Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic

the_cliff said:
Irans proxy you know. When Americans finally realise the Middle East isn't split into Iran/Non Iran they may finally be able to control it.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they should stop trying to control it and try to control their own country
 
the_cliff said:
Irans proxy you know. When Americans finally realise the Middle East isn't split into Iran/Non Iran they may finally be able to control it.
Click to expand...
Why the feck should they?

Do they have some kind of God given right to do so?
 
the_cliff said:
Well they've been there for so long I assume that's the plan...
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

It's also amazing to see that nobody bats an eyelid when the West does it, but when it's Russia or China everyone loses their mind.

Not that I condone this kind of plan, no matter who does it.
 
That_Bloke said:
Good luck with that.

It's also amazing to see that nobody bats an eyelid when the West does it, but when it's Russia or China everyone loses their mind.

Not that I condone this kind of plan, no matter who does it.
Click to expand...
You seem to be confused by my post, I wasn't condoning the controlling of the Middle East but why else are they there ? the views ?
 
the_cliff said:
You seem to be confused by my post, I wasn't condoning the controlling of the Middle East but why else are they there ? the views ?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't a dig at you. I know where you stand.

The post was aimed at the US foreign policies in the region. They've been literal locusts, bringing only death and destruction.
 
That_Bloke said:
Good luck with that.

It's also amazing to see that nobody bats an eyelid when the West does it, but when it's Russia or China everyone loses their mind.

Not that I condone this kind of plan, no matter who does it.
Click to expand...

Or aipac influencing elections and tweeting about it that they are proud that 32 of 32 candidates that they lobbied, won. Imagine russia or china. Or if russia wohld starve ukrainians the way israel does. Double standards and hypocresy everywhere. Then when i point it out. "Oh , i guess you would prefer to be in china"

Nope. I want not to be on the receiving end. Doesnt matter US, China, russia or my girlfriend
 
Jam said:
Am I missing context here or are you just Pro-IRGC being a nuclear power?
Click to expand...

yes they've been messing about with it for years and haven't got there. till they do, they're vulnerable and not really a sovereign country.
 
Jam said:
Am I missing context here or are you just Pro-IRGC being a nuclear power?
Click to expand...
Who should be allowed nuclear power and who shouldn't in your eyes?
 
berbatrick said:
yes they've been messing about with it for years and haven't got there. till they do, they're vulnerable and not really a sovereign country.
Click to expand...

And IRGC being a nuclear power is a good thing why?

The Corinthian said:
Who should be allowed nuclear power and who shouldn't in your eyes?
Click to expand...

I’m generally against further nuclear armaments being produced, and against further nations being nuclear powers in general. Though principally think we’ve past the point of no return on nuclear disarmament.

But terms of who shouldn’t have nuclear capabilities especially so for radical ideologies possessing nuclear weapons with an appalling track record who are regular instigators in destabilising a region and closely aligned with Russia. But that’s just me I guess.

I see what you’re doing though, your retort will be “you’re pro-Israel / believe the west should control the world” but that’s quite a leap of logic.
 
Jam said:
And IRGC being a nuclear power is a good thing why?



I’m generally against further nuclear armaments being produced, and against further nations being nuclear powers in general. Though principally think we’ve past the point of no return on nuclear disarmament.

But terms of who shouldn’t have nuclear capabilities especially so for radical ideologies possessing nuclear weapons with an appalling track record who are regular instigators in destabilising a region and closely aligned with Russia. But that’s just me I guess.

I see what you’re doing though, your retort will be “you’re pro-Israel / believe the west should control the world” but that’s quite a leap of logic.
Click to expand...
I mean with nukes there's a pretty simple and in my view - pragmatic stance to take, either everyone has nukes or no one has them.

Also its pretty rich to call out Iran as the prime destabilisers of the region, considering the US has started numerous wars there in recent decades leading to millions of deaths, overthrown countless regimes, meanwhile their Israeli proxy is going full speed ahead with a genocide to bolster its colonial aspirations. But yes we should be worried about the Iranians getting nukes, never mind the superpower that has a fetish for destructive interventionism (and to date the only nation to have actually used a nuke on a civilian population).

