Does Iran's Nuclear Deal Increase the Risk of Middle East Proliferation?

In summary: I think that the demographic differences are not nearly as significant as political ones.From stats hard to manipulate - Iran fertility rate fell below 2.1 already in 2001. (Sure, in 1979 it was 6.4) Or more than 60% of university students are women. I have problems to believe that's a really ultra conservative, fanatically Islamic society. Because nowadays such stats look more like taken from a Western country.I don't think that is a significant difference. The percentage of women in university is high in Iran because women have the right to education. In 1979, when the Islamic Revolution happened, the fertility rate was high because women were not allowed to have a education. After the Revolution, the fertility
  • #1
harmony5
73
1
So nuclear experts out there tell me does this deal make it very difficult for Iran to make the bomb?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This deal will enable Iran to have a bunch of nukes within our lifetimes.
 
  • #3
Dr. Courtney said:
This deal will enable Iran to have a bunch of nukes within our lifetimes.

I find it all baffling. I was against going into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, my stance on Iran would have been 'You have 14 days to stop all nuclear research or we are going to bomb the facilities and your regime into oblivion.' Zero negotiations...zero.

The only logic I see on this is 'perhaps' Iran would have aligned themselves more with Russia and China. This move heads that off for now.

At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.
 
  • #4
Have the actual terms of the deal been released yet?
 
  • #5
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf here are some of the details russ_watters
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
russ_watters said:
Have the actual terms of the deal been released yet?

Exactly. I'd like to read them before making up my mind. Or even having an opinion.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #7
tom aaron said:
I find it all baffling. I was against going into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, my stance on Iran would have been 'You have 14 days to stop all nuclear research or we are going to bomb the facilities and your regime into oblivion.' Zero negotiations...zero.

The only logic I see on this is 'perhaps' Iran would have aligned themselves more with Russia and China. This move heads that off for now.

At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.

Would this "preventing religious whackos from getting nukes" involve bombing for example Chasid districts in Israel? (or as minimum plan destroying Israel nuclear weapons in case of too religious party forming a gov after next election?) I mean because of quite serious burnt out of Islamic revolution in Iran, I don't see in A.D. 2015 some huge chasm in number religious freaks between Israeli and Iranian societies. Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies, however its being subject to change / very serious friction underneath.
 
  • #8
Czcibor said:
Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies,..
Why don't you consider that to be a significant difference?
 
  • #9
Czcibor said:
Would this "preventing religious whackos from getting nukes" involve bombing for example Chasid districts in Israel? (or as minimum plan destroying Israel nuclear weapons in case of too religious party forming a gov after next election?) I mean because of quite serious burnt out of Islamic revolution in Iran, I don't see in A.D. 2015 some huge chasm in number religious freaks between Israeli and Iranian societies. Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies, however its being subject to change / very serious friction underneath.

How long has Israel had nukes without using them?

How long do you think the militant Muslim extremists in Iran will have nukes without using them?
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #10
Dr. Courtney said:
How long has Israel had nukes without using them?

How long do you think the militant Muslim extremists in Iran will have nukes without using them?
You mean coolheaded Ayatollahs? Or maybe semi-democratically elected parliament where is normal left wing or Jewish member of parliament? They seek for nukes from the same reasons that Jews - deterrence against surrounding hostile Sunni Muslims. The difference is that just in case they can't call US support, but after conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq (in case of Iraq on made up casus belli), they may be a bit paranoiac concerning US intentions. (honestly, shouldn't they be paranoiac?)

From stats hard to manipulate - Iran fertility rate fell below 2.1 already in 2001. (Sure, in 1979 it was 6.4) Or more than 60% of university students are women. I have problems to believe that's a really ultra conservative, fanatically Islamic society. Because nowadays such stats look more like taken from a Western country.

russ_watters said:
Why don't you consider that to be a significant difference?
By the time they get it the theocratic character of the regime would crumble even further, so the difference would be quite small. Additionally, if the benchmark is a country like Israel, then in spite of political alignment Israel is not so extraordinary a Western secular republic. Let's forget even bthe high level of militarization, we may blame it on enemies (but we would have to give the same benefit to Iran... Coup of 1953... Supporting Iraq with satellite photos to make chemical weapons targeting easier...) Let's look at Israel - secular marriage? Nope. ID card with ones religion stated? Yup. Not granting Israeli citizenship to a holocaust survivor solely because he adopted faith of a family that was hiding him (Roman Catholic)? Yup.

