Iranian leaders regularly chant “Death to America” and yet the United States seems to be on course to letting Iran acquire atomic weapons even though we currently have the capacity to destroy Iran’s military and industrial capacity at a tiny cost to ourselves.
Are you confused as to why politicians would repeat a phrase that reliably energizes their political base even though it may not represent reality completely accurately?
In general, no. But I take the chant as evidence that lots of people in Iran would be happy if an atomic bomb went off in New York City. If someone says he wants to kill me, I raise my estimate of the likelihood of him wanting to kill me. If he says it over and over again to his cheering friends, I fear him and want him to be weak even if in the past I have given him justifiable cause for offense. I become really, really scared and desperate if I think he would be willing to kill me even at the cost of giving up his own life. I wish my president shared this view.
I think the issue is how seriously do you want to take that phrase.
For example, a few years ago when Putin was talking about gathering all the Russians under the protective wings of Mother Russia, most people interpreted this as a “phrase that reliably energizes [his] political base”. And then Ukraine happened.
If certain phrases “energize” the voters, it seems likely that they will vote for the politician who promises to do it. And if the politician wants to be elected repeatedly, sooner or later he must start doing something that at least resembles the promise.
A counter-example: the recent Greek referendum X-/
But yes, you make a fair point and so raise an interesting question—what would be that “something that at least resembles the promise” with respect to the “Death to America” chants?
we currently have the capacity to destroy Iran’s military and industrial capacity at a tiny cost to ourselves.
I think you underrate the cost of destroying Iran’s industrial capacity. It costs more than just the bombs.
It likely will result in Russia deploying more troops in Ukraine and issues in a variety of other conflicts.
I think it cuts the other way, and we will have more additional conflicts if the United States allows Iran to acquire atomic weapons. I don’t see how it will be in Russia’s self-interest to put more troops in Ukraine if the U.S. attacks Iran.
Moral capital has value.
It would create a situation in which European powers are a lot less likely to do anything about Ukraine.
Bombing in a way that targeted to do industrial damage might even tipp the scales in a way that the value of US military bases on EU soil get’s more questionable.
It would create a situation in which European powers are a lot less likely to do anything about Ukraine.
Europe acts out of self-interest in opposing Russian actions in Ukraine. Europe will be less likely to act if they perceive the U.S. being unwilling to use force against its enemies because it makes us a less reliable friend. I see the current deal as a U.S. betrayal of Israel and think other U.S. allies will interpret it likewise. The Baltic states will figure that if the U.S. isn’t willing to stand up to Iran, it certainly won’t protect them from Russia so they will be far less likely to anger Russia. Please keep in mind how Sweden reacted when Hitler requested access to Swedish territory to help with his invasion of Norway.
Europe will be less likely to act if they perceive the U.S. being unwilling to use force against its enemies because it makes us a less reliable friend.
I think you are very wrong if you think that unilateral usage of force against international law (which a specific attack targeted on destroying industry clearly is) will make the US seem reliable to European nations.
I see the current deal as a U.S. betrayal of Israel and think other U.S. allies will interpret it likewise.
Israel prefers to have a weak Iran with little influence in other states in the middle East. Sanction weaken Iran regardles of the subject of nuclear missles.
Given Sunni ISIS there are advantages of a stronger Shia Iran.
There are no treaty obligations at all in which the US promised to attack Iran for Israel. I don’t see how it could be betrayal.
Please keep in mind how Sweden reacted when Hitler requested access to Swedish territory to help with his invasion of Norway.
You mean like the US is also wanting to request to use Swedish territory to have military bases (Sweden currently not being a NATO country)?
In Germany US military bases currently enaging in economic spying. The NSA even spied on the German ministry of agriculture.
I think you make a mistake of modeling countries as single actors when politics is much more complicated and there are a lot of forces within countries pushing against each other.
we currently have the capacity to destroy Iran’s military and industrial capacity at a tiny cost to ourselves.
I think you’re underestimating Iran’s defences. At the present time, with Natanz’s plant fully bunkered, there’s no way to disable it and the couple of other support plants with a surgical attack. If you want to disable Iran’s nuclear capacity (not even considering its military or industrial facilities) you need to go heavy tactical or nuclear, which will mean full scale war (ugliness ensues).
Besides, international sanctions were much more effective at destroying Iran’s economy, which is the only reason why they accepted the terms under the present treaty.
