Iran solution as simple as a non-agression pact ?

Hello,

Something came to my mind as I read the news reporting Ahmadinejad said they "won't retreat from nuclear path" (abcnews.go.com...).

So basically Iran said they will demolish Israel if they are attacked, which seems logical (not recommended, but logical).
And Israel/US planning on Iran because they suspect Iran's Nuclear development being military, therefore dangerous for Israel and other countries.

Then ... Wouldn't simply a non-agression pact be the ultimate solution ?

en.wikipedia.org...

This would officially prove that :
- Iran has no agressive intention toward pact linked countries,
- US/Israel don't want nothing more than regional protection against war
- Iran can continue its so called civil nuclear plans

That would also make Iran lose China, Russia support if it directly or indirectly broke that treaty.
And everything will return to its normal.

I know it's just papers and doesn't prevent anything real, but Non-agression pacts are serious business since forever. It would be an official (paper) validation of all Israel, US, and Iran justifications about what they are doing right now.

So ultimately, if they don't want to sign such a pact, it would prove that :
- Iran's nuclear path is for agressive purposes
- Israel so called "defensive strikes" are just conquest
- US protection of Israel is far more than protection, something like conquest too (or oil or whatever)

A lot of people are suspecting the 3 points above, but refusing that pact would make it crystal clear.
It would blow out all the covers they've been bragging about for so long.

So I say it : Come on big guys, Israel, US, Iran, bring a Non-agression pact. Bring it to see if you're honest that much.

reply to post by kineticdamage


But it wouldn't work.. because Israel will still want to shut Iran's nuke facilities down. The fear is that Iran will make a nuke and then give it to radicals that will get it into Israel and set it off I think. I don't think missiles are what they are apparently concerned about. Israel would be the ones that aren't satisfied.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


If that's for the fear of terrorist deals, then why aren't US/Israel as virulent with Pakistan as with Iran ?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


The isotopes can be traced right back to the reactor though, so everyone knows it would be Iran that gave terrorists a nuke(if they even had one) Plus good luck trying to 'sneak' a nuclear weapon in to Israel.

i still think it has to do with powering ufos.anybody with patience can build a nuke and smuggle it in to israel.lame excuse in my opinion.the israel gov needs to hire steven king.that man could really scare the hell outa the world.

Originally posted by kineticdamage
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

If that's for the fear of terrorist deals, then why aren't US/Israel as virulent with Pakistan as with Iran ?

Because Pakistan is an ally for the US,therefore Israel also has to respect that.

Iran on the other hand is more careful with whom they make allegiances with,therefore they are a target.

It's the same result with anyone that disagrees with becoming a "client state" of the western power elite...

Treaties are eventually broken by All


if Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation-Treaty... then treaties on no-first-strike or the OP suggestion of a non-aggression pact is likely to be circumvented also

Non-proliferation treaty has failed: Iran - ABC News (Australian ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2010.../non-proliferation-treaty...iran/419222
May 3, 2010 – Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants changes to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as member states prepare to meet in New York.

of course the USA or Israel might use drone attacks from Turkey to break any such treaty if it were ever in force

reply to post by St Udio


Yeah indeed, treaties are just "paper" as I mentionned. But signing such a treaty would put all the 3 parties in an extremely unpopular position if they were to break it, worldwide.
Elections in USA are near the corner, and Ahmadinejad has grown already unpopular since the Ayatollah rejected him.
And politicians really don't like unpopularity when elections are near the corner.
Cherry on the cake, the world just doesn't want another war, period.

It would serve as a "seal of not f*cking things up", for short.

Plus, if Iran was soooo much evil that they would shoot on a country which signed a deal of non agression with them, this Iran would lose China, Russia support in case of a major retaliation.
Which means breaking that treaty would dig their own grave.

At the opposite, if US/Israel broke it, China/Russia would be more eager to support Iran. We can clearly see China and Russia being practically neutral on this whole affair, so that wouldn't be difficult for them to jump from one side to another once again.

This would litterally be a "seal of not fu*king things up".

Originally posted by St Udio
Treaties are eventually broken by All


if Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation-Treaty... then treaties on no-first-strike or the OP suggestion of a non-aggression pact is likely to be circumvented also

Non-proliferation treaty has failed: Iran - ABC News (Australian ...
www.abc.net.au/news/2010.../non-proliferation-treaty...iran/419222
May 3, 2010 – Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants changes to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as member states prepare to meet in New York.

But Israel is not signatory to the NPT, has their own nuclear program, has nuclear weapons, AND has nuclear weapons capable (and obviously target) at attacking Iran.

There is NO basis for cooperation already because the Western side has already established the double standard. The West doesn't want equal basis between rival countries and compliant countries.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

The isotopes can be traced right back to the reactor though, so everyone knows it would be Iran that gave terrorists a nuke(if they even had one) Plus good luck trying to 'sneak' a nuclear weapon in to Israel.

