[MP-Ryan]

But destroying Israel is one of the key tenants of their internal propaganda and their ideology.

Prove that.

I offer this as counter-evidence to anything you say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

As your own source points out, the "wipe Israel off the map" is probably a mis-translation or at least a phrase where the original meaning was lost in translation.  However, Iran's policies (as detailed in that source) do not support a two-state solution and openly declare they wish to see a referendum encompassing the Palestinian areas and the current state of Israel that would see one whole state in the region with a single government.  This policy effects the destruction of Israel.  Sure, it's by non-military means but there is no question that a referendum of all the peoples in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel would revert the region to Palestinian control and eliminate the state of Israel.

To anyone who has studied the long and sordid history of the region, a single state solution may be desirable on paper but it is unquestionably a bad idea in practice - the events between 1948 and now demonstrate that admirably.

To summarize:  Iran may not [openly] advocate for the military destruction of Israel, but their stated policy objective is to eliminate a Jewish state in the Middle East through, at minimum, political means.  Iran supports giving the Palestinian peoples the right to self-determination, while essentially removing it from Jews by relying on the tenet of the tyranny of the majority (and don't kid yourself for one second that Iran wants their new Palestine to function as a democracy, that is decidedly not in the cards).  This is why a two-state solution becomes the only fair outcome for all the parties involved.

[Grizzly]

As your own source points out, the "wipe Israel off the map" is probably a mis-translation or at least a phrase where the original meaning was lost in translation.  However, Iran's policies (as detailed in that source) do not support a two-state solution and openly declare they wish to see a referendum encompassing the Palestinian areas and the current state of Israel that would see one whole state in the region with a single government.  This policy effects the destruction of Israel.  Sure, it's by non-military means but there is no question that a referendum of all the peoples in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel would revert the region to Palestinian control and eliminate the state of Israel.

However, it does not involve nuking isreal, which is what everyone is upset about, and which I still do not get.

[karajorma]

Exactly the point I was making.

As for the tyranny of the majority comment, how is a tyranny of the minority any better?

[NGTM-1R]

Prove that.

Iran