Iran Nukes

[Fly Navy]

Ok, Iran just decided to say "screw you" and re-opened its nuclear plant that was sealed by UN inspectors. This begs some very important questions.

Is the UN at all effective? Their rules and regulations only apply to those that want to play by them. Sure, they can put embargos on Iran, but that's not the most effective when plenty of other nations are willing to do business with them. They know there will be no actual action taken against them, not by the UN. It is a debate society, not an action society. Their only real threat is Israel, because of what they did to Iraq's reactor in Osiraq.

What say you?

 

[zippy]

The prescedent was set when North Korea did the same thing and was able to get away with it. Iran knows that the UN will not do anything because any resolution brought to the security counsil will most likely get vetoed by China, or Russia, or both- due to the economic ties of those countries with Iran.

 

[squeeze]

I'm somewhat torn on issues like this.

Seeing as they ARE a sovereign nation, I feel they should have every right to pursue more modern, efficient means of power production (if only the US would...), but on the other hand, I don't trust them much at all when they say that is their only goal. Nuclear arms in the hands of an openly hostile, fundamentalist regime is a bad thing mmmkay. But, the bad tends to outweigh the good. Maybe Israel will just deal with it.

Ideally, we could just find alternate energy sources so would could leave the middle east to their own ruin.

 

[Fly Navy]

Seeing as they ARE a sovereign nation, I feel they should have every right to pursue more modern, efficient means of power production (if only the US would...), but on the other hand, I don't trust them much at all when they say that is their only goal. Nuclear arms in the hands of an openly hostile, fundamentalist regime is a bad thing mmmkay. But, the bad tends to outweigh the good. Maybe Israel will just deal with it.

And entirely valid point. They do have that right. Unfortunately, nuclear power techonology is a dual-use technology. It goes hand-in-hand with nuclear weapons production. That's simplification, but Iran should be more than capable of getting there. Like you said, not something a hostile, fundamentalist regime should have.

Ideally, we could just find alternate energy sources so would could leave the middle east to their own ruin.

I wish

 

[Brett327]

Ok, Iran just decided to say "screw you" and re-opened its nuclear plant that was sealed by UN inspectors. This begs some very important questions.

Is the UN at all effective? Their rules and regulations only apply to those that want to play by them. Sure, they can put embargos on Iran, but that's not the most effective when plenty of other nations are willing to do business with them. They know there will be no actual action taken against them, not by the UN. It is a debate society, not an action society. Their only real threat is Israel, because of what they did to Iraq's reactor in Osiraq.

What say you?

Your analysis is somewhat correct in that, to a large extent, the UN is essentially a debate society and has little inherent ability to do much of anything. What's good about the UN is that, through the UN Security Council, issues such as this can be brought to light and enforeceable sanctions can be brought to bear, and like in Desert Storm, the use of force can be authorized. Granted, this has only happened twice (Korea was the other time) since the UNs creation, but this is where US leadership/diplomacy needs to be brought to bear. Unlike OIF, there are more nations that have a stake and are pursuing active roles in this matter. My prediction is that if Iran continues down this path (and I believe they will), there will be UNSC resolutions mandating compliance and economic sanctions as a logical first step. Obviously, all options are on the table (in diplomatic parlance), but a military move doesn't seem like the best option...yet.

My $.02

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

My prediction is that if Iran continues down this path (and I believe they will), there will be UNSC resolutions mandating compliance and economic sanctions as a logical first step. Obviously, all options are on the table (in diplomatic parlance), but a military move doesn't seem like the best option...yet.

I agree, a military move is not the best option for us... yet. It maybe be for Israel. We know they'll generally do what they want, and we'll sometimes pretend we don't agree, even if we do.

I personally think Iran will continue, like you think, and the UN will bluster and make motions, but Iran will scoff it off. They will probably pull a North Korea too... by swinging the pendulem of wanting to cooperate and blowing it off. All the while, they'll be getting what they want... time to research and build nuclear weapons.

 

[A4sForever]

All the talk, speculation, UN-ism's, and sanctions aside .... one thing you can always count on: Israel will do whatever is neccessary to insure it's security and survival. Anything ....

 

[gregsivers]

I'm in agreement with everyone else about Iran's predicted actions. I'm gonna go out on a limb here however and say that the UN is totally worthless in this situation, like many others.

