What If Iran Announced They Had Nuclear Weapons?

  • News
  • Thread starter jhe1984
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discussed the potential scenario of Iran announcing that they have nuclear weapons, similar to what North Korea did in the past. It was noted that this claim would be met with skepticism and that Iran would likely need to provide more proof to be believed. The discussion also touched on the potential implications of such an announcement, including how it could change the dynamics of diplomatic talks and potentially lead to military action from countries like Israel and the US. Ultimately, it was acknowledged that the topic is speculative and serves little purpose to discuss.
  • #1
jhe1984
100
0
I've been thinking about this one and am not quite sure about the answer. Here's the question and scenario:

What happens if Iran were to pull a North Korea and announce rather unexpectedly that they did, indeed, have nuclear weapons, made and on the ready?

To jog memories, about a year ago, the DPRK announced that they indeed possessed nuclear weapons. They did not say how many nor did they say if or where they were deployed, but they did make a clear announcement that, yes, they did in fact have nuclear weapons. This caught a lot of people by surprise because until then the basic operating assumption was that the North Koreans were operating nuclear facilities and were certainly moving toward nuclear capabilities, but that they were not in possession of true atomic weapons. Until then, the dynamic in the negotiations was one of how to entice the DPRK to return to NPT guidelines and the previously agreed upon ROE I think worked out under Clinton (which they violated). But when they announced that they had nuclear weapons, the discussions changed from more a semi-militant tone (were DPRK to not come around) to an almost purely diplomatic framework. Of course, the DoD maintains (however crudely) contigency scenarios even for these circumstances, but once the DPRK announced that they were in fact in possession of nuclear weapons, the side-jabber and "leaked" remarks about a military solution were markedly toned down, which make sense because everything became more serious. But the interesting thing was that the RoK said that yes the DPRK claim was plausible. But that's a little strange of a confirmation since until then everyone (at least seemed as) was operating under the belief that DPRK had not yet made that leap. In short, the move worked out almost expertly for the North Koreans. It elevated them from a problem-child to a legitimate player.

What would happen were Iran to make a similar claim?

Here's what I've come up with so far:

The claim would be greeted with far more skepticism since among other things the Iranians have ostensibly been operating in the open with the IAEA (meaning that everything was by the book, even the demand that the IAEA remove its monitoring equipment, etc.). So for a claim like this to be believed, they would almost be forced to disclose more details, either where or how they'd constructed a bomb without the world knowing and/or display or demonstrate some aspects (not necessarily decisive proof though) of a claimed bomb. Yet it would still be possible.

However, the claim would most likely change the framework of the discussion in a way different from the DPRK situation, simply because they'd be a new and contentious player in a very rough neighborhood (with three or four nuclear superpowers, Iran, Israel, the US, and possibly Pakistan) in the neighborhood. The Israeli interest is clear, albeit their reaction is not. For instance, do they treat the claim as an act of war, chance it, and launch against Iran. Or do they simply rely even more fervently on diplomatic talks that have become exponentially more serious and rest with the assurance that Iran would of necessity yield to the deterrence that is an assured nuclear destruction (from NATO and the US) were Iran to launch a first-strike. I almost certainly think the second situation goes one hundred percent in the face of Israel's military (and indeed fundamental national) posture, and would thus be completely unacceptable - it'd be akin to the US putting their hopes of a Soviet launch not happening in the hands of the Canadians: outsourcing the fundamental existence of your nation.

The US would be equally threatened, as a significant portion of our armed forces would lie within range of a nuclear Iran. Well, this point is debatable on some technicalities, depending on one's assesment of nuclear-tipped Iranian missile range. Nevertheless, the US would have ample foundation to, much like Israel, view this as an act of war (nuclear war, no less) by Iran.

If it came to it, and Israel was going to launch, the US would probably launch instead, for several reasons. It'd allow Israel to maintain plausible deniability. And, more importantly, the US is most likely better equipped to do it.

