A Thought on the Iran Nuclear Deal

[Ford]

Which I suppose is why ALL of the arms control experts who have read the deal have said the exact opposite of this.

You have to understand that Loren believes that whatever the Israeli government says is an irrefutable truth. Bibi's regime says this is a bad idea, so Loren thinks it is a bad idea. There's not a lot of critical thinking here. On top of that, Loren also believes that anyone who might be classified as an "Islamist" is literally the worst person ever.


The government of Iran, being Islamic, is therefore in his mind the most terrifying, evil, and about-to-destroy-the-world-starting-with-Israel entity that has ever existed.


They have - depending on your interpretation of the translation - said "death to Israel." Loren believes Israel is the closest thing to a perfect society, run by a basically infallible government, and as such cannot be questioned. Near as I can tell, if a man can worship a state, Loren does so with Israel.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The purse strings provide a lot of control.

At least they WOULD if Iran actually controlled Hezbollah's purse strings.

But they don't. They are ONE of Hezbollah's financial backers. They do not control what Hezbollah does with that money, nor are they its largest source of income.

You might as well argue that the United States was a proxy of France during the Napoleonic Wars.

There's no requirement of proportionality in the use of military force.

Which Israel has gone out of its way, time and time again, to prove to the world.

And is, after all, the point.

1) I think their primary desire for nuclear weapons is to prevent becoming another Afghanistan--taken out for their support of terrorism.

Assuming that they actually possess such a desire (all reliable intelligence reports suggests otherwise at this point), then that suggests they want it for deterrence purposes.

Why is that a problem, again?

I do not trust that they would not try some stupid plot to let their pet terrorists nuke Israel thinking it couldn't be pinned on them.

Why the fuck would Hezbollah go along with such a ridiculous plan? There's nothing for them to gain by doing so, especially since they'd know they can't follow up with a second attack AND they're inviting the GUARANTEED nuclear response from Israel. Iranian planners would have to proceed from four utterly absurd assumptions:
1) That Hezbollah would actually obey Iran's instructions on how to use the bomb
2) That Hezbollah is CAPABLE of deploying that weapon against Israel
3) That Israel would not immediately nuke the piss out of Lebanon and then go after Iran in a two-for-one deal
4) That Hezbollah would make any of the above three assumptions.

You're assuming that they're smart enough to develop a nuclear weapon without anyone knowing about it but stupid enough to waste it on that asinine bond-villain scheme? And you haven't even articulated what a nuclear attack against Israel is supposed to accomplish. Are they invading it? Crippling it? Luring it into an ambush? Or you just assuming that since they're Muslims they're probably too stupid to realize that a single nuclear warhead isn't enough to actually defeat Israel?

No effective way to deploy it? Hafia is a port city. Can you say "fishing boat"?

I can, yes. Hezbollah, however, can't, not without the Mossad finding out about it.

And I'll ask this again: what exactly would nuking Haifa actually accomplish? Other than really piss off the Israelis and get them launching nukes indiscriminately against everyone in the region that ever looked at them cross-eyed. Unless, of course, you think the plan is to have Israel go on this crazy "FIRE EVERYTHING!" nuclear rampage and thus ensure its status as a pariah state, in which case that's not actually that bad of a plan (still INCREDIBLY stupid, but at least it would have a semi-realistic goal).

There are loopholes all over the verification rules.

Which, again, contradicts the reading by all the arms control experts who say the rules are as tight or tighter than anyone could realistically hope for.

What, pray tell, is your evidence that Iran actually WANTS to develop a nuclear weapon?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Assuming that they actually possess such a desire (all reliable intelligence reports suggests otherwise at this point), then that suggests they want it for deterrence purposes.

Why is that a problem, again?

1) You're saying the intelligence services have shown a negative--something that's pretty much impossible.

2) If you think deterrence to protect them from retaliation for terrorism is fine then you must support that terrorism. Was 9/11 a good thing also? Or is it only when Jews die that you like it?

Why the fuck would Hezbollah go along with such a ridiculous plan? There's nothing for them to gain by doing so, especially since they'd know they can't follow up with a second attack AND they're inviting the GUARANTEED nuclear response from Israel. Iranian planners would have to proceed from four utterly absurd assumptions:
1) That Hezbollah would actually obey Iran's instructions on how to use the bomb
2) That Hezbollah is CAPABLE of deploying that weapon against Israel
3) That Israel would not immediately nuke the piss out of Lebanon and then go after Iran in a two-for-one deal
4) That Hezbollah would make any of the above three assumptions.

What you are missing is that if their plan worked properly Israel would simply be faced with a mushroom cloud with no indication of what nation was responsible. Nuke the piss out of who?

As for operating it, Israel has ended up killing an Iranian general in Syria--while bombing Hezbollah. You think they wouldn't provide a trained operator?

