The United States Just Might Be Iran's Favorite New Nuclear Supplier

Lasrick writes: Nick Gillard from Project Alpha points out that for more than 3 decades, Iran has purchased goods for its nuclear program largely from the shadows. With the Framework Agreement, that will almost certainly change: "According to the US State Department, one of the agreement's provisions creates a dedicated procurement channel for Iran's nuclear program. This channel will monitor and approve, on a case-by-case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual-use materials and technology." That is terrific news for US companies, because Iran is known to covet US-made parts required for their program, most of which are "dual-use."

Comments

The new definition of Diplomacy

[SuperKendall]

Diplomacy, old definition:

"The art of saying 'Nice Doggy' until you can find a rock". - Will Rodgers

New definition:

"The art of handing rocks over to the doggy until it can bury you, while hoping that it is nice".

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[circletimessquare]

If we attack Iran militarily, they will race and have nukes in a few months. The idea that we can prevent that with a military strike is naive or maliciously dishonest.

We were told toppling Saddam would lead to dancing in the streets of Baghdad and mature democracy and peace in Iraq. Hasn't exactly worked out that way. Now we have lies and foolishness about striking Iran. Iran could pursue nukes in the center of a number of mountain bunkers and we could not capture or find all off them in time before a bomb was created and *used* in Israel or Europe or the USA.

Yes, *used*.

If we invaded Iran, our threat to the regime would be existential. Nations build nukes precisely for deterrence against existential threats.

Therefore, by invading, we will hand Iran a perfectly legitimate reason for using a nuke, on a silver platter. If someone was toppling our government in Washington DC militarily, you can be certain nukes would be flying out of bunkers in North Dakota. You think the same standard for using nukes doesn't apply to Iran?

And all you need is an anonymous lead lined shipping container out of tens of thousands delivered to a port. No need for a stinking ICBM.

Are some of you braindead chickenhawks sobering up yet?

Do some of you morons think invading Iran will be a breeze? Fucking pathetic Afghanistan wasn't even a breeze. The blowback from Iraq and letting Saddam's entire Baathist military establishment walk away is still going on in the form of ISIS. You chickenhawk morons just don't fucking learn do you you pathetic assholes? How many trillions in national treasure and thousands of young vital lives do you want to waste now? While you complain about taxes and welfare recipients from the other side of your ignorant mouths? There are some seriously stupid assholes in this world isn't there, you chickenhawk assholes gung ho for war are exhibit A.

Iran is not Iraq, wide open flat desert, it is mountain fortresses. We played hide and seek in the mountains of Afghanistan for years with scruffy pushovers who continue to mount destabilizing attacks. The Revolutionary Guards of Iran are not pimply teenagers promised religious lies from Al Qaeda and Taliban stooges, they are a serious and professional fighting force, fighting on their land, for their country. Remember Vietnam you moronic chickenhawk douchebags? Is someone going to tell us our intelligence on Iranian nuclear sites is ironclad, we know all of them? Really, you're certain of that? You want to bet an Iranian nuclear strike on that conviction you arrogant smarmy pricks?

So we will pursue a deal. Not because it will work with certainty. But because all other options are clearly worse.

Diplomacy simply serves our national interest. A deal is better than no deal. Pragmatism. Shrewd intelligence. Not that you warmongering assholes know what those words mean. You don't have to trust the Iranians, you stupid fucks, no one trusts them. Verification is in the deal.

All the assholes with hard ons to invade Iran are genuinely ignorant or maliciously cavalier about the severe blow back we would experience. Fuck the irresponsible braindead chickenhawk assholes: the crappiest deal is still 1,000% better than the best case military scenario.

Re:gosh

[Harlequin80]

Rubbish.

Nukes are a thoroughly shit offensive weapon. If you throw a nuke at anyone you will get stomped out of existence. Even if Iran had ICBMs and nukes on a scale of the US or Russia they would not attack anyone with them. That is the whole concept of M.A.D. If Iran nuked Israel the nukes from the US, UK, France and the distributed nukes of Israel would completely destroy Iran within days. Nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, they are all weapons that change the status quo too far. If you deploy any of them against an external party it is game over. As a result they are useless for offence.

Defensively though they are brilliant. The make your borders essentially inviolate to other state actors. Yes you can have rebel or guerilla actions (think Pakistan) but you are safe from someone like the US or Russia. And given the US and Russia have a history of invading countries in that region it seems like a fair incentive to want them.

For Iran to start WW3 after obtaining nuclear weapons would require them to have the drive and the motivation to fight against major obstacles to get them combined with a desire to eradicate themselves from existence. Not normally the sort of thing you get in the one person.

Re:gosh

[TheRaven64]

Even if we didn't nuke Iran in response to an attack on Israel, you really don't want to be using high-yield nuclear weapons on someone that close to you - fallout blows in the wind quite a long way. The USA, Russia, India, and China are all good targets for strategic nukes, but smaller countries are likely to end up not containing the effect and Iran would be very unpopular if they covered their neighbours in radioactive dust. Given that they're already quite unpopular with their arabic neighbours, they'd likely expect a fairly large conventional response if they fired nuclear weapons anywhere in the middle east.

Re:gosh

[jcr]

There is no guarantee that we'll nuke Iran just because they nuked Israel.

There doesn't need to be. Israel is certainly capable of destroying Iran completely in a retaliatory strike.

-jcr

Re:No need to attack

[silentcoder]

Just out of curiousity... why exactly should Iran NOT have a nuclear weapon ?
You got them... you have THOUSANDS of them and your track-record with them is atrocious, you've accidentally dropped some on your own people at least 50 times, you've left them unguarded and forgotten on civilian runways more than once. On at least one occasion they were discovered by the damn catering staff.

You have not been very responsible with yours. Yet you maintain you have the right to have them. If you do... so does Iran. Either EVERY country has that right, or NO country has that right.
You can't make selective laws for countries anymore than you can for people.

Now take that as a fundamental premise and rethink your entire view of hte world. You'll find you come up with one that doesn't make the rest of the world hate Americans. One that produces a world where Al Queda could never have existed. One where your nation is not seen as a bunch of arrogant imperialists comparable to Elizabethan and Victorian England.
Take it as a basic premise that your country can ONLY do what it allows EVERYBODY ELSE to do as well - if something is truly to scary for North Korea to do - you can't do it either. Give COUNTRIES equal rights.

Then maybe we can negotiate in good faith. Then maybe the world can know some peace and stability. Then you'll have gained some philosophical soundness in your arguments. Go on. Think about it. I'll wait.