How should the Iran nuke plans be handled

[wooda]

How in your opinion should the world (by that I mean the western world mainly) handle Irans nuke plans?
Somekind of embargo?
War?
Ignore?

And please take this seriously.

[Hub'ite]

Nuke 'em Rico!

[Sidus Preclarum]

And please take this seriously.

Nuke 'em Rico!

this didn't last long, even by Mudpit standards...

[Tom Paine]

I say careful surveillance to ensure it stays civilian (IAEA, and so on), and a resolution which dictates war as the punishment for infraction.

[Hanno the Navigator]

I say careful surveillance to ensure it stays civilian (IAEA, and so on), and a resolution which dictates war as the punishment for infraction.

The problem is, who would wage that war? Europe won't, Russia is selling weapons to Tehran actually, China ditto, and the US have too much work on their hands to ensure Iraq doesn't blow up (last month, Iraqi oil exports dropped to an "all-time" low - "all-time" save March/April 2003, due to strikes, sabotage, terrorism and general unrest. Just because some talking heads can get themselves elected and meet in relative security in Saddam's government compoung - which is the size of a minor city anyways - should not distract from the fact that what is not in shambles has been "stabilizing" in a way that is not in the West's best interest).

There simply is no "carry a big stick" at this time.Ahmedinejad is begging for an airstrike or two, so he can retaliate with international law on his side.

I cannot blame any government for not wanting to toady up to Mr A. He is quite vile, and moreover, he's genuine; whatever he did or said, from what I know, was not for somebody to hear, but simply his mind spoken. He comes from a poor background and although he's entitled to all the amenities of the fat life as a politico, he rather lives in modesty. Check out his cheap glasses, his cheap suit to see what I mean: this man is not in the game for material wealth. Here's a man who lives his ideals; only that at least half of them are to me at least utter nightmares.

Probably, the best course would be for a panel of independent IAEO experts (from, say, Scandinavia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada or whatever) to force a sugar-coated development plan down Iran's throat, if it is any possible. That is to say: look, guys, you want to build nuclear power plants, and we're gonna help you with it, get you prime components and contracts, and you agree that you shut down the too-dual-use-for-anyone's-good plants.

In the case of Saddam, international monitoring did work (if one does not choose to believe there are massive stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs buried somewhere in the Western Desert). The presence of low-level international officials (as in: those that do work and travel around, not the cushion-farters), moreover, does help a bit with the human rights situation in such countries.

But apart from that, I see no real alternative. The bottom line is to take the bile and anger out of the issue ASAP. Things being as they are right now, there is no reason to be vitriolic about it, neither for Iran nor for the rest of the world; it all can be resolved so that all participants are more or less happy. Tehran MUST NOT, under no circumstances, be pushed into thinking that going psycho is a good idea; they've already gone far too far down that road for my taste.
Kudos to Perle, Wolfie and the Gang for drumming up a war against a near-non-existent threat and ignoring the real one. Insults in word and deed as have been launched by Ahmedinejad against the USA since he came to power have, to my knowledge, not been tolerated by the US in post-WW2 history. In fact, most such leaders rather choose to bite their tongues than to pizz off Uncle Sam. The cheekiness of Iran's prez, both that he actually and unabashedly displays it and that he gets away with it over and over again, is telling.

As it is, we seem to live in a world devoid of superpowers*. And that is not necessarily a good thing.

* Yes the US is still the greatest power of them all. But it seems to have bogged itself down to the status of the largest of major powers. The largest tabloid in Germany ran a headliner some weeks ago about Ahmedinejad, "The Madman. He wants The Bomb. He threatens us all." Oh, for the sake of rationality, Germany is not Israel and will never be. If it were, I could understand such fears. But as it is, it is crude and cruel propaganda that helps no one. And it is somewhat sad, for all my reservations about non-digital violence, that for reasons of geography, Israel won't be able to pull another Osirak these days.

[danzig]

I say careful surveillance to ensure it stays civilian (IAEA, and so on), and a resolution which dictates war as the punishment for infraction.

Yep Ill agree and this is the problem the 'war' part has to be real and it has to be stressed to Iran in terms that are not open to any doubt. Fine build your reactors, reprocess fuel but IAEA has full, on demand access/monitoring to everything and if one thing is done that interfers with their work no debate, no discussing you are getting attacked. And all the countries backing it need to be serious and not any double talk that leaves doubt to the intent, cant be a toothless dog all bark and no bite.

[Richard the Lionheart]

How in your opinion should the world (by that I mean the western world mainly) handle Irans nuke plans?

Diplomatically. Oh and let's not forget N. Korea.

[Tom Paine]

The US has a perfect strike base and therefore all that is needed, especially given the current attitude, seems to be an excuse.

[Bwaho]

I say careful surveillance to ensure it stays civilian (IAEA, and so on), and a resolution which dictates war as the punishment for infraction

Who is going to lead that war? USA is tied up, Europe can only assist, russia and china has no interests.


Oh! I got it, let Israel and Iran nuke it out. That way we will get rid of 2 annoying countries.

[Tom Paine]

USA is "tied up"? Hello, they have the perfect invasion base, and with proposed troop withdrawals they'll have men to spare. It'd also mean defence in Iraq was easier without any Iranian assisstance.

[Bwaho]

USA is "tied up"? Hello, they have the perfect invasion base, and with proposed troop withdrawals they'll have men to spare. It'd also mean defence in Iraq was easier without any Iranian assisstance

War costs money, and opening up a new front would put serious pressure on the US economy

[Tom Paine]

Which, to be honest, isn't doing at all badly right now, whatever may be said (not at its bewst but certianly not badly either)

[Kanaric]

If I were the Ayatollah my nuke plans would be to keep the missiles and blackmail all my neighbors. Maybe invade a neighboring country and if the US decides to bring the smackdown I will bring the rapture.