The only thing with nuclear Iran that I'm worried with is starting a nuclear arms race with such nice countries joining it like Egypt or Saudi Arabia... There in case of regime collapse it could be indeed unpleasant.
 
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
... even having an opinion.
Seriously, all, could we at least look it over before we set our opinions in concrete?
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #12
Would the Ayatola Nutbar or other officials use a nuke?

No idea...thus why they should be stopped now. Not worth the future risk.

As for using one. There are circumstances in which stable, sane leaders would...including the USA. And...they did and would again if the situation warranted it.

Crazies Think of all the crazy leaders of countries in the past hundred years. There will be equally as many in the next hundred.

Perhaps there is another logic to all this. If (more likely 'when') Iran doesn't fulfill it's obligations, the Israelis will act militarily. Military action will be seen to have more legitimacy. Threatening to destroy Israel, stalling on inspections, etc. The green light for Israel to strike hard. In the aftermath of an Israeli strike there would be complete support of the US President and Congress...some statement like 'regrettable but necessary'.
 
  • #13
tom aaron said:
Would the Ayatola Nutbar or other officials use a nuke?

No idea...thus why they should be stopped now. Not worth the future risk.

As for using one. There are circumstances in which stable, sane leaders would...including the USA. And...they did and would again if the situation warranted it.

Crazies Think of all the crazy leaders of countries in the past hundred years. There will be equally as many in the next hundred.

Perhaps there is another logic to all this. If (more likely 'when') Iran doesn't fulfill it's obligations, the Israelis will act militarily. Military action will be seen to have more legitimacy. Threatening to destroy Israel, stalling on inspections, etc. The green light for Israel to strike hard. In the aftermath of an Israeli strike there would be complete support of the US President and Congress...some statement like 'regrettable but necessary'.
Does this idea of bombing country to prevent it having nuclear bomb because it may have in unspecified future a crazy leadership applies also to Israel?

Because you know, somewhere between increasing number of Hasidic Jews who are subsidized to study holy scriptures and new settlement on West Bank (what the hell for they are built for?) I would not give Israel leadership sanity top grades...

(Sorry, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...)
 
  • Like
Likes HossamCFD
  • #14
This might be of interest.
Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150609/1023105032.html#ixzz3cVgXlmj3
tom aaron said:
At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.
It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"
 
  • #15
adjacent said:
This might be of interest.
Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs
[link removed according to a policy of not boosting in google Russian propaganda]
It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"
I really doubt that "Sputnik" pass any test as reliable source. Any more reasonable source also say so?

Taking it at face value - nuclear armed Israel has no point in researching dirty bombs for offensive reasons. No idea what are rules for dirty bombs, but in case of chemical weapons countries are allowed to produce small quantities of them for testing their own defensive equipment.

Greater Israel? Come on...
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #16
I haven't checked the deal in detail and so I haven't yet formed an opinion. My general impression is that I'd be very alarmed if Iran acquired nuclear bombs. However I'd be less worried about Iranian leadership using them (I'm of the opinion that the leadership are sensible players, most of the fanaticism is for local public consumption. Also I'd be surprised if Iran remained a theocracy 20 years from now. I can't say that about any other middle eastern theocracy). My main worry would be about the nuclear arms race that would follow and the potential Israeli pre-emptive strike, both would be disastrous for the region.

I quite like this discussion to keep going and not be terminated by the admins so I'd suggest keeping the Israel discussion to a minimum.
 
