Iran Super Thread- Merged

[CougarKing]

Thomas Erdbrink, who is the NY Times' Tehran bureau chief and one of few Westerners still reporting directly from Iran, weighs in on Iran's new President-elect.

quote:


President-Elect Stirs Optimism in Iran and West

By THOMAS ERDBRINK
Published: July 26, 2013

TEHRAN — Bogged down in faltering nuclear talks with the European powers nearly 10 years ago, Hassan Rouhani did something that no Iranian diplomat before or since has managed to do.

He took out his cellphone, say Western diplomats who were there, dialed up his longtime friend and associate, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and convinced him that Iran needed to suspend nuclear enrichment. The call by Mr. Rouhani, who was elected president in June and will take office next week, resulted in an agreement in October 2003, the only nuclear deal between Iran and the West in the past 11 years.

“Rouhani showed that he is a central player in Iran’s political establishment,” said Stanislas de Laboulaye, a retired director general of the French Foreign Ministry, who was a member of the European delegation during the talks between 2003 and 2005. “He was the only one able to sell something deeply unpopular to the other leaders.”

There is growing optimism in Iran and in the West that Mr. Rouhani, 64, is ready to restart serious talks on the nuclear issue; Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq told the United States this month that Mr. Rouhani was ready to start direct talks, and the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to engage in head-to-head dialogue after years of inclusive multiparty negotiations.

In his campaign for president and again in recent weeks, Mr. Rouhani has made it clear that he is deeply concerned about his country’s growing economic troubles and is determined to soften the harsh tone and intransigent tactics of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which have stalled nuclear negotiations and cut off relations with most of the developed world. But the question, as always in Iran, is the extent to which a President Rouhani can accomplish these goals.

<break>

Read more of this two page article here:

New York Times link

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, and I'm certainly not trying to "troll" the thread at all...

BUT...

Why do we still care about all of this crap in the middle east??  I remember listening to the news & talking about this kind of stuff with my parents when I was 10yrs old.  I'm 30 now for crying out loud - and you know what's changed??  Not a whole lot.

Iran hates Israel, we all know that.  Israel is looking for any excuse it can to turn its regional adversaries into dust.  Thus the constant and never ending political tension, stroked & relit by parties in all of the countries involved - sometimes, including Israel. 

Will Iran ever achieve the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon?  In my opinion, its inevitable. 

The rest of the world has had nuclear power & nuclear knowledge for approximately 70 years now.  The rest of the world has had this knowledge for so long, and applied this knowledge for so long, that it has become relatively mainstream for us.  Nuclear powered aircraft carriers, submarines - cities & entire regions powered by nuclear power plants - nuclear powered satellites, etc etc.

So if the rest of the world has an active working knowledge of how to apply nuclear power to everyday life - is it really reasonable for us to assume that Iran "may" get it sometime soonish?  My personal opinion, its a silly argument of inevitability. 

The real question should be - what does the rest of the world do, once they do achieve their goal?  Level it back to the stoneage, and continue doing so anytime they start to make technological progress towards something many of us already take for granted?  Enforce the harshest economic & military sanctions we possibly can?  Keep it permanently occupied with western military forces, to make sure things go as planned?

None of those things would work.  So again, what should the solution be WHEN (Not if) they achieve the technological ability to produce their own nuclear power, and thus potentially a working nuclear weapon?


(While I certainly don't support Mr. CantPronounceHisLastName, we have to keep certain things in perspective.  We did overthrow their democratically elected system of government back in the 50's, in order to ensure our own oil security.  And we did accidentally shoot down one of their civilian airliners.  And we did launch a few Tomahawks into Iraq, courtesy of Iranian airspace - without asking permission first.  And the list goes on and on. 

So while I DO NOT SUPPORT him & his sh*t disturbing rhetoric, we do have to understand they have a reasonable right to view us with a paranoid eye too, and take steps they feel are necessary to ensure their own self defense...even if their reasons are misguided.)

You said you didn't want to troll the thread, then, immediately, come out with a ridiculous, inflammatory statement like that.

It's where I stopped reading your post.

 

[Nemo888]

Nuclear weapons are irrational. Simply agree that no one has or uses them. Germ warfare is more effective and won't cause mass extinctions and irreversible damage. Pakistan and North Korea proves that having nukes stops bullying by superpowers. I'd rather die in honorable battle and leave my irradiated corpse in my enemies territory than be so cowardly and inhuman to use them.

Israel is insane. They need to either wipe out the Palestinians, give them a country or integrate them. Their population grows every year.

