Effectively, a credible ballistic missile defense + an arms treaty that caps the number of interceptors leaves relative great power parity stable.
But it does eliminate the "rogue state" or "rogue silo" threat. And arguably, makes them less attractive to pursue in the first place, thereby furthering non-proliferation.
If you're Iran, are you going to suffer all the economic pain of breaking sanctions, in return for a non-credible threat?
The wars conducted by US are questionable at best and a poor example of how developed nations should behave. However, looking at the worst sides of a developed nation and comparing them to the best sides of a dictator state, isn't quite adding up.
Also, Iran has participated regularly in proxy wars including the one in Yemen with Saudi Arabia [1] so your thesis about aggression wars is a little misleading when they've participated in a proxy civil. Note that recently Israel claimed credit for killing an Al Qaeda leader who was living openly in Iran.
I think Iran is too often scapegoated in the Western world but I also want to be realistic about where Iran is really at fault.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_prox...
So something it stopped doing over a decade ago makes it a "rogue state?"
>Also, Iran has participated regularly in proxy wars including the one in Yemen with Saudi Arabia [1] so your thesis about aggression wars is a little misleading when they've participated in a proxy civil
Your source actually doesn't outline any concrete Iranian involvement in Yemen, just some Saudi accusations prior to their invasion. Even then, the US participation alone dwarfs the alleged Iranian involvement.
>I think Iran is too often scapegoated in the Western world but I also want to be realistic about where Iran is really at fault.
These are the two main issues they're scapegoated for, so this statement is a bit confusing.
It was doing it last year after the US unilaterally pulled out of the agreement [0]
> Your source actually doesn't outline any concrete Iranian involvement in Yemen, just some Saudi accusations prior to their invasion. Even then, the US participation alone dwarfs the alleged Iranian involvement.
Iran never out and out talks about who they support and how. Note that Qasem Soleimeini was killed in Iraq. The point being the Iran meddles in their neighbors affairs.
> These are the two main issues they're scapegoated for, so this statement is a bit confusing.
No, they're scapegoated as being terrorism funders/stronghold or attackers of "freedom" (whatever that means). When they're called out for actually doing something that the international community frowns upon that's not scapegoating.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/iran-announces...
And who are we should thank for it? Iran clearly sees the difference between North Korea and Libya, and it clearly does not want to be the latter. The US stupid move was just the last droplet. Hopefully with the new administration the situation can be salvaged.
>Note that Qasem Soleimeini was killed in Iraq. The point being the Iran meddles in their neighbors affairs.
Oh, wow. According to the Iraqi prime minister he was on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. He was unlawfully (under both US and international law) assassinated in a clear and blatant violation of the Iraq sovereignty.
And compare the Iran "meddling" with the US openly creating military bases in Syria without any authorization from the Syrian government (you think anything you like about it, but it's still an internationally recognized government) and open military support of rebel forces, often closely related to jihadists. Also we have the rejection of the Iraqi parliament′s call to withdraw US troops.
>Oh, wow. According to the Iraqi prime minister he was on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia...
He was on both the US and EU anti-terrorism list, and there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran.
>And compare the Iran "meddling" with the US openly creating military bases in Syria without any authorization from the Syrian government
Iran has military bases and militias on Syria predating the US ones, these took direct part in the mass civilian deaths there.
>Also we have the rejection of the Iraqi parliament′s call to withdraw US troops.
Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government (imagine the GOP Senate calling for something ignoring President Biden's wishes). The US army does not wish to withdraw since ISIS still exists, we saw what happened last time Iraq tried to deal with them alone.
No, only the US designated him as a terrorist and IIRC on a really flimsy grounds (as in CIA operatives could be designated terrorists using similar criteria). EU only personally sanctioned him.
>there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran
These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted.
>Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government
The call was aimed at the government, which due to the US pressure ignored will of the Iraqi people represented by the democratically elected parliament.
