An Iranian Cold War? Discussion

[Grouchio]

From the BBC, with William Hague. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082433

Iran's nuclear ambitions could plunge the Middle East into "a new Cold War", the UK foreign secretary has warned. William Hague told the Daily Telegraph other nations in the region would want to develop nuclear weapons if Iran did. Without "the safety mechanisms" of the US-USSR rivalry, Mr Hague said it would be "a disaster in world affairs". But ex-UK diplomat Sir Richard Dalton said Iran was not "rushing towards a nuclear weapon". Tehran insists its programme is for energy purposes. The West suspects Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. Mr Hague told the newspaper there was a "crisis coming down the tracks". "If [the Iranians] obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons. "And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East."

Mr Hague's comments come amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, with Israel accusing Iran of masterminding attacks on its embassies in India, Thailand and Georgia. Iran denies the allegations. It blames Israel and the US for the assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists in recent years, allegations they deny. Speaking earlier this month, US President Barack Obama emphasised that Israel and the US were working in "unison" to counter Iran. However, some commentators have suggested that behind the scenes Washington is deeply alarmed by reports that Israel may strike Iran as early as April. US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly said there was a strong likelihood of such an offensive. Mr Hague told the Telegraph that Britain has urged Israel not to strike: "We support a twin-track strategy of sanctions and pressure and negotiations on the other hand. "All options must remain on the table" but a military attack would have "enormous downsides", he said. Shashank Joshi, of defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, told the BBC the West's fears could be unfounded. "If we could live with nuclear weapons in the hands of totalitarian, genocidal states like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, Iran in contrast - whatever its repulsive internal policies and adventurism abroad - is far more rational," he said. Mr Joshi said Iran may not be actively pursuing the creation of nuclear weapons but leaving the option open. "If they feel their regime is under existential threat, if they feel they face a Libya-like situation, they would have the option of building a bomb......."

Discuss like you've never discussed before! This COULD be a Second Cold War!

[Imperial]

Meh..

Persians just aren't as menacing as the old Iron Curtain.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What "safety mechanisms" did the Cold War have that the Middle East wouldn't?

And Saudi Arabia already has nuclear weapons. They have planes sitting in Pakistan ready to load up Pakistani warheads, and 60 Chinese ICBMs ready to launch in Arabia. They just have to fly back the nukes, load them onto the ICBMs and they're ready to go.

[Vanoi]

What "safety mechanisms" did the Cold War have that the Middle East wouldn't

Since when did the Cold War have safety mechanisms? There were numerous times during the Cold War when the US and SU nearly shot nukes at each other. Giving more nations the capability to do this will only increase the risk of them being used again.

[Armenum]

I actually to the most part agree with this assessment and have been saying this for a while now. A nuclear Iran won't translate into an "apocalyptic war" that some war hawks like to say, but instead bring a tense balance of power similar to during the Cold War, only on a lower scale.

[Vanoi]

I actually to the most part agree with this assessment and have been saying this for a while now. A nuclear Iran won't translate into an "apocalyptic war" that some war hawks like to say, but instead bring a tense balance of power similar to during the Cold War, only on a lower scale.

By balance of power do you mean nuclear arms race? It will bring no balance of power. In fact with Iran getting nuclear weapons only more countries will want to get them.

[Armenum]

By balance of power do you mean nuclear arms race? It will bring no balance of power. In fact with Iran getting nuclear weapons only more countries will want to get them.

By balance of power, I'm talking about the military balance between Israel and Iran. The other nation that may also attempt to get such weapons is Saudi Arabia which is a Sunni heavy weight. It's almost always the case that with such military balance stabilities your cost is more nuclear weapons...

[removeduser_4536284751384]

By balance of power do you mean nuclear arms race? It will bring no balance of power. In fact with Iran getting nuclear weapons only more countries will want to get them.

And your evidence for this is what?

100% of all nuclear arms races that have ever occured have resulted in MAD-induced balance of power. The sample size is at least four.

Isreal and Saudi Arabia already have nuclear weapons.

[Vanoi]

And your evidence for this is what?

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/10-4

Other countries in the Middle East do not like Iran's influence. If Iran gains nuclear weapons they will feel threatened and want some of their own.

100% of all nuclear arms races that have ever occured have resulted in MAD-induced balance of power. The sample size is at least four.

And again numerous times this balance was nearly shattered with nuclear war. Again what makes you think that they could end up not being used again?

Isreal and Saudi Arabia already have nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia does not own nuclear weapons. Israel owns them, but other countries do not feel threatened by Israel to develop their own.