As Fly and Brett said its pretty much a debate society. A bunch of people(diplomats) sit around and talk about what they would like to have happen, but it won't happen because as squeeze pointed out, nations are sovereign. We don't want some international agency coming in and telling us what we can and can't do. Thats not our nature at all. And I don't forsee this changing anytime in the near future, so what purpose does the UN really serve? Nations aren't likely to listen/adhere to sanctions, and if any nation does try to enforce those sanctions, they get shat upon by other nations that disagree. But I digress, just my views as an unexperienced ENS on the subject.

 

[gregsivers]

Did anyone else here the Secretary of Defense yesterday say that they have evidence of Iran shipping weapons into Iraq to fuel the insurgency? THoughts?

I didn't see it, but it doesn't surprise me at all. You think Iran has any interest in having a democratic, US supported government in place in a neighboring country? I highly doubt it.

 

[eddie]

Did anyone else here the Secretary of Defense yesterday say that they have evidence of Iran shipping weapons into Iraq to fuel the insurgency? THoughts?

Cambodia comes to mind... of course, drawing parallels between the two wars is innacurate at best.

 

[McNamara]

Actually (and this is sliding a bit off-topic), we don't think the government of Iran is supplying those weapons to insurgents in Iraq. The weapons are coming from Iran alright, but it makes no sense for the Shi'a government to be supplying weapons to a largely Sunni insurgency that mostly uses those weapons to kill Shi'a muslims.

My inexpert suspicion is that a Wahhabist group (Al Qaeda being the most familiar example) is probably doing it under the nose of the Iranian government. They'll kill and/or manipulate anyone less extreme than they are, so it makes sense from their point of view.

Back on the nuke topic, Iran would scare me even if they weren't allowing terrorist groups to operate within their borders. I simply don't trust the mullahs in charge over there, even though they probably only want nuclear weapons for that warm & fuzzy feeling and nuclear plants for the legitimate benefit of power generation.

The U.N. has a hard time being useful when it comes to pariah nations. If they took a more active role, fundamentalists would start screaming about a one-world government and the end of the world. If they back off, everyone else calls them useless. I have low expectations.

 

[Brett327]

Although I do agree that Israel is an interested party and will probably do all they can to counter an Iranian nuke, it's not as simple as the OSIRAQ solution. Iran is alot farther away, has many dispersed and protected sites, and generally has a more robust IADS then Iraq had in the early 80s. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't expect the Israelis to launch a couple of jets, drop a few bombs, and have this whole thing wrapped up in time for happy hour. This situation is a little more complex.

Brett

 

[zippy]

Actually (and this is sliding a bit off-topic), we don't think the government of Iran is supplying those weapons to insurgents in Iraq. The weapons are coming from Iran alright, but it makes no sense for the Shi'a government to be supplying weapons to a largely Sunni insurgency that mostly uses those weapons to kill Shi'a muslims.

My inexpert suspicion is that a Wahhabist group (Al Qaeda being the most familiar example) is probably doing it under the nose of the Iranian government. They'll kill and/or manipulate anyone less extreme than they are, so it makes sense from their point of view.

More likely that the weapons were bound for the Shi'ite (remember, they were a problem early on)- they could be used in a re-flaring Shi'ite insurgency in the south of Iraq, or used against the Sunni's in a civil war. If i remember correctly, it was reported there wasn't "proof" that there was involvement of Iranian government, but were traced back to the Revolutionary Guard. Yea, no involvement from the Iranian government there... riiiiiight.

 

[McNamara]

Now that you mention it, I do recall hearing that the Revolutionary Guard was under suspicion. It's possible the government is backing the weapons smuggling simply to stir things up, but that seems too Machiavellian for them. Considering how strongly religious reasons influence their policy, it just doesn't make sense for them to be involved in killing fellow Shi'ites. Followers of Wahhabism, though, believe they should kill moderates no matter which sect they belong to. It's got me puzzled.

I agree with Brett that we can't hold our breath for the Israelis to do anything. Hopefully they won't; it would start a huge **** storm.

 

[Grant]

Is the UN at all effective?

Need you ask? We all know the answer.

And I concur with A4s, Israel will take it out, with or without popular support, if it feels threatened.