Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868

    College debate on foreign policy towards Iran.

    There's an upcoming debate on whether foreign intervention in Iran is justified because of its alleged nuclear weapons programme. Now, I do have a basic knowledge about Iran's contemporary political and economic landscape but I'd like to know more. Are there any links to articles on this subject, journals/books you guys could point me too?

  2. #2
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane View Post
    There's an upcoming debate on whether foreign intervention in Iran is justified because of its alleged nuclear weapons programme.
    This is difficult to establish valid point for or against the intervention you see.

  3. #3
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868
    Exactly, that in itself makes the premise of the debate moot. Still, I'd like to know people's opinions on the sanctions being imposed on Iran by the West.

  4. #4
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,708
    Actually, even Iran really has nuclear weapon development on the way, this fact alone may not be enough to impose sanction against it.

    If I dont get it wrong, that the Axis defeating powers, and the nations permitted by those powers, would have the right to develop nuclear weaponry publicly. That says, USSR (now Russia), USA, Britain, France and China collectively have the right to permit which nations to have nukes. This so-called "Nuclear Club" is justified a treaty signed during 1970s but I cant recall its exact title. If I have to translate to English back from Chinese media I've read, it's something called non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. India is one of the nation with such permission I believe? Some said India could have nuke because it didnt sign the treaty mentioned. But seriously, the Nuclear Club took no action against the development. (But I dont give a damn, Indians dont have missile with range on my home town anyway.) Israeli is not since there's no way Russia would allow this, but it's quite unrealistic to assume that Israeli doesn't possess nukes anyway.

    But the Second World War was two generations away. Even my parents were born after the war. I seriously question this decision power.
    Last edited by squirrel; 02-02-2012 at 01:07 PM.

  5. #5
    Obscure Node kirrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth.
    Posts
    71
    Squirrel, wikipedia has a good article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty
    Not sure if wikipedia.cn is still walled.

  6. #6
    Lesser Hivemind Node Feldspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    634
    You don't have to look too far in the past to see what British and American intervention in Iran has already done.

    Beside it's difficult for me to see intervention as anything but bully-boy tactics in this situation, only big boys are allowed nuclear toys and you can't play with us. I can see the terrorist angle certain politicians are bound to push, but it is precisely this kind of action that causes those situations in the first place.

  7. #7
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Feldspar View Post
    Beside it's difficult for me to see intervention as anything but bully-boy tactics in this situation, only big boys are allowed nuclear toys and you can't play with us. I can see the terrorist angle certain politicians are bound to push, but it is precisely this kind of action that causes those situations in the first place.
    To be fair though, you can be reasonably sure that the US/UK/China/Russia wouldn't actually use their nuclear weapons in a state vs state war... unless things rapidly and dramatically deteriorate. I don't think any of those states wants to get into a global war. Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't compare to a war between superpowers, especially in the modern age. If the superpowers waged war like in the world wars, WW1 would pale in comparison to the amount of destruction.

    Iran on the other hand... I don't buy into all the propaganda surrounding Iran but I wouldn't classify them as one of the more stabilised nations when it comes to foreign relations. Especially given that Israel's very existence seems to piss off plenty of states in the Middle East to no end (and to be fair, part of that is probably deserved). I'd think that a nuclear weapon would more probably be deployed by a state like Iran than the US.

    I'm not saying this is a clear case for intervention and invasion, but I don't think Iran or similar states are benign.

  8. #8
    Lesser Hivemind Node Feldspar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    634
    I'm sure even Iran at it's most self-righteous can see what would happen if it used (and indeed possessed) such a weapon in an offensive capacity, even those states that are careful to maintain diplomatic links with Iran will be screaming out for someone to do something.

    But then, this isn't really about the arsenals of nation states, it's about the likelyhood of nuclear devises falling into the hands of organisations that do not abide by physical boundaries, have no civilian population to protect or answer to and are prepared to make inappropriate displays to highlight their agendas. But how do you measure that likelyhood?

  9. #9
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    219
    Ahmedenijad may make a lot of noise, but he's ostensibly a figurehead and he still answers to the Iranian clergy (who do you think made the decision to rig the '09 election as it was?) And while the Grand Ayatollah Khamanei may be a bit of an overzealous loon, he's nowhere near as crazy as his predecessor, Khomeni. It should be noted that the clergy would rather have a country to rule and are quite happy to exert their influence through Syria, Hezbollah, and so forth rather than through more overt means. As men who are more practical than we give them credit for, the Ayatollahs are just keeping a nuclear arms program as a deterrent to a regime change a la Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And let's face it, even without nuclear weapons, a retaliatory bombing campaign by even a single US CVBG could make Dresden and Hiroshima look like camp fires by comparison. As someone who was actually a competent commander in the Iran-Iraq war, this fact surely hasn't eluded Khamenei.

    However, a regime change in Syria could hurt Iran more than any sanctions or air-strikes on their nuclear facilities ever could. If Assad goes down, Iran hasn't a single nation state in the world they could call a friend anymore.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •