The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Nuclear knockout nowhere near nailed > Comments

Nuclear knockout nowhere near nailed : Comments

By David Singer, published 10/4/2015

President Obama seems to have been unduly optimistic in triumphantly proclaiming the success of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Lausanne.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Hi Pete:

The Iranian president's power is limited by the Supreme Leader. "It is the supreme leader -- not the elected president -- who controls Iran's armed forces and makes decisions on security, defense, and key foreign-policy issues... [the president] can be overruled by the clerical establishment via the judiciary or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps". As for the president’s candidacy, he must pass the vetting process overseen by the Guardian Council. "a candidate's devotion to Shi'ite Islam, the state religion, and their belief in the principles of the Islamic republic are factored into the equation". In other words, candidates must win the approval of the clergy before they are even allowed to stand for election. Their thinking and philosophy must not be radically different to that handed down by the Supreme Leader. The above is from here:
http://www.rferl.org/content/guide-iran-presidential-election/24996324.html

Iran's Revolutionary Guards might indeed be the most effective ground forces against IS in Iraq and Syria, but this comes with a price. Iran is not doing this for nothing – at the end of the day (once IS forces are defeated) it will have control over vast territory that will include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and some Gulf States. It will threaten the security of Arab states (let alone Israel) and will be in a position to destabilise the entire ME. We are trading the immediate problem of dealing with the (relatively small) IS now, in order to deal with a much bigger problem (a nuclear Iran controlling vast areas) in the future. This is not sound policy.

"A nuclear armed Iran is not only a regional deterrence balance against nuclear Israel. It also a balance against the nuclear pot[e]ntial of the Saudis"

According to current theories, Israel obtained nuclear capability in the 1950s/1960s. I cannot remember the last time Israel threatened any of its neighbours with a nuclear strike, can you?
Regarding the Saudis, the main reason they are looking at nuclear weapons is a nuclear Iran, not a nuclear Israel. Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is a sure way to guarantee a nuclear arms race in the ME.
Posted by Avw, Sunday, 12 April 2015 11:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Avw

Always a pleasure to debate with you.

President Rouhani is unusual in carrying religious weight, a major plus in Iran, in his own right. Inter alia, he has a Doctorate in Iranian Islamic Law.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Rouhani#Early_life_and_education

The comparative status of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Rouhani depends on many more factors than official powers (position descriptions). Put another way their differing constitutional status' doesn't prevent the backchannels and understandings present in all countries.

Yes Iran's Revolutionary Guards will temporarily gain more influence outside Iran but a reversion to the Shiite militia, as part proxies.

Note the default positions of the Shiite militia - powerful in Lebanon and dominant in Iraq for most of the last 10 years. Israel and the US are very aware that these militia were/remain partly armed by and under the advice of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. So what's new?

Re: "I cannot remember the last time Israel threatened any of its neighbours with a nuclear strike, can you?"

In the 1967 and 1973 War Israel indicated it had nuclear devices - an implicit threat to Egypt to back off.

In the 1970s Israeli representitives in Moscow indicated to Russia (concerning Russian advisers and materiel support in Egypt and Syria) that if the Russians did not back off in the Middle East then Israel was prepared to modify Jericho missiles for use against Russian forces in the Middle East and against Russia itself.* Such nuclear deterrence started with Ben-Gurion's "never again" policy.

In the 1970s the US (including Rumsfeld and Cheney) seriously thought of the Shah's Iran as a fitting candidate to receive US assistance to build nuclear weapons. The US at that time saw Iran as another Deputy Sheriff in the Middle East like the US (up to 2008) considered Israel.

The Saudis decided by 1974 (first Indian nuclear test) to start funding India's nemesis Pakistan's nuclear effort. This is 5 years before the wrong Iranian government (this time undeserving of US nuclear weapon assistance) took power.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_%28missile%29

A good read is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option before you buy the book.

Regards

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 13 April 2015 6:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete,

While the Iranian influence in Lebanon and Iraq has been known for a while, it has been steadily growing over recent years, especially in Iraq, as Iran pours more resources into the conflict. They are also increasing their influence in Syria, Yemen and the Gulf States, a situation that did not exist 10 years ago. Iran’s influence will grow exponentially once they successfully obtain nuclear capabilities, with more Arab States falling victim to their strategy. Whether the Iranian control of those countries is exercised using the Revolutionary Guards or their Shi’ite proxies makes little difference.

I am quite familiar with The Samson Option, in fact I have a dusty hard copy sitting on my shelf and I have read it years ago. It does make an interesting read, but does not have a lot of credibility, since most of the theories are based on hearsay from a number of individuals who may or may not be pushing their own agenda, with little evidence to shore up the arguments presented. It is quite obvious that the Egyptians were not influenced by this theory either, since they did not back off in 1967 or in 1973: In 1967 it was the Israeli pre-emptive strike that forced the Egyptians to withdraw. The 1973 war was started by Egypt and Syria, both countries seemingly unaware of any Israeli nuclear threat. It was the crossing of the Suez Canal by Israeli forces and the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army that compelled the Egyptians to stop fighting, not any theoretical nuclear intimidation by Israel.
Posted by Avw, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 2:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Avw

Yes Shiite dominated Iraq now shares its destiny and open border with Iran. The spectre that Iraq may support Iran's nuclear effort is an additional reason the US is in Iraq.

Good that you already have the Samson Option. As Israel won't even confirm it has nuclear weapons all evidence like that book will always be "hearsay".

In such issues of secrecy one decides on the scale of likelihood without necessarily direct proof. "Hearsay" it is. For example one could accept Israel's argument that the Jericho series of missiles are actually built for non-nuclear warheads in mind.

Also why lockup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu if Israel had no nukes to hide. Why build Dimona to power a fertiliser factory or other patently thin excuses.

On the other foot - why assume a rather fit Iranian male tourist in Lebanon is in Revolutionary Guards special forces when his papers are in order?

The Middle East lives and runs on hearsay as all the countries do not have an efficient https://www.mossad.gov.il/eng/Pages/default.aspx or Shin Bet/Shabak http://www.shabak.gov.il/english/Pages/default.aspx .

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 2:54:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see the Singer is still jerking the strings of some OLO readers and making them dance to his discordant tunes.

I see also that, world-wide, a myriad god-botherers are still given open slather when it comes to entrapping followers who clearly have feeble intellects and over-active gullibility.

It's also obvious that the U.S. is still engaged in trying to gain domination of our world using a collection of servile nations (Australia included) that either have imperial leanings or no national pride or maturity.

What a sad place our world is!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 5:03:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pete,

We could go on speculating about Israel’s nuclear capability, but I suspect we’ll never reach an agreement because no one really knows. But I do not consider this to be the main issue.

Iran, with its appalling human rights record, a stated desire (expressed repeatedly) to destroy Israel, and its continuous (and increasing) meddling in its neighbours’ affairs should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons under any circumstances. A nuclear Iran makes a very poor choice as a regional deterrent against a (theoretically) nuclear Israel, assuming such a deterrent is actually required: nuclear weapons are already present in the region (Russia in the north, Pakistan and India to the east), we should be concentrating on reducing the number of countries with nuclear capabilities, not increasing it.
Once Iran obtains this technology, Saudi Arabia will escalate its efforts to obtain it too, and will undoubtedly be followed by others. This is the last thing we need in a fanatic and unstable area like the Middle East.

Tasmania is too cold by the way (just looking back at one of your comments further back).
Posted by Avw, Wednesday, 15 April 2015 1:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy