Lets let Iran have a nuke

Say these IDIOTS.

Lets face it, they'd sooner see israel engulfed in a mushroom cloud before they decided to take action.

Tehran has no interest in negotiations with the west. It has been nothing more than a delay tactic for them.


The Iranians have been funding terrorism across the globe, while building up arms and a clandestine nuclear programme. The Iranian leader has talked of destroying israel, denying the holocaust and most importantly rejecting deals proposed by the west, WITH THE BACKING of the US to GIVE them nuclear power.

The notion the US could simply enter talks with an islamo facist regime fighting a stealth war against them and Israel, not to mention ourselves is absurd.

The 'west' had supported the EU3 talks which proved fruitless. The Iranians have made clear so many times there is NO going back. They are going ahead in their own words no matter 'how many UN resolutions.'

All these people are pushing is an already failed policy, born out of their natural and respectable tendancy toward pacificm.

A 'few years' (which nobody can really calculate) might seem a long way to you, but it reaches a point where there really is no turning back. Those 'few years' will counted down in Israel day by day.

The time has come to tell the Iranians its time to stop or its time to face action.

This hasn't arisen over night, its been going on for years. I've been following as has others, the mainstream media hasn't properly given the public the knowledge and facts of this case.

The old 'its because of Iraq' nonsense doesn't wash. This programme was started before Iraq or even before Bush.

People need to wake up and lay down their cards.

There will be those that will vote no to any action in any circumstances because thats the sort of people there are. But it disgusts me when they try and delay those that do see the urgency and importance of confronting a threat before it can materialize. You oppose any conflict, fine, but stop lying to the public about the chances for success of continued 'dialogue'. They are the modern day appeasers and left in charge, the holocaust becomes a nuclear holocaust, the war, millions of times more deadly than any other in history.  
Iran strike 'would be disastrous'  

A coalition of charities, faith groups and unions has warned Tony Blair that any military action against Iran would have "unthinkable" consequences.

The organisations are urging the prime minister to put pressure on the US to enter talks with Tehran.

The US has refused to rule out military action if Iran does not halt its nuclear activities.

Former Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons warned that time was "running out" to stop Iran becoming nuclear-armed.

Criticism

The US and its Western allies suspect Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as a cover to produce atomic weapons. Tehran denies this claim.

Recent criticism by President George Bush of alleged Iranian support for insurgency in Iraq has increased concerns that his administration is contemplating an attack.

In the report, Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran, the coalition accuses Mr Blair of using the prospect of military action as a negotiating tool.

Launching the report, former Labour minister Stephen Twigg, director of the Foreign Policy Centre, said: "The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable; they are unthinkable.

"Even according to the worst estimates, Iran is still years away from having a nuclear weapon.

"There is still time to talk and the prime minister must make sure our allies use it."

Coalition

The charity Oxfam, unions Unison, GMB and Amicus, have been joined by the Muslim Parliament and Christian Solidarity Worldwide in signing the report.

They warn that a strike against Iran would continue to destabilise the region and provoke further attacks against British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Military action is not likely to be a short, sharp engagement but could have a profound effect on the region, with shock waves felt far beyond," the report says.

It goes on to say the British government is "well positioned to articulate objections to military action" and that it should "not lose this opportunity to advocate for direct US engagement".

But Ms Fitzsimons, chief executive of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is Iran reaching the ability on an industrial scale to manufacture highly enriched uranium."

'Watershed'

International Institute for Strategic Studies and others were predicting this would happen within 11 months, she added.

Ms Fitzsimons said: "That is the watershed. There is no return from that point.

"You can't get the genie back in the bottle technologically once they have sorted out the problem they currently have with their centrifuges.

"I don't think you can stop it. You might be able to disrupt it. It's a question of looking at how far you can go down the line where you lose the ability to disrupt it."

Sir Richard Dalton, the British ambassador to Iran until last year, backed the calls for increased diplomacy.

"Recourse to military action - other than in legitimate self-defence - is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world," he said.

Military warnings

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is a timely and significant report.

"It highlights the need for the international community to be more aware of the potentially disastrous consequences of military action against Iran."

But the Conservatives said it was important to "keep all options on the table".

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "We cannot give them the comfort of believing that there is any weakness in the western alliance or that there is a chance that they might be able to divide and rule."


Display: Sort:

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#1)

Exactly right.

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#2)

It's all well and good saying it's time for action, but what sort of "action" do you envisage?

Are you taking into account interests of millions of people in the UK who take public transport and don't fancy being blown up on the way to work?

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#3)

Take out Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons and risk multiple terrorist attacks (tens-thousands dead) vs. Don't take out Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons and risk nuclear attacks (hundreds of thousands - millions dead)

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#4)

Oh I see. Firing off a couple of bunker busters seems an OK idea.

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#5)

better than being on the recieving end of a couple of nuclear warheads

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#8)

I envisage an air strike campaign.

Glasshouse is right.

Risking nuclear destruction or terrorism, while a quite awful choice, I would have to say, I would rather take the fight to the enemy.

Do you assume we will not be targetted if we don't attack?

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#6)

There's got to be consistency here.  Why not let Iran have nukes?  Because it might use them?  So might a future UK government.  It's time to be absolutely forthright and upfront on the issues of weapons of mass destruction, and to show some consistency and avoid double standards.

Pakistan, India and Israel (and apparently North Korea) all developed nuclear weapons 'illegally' and all potentially threaten sovereign states with their weapons.  Britain, France, the US, Russia and China are all compelled by law to move towards complete disarmament and yet all keep hold of what they have and most are spending money on researching or developing new systems (and all, by having more influence internationally, have in recent history been more likely to be involved in wars than the other countries mentioned, with the possible exception of Israel).  Only a couple of former soviet republics have actually obeyed the law on this.  Within the framework of international law, how can we proceed here?  What is the logical and legally-consistent argument for making Iran a special case regarding proliferation?

Lets have inspectors in every nuclear country in the world, and have UNSC resolutions compelling all countries to prepare frameworks for complete disarmament.

Let us look at the relationship between civil nuclear energy and nuclear weapons: if we don't believe Iran can be researching one without the other, does any country do so?

For too long we have exported the flawed concept of deterrence.  The logic that Iran should have nuclear weapons to neutralise those of Israel has come directly from the MAD logic that still holds sway amongst many of those promoting nuclear weapons in this country.  Furthermore, we have strengthened that position by attacking Iraq that we knew had no weapons of mass destruction, while negotiating with North Korea.  We also have decided to renew our weapons of mass destruction, demonstrating that we believe we get some advantage from having them.  Our policy is geared towards encouraging proliferation, and arms companies - both those engaged in conventional and non-conventional instruments of death - love that fact.  Let's not kid ourselves, the ratcheted-up fear of a nuclear Iran is going to win British defence contractors billions.

I fear we are heading towards some sort of military action and we need to be absolutely sure we've got our eyes wide open.  Many of our troops are currently based in area populated by heavily-armed pro-Iranian militia.  The fallout from military action against Iran could be enormous.  Whether we 'take out' facilities or not is almost irrelevent - we will be told targets were successfully eliminated, but they can be rebuilt if deemed necessary - but the consequences on the ground could be diabolical.  

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#7)

I see no evidence that giving up our nukes would dissuade Iran from continuing to develop theirs.

Why not let Iran have nukes? Iran is an undemocratic country, led by a madman and  a clique of religious fundamentalists which threatens to destroy states in it's region and, in the mean time, funds terrorists to kill innocent civilians of those states.

In a choice between 'playing fair' with such a state verus risking seven million Isrealis being burnt to death in a fireball while we sit and say "oops, we got that call wrong", I know which side I'm coming down on

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#9)

"There's got to be consistency here.  Why not let Iran have nukes?  Because it might use them?  So might a future UK government.  It's time to be absolutely forthright and upfront on the issues of weapons of mass destruction, and to show some consistency and avoid double standards."

Tell me who you think is more likely to use a nuclear weapon. A democracy, or a nation of islamo facists hell bent on bringing about the return of a historical religious figure and the destruction of a nation.

"Pakistan, India and Israel (and apparently North Korea) all developed nuclear weapons 'illegally' and all potentially threaten sovereign states with their weapons.  Britain, France, the US, Russia and China are all compelled by law to move towards complete disarmament and yet all keep hold of what they have and most are spending money on researching or developing new systems (and all, by having more influence internationally, have in recent history been more likely to be involved in wars than the other countries mentioned, with the possible exception of Israel).  Only a couple of former soviet republics have actually obeyed the law on this.  Within the framework of international law, how can we proceed here?  What is the logical and legally-consistent argument for making Iran a special case regarding proliferation?"

I say sod law. It blunt and blazon, but the current system doesn't work as it is. I don't see the point of following laws that nobody else seems to.

How can an international system that lets a corrupt communist dictatorship wield a veto be trusted to be fair?

It can't.

Sometimes, we simply have to unite as free nations and face a threat.

That is what we must do with Iran.

You are very right to make the legally based arguement. I cannot dispute that on paper you are quite right.

However, I am looking at this independent of that.

I see a massive threat, perhaps the greatest of this new generation, and I am not willing to let failing laws and corruption result in a nuclear holocaust just for the sake of taking the moral highground.

"The logic that Iran should have nuclear weapons to neutralise those of Israel has come directly from the MAD logic that still holds sway amongst many of those promoting nuclear weapons in this country."

The difference is, that instead of dealing with M.A.D we are in fact dealing with MAD. People that do not care for their own desturction. They do not fear death, they welcome it.

The M.A.D arguement should not be applied here. It is a different ball game altogether. That in itself makes it even more frightening.

If you are making the case that Iran should be able to have nukes, I don't think I could ever persuade you and visa verda. I simply believe your standpoint is flawed and even more dangerous than mine.

"have strengthened that position by attacking Iraq that we knew had no weapons of mass destruction"

That is simply not true. We did believe that they had wmd at the time.

" fear we are heading towards some sort of military action and we need to be absolutely sure we've got our eyes wide open.  Many of our troops are currently based in area populated by heavily-armed pro-Iranian militia.  The fallout from military action against Iran could be enormous.  Whether we 'take out' facilities or not is almost irrelevent - we will be told targets were successfully eliminated, but they can be rebuilt if deemed necessary - but the consequences on the ground could be diabolical."

Very true. Sadly inaction would be even worse, the world over.

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#11)

Of course I'm not making a case for Iran to have nuclear weapons.  I don't want anyone to have them.

I don't think the threatening noises directed towards Iran at the moment have the slightest thing to do with nuclear weapons.  If they do, then I think they are strategically flawed, and I think we need to carry out the sort of sustained, serious and consistent disarmament I referred to before.  But I fear it is a pretext.

On the issue of us believing Iraq had WMD before the war...  Well I certainly didn't believe it (I thought there might be some residual mustard gas shells from the Iran-Iraq War,to be fair, but beyond that I never believed it - and it seems even I was wrong) and I don't believe that our government believed it either.  There were very accurate reports of Iraq's capabilities on the public record (see Glen Rangwala's alternative dossier).

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#13)

The fact is the United Kingdom is a trustworthy country and everybody knows that the UK would never fire a nuclear weapon first. Same applies to America even though Bush is a war-lover. Even China can be trusted not to fire first.

Iran on the other hand cannot be trusted and shouldn't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Especially since its leader said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#14)

I don't trust china either, but for now, its certainly not a good idea to engage them.

However, Bush is not a 'war lover', he didn't start the WOT, he didn't invent tyranny and dictatorship in the middle east, and he didn't attack America on 9/11/01.

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#15)

Hold on there - whoever mentioned Bush starting 9/11? Nobody is suggesting that and you shouldn't put words into peoples mouths.

Bush is a war lover and an idiot. He possesses little to no intelligence and he clearly didn't think the War in Iraq through. Now I supported the Iraq War and still do support the principle of removing Saddam Hussein (but not his hanging). But I admit that Bush has handled the situation appaulingly badly and he seems to have a 'war leader' attitude to all of the world's problems. Which has done more damage to the world than good.

He is a 'right wing nut job' and I'll be so glad when January 2009 arrives.

Re: Lets let Iran have a nuke (#16)

Actually, I never accused anyone of saying bush being involved in 9/11, so don't assume things. I was simply making a wider point.

Bush is not a war lover, and is no idiot. With regards his intelligence, he went to two of the best universities in the US, albeit thanks to daddy and came out of both with some rather good qualifications. He was an extremely popular governor in Texas, defeating an even more democrat incumbant.

He is right wing, and I disagree with him on a whole host of issues.

I simply don't subscribe to this idiotic revision that he's an insane, stupid 'war lover'.

Consistency (#10)

How about this for consistency: the UK scraps all this Trident nonsense and fires off a couple of non-nuclear bunker-busters? That would be my ideal strategy.

Re: Consistency (#12)

Ideal is the work mark. We's be mad to give up ours.