All that you say is true. My point was that it won’t be a tiny cost: the use of heavy weapon (like the one you indicate) doesn’t allow plausible deniability, it will mean a full scale war with Iran, and that could very well tip a third global war.
Iranians chant “death to America” because of America’s past abuses, such as overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh to install the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran and supporting Saddam Hussein’s bloody war of aggression against Iran (hundreds of thousands of Iranians died.) This included direct support for Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons programs. It’s ridiculous to frame this as Iranian “mad dogs” vs. innocent Americans. They have every reason to fear foreign aggression. For example, this and this.
Attacking Iran again would simply be continuing the pattern of violent aggression the US has established in the Middle East for decades.
This is a bit of a suspicious summary to me, because it sounds exactly like the summary from the angle of a highly educated, perhaps pol sci grad left-leaning highly critical American. Is it really likely that average guy in Iran really has the same perspective? Or their leaders? You simply don’t seem to be making any effort to simulate their minds.
To give you one example of the lack of simulation here: too long memory. Mossadegh, really? 1953? That is what some guy born in 1970 or 80 will riot about? You have to be half a historian and full of a high-brown person to care what happened in 1953. For comparison, for most people who shot Kennedy and why is ancient history and that was 10 years later, in a country with far better collective memory than Iran (more books published, more media made etc.) If it turns out today the Russkies did it somehow, how many Americans will get angry? My prediction: not many.
This is a bit of a suspicious summary to me, because it sounds exactly like the summary from the angle of a highly educated, perhaps pol sci grad left-leaning highly critical American.
I’m actually more of a conservative than liberal but I think anyone acquainted with the facts and making a good-faith effort not to see Iranians as Evil Mutants should come to the same conclusions. The US media essentially never mentions these facts and even when they do they treat each as an isolated incident rather than part of a consistent pattern which explains the attitude many Iranians have toward the US. I learned these things from being active in the US antiwar movement for the last 10 years or so.
To give you one example of the lack of simulation here: too long memory. Mossadegh, really? 1953? That is what some guy born in 1970 or 80 will riot about?
First of all they aren’t rioting; they’re protesting. It would be one thing if the US had acknowledged the wrongness of this action and apologized for it. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened. And don’t forget that the Shah was imposed by the US and reigned until 1979! That isn’t exactly ancient history. There are many people presently alive who fully remember the Iran-Iraq war and the Shah’s dictatorship.
If it turns out today the Russkies did it somehow, how many Americans will get angry? My prediction: not many.
That’s very different. The government wasn’t replaced when JFK died; his vice president (who largely continued his policies) was made president. Very little changed for most Americans. Furthermore the Soviet Union no longer exists, whereas the US government continues to behave in a very similar, heavy handed way in the Middle East as it did in the 1950s. The difference is instead of dictatorships, the US tends to create anarchy and long-term civil war.
but I think anyone acquainted with the facts and making a good-faith effort not to see Iranians as Evil Mutants should come to the same conclusions.
Here is a counter-example for you. I am well acquained with the facts and I do not see Iranians as Evil Mutants (well, not any more than I see Americans as such :-P). I do not come to the same conclusions as you, obviously.
In the comments above I was mostly pushing against the leftist view of geopolitics which sets up the US as Evil Mutants intent on oppressing the rest of the world (in the Middle East together with their lapdog / puppet Israel), while anyone opposed to the US is a victim with legitimate grievances and if they have the “Death to America” attitude it is justified.
For comparison, for most people who shot Kennedy and why is ancient history and that was 10 years later, in a country with far better collective memory than Iran (more books published, more media made etc.)
More media doesn’t mean better collective memory. Iranian children are taught their history in school.
Western culture focuses more on the short term, than more traditional cultures do.
A nation’s memory is limited, and too many things have happened in the U.S. since Kennedy’s death. Bolivia is still sore from losing its coast to Chile in 1884, because not much has happened to Bolivians afterwards.
Much indeed, but instead of being varied and fleeting, the events that followed were directly related to 1953 and served to reinforce that memory. The fact that the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran’s neighbors doesn’t help, either.
the events that followed were directly related to 1953
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran’s neighbors
Let’s look at Iran’s neighbors. There’s Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which all are doing just fine. There’s Turkey, which is just fine as well. There are some former Russian republics which are a mess, but for that you have to talk to Mr.Putin. There is Afghanistan which has been a mess since the Russian invasion (or, arguably, since the British Empire’s Great Game) and while the US has certainly been involved, I don’t think you can blame it for Afghanistan being what it is. There’s Pakistan which is not the best of countries but is still managing to muddle through and even acquire nuclear weapons in the process.