  • #17
HossamCFD said:
I quite like this discussion to keep going and not be terminated by the admins so I'd suggest keeping the Israel discussion to a minimum.
Yes that would be better.
 
  • #18
Good point concerning overemphasising Israel here. Let's look at other players:
-Saudi Arabia - a sworn enemy of Iran, fighting with them proxy wars all over region. Theoretically an important ally of the US, in practice export of Wahhabi Islam is not interest... not only the US, but any civilized country. I don't know... maybe the US should reassure them by selling them some extra guns...
-Russia - theoretically a not bad friend of Iran, just sold them some SAM kit. Some bad tongues were saying that in order to boost hard liner faction within Iran in order to make them able to defend nuclear sites against air strikes, thus unwilling to forge a compromise. Because a deal can be really dangerous for Russia - Iran that's no longer under sanctions would export plenty of natural gas to Europe, which would seriously hit Russian main export product. In worst case scenario Iran may not only be a source of gas, but also a transit country for Turkmenistan.

HossamCFD said:
most of the fanaticism is for local public consumption.
And masses were celebrating making an intrusive agreement the Great Satan? I hope that at least they were not chanting "Deal to America" ;) I think that already demand inside Iran is somewhat limited and that is more a problem of some kind of inertia of official ideology.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Czcibor said:
By the time they get it the theocratic character of the regime would crumble even further, so the difference would be quite small.
So...you're saying that you hope by the time Iran gets nukes it has moderated enough not to use them? And that logic doesn't scare you?
Additionally, if the benchmark is a country like Israel, then in spite of political alignment Israel is not so extraordinary a Western secular republic. Let's forget even bthe high level of militarization, we may blame it on enemies (but we would have to give the same benefit to Iran... Coup of 1953... Supporting Iraq with satellite photos to make chemical weapons targeting easier...) Let's look at Israel - secular marriage? Nope. ID card with ones religion stated? Yup. Not granting Israeli citizenship to a holocaust survivor solely because he adopted faith of a family that was hiding him (Roman Catholic)? Yup.

[separate post]
Does this idea of bombing country to prevent it having nuclear bomb because it may have in unspecified future a crazy leadership applies also to Israel?

Because you know, somewhere between increasing number of Hasidic Jews who are subsidized to study holy scriptures and new settlement on West Bank (what the hell for they are built for?) I would not give Israel leadership sanity top grades...

(Sorry, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...)
What does any of that have to do with anything? You're not seriously considering Israel and Iran to be equal in the "responsibility" required to not use nukes, are you? I find it hard to take this line of discussion seriously. Just for funzies though, here's a top 20 list of Iranian threats (mostly threats to annihilate Israel): http://www.buzzfeed.com/jerusalemcenter/sworn-to-destruction-20-threats-iranian-leaders-m-hys5
The only thing with nuclear Iran that I'm worried with is starting a nuclear arms race with such nice countries joining it like Egypt or Saudi Arabia... There in case of regime collapse it could be indeed unpleasant.
You aren't worried about Iran using nukes if it gets them? Are you worried about Iran giving nukes to Syria or a terrorist organization (either on purpose or due to an extremist element stealing them)?
 
  • #20
adjacent said:
This might be of interest.
Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150609/1023105032.html#ixzz3cVgXlmj3
It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"

Huh? Israel has over two hundred nuclear weapons and precision delivery systems. Not exactly a secret.
Like the USA, Israel will use a nuke if necessary. Period.

Unlike Obama, Netanyahu will not 'hope' that 'maybe' the Regime that vows to destroy Israel will stop its progress towards acquiring a nuke.

As for the thread not getting sidetracked? Not at all. Obama knows that Israel will definitely attack Iran. 100% certain 'if' there is no legitimate reduction of Iran's nuclear ambition. It's all about Israel and security. The US knows that all hell could break lose if Israel attacks Iran.
 