Still, all hell'd break lose - even were Iran to not have nuclear missiles. The word tactical strike would be non-existent in this context.

But the realities of international media must not be underestimated. If Iran were to come out and say something to the effect like "yes we have nuclear weapons - however, under no circumstances would we use them preemptively" then the US might really be in a pickle. It might be enough to come right up to, but not overstep, the int'l supported US line for a near-unaminous consensus that this was indeed an act of war.

But most crucially, it'd be very unlikely - and probably a large gamble - to operate under the assumption that, having made this announcement, that the Iranians were bluffing.

Anyway, I ask for your take on, were this to happen, what would realistically follow.

And in all respect, I do not mean for this to be a repeat of the "would the US use nuclear weapons against Iran thread". The assumption, whether you buy it or not, is that the US would follow through with their nuclear posture which states in no uncertain terms that it is prepared to meet a nuclear act of war against it with an equal or more devastating nuclear response. So let's go with that assumption for now...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Why do you assume Iran will go with nuclear warheads?
 
  • #3
This is so much speculation and hypothesizing that I don't see what purpose its serves to even discuss this matter.
 
  • #4
well, as an Iranian!, and a person who was working on a research project in Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, I believe that there is no atomic weapon production in Iran. everything is just peaceful.
Many people in Iran believe that, it is just a scenario from USA. In fact, they want to do the same, as they did in Iraq.
 
  • #5
well, as an Iranian!, and a person who was working on a research project in Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, I believe that there is no atomic weapon production in Iran. everything is just peaceful.

That smells like Government propoganda to me. Are you being monitored?
 
  • #6
cyrusabdollahi said:
That smells like Government propoganda to me. Are you being monitored?

It's a very strange post.
 
  • #7
Everything smells like government propaganda to you, doesn't it? :-p
 
  • #8
Hmm. Well, first and foremost, I've got no clue whether any of these things are likely, etc. and am presenting this post purely as a question of strategy. But let's look past all that for a sec and game the hypothetical.

"Why do you assume Iran will go with nuclear warheads?"

Not exactly sure what you mean here. If you mean that, having declared that they have nuclear weapons, that they might instead configure them for some sort of asymmetrical threat - the infamous suitcase nuke - it seems like they wouldn't make the announcement in the first place. However, I am not thinking that in the announcement they would state things like "we have configured missiles with nuclear warheads", but instead just leave it as an open question.

But you make a good point. Any military strike aimed at destroying their ability to launch nuclear weapons is inherently operating under the assumption that they'd need a conventional command and control to launch, which asymmetrical configurations skirt around. Hmm.
 
  • #9
what is the point of all this speculation? You should discuss this with WarrenPlatt on a military strategy website.
 
  • #10
"what is the point of all this speculation? You should discuss this with WarrenPlatt on a military strategy website."

There's really no point (as in ulterior motive or hoped-for result) I guess, but I find it interesting. It's certainly something that happens in our world. But if your point is that such things shouldn't be posted at all on the physicsforum website, I understand and will certainly bow to the wishes of the admin's et al, but I was under the impression that it was discussed and for now ended in previous recent posts.

In defense, though, I'd add that strategy discussions like these (ideally) involve the same multi-faceted and reasoned calculus that you might find in a thought-out philosophical debate in a different forum. And one reason in particular that I enjoy talking about them in a place like this -provided there is a proper location to do so - is that the ratio of thoughtful intelligent responses to hijacked silliness or indiscretion has been in my short experience, lower - simply because most of the people here seem to think along the same lines, even if they don't agree about subject matter.

That said, if this isn't a topic that I'm allowed to discuss here, I'm disappointed but understand. But as for politics and world affairs in general "war is an extension of diplomacy by other means", etc, etc.
 
  • #11
The problem with your post is that you are starting off with a premise that is fictitious, and further spectulated what governments and militaries of the world would do from there. I hope you realize that it serves no purpose to speculate based on a premise that does not reflect the reality of the situation in Iran. If Iran does as you hypothesized, then it would be appropriate to debate the issue.
 