So I guess all you mean is Iraq. Same Iraq which you agreed was supported by the US in “the bloody war of aggression against Iran”? But yes, you have a valid point in that the Second Iraq war was started on the pretext of preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. Iran certainly took notice and, I suspect, came to the conclusion that a deterrent against a conventional US invasion would be a very useful thing to have.
I think you just undermined your own argument that Iran doesn’t want nukes :-)
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
Yes, the whole point of the revolution was to remove the U.S.-appointed monarch and reverse the pro-Western trend he had started. And then Iraq invaded Iran because it was afraid the revolution would spread.
Just one year after the revolution, Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the Persian Gulf was the U.S.’s personal playground, and no one (else) was allowed to mess with it. Bush I and Bush II acted accordingly. Even the continued goodwill toward Saudi Arabia is a cause of worry for Iran, as they’re sectarian rivals. And then there’s Israel, which is viewed as a representative of U.S. interests against Muslim populations.
The Second Iraq war was started on the pretext that Iraq already had WMDs. For Iran, having them isn’t going to stop a U.S. invasion.
That the revolution was to remove the American influence seems to me much weaker, and thus easier to prove, than the claim that it was directly related to 1953.
Why, thank you for such a devastatingly convincing argument. However I wasn’t trying to discuss Iran with you—that seems to be pretty useless—I was just pointing out that your assertion that “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” is false.
In fact, such an assertion is very common for people who are not capable of imagining how anyone could possibly hold a different view. On LW such people are called mind-killed.
What discussion is possible if “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” and people disagreeing with you “really are in [their] own delusional universe”?
That comment was simply mirroring what you said to polymathwannabe; that they must be in a different universe to disagree with you. You still have only provided lazy snark rather than substance.
There is a difference between one-off events and events that fall into a certain pattern and narrative. The latter are often remembered as being an example of events that fall into that narrative. In my impression Kennedy’s assassination, despite all conspiracy theories surrounding it, is rarely thought of as being a part of a bigger narrative.
I didn’t mean to frame this as ” Iranian “mad dogs” vs. innocent Americans.” Rather, for reasons another nation hates my nation, and my nation seems willing to let this other nation acquire atomic weapons.
I remember some U.S. general (I think) saying that the great tragedy of the Iran/Iraq war was that someday it will end.
Both all of your statements and those of James_Miller can be true without contradicting each other.
Regardless of how modern Iran came to be or who is to blame, you seem to agree that the Iranian public is quite hostile to the U.S.
I don’t worry about this too much, because I assume that the CIA/DOD/whoever have determined that we can live with a nuke powered Iran, even if they hate us.
LOL. I’m not going to play “burn out the heresy with my karma flamethrower”, but you might want to step back from the tribal fight and think about what “true” actually means in this context.
Sorry, let me clarify, I agree that this place is not for politics, but a simple downvote on the top post, and a post describing that would have been fine. no need to downvote all sub-posts.
This deal doesn’t give Iran a path to the bomb. The whole process is to be closely supervised. More importantly, Iran doesn’t want the bomb. It would be suicidal for them to invite a hundredfold-larger U.S. arsenal.
From what I understand, if the U.S. suspects Iran of cheating we have to wait at least 24 days and get the approval of other nations before we can inspect anything. Closely supervised, NO. Once Iran has an atomic weapon and the ability to hit a U.S. allied city with it, Iran wins immunity from U.S. attacks, unless it strike us first.
Wouldn’t any early limited nuke capabilities of Iran be unlikely to get past our missile defense? From my understanding our current defense systems could not withstand say a full-scale russian assault, but they are fairly capable in defending against limited strikes from smaller powers.
If you’re already at the stage of smuggling nuclear bombs across oceans and national borders, then whether or not Iran has the technology to make them is almost entirely irrelevant. There are plenty of nukes unaccounted for from soviet stockpiles, North Korea would probably be happy to covertly sell someone nukes, and so on.
I could probably smuggle a large box from the Middle East to the United States via the Mexican border. I’m not sure you are right about the unaccounted for Soviet nukes.