[ash874]

Israel owns them, but other countries do not feel threatened by Israel to develop their own.

very importnat to make it clear that if indeed israel owns them, then its because of britain. i lose sleep at night fearing the trident.. sadly, britain started a nuclear arms race

[removeduser_4536284751384]

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/10-4

Other countries in the Middle East do not like Iran's influence. If Iran gains nuclear weapons they will feel threatened and want some of their own.

Saudi Arabia already has access to Pakistani nuclear weapons on Chinese ICBMs. Basically they're just saying they'll flat out buy them and relocate them to Saudi Arabia.

And again numerous times this balance was nearly shattered with nuclear war. Again what makes you think that they could end up not being used again?

It never did result in war though. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=444868

Saudi Arabia does not own nuclear weapons. Israel owns them, but other countries do not feel threatened by Israel to develop their own.

They do feel threatened by Isreal, which is why both Iran and Saudi Arabia have nuclear programs. But America doesn't care about Isreal and Saudi Arabia because they're friendly to America. Saudi Arabia has planes sitting in Pakistan ready to fly them to Arabia at a moment's notice, and has ICBMs to launch them. Saudi Arabia was the sole funder of Pakistan's nuclear program.

Now Iran is developing them and the USA doesn't like this out of self interest, not because of any threat of nuclear war. Nuclear peace is the result of nuclear arms.

There's nothing morally repugnant to acting out of self interest. But don't dress it up as idealism.

[Phier]

Having a couple nukes does not a cold war make. The issue being Iran would completely lack the ability to detect any attacks we made until they went 'boom', there would be no MAD.

For example, we had no issue executing someone on Pakistani soil and taking credit for it.

[ash874]

there is no reason to believe that some stable, balance of power, situation will be the product of this
i think two other scenarios are more likely
either iran starts proliferating the know how to anti american governments in south america
which will result in another cuban missile crisis and prompt the US to act
or (probably sooner) the fatass from lebanon will attempt another cross border raid like the one that brought about the war in 2006, thinking he is now immune
this in turn would force israel to explain that even now attacks on israel are forbidden and will cause us to trash lebanon even harder

not a very stable situation after all

[Armenum]

there is no reason to believe that some stable, balance of power, situation will be the product of this
i think two other scenarios are more likely
either iran starts proliferating the know how to anti american governments in south america
which will result in another cuban missile crisis and prompt the US to act
or (probably sooner) the fatass from lebanon will attempt another cross border raid like the one that brought about the war in 2006, thinking he is now immune
this in turn would force israel to explain that even now attacks on israel are forbidden and will cause us to trash lebanon even harder

not a very stable situation after all

No, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that Iran will be hell bent on nuking the US. Trust me they won't. Nuclear weapons gives them a much needed security buffer. They are feeling threatened and such capabilities will give them some room to breath. It's not in their interest at all to start a war with the US, let alone a nuclear war. Neither side wants war with one another.

[ash874]

No, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that Iran will be hell bent on nuking the US. Trust me they won't. Nuclear weapons gives them a much needed security buffer. They are feeling threatened and such capabilities will give them some room to breath. It's not in their interest at all to start a war with the US, let alone a nuclear war. Neither side wants war with one another.

i didnt said they would nuke the US

[Armenum]

i didnt said they would nuke the US

Well you are saying about a repetition of Cuban missile crisis. I highly doubt Iran would make such a move to repeat that scenario. There's little point and too much cost.

[ash874]

Well you are saying about a repetition of Cuban missile crisis. I highly doubt Iran would make such a move to repeat that scenario. There's little point and too much cost.

no one nuked no one in the cuban crisis. russia only made it possible to nuke the US, then.
in fact the result is that russia has just created a cuban missile crisis for israel.
also i dont think it is outlandish to expect iran to share its know how with venezuela or bolivia
they cooperate with n.korea why shouldnt they cooperate with these other guys
your personal doubts are not enough here
there are some very real concerns that iran does not want to alleviate and so iran should not be surprised if its work gets bombed

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Israel has not got the balls for a real fight they can only pick on backward arab armys.And PA kids armed with rocks.
They need America to tame Iran as they could not never invade and control that place alone.

Lets stop trying to demonize Iran they have a legitimate right to get nuke energy and they have not enriched things enough to even make a nuke.They have a legal right to nuke energy as signed up signataries to the non proliferation of nuke arms.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

they have not enriched things enough to even make a nuke.

They publically announced they have enriched their uranium to 19.8% per cent U-235. That's not only pure enough to make a nuclear weapon, it's more dangerous to use in nuclear reactors than standard 4-6% U-235 fuel.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

They publically announced they have purified their uranium to 19.8% per cent U-235.

Thats not enough to make a nuke it needs to be done at alot higher than that.