IAP Political Forum

For a long time we have been wondering what Nato is for since the USSR is no more. Some even said it should be dismantled...
Well, now we'v got a role for it: Ally different states from the west and from the arab world against the mounting fears of a nuclear Iran.




but...




full article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080424/wl_nm/nato_gulf_iran_dc)

As one who has always been an ardent supporter of NATO, I must say I'm horrified at this kind of development.

Iran poses no threat to any nation of the North Atlantic group.  Ergo, NATO has no business being involved.

Using NATO as a figleaf for an expansive US militarist policy will be the end of NATO.

If this is what people what to use NATO for, I move we should disband it.  Western states must not be warmongers or foster organizations devoted to exporting war.

Iran poses no threat today, I agree, but they will pose one once they got nuclear weapons.
Nato's role has been, for the most part, to protect its member aginst nuclear threats.
IMO, they prepare the terrain.

There is absolutely no proof that Iran is a threat to any NATO member let alone even if they are accused of acquiring a nuclear bomb in a near future. IMO this is all just a hogwash and I believe that certain media outlets are capitalising on this to make a case for war with Iran.
 
 

it's People vs. NATO now. Citizens of the NATO countries generally hold opinions different from those of their bureaucrats. Just let the people decide, and the European contingents will rush from Iraq and Afghanistan back to the native shores. Pretty much same with the Gulf monarchies. Were the Arabs given any word in their rulers' deeds, u'd see a 180 degree turn from the US towards Iran. What unites NATO and the Gulf monarchies, Berlusconi with Abdullah, Blair with Mubarak? They all support the US despite the wishes of their citizens. So the wholy alliance of NATO with Arab tyrants looks very natural. But besides the NATO+Sheikhs vs Iran, it's also NATO+Sheikhs vs Europeans and Arabs. Iran is becoming the global People's Choice. Behold, Iran will be the new Robin Hood. There will be cheering across the globe every time Iran manifest the Noble Protest to the System. Iran is people's underdog. Iran is the Rocky Balboa of the geopolitics.

Do you have any rational argument to back this up or is this a product of your crystal ball?

If one actually considers actual historical facts regarding events similar to the issue of Iran and nukes, it becomes pretty damn obvious that the acquistion of nuclear weapons tends to politically stablize a country, tends to reduce outward tensions with enemy states and tends to induce a peaceful political engagement with enemy states.

To illustrate this, one only has to look to the Indian sub-continent.  India and Pakistan have fought several wars and have a long list of grievances with each other - all in the last 60 years.  Once the two powers had a 'nuclear balance' against each other, they stopped going to war at the drop of a hat and started meaningful political engagement with each other. 

This is the doctrine of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.  It is to be noted that the only time a nuclear weapon has ever actually been used in war, it was when one power held a nuclear monopoly.  The instant that (US) nuclear monopoly was broken by the USSR, the probability of nuclear war diminished substantially and the probability of peaceful engagement between USSR and USA was increased.

So now, looking at the Middle East, we are faced with a situation where one state holds a regional nuclear monopoly - Israel.  This causes political instability and an increased likelihood of war.  On this basis, it is entirely reasonable, based on past historical patterns to expect that if/when Iran achieves nuclear weapon power, that will generally act to reduce overall political instability in the Middle East as it has in other previous 'power-rivalries' of our nuclear era.

Iranian nukes would act as a balance of power and reduce the military tension in the Middle East and western governments apparently don't like that one little bit. 

This is totally and completely wrong.  The USA has always pushed to make NATO nuclear - it was not meant to be that way.

France officially departed the military arm of NATO in 1967 formally over objections to the US unilateral decision to make 'flexible response' nuclear doctrine substitute for a comprehensive ground defence of all NATO territory.

That is to say, the French objected to the US making nuclear weapons a first line in NATO defence.  NATO was meant to be a multinational conventional armed force, not a nuclear umbrella under US whim.

While I am also in agreement that MAD USUALLY takes place in most historical situations...I don't think Pakistan is exactly peaceful, nor a good example for you main point.  It still harbors all types of terrorists and controls an auspicious intelligence org (ISI)

There are still frequent violent outbreaks b/t Pakistan and India, albeit there is no state-state conventional war.  The problem is:  when a poorer nation (such as Iran) has a team of underpaid scientists, it can be difficult to control them, especially when the state itself can't control its general population from engaged in violence rooted in fundamentalism. 

an analogy:  give some both street gangs enough arms to ensure that no side will win...well maybe they don't care if they live or day.

I was watching a PBS film about the Ayatollah and he had publicly stated that it would be acceptable is Iran was left in ashes as long as Islam spread throughout the world. (It tried looking for a citation by no luck..I assure you though PBS did document the quote)  I don't know how genuine this statement was...it might have just been said for political rhetoric, but if he truly meant this, you can forget MAD.

MAD is only applicable if and only if a participant cares for his or her people's livelihood (or this life on earth for our religious posters)...The underlying assumption is rationale and logic.  What if you literately have a crazy person in control who doesn't care about living on earth.  They look two a "higher" placement after our life on earth.
 

in post-Soviet areas there were, and still are, hordes of spectacular yet underpaid, or even unpaid, scientists in all military areas. They haven't done any damage, to my knowledge.


i think it was the previous Ayatollah, and he is dead. Soviet leaders also talked about global proletarian revolution. Judge actions, not words. There is nothing suicidal in Iran's behaviour, so far as we don't confuse courage to resist US pressure with suicidal tendencies.

Peis and Dormouse

How do you know that the doctrine of MAD (superbly evocative acronym I must say) will work forever? How many instances of it have we seen? 2, 3?
How do make reliable statistical probabilities out of that? What if the forth case doesn't work? Huh?

No, I'm for ZERO tolerance toward those new powers who try to build nuclear weapons.
Pakistan, India and NK are already way too many. I'm against MAD: I don't want to live constantly under mutualy assured destruction treath.
How you can trust shiite Mullahs on a principle which held between the US and USSR and which was never a sure thing, is beyond me.
The US and the USSR had been sitting on a power kegg for some 40 years and you wold like to recommence that with the muslim fanatics?
You must be crazy.

Those soviet scientist are controlled by their own gov't...an assumption of mine of course.

and while their no blatant suicidal behavior of Iran there has been some suicidal or at least provoking actions such as their Rev. Guard who piloted speed boats around US warships...while dropping unidentified objects into the water...and

I would like to believe that actions speak louder to words and they generally do, but that doesn't mean that you should discount what said. A statement like that genuinely makes me cast doubt on his rational and sanity.  I really wish I could find that speech some where...I'm going to look deeper.  I was under the impression that it was the current Ayatollah. 

What makes you think that it would be otherwise for the iranian scientists unless of course as you clearly stated it's your own assumption.


A bit OT considering that different media outlets produce their own versions to this story. The other story I hear is that the alleged iranian guy that threatened to attack the US navy is not an iranian and is just a voice over. Look when at times of conflict each side uses its own propoganda machine to fabricate their own version of truth. Remember those "evil commies" in USSR? They were US enemy right?


That's what it all comes down to. You were under the impression and you are wrong... The guy that made the alleged statement has been dead for the last 19 years... Past leaders from other countries have made sweeping statements just like the Ayatollah. Should we go back and judge a whole nation based on what that one person said? You are right that actions speak louder than words. The funny thing is though that some of these suicidal actions were committed by the proxy US allies (YES US ALLIES NOT IRAN) against the US. Oh the irony of it...

the MAD thing has been discussed; I tend to think USSR would have been nuked in the 50s had it not tested a hydrogen in 1949. The seduction of a final solution to the commie problem would have been floating over the patriotic heads all the time. The argument that believers arу not quite rational as atheists has merits; but i deny anyone the right to deny nuclear access to any nation on the pretext of "i don't trust you".



I said "post-Soviet". Difference there is, trust me. Post-Soviet scientists were neither controlled nor paid. And they were decades ahead of anything that Iran has up to now.



that's the aberration of your political sight. American actions in the last decade alone were more "provocative" than anything Iran did since the Xerxes thrust into Hellada. How provocative would you find an unwarranted take-over of Mexico by Iran? See how different a standard of "provocativeness" u're applying to the two actors?


aha

Get back to me on this when you learn how to be civil. 

Its been a few years now and I see you still haven't learned.

I don't reply to insults - or posters who make them.

I said this months ago:
If anyone here can name one country that acquired nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of using them, other than the US during the WWII, please speak up. Nuclear arms represent deterrent only. Otherwise you keep your mouth shut about creating them....whole point about a deterrent is to make a lot of brewhaha about it and public tests and so forth.

If not I have no reason to see Iran as simply pursuing their inherent right as a nation (as much right as any nation) to have a nuclear deterrent.

Hell, I've been arguing for a Canadian nuclear deterrent for years.





Ahk

You make fair points...but I'm pretty sure I am right about the current Ayatollah making those comments.  I'd have to read some proof admit my mistake.  No offense Cactus and Peis, but I'm going to trust my memory of PBS more than your post.

Peisthanathos: the cold war started precisely because the USSR had nukes. Without soviet nukes, talks and mutual understandings would have been far easier between the two blocks. The Western powers signed the Yalta treaty with Stalin and would nuke them 5 years later? Non sens. The west started to consider the soviet block as a treath from the day it had auired nukes. Without nukes, we would have let the commies do what they want in Asia. the Vietnam war would not have happened. the nuclear deterrent didn't detter the US intervention on Vietnam.

 Exactely the same thing arrived with any new comer to the club: Who would ever think of sanctions against India and Pakistan before they had nukes?
There was never talk of sanction or war against Iran before their nuclear program.
Saddam was ousted, not because of nukes, but the best pretext given was still "WMD". Why they didn't say "Saddam kills chlidren instead"?
Iraq and Syria have been attacked by Israel only because they had built nuclear sites. Israel would never have bombed them otherwise.