  • #21
russ_watters said:
So...you're saying that you hope by the time Iran gets nukes it has moderated enough not to use them? And that logic doesn't scare you?
Not specially. I see plenty of countries that region that are moderate enough to hopefully not use them... like Pakistan, Russia or Israel. (with worst grades going to Pakistan, I mean in case of Iran both contemporary regime and gov that could form after a populous uprise would be OK, and I can't say the same in case of political change in Pakistan) But we're talking about bombing Iran not Pakistan, right?

What does any of that have to do with anything? You're not seriously considering Israel and Iran to be equal in the "responsibility" required to not use nukes, are you? I find it hard to take this line of discussion seriously. Just for funzies though, here's a top 20 list of Iranian threats (mostly threats to annihilate Israel): http://www.buzzfeed.com/jerusalemcenter/sworn-to-destruction-20-threats-iranian-leaders-m-hys5
Equally? I grade Israel a bit higher in responsibility, but not extraordinary much.

Do you think it's more serious threat that Regan's: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."? (If you are curious - SU leadership was really worried by Reagan posturing and ordered its spies to look carefully for any signals that he starts WW3). I mean in the case Ahmadinejad it seems more being a sexied up translation.

Anyway if we're comparing rhetoric shouldn't we also compare Israeli rhetoric? Concerning bombing Iran and so on?

You aren't worried about Iran using nukes if it gets them? Are you worried about Iran giving nukes to Syria or a terrorist organization (either on purpose or due to an extremist element stealing them)?
Not specially. Too expensive toy to give plus rational enough to understand that would be kept liable in form of massive nuclear retaliation.

Stealing from them? That's an interesting argument... Why such regimes should be more vulnerable to than any other?
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd and HossamCFD
  • #22
Czcibor said:
And masses were celebrating making an intrusive agreement the Great Satan?
The public is keen on lifting the sanctions. Besides, you can always spin the deal and make it appear as a national achievement. Especially that the leadership has always maintained they never intended to build a bomb anyway.

Czcibor said:
I hope that at least they were not chanting "Deal to America" ;)
Some of them were.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33578942
BBC said:
'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' slogans were chanted during Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus in spite of the nuclear deal agreed earlier this week
 
  • #23
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf here are some of the specifics of the deal. Let's try to keep more of a technical rather then a political discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
harmony5 said:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf here are some of the specifics of the deal. Let's try to keep more of a technical rather then a political discussion.

Again, it is political...that's the reality.

Technical...the Bible says blah, blah... It doesn't make it reality.

Reality...the Iranian regime is a terrorist state vowing death to Israel. It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

Fortunately, there will be large opposition to this in Congress. However, It will pass because Obama is a dud like Bush jr ...and 'politics', not reason will get it passed. Reason will eventually prevail once Iran, once again, starts quibbling about inspections, etc. Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
20150718_wwd000.jpg
 
  • #26
tom aaron said:
Again, it is political...that's the reality.

Technical...the Bible says blah, blah... It doesn't make it reality.

Reality...the Iranian regime is a terrorist state vowing death to Israel. It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

Fortunately, there will be large opposition to this in Congress. However, It will pass because Obama is a dud like Bush jr ...and 'politics', not reason will get it passed. Reason will eventually prevail once Iran, once again, starts quibbling about inspections, etc. Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.
By technical whether the laws of nuclear physics permit Iran to produce highly enriched uranium given the constraints of the deal.
 
  • #27
harmony5 said:
By technical whether the laws of nuclear physics permit Iran to produce highly enriched uranium given the constraints of the deal.
Actually, enrichment is about atomic physics. Nuclear comes later in how it is used.
 
  • #28
I've done some looking into this. The agreement relies less on physical inspection and more on paperwork: tracking nuclear materials and technology. My opinion is that this probably increases the probability Iran can build a single bomb, and it definitely increases the probability they can create an effective delivery system. It also probably decreases the probability that they can build ten bombs. Whether that is a positive or negative outcome is likely a matter of opinion.
 
  • #29
tom aaron said:
Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.
I'm sure it will have some support, definitely not mine though.

tom aaron said:
It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

All of the above is true. None of it is a reason to believe Iran would use the bomb against any country. The leadership has shown no evidence they are suicidal nihilists like ISIS for instance. They want to keep in power and they know full well they are going to be the first victims of using the bomb.