Our best course would be to apologize for our exploitation of the Middle East and move on. Inventing sneaky plans to explain to ourselves why our oil is under their sand is not convincing anyone.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Nuclear weapons are irrational. Simply agree that no one has or uses them. Germ warfare is more effective and won't cause mass extinctions and irreversible damage. Pakistan and North Korea proves that having nukes stops bullying by superpowers. I'd rather die in honorable battle and leave my irradiated corpse in my enemies territory than be so cowardly and inhuman to use them.

Israel is insane. They need to either wipe out the Palestinians, give them a country or integrate them. Their population grows every year.

Our best course would be to apologize for our exploitation of the Middle East and move on. Inventing sneaky plans to explain to ourselves why our oil is under their sand is not convincing anyone.

This is, quite possibly, your least coherent post.  Ever.  And that is saying something.

 

[Journeyman]

This is, quite possibly, your least coherent post.  Ever.  And that is saying something.

It does reaffirm though why he's on <ignore>  I could have blissfully missed it had you not quoted it.  :nod:

 

[cupper]

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, and I'm certainly not trying to "troll" the thread at all...

BUT...

Why do we still care about all of this crap in the middle east??  I remember listening to the news & talking about this kind of stuff with my parents when I was 10yrs old.  I'm 30 now for crying out loud - and you know what's changed??  Not a whole lot.

Iran hates Israel, we all know that.  Israel is looking for any excuse it can to turn its regional adversaries into dust.  Thus the constant and never ending political tension, stroked & relit by parties in all of the countries involved - sometimes, including Israel. 

Will Iran ever achieve the "capability" to produce a nuclear weapon?  In my opinion, its inevitable. 

The rest of the world has had nuclear power & nuclear knowledge for approximately 70 years now.  The rest of the world has had this knowledge for so long, and applied this knowledge for so long, that it has become relatively mainstream for us.  Nuclear powered aircraft carriers, submarines - cities & entire regions powered by nuclear power plants - nuclear powered satellites, etc etc.

So if the rest of the world has an active working knowledge of how to apply nuclear power to everyday life - is it really reasonable for us to assume that Iran "may" get it sometime soonish?  My personal opinion, its a silly argument of inevitability. 

The real question should be - what does the rest of the world do, once they do achieve their goal?  Level it back to the stoneage, and continue doing so anytime they start to make technological progress towards something many of us already take for granted?  Enforce the harshest economic & military sanctions we possibly can?  Keep it permanently occupied with western military forces, to make sure things go as planned?

None of those things would work.  So again, what should the solution be WHEN (Not if) they achieve the technological ability to produce their own nuclear power, and thus potentially a working nuclear weapon?


(While I certainly don't support Mr. CantPronounceHisLastName, we have to keep certain things in perspective.  We did overthrow their democratically elected system of government back in the 50's, in order to ensure our own oil security.  And we did accidentally shoot down one of their civilian airliners.  And we did launch a few Tomahawks into Iraq, courtesy of Iranian airspace - without asking permission first.  And the list goes on and on. 

So while I DO NOT SUPPORT him & his sh*t disturbing rhetoric, we do have to understand they have a reasonable right to view us with a paranoid eye too, and take steps they feel are necessary to ensure their own self defense...even if their reasons are misguided.)

Ignoring the obvious ignorant rhetoric on Israeli intents, your diatribe is still full of ill informed statements.

To make the argument of the rest of the world having nuclear knowledge and power for the past 70 years so why shouldn't Iran is to ignore the years of history prior to the '79 Revolution. Iran has had some form of nuclear program since the Eisenhower era program "Atoms for Peace". In fact, their first nuclear power plant which came on line in 2011 had started construction in the mid '70's, with one reactor at 85% completion when the Islamic Revolution took place. They've had a research reactor for many years, that had to shut down after the Revolution due to a lack of HEU fuel when the US cut off exports. Only after Argentina began supplying 20% enriched material were they able to start it up again.

Had the Revolution not taken place when it did, Iran was working towards building quite a few nuclear reactors to make the country energy self-sufficient under The Shah's policies for a future when oil had finally run out. All with the backing of the US and European allies.

No one is trying to keep Iran from developing it's own domestic nuclear energy program. What the US, and the Western governments are trying to stop is development of a nuclear weapon. A country can have a domestic nuclear energy program without proceeding to the development of weaponized technologies. However Iran has shown a propensity for researching and developing technologies solely related to weapons development (triggers, high level enrichment, miniaturization, delivery systems technology). A scary proposition for a country that has demonstrated its desire to become teh dominant regional power, and has been proven to outsource to proxies and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.

