The Republicans' letter to Iran

[untermensche]

There wasn't any bomb program until Israel had bombs.

Israel had bombs before the current government took power in Iran.

Yes. That is why Israel thinks it can continually make threats.

 

[dismal]

I disagree here. If nuke is cheaper then it makes sense to go that way and sell the gas.

The issue is not nuke per se, the issue is enrichment. What they are doing with enrichment is for bombs.

You are wrong because:

1) Nuke is not cheaper than gas, not even in the US
2) When you are sitting on a metric fuckton of gas you have no market for its not even close
3) Building gas plants is cheaper, easier, faster and does not get you international sanctions.

On the minus side, it does not get you a bomb.

 

[Sarpedon]

Guess what. One country can't unilaterally decide another country doesn't have the right to do something.

Israel is doing that a lot lately.

First Iran isn't allowed to have a nuclear program, now the Palestinians can't have a state.

Of Iran and Israel, only one is led by a deranged megalomaniac who thinks he's on a mission from god.

 

[NobleSavage]

Guess what. One country can't unilaterally decide another country doesn't have the right to do something.

Israel is doing that a lot lately.

First Iran isn't allowed to have a nuclear program, now the Palestinians can't have a state.

Of Iran and Israel, only one is led by a deranged megalomaniac who thinks he's on a mission from god.

If they have the power to do it, they sure the fuck can.

 

[Axulus]

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

The problem is that if Iran obtains a nuke, then Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will say "me too". The more countries in the middle east that have nukes, the far greater the odds that a nuke will go off at some point. The middle east is unstable enough as it is. A collapse of the government controlled by one of these "rational actors" could easily lead to the bombs getting into the wrong hands, such as a non-state actor who may be on a suicidal mission to bring about armegedden.

 

[Axulus]

They also have a metric fuckton of natural gas which would make it highly irrational for them to pursue nuclear enrichment, endure sanctions, etc for peaceful purposes.

Their behavior suggests they want a bomb pretty bad.

And for good reason. Look what dismantling the nuclear program in an agreement with the West got Libya and Gaddafi, bombings by the US and NATO allies and support for the rebels at the first sign of a serious revolution.

 

[Axulus]

Guess what. One country can't unilaterally decide another country doesn't have the right to do something.

Israel is doing that a lot lately.

First Iran isn't allowed to have a nuclear program, now the Palestinians can't have a state.

Of Iran and Israel, only one is led by a deranged megalomaniac who thinks he's on a mission from god.

If it leads to the dismantling of the NPT and many more totalitarian or totalitarian leaning countries obtaining nukes, making them far more widespread and thus dramatically increasing the odds that one will go off at some point in the future (if one of these totalitarian governments collapse, for example, and the nukes fall into the wrong hands), they not only have a right but also an obligation to try to stop it.

This isn't child's play here. Iran obtaining a nuke has serious consequences for other countries in the middle east, not just Israel.

 

[Ford]

This isn't child's play here.

Which is why the Republican Senators' letter is so problematic.

Iran obtaining a nuke has serious consequences for other countries in the middle east, not just Israel.

I think it is fair to say that any country obtaining a nuclear weapons capacity is something to be taken seriously. The elephant in the room appears to be Israel's rather large stockpile of weapons.

Iran is not the wild card here. We've got a pretty good handle on their capacity (not able to produce a weapon) their programs (by all accounts inactive for a decade or more) and if actions count more than rhetoric they're not at the moment actively working towards a nuclear weapon.

Israel, on the other hand, has at best estimate hundreds of warheads, but we don't know because they've been lying about their capacity for decades. Israel is the wild card.

 

[arkirk]

Makes me think of law, but yeah, that works if you say, "bad precedent."

The lawyers use the word more than most; but they do not own it.

F M Cornford's Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that "You should not now do an admittedly right action, for fear that you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time". (From Microcosmographia Academica _[PDF])

Their letter was not even remotely directed at the Iranians. It was directed at idiots who don't like Obama or Kerry. For those of us who are not idiots but yet dislike some of the policies of Obama and Kerry we see this letter as having no possible good outcome. They might as well have just sent a short note telling the Iranians it is their intention to destroy any and all relations between Iran and the U.S. That can only be considered about the stupidest idea yet launched on our people...by a party with definite war mongering plans.