You're assuming that they're smart enough to develop a nuclear weapon without anyone knowing about it but stupid enough to waste it on that asinine bond-villain scheme? And you haven't even articulated what a nuclear attack against Israel is supposed to accomplish. Are they invading it? Crippling it? Luring it into an ambush? Or you just assuming that since they're Muslims they're probably too stupid to realize that a single nuclear warhead isn't enough to actually defeat Israel?

It's not enough to defeat Israel but it's a big blow.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1) You're saying the intelligence services have shown a negative--something that's pretty much impossible.

It's not impossible at all. Intelligence analysts and insiders looking at the behavior of the Iranian government, the spending priorities of its military and the internal documents of its leaders conclude that their behavior is inconsistent with that of a nation that is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

It's sort of like when you observe that a guy walks to work every day for five years and is never seen driving a car, doesn't have a driver's license, and has talked many times about how he doesn't want a car and can't afford one; you can, at some point, conclude that this guy is probably not looking to buy a car.

2) If you think deterrence to protect them from retaliation for terrorism is fine then you must support that terrorism.

Actually it would be deterrence to protect them from invasion by outsiders, namely the United States and Israel. It's highly doubtful that would resort to a nuclear response just as a retaliatory measure, especially since they would only be able to do it once.

What you are missing is that if their plan worked properly Israel would simply be faced with a mushroom cloud with no indication of what nation was responsible.

Which, AGAIN, would accomplish nothing whatsoever except to piss Israel off. And you and I both know that Israel would use such an incident as moral justification to attack literally anyone they wanted to; Lebanon, Syria, Iran, even Gaza would be viable targets if they could think of the flimsiest excuse. They know the U.S. Government would make no noise whatsoever to criticize that response; if anything, they'd be counting on the U.S. Navy's ABMs protecting them from a counter attack.

As for operating it, Israel has ended up killing an Iranian general in Syria--while bombing Hezbollah. You think they wouldn't provide a trained operator?

I think that a nuclear weapon is a device of sufficient power and political importance that Iran wouldn't let it out of their sight if they had one. They would keep it locked down under the tightest security they could manage and keep its exact location an absolute state secret.

The one thing they're NOT going to do is ship it to a foreign militia they barely control, whose leadership is known to be under strict Mossad surveillance, and who has every reason to take possession of the bomb themselves and use it as their OWN deterrence against Israel (an objective that would make a lot more sense for Lebanon than it would for Iran).

It's not enough to defeat Israel but it's a big blow.

But still not enough to defeat Israel, which they know only too well. But a "big blow" works pretty well as a "keep your hands off me" deterrent.

 

[Ford]

It's sort of like when you observe that a guy walks to work every day for five years and is never seen driving a car, doesn't have a driver's license, and has talked many times about how he doesn't want a car and can't afford one; you can, at some point, conclude that this guy is probably not looking to buy a car.

Yeah, but if that guy is a Muslim, then he's probably just biding his time and trying to lull everybody at the office into a false sense of security. Because we all know Muslims, right? Next thing you know, he shows up at the office one day in a car...bomb!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) If you think deterrence to protect them from retaliation for terrorism is fine then you must support that terrorism.

Actually it would be deterrence to protect them from invasion by outsiders, namely the United States and Israel. It's highly doubtful that would resort to a nuclear response just as a retaliatory measure, especially since they would only be able to do it once.

You're evading the point here.

Afghanistan pulled off a major terrorist attack (yes, it was Bin Laden--but he was for all practical purposes part of the Afghanistan government) and got stomped on for it.

Iran wants the bomb so that when it's pet terrorists pull off the next 9/11 it doesn't get stomped on. That's the invasion that you're talking about--and it looks ever more like you support their terrorism.

What you are missing is that if their plan worked properly Israel would simply be faced with a mushroom cloud with no indication of what nation was responsible.

Which, AGAIN, would accomplish nothing whatsoever except to piss Israel off. And you and I both know that Israel would use such an incident as moral justification to attack literally anyone they wanted to; Lebanon, Syria, Iran, even Gaza would be viable targets if they could think of the flimsiest excuse. They know the U.S. Government would make no noise whatsoever to criticize that response; if anything, they'd be counting on the U.S. Navy's ABMs protecting them from a counter attack.

It's unlikely they would attack all of them and if they don't know who is guilty how are they going to single one out? As for ABMs--Israel would probably trust their own more than they would trust ours.

As for operating it, Israel has ended up killing an Iranian general in Syria--while bombing Hezbollah. You think they wouldn't provide a trained operator?

I think that a nuclear weapon is a device of sufficient power and political importance that Iran wouldn't let it out of their sight if they had one. They would keep it locked down under the tightest security they could manage and keep its exact location an absolute state secret.

Which says nothing about sending it with some operators for an attack.

 

[Ford]

Iran wants the bomb so that when it's pet terrorists pull off the next 9/11 it doesn't get stomped on. That's the invasion that you're talking about--and it looks ever more like you support their terrorism.