 

[cupper]

Nuclear weapons are irrational. Simply agree that no one has or uses them. Germ warfare is more effective and won't cause mass extinctions and irreversible damage. Pakistan and North Korea proves that having nukes stops bullying by superpowers. I'd rather die in honorable battle and leave my irradiated corpse in my enemies territory than be so cowardly and inhuman to use them.

Israel is insane. They need to either wipe out the Palestinians, give them a country or integrate them. Their population grows every year.

Our best course would be to apologize for our exploitation of the Middle East and move on. Inventing sneaky plans to explain to ourselves why our oil is under their sand is not convincing anyone.

This is just ...  :facepalm:

Umm... :dunno:

:not-again:

 

[Nemo888]

Under what conditions can you use a bomb with a yield of 475 thousand tons of TNT that would not be a war crime? I see war as difficult to avoid and sometimes inevitable, but I do not see the need for nuclear weapons. They serve little military purpose. Threatening mutual extinction is not a rational argument. Either no one has them or everyone will eventually. WMD's that reduce the number of humans without destroying the rest of the life and resources on the planet are more rational. Resource scarcity, often spurred by overpopulation, will be what the next wars are about. Going back to biological weapons makes more sense then doubling down on the scorched earth policies of nuclear war. Both are evil, but one is more likely to have two losers. History needs a winner for civilization to continue. Often it didn't matter who the winner was in the long run, just that there was one.

Israel is making things worse with the Palestinians and losing the battle to control the occupied territories. Without American aid they would already have had to deal with the problem. In 2016 there will be as many Palestinians as Israelis. After that date Jews are a minority. So giving them a state of their own needs to be done sooner rather than later. After 2016 Palestinians want integration and will no longer accept a two state solution. Israel's inability to see the obvious consequences of the status quo is irrational.

 

[George Wallace]

Under what conditions can you use a bomb with a yield of 475 thousand tons of TNT that would not be a war crime? I see war as difficult to avoid and sometimes inevitable, but I do not see the need for nuclear weapons. They serve little military purpose. Threatening mutual extinction is not a rational argument. Either no one has them or everyone will eventually. WMD's that reduce the number of humans without destroying the rest of the life and resources on the planet are more rational. Resource scarcity, often spurred by overpopulation, will be what the next wars are about. Going back to biological weapons makes more sense then doubling down on the scorched earth policies of nuclear war. Both are evil, but one is more likely to have two losers. History needs a winner for civilization to continue. Often it didn't matter who the winner was in the long run, just that there was one.

Israel is making things worse with the Palestinians and losing the battle to control the occupied territories. Without American aid they would already have had to deal with the problem. In 2016 there will be as many Palestinians as Israelis. After that date Jews are a minority. So giving them a state of their own needs to be done sooner rather than later. After 2016 Palestinians want integration and will no longer accept a two state solution. Israel's inability to see the obvious consequences of the status quo is irrational.

Obviously you are "mad".  Your logic is that of a madman.  Only a madman would suggest and condone biological weapons.  Weapons that would kill indiscriminately in the most horrible of ways, in some cases for years, making areas just as uninhabitable as if you used nuclear weapons. 

 

[Nemo888]

Only unusable to humans with no damage to the natural resources. I did not say chemical weapons. More like the things the biopreparat made back in the day that are still sitting in a freezer somewhere.

 

[George Wallace]

You obviously are not knowledgeable on this subject.

 

[Nemo888]

The biopreparat smallpox deployed in Cuba is one the worst kept secrets around. They say it kills in three hours. The pathogens were deployed during the Cold War and tons of them produced. Biological weapons are nuts, but nukes are worse IMO. I would rather have neither. The Russians have extensive capabilities for producing and deploying viral weapons. If we don't consider this we will have no defensive capabilities.

 

[George Wallace]

The biopreparat smallpox deployed in Cuba is one the worst kept secrets around. They say it kills in three hours. The pathogens were deployed during the Cold War and tons of them produced. Biological weapons are nuts, but nukes are worse IMO. I would rather have neither. The Russians have extensive capabilities for producing and deploying viral weapons. If we don't consider this we will have no defensive capabilities.

As I said, you are not very knowledgeable on this subject, so drop it.

 

[Nemo888]

Seen.

 

[kevincanada]

The Russians having smallpox?  This is not new or secret.  Pretty sure the Americans have it also plus another nation if my memory serves me.  We are talking a decade since I read about it therefore my memory is rough.  They were kept for research purposes.  There is sister pox viruses to the smallpox.  Again if I remember correctly the smallpox virus can be mixed up in a lab by doctors to treat a outbreak of the other pox viruses if it ever happened.  Back before smallpox was eradicated.  People use to immunize themselves to it using cowpox.  Once the immunize system fought off the Cowpox,  Smallpox couldn't hurt you.