I am not impressed by the opinion of this guy, mostly because he states obviously false things as if they were facts. Notably:
“A handful of bombs doesn’t help as long as Iran is surrounded by bombs”. That is not true at all, a nuclear weapon is a highly useful deterrent, especially against conventional attacks. Ask Kim Jong-un about it.
“Iran would cease to exist only twenty minutes after having carried out a nuclear attack on Israel”. Is there any evidence that the US stands ready to launch a nuclear attack (in 20 minutes!) against a country that would drop a nuke on Israel? Not to mention that the way Iran is likely to nuke Israel is via their Hezbollah proxy.
The whole strawman premise there seems to be that Iran wants to do some kind of nuclear-brinkmanship new Cold War with the US. This is utter nonsense, of course. Iran does want nuclear weapons, but not for launching at the US.
“Iran would cease to exist only twenty minutes after having carried out a nuclear attack on Israel”. Is there any evidence that the US stands ready to launch a nuclear attack (in 20 minutes!) against a country that would drop a nuke on Israel?
Whether or not the US is willing to launch nukes, Israel has submaries that carry nuclear weapons and that likely would retaliate with them in case Israel get’s nuked.
Not “has”, but “is in the process of acquiring”. I suspect that has much to do with the nuclear weapons that Iran does not want and is not building X-/
Besides, the easiest way to nuke Israel looks like this: a rusty freighter under the Panamian flag arrives into Tel Aviv. One minute after it docks, Tel Aviv is a radioactive crater. That’s all the information you have—what next, do you order a nuclear launch on Tehran? On which basis?
And, of course, a few nukes will not make a large country like Iran “cease to exist”. Look at Japan.
One minute after it docks, Tel Aviv is a radioactive crater. That’s all the information you have—what next, do you order a nuclear launch on Tehran? On which basis?
I would guess that Israel has protocols for direct nuclear answers.
Israel has at least 3 submaries capable of carrying nuclear weapons
There are the old Dolphins and the new Dolphins, they are very different. It is the new Dolphins which are supposed to have the second-strike nuclear capability and Israel just got the first one in the series. See e.g. here.
Israel has protocols for direct nuclear answers
I am sure it has. But the situation when you tracked a long-range bomber from Iranian airspace and that bomber dropped a nuke is very different from the situation when a nuke just exploded in a city and you have no idea how that happened or who is responsible.
Maybe. There is very little reliable information about Israeli Popeye missile variants which are the cruise missiles that the Dolphins are presumably equipped with. Specifically no one knows whether they are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead over a 600+ miles range (the distance from the Mediterranean to Tehran).
OK, if you want to express doubt about whether Israel has nuclear missiles, fine, whatever. But a minute ago, you were claiming that nuclear missiles distinguished the old from the new Dolphins. According to my NTI link they have the same diameter missile tubes. It doesn’t matter if the Popeye turbo goes farther than the Popeye. They all fit on the old Dolphins.
Not quite. I am not expressing doubts that Israel has nuclear missiles, I am expressing doubts that the submarine-launched missiles carrying a nuclear warhead can reach Tehran.
I also didn’t say that “nuclear missiles distinguished the old from the new Dolphins”—I said that the old and the new Dolphins are quite different, and they are. I agree that the old Dolphins are capable launching Popeyes (I was mistaken to imply that they had no nuclear launch capability).
That is not true at all, a nuclear weapon is a highly useful deterrent, especially against conventional attacks. Ask Kim Jong-un about it.
I was under the impression that the true deterrent there was hardened and decentralized conventional artillery able to do significant damage to Seoul, since we’re pretty sure North Korean nukes will work as well as their cure for MERS, Ebola, and AIDS.
As to the chances of the nuke working, well, you gotta ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk? X-/
Edited to add: We are discussing here whether Iran wants nukes. Therefore what is relevant is that the Kims wanted nukes, even though they had the artillery-can-reach-Seoul deterrent already.
Iran would cease to exist only twenty minutes after having carried out a nuclear attack on Israel”. Is there any evidence that the US stands ready to launch a nuclear attack (in 20 minutes!) against a country that would drop a nuke on Israel? Not to mention that the way Iran is likely to nuke Israel is via their Hezbollah proxy.
Israel has its own very sophisticated nuclear arsenal. US participation would not be needed.
Iranian leaders regularly chant “Death to America” and yet the United States seems to be on course to letting Iran acquire atomic weapons even though we currently have the capacity to destroy Iran’s military and industrial capacity at a tiny cost to ourselves.
