Where to draw the line with Iran? Should there be a line?

So with the recent international talks happening over Iran's nuclear development agenda one has to wonder at what point do we justify switching from diplomacy to force? It seems like the recent discussions have not gotten anywhere especially considering the fact both Israel and Iran are not willing to compromise over much:

It took just a few hours on Sunday for the focus of the failed negotiations on an Iranian nuclear deal to shift to the promise of a breakthrough at the next meeting. Israel, however, is not sold on the pending deal.

www.dw.de...

It's been now what? 8 or so years that there have been diplomacy efforts to avoid any direct confrontation with Iran and it's seem to have gotten worse than better. Israeli officials have already made it clear that they are willing to attack Iran alone if they have to, what about America's leadership? Well they haven't exactly denied that force is off the table.

Obama has been clear about his position:

"I've said before and I will repeat -- we do not want Iran having nuclear weapons," Obama said when asked about Iran by Agence France-Presse's Stephen Collinson.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And given his previous position on Syria and Israelis influencial lobbies in DC, it's not out of the question that he will allow for force.

What about the other major players in DC?

Ted Cruz?

Cruz added, he also agrees "with John McCain that if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that we should intervene militarily to prevent it from acquiring those weapons. Why? Because it is in the vital national security interest of the United States."

www.washingtonpost.com...

Jeb Bush?

Military options must be left on the table to force Iran's leaders to abandon their nuclear ambitions, according to Jeb Bush. The US should be much more assertive in encouraging regime change there as well, he said.

www.ontheissues.org...

There is a pretty much solid consensus within the Republican and Democratic parties that force should be on the table if there is an Iran with Nuclear weapons save some individuals like Rand Paul who favour 'containment' force... which is not exactly a force by invasion in Iranian territory but still includes military force that may verywell be viewed as a threat to Iran's security.

It seems like there is a clear line in Washington DC, but what about the people? Many were so quick to oppose intervention in Iran but is this in all cases? Are people willing to accept a nuclear Iran? What do ATSers think? Will military force be justified in this case? Personally my position is that even with a nuclear Iran it is not our role to police the world. I think it's important the United States continue to develop defensive measures to ensure a response if there is sufficient evidence over use of nuclear weapons, however invading a country over development of nuclear weapons? Like Iraq in which we justified invasion over development of WMD's, I feel the same for Iran. We don't have the right to different standards to other nations to ourselves. We do have the right to defend our allies and ourselves but I believe that defense ends at the borders of our allies, not beyond it. What do ATSers think? Remember we're talking about a worst case scenario here, a nuclear Iran.

according to this story, Russia is going to help Iran with a reactor.

This changes the strategy.

And the strategy depends on who's view we listen to.

Obama's ?

ranking Republicans ?

What if Russia says "hands off Iran" no exceptions ?

TEHRAN, Nov. 13 (Xinhua) -- Head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali-Akbar Salehi said his country will start to build its second nuclear power plant in the near future in cooperation with Russia, Press TV reported on Wednesday.

"We hope to start the construction of the country's second nuclear power plant at the beginning of the (new Iranian calendar) year 1393," starting on March 21, 2014, in cooperation with the Russians, Salehi was quoted as saying.

Under a protocol signed earlier between Tehran and Moscow, power plants with a capacity of up to 4,000 megawatts could be constructed in Iran, said Salehi.

Iran to build 2nd nuclear power plant in cooperation with Russia: atomic chief

There is no logical reason for America to use force on Iran. They are no threat to America. Iran has had more inspections than any other nation and still no evidence of a bomb. McCain has always been an Israeli bootlicker so it's no shock that he is willing to get Americans killed for Israel. If Israel wants to attack Iran let them but leave America out of it. By all rights we should have sanctions against Israel until they sign the NPT and allow inspections of their illegal nukes.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


We should not be dictating to other nations about what they can and can't do within their own borders. As for Iran special interest groups have been shrieking that they're on the verge of having a bomb for over 15 years. Still no bomb.

If I was Iran and sitting that close to Israel who has numerous nuclear weapons I'd want a bomb too. We've seen just who (Israel) is willing to bomb other countries outside their borders.

Who are we to say Pakistan, India, UK, France, Saudi Arabia (soon,) etc, ad nauseum are allowed to have a nuclear deterrent but Iran is not? If Israel does attack Iran they may be able to win but they are not taking into account their main ally, Russia. This will be worse than Syria by far. IMO.

reply to post by xuenchen


Well I'm against military force in Iran regardless. I am fully behind supporting our allies and ensuring any nuclear threat is contained outside of Irans borders but beyond that, military force, boots on the ground or even air strikes within Iranian territory? No. What about you Xuenchen? Do you agree with me? Or do you believe force is necessary? And this is assuming both Republicans and Democrats are on board on this.

