Iran's Nuclear Plans

[Adak]

@Lamplighter:

I agree that diplomacy (step one) and economic sanctions (step two), are the right first responses. That's been our standard response to countries who "take a serious wrong turn". Has mixed results, but absolutely, the best first steps.

With Iran, it's been a few years now. Are we coming to some points of agreement with them? Something that keeps the option for the Iranians to work with the peaceful end of nuclear power, but keeps the region safe from the military weapons side of nuclear power.

That's the part that is not settled, in my mind. First, will they move from peaceful nuclear work, into the military use? Second, if they do move into the military side of nuclear power, will they use it?

My opinion is:

1) They haven't decided if they'll develop the nuclear military weapons yet.

2) Yes, if they had them, eventually a leader would emerge who would use them.

Right now, I'm comfortable with #1. The second one, I'm WAY concerned over.

That's where a red line starts making sense. The Iranians have just convinced me that they mean business with their saber-rattling speeches. I believe they mean every word of it.

I thought Obama erred with the weak economic sanctions when they were first begun. They just didn't have much "bite", and everyone knew it. True, you don't want to start out with the strongest sanctions first, but these were nonsense.
With the newer and stronger sanctions now in place, Obama has got it right - finally.

Well done Obama, on the sanctions issue.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

That's the part that is not settled, in my mind. First, will they move from peaceful nuclear work, into the military use? Second, if they do move into the military side of nuclear power, will they use it?

The wild card is a word 'they'. Who are 'they'? We have not a clue. Diplomats would know better and best not say much.

Making understanding more complex are a number of Ahmadinejad's subordinates who have been detained. Have the mullahs had a change of heart?

Well, among the mullah's were statements that said Obama clearly has a better and not adversarial attitude. Some analysts regarded this as a indication that Iran no longer needed or might back away from nuclear weapons.

But at the same time, others in Iran see a Republican president as more 'Axis of Evil' threats. So Iran must continue developing technology and processing uranium - just in case.

So how much power does Ahmadinejad have? Clearly he leads the wacko extremist faction who sees war as a solution. Or believes war is inevitable. What do the other 'powers that be' think?

We cannot view Iran as a monolithic nation. It truly is a nation of many and varied opinions. Ahmadinejad was elected as soon as the US began threatening nations and then started invading without justification. If we want a more peaceful Middle East, we must start by swearing off that 'big dic' attitude so prevalent in a wacko extremists wing of the Republican party.

We must openly confront the so many Americans actively promoting hate of Muslims (as if Muslims were niggers). The Mosque in Lower Manhattan exposed widespread hate in America that also endorses unilaterally attacking nations. This only makes the Iranians insecure; need a nuclear bomb.

But again, to say more requires defining the many 'theys'. And then defining what each 'they' is thinking. Too many unknowns to answer any of your questions.