 

[Togo]

They also have a metric fuckton of natural gas which would make it highly irrational for them to pursue nuclear enrichment, endure sanctions, etc for peaceful purposes.

Their behavior suggests they want a bomb pretty bad.

And for good reason. Look what dismantling the nuclear program in an agreement with the West got Libya and Gaddafi, bombings by the US and NATO allies and support for the rebels at the first sign of a serious revolution.

And indeed where it got Ukraine.

I think the one thing that international relations have amply demonstrated over the last decade or two is that having your own nuclear weapons is essential. Bad for everyone else, of course, but very good for the country involved.

 

[Sarpedon]

Let me explain: I never said that Iran has the right to a nuclear WEAPON. They signed a treaty giving up that right.

If you've been paying attention to what Netenyahu has been saying, and the conditions he wants to impose on Iran, it will be clear that he wants to deny them the right to have a nuclear ANYTHING. The fact that all of you so quickly conflated the two shows how deeply you've fallen for the propaganda.

You see, Israel has royally fucked up its strategic defense policy, and they are too racist and stupid to fix it. They believed that they could maintain their military superiority over their neighbors forever, and therefore had no need to engage with other countries. Of course, this colossal misconception was based on a candy-land false confusion based on the ease that they defeated the Arabs in their war of independence. They assumed that the defeat of the Arabs meant that Israelis were naturally superior, when in fact they merely had every strategic advantage, except numbers, over the rather ramshackle post colonial Arab powers.

With the nations of the middle east recovering from colonialism, Israel is finding itself at a growing disadvantage. This is why they joined with the US and UK in the propaganda campaign that led to the invasion of Iraq, and are now trying to get us to invade Iran. With Iraq, Iran, and Syria smashed, Israel will be able to maintain their position for a few more decades. Netenyahu is willing to sacrifice as many US troops as necessary to obtain this.

 

[laughing dog]

This isn't child's play here. Iran obtaining a nuke has serious consequences for other countries in the middle east, not just Israel.

Short of the USA unilaterally invading, conquering and occupying Iran forever, there is no way for the US alone to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That is the reality that these 47 idealogues and morons need to understand. Containing Iran's nucleaer weapon dreams, requires international co-operation which precludes US unilateralism. And it implies compromise.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yeah, because Israel doesn't have any nuclear weapons.

Israel would have had no reason to throw them at Iran. Israel's nukes were for the purpose of deterring nations like Egypt from invading again.

And for protection while they steal territory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bringing them to the negotiating table is of no value.

It's only of no value if you don't want to negotiate anything.

This administration wants to negotiate. The P5+1 group of nations wants to negotiate.

The Republicans want to go to war again.

We get it.

Negotiating is of no value. What's of value is an agreement that gets what you need. Negotiating is merely a step in this process, not something of value by itself.

If you're not going to get your core requirements met (in this case, stop the bomb program) there's nothing to be gained by it.

- - - Updated - - -

Last I knew it was about one enrichment plant per twenty reactors. If you don't have a bunch of reactors it makes more sense to buy the fuel rather than make your own.

Unless you're worried about sanctions, then you'd want your industry to be self-sustaining, rather than depend on people letting you import what you need....So, use up the rods, recharge them, use up the rods, does make sense. Esp. if you can't trust any of the bastards around you.

Quit being a major league troublemaker and there's no way you'll get both the US and Russia to agree to not sell you fuel.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any evidence that Iran is an irrational actor? My limited understanding of history is that anything "irrational" is better explained by "blowback". Give me some reasons why they wouldn't make a good member of the mutual destruction club.