  • #12
I hope you realize that it serves no purpose to speculate based on a premise that does not reflect the reality of the situation in Iran. If Iran does as you hypothesized, then it would be appropriate to debate the issue.
It's better to plan for a possible scenario before it happens, rather than wait until after it has arisen.
 
  • #13
Hurkyl, next time you watch any politicial figure in the news, listen to what they say when they are asked about 'what if' scenarios (Rummy is notorious for this). They will tell you they cannot comment on 'what if's' because that would be nothing but speculation. Here, I don't see any merit in speculating on an argument that is based on a premise that is fictitious. Hypothesizing on a known premise and discussing the options would be a different scenario.
 
  • #14
If this situation couldn't possibly happen, then there wouldn't (directly) be any merit in discussing it.

If the situation could possibly happen, then there would be merit. (But it might still not be worth the effort)
 
  • #15
Another similar possibillty:
Iran allies with NK and then NK decides to tell everone that they also have nukes.When Iran told not to
 
  • #16
Anything can possibly happen, do you see my point? What use does it do discussing an infinite number of possible situations? Maybe there is a revolution caused by external pressures from the United States. Is it possible, yes, is it going to happen, not likely. Is it a meaninful discussion, I say no.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
I understand your point. However, for the sake of avoiding exactly these types of detours, I've asked that (if only for this one post) such philosophical concerns be suspended. If you find the original question unanswerable or absurd with such suspensions, then please simply do not reply. Your objection is a reasonable one and I'm sure you're not alone in holding it. But it has been noted, so please let us move on, even if our reasoning is fallacious.
 
  • #18
cyrusabdollahi said:
That smells like Government propoganda to me. Are you being monitored?

LOL He is now.
 
  • #19
cyrusabdollahi said:
Anything can possibly happen, do you see my point? What use does it do discussing an infinite number of possible situations? Maybe there is a revolution caused by external pressures from the United States. Is it possible, yes, is it going to happen, not likely. Is it a meaninful discussion, I say no.
DPRK got the US to back down by saying they had nukes. Questioning whether or not such a move would be benefitial to Iran at the moment seems pretty relevant to me.
 
  • #20
I am not going to waste my time hypothesizing on a ficticious premise, at least not this one. If you want to, have fun.
 
  • #21
cyrusabdollahi said:
What is the point of all this speculation? You should discuss this with WarrenPlatt on a military strategy website. . . . I am not going to waste my time hypothesizing on a ficticious premise, at least not this one. If you want to, have fun.
HAHAHA! THAT'S FUNNY CYRUS! :smile: :smile: :smile:

Great, thoughtful post Jde1984! It's not necessarily fictitous at all. It's not entirely unlikely that Iran already has a few nukes that they either made themselves or bought from NK or somebody else, and are just waiting until they can get more before they announce. The latest buzz is that the administration is opting for a Serbian-style air campaign rather than a full-on invasion--after all, this talk about the Army being an overstretched thin green line does not apply to the Air Force at all, which has finally got a break since the commencement of OIF. We may expect that when Iran sees an immanent attack that they will announce, either because it's true, or as a bluff. Hence, your question, "What next?", is prudent to consider.

I suspect that the coalition will go ahead with a conventional aerial attack, while making the Iranians fully aware that there are two submarines lurking off their coast, and that if they launch a nuke first, the coalition will respond with a superior nuclear force. Thus, the Iranians, will take the aerial beating, and try to live to fight another day.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Well it is sort of clear that a nuke program for Iran is partially meant for domestic consumption. The mollas have found a formula that they can harvest Iranian's nationalist sentiments (by creating fictitious enemies), and entrench themselves in power, as the savior of the nation, for a longer time. I figure the atomic bomb program will buy them a good 25 more year of rulership. Not bad, when they only have to spend about $10 billion of public money for that.

Just shows that nationalism is bad for Iranians (and others) and is also responsible for their 3rd world status.
 
