Would a Nuclear Iran be so bad?

Although I don't generally like the idea of nuclear proliferation, a nuclear Iran could act as stabilizing force in the Middle East.
Thoughts?

 

A potentially nuclear Iran makes the Middle East nervous. There would be a mad dash for non-nuclear countries to become nuclear. It would be anything but stabilizing.

 

Israel already IS a nuclear nation, as is Saudi Arabia. Pakistan's a nuclear nation, etc. Most of those nations have been successfully brought or allied with Washington(Tel Aviv's puppet at this point). This isn't about Middle Eastern "stability".

This is about Iran's viability as a Middle Eastern power, which would effectively be another 'F U' to the supremacist theocracy that likes to pretend it's a democracy. In all meaning, Iran is no threat to America, they're not trying to bring about the "12th Iman". They're simply progressing as a Nation, while a nation that's used to bullying an entire region feels threatened that it can no longer push it's weight around, nor can it be brought into the delusion that it's 'God's chosen people.'

For 21 years, Netanyahu's been screaming to the mountain tops about a Nuclear Iran. Why don't we give him the old English verbiage: The First Amendment doesn't count if you scream fire in a crowded theater

 

A nuclear Iran is certainly a threat to the U.S. Hezbollah is a worldwide terrorist organization. Ever hear of the Middle East-South America connection? Think a little bit further. The U.S.' southern border is vulnerable for infiltration and attack. But, you're more concerned about Iran's position in the world and in their region than the very country you live in.

And since when does Saudi Arabia have nuclear weapons?

 

I've heard of it, do you think there'll be able to transfer nukes over an entire sea? Furthermore, without us looking? The Hezbollah-South American connection gives us a valid reason(excuse) to cultivate that territory and make it a apart of the American Empire.

I'm not concerned for Iran's position in the world or their region, that's such a miserable interpretation of what I wrote that I'll be sure to make my words very distinctively clear to you in the future. What I show some express for concern for is Jewish hegemony in the Middle East, and how they've used the American Empire to meet those ends. I worry about the varying Middle Eastern Sects that will target the Homeland for that reason.

Showing concern for interference in Iran's development is merely a consequence of the bigger Middle Eastern problems with the warmongering parties that's agitating formerly neutral states.

 

The CBP doesn't check every ship moving through the waterways. And after Pearl Harbor and 9/11, Americans shouldn't doubt the quote-unquote "impossible".

1) Monroe doctrine
2) We're not an empire

1) You said, "This is about Iran's viability as a Middle Eastern power" and "They're simply progressing as a Nation" all the while getting in digs at the U.S.
2) We've already been attacked because of our alliance with Israel.

Who did you consider neutral?

And you didn't answer. When did Saudi Arabia get nukes?

 

Due in no small part to US and UK government assistance, Pakistan and Israel both have nuclear weapons, as does India. The region is already filled with nukes, more so than North America or Central Europe.

Iran is quite right to seek nuclear technology. If the roles were reversed the Americans would be crying for defensive nuclear technology to protect their sovereignty and continued existence. The Iranians should call the West's bluff. Withdraw from the NPT and openly express its desire to pursue nuclear technology as a deterrent.

 

If our Navy cannot protect our water space, then we don't need to fear nukes. Just a nicely timed Torpedo on our shores can cause some real damage in terms of starving Americans. Wouldn't that be called "soft targets"? Yeah, I fear that more than nukes.

To this effect, as a Third Positionist, I renounce the Monroe Doctrine. It was only put into place at a time where we were vulnerable to the Brits. We simply cannot leave ourselves vulnerable to the South American territories, and at the same time by acquiring further territories we can further increase our productivity and protect ourselves from threats.

The American Empire is the ruler of the Western Hemisphere, it's of our geopolitical ignorance as Americans not to recognize that fact.

Geopolitical observations is not a "dig" at the U.S Our being raped in this so-called alliance is an easily observable fact. Billions of dollars in U.S military and formerly financial aid. And what has it done for us? As you noted, the Empire's at a security risk for supporting an apartheid regime in the Middle East.

http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/special-relationship-israel

Read and enjoy. The very first thing as a Nationalist President, I'd like to rid myself of this so-called "ally" who has threatened us domestically, geopolitically and abroad. No nation betrays us more openly, and does so without fear of the consequences. The American Empire will forever be independent, that's my foreign policy position.

Iran's been neutral for over 230+ years(if we believe that their "connections" to armed Guerrilla armies make them non-neutral, the same can be said about us).

This is about the Iraq war for example:

http://byeways.net/webreadings/readingcontent/1WORLD_web/3912.htm

I made a slight mistake in saying the Saudis had nukes(Though apparently the Iran deal may make them go for one). But the Saudis are pretty much in the same position as financially strangling Washington, having several connections to the 9/11 attacks, the Bush/Saudi connection. As well as their stranglehold on Bahrain. If the Saudis are good for anything, they declared they would give financial aid to the Egyptians. In which case, it allows us to renounce the violence and that region entirely. But I hold the Saudis in the same regard as the Israeli State.

