War In Iran

[droid]

Found this in the bin at the History department the other day:

‘Fully aware of the fact that Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date,

‘Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the non-proliferation Treaty...

‘Considering that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations",

‘1. Strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct;

‘2. Calls upon Israel to refrain in the future from any such acts or threats thereof;

‘3. Further considers that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty;

‘4. Fully recognizes the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq, and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes in accordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear-weapons proliferation;

‘5. Calls upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards;

‘6. Considers that Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel...'

 

[craner]

Well, opposition to the regime is not "a Mousavi faction" (for a start) and active US assistance does not just mean running arms to Kurds. There are lots of ways in which the US and UK can support the democratic opposition. Why do you think the regime hates the UK FCO with such fresh intensity? Because it funds the very popular BBC Persian Service. Condi and Nick Burns promised $85 million for Iranian opposition networks; in the event, part of the money was squandered, part of it disappeared, and part of it paid for some useful work. Not ideal, but it was the right idea. It's about the only idea.

 

[craner]

Meanwhile, Droid is still annoyed that Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981! Yes, that was a dark day, indeed.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well, opposition to the regime is not "a Mousavi faction" (for a start)

So is there a sizable contingent who oppose the regime but don't support Mousavi? Not counting royalists, I mean (however many there are of those still in the country, I know the shah has some support among Iranian ex-pats).

 

[vimothy]

I guess the worry is always that the international community is so inept that we end up somewhere worse as a result of its activities.

 

[droid]

Meanwhile, Droid is still annoyed that Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981! Yes, that was a dark day, indeed.

Just pointing out that this problem is over 30 years old and that the issue of Non-Proliferation in the region has still not been addressed.

UN security council resolutions are only for the bad guys after all.

 

[vimothy]

I mean, we destroyed an Empire that had lasted for 2,500 years.

 

[vimothy]

At Pasargadae, Cyrus the Great spins in his tomb. 2,500 years!

Passer-by, I am Cyrus, who gave the Persians an empire, and was king of Asia.
Grudge me not therefore this monument.​

Monuments, eh? We're certainly not short of those.

 

[craner]

So is there a sizable contingent who oppose the regime but don't support Mousavi

Not so much that, I mean that Mousavi became an opposition figurehead almost by default in 2009. The Greens are not a Mousavi faction, per se. Circumstances made him a de facto face. If you'd said "the Green Faction" we might not be having this exchange. Also, there seems to be a wide range of pro and anti-US opinion within their ranks, and these do include some Monarchists as well as some Communists, but definately no MEK members.

 

[craner]

the issue of Non-Proliferation in the region has still not been addressed.

Er, yes it has. What I think you mean is that the question of Israel's nuclear bomb has not been addressed to your liking.

 

[droid]

Er, yes it has. What I think you mean is that the question of Israel's nuclear bomb has not been addressed to your liking.

Craner, kindly stop being a dickhead. Its abundantly clear that if one nation in the region has hundreds of nuclear weapons and has not signed up to the NPT and IAEA inspections, that the issue of nuclear proliferation in the region has not been addressed, especially when the aim of the IAEA has been to develop a Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zones in the Middle East, with the explicit intention of preventing a nuclear arms race.

Or perhaps Im wrong, and the IAEA hasn't been calling for Israel to sign up for inspections and the NPT for decades, the US hasnt been trying to get Israel to sign up since the late 60's, and the long held consensus isn't that Israeli participation with the IAEA isn't seen as crucial to nuclear disarmament in the region.

You seem to be the expert, why dont you tell us?

 

[craner]

especially when the aim of the IAEA has been to develop a Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zones in the Middle East, with the explicit intention of preventing a nuclear arms race.

Right, so it has been addressed, then -- just not in the way you think it should be, which is to expose and dismantle Israel's nuclear capability. You just said what I said you'd say.

 

[droid]

Right, so it has been addressed, then -- just not in the way you think it should be, which is to expose and dismantle Israel's nuclear capability. You just said what I said you'd say.

IAEA inspections do not = "dismantling Israel's nuclear capability" you myopic retard. Oh, and since when does the IAEA = my opinion?

One more thing - 'addressing' is a synonym for 'resolving' or 'dealing with'. Whatever your opinion of what should be done, its clear that the status of Israels nukes has not changed in decades.

 

[craner]

It just seems to me that you equate regional nuclear proliferation solely with Israel's tightly-guarded Bomb, rather than the more troubling development of a nuclear arms race between Iran, the Saudis and Turkey.

I also wonder how exactly you think the issue of Israel's nukes should be "resolved" or "dealt with" -- I can only imagine you mean disarmament. You may think there is hypocrasy involved, but there are reasons that the Arabs can live with an Isreali bomb but not an Iranian one.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It just seems to me that you equate regional nuclear proliferation solely with Israel's tightly-guarded Bomb

Could this have anything to do with the fact that Israel is the only state in the region that actually HAS nukes? In fact, has many of them, and has had them for a long time?

 

[droid]

It just seems to me that you equate regional nuclear proliferation solely with Israel's tightly-guarded Bomb, rather than the more troubling development of a nuclear arms race between Iran, the Saudis and Turkey.

I also wonder how exactly you think the issue of Israel's nukes should be "resolved" or "dealt with" -- I can only imagine you mean disarmament. You may think there is hypocrasy involved, but there are reasons that the Arabs can live with an Isreali bomb but not an Iranian one.

It's the elephant in the room in any discussion about this topic, one which you couldn't see if they painted it in high viz and made it dance a jig on your head.

Here's some questions for you. Is the goal of non-proliferation a positive or a negative thing in terms of human survival? Should all nuclear armed states sign up? If not, why?

 

[droid]

Could this have anything to do with the fact that Israel is the only state in the region that actually HAS nukes? In fact, has many of them, and has had them for a long time?

And has, on at least two occasions readied them for use against their neighbours.

 

[craner]

Should all nuclear armed states sign up? If not, why?

Yeah, of course they should. Frankly, though, a Middle East with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in possession of nulear bombs increases the danger from Israel's bomb. It may be the elephant in the room, but it's not the only bloody elephant. Not even the biggest elephant.

 

[droid]

Yeah, of course they should. Frankly, though, a Middle East with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in possession of nulear bombs increases the danger from Israel's bomb. It may be the elephant in the room, but it's not the only bloody elephant. Not even the biggest elephant.

All the more reason for all countries in the region to sign up to the NPT and commit to a nuclear free middle east.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@craner - couple things

Iran is already essentially untouchable. it already has weaponized CBW. how much more untouchable can a nuke make it? this also applies to stability concerns. in fact I think it would be much easier for a biological agent to go missing than a nuke. likewise, support for proxies/destabilization will go on with or w/o a nuke.

Syria, I dunno. to be sure, the Assads were allies. but what if another authoritarian regime replaces them (i.e. Egypt)? granted it would be Sunni.

@regional balance - who exactly do I call if I want to talk to the council for m.e. regional stability? besides the CFR, I mean. it ain't that there's no such thing so much as who's defining it through what prism? + Turkey. c'mon man you gotta have something to say on that. Erdogan is already on balanced on the edge of secular v. Islamism. + if you want to talk regional power, seriously, Turkey.