Iran Nuclear Standoff

[cycloneye]

Iran is still enriching uranium in defiance of the U.N deadline.So expect more sanctions against Iran very soon.



Link

[Cryomaniac]

War with Iran is completely avoidable, logically. However, certain circumstances now exist, which I don't think will be rectified in time, that make war seem unavoidable.

War is almost always avoidable to be honest, but in this case no-one wants a compromise, or at least that's what it looks like.


Meanwhile: U.N.: Iran expanding rather than freezing nuclear program

I know that everyone is saying "We'll use diplomacy" but there are only so many blatant slaps in the face that either side can take.

[Yarrah]

Pakistan missile test 'successful'

I'm more affraid of Pakistan, a country led by a military statesman, which has several nuclear weapons and houses a large amount of terrorists, then I am of Iran. It makes me wonder why Pakistan is allowed to have these kind of weapons and Iran not.

[VIPERO]

Pakistan missile test 'successful'

I'm more affraid of Pakistan, a country led by a military statesman, which has several nuclear weapons and houses a large amount of terrorists, then I am of Iran. It makes me wonder why Pakistan is allowed to have these kind of weapons and Iran not.

Pakistan is an ally

[Regit]

Pakistan missile test 'successful'

I'm more affraid of Pakistan, a country led by a military statesman, which has several nuclear weapons and houses a large amount of terrorists, then I am of Iran. It makes me wonder why Pakistan is allowed to have these kind of weapons and Iran not.

Pakistan is an ally

There's a huge difference between a country that is an ally and one that is too scared of us to argue with us.

[Yarrah]

Pakistan missile test 'successful'

I'm more affraid of Pakistan, a country led by a military statesman, which has several nuclear weapons and houses a large amount of terrorists, then I am of Iran. It makes me wonder why Pakistan is allowed to have these kind of weapons and Iran not.

Pakistan is an ally

These things can change very quickly. Before 1979, Iran was an ally too. Musharaf and his government might be an ally now, but the country is full of people who aren't particulary fond of the US and who'd love to get rid of the current leaders. Diplomatic relations change as governments come and go, but the nuclear weapons stay.

[Derek Ortt]

Pakistan is allowed to have them as they developed their solwly as a deterrant to India after India developed theirs. They have not threatened to wipe nations off of the map, unlike Iran

[Regit]

Pakistan would love the chance to destroy India. The two are currently in a state of MAD. The US monitored the program from day one and reported intelligence back to India. Pakistan is allowed to have nukes only as long as we say they can.

[Derek Ortt]

and by Pakistan having nukes creating MAD, two wars were prevented, one in 1999 and the other in 2002

Pakistan used nukes correctly, purely as a deterrant. They never made numerous claims that they were going to obliterate India unprovoked, UNLIKE Iran

[Yarrah]

So why doesn't Iran have a right to use nukes 'correctly'? There are a few countries in this world with plans to attack Iran or who admitted they'd attack Iran if given an opportunity, so Iran has every right to defend theirselves in the same manner.

And about those threats from Iran. Do we really think they'd attack Israel? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be crazy, but such an action would surely lead to a crushing defeat. Barking dogs seldom bite.

[Jack8631]

And about those threats from Iran. Do we really think they'd attack Israel?

Yes

[Derek Ortt]

yes, he would in about 2.5 seconds

A nation that has threatened aggression should not have WMD. And just to stop any argument that the USA committed aggression against Iraq in 2003, Iraq violated the armistice it signed in 1991; thus, international law allows for a resumption of hostilities

[Cryomaniac]

As I have said before, diplomacy can only go so far, I say that if Iran keeps basically wiping their collective asses with what the UN says then there wont be a choice but to use force. I'm pretty sure sure doing so would cause World War three, so I have mixed feelings about it, but if it has to be done, so be it.

[Regit]

As I have said before, diplomacy can only go so far, I say that if Iran keeps basically wiping their collective asses with what the UN says then there wont be a choice but to use force. I'm pretty sure sure doing so would cause World War three, so I have mixed feelings about it, but if it has to be done, so be it.

Highly doubtful. People said the same thing about Iraq, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, and almost every other conflict since 1945. Iran having Russia as an ally means nothing when it comes to spreading conflict.

Anyway, before we give up on diplomacy, maybe we should give it a concerted effort first.

[Janie2006]

yes, he would in about 2.5 seconds

A nation that has threatened aggression should not have WMD. And just to stop any argument that the USA committed aggression against Iraq in 2003, Iraq violated the armistice it signed in 1991; thus, international law allows for a resumption of hostilities

Well, that would be a foolish move on his part, considering Iran wouldn't exist following any kind of nuclear strike against Israel. He can rattle the sabres all he wants, but that fact remains. So, we're left with the question regarding the sanity of Iran's leaders. Aside from his Khruschev-like remarks, he does not seem to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. It isn't therefore very likely that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against anyone.

It is far more likely that countries are developing WMD to forestall, shall we say, law enforcement activities ( ) on the part of certain world powers who feel they have the right to enforce international agreements that they themselves ignore whenever they wish.

Food for thought on a Saturday afternoon.

[Janie2006]

As I have said before, diplomacy can only go so far, I say that if Iran keeps basically wiping their collective asses with what the UN says then there wont be a choice but to use force. I'm pretty sure sure doing so would cause World War three, so I have mixed feelings about it, but if it has to be done, so be it.

Hmmmm. In that case, should not the same treatment be applied to the UK and the US? Russia? China? All of them disregard the UN when it suits their purposes.

Using the UN as a justification for military force is a very shaky argument, given the past and present actions of the individual members of the Security Council.

[VIPERO]

Pakistan missile test 'successful'

I'm more affraid of Pakistan, a country led by a military statesman, which has several nuclear weapons and houses a large amount of terrorists, then I am of Iran. It makes me wonder why Pakistan is allowed to have these kind of weapons and Iran not.

Pakistan is an ally

These things can change very quickly. Before 1979, Iran was an ally too. Musharaf and his government might be an ally now, but the country is full of people who aren't particulary fond of the US and who'd love to get rid of the current leaders. Diplomatic relations change as governments come and go, but the nuclear weapons stay.

yarrah, if I'm not wrong Saddam himself was a "friend" once (and the list might be continued, but that's something sounding too political I guess. At least not the right one anyway)

[cycloneye]

Iran says,U.S. will not attack them



Time will tell what will occur in this Nuclear Standoff.Or diplomacy gets the upper hand,or military action will take place from Israel or from the U.S.

[Cryomaniac]

Highly doubtful. People said the same thing about Iraq, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, and almost every other conflict since 1945. Iran having Russia as an ally means nothing when it comes to spreading conflict.

A couple of those were pretty near misses though =/. Russia isn't my worry, my worry is that other countries would use an allied invasion of Iran as an excuse to start their own invasions. Eg: Syria invading Lebanon, Argentina invading the Falklands.

Anyway, before we give up on diplomacy, maybe we should give it a concerted effort first.

To be honest, I can't see either side backing down in a hurry. Ok, give it a couple of months yet, maybe one more deadline, but if nothing's done then, the West look like cowards.

[cycloneye]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258246,00.html

No agreement between the members of the U.N security council about imposing more tougher sanctions to Iran.