Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 246

Thread: The Iran Deal

  1. #46
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinja View Post
    The US is not going to throw boomers on Tehran just because Huthis/hezbollah or Iran itself has detonated a device on Riyadh. If KSA is holding onto such a fantasy then they are very naive indeed.
    Oh hell yeah, the US will respond. Iran crossed the nuclear threshold. What makes you think they wouldn't try the same with a freighter in NY Harbour?
    Chimo

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Oh hell yeah, the US will respond.
    You are assuming that the US has an obligation to respond on behalf of KSA, i would argue it doesn't. Its neither there in paper nor even verbally. If you think that US will risk Israel, Turkey, other gulf states, etc to an Iran nuclear retaliation for KSA, then you have more faith than i do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Iran crossed the nuclear threshold.
    How many thresholds have been crossed already so far with no consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What makes you think they wouldn't try the same with a freighter in NY Harbour?
    KSA is a far cry to a NY harbour which is US territory.

  3. #48
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinja View Post
    You are assuming that the US has an obligation to respond on behalf of KSA, i would argue it doesn't. Its neither there in paper nor even verbally. If you think that US will risk Israel, Turkey, other gulf states, etc to an Iran nuclear retaliation for KSA, then you have more faith than i do.
    Actually it does and it has nothing to do with the KSA. Iran attacked an American ally with a nuclear weapon. That means that the next step is all out war, at least on the part of Iran.

    Militarily, the US MUST stop Iran from even being capable of launching another attack since Israel might be the next target and the only thing in all our arsenals that can immediately degrade Iran within hours are nukes. Every suspected nuclear weapons development, storage, C4ISR site would be nuked. If it stores, flies, launch, or even make a nuke, it's going up in a mushroom cloud.

    We would be idiots to allow Tehran to try again.

    When one flies, they all fly.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Jul 15, at 19:40.
    Chimo

  4. #49
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Well, you've got me convinced, though I do still see expediency for KSA to have conventional alliances with Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and even Turkey if they can get any or all of them to sit at a table. But it's in the U.S. Interest to nuke Iran no matter what, if Iran hits The KSA. The problem I still have, is Iran convinced of that?
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You've got me there. I had strong doubts that Obama got the guts to retalliate with a nuke even if Washington DC was hit. We had no such doubts under both Bushes.
    Here's the key problem for US allies around the world: Obama proved that the constancy of US response is fundamentally compromised by the inconstant political will of the US leadership. KSA, Israel and everyone else have to ask themselves, what if our enemies strike when the next Obama is in power?

  6. #51
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Well, you've got me convinced, though I do still see expediency for KSA to have conventional alliances with Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and even Turkey if they can get any or all of them to sit at a table.
    Israel and Iran were allies during the Iran-Iraq War. Egypt is at peace with Israel with turning a blind eye to Palestinian smuggling. Hamas was an Israeli creation to counter the PLO. Everybody hates Turkey. That is a can of worms that has been long openned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    But it's in the U.S. Interest to nuke Iran no matter what, if Iran hits The KSA. The problem I still have, is Iran convinced of that?
    Depends on the POTUS.

    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Here's the key problem for US allies around the world: Obama proved that the constancy of US response is fundamentally compromised by the inconstant political will of the US leadership. KSA, Israel and everyone else have to ask themselves, what if our enemies strike when the next Obama is in power?
    That is with everybody, not just the US. How many Roman Emperors bribed the barbarians instead of fighting them. Cao Cao did a whole of Bismarck to keep his enemies apart. Hua Go Fuang couldn't protect himself from an exiled Deng Xia Peng. Gorbachev couldnt' get out of Afghanistan fast enough.

    Strong powers will always have weak leaders at some point.
    Chimo

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Strong powers will always have weak leaders at some point.
    Yeah, but with that in mind, and prime example #1 still in office, how much dependence on the US do you want to have going forward for your security architecture? Perhaps KSA, Israel, and others will want to hedge their bets.

    Let's say that KSA decides still not wise to bet on Pakistan instead of US by importing weapons technology (a wise choice I'd agree), but maybe contributing $,$$$,$$$,$$$ towards the Pakistani program starts to look wise.

  8. #53
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Yeah, but with that in mind, and prime example #1 still in office, how much dependence on the US do you want to have going forward for your security architecture? Perhaps KSA, Israel, and others will want to hedge their bets.
    Non-sequittor. Obama is still the POTUS, there's a limit to which you can ignore him. Sooner or later, you will need his permission or his help. Re: NATO's involvement in the Lybian Civil War.