Wouldn't have to "sneak" one into Israel. All they would need to do is detonate one near the Mediterranean which then would flood much of Israel with nuclear fall out.

Please, non-aggression pacts have worked so well in the past, haven't they? Wow, people really do forget history, don't they?

reply to post by Bearack


Please, read the whole discussion, thanks. It's not "only" about just signing a pact, it's about all that would trigger, geopolitically.
Seems like I have to update the OP or people won't read past the title.

Also, if signing pacts is 100% useless, then all that is left to do is nuke every nuclear facility in the world.
Because hey ... "We never know".

Originally posted by kineticdamage
Plus, if Iran was soooo much evil that they would shoot on a country which signed a deal of non agression with them, this Iran would lose China, Russia support in case of a major retaliation.
Which means breaking that treaty would dig their own grave.

At the opposite, if US/Israel broke it, China/Russia would be more eager to support Iran. We can clearly see China and Russia being practically neutral on this whole affair, so that wouldn't be difficult for them to jump from one side to another once again.

This would litterally be a "seal of not fu*king things up".

edit on 9-11-2011 by kineticdamage because: (no reason given)

Ahmadinejad has clearly stated he is a 12'er and him facilitating the return of the twelfth Imam or the return of Muhammad al Mahdi would bring great pleasure to this crazy. So, a nuclear event and the destruction of Islams greatest foe is a more realistic scenario over a peaceful Iran and a signed non-aggression pact.

Originally posted by kineticdamage
reply to post by Bearack

 

Please, read the whole discussion, thanks. It's not "only" about just signing a pact, it's about all that would trigger, geopolitically.
Seems like I have to update the OP or people won't read past the title.

Also, if signing pacts is 100% useless, then all that is left to do is nuke every nuclear facility in the world.
Because hey ... "We never know".

edit on 9-11-2011 by kineticdamage because: (no reason given)

Pacts are useless in that they are broken time and time again. Hell, look at Neville Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement.

When you have a country that continues to threaten another country with utter obliteration, a non-aggression pact/agreement does nothing but prevent the country being threatened from preemptive capabilities.

It's been proven time and time again that Ahmadinejad has made threats of wiping the Zionist from the map and pushing the Jews into the sea.

If you want to be serious about any sort of pact, you need to allow inspectors into their refineries. ALL of them to ensure they AREN'T making weapons grade plutonium. Only then can we even set at the same table.

reply to post by Bearack


I understand your arguments, and they are true.
But there's a difference between types of pacts, and a Non-Agression one is simpler to manage than a Non Nuclear Proliferation one, for example.
They "just" have to keep things pacific. If not, sanctions are made. It's not as difficult to inspect as searching for nuclear facilities, for example.

Non-Agression pact doesn't even require inspectors, nor regular checkups. It just requires to read the news, or more seriously, gather a bit of intel info.
Sanctions don't have to be tuned too according to the scale of the break, it's either it's broken or not. And they're full scale sanctions, like crime of war sanctions, unlike NPT where you can't decide for example to completely shut down a government just because it allowed nuclear facilities.

Also last but not least, no analysis is needed when it's broken, nothing needs to be verified, a strike is a strike.

It's completely absolute, nothing relative, which reinforces its importance.

It is as absolute as 2 guys pointing a gun to each other, and then saying "Ok I'll drop my weapon if you drop yours".

Non agression pact is a good solution.

But the bigger issue is over Iran's owining of Nukes.

The world is currently attempting to limit nukes, and suddenly 2 more nations are comming out with nukes, despotic regimes too - N Korea and Iran.

Thus the displeasures of not only the superpowers china, russia, us, but every human on earth that deplores the power and destructive force of nukes.

However, once technology is discovered, it cannot be 're-covered' or hidden again. No human can stop another from creating nukes.

The only solution is to give up on calling for the end of nukes, but rather, emphasis on the responsibility of nukes to nuke owners and citizens - that no nation must ever use it as a first strike option, or in any case, go to war with any nation without the full exhausation of all diplomatic channels, both bilaterally and at the planetary stage, or face the wrath of the entire planet upon that agressor nation.

There will be a loss of pride/face in this situation if adopted by the leaders, and Iran would have seem to have won. N Korea had already long won. BUt in the end, leaders must prioritize which is more important - one's pride....or wars upon masses?

Wouldn't really change anything, as for losing Russian support, they only have to ask Russia how the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact worked out for them in WW2

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
Wouldn't really change anything, as for losing Russian support, they only have to ask Russia how the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact worked out for them in WW2

Yeah, because Stalin really believed that Hitler was his best friend even after Hitler made it clear that Germany saw communists as untermensch

reply to post by kineticdamage


Well.. we should be, about a thousand times more so.
I just replied to the OP, I'm not justifying anything. Pakistan will be the first place to give/lose nukes to radicals.

reply to post by Solomons


Why would they have to sneak it into Iran? Getting one to Palestine would be good enough, but either way I'm not saying that is what's up or that's a worry. I'm just saying a non-aggression pact would not change anything. Same position we are in now.