  • #23
Warrenplatts - One very effective method for the US to destroy Islamic Iran's ruling class is to dispatch some bunkerbusters to the palaces of the top 50 tyrants of Iran. Imagine Ayatolla supreme leader, who is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousand of Iranian dissidents, finding a bunkerbuster at his bedside!

The beautiful thing about this is that not a single innocent Iranian will get killed. Only the tyrants and terrorists.
 
  • #24
That's interesting. I suspect that when the conventional attack is about to start, as part of the secret warning that will no doubt be sent, a carrot will be held out to the effect that the leadership and their families will be spared just so long as they don't launch WMD's, but if they do, they then become targets.

Also, what will the U.S. do if Iran does launch, say, just one or two nukes? Although the U.S. will have promised to retaliate in kind, they might not. They might instead go for the leadership and families so hard, that if they aren't immediately killed, they will have to go into hiding. The U.S. will then go for an Afghanistan-style regime change. Support for the mullahs is far from uniform, and their are no doubt U.S. Special Forces operating as you read this in the Kurdish and Azer territories of Iran, as well as within certain nations that border Iran that are organizing a rebel force. When the Iranian citizens see nuclear extinction looming, and that the coalition is giving them a chance to survive if they eliminate the irresponsible regime that brought them to this point, a good portion of them will rise up, and backed up by punishing U.S. air support, will quickly take over the country, thus showing that George Bush's dominoe theory of the ME is true.
 
  • #25
Yeah but I think we're making a big leap toward the war contingency. Because of the very real and dangerous Iran retaliation scenarios (military, Hezbollah, Mahdi militia), I wonder if diplomacy isn't far and away the preferred plan being pursued - regardless of how hard-line the talks become.

If you agree that diplomacy is the easiest and most effective solution, the question becomes one of degree. At what point do the relevant parties (the US, Israel, Nato) deem that the line has been crossed? Is it only after Iran has attacked or could it be crossed w/o Iran ever attacking?

And more importantly, a lot of the strategy we're talking about here makes sense if Iran has no nuclear weapon (and thus no nuclear counterstrike) capability, but if it has even one or two low-grade nukes, the strategy has to really take that into consideration. Although it seems counterintuitive, the thing we saw with the DPRK is that once the country actually possesses nuclear weapons (or claims to), the offensive aspects of the talks decline markedly.

Thus, I'm not sure that the things we're talking about - air raids, ground incursions, etc - could/would even be considered in their current form if Iran were to make that announcement.

Thoughts?
 
  • #26
WarrenPlatts said:
That's interesting. I suspect that when the conventional attack is about to start, as part of the secret warning that will no doubt be sent, a carrot will be held out to the effect that the leadership and their families will be spared just so long as they don't launch WMD's, but if they do, they then become targets.

Also, what will the U.S. do if Iran does launch, say, just one or two nukes? Although the U.S. will have promised to retaliate in kind, they might not. They might instead go for the leadership and families so hard, that if they aren't immediately killed, they will have to go into hiding. The U.S. will then go for an Afghanistan-style regime change. Support for the mullahs is far from uniform, and their are no doubt U.S. Special Forces operating as you read this in the Kurdish and Azer territories of Iran, as well as within certain nations that border Iran that are organizing a rebel force. When the Iranian citizens see nuclear extinction looming, and that the coalition is giving them a chance to survive if they eliminate the irresponsible regime that brought them to this point, a good portion of them will rise up, and backed up by punishing U.S. air support, will quickly take over the country, thus showing that George Bush's dominoe theory of the ME is true.
That's wishful thinking.
 
  • #27
WarrenP,

...Also, what will the U.S. do if Iran does launch, say, just one or two nukes? Although the U.S. will have promised to retaliate in kind, they might not...

Iran launching nukes? How many tests do you know of, even suspect Iran has carried out with ICBMs? Does Iran have ICBMs? If they don't, how are they going to launch them at the US?
 