I don't even know where to start with this bullshit.

Perhaps with calling it bullshit. Paranoid, delusional, not at all based in reality bullshit.


The "next 9/11" line is some Rudy Giuliani bullshit,


The accusation that the poster supports terrorism borders on violation of Terms of Use bullshit.



I would suggest that if you want to pursue these accusations, you start your own thread about how Eddie is a terrorist supporter, and go from there.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Actually it would be deterrence to protect them from invasion by outsiders, namely the United States and Israel. It's highly doubtful that would resort to a nuclear response just as a retaliatory measure, especially since they would only be able to do it once.

You're evading the point here.

Afghanistan pulled off a major terrorist attack (yes, it was Bin Laden--but he was for all practical purposes part of the Afghanistan government) and got stomped on for it.

Iran wants the bomb so that when it's pet terrorists pull off the next 9/11...

Turns out it's not an "evasion" at all. Iran is WELL AWARE of the fact that a single nuclear weapon is not a sufficient deterrent against retaliation for a terrorist attack. It would be a deterrent against CONQUEST if they were invaded by the likes of Saddam Hussein or Bibi Netanyahu in a war that posed an existential threat to Iran as a country, and then only to the extent that such a way would make the invasion far too costly to the one who attempted it. This was, in fact, the whole reason why Iran ORIGINALLY sought to acquire an atomic weapon, as part of its overall defense strategy against Saddam (which can be basically summarized as "Charge their positions until they run out of bullets and then drown them in a lake of our own blood and tears.")

I'm not "imaging" when I tell you that Iran planned to use those weapons to demolish their own cities; that was exactly the plan studied in the 1980s when it was feared the Iran-Iraq war would drag on for another decade. The Iranians would rather blow up their own cities then let Saddam claim one of them for his own.

Iran's interest in nuclear weapons evaporated when Saddam was hanged. As for their "next 9/11" it remains a fact that Iran has never attempted a terrorist attack against the United States, even when we gave them good reason to do so. They operate a conventional military with a functioning state and national-level ambitions; terrorism doesn't accomplish their national ambitions any more than it accomplishes ours.

And yes, I agree with Ford on this one: this is the biggest chunk of bullshit you have ever served on this board, which coming you is really saying something.

It's unlikely they would attack all of them

No, just two of them: Lebanon, for (probably) being the source of the attack and Iran for (probably) sponsoring it.

As for ABMs--Israel would probably trust their own more than they would trust ours.

Israel's Navy doesn't have its own ABMs. Certainly not anything that would defend against Russian or Chinese weapons, which are, let's face it, the only people who would have the balls to hit Israel if they thought it was getting out of control.

I think that a nuclear weapon is a device of sufficient power and political importance that Iran wouldn't let it out of their sight if they had one. They would keep it locked down under the tightest security they could manage and keep its exact location an absolute state secret.

Which says nothing about sending it with some operators for an attack.

Um...

"They would keep it locked down under the tightest security they could manage and keep its exact location an absolute state secret" is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "send it with some operators for an attack.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Also:

“It's not a secret that some high-ranking people in the Israeli security establishment, including the IDF, view this deal more favorably than the prime minister,’’ says Amir Tibon, diplomatic correspondent for “Walla!,” an Israeli news website. “On the one hand, they think that the deal does indeed push Iran away from the bomb, which is a good thing. On the other hand, they share Netanyahu’s concern about Iran using sanctions relief money to increase its support for terror proxies across the region.’’

[...]

Netanyahu argues that Iran’s nuclear program is the top destabilizing factor in the Middle East, on par with Nazi Germany’s march to war in the late 1930’s. By contrast, the IDF document mentions Iran by name only once. Missing from a section providing an overview of threats to Israel is the word “nuclear” or any other reference to Iran’s atomic program, notes Mr. Tibon.

Writing in the liberal Haaretz newspaper, veteran defense commentator Amir Oren said that the IDF paper reflects a view that the threat of a nuclear Iran “has gone on vacation until 2025.’’

Asked to comment on the strategy document, a senior Israeli military official cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the army’s positions on the Iran deal. However, other Israeli defense analysts say the omissions weren’t a coincidence.

“I tend to think it’s on purpose. The military is an organization that looks at things as is, and I think that their assessment is that at least in the short term the IDF will not deal directly with the Iranian nuclear program,” says Ehud Eiran, an assistant professor of political science at Haifa University and a military expert.

It’s not the first difference of opinion aired over Iran between elected leaders and security officials. Several years ago, when Israeli leaders were hinting at the possibility of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mossad chief Meir Dagan came out against plans for a strike.

Mr. Eiran points to a "structural difference" between the two camps. "Militaries are concerned with immediate threats, and politicians interpret reality drawing on a broader sets of facts, values and stories; they have a wider set of calculations, like getting reelected.”