A statement for which you have no evidence. And what threat does Iran pose to the United States? None at all.
Some people would argue that Iran with weapons grade uranium could reasonably increase the chances that 50,000 Americans will die in the next 10 years by more than 1 in 10,000. That suggests the US could reasonably kill 5 Iranians to deal with the threat. However, Iran would respond to such action which suggests a more limited response such such as planting a virus is reasonable as long as the US can get away with it.
PS: That's how these people think, rare events vs lot's of deaths = covert and deniable action.
The logic is simple: nukes bring a country into MAD (mutually assured destruction) mechanics. Most likely Iran would use Israel as a hostage since it would not have the ICBMs necessary to attack the US directly. It would be like North Korea and Japan, only "Japan" would be nuclear armed.
I consider invasion of Iran by the US the most likely vector for Iranians killing Americans. MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea.
(I don't buy neo-conservative anti-Muslim ideology around suicidal leaders for a second. NK is far worse in this respect, IMO; that whole country is being led on a suicidal basis.)
I thought MAD only worked with rational players. Do we know the people who would hold the levers would be rational? We (the west) don't seem to have the same feedback network (i.e. spies) we could depend on as we did with the USSR. That and we had the "red phone" thing. Dunno if that was more gimmick than actual tool.
>I don't buy neo-conservative...
We don't know what the control structure behind such threat there would be. Can one person cause a launch, conversely, can one person override a launch order?
(I think nuclear weapons are probably the greatest ever contributory factor to world peace in absolute terms. I'm certain that the 20th century would have been far, far bloodier throughout its span had they not been invented.)
Maybe you should read some history about some of the kings we've had in Europe? (Or of some of the African dictators over the last century. Same thing, different name.) [Edit: Just consider this; because someone is rational doesn't mean they stay rational.]
Then please check "the resource curse" on Wikipedia.
In short, oil countries don't become democracies. It is too lucrative for leaders of countries with lots of natural resource income to oppress the population and steal the money. (Norway was a democracy long before the oil.)
Do you really want to condemn the Iranians to a religious dictator until the oil is gone?
Edit: Instead of the word "Iran" and "they", how about you use a more relevant term like "torturing and terrorist junta"? The (upper class!) Iranians I've known around Sweden were, more or less, as west oriented as any Scandinavian.
Do you think there is a way of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? Short of a pre-emptive nuclear strike or an invasion, I don't think there is - and I don't believe either will be pursued.
So what happens when you have to think what you seem to think is unthinkable?
Iran will get nuclear arms. What then?
Listen, I'm not arguing that it is right that Iran gets nuclear arms. I just think it's inevitable and it is obviously in their own best interests given the situation they are facing.
I'm trying to figure out what the situation is after the inevitable occurs, and Iran already has nuclear arms. Debate over whether the players are rational or not is actually irrelevant. If they are not rational, Iran will be wiped from the earth. But there's really little that can or could have been done in that scenario, so it doesn't really need much thought.
Sorry, but you do sound like you have an agenda.
You made a claim that the Iran junta won't be insane, I showed it is wrong by trivial historical examples. Now you make a different claim. [Edit: And ignored my other point.]
Edit: If I should bother to answer the new point, about what will happen: Saudi Arabia Turkey and others will start high speed nuclear weapons programs. That is not even in the Iranian interest.
Please tell me what you think my agenda is before discussing anything further. It's a pretty serious accusation.
Edit: Sigh, the "answer" below just repeats the previous, it is still not touching what I wrote. AGAIN:
1. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) -- you just ignored it.
2. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with at least the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA.
3. This religious junta will almost certainly torture, rape and oppress the Iranian population as long as there is oil, without external intervention.
I think you will just repeat your position while ignoring everything else. Hence, an agenda of some sort that you want to get out.
(a) that Iran would not be irrational. This is my considered opinion based on all I've read - Iranian politics seem subtle to me, with a tug of war between president, chief cleric and "Guardian Council" - a long, long way short of a despotic single point of failure.
and (b) if it was irrational, there's little we could do about it, unless the preemptive strike / invasion route is taken, and that level of US aggression would encourage even more countries to pursue nuclear weapons. The US would essentially be a huge armed bully roaming the neighbourhood threatening people not to get guns, and breaking into random houses searching for guns. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that that policy is eventually going to convince the neighbours to get some guns.
I think there's a range of options here; I tend towards de-escalation and looking at things with a cool head. There's far too much drum beating and propaganda pumping going on for my liking.
PS: I wish you would reply, rather than edit your comments after the fact. It makes things very hard to read.
1. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) -- you just ignored it.
I addressed it twice: firstly, that it does not apply (no single point of failure like a king, in this answer here), and secondly, it does not actually matter. By my score I "killed" your own argument twice!
2. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with at least the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA.
Sure. And your point is?
(My point is that when something is inevitable, talking about the bad consequences of it is pointless. It's going to happen. And bad consequences will happen too. Just is. But do you honestly think a US invasion of Iran would be a better outcome than a nuclear-armed Turkey? SA?)
3. This religious junta will almost certainly torture, rape and oppress the Iranian population as long as there is oil, without external intervention.
Lots of regimes oppress their populations far more than Iran does. How about starting with North Korea? Invasion, particularly as recent experience has shown, does not usually result in "saving" the population. Most countries in oppressive rule don't have the social infrastructure built up for a better system, and besides, particularly in the Middle East, they suffer from Dutch Disease. (This is actually your own earlier point, FWIW; I ignored it because it wasn't relevant, but it is relevant here to your apparent (yet cowardly silent!) advocation of intervention.)
I think you will just repeat your position while ignoring everything else. Hence, an agenda of some sort that you want to get out.
You're lucky I even saw what you wrote here, because you didn't actually reply to my comment.
I'm a bit late coming into this discussion. But I think I should like to clarify that Kings were not all powerful autocrats. They had councils and other Kings they had to answer to. Still, some went "rogue" as it were.
So to me the question is, could one of the people who control the levers "go rogue" do they/would they have controls to guard against that?
1. mc32 adressed this, so the historic precedent stands. You acknowledge that you have no clue how Iran's junta is -- or how it will be in the coming ten years. (Sure, no one else has a clue, maybe not even in Qom.) The president do seems out, he didn't take orders well enough. We just cannot rely on sanity in the Iranian junta over the coming decade, since we just don't know; if the junta wanted peace, they can get it tomorrow.
2. There were occasions close to buttons pressed in the cold war... A nuclear race in the unstable Middle East is NOT a good thing; many millions might die. (Already Assad threatened the whole Mid East, to stop regime change!)
3. No one will use many billions of dollars on regime change to protect the Iranians from their present regime. Even if it is the humane thing to do. Dictators today rely on this.
But to leave the present situation alone is just not an alternative, because the next crazy junta will go for nuclear weapons with that as a motivation (South America?).
Iran's junta can be dealt with. It is a matter of motivation.
At present, Russia support any large weapon customers; given enough motivation, they'd change tune. The West can change Russia/China on this. Then you can start by e.g. finish destroying the Iranian economy. If they can't sell oil, the junta will react.
It is just a question if you want to pay a price now or maybe millions of lives, later. I can't do the evaluation; I hope that Obama is not too preoccupied with the next election.
I don't buy Iran arming terrorists with nukes either. Both the US and USSR have used state sponsored terrorism as political and social tools, but never armed them with nuclear weapons. Without extremely plausible deniability, the repercussions of MAD would reach through if such weapons were ever used.
I think Iran sees nuclear weapons as its ultimate defense against continuing belligerent and threatening rhetoric from the US. And from my perspective as a neutral observer, it's hard to disagree with them. I think it's inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons, and the sooner that reality is dealt with on a rational basis, the better. If anything, the US should be bargaining with Iran to get a quid pro quo in return for acceptance of nuclear armament.
The Cold War was better than WWIII but it wasn't something to be cavalier about, over a hundred million people died due to the oppression in communist countries, and a far larger number of people's lives were irrevocably damaged by over a half century of tragedy. Even if a nuclear armed Iran likely won't end in a nuclear war that doesn't give license to simply pretend as though the prospect of a nuclear armed Iranian regime is anything other than a huge step backward for the world.
A nuclear armed Iran is inevitable, IMO. The only means of trying to stop it - bigger and bigger threats, short of invasion no-one has the stomach for - seem to me to only guarantee this, because they reinforce the motivation for getting there.
Let's put this in perspective. At the end of WWII America was producing 50% of the WORLDS manufactured goods. Russia had fewer allies, a vastly inferior conventional Army, and infrastructure from WWII all the way to it's fall. America has had sufficient nuclear weapons to be concerned about a large scale invasion and never really geared up for a large scale war. So, America had basically no reason to attack Russia or fully mobilize as long as the rest of the world did not become communist they had little interest in what happened.
However, after WWII Russia was paranoid with good reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_War_II_Casualties2.s... Close to 13% of their population had just died and they had little interest in being so weak that a country could decide to attack them while in the middle of a war with several other countries.
Sorry, don't remember the specifics!