  • #28
Amp1 said:
WarrenP,
Iran launching nukes? How many tests do you know of, even suspect Iran has carried out with ICBMs? Does Iran have ICBMs? If they don't, how are they going to launch them at the US?

Very simple. Send an oil tanker containing one U235 200 kiloton bomb, one suicider Mohammedan, and one pull cord. Then let it dock in Houston or New Orleans or New York. After screaming "in the name of Islam", then pull cord.

Fact is that a rogue state with a U235 bomb can extort world civilization for about $ 500 billion annually. Then the extortionists (oops I meant legitimate government of Islamic Iran and darling of western appeasers) can use that money to build more U235 or Pu259 bombs. Even maybe H2 bomb - that will be worth 1.5 trillion dollars of annual income.

If you think you can reason with a rogue ideological extortionist, then you do not understand who you are dealing with.
 
  • #29
poststruct said:
Very simple. Send an oil tanker containing one U235 200 kiloton bomb, one suicider Mohammedan, and one pull cord. Then let it dock in Houston or New Orleans or New York. After screaming "in the name of Islam", then pull cord.

Fact is that a rogue state with a U235 bomb can extort world civilization for about $ 500 billion annually. Then the extortionists (oops I meant legitimate government of Islamic Iran and darling of western appeasers) can use that money to build more U235 or Pu259 bombs. Even maybe H2 bomb - that will be worth 1.5 trillion dollars of annual income.

If you think you can reason with a rogue ideological extortionist, then you do not understand who you are dealing with.

Well, this is unlikely and more complex than necessary. If Iran were going to launch nuclear strikes against the US or Israel, all they'd need to do is reconfigure their medium range tactical missiles to hit Iraq, Bagram AFB, or Israel. Reconfiguration - which'd be necessary in any case - is difficult enough.

There is an important distinction between ICBMs - which require, among other things, a viable space program - and medium range tactical nuclear missiles. Iran does not and never will have ICBMs. It could get tactical nukes. Plus, for all Norad does wrong (which I'm not sure is much), there is one thing that it does exceedingly well - detecting an ICBM launch. For all intents and purposes, it is impossible to get an ICBM in the air without the US knowing. I think I've heard somewhere that NORAD can detect an object just 4 cubic meters big that leaves the Earth's atmosphere on a missile-like trajectory. (If I am right, this is not a classified fact. I heard it on a tv show. Please don't make me disappear, Big Brother.)
 
  • #30
jhe1984 said:
Well, this is unlikely and more complex than necessary. If Iran were going to launch nuclear strikes against the US or Israel, all they'd need to do is reconfigure their medium range tactical missiles to hit
...
earth's atmosphere on a missile-like trajectory. (If I am right, this is not a classified fact. I heard it on a tv show. Please don't make me disappear, Big Brother.)

As far as Islamic Iran is concerned, they are NOT in the business of missile racing. They frankly do not care if they can develop middle range tacticals or ICBMs. If they have only 1 or 2 U235 bombs, and wish to strike, pls. rest assured they will not bother with a missile of any kind.

They will put it in a legitimate cargo ship, and drive it to New York harbor and pull the cord. This is 95% guaranteed to work, as opposed to a missile based solution which is a lot more hastle, money, delays, risks, with only let's say 25% chance of working, and it can't even reach the US. In order to bring down WTC, they did not send big flying bombers to do the job. They just spent about $50,000 on 19 kids who were convinced that they will meet 72 virgins, and the labor was even donated.

The problem with your analysis is you first assume that they are a reasonable and logical entity (like the Soviets) and then you make further rationalizations. I assure you that they are not rational.

Asymetricity is their friend. That is the essence of this dilemma.
 
  • #31
Actually, I think you make a very important point here. Iran's military is more or less conventional, but the threats they present extend far beyond the conventional, even the nuclear threats.

However, I thought you were referring to converting a cargo ship into a tactical missile platform - like a poor man's missile cruiser - which itself is possible, but like I said very unlikely.