The view from the other side confirms it further: The arab world is worried of Israel because of their nukes, the USSR worried of the west because of its nukes.

Nukes and theior developement only ccreate rgional destabilisation, disruption of the diplomatic process, worries among populations, cases for wars, proxy wars, waste of resources, the list goes on.


It represent a deterent, yes, but there is a problem:
If somebody wants he can also use it as an weapon of agression. The only thing he would need is the believe that either his enemy won't be capable or willing to retaliate nuclearly or that he can sustain such a retaliation. If someone want to blow a nuke on civilians he can do it. Technicaly no problem.

So far only the US and the USSR have been near the nuclear war breaking point or at least that nuclear war was a serious possibility (India and Pakistan never went as close as that). Why did we worry of USSR missile and why did the soviet worried of our missiles if it was deterrent only?

Why at this time nobody said "Ho, as long as we don't nuke them, they won't nuke us so their nuclear arsenal is not a concern"?
Because this detterent stuff or MAD is a view of the mind, specific to our time, not an absolute reality.

Fortunately we avoided the disaster. We avoided it because we were not at war. Japan and the US didn't avoid it because they were at war. Any country atwar with another would come to it sooner or later if they are at war.
You think war has rules like "not hitting under the belt"?
You think a nation close to a total defeat after years of wars and millions of death would not use it?
You think nobody will be enough crazy to do it?

Now why do you want to bet that the second time we would be in a cold war situation with totaly different poeple, the outcome would be the same?

As i said above, how can you make statistical prediction on example you can count on on the fingers of only one hand?

Well sure. Naturally any of the missiles could be used for aggression. That's a given. However unless you are sincerely just the craziest MF in the world you won't. I dont believe Iran is that crazy. I guess that's what it comes down to. I would be more inclined to agree if it were Kim Long.
You don't really need two diametrically opposed forces to insure a MAD situation. I mean Vietnam could not retaliate with nukes but the US resisted the temptation to use one right down to the point of losing instead.
China hasnt used one for Tibet. Russia didnt use one for Afghanistan or Chechnya. In the case of Afghanistan they chose to withdraw and call their casualties a lost cause rather than use one in an attempt to win.

I think primarily the reason for this is because if one state uses one then all the states that have them become concerned (as well as the rest who can't). And since it likely involves an unannounced attack there is suddenly the spot light on you as the worlds major threat and an easy target with the excuse of "do it to them before they do it to you like they did with country XYZ".

The idea that any nation might use one if they possess one is a given, but through many trying times in their short history the use of nukes have been resisted by those who could very well have used them with impunity. In my mind anyone could use them. My eyes are still on Russia.

The real problem with nukes is not their presence but the invention itself. Whether Iran gets a nuke tomorrow, or 20 years from now when a "coalition of the willing" invades them, then installs a leader, who is then voted out by another leader, who is in turn voted out by another until such time as a leader decides Iran needs a nuke again.

In my opinion the subject has to be dealt with that reality in mind.


Just sayin',
Ahk

Ahk is right as almost always when he speaks on Iran. Fred is wrong as almost always when speaking about nukes. It eludes me how anyone can fail to see the restraining effect that MAD had on the USA-USSR "axis of love".


the cold war began with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 to which Western powers responded by military invasion of the Soviet Russia. Both sides saw each other as foes ever since 1917. Hitler reconciled them briefly but the cold war was effectively back on track already in 1944. Hitler even hoped to survive by playing his enemies one against the other. In 1919 West was prevented from subverting Russia by refusal of soldiers to fight the war. In the 20-30s by the gigantic military of the USSR. In the 50s by the Soviet A-bomb.


they both receive huge aid from the US; India in terms of technical assistance in nuclear issues. Musharraf gets cash to keep nukes safe, India behaves independently. There are no sanctions. Korean profile was vastly raised by the nukes acquisition. Remember the "all means on the table" talk? There is no more. Instead, vast economic aid.



only because they didn't build them fast enough.


it would not be in that position if it had nukes. the whole point of nukes is to prevent wars between those who have them. All wars.

Excellent post.

Btw, Canada, like Germany and Japan are on the 'short list' of countries that are technologically capable of having nuke weapons but officially choose not to.

Ahk,
You are right about everything you said.
I would only add this:
Those who had the nukes and didn't use them, didn't do so also for two other reasons: First, they didn't want to nuke a land they regarded as their own.
Second, and the most important, the countries they were at war against (was China even at war with Tibet?) were far from posing a vital treath.
Aghanistan never destroyed half of the Soviet army, Vietnam never destroyed half of the US navy. Japan did. That's where all the difference is.

So far we haven't seen any nuclear capable country near potential military defeat except in the case of Japan. And on this only case the US didn't hesitate one second to kill 350,000 civilians with two A-bombs.
Do you think Iran will hesitate?

Peis,
I think that you are dreaming completely. You think that once everyone on the planet will have nukes, there will be no war anymore? No, there will be wars with nukes. That's the only difference.