From the Iranian perspective its also a no brainer. They've seen how their neighbour Iraq was utterly decimated beyond repair, largely because they didn't have a nuclear deterrent.
 
Jam said:
And IRGC being a nuclear power is a good thing why?



I’m generally against further nuclear armaments being produced, and against further nations being nuclear powers in general. Though principally think we’ve past the point of no return on nuclear disarmament.

But terms of who shouldn’t have nuclear capabilities especially so for radical ideologies possessing nuclear weapons with an appalling track record who are regular instigators in destabilising a region and closely aligned with Russia. But that’s just me I guess.

I see what you’re doing though, your retort will be “you’re pro-Israel / believe the west should control the world” but that’s quite a leap of logic.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of historical precedence to show us that having two nuclear armed adversary states creates more stability in a region than having a sole nuclear superpower. The Middle East is the only geopolitical region in the world where there's only one state with nuclear weapons, it's that unipolarity and absence of a power balance that causes the region to be so destabilised and further drives Iran's insecurity.
 
Jam said:
I’m generally against further nuclear armaments being produced, and against further nations being nuclear powers in general. Though principally think we’ve past the point of no return on nuclear disarmament.

But terms of who shouldn’t have nuclear capabilities especially so for radical ideologies possessing nuclear weapons with an appalling track record who are regular instigators in destabilising a region and closely aligned with Russia. But that’s just me I guess.

I see what you’re doing though, your retort will be “you’re pro-Israel / believe the west should control the world” but that’s quite a leap of logic.
Click to expand...

Kaos said:
I mean with nukes there's a pretty simple and in my view - pragmatic stance to take, either everyone has nukes or no one has them.

Also its pretty rich to call out Iran as the prime destabilisers of the region, considering the US has started numerous wars there in recent decades leading to millions of deaths, overthrown countless regimes, meanwhile their Israeli proxy is going full speed ahead with a genocide to bolster its colonial aspirations. But yes we should be worried about the Iranians getting nukes, never mind the superpower that has a fetish for destructive interventionism (and to date the only nation to have actually used a nuke on a civilian population).

From the Iranian perspective its also a no brainer. They've seen how their neighbour Iraq was utterly decimated beyond repair, largely because they didn't have a nuclear deterrent.
Click to expand...
Just came to say bang on - you put it more articulately than I could.

I'd also like to remind @Jam that he's viewing everything from a very Western-centric, orientalist lens, where it's easy to say 'we' can be trusted with nuclear weapons but those 'other' folk can't. The Afghan and Iraq war should really serve as a blueprint of why every nation should want nuclear weapons. The US looting and destabilising both countries and their neighbours for decades has been an ugly stain on that region in that time. (Although I agree with you @Jam that I'd rather we advocate for nuclear disarmament although the horse has bolted on that front).
 
Last edited:
Kaos said:
I mean with nukes there's a pretty simple and in my view - pragmatic stance to take, either everyone has nukes or no one has them.

Also its pretty rich to call out Iran as the prime destabilisers of the region, considering the US has started numerous wars there in recent decades leading to millions of deaths, overthrown countless regimes, meanwhile their Israeli proxy is going full speed ahead with a genocide to bolster its colonial aspirations. But yes we should be worried about the Iranians getting nukes, never mind the superpower that has a fetish for destructive interventionism (and to date the only nation to have actually used a nuke on a civilian population).

From the Iranian perspective its also a no brainer. They've seen how their neighbour Iraq was utterly decimated beyond repair, largely because they didn't have a nuclear deterrent.
Click to expand...

Its a pretty simple proposition regarding nukes. Those that don't have them shouldn't get them, and those who do should be working to reduce how many they have. Encouraging certain states to get nukes will only create a regional arms race (indeed MBS has already said Saudi will get them if Iran does). So all things said, there's little benefit to Iran getting them since the Saudis would immediately balance and neither would be able to use them against one another, although Iran, by way of its proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, or Yemen, would be more than capable of smuggling a tactical nuke into one of those countries for use against Israel. They are after all Velyat al-Fikeeh messianic fanatics, so no good would come of them getting nukes, including the possibility that Israel or the US could preemptively strike them if either get wind of Iranian plans to smuggle tactical nukes to its proxies.
 