Are you confused as to why politicians would repeat a phrase that reliably energizes their political base even though it may not represent reality completely accurately?
In general, no. But I take the chant as evidence that lots of people in Iran would be happy if an atomic bomb went off in New York City. If someone says he wants to kill me, I raise my estimate of the likelihood of him wanting to kill me. If he says it over and over again to his cheering friends, I fear him and want him to be weak even if in the past I have given him justifiable cause for offense. I become really, really scared and desperate if I think he would be willing to kill me even at the cost of giving up his own life. I wish my president shared this view.
I think the issue is how seriously do you want to take that phrase.
For example, a few years ago when Putin was talking about gathering all the Russians under the protective wings of Mother Russia, most people interpreted this as a “phrase that reliably energizes [his] political base”. And then Ukraine happened.
If certain phrases “energize” the voters, it seems likely that they will vote for the politician who promises to do it. And if the politician wants to be elected repeatedly, sooner or later he must start doing something that at least resembles the promise.
Or if the politician isn’t willing to do it, he’ll get replaced by someone who is.
A counter-example: the recent Greek referendum X-/
But yes, you make a fair point and so raise an interesting question—what would be that “something that at least resembles the promise” with respect to the “Death to America” chants?
I think you underrate the cost of destroying Iran’s industrial capacity. It costs more than just the bombs. It likely will result in Russia deploying more troops in Ukraine and issues in a variety of other conflicts.
I think it cuts the other way, and we will have more additional conflicts if the United States allows Iran to acquire atomic weapons. I don’t see how it will be in Russia’s self-interest to put more troops in Ukraine if the U.S. attacks Iran.
Moral capital has value. It would create a situation in which European powers are a lot less likely to do anything about Ukraine.
Bombing in a way that targeted to do industrial damage might even tipp the scales in a way that the value of US military bases on EU soil get’s more questionable.
Europe acts out of self-interest in opposing Russian actions in Ukraine. Europe will be less likely to act if they perceive the U.S. being unwilling to use force against its enemies because it makes us a less reliable friend. I see the current deal as a U.S. betrayal of Israel and think other U.S. allies will interpret it likewise. The Baltic states will figure that if the U.S. isn’t willing to stand up to Iran, it certainly won’t protect them from Russia so they will be far less likely to anger Russia. Please keep in mind how Sweden reacted when Hitler requested access to Swedish territory to help with his invasion of Norway.
I think you are very wrong if you think that unilateral usage of force against international law (which a specific attack targeted on destroying industry clearly is) will make the US seem reliable to European nations.
Israel prefers to have a weak Iran with little influence in other states in the middle East. Sanction weaken Iran regardles of the subject of nuclear missles.
Given Sunni ISIS there are advantages of a stronger Shia Iran.
There are no treaty obligations at all in which the US promised to attack Iran for Israel. I don’t see how it could be betrayal.
You mean like the US is also wanting to request to use Swedish territory to have military bases (Sweden currently not being a NATO country)? In Germany US military bases currently enaging in economic spying. The NSA even spied on the German ministry of agriculture.
I think you make a mistake of modeling countries as single actors when politics is much more complicated and there are a lot of forces within countries pushing against each other.
As if Putin needed help finding an excuse to meddle in Ukraine.
I think you’re underestimating Iran’s defences.
At the present time, with Natanz’s plant fully bunkered, there’s no way to disable it and the couple of other support plants with a surgical attack. If you want to disable Iran’s nuclear capacity (not even considering its military or industrial facilities) you need to go heavy tactical or nuclear, which will mean full scale war (ugliness ensues).
Besides, international sanctions were much more effective at destroying Iran’s economy, which is the only reason why they accepted the terms under the present treaty.
The current deal will lift international sanctions. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb might be able to destroy any of Iran’s nuclear plants.
All that you say is true. My point was that it won’t be a tiny cost: the use of heavy weapon (like the one you indicate) doesn’t allow plausible deniability, it will mean a full scale war with Iran, and that could very well tip a third global war.
I don’t see how since Iran has almost no friends and lacks the logistical capacity to attack forces far away.
Iranians chant “death to America” because of America’s past abuses, such as overthrowing the democratic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh to install the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran and supporting Saddam Hussein’s bloody war of aggression against Iran (hundreds of thousands of Iranians died.) This included direct support for Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons programs. It’s ridiculous to frame this as Iranian “mad dogs” vs. innocent Americans. They have every reason to fear foreign aggression. For example, this and this.