>since ISIS still exists
ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region. Not only it weakened Iraq by direct invasion, but it also fueled the Syrian civil war. Syria is perfectly able to not let ISIS reappearance with the Russian help and negotiated relationship with the Kurds, but I don't see the US leaving Syria any time soon.
Yet nobody did that. Maybe the criteria aren't so 'similar'.
>These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted.
These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October.
>ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region.
Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone.
For the same reason no one designated GRU or Mossad operatives. The weight of the state behind them and absurdity of the act. But the US government has decided to stretch definition of terrorism (and frankly deflating its value even further in the process) to somehow limit actions of IRGC, which were clearly outplaying the US in the ME region, not in the last because of the Soleimeini's masterful leadership.
>These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October.
Sigh... Read the sources, ok?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-t...
>The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue -1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) –simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V.
In October expired the UN arms embargo, which is irrelevant to the 1747 resolution affecting Soleimeini. If you read news just a little at the time, you may recall that economic sanctions against Iran have been lifted long before this October.
>Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone.
Wow. Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni? And that Assad is from the Alawite minority, who is also Shia? If anyone has supported al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war it's the US and Turkey. The former has acknowledged indirect "accidental" support of the al-Qaeda branch via "moderate" rebels.
To conclude: you demonstrate utter lack of knowledge in this area.
Most countries don't support terrorist (sorry, 'resistance') organizations and don't officially announce it on every corner. It turns out Iran not even bothering with cover makes designation very easy.
>Read the sources, ok?
You're mixing JCPOA (not a UN text) and several different types of sanctions.
>Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni?
ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more.
Yeap, and the US is not included into this list of the "most countries" as well. Simply instead of "resistance" they call them "pro-democratic rebels" and they have a long tradition in this area (e.g. search for a humble "freedom-fighter" Osama). So we got back to the starting point.
>You're mixing JCPOA and several different types of sanctions.
Again, I've linked the document, which clearly lists the 1747 resolution as to be terminated. AFAIK it is the only UN resolution affecting Soleimeini. So do please clarify what exactly I am "mixing"?
>ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more.
LOL what? When ISIS has started making territorial claims Syria was already for two years in the midst of the hot civil war, Asad was losing territories to the Sunni rebels supported by the US, Iran at the time tried to help Assad by supporting Shia militia, but its supply lines got disrupted by ISIS, which motivated them to persuade Russians to help Assad.
If anything, it's American support of Sunni rebels in the hope that they will overthrow the Assad government resulted in the creation of ISIS as a quasi-state. One of the big American goals in Iraq is to prevent creation of so-called Shia Crescent and the Suni rebellion was a great way to achieve it. This is why you haven't seen much US action against it until they started to threaten Bagdad, and even after ISIS lost all its territories the US supported "moderates" which are close to the Syrian Al-Qaeda branch. Though in the end it spiraled out of control. As usual... Controlled chaos rarely stays controlled for long.
If your next message will be as ignorant as the last two, I no longer see the need to continue this discussion.
Which is mostly accurate (the rebels part, we have no idea what regime they would have set up). Iran officially supported Hamas and Hizbollah, the former even after it's been declared a terrorist org. When one does those things so openly, it's no wonder the designations follow.
>(e.g. search for a humble "freedom-fighter" Osama).
Al-Qaeda (or the Taliban) didn't even exist at the time.
>So do please clarify what exactly I am "mixing"?
Your original comment mixed JCPOA (a text at most binding members who signed it but does not override UN resolutions), nuclear sanctions (removed under UN 2231, not the JCPOA), economic sanctions (not all removed, since quite a bit is not nuclear), terror sanctions (e.g. Solemani), etc.
>LOL what? When ISIS has started making territorial claims...
ISIS existed before they made 'claims'. The organization is what Al-Qaeda in Iraq evolved into once they got radical beyond even what Bin Laden wanted (Bin Laden opposed targeting Shiites). Al-Qaeda in Iraq was supported by Assad and Iran. Just recently someone assassinated an Al-Qaeda head in Tehran.