Jam said:
And IRGC being a nuclear power is a good thing why?
Click to expand...

.@Kaos and @jadaba have given well-articulated answers which are basically what i was going to say.
Massive parts of the US and Israeli establishments have been salivating for decades at the thought of reducing that country to rubble, nukes usually give them pause.
 
Raoul said:
Its a pretty simple proposition regarding nukes. Those that don't have them shouldn't get them, and those who do should be working to reduce how many they have. Encouraging certain states to get nukes will only create a regional arms race (indeed MBS has already said Saudi will get them if Iran does). So all things said, there's little benefit to Iran getting them since the Saudis would immediately balance and neither would be able to use them against one another, although Iran, by way of its proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, or Yemen, would be more than capable of smuggling a tactical nuke into one of those countries for use against Israel. They are after all Velyat al-Fikeeh messianic fanatics, so no good would come of them getting nukes, including the possibility that Israel or the US could preemptively strike them if either get wind of Iranian plans to smuggle tactical nukes to its proxies.
Click to expand...
No one is getting rid of their nukes, so the whole virtue signalling from those that already have them is irrelevant as it is hypocritical. And I'd wager Iran (like most nations) want the nuke primarily as a deterrent, not because they have any intention of using them. Call them fanatics all you like (which in truth I don't disagree with that labelling), but one thing they aren't is stupid. The fear from the West isn't that Iran will use or smuggle the nukes, but rather it gives them leverage, something Iraq or Libya didn't have, hence why the US and others were able to pillage and decimate those nations. The fear-mongering doesn't work. Iran hasn't unprovokedly attacked a nation in centuries, the US and their genocidal proxy on the other hand are gluttons for it.
 
Kaos said:
No one is getting rid of their nukes, so the whole virtue signalling from those that already have them is irrelevant as it is hypocritical. And I'd wager Iran (like most nations) want the nuke primarily as a deterrent, not because they have any intention of using them. Call them fanatics all you like (which in truth I don't disagree with that labelling), but one thing they aren't is stupid. The fear from the West isn't that Iran will use or smuggle the nukes, but rather it gives them leverage, something Iraq or Libya didn't have, hence why the US and others were able to pillage and decimate those nations. The fear-mongering doesn't work. Iran hasn't unprovokedly attacked a nation in centuries, the US and their genocidal proxy on the other hand are gluttons for it.
Click to expand...

The Iranian regime is a theocratic dictatorship based on Khomeinite jurisprudence, so yes, they are religious fanatics who shouldn't be getting nuclear weapons, especially given their ongoing practice of arming other groups in the region to do their dirty work on their behalf. This isn't in any way a knock on ordinary Iranians who are great people.

In the simplest of terms, there's no rational reason to argue for Iran getting nukes unless you want to preserve the theocratic Iranian regime as it is or you want Iran to exert some sort of nuclear threat onto Israel or Saudi or as a misguided attempt at thinking it will deter the US from behaving like a hegemon.
 
Raoul said:
The Iranian regime is a theocratic dictatorship based on Khomeinite jurisprudence, so yes, they are religious fanatics who shouldn't be getting nuclear weapons, especially given their ongoing practice of arming other groups in the region to do their dirty work on their behalf. This isn't in any way a knock on ordinary Iranians who are great people.

In the simplest of terms, there's no rational reason to argue for Iran getting nukes unless you want to preserve the theocratic Iranian regime as it is or you want Iran to exert some sort of nuclear threat onto Israel or Saudi or as a misguided attempt at thinking it will deter the US from behaving like a hegemon.
Click to expand...
A bit like Israel and the US then. Do you propose taking nukes off the Israelis then?

And yes it absolutely will balance the shift of power in the region - the US are perhaps going to think twice about exporting their death-laced brand of freedom to Iran as they'd done so in neighbouring countries. The matter of fact is the US behaves like a bully in the region because of there being no counter-weight or reprisals for doing so.
 