    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Let's say that KSA decides still not wise to bet on Pakistan instead of US by importing weapons technology (a wise choice I'd agree), but maybe contributing $,$$$,$$$,$$$ towards the Pakistani program starts to look wise.
    Pakistan's other sugard daddy, China, would not be very happy.
    Chimo

  9. #54
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,893
    col yu,

    You've got me there. I had strong doubts that Obama got the guts to retalliate with a nuke even if Washington DC was hit. We had no such doubts under both Bushes.
    eh...Washington DC -was- hit, by the equivalent of a salvo of tomahawks, and there was no nuclear retaliation.

    but if you're talking about nukes...if DC or for that matter any american city of any size was hit with a nuke, there would -have- to be a nuclear response no matter who was president. even if one assumed Obama didn't care a fig for the US's international alliances, not responding that way would suddenly open up very real charges of impeachment and shortly thereafter a permanent minority party.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #55
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    eh...Washington DC -was- hit, by the equivalent of a salvo of tomahawks, and there was no nuclear retaliation.
    In context, I was speacking of a biochem attack.
    Chimo

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,943
    "Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities." Bill Clinton October 18, 1994

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...orth+korea&st1

    What's that American saying about being fooled once etc...?

  12. #57
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    So those of you that aren't fans of the deal with Iran, what's your prefered alternative?

    So far I consider the deal a good one for the following reasons, and while I've seen criticism of it, I haven't really heard many good alternatives.

    • Sanctions and previous efforts to isolate Iran obviously didn't stop them from developing the infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon.
    • Most of that infrastructure will be dismantled as a result of the deal even though they will be allowed to keep some token show pieces to save face.
    • The ability of a US coalition to militarily crush Iran in the event they do something particularly stupid remains unchanged regardless of diplomatic deals.


    While Iran may have a couple of bombs squirreled away somewhere, the deal disrupts their ability to start any kind of mass production. It will also allow the West to get a good first hand look at the Iranian facilities involved, which should make dismantling them via airstrikes that much easier in the future should it come to that.

    As I've noted previously, sanctions relief will give will give Iran access to greater resources (which isn't necessarily bad if it ends up killing IS bastards faster) but more importantly, it will give the Iranian moderates a win and cut into the power base of many of the hardliners who rely on their ability to skirt sanctions for their influence.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 20 Jul 15, at 17:17.

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    "Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities." Bill Clinton October 18, 1994

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/in...orth+korea&st1

    What's that American saying about being fooled once etc...?
    As far as I'm aware, the agreement succeeded in halting the Nork's nuclear program until 2002 when it broke down due to seperate issues between the US and North Korea over sanctions regarding ballistic missile development.

    That being the case, it wasn't that the deal itself that was ineffective, but the diplomacy that followed, derailing relations and leading to open hostility and a subsequent breakdown of the deal.

    I'm not trying to say that the US was solely responsible for the breakdown in relations, as the Nork's were clearly fishing for additional aid in exchange for halting ballistic missile development and they got sanctions for their troubles. Yet I don't see any indications that their nuclear program would have resumed if relations and thus the deal had continued to hold.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 20 Jul 15, at 17:29.

  14. #59
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,943
    Nor indeed is NK Iran etc etc etc but just saying...

  15. #60
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    So those of you that aren't fans of the deal with Iran, what's your prefered alternative?
    Continued sanctions. It has been working. They came back begging.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    [*]Sanctions and previous efforts to isolate Iran obviously didn't stop them from developing the infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon.
    They could not go any further without a test. But that doesn't mean that they could not refine their current designs. Israel did.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Most of that infrastructure will be dismantled as a result of the deal even though they will be allowed to keep some token show pieces to save face.
    With a 15 year delay. 15 years of uninterrupted research and refinement.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    [*]The ability of a US coalition to militarily crush Iran in the event they do something particularly stupid remains unchanged regardless of diplomatic deals.
    That is called passing the buck to the next HNIC when Iran would become militarily and diplomatically stronger and really be ready to build the bomb.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 20 Jul 15, at 17:57.
    Chimo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Biden giving Israel go-ahead to deal with Iran?
    By Traps in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12 Aug 15,, 00:52
  2. How Iran and al-Qaeda made a deal - Asia Times
    By 1980s in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11 Aug 15,, 22:55
  3. Russia, Iran May Sign Nuke Deal This Month
    By nickshepAK in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08 Aug 15,, 19:33
  4. Iran breaks gas deal
    By platinum786 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 02 Oct 05,, 03:45
  5. Indian Oil clinches $3bn Iran gas deal
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Nov 04,, 16:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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