overnight.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, doesn't it seem sort of hypocritical that we're so dedicated to helping countries, yet won't let them do something that could potentially industrialize their nation substantially by doing something that we, ourselves, do?

[*kryogenix*]

Well, doesn't it seem sort of hypocritical that we're so dedicated to helping countries, yet won't let them do something that could potentially industrialize their nation substantially by doing something that we, ourselves, do?

It's not hypocritical when its possible that they can turn it right around on us and wipe one of our allies off the map.

[innovation]

Sammi- The NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) was signed between states possessing nuclear weapons and the rest of the international community. The deal was that the "nuclear club" would aim for eventual disarmament, while the rest of the international community would work for non-proliferation and use nuclear technology only for peaceful/civilian purposes. So yeah, there is already a general consensus that non-proliferation and eventual disarmament is the way to go. The negotiation itself is rather fair; we just need to prove that we're aiming to fulfill our side of the bargain, rather than further developing our nuclear weapons program.

Also, the Iranian government is not trustworthy. It has collaborated with the DPRK (who withdrew from the treaty, pursued a nuclear weapons program, and now claims to have developed weapons- not the best nation to associate oneself with) in creating missiles and has proven hostile to the international community (e.g. that wiping-Israel-off-the-map comment by Ahmadinejad). Iran has proved willing to buy nuclear materials illegally, and who knows? Once it requires the technology/materials necessary, it might be willing to sell these materials to other non-nuclear states and actually further proliferation. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is a huge threat to the Middle East (Israel especially), and it could potentially start an arms race in that area.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Aren't they saying that they're only doing this so they can instate nuclear power in their country? Why can't they do that? Wouldn't it lead to more industrialization, thus making them more like us and Western Europe? Isn't that what we're aiming for?

Yes, the same way that nearly everyone would deny fault to any crime from a speeding ticket to murder one.

When you have people like Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli, deputy to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani quoting "we have no reason to disarm or to be worried about international pressure," and people like Khamene'i whose goal in life is to wipe out Israel, it's hard to believe that Iran wants nuclear power when most industrialized nations aren't using it on a mass scale themselves...

[Shahin]

Well, doesn't it seem sort of hypocritical that we're so dedicated to helping countries, yet won't let them do something that could potentially industrialize their nation substantially by doing something that we, ourselves, do?

What does a country with one of the highest concentrations of oil in the world possiibly need nuclear power to juice up their economy? Iran is a very industrialized place as it is, compared to its neighbours. There is no benefit in it industrializing further at the current time, as the economic embargoes would negate the moves.

[sadolakced acid]

iran will sap bush's support.

1- diplomatic ways, his only real option to maintain support, won't work.

2- if he does not attack iran, it presents the question of why iraq was attacked, which can be used as a campaign issue by opposing parties.

3- if he does attack, he must raise taxes and instigate a draft. the first will alienate his core support, the latter, a lot of people.

bush does nothing right now because he can do nothing. any way he goes, things will go worse for him.

i'm not sure any other president would do better; but i'm sure that any other president would not have attacked iraq, and thus would have troops to attack iran.

the fact that the US backed government in iraq says it will support iran in a conflict between iran and the US doesn't really help bush either.

[*mipadi*]

Reports suggest that the US is stepping up plans to strike Iran. There's some distressing news in this report; not only does it mean yet another war (the third one since 2001), but it also suggests that it may be necessary to use nuclear weapons against Iran's facilities, as they are heavily defended against conventional munitions (think 50 feet of concrete, underground bunkers, etc.). Combine this with the fact that Bush is planning to build new nuclear weapons, and you could potentially have a scary situation.

[innovation]

^ Oh man, that's messed up. For my school's MUN conference, we're doing something with Iran/India/US for our crisis committees. Gee, I wonder what that could be.

[*mipadi*]

You're definitely right it's scary. On the one hand, I want to believe that, because the American people would not support another war, we wouldn't bother going in there; but somehow I doubt Bush would be prudent enough to listen to the voters, as he hasn't proven himself to be a very good listener the last several years.

[innovation]

Well, in the initial stages of invading Iraq, there wasn't a strong grassroots movement against it, was there? The citizens were too late in voicing their dissent; Bush can't pull out now. The US's impression on the world will be determined largely by our success in rebuilding Iraq.

[*kryogenix*]

I don't think we should be using tactical nuclear weapons, especially when we have conventional munitions that can penetrate the bunkers just fine.

Iran has said they will act preemptively against the US. If that happens, we will have no choice but to have a war against Iran. Although I think we're stretched pretty thin now, I don't think we're going to buckle under another war. First of all, I'd be surprised if we didn't get more support from other nations (I'm thinking Israel, but undoubtedly more will help) if Iran launches a preemptive attack. Second, we've had a pretty good record with sustained warfare, such as world wars. The United States can beat any country in terms of military, but the thorn in the side is political backlash.

Anyways, I would hate to see thousands more soldiers die, especially when there are some people who are not just opposing the war, but actually supporting the insurgency, but it beats the hell out of millions of Americans dying in an atomic fireball.

[innovation]

Well, I just lost an essay contest on nuclear non-proliferation, so obviously I don't have enough knowledge to make any further comments. :[

EDIT:

Nevermind, I won! Woohoo! Heck yes!

[innovation]

Now that Iran has successfully enriched uranium (or at least claims so).. isn't it time to revive this thread?

Questions:

(1) Do you believe that Iran and the U.S. are engaging in secret talks? If so, what is the potential success of these bilateral negotiations?

(2) Ahmadinejad has attempted to garner support for Iran's nuclear enrichment by appealing to the public through (a) religion, and (b) nationalism/pride. Does anyone know the Iranian citizens' current stance on uranium enrichment?

(3) Which direction should the US/UN take?

[*kryogenix*]

http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=3082_0_1_0_M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Merlin
Apparently, former President Clinton may have been the one that gave away atomic bomb secrets

[innovation]

^ Wow. Is this fact or merely a rumor? I love Wikipedia, but my trust in the site has declined, unfortunately..

On a brighter note:

YAYYY. I'm going to DC for an awards program, and I get to meet ambassadors and pretend to solve a nuclear proliferation crisis! I'm psyched. Are you psyched, kryo? I'm sure you are.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Now that Iran has successfully enriched uranium (or at least claims so).. isn't it time to revive this thread?

Questions:

(1) Do you believe that Iran and the U.S. are engaging in secret talks? If so, what is the potential success of these bilateral negotiations?

(2) Ahmadinejad has attempted to garner support for Iran's nuclear enrichment by appealing to the public through (a) religion, and (b) nationalism/pride. Does anyone know the Iranian citizens' current stance on uranium enrichment?

(3) Which direction should the US/UN take?

(1) I believe that both nations would be foolish not to be engaging in talks, so yes, it is a distinct possibility. th epotential for success... eh. both nations know the other's position by now... nuclear weaponry may no teven be the crucial hinging point anymore, rather the attitudes towards Israel which will scupper negociations

(2) the position of the iranian people is difficult. they, as a nation, have an enormous and unusual amount of pride in their country, which suggests that they would support what would appear to be the strengthening of their nation. at the same time, iran has a deeply islamic population, and nuclear weaponry is contrary to the principles of islam.

a mass support or dissent is unlikely, as it comes down to each individuals personal struggle between the principles of religion and patriotism

- and mindy, im psyched for you! i wanna go! i also want to attend your school's mun. but ah well