Or are you talking about US plans?

The worlds plans are meaningless, nothing will happen. If they let North Korea build nukes Iran will be allowed as well, unless their worrying about them specifically because they are muslims? I would worry MORE about Kim Jong Il.

[Erik]

Europe isn't interested in Iran at all.
Some European leaders play along with the US to keep the US happy but that is all.

If Iran announced they had "The Bomb" most people in Europe would be shocked for 5 minutes, and then they wil get on with their lifes as if nothing changed.

If it realy came down to fighting the US would be all alone.

They should just grant Iran nuclear power and have the IAEA check their facilities.
And if Iran does manage to develop nukes then so be it, it's not like they are the only ones with illegal nukes.
Personally I'm more worried about Israel's illegal nuclear stockpile, there is just no telling what Israel wil do with them in the future.

[Bwaho]

Europe isn't interested in Iran at all.

No, Europe would never dream of caring about oil. Come on, where there is craploads of oil there will always be interests.

They should just grant Iran nuclear power and have the IAEA check their facilities.
And if Iran does manage to develop nukes then so be it, it's not like they are the only ones with illegal nukes.

No, but this is where I feel disgusted by some peoples indifference. We should constantly work towards lowering the amount of nuclear warheads in the world. Not just shrugging and saying "whaaateeeeeverrrrr".

Personally I'm more worried about Israel's illegal nuclear stockpile, there is just no telling what Israel wil do with them in the future.

Israel is a wildcard, but so is Iran. If it was up to me, both of them would be stripped of their nukes. Your logic goes: "Because one crazy mofo has nukes we might aswell give every other crazy mofo nukes too!" that's just irresponsible.


edit:

They aren't "insane", as propoganda would have you believe

No, but making statements like: "Israel should be wiped off the face of the world!" does give the impression that they are warmongers.

[Erik]

No, but this is where I feel disgusted by some peoples indifference. We should constantly work towards lowering the amount of nuclear warheads in the world. Not just shrugging and saying "whaaateeeeeverrrrr".

I would like to reduce the amount of nukes too, but this is just unrealistic.
If the US lets Israel have nukes, why should we help them disarm Iran?

I don't like this situation, but I'm being realistic in knowing there isn't anything Europe can do about it.
As long as the US lets their allies have nukes their enemies wil have nukes too.

[Justinian]

Global disarming is never going to happen.

[Boudicca]

If the Iranian president continues to proclaim that he is willing to destroy Israel, then I would not be so sure that an Israeli Air Raid against Iranian A-Bomb facilities would be against international law. If states should be taken serious...and I suppose Iran wants to be taken serious in the world community, then there is a clear thread scenario already in place.

[Kanaric]

If Iran announced they had "The Bomb" most people in Europe would be shocked for 5 minutes, and then they wil get on with their lifes as if nothing changed.

Same here in the US. Iran is too stable of a government to do anything with their nukes. They have nothing to gain by using them so they wont use them. To use them you must have NOTHING to lose, and Iran has a LOT to lose. They aren't "insane", as propoganda would have you believe, they more than likely know this. They may spurt out a lot of propoganda, but thats what all dictatorships do.

Personally I'm more worried about Israel's illegal nuclear stockpile, there is just no telling what Israel wil do with them in the future.

I can easily see Isreal in a "nothing to lose" situation. Like, for example, if the middle east goes :wub: on them again and this time they end up losing they will nuke as any country would. However they wont use the nukes for no reason, unless they believe iranian propoganda, which i doubt they do.

The country with the highest chance of using a nuke is North Korea. Mostly because they have nothing to lose by doing it, their country is falling apart, and they are unstable. Even here their is an incredibly LOW chance, as we dont know AT ALL what their leadership is like aside from western propoganda that steriotypes it as insane and stops their.

[RZZZA]

The best scenario I want to see is where this is all heading anyway....Israel and the U.S. Vs. the middle east. This is where its all heading right? If the U.S. starts picking a fight with Iran, or any other muslim countries it will not be largely ignored like the war with Iraq was amongst most muslims. We made sure to state 1 million times that this is a war against a madman and a tyrant, not against islam. But if we were to invade Iran how many more muslims would really buy that excuse? Its clear that Israel and the west have contempt for the way some muslims choose to rule their regions, we dont like what is coming out of their countries, that is...extremist theocratic anti-west idealogy. If a war did occur, I want to see U.S. backed Israel run over all neighbors and establish a larger Israel, free from muslim/arab/palestinian harassment. Of course I'd like to see all sides agree to live in peace, but thats not gonna happen, so I'm gonna have to side with the U.S./Israel in a war situation. I think this Jew/Muslim thing has been a prolonged beef for far too long and either both sides need to shut the hell up or one side needs to silence the other for good. Since the U.S. is Israels ally, the U.S. should help Israel turn the middle east's sand into a field of glass. After that, we should focus on bombing certain infected regions of Africa and Korea to wipe out the filth. I'm tired of these dirty local warlords who terrorize civilians and plot devious deeds in relative safety...yeah, the middle east, Korea and parts of Africa are begging to be sterilized. After that we need to focus our bombs on South America and eliminate all the drug cartels and drug runners. And finally, all the hypocritic officials in our governments need to put a gun to their temples over our silent consent of the southern drug trade and the decisions we've made in the past concerning the support of terrorists. Modern day seppuku is the only honorable way out for these people, but I'm also partial to the idea of a public effigy burning only instead of an effigy, we burn the actual person the effigy is meant to symbolize.