>If anything, it's American support of Sunni rebels in the hope that they will overthrow the Assad government resulted in the creation of ISIS as a quasi-state.
Ah, yes, the US created ISIS conspiracy theory. Lets remember the US left Iraq and was happy to be out until ISIS called it back. ISIS then took over Mosul first, and only then became a quasi-state. The holding in Syria came later, and it was the US (with SDF) which threw them out.
You mean this "conspiracy theory" from the Independent[0] and the Guardian[1] and the New York Times[2]?
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-i...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/camp-bu...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/opinion/how-america-helpe...
“[al-Baghdadi] was respected very much by the US army,” Abu Ahmed said. “If he wanted to visit people in another camp he could, but we couldn’t. And all the while, a new strategy, which he was leading, was rising under their noses, and that was to build the Islamic State. If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”
Now, if Assad and the Mullahs didn't support Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the first place, or if they got their Iraqi pawns to keep the lid after the US left, maybe the jihadists wouldn't have been strong enough to create ISIS later on.
"Iran says its nuclear programme is entirely for civil nuclear purposes." There has been no evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009.
>Note that Qasem Soleimeini was killed in Iraq. The point being the Iran meddles in their neighbors affairs.
It's pretty rich to criticize Iran for foreign meddling when describing a US assassination taking place in a country on the other side of the globe.
Iran had a 2-3 month breakout period in 2013 [0]. Stockpiling enriched uranium after stating a desire to wipe a particular country "off the map" seems to imply that there was more going on than civilian nuclear weapons.
>It's pretty rich to criticize Iran for foreign meddling when describing a US assassination taking place in a country on the other side of the globe.
US, Russia, and to a lesser extent China meddle the most in foreign affairs across the world. Hell, the US quite literally caused the current Iranian regime to come into existence through foreign meddling. What's your point? This doesn't convince me Iran should be refining Uranium.
[0] https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2020-08/limits-brea....
So still zero evidence that they've had a nuclear weapons program post 2009, just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power.
>What's your point?
That your reason for wanting Iran to be forbidden from refining uranium is basically a fear that someday they'll be able to treat the US (or other western ally) how we treat them. If you object to that treatment, stop treating other countries like that with labels like "rogue state."
If mass enriching of uranium isn't part of 'nuclear weapons program', well, it's a funny definition you have.
>just you think they must really want one because they keep getting attacked by a nearby nuclear power.
It's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way around.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Iran is enriching uranium to weapons grade levels.
>t's the Iranian government calling 'death to [far away nuclear powers]' not the other way
Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
They're just collecting it since it looks shiny. Not because it's a shorter step to weapons grade from there.
>Ignoring how the phrase "death to x" is an aggressive translation of "down with x," how is that worse than actually using weapons to attack Iran? Killing people is worse than saying they should die.
A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people.
Or for the civil nuclear program.
>A translation often used by the government itself. Which isn't shy about supporting 'resistance' killing people
You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people.
That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x," and had further elaborated that they are calling for an end to policies that are imperialist and hostile towards Iran. Similar statements are common in US politics regarding Iran.
Sure, right.
Iran already receives nuclear fuel from Russia. It makes 'perfect' economic sense to risk massive sanctions to enrich 100x times the amount of 'fuel' Iran needs for a single 1000MW nuclear generation unit in Bushehr just so they could ditch their supplier. In a country with nearly free gas and oil. Which everyone accepts has done nuclear weaponization work.
>You haven't answered why saying it is worse than killing people.
I'm saying the Iranian regime kills people too, just with a slightly different cover.
>That said, the Iranian government generally translates it to "down with x,"
"Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.
>Generally". Weasel wording doesn't impress.
I can't say that every use of the term over fourty years has been translated as "down with," but that's hardly "weasel words." They've made very clear what they mean by the statement.