I think America has lost the moral authority to demand anything from anyone.

Our internal house is a mess.
Our foreign policy is all over the place.
America indiscriminately drones people.
America spies on everyone, without regard.

Really. America has lost it's moral compass. Until it get's it back, it (America) should just mind it's own business.

beezzer
I think America has lost the moral authority to demand anything from anyone.

Our internal house is a mess.
Our foreign policy is all over the place.
America indiscriminately drones people.
America spies on everyone, without regard.

Really. America has lost it's moral compass. Until it get's it back, it (America) should just mind it's own business.

Well said Beezer.
We need to clean up our own house first before dictating to others to clean theirs.

Southern Guardian
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Well I'm against military force in Iran regardless. I am fully behind supporting our allies and ensuring any nuclear threat is contained outside of Irans borders but beyond that, military force, boots on the ground or even air strikes within Iranian territory? No. What about you Xuenchen? Do you agree with me? Or do you believe force is necessary? And this is assuming both Republicans and Democrats are on board on this.

I would say absolute proof of an absolute threat is necessary before any military actions happen.

The economic sanctions are causing enough headaches with U.S. allies I think.

It's hard to form thoughts when the information we get may not be 100% reliable.

And I have said before that if Iran wants (or already has) nukes, they could get them easy enough from foreign sources. What ever happened to all those missing nukes from the old USSR ?

China has plenty too.

I think the whole Iran thing is about money handling.

They don't like the Dollar, and are not subscribers to the Bank for International Settlements.

The B.I.S. seems to be a common denominator in recent Middle East conflicts both economic and military.

xuenchen
I would say absolute proof of an absolute threat is necessary before any military actions happen.

I am talking about absolute proof. I am talking about a scenario where there is no doubt that Iran has nuclear weapons. We're not talking about the kind of scenario like the 2003 Iraq war where there was great doubt over Iraq possessing WMD's, we're talking about indisputable proof. Would you support military force again Iran?

Southern Guardian
... at what point do we justify switching from diplomacy to force?

At what point?
When Israel says so.

Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with the USA, and the USA has nothing whatsoever to do with Iran. They're in different parts of the planet and neither one has any real threat of invasion or attack from the other...
...unless Israel say so.

Where does America get off insisting the Iranians have to make a deal? All I hear about is this "deal". The deal they have to accept because we tell them to? Thats no "deal".

The French "derailed" talks last week or how was it? The Iranians accused the French of Blackmail. Blackmail?

I think the "deal" was, if Iran gives up its "nuclear ambitions" then some sanctions will be lifted. Thats no "deal", thats blackmail.

Welp, I'm no one to tell anyone else what to do or not do. Certainly not interested in upsetting anyone. But from a human perspective, look at fukushima and nuclear waste. I dunno.

Has anyone thought what the fallout of a real strike on a bunch of reactors and waste site and whatever else? All of the radiation in the world, would spike and could kill millions...
Or force the next step of human evolution...
Maybe a rock that looks like a wet moon

xuenchen
I would say absolute proof of an absolute threat is necessary before any military actions happen.

Southern Guardian

I am talking about absolute proof. I am talking about a scenario where there is no doubt that Iran has nuclear weapons. We're not talking about the kind of scenario like the 2003 Iraq war where there was great doubt over Iraq possessing WMD's, we're talking about indisputable proof. Would you support military force again Iran?

Like I said, absolute proof of an absolute threat would justify military actions.

The 'threat' would almost have to be just short of Iran actually using nukes.

Like proof of the things actually being powered up or even launches detected.

I don't know if a 'launch' could be intercepted ?

Big IF.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I guess we should first start with them doing something wrong....anything..
But it seems Iran is a straight flying setup.
Now those israeli terrorists however, we need to shut them down yesterday.
The way they keep striking Iran illegally, killing their citizens and blowing up their facilities.

reply to post by buster2010


Iranian revolution.. dead marines

Payback sucks for them


There should be that line.. An apology to start with compensation to the dead family members

Then they should be denied nuclear technology
Period


They cant be trusted.. a point blank threat to eliminate us

reply to post by ripcontrol


Are we talking about the same reality?
The country always pressing the US to destroy Iran is the only nation to kill US soldiers and civilians and get off scott free.
I'm not aware of Iran killing any Americans. ...

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I don't understand why people believe this horse-plop.

Iran don't need to 'build' a bomb. They can just get one from North Korea.

The second a bomb gets used, the game changes. It wont matter who gave it to them, who built it or how many there are, none of that will matter.

Who are we to draw lines? Are we so uncorruptable and all knowing and good?

Ah yet to be answered, no one knows the fallout would be worse than the bomb...
Yet evil always creates evil hell they don't let us know the mess in Japan... I love sushi...
So, I am assured that IT would be a 'clean' strike...