But do any of yall have a vote on my original question which was, would an announcement from Iran that they have nuclear weapons (even a handful) make military action more likely or less likely than it currently is?
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Yes, why would you want to go through the trouble of building a missile platform, when you can just drive the boat into the harbor, and blow up a 200 kiloton bomb? Remember, the issue for them is not to defeat the US. The issue is for them to blackmail and extort western civilization, in giving them concessions and money.

I think if the Iranians had nukes, they would blow one of them up to show the world that they got it. Like Pakistan and India did. I think the prevailing theory is that they are about to build their first nuke, but are not there yet. Now if they make such announcement, my feeling is that this will hasten a precision attack on them. But some of those religious folks are really crazy, counting on the apocalypse to arrive. If they have a bomb, they will attempt to blow up some city in the US. Can that be stopped? I don't know.
 
  • #33
jhe1984 said:
I've been thinking about this one and am not quite sure about the answer. Here's the question and scenario:

What happens if Iran were to pull a North Korea and announce rather unexpectedly that they did, indeed, have nuclear weapons, made and on the ready?

To jog memories, about a year ago, the DPRK announced that they indeed possessed nuclear weapons. They did not say how many nor did they say if or where they were deployed, but they did make a clear announcement that, yes, they did in fact have nuclear weapons. This caught a lot of people by surprise because until then the basic operating assumption was that the North Koreans were operating nuclear facilities and were certainly moving toward nuclear capabilities, but that they were not in possession of true atomic weapons. Until then, the dynamic in the negotiations was one of how to entice the DPRK to return to NPT guidelines and the previously agreed upon ROE I think worked out under Clinton (which they violated). But when they announced that they had nuclear weapons, the discussions changed from more a semi-militant tone (were DPRK to not come around) to an almost purely diplomatic framework. Of course, the DoD maintains (however crudely) contigency scenarios even for these circumstances, but once the DPRK announced that they were in fact in possession of nuclear weapons, the side-jabber and "leaked" remarks about a military solution were markedly toned down, which make sense because everything became more serious. But the interesting thing was that the RoK said that yes the DPRK claim was plausible. But that's a little strange of a confirmation since until then everyone (at least seemed as) was operating under the belief that DPRK had not yet made that leap. In short, the move worked out almost expertly for the North Koreans. It elevated them from a problem-child to a legitimate player.

What would happen were Iran to make a similar claim?

Here's what I've come up with so far:

The claim would be greeted with far more skepticism since among other things the Iranians have ostensibly been operating in the open with the IAEA (meaning that everything was by the book, even the demand that the IAEA remove its monitoring equipment, etc.). So for a claim like this to be believed, they would almost be forced to disclose more details, either where or how they'd constructed a bomb without the world knowing and/or display or demonstrate some aspects (not necessarily decisive proof though) of a claimed bomb. Yet it would still be possible.

However, the claim would most likely change the framework of the discussion in a way different from the DPRK situation, simply because they'd be a new and contentious player in a very rough neighborhood (with three or four nuclear superpowers, Iran, Israel, the US, and possibly Pakistan) in the neighborhood. The Israeli interest is clear, albeit their reaction is not. For instance, do they treat the claim as an act of war, chance it, and launch against Iran. Or do they simply rely even more fervently on diplomatic talks that have become exponentially more serious and rest with the assurance that Iran would of necessity yield to the deterrence that is an assured nuclear destruction (from NATO and the US) were Iran to launch a first-strike. I almost certainly think the second situation goes one hundred percent in the face of Israel's military (and indeed fundamental national) posture, and would thus be completely unacceptable - it'd be akin to the US putting their hopes of a Soviet launch not happening in the hands of the Canadians: outsourcing the fundamental existence of your nation.

The US would be equally threatened, as a significant portion of our armed forces would lie within range of a nuclear Iran. Well, this point is debatable on some technicalities, depending on one's assesment of nuclear-tipped Iranian missile range. Nevertheless, the US would have ample foundation to, much like Israel, view this as an act of war (nuclear war, no less) by Iran.