Attacking Iran again would simply be continuing the pattern of violent aggression the US has established in the Middle East for decades.
This is a bit of a suspicious summary to me, because it sounds exactly like the summary from the angle of a highly educated, perhaps pol sci grad left-leaning highly critical American. Is it really likely that average guy in Iran really has the same perspective? Or their leaders? You simply don’t seem to be making any effort to simulate their minds.
To give you one example of the lack of simulation here: too long memory. Mossadegh, really? 1953? That is what some guy born in 1970 or 80 will riot about? You have to be half a historian and full of a high-brown person to care what happened in 1953. For comparison, for most people who shot Kennedy and why is ancient history and that was 10 years later, in a country with far better collective memory than Iran (more books published, more media made etc.) If it turns out today the Russkies did it somehow, how many Americans will get angry? My prediction: not many.
I’m actually more of a conservative than liberal but I think anyone acquainted with the facts and making a good-faith effort not to see Iranians as Evil Mutants should come to the same conclusions. The US media essentially never mentions these facts and even when they do they treat each as an isolated incident rather than part of a consistent pattern which explains the attitude many Iranians have toward the US. I learned these things from being active in the US antiwar movement for the last 10 years or so.
First of all they aren’t rioting; they’re protesting. It would be one thing if the US had acknowledged the wrongness of this action and apologized for it. To the best of my knowledge this has never happened. And don’t forget that the Shah was imposed by the US and reigned until 1979! That isn’t exactly ancient history. There are many people presently alive who fully remember the Iran-Iraq war and the Shah’s dictatorship.
That’s very different. The government wasn’t replaced when JFK died; his vice president (who largely continued his policies) was made president. Very little changed for most Americans. Furthermore the Soviet Union no longer exists, whereas the US government continues to behave in a very similar, heavy handed way in the Middle East as it did in the 1950s. The difference is instead of dictatorships, the US tends to create anarchy and long-term civil war.
Here is a counter-example for you. I am well acquained with the facts and I do not see Iranians as Evil Mutants (well, not any more than I see Americans as such :-P). I do not come to the same conclusions as you, obviously.
What conclusions have you arrived at? Do you think some statements mentioned are incorrect or do you think that something else (e.g. role of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi himself and other people within Iran itself, or ideology of Iranian Revolution and role of people like Ali Shariati, or role of contemporary events in neighbouring countries or something else entirely) should be more emphasized?
What exactly is the question here?
In the comments above I was mostly pushing against the leftist view of geopolitics which sets up the US as Evil Mutants intent on oppressing the rest of the world (in the Middle East together with their lapdog / puppet Israel), while anyone opposed to the US is a victim with legitimate grievances and if they have the “Death to America” attitude it is justified.
More media doesn’t mean better collective memory. Iranian children are taught their history in school.
Western culture focuses more on the short term, than more traditional cultures do.
A nation’s memory is limited, and too many things have happened in the U.S. since Kennedy’s death. Bolivia is still sore from losing its coast to Chile in 1884, because not much has happened to Bolivians afterwards.
Are you really arguing that not that much happened in Iran since 1953??
Much indeed, but instead of being varied and fleeting, the events that followed were directly related to 1953 and served to reinforce that memory. The fact that the U.S. has steadily kept ruining the lives of Iran’s neighbors doesn’t help, either.
So, the Islamic Revolution was directly related to 1953? As was the Iraq-Iran war?
Let’s look at Iran’s neighbors. There’s Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, which all are doing just fine. There’s Turkey, which is just fine as well. There are some former Russian republics which are a mess, but for that you have to talk to Mr.Putin. There is Afghanistan which has been a mess since the Russian invasion (or, arguably, since the British Empire’s Great Game) and while the US has certainly been involved, I don’t think you can blame it for Afghanistan being what it is. There’s Pakistan which is not the best of countries but is still managing to muddle through and even acquire nuclear weapons in the process.
So I guess all you mean is Iraq. Same Iraq which you agreed was supported by the US in “the bloody war of aggression against Iran”? But yes, you have a valid point in that the Second Iraq war was started on the pretext of preventing Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction. Iran certainly took notice and, I suspect, came to the conclusion that a deterrent against a conventional US invasion would be a very useful thing to have.
I think you just undermined your own argument that Iran doesn’t want nukes :-)
Yes, the whole point of the revolution was to remove the U.S.-appointed monarch and reverse the pro-Western trend he had started. And then Iraq invaded Iran because it was afraid the revolution would spread.
