Iran decision tree, level four, after Iran gets nukes

Other nations have obtained nuclear weapons and the world did not come to an end. China, India, Pakistan which is a Muslim country, and even North Korea which is part of George Bush's "Axis of Evil." So why is it a big deal if Iran gets them as well?

First of all, the world is not a safer place on account of Pakistan and North Korea possessing nuclear weapons. These countries haven't used them yet, but Korea is governed by a dictator with mental problems, and Pakistan's government isn't so secure.

Even though Pakistan is a Muslim nation, the government is run by the military. Normally we think of military governments as being bad, but actually it's a good thing in Muslim countries. Armies tend to be secular meritocracies and the generals are usually capable of rational decision making. Musharraf probably doesn't want to die in a nuclear exchange.

The problem Pakistan owning nuclear weapons isn't so much that the current government will use them, but that a future less rational government, run by religious zealots, might used them. The other problem is that nuclear technology seems to be leaking out of Pakistan, and out of North Korea as well. And that technology is leaking in the direction of Iran.

The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely that one may eventually be used, and the more likely that terrorists may acquire one and set it off in the United States. The nuclearization fo the world's nations is a very bad trend. And Iran has already stated that they wish to help Sudan also become a nuclear power.

But Iran is especially worrisome because the government isn't run by rational people, but by religious zealots who believe that it's their mission to destroy Israel and destroy the United States who they call the Great Satan. It's one thing to legitimately worry about a country that says they only want to defend themselves. But for a country that publicly states over and over again that it wishes to destroy us, and who believe that dying in battle against us means ascension to Paradise, then we really ought to take these words at face value and not assume that they don't really mean it. Jewish people in Germany believed that Hitler wasn't serious about his anti-Semitic statements, but they found out that he was very serious indeed.

I am open to arguments why we should trust the Ayatollahs of Iran more than we should trust Hitler. Please try to convince me otherwise.

Here is my sobering list of possiblities for what happens when Iran obtains nuclear weapons:

(1) Launch first strike against Israel. Iran has already stated that they think Israel should be wiped off the map. The benefit of this tactic is that it's a sure thing to hit Israel with a ballistic missile. The drawback, from Iran's perspective, is that Israel has submarines with nuclear warheads so will surely launch a counterstike that destroys the country. But this may be considered acceptable losses to religious fanatics. 25% probablity.

(2) Give a nuclear bomb to terrorists who will bring it into the United States and detonate it in a populated city such as New York or Washington DC (for symbolic purposes). This will surely punish us good for being the Great Satan. The benefit of this tactic is that Iran might be able to maintain plausible deniability and thus avoid a nuclear counterattack. But the problem here is that it's not so easy to smuggle a bomb across the world, and it may be intercepted U.S. counterintelligence. If Iran only has enough enriched uranium to build a single bomb, and the goal is to actually detonate it, trying to smuggle it into the U.S. is a risky strategy. 10% probability.

(3) Iran invades southern Iraq (after we've withdrawn) in order to unite the Shiites, and then invades Kuwait as well because they have a lot of oil and Saddam has already proven that Kuwait is an easy target. Iran will say that this is to punish Kuwait for cooperating with the Great Satan. Then Iran will brandish its nuclear weapons and threaten to use them if attacked. 35% probability of this or a similar miltary excursion.

(4) Iran peacefully does nothing with its nuclear weapons. 30% probability.

Given the high probability that very bad things will happen with Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it is my belief that we shouldn't allow it to happen.

Comments

[nobody]

War, like any other activity requires energy. There was not been a general war in the middle east for some times, and all sides has forgotten how painful it is.

Some might say, what about the the two Iraq war we fought in the last ten years? Well, those wars are small patatos compared to WW 2. They simply didn't bring the level of general destruction to town, cities and the general population as WW 2. The theory is, wars stop when is no longer will/resources/people to continue fighting.

So, if there is volcano that is about to erupt and consume the villege, we can

1) Pretend it isn't going to happen like those people in ancient Pompeii. See what happened to them?

2. Get the heck out of Dodge and let the volcano do its thing.

3. Find a way to trigger the volcano early so whatever buildup energy is inside is released to reduce the level of destruction.

The smart thing is option 2. America should leave the middle east as soon as possible. It has never been clear why we need to be there with the exception of access to oil

We simply do not know how to safely do option 3. Starting another war is extremely dangerous and there is no way of knowing where the lava will end up.

[probligo]

"... Pakistan which is a Muslim country..."

Who remembers how close Algeria and Lybia got in their attempts to develop their own nuclear weapons? Algeria with Chinese help, Libya with Russian help.

Not very far.

I can not help wondering though just why and how the IAEA was so successful in persuading both to back off the idea.

Following from which is the prospect that Iran might reawaken those ideas...

[Stop the Insanity]

A government is not a single entity, and a country is not a united front. Giving your friend Bob a piece of candy does usually mean that your enemy Bill will not get it - unless Bill makes overt moves and takes it from Bill. But the fact that our "friends" India and Pakistan have nukes, as well as our enemy in the other neighborhood, North Korea, having nukes, means that is a definite chance and not slight probability that any suitably motivated organization can obtain nuclear technology/weapons. Iran developing them publically does little to change that.
To make a decision on whether to invade Iran, because they may obtain nukes, is whistling past the graveyard. Israel and Europe need to defend themselves, and the US should stop playing the impossible task of World's cop - especially when the analogy is a cop trying to win the drug war. Stop wasting US dollars and US lives. Our economy is in bad enough shape thanks to internal policies, we don't need to act like an empire to make it worse.

Iran has stated over and over that it would not attack Israel. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah, because the 40 nation Islamic council collectively supports it. Besides that, it shares no border with Israel and would never attack Israel.

Furthermore, Iran's leaders are not religious zealots who will start a suicidal war. Your American leaders have started far more potentially self-destructive wars than Iran.

In 1998, when the Sunni Taliban killed 8 Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan, the Iranian clergy did not order the hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers massed on Afghanistan's borders to invade, although it considered.

They knew such a war would bog them down and hurt them.

What do you think is more daunting, attacking a 4th world taliban army, or attacking a first world nation like Israel which has nuclear missiles?

Stop being a hypocrite. You call the Iranian leadership irrational yet overlook the fact that the Reaganites gave Iraq chemical weapons to attack Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

[Half Sigma]

"Iran has stated over and over that it would not attack Israel."

That's what Iranian diplomats say to the gullible West. What Iranian leaders with the real power say to Iranians within their own country is that Israel has to be wiped off the map.

[nobody]

That doesn't necessary mean they are going to do it. They could be merely catering to their internal base. Just like Republicans immigration reform here in America. The population wants it, but not the politicans. The fact is, the Arab world needs Isreal as a focus point to distract its population from all the interanl problems at home.

America's foreign policy is not exactly consistent either. The problem with changing government every 4 or 8 years is that our great leaders never bother to plan more than 4 years into the future. We simply lack a long term view on how things should be done.

""Iran has stated over and over that it would not attack Israel."

That's what Iranian diplomats say to the gullible West. What Iranian leaders with the real power say to Iranians within their own country is that Israel has to be wiped off the map."

No, they say Israel "should" be wiped off the map and they have repeatedly clarified this by saying that Israel should cease being a "jewish state" and that there should be a referendum where ALL the people of Israel, the Jews and the Arabs, can vote on the future of their country.

No Iranian leader has made any policy declaration saying that Iran would preemptively attack Israel. Israel has repeatedly said otherwise.

But feel free to take one line of the entire chorus of statements, and create a giant story around it.