I don't want Iran to get the bomb but I don't think getting the bomb is enough justification for invading them and starting a major war. It seems to me things would be much better if no one in the world was allowed to have nukes rather than a few countries deciding who gets to develop them and who doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Czcibor and Astronuc
  • #30
The most significant thing that jumps out at me about this deal is that we said all along that the one key element is that the IAEA should/must have immediate (24hr at most) access to any and all facilities in Iran for verification inspection. The deal now says they can visit sites 24 DAYS after requesting to do so. This seems to me like total capitulation on our part. 24 days is a lot of time to hide anything they want to hide.

I agree that the tracking vanadium mentioned is important and helpful, but still ... 24 days ?
 
  • #31
HossamCFD said:
The leadership has shown no evidence they are suicidal nihilists like ISIS for instance. They want to keep in power and they know full well they are going to be the first victims of using the bomb. I don't want Iran to get the bomb but I don't think getting the bomb is enough justification for invading them and starting a major war.
N. Korea and Kim would be long gone, were that the case. They want one, or a dozen, they will get it (them).

The question I would like to see answered, and to which for cultural reasons (western, and Islamic) will probably never see an answer, is whether any effort was made to communicate the irreversible, expensive, eternal commitment to maintenance and security of such a weapons program, that nuclear weapons are "white elephants."
 
  • #32
Bystander said:
N. Korea and Kim would be long gone, were that the case. They want one, or a dozen, they will get it (them).

The question I would like to see answered, and to which for cultural reasons (western, and Islamic) will probably never see an answer, is whether any effort was made to communicate the irreversible, expensive, eternal commitment to maintenance and security of such a weapons program, that nuclear weapons are "white elephants."

Not sure of the point... 'Was made'. What type of answer is someone suppose to provide? What possible agreement? There are so many variables that would have to be weighed.

White elephants? Very influential white elephants.

No nuclear weapons...perhaps the Soviet Union would have invaded and seized Western Europe...perhaps the USA would have attacked Soviet ships supplying North Vietnam. How does one go back and and figure out all the potential scenarios over the last 70 years? Japan wouldn't have surrendered...what if the allies had invaded Japan and fought town to town?
 
  • #33
tom aaron said:
White elephants? Very influential white elephants.
From 1945-1949. Since then, useless.
 
  • #34
Bystander said:
The question I would like to see answered, and to which for cultural reasons (western, and Islamic) will probably never see an answer, is whether any effort was made to communicate the irreversible, expensive, eternal commitment to maintenance and security of such a weapons program, that nuclear weapons are "white elephants."

I don't imagine this was communicated strongly enough nor do I think the Iranians care that much about it. It always seemed to me that Iran was more interested in getting the world to know they're close to getting the bomb than actually getting it. It's a message to the arabs showing that being loyal friends to America won't get you anywhere whereas going head to head would force the world to reconcile with you. Though I acknowledge this might just be a biased view due to my upbringing.
tom aaron said:
No nuclear weapons...perhaps the Soviet Union would have invaded and seized Western Europe...perhaps the USA would have attacked Soviet ships supplying North Vietnam. How does one go back and and figure out all the potential scenarios over the last 70 years? Japan wouldn't have surrendered...what if the allies had invaded Japan and fought town to town?

Soviets taking over western Europe seems a bit of an exaggeration. You're right it's hard to know what would've happened. My point was that in this day and age the system of deciding who gets the bomb based on how much they like us (among other things) seems a bit arbitrary and unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Aside from the eventual level of effectiveness of the Iranian nuclear agreement, my immediate objection is that the agreement is not to be a treaty but rather an executive action by the US President. Congress has no effective role as it would in treaty confirmation. Even the pending 60 day debate in Congress is moot, as Obama goes to the UN in days to call for a release of the sanctions. The lifting of global sanctions have no quick "take back" mechanism.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
254
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top