Just one year after the revolution, Jimmy Carter proclaimed that the Persian Gulf was the U.S.’s personal playground, and no one (else) was allowed to mess with it. Bush I and Bush II acted accordingly. Even the continued goodwill toward Saudi Arabia is a cause of worry for Iran, as they’re sectarian rivals. And then there’s Israel, which is viewed as a representative of U.S. interests against Muslim populations.
The Second Iraq war was started on the pretext that Iraq already had WMDs. For Iran, having them isn’t going to stop a U.S. invasion.
That the revolution was to remove the American influence seems to me much weaker, and thus easier to prove, than the claim that it was directly related to 1953.
Sigh. OK, we live in different universes. I wish you luck in yours.
You really are in your own delusional universe if you think the revolution had nothing to do with removing the foreign-imposed dictator.
Why, thank you for such a devastatingly convincing argument. However I wasn’t trying to discuss Iran with you—that seems to be pretty useless—I was just pointing out that your assertion that “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” is false.
In fact, such an assertion is very common for people who are not capable of imagining how anyone could possibly hold a different view. On LW such people are called mind-killed.
You didn’t cite any evidence before declaring that polymathwannabe was wrong. You aren’t actually engaging the discussion at all.
What discussion is possible if “anyone acquainted with the facts… should come to the same conclusion” and people disagreeing with you “really are in [their] own delusional universe”?
That comment was simply mirroring what you said to polymathwannabe; that they must be in a different universe to disagree with you. You still have only provided lazy snark rather than substance.
He needs less luck than you since his contains the President of the United States and most of academia.
I don’t quite see how that implies he needs less luck. If anything, I think he’s more screwed X-)
There is a difference between one-off events and events that fall into a certain pattern and narrative. The latter are often remembered as being an example of events that fall into that narrative. In my impression Kennedy’s assassination, despite all conspiracy theories surrounding it, is rarely thought of as being a part of a bigger narrative.
That’s an awesome typo :-D
I didn’t mean to frame this as ” Iranian “mad dogs” vs. innocent Americans.” Rather, for reasons another nation hates my nation, and my nation seems willing to let this other nation acquire atomic weapons.
I remember some U.S. general (I think) saying that the great tragedy of the Iran/Iraq war was that someday it will end.
Both all of your statements and those of James_Miller can be true without contradicting each other.
Regardless of how modern Iran came to be or who is to blame, you seem to agree that the Iranian public is quite hostile to the U.S.
I don’t worry about this too much, because I assume that the CIA/DOD/whoever have determined that we can live with a nuke powered Iran, even if they hate us.
Upvoted for happening to be true.
LOL. I’m not going to play “burn out the heresy with my karma flamethrower”, but you might want to step back from the tribal fight and think about what “true” actually means in this context.
Note: that downvote is not mine.
And letting Iran have nukes would lead to the Middle East becoming a peaceful place.
Downvoted for mindlessly regurgitating a pile of propaganda onto LW.
Someone seems to have downvoted nearly ever comment to my top post.
I think someone disapproves of political discussions on LW and is willing to karma-hose all participants in such.
I agree with them. this is very specific of a political discussion, not a political philosophy one. Don’t like it taking place here
There is a bit of a difference between disliking a particular discussion on a forum and mass-downvoting all participants.
Sorry, let me clarify, I agree that this place is not for politics, but a simple downvote on the top post, and a post describing that would have been fine. no need to downvote all sub-posts.
This deal doesn’t give Iran a path to the bomb. The whole process is to be closely supervised. More importantly, Iran doesn’t want the bomb. It would be suicidal for them to invite a hundredfold-larger U.S. arsenal.
From what I understand, if the U.S. suspects Iran of cheating we have to wait at least 24 days and get the approval of other nations before we can inspect anything. Closely supervised, NO. Once Iran has an atomic weapon and the ability to hit a U.S. allied city with it, Iran wins immunity from U.S. attacks, unless it strike us first.
Wouldn’t any early limited nuke capabilities of Iran be unlikely to get past our missile defense? From my understanding our current defense systems could not withstand say a full-scale russian assault, but they are fairly capable in defending against limited strikes from smaller powers.
Not if they smuggle the bomb into the United States.