Honestly, neutrality from that entire hell hole of a region.

 

No Iran shouldent have nukes or nuclear power.

The very idea makes me very angry. Iran is not rational. Saudi isnt either but they arent trying for nuclear power/bombs only a purchase BECAUSE OF Iran. Nuclear projects are very dangerous despite what you here in propaganda videos. Iran will need to guard nuclear waste, and the nuclear power plant, and if they ever went to war and the plant got damaged welcome to Chernobyl. Imagine if Syria had nuclear power, it would be fukoshima all over again I promise you. Nobody in Europe or the Arab region wants Iran to have anything nuclear. Israel is not the only factor here.

 

…which is the surest way to get obliterated…

 

When you stand up to a bully there's always the risk of being beat up.

Personally I don't think going down the nuclear path is the wisest route, but if Iran really feels otherwise it shouldn't let a little world policing stop them. Iran has 545,000 active personnel (and 1,800,000 reserves), this is no Afghanistan, they have a serious conventional force. Nuking a country for merely possessing nuclear technology would be so unspeakable as to be considered off the table. Do actual American and British people (not their rulers) really want another Vietnam? Another Eastern Front? It's all good and well when you're picking on the little kids, but with Iran you're stepping up to the big leagues.

I'm so sick of this imperialist crap. If the West wants to be respected in the world community it needs to start giving other nations the same sovereignty it reserves for itself. Police your own society, not mine.

 

Depends on if you think nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is a good idea or not for your childrens future. We've seen what terrorists can do with airliners. Not to worry, Im positive terrorists would never use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. or its allies if given the chance. They don't hate us that much right?

 

No, absolutely wrong, it would have the opposite effect. Maybe you'd like to see Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons too.

 

I've yet to hear of a historical example where nuclear weapons DEstablized a conflict. India and Pakistan have more reason to destroy one another than any two countries on Earth, not only do they have have conflicting geopolitical interests and historical grievances, but they also have a religious element to their animosity; Muslim monotheists vs Hindu polytheists....and yet, the countries are still here, why? because of the stabilizing effect of nuclear weapons. See M.A.D for more details.

I would still sleep soundly if the Saudis got nukes, assuming they don't already have them that is

 

If they had them the Israelis would out them.

 

Iran is our historical enemy with mutual animosity going back to over 2500 years , yes today they are targeting the hordes but hordes always have a tiny lifespan . I am worried about a future where Iran has superior weapons.

 

Perhaps, but seeing as the Saudis are allies to the US(wahabism aside) I fail to see why Israel would do that

 

Israel has nukes, so it's kind of hard to suggest Iran shouldn't have them.

- - - Updated - - -

Iran associates with terrorists, but so do we.

So, if we're using this argument, I guess that means we need to get rid of our nukes.

 

Wikileaks showed us that the Saudis and the Israelis are actually a lot closer than you would think. They both hate Iran, so it's actually not likely that they would do this.

 

If the United States wanted to destroy its enemies with nuclear weapons we would have done so already. Do you like to run the risk of your children being vaporized or not in the hands of people who wish America to be gone? I don't. Also weren't you lefties in the second amendment threads the ones throwing around the nuclear weapons argument? Yet here you are stating the exact opposite. A gun magazine containing extra bullets in the hands of legal law abiding gun owners is BAD! but the same people think a nuclear armed IRAN is not only ok but they seem to want it.

 

I was joking.

 

Iran is not a stable country. Not only that, but its particular branch of Islam, shi'ite sees the world ending in a war between believers and non believers. Secondly, they want to destroy all jews and remove them from the land. Basically Iran would have nuclear weapons, so Israel and Saudi Arabia would need them. All hell breaks lose. Kinda like the cold war, but controlled by even more religious nuts.

 

Nuclear weapons are not in and of themselves an inherently stabilizing factor. The fact that these weapons haven't been used yet gives no cause for comfort, we've just been lucky so far. When more countries have nuclear weapons the odds of a nuclear war obviously increase.

 

No. Iran and the Saudis hate each other's guts. If Iran gets nukes, the Saudis are going to want them too. And that is something I wouldn't like to see.

 

Granted, but lets consider the options. One is that we invade Iran under the pretense of stopping nuclear proliferation. China and Russia, both permanent chairs on the UN security council and nuclear powers themselves, have shown staunch support for the current Iranian regime(though not necessarily their weapons program). So the only way we'd be able to 'invade' with any internationally recognized legitimacy would be on the pretext that we're only there for the nukes and not regime change. This is an extremely complicated option, unrealistic, and also likely to fail, therefore I consider it to be off the table. Another option would be to unilaterally attack, occupy, and 'nation-build' Iran with a new US friendly regime that will abandon any nuclear aspirations. As I said earlier this would not go well AT ALL with China and Russia and might create a whole new set of problems for ourselves, this time with bigger, more powerful countries. For those reasons I don't consider option 2 an option at all either. Option three is that we come to terms with the reality that if Iran wants to go nuclear there's little we can do about it(that wouldn't seriously hurt us in the process), and to look for some sort of compromise. I consider that to be our best option at this point.