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

gosh

[captnjohnny1618]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Re:gosh

[FatdogHaiku]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Their shiny new centrifuge bearings seize up, ruining a few hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment, and they end up waiting 20 minutes for help from a Manila call center?

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

[tnk1]

There is no guarantee that we'll nuke Iran just because they nuked Israel. In fact, it's very likely that we wouldn't do so. Iran's government knows that as well as anyone.

Besides, their "defensive" capability is merely cover for them to increase their regional presence in terms of more overt support of groups in other countries. They don't really want to nuke Israel. They just want to increase their influence in Iraq or Syria or Lebanon. If Israel is likely to have a problem, that will come about due to more overt activities to support proxies like Hamas.

The real threat of Iran with nukes isn't nuclear war, per se. It's that they get a free hand to increase their interference in the region and that's very dangerous. Say what you will about US invasions, but no one seriously believed that we were there to stay. Iran is right next door to a lot of countries that don't want to have to deal with a nuclear Iran which would be able to hold off the US, because the US is what is guaranteeing the balance in the region between Muslim states that hate each other's guts. A nuclear Iran could cause a country like Saudi Arabia to obtain its own nuclear weapons because the threat of a US invasion in support of the status quo is lessened.

The reality is that we're not just trying to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, we're trying to make sure that the rest of the ME doesn't enter an arms race which puts nukes in the hands of other countries.

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:gosh

[silentcoder]

>The reality is that we're not just trying to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, we're trying to make sure that the rest of the ME doesn't enter an arms race which puts nukes in the hands of other countries.

And who exactly appointed you to do that ? Americans elect an American government to govern America. It has no jurisdiction anywhere else and "protecting your interests" should have been unconstitutional. Unless somebody actively asks for your help, stay the hell out of everybody else's business and America would be a lot less hated.
Do I like the government of Iran ? Hell no, I live in a free country and I despise autocracies, but I also don't believe I have a right to interfere in Iran's business unless Iranian people ask my help.

Seriously - the US should watch a lot of Star Trek and simply replace their ENTIRE foreign relations doctrine with the prime directive and not only would the rest of the world be a lot happier, the US would be too.
You fear chaos ? I am quite confident that there will be a lot less suffering around the world for which you are (rightfully) blamed, and thus a lot less people who want to kill you. If you believe the Iranian style theocratic autocracy is primitive, fine, believe that, but stop interfering in their natural development - they won't thank you for it, nobody has EVER thanked you for it.

America has more than enough problems to solve at home - like when you're going to do SOMETHING about Puerto Rico - either give them statehood or given them back their independence but right now you're conquering overlords there - no better than Iran's government.

Let me put it very simply: because I have no power to vote for or against American politicians, they should have NO power to influence my life.

Re: gosh

[jo7hs2]

For the record, the United States is not the problem in Peurto Rico. They've held multiple referendums about independence, statehood, etc... They continue to choose the status quo each time, by a narrow margin. We've never even had the opportunity to address statehood in Congress because they've never gotten that far, and we can't force statehood OR independence down their throats. So maybe back off on that one.

Re: gosh

[TheRaven64]

There are two problems with this idea. The first is that EMPs, like other EM phenomena, disperse via an inverse square law. Anything high enough to be line-of-site to the ground in most of the USA would need to have an enormous explosive yield (even by nuclear weapon standards). There are some designs that try to channel more energy into the EMP than normal, but they're very complex to build (a good 10-20 years more R&D beyond the Fat Man / Little Boy style bombs).

The second problem is the delivery. Iran does not have a significant ballistic missile capability. Getting something into space above the USA would require launching something in a suborbital trajectory. A very high suborbital trajectory if it were intended to explode that high up. The size of such a rocket would be such that it would be pretty hard to miss on satellite observation. The time in the air would give the US a very long time to formulate a response and destroying it would be relatively easy (remember, the problem with strategic defence shields in the cold war was not shooting down a missile, it was shooting down the large number of real and decoy rockets that the Soviet Union was capable of launching).