1) The country was far less sanctioned before the nuclear program.
2) Iran has a huge oil glut, no need to divert.
3) It's absurdly without economic sense even then. The expenses due to sanctions and diplomatic conflict are 1000x of any profit. If there's any profit compared to available imports from Russia.
4) It's a country with past weaponization program.
We know what it's really for.
>They've made very clear what they mean by the statement.
Yep, very clear. Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement.
>Just examine their attitude to Israel which gets the same statement
Disliking the imperialist policies of a state that regularly bombs you makes sense.
>four shows nothing
We have very different definitions to 'nuclear weapons program'. My definition includes creating massive stockpiles of enriched Uranium, especially for countries with acknowledge weaponization programs and no other reasonable motive.
According to your definition, if someone built an empty bomb, set it aside, and started working on creating some explosives that someone 'suspended the bomb program'. Perhaps the explosives are just for fireworks! Right.
>Two ignores Iran's status in OPEC
That only strengthens my point. OPEC gives a maximum export quota which most states are easily capable of exceeding. Might as well use it for internal purposes given the marginal price of extra production is zero.
>Disliking the imperialist policies of a state that regularly bombs you makes sense.
It's usually Iran which inefficiently does the 'regular bombing'. It's Iran that supplied EFPs to insurgents during Iraq war, and whose sellswords fire rockets at the Green Zone regularly. A rocket killed an Iraqi child just yesterday.
Something this thread seemed to agree restarted in 2019.
>OPEC gives a maximum export quota
Production quotas.
>It's usually Iran which inefficiently does the 'regular bombing
It is a fact that Israel regularly bombs Iran. What Iran does is a separate matter I am not defending, though if you blame them for weapons sales I hope you similarly blame the US and Israel for the results of their weapon sales.
Your argument was "Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program for a decade". That would put it in 2011 - exactly when Iran did mass enrichment, so I found it very odd.
>Production quotas.
You're right on the name. However, the intent is to control the market by controlling supply in the market, not to limit domestic use of oil. Nobody in OPEC cares about domestic use since it doesn't come at the expense of other member nations.
>It is a fact that Israel regularly bombs Iran
I suggest looking in a map. It's Iran that has troops and supports 'resistance' on Israeli border and not the other way around, and every once in a while these 'militants' fight with Israel.
Who sold you this lie? This is Iraq all over again.
Do you seriously believe this nonsense? The pull was clearly targeted against Russia, in the same way as pull from the INF was targeted mostly against China. Russia even has proposed to share radar data on its south borders with NATO systems, but to no avail.
There is a huge precedent of ICBM defense programs being canceled due to large costs and questionable benefits in the face of a full scale attack from Russia.
That is no longer the case, now North Korea has a handful of missiles, with no ballistic missile defense the US would be vulnerable to an attack from North Korea.
Sure, such an attack would result in a retaliation. But the duty of the government is not to avenge it's citizens but to protect them in the first place.
In a rational world we would not need a military except we are far from living in one. Worse we live in a world where we accept nations like North Korea and worse prop them up all because of the threat they project. This will simply encourage them further.
Iran is a threat to its neighbors and a lot of this is from purely factional religious differences. Reducing the world's oil usage could actually make things worse as we end up with a larger humanitarian issue, similar to Venezuela where the economy needs that money
I don't know much about this topic, but why would you want to cap the number of interceptors? Surely we would want everyone to have lots and lots of interceptors such that nuclear warheads are devalued (not worth stockpiling because their effectiveness is lower)? What's the worst outcome in an arms race on interceptors? Nations spend too much on interceptors?
And of course, there's the additional deterrent of a globalized economy. Most nuclear countries depend on the global economy and have a strong incentive not to devastate it by way of nuclear warfare. The odds of an isolationist country like NK owning all of the interceptors is pretty low IMO.