Kaos said:
A bit like Israel and the US then. Do you propose taking nukes off the Israelis then?

And yes it absolutely will balance the shift of power in the region - the US are perhaps going to think twice about exporting their death-laced brand of freedom to Iran as they'd done so in neighbouring countries. The matter of fact is the US behaves like a bully in the region because of there being no counter-weight or reprisals for doing so.
Click to expand...

I don't think Israel should have nukes and think the US and Russia should greatly reduce their stockpiles. If Iran get nukes, it will only destabilize the region and greatly legitimize domestic US interest in removing the Iranian regime - probably with the tacit support of the nearby Sunni world led by the Saudis.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think Israel should have nukes and think the US and Russia should greatly reduce their stockpiles. If Iran get nukes, it will only destabilize the region and greatly legitimize domestic US interest in removing the Iranian regime - probably with the tacit support of the nearby Sunni world led by the Saudis.
Click to expand...
As @jadaba had explained above, historical precedence has shown that regional stability favours a nuclear stalemate over a hegemonic power and its regional proxy being the sole possessors of nuclear armaments. Especially when that same power is already responsible for much of the instability in the region, including (quite ironically), the Iranian revolution that has led to the ascension of the current Iranian regime. The American and Israeli hawks frothing at the mouth when it comes to their insistence on attacking Iran will think twice before embarking on another military adventure that would further destabilise the region and kill scores more.
 
Kaos said:
As @jadaba had explained above, historical precedence has shown that regional stability favours a nuclear stalemate over a hegemonic power and its regional proxy being the sole possessors of nuclear armaments. Especially when that same power is already responsible for much of the instability in the region, including (quite ironically), the Iranian revolution that has led to the ascension of the current Iranian regime. The American and Israeli hawks frothing at the mouth when it comes to their insistence on attacking Iran will think twice before embarking on another military adventure that would further destabilise the region and kill scores more.
Click to expand...

Except it wouldn't be a nuclear stalemate. The US would almost certainly invade Iran to eliminate the threat of Iran exporting nukes. There's already support in US political circles to remove the Iranian regime (currently on the fringes) which would go much more mainstream if a verifyable Iranian nuke threat was introduced into the mix.
 
Raoul said:
Except it wouldn't be a nuclear stalemate. The US would almost certainly invade Iran to eliminate the threat of Iran exporting nukes. There's already support in US political circles to remove the Iranian regime (currently on the fringes) which would go much more mainstream if a verifyable Iranian nuke threat was introduced into the mix.
Click to expand...
When has a nation successfully invaded a nuclear power? How do you propose the US invades a nuclear armed Iran?
 
Raoul said:
Except it wouldn't be a nuclear stalemate. The US would almost certainly invade Iran to eliminate the threat of Iran exporting nukes. There's already support in US political circles to remove the Iranian regime (currently on the fringes) which would go much more mainstream if a verifyable Iranian nuke threat was introduced into the mix.
Click to expand...
How would the US invade Iran if they had nukes?
 
Kaos said:
When has a nation successfully invaded a nuclear power? How do you propose the US invades a nuclear armed Iran?
Click to expand...

Iranian nukes aren't an issue for the US since it is geographically far away and can strike Iran from anywhere in the world and not be concerned about Iran striking back. There's nothing the Iranians could do to stop it.
 
Wasn't US Trump that blew up the international JCPOA deal that prevented Iran to get nukes? If Iran gets nukes, guess who was the country that made it happen
 
Raoul said:
Iranian nukes aren't an issue for the US since it is geographically far away and can strike Iran from anywhere in the world and not be concerned about Iran striking back. There's nothing the Iranians could do to stop it.
Click to expand...
And risk Iran retaliating by nuking Israel or Gulf States where thousands of US servicemen are stationed? Not exactly a sound plan that.
 
Raoul said:
Because there's no need to. Iran would be in a completely different category in domestic US politics because of the threat on Israel.
Click to expand...

North Korea is a threat to their neighbours who are big allies to the US. Iran is never going to use nukes on Israel, they are neither stupid nor have a genocidal wish to eliminate their own country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.