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Shia doctrine is that Armageddon needs to be started and the Shias driven to near annihilation for the Hidden Iman to reappear? This is why people are scared of Iran getting nukes... They *want* to be annihilated.

Re: gosh

[ScentCone]

It's rich since the government in the region of Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1820

Right. It's too much trouble. That's why they send material and support to others to do it for them.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're missing though is that unlike Iran, no one leading the US or Russia gets up on TV talking about countries who have "no right to exist" and should be "wiped off the map". These are not rational people. If you're not part of Islam you are of the great satan and need to die. If they kill you their reward is in heaven. This is their perspective. Would you really like to see these people holding nuclear weapons?

Re:gosh

[ncc74656]

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.

MAD only works when dealing with rational actors. The Russians were rational enough. Iran? Not so much.

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:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Dog-Cow]

The obvious solution then is to nuke Iran now, before we know they have their own. Because when Iran has what they consider a sufficient number of warheads, they will start WWIII. So either way we will have to nuke Iran; may as well do it before they can kill us too.

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[circletimessquare]

i know you're joking, but there are people in the world who really believe that

sobering

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Neil Boekend]

Yes, Nuclear bomb owning Pakistan would love a country being nuked upwind from them. The prevailing winds in the altitudes above 3km would give them all that precious nuclear fallout.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[Black Parrot]

We kept the Shah in power for our own interests

s/kept/put/

In 1953 they had a democratically elected, very westernized government. The US and UK staged a coup when that government wasn't generous enough with "our" oil.

Worked out about as well as all our other efforts to tell the rest of the world how to run their countries.

No need to attack

[SuperKendall]

All we have to do is nothing. The sanctions are working, it's greatly slowing progress they are making to obtaining nuclear weapons.

If we lift the sanctions, we CANNOT restore them (the Iranians have said repeatedly it's absurd to think we could). They will absolutely have a nuclear weapon inside a year, probably much sooner.

The real assholes are the people like you willing to put the world to the torch because of your imaginary fears of invading Iran, which no-one wants to do. It makes no sense because what do you invade? The people are generally friendly to the U.S., it's only the rulers that are not - and they will use the entire populace as a human shield (that is also incidentally why they rightfully think they can use nuclear weapons against enemies without similar reprisals).

If the sanctions are lifted and millions die I hope you have the decency to at least feel a tiny bit guilty.... but then people like you so often rationalize all repercussions of your mistakes away.

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.

Re:No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

You got them... you have THOUSANDS of them and your track-record with them is atrocious,

70 years and thousands of nuclear weapons in the possession of the United States, and exactly zero people harmed by one since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Including a period of time post-WWII when NO ONE ELSE had any, when much of the world was in ruins. When the world was truly helpless to resist the power of a United States fully mobilized for conventional war, with a monopoly on nuclear weapons, with a proven willingness to use them. If the United States had the desire and will to employ that power, no one could have resisted.

That's atrocious?

Your vitriol and anger are clouding your judgment.

The fact is, the United States (and the UK, and France, and Russia, and China) have been good stewards of their nuclear arsenals, so far. The only evidence needed to acknowlege this fact is the lack of any mushroom clouds over cities since 1945.

Re:No need to attack

[Greyfox]

Um, and that minor incident at the Bikini Island Atoll. Entire island nation loses their homes permanently and a bunch of people get cancer and die within a couple of years. But you know, you want to make an omelette, you need to break a few eggs. The USA and the USSR were doing open-air testing until nearly 1960, when the USA finally screwed the pooch hard in the south pacific. And then there was that time some jackass decided to detonate a nuclear bomb in the Van Allen Belt. That was in the mid 60's and for a year or so you couldn't launch anything without it being disabled by the trapped radiation. There was some concern that we'd ended space exploration permanently. But you know, minor little whoops there, no need to mention that in history class.

Re:No need to attack

[radarskiy]

How many countries has Iran invaded since the revolution in '79?
How many has the USA in that same time period?