- Increased counterparty desire to build more ICBMs
- Increased belief in a successful first strike / acceptable response casualties
Both of these make the world a more dangerous place. Better to agree on what we're targeting (smaller nuclear states), and preserve the status quo.
I'm assuming a cap on ICBMs. If nations aren't going to obey these caps then why should they obey a cap on interceptors?
> Increased belief in a successful first strike / acceptable response casualties
It doesn't follow that (num_interceptors > num_counterparty_ICBMs) will lead to a successful first strike (notably it doesn't follow that the counterparty doesn't have interceptors of their own).
Even a desire to build more ICBMs is harmful, as it makes a country less likely to voluntarily agree to ICBM limits in the future. But absolutely agree that ICBM and missile defense are intertwined, so only make sense to negotiate strategic arms control covering both.
I would say that it does follow that "sufficient" interceptors, relative to a counterparty's ICBMs, leads to a "successful" first strike.
Where "success" in this calculus means acceptable losses.
The lynchpin of MAD is that no one is insane enough to argue that the incineration of a major city is acceptable for a first strike.
Without ballistic missile defense, that destruction is effectively guaranteed, as long as the counterparty has available ICBMs and is able to launch them.
With ballistic missile defense, there's a chance that destruction could be averted. And that chance drastically balloons the risk of a first strike being launched.
To put it another way: you're the president, and you're at a meeting of the Joint Chiefs. Open conflict with Russia has broken out in Eastern Europe. Massive amounts of Russian reinforcements are transporting towards NATO lines.
No BMD: if we escalate to nuclear, and the Russians retaliate (as stated by their nuclear posture), American cities have a 100% chance of being vaporized.
BMD: ... American cities have a 75% chance of being vaporized.
That's a terrifyingly different decision, because it opens the possibility that someone decides to take a risk. Because there's a chance things will work out favorably.
If both nations have lots and lots of interceptors relative to the ICMB cap (assuming for the moment that both countries adhere to the ICMB cap), then the odds of any country initiating a successful strike (first or second) becomes relatively and equally low. At that point, it's more effective to pursue conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) warfare, and even if a country does initiate a desperate nuclear strike, it's less concerning because the odds of a catastrophic loss of life are significantly reduced.
Would you argue that we would be better off if we fought conventional wars without body armor of any kind? Or would you argue that this is somehow different than the interceptor question? If so, how is it different (degree vs kind and why)?
(By the way, I don't see a US president--barring perhaps the current one who doesn't seem concerned with his own best interest much less that of his country--accepting a 75% chance of the destruction of US cities in order to stop a Russian advance)
In that, if I am facing an adversary with sufficient ABM capability, I am inventivized to try technologies that moot that advantage. E.g. nuclear kamikaze UUVs/smart torpedos, stealth cruise missiles, short range/quick reaction strikes etc.
I think non-parity relationships are somewhat alien to us today, whereas the 50s and 60s were full of "someone could nuke someone else with impunity" periods.
And I guess I look at it as: MAD is preferable to a Pandora's Box future where sides are continually researching, developing, and deploying new weapons and reevaluating their relative advantage. Advantage in an arms race being especially troubling because it's use-it-or-lose-it -- e.g. the internal calls for the US to use nukes against China before they developed their own during the Korean War.
> Would you argue that we would be better off if we fought conventional wars without body armor of any kind?
It's absolutely a related question.
To some degree, yes. Or a corollary in whether it's just to fight wars in which one side uses drones/UVs and the other side uses people.
Modern wars end when one side's will to continue it ceases. And, for better or worse, casualties have driven that. What happens when one side doesn't take casualties (e.g. Yemen)?
Does this apply to classified projects?
Ill take nuclear deterrence any day over that hell.
In 2016, he told the BBC: "Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or 10,000 years.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43408961
The problem with deterrence is that it works until it doesn’t.
I'll bet on no one wanting their country obliterated by agitating another nuclear power.