If you’re already at the stage of smuggling nuclear bombs across oceans and national borders, then whether or not Iran has the technology to make them is almost entirely irrelevant. There are plenty of nukes unaccounted for from soviet stockpiles, North Korea would probably be happy to covertly sell someone nukes, and so on.
I could probably smuggle a large box from the Middle East to the United States via the Mexican border. I’m not sure you are right about the unaccounted for Soviet nukes.
http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549
How do you know?
For example.
I am not impressed by the opinion of this guy, mostly because he states obviously false things as if they were facts. Notably:
“A handful of bombs doesn’t help as long as Iran is surrounded by bombs”. That is not true at all, a nuclear weapon is a highly useful deterrent, especially against conventional attacks. Ask Kim Jong-un about it.
“Iran would cease to exist only twenty minutes after having carried out a nuclear attack on Israel”. Is there any evidence that the US stands ready to launch a nuclear attack (in 20 minutes!) against a country that would drop a nuke on Israel? Not to mention that the way Iran is likely to nuke Israel is via their Hezbollah proxy.
The whole strawman premise there seems to be that Iran wants to do some kind of nuclear-brinkmanship new Cold War with the US. This is utter nonsense, of course. Iran does want nuclear weapons, but not for launching at the US.
Whether or not the US is willing to launch nukes, Israel has submaries that carry nuclear weapons and that likely would retaliate with them in case Israel get’s nuked.
Not “has”, but “is in the process of acquiring”. I suspect that has much to do with the nuclear weapons that Iran does not want and is not building X-/
Besides, the easiest way to nuke Israel looks like this: a rusty freighter under the Panamian flag arrives into Tel Aviv. One minute after it docks, Tel Aviv is a radioactive crater. That’s all the information you have—what next, do you order a nuclear launch on Tehran? On which basis?
And, of course, a few nukes will not make a large country like Iran “cease to exist”. Look at Japan.
Israel has at least 3 submaries capable of carrying nuclear weapons: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-deploys-nuclear-weapons-on-german-submarines-a-836671.html
I would guess that Israel has protocols for direct nuclear answers.
There are the old Dolphins and the new Dolphins, they are very different. It is the new Dolphins which are supposed to have the second-strike nuclear capability and Israel just got the first one in the series. See e.g. here.
I am sure it has. But the situation when you tracked a long-range bomber from Iranian airspace and that bomber dropped a nuke is very different from the situation when a nuke just exploded in a city and you have no idea how that happened or who is responsible.
Especially if Iran announces that should we be hit in retaliation, we will use all of our (remaining) nuclear weapons.
NTI cites a 1999 Jane’s report saying that the old Dolphins carried nuclear missiles. (And the 1999 ship may well have been specified in 1989.)
Maybe. There is very little reliable information about Israeli Popeye missile variants which are the cruise missiles that the Dolphins are presumably equipped with. Specifically no one knows whether they are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead over a 600+ miles range (the distance from the Mediterranean to Tehran).
OK, if you want to express doubt about whether Israel has nuclear missiles, fine, whatever. But a minute ago, you were claiming that nuclear missiles distinguished the old from the new Dolphins. According to my NTI link they have the same diameter missile tubes. It doesn’t matter if the Popeye turbo goes farther than the Popeye. They all fit on the old Dolphins.
Not quite. I am not expressing doubts that Israel has nuclear missiles, I am expressing doubts that the submarine-launched missiles carrying a nuclear warhead can reach Tehran.
I also didn’t say that “nuclear missiles distinguished the old from the new Dolphins”—I said that the old and the new Dolphins are quite different, and they are. I agree that the old Dolphins are capable launching Popeyes (I was mistaken to imply that they had no nuclear launch capability).
Yes,and think what happens to economic investment in Tel Aviv if people in a nuclear-armed Iran hint that they might do this.
Israel first ordered these submarines in 1989. It has had 3 since 2000. It is true that it is acquiring 3 more.
I was under the impression that the true deterrent there was hardened and decentralized conventional artillery able to do significant damage to Seoul, since we’re pretty sure North Korean nukes will work as well as their cure for MERS, Ebola, and AIDS.
Ideally you want multiple deterrents, of course.
As to the chances of the nuke working, well, you gotta ask yourself, do you feel lucky, punk? X-/
Edited to add: We are discussing here whether Iran wants nukes. Therefore what is relevant is that the Kims wanted nukes, even though they had the artillery-can-reach-Seoul deterrent already.
Israel has its own very sophisticated nuclear arsenal. US participation would not be needed.