If it came to it, and Israel was going to launch, the US would probably launch instead, for several reasons. It'd allow Israel to maintain plausible deniability. And, more importantly, the US is most likely better equipped to do it.

Still, all hell'd break lose - even were Iran to not have nuclear missiles. The word tactical strike would be non-existent in this context.

But the realities of international media must not be underestimated. If Iran were to come out and say something to the effect like "yes we have nuclear weapons - however, under no circumstances would we use them preemptively" then the US might really be in a pickle. It might be enough to come right up to, but not overstep, the int'l supported US line for a near-unaminous consensus that this was indeed an act of war.

But most crucially, it'd be very unlikely - and probably a large gamble - to operate under the assumption that, having made this announcement, that the Iranians were bluffing.

Anyway, I ask for your take on, were this to happen, what would realistically follow.

And in all respect, I do not mean for this to be a repeat of the "would the US use nuclear weapons against Iran thread". The assumption, whether you buy it or not, is that the US would follow through with their nuclear posture which states in no uncertain terms that it is prepared to meet a nuclear act of war against it with an equal or more devastating nuclear response. So let's go with that assumption for now...
This is a scenario worth considering because the impact of Iran having nuclear weapons determines how far the world should go (or not go) in preventing it from happening.

The smart thing is for Iran to proclaim they are only for defensive purposes. In fact, nuclear weapons are only good for defense. The radiation they leave behind make them useless for invasions.

The impact is that a country with nuclear weapons can't be punished by being invaded. The potential costs of aggressive policies are reduced when foreign countries are afraid to invade you in retaliation.

That means Iran could step into suppress Sunni opposition to Shiite rule as soon as the US leaves, which means Iraq could become a Shiite theocracy. It also means the Shiites could retaliate for years of repression by the Sunni Baath party by oppressing all Sunnis. It also means Iran could stomp all over Kurdish hopes for autonomy and eventual independence.

All of that is "could happens". What's likely to happen and the probability of bad things happening would be hard to determine. A pre-emptive strike against Israel to wipe them off the face of the Earth would probably be far fetched since Israel could do the same to Iran. Iran would definitely be a much bigger power in the Middle East than they are now.
 
  • #34
Yeah it's a tricky issue, probably because it's a tricky part of the world. Even though it's been done before (to near perfection, I might add) by North Korea - the situations are completely different.

It's hard to understand why everyone's so on edge, since all Iran is looking to do is start up a candle-making factory inside a giant powderkeg. :rolleyes:

All that said, this is one of those things that, for now at least, is just as likely to be defused and relit repeatedly for another five years. But sooner or later, things are going to get hairy - because what you've got is a regime that is trying fairly desperately (and, more often than not, alone) to stave off the numerous and powerful tides of interests that are lapping at its shores daily. And the fundamental problem is that the regime does not have the political scaffolding to ensure longevity and autonomy, which translate into influence and regional power, over the long-run.

IMO, what we're seeing here, for better or for worse, is the final approach between two opposing interests (the persistent push of some sort of "westernization" [whatever that means] against a firmly entrenched old-school theocracy) that have been headed on a collision course that became apparent (to the US & Europe, at least) the moment that the shah was overthrown.

Regardless of what happens in this particular issue, the underlying truth is that the Iranian regime as it exists today is not a regime that has the correct configuration to ultimately last and even thrive in today's world - not because it is 'wrong' and others are 'right', but simply because. The necessary reconfiguration doesn't necessarily have to involve guns (though it usually does), but it will have to happen sooner or later. Geopolitical evolution in its purest form - which frankly isn't too pretty.

--- Thus concludes today's soliloquy. Be sure to tune in tomorrow, when I act like I know about... ----
 
  • #35
cyrusabdollahi said:
what is the point of all this speculation? You should discuss this with WarrenPlatt on a military strategy website.

Well it is a cut above the usual level of discussion here. I'd say get behind it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
55
Views
10K
Replies
75
Views
11K
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
52
Views
8K
Replies
132
Views
13K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top