The problem is that if Iran obtains a nuke, then Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will say "me too". The more countries in the middle east that have nukes, the far greater the odds that a nuke will go off at some point. The middle east is unstable enough as it is. A collapse of the government controlled by one of these "rational actors" could easily lead to the bombs getting into the wrong hands, such as a non-state actor who may be on a suicidal mission to bring about armegedden.

Or look at what's been happening over there--civil wars. Civil wars in nuclear armed states are a very scary proposition.

- - - Updated - - -

They also have a metric fuckton of natural gas which would make it highly irrational for them to pursue nuclear enrichment, endure sanctions, etc for peaceful purposes.

Their behavior suggests they want a bomb pretty bad.

And for good reason. Look what dismantling the nuclear program in an agreement with the West got Libya and Gaddafi, bombings by the US and NATO allies and support for the rebels at the first sign of a serious revolution.

Look again. It wasn't the first sign of rebellion, it was the brutal tactics they used against the rebels that got our intervention.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me explain: I never said that Iran has the right to a nuclear WEAPON. They signed a treaty giving up that right.

If you've been paying attention to what Netenyahu has been saying, and the conditions he wants to impose on Iran, it will be clear that he wants to deny them the right to have a nuclear ANYTHING. The fact that all of you so quickly conflated the two shows how deeply you've fallen for the propaganda.

The only nuclear thing Iran wants is the bomb.

 

[Ford]

It's only of no value if you don't want to negotiate anything.

This administration wants to negotiate. The P5+1 group of nations wants to negotiate.

The Republicans want to go to war again.

We get it.

Negotiating is of no value. What's of value is an agreement that gets what you need. Negotiating is merely a step in this process, not something of value by itself.

If you're not going to get your core requirements met (in this case, stop the bomb program) there's nothing to be gained by it.

So we should not negotiate, and instead come to an agreement by means of...fairy dust? Wishful thinking? A game of Trivial Pursuit where the winner gets their way?

The only nuclear thing Iran wants is the bomb.

Which is why they've managed to not build a single one during the entire history of the regime despite the technology being available.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Negotiating is of no value. What's of value is an agreement that gets what you need. Negotiating is merely a step in this process, not something of value by itself.

If you're not going to get your core requirements met (in this case, stop the bomb program) there's nothing to be gained by it.

So we should not negotiate, and instead come to an agreement by means of...fairy dust? Wishful thinking? A game of Trivial Pursuit where the winner gets their way?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't negotiate. I'm saying that if we have to stretch to get them to the table then there's no point in it--they're not going to reach an agreement we consider acceptable anyway.

The only nuclear thing Iran wants is the bomb.

Which is why they've managed to not build a single one during the entire history of the regime despite the technology being available.

And plenty of Israeli sabotage.

 

[Ford]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't negotiate. I'm saying that if we have to stretch to get them to the table then there's no point in it--they're not going to reach an agreement we consider acceptable anyway.

I've noticed you're not exactly serving up a whole lot of alternatives.

I mean, 10 years from now Iran may have the bomb we were sure they'd have 20 years ago, but what's your solution to stop them from not once again working on that which they are so clearly not working on?

 

[untermensche]

....they're not going to reach an agreement we consider acceptable anyway....

We of course meaning the Israeli government.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't negotiate. I'm saying that if we have to stretch to get them to the table then there's no point in it--they're not going to reach an agreement we consider acceptable anyway.

I've noticed you're not exactly serving up a whole lot of alternatives.

I mean, 10 years from now Iran may have the bomb we were sure they'd have 20 years ago, but what's your solution to stop them from not once again working on that which they are so clearly not working on?

Just because you don't see any other options doesn't mean you should support one that won't work.

- - - Updated - - -

....they're not going to reach an agreement we consider acceptable anyway....

We of course meaning the Israeli government.

We don't want Iran to have the bomb, either.

 

[ksen]

We were told Iran was 10 years from a nuclear bomb . . . back in 2005

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal.

Has anyone offered proof yet?

Oh, and where's their bomb?

One other thing, if the chickenhawks are determined to go to war with Iran they better offer up a tax increase package to pay for it. Otherwise all their bitching and moaning about the deficit is just so much bullshit.