Don't take this is 100% correct.  It was a long time ago when I read about it.

 

[a_majoor]

Kevin, the smallpox being referenced here is the stockpile of weaponized biological agents creted by the (then Soviet) institute "Biopreparat".  Its existence was exposed by events such as the Anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk and revalations by defectors such as  Vladimir Pasechnik and Colonel Kanatjan Alibekov. Efforts to have the system opened for international inspection were met by denials and evasions, eventually some facilities were open for international inspection but most of the equipment had been gutted, leaving behind troubling evidence like giant fermentation tanks which were obviously designed for industrial scale production. Observed tests of Soviet ICBM warheads that did not behave like the conventional nuclear warheads led to suspicion these were refrigerated delivery vehicles to allow the dispersion of biological agents.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this story is there is no clean "end"; the scientists who worked for Biopreparat were dispersed (many going to work for other nations) and no accounting for whatever stockpiles of biological weaponry that were created was ever done. Where this stuff is, how secure it is and what condition it may be today in are all unknown.

Like George said, dispersion of biological weaponry is irrisponsible and totally beyond the pale; bioweapons can contaminate areas for centuries (some British test sites for Anthrax used in the 1950's are off limits until nearly the end of this century due to fears the Anthrax spores remain in the soil) and spread in totally unpredictable ways.

 

[George Wallace]

Suffield is but one example of an area where various agents tested as early as the World Wars, still persist today.

 

[Nemo888]

The Russians having smallpox?  This is not new or secret.  Pretty sure the Americans have it also plus another nation if my memory serves me.  We are talking a decade since I read about it therefore my memory is rough.  They were kept for research purposes.  There is sister pox viruses to the smallpox.  Again if I remember correctly the smallpox virus can be mixed up in a lab by doctors to treat a outbreak of the other pox viruses if it ever happened.  Back before smallpox was eradicated.  People use to immunize themselves to it using cowpox.  Once the immunize system fought off the Cowpox,  Smallpox couldn't hurt you.

Don't take this is 100% correct.  It was a long time ago when I read about it.

I may not have been trained by the army in biological warfare but my mom was a world class virologists and mycologist. She made many engineered strains for use in vaccines and her statistical analysis models are still in use today. (and possibly the yeast in your beer if you live near Calgary) Weaponized viruses are immune to known vaccines. Resistance to known vaccines is one of the first things tested. Smallpox was only one of the first in a long line of weaponized organisms. Russian weaponized polio sounds much worse and that may still be in missiles pointed at Florida for all I know. The biopreparat produced(produces?) literally metric tons of organisms. They were sophisticated enough to make vaccines to protect their troops from the weaponized versions. So the long term contamination problem was rectified for the winners at least.

When the Soviet Union fell apart some of the scientists said of the 1972 bioweapons treaty, "We thought you were lying so we never stopped our program."  Since we fired all our bioweapons developers in the 1970's we had almost no knowledge base to defend against these weapons. The Americans paid the Russian experts huge paychecks to get them up to speed.

My point was bioweapons are madness, but nukes are even less rational. No one should have bioweapons or nukes. Defending nukes makes less sense than defending bioweapons. Both target civilians and are a war crime in a convenient delivery system.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm not clear what you are getting at Nemo. Are you saying the Iranians also have a bioweapons program? I have not seen any evidence of that to date.

Are you saying the Iranians should not be developing Nuclear weapons? This sentiment is a bit too late.

Are you saying they should not use them? Virtually every weapon that actually works has been used in war (bioweapons were pretty popular in the ancient world and into the middle ages, and the native peoples of North and South America were decimated by diseases knowingly and unknowingly spread among the population), and only the winners get to say what is "moral" and what is not. (one can only imagine the sort of world we would be living in if the Axis powers or USSR had won their respective conflicts with the West.)

Your arguments are pretty unclear, to say the least.

 

[Nemo888]

My point is that if bioweapons are "madness" what does that make nukes? Many viral agents kill only humans. Leaving all resources and infrastructure intact minus most of the populace. Your troops can be inoculated against the agents. As can your settlers to the newly depopulated land. Just like how the United States was founded after smallpox eradicated the natives.

Weapons of mass destruction are immoral. Some, like nukes, are not even rational. At best in a major nuclear exchange they give you ability to make the other guy lose too. They serve almost no purpose militarily. Having a club that has them saying others can't is doomed to failure. If we are serious about not nuking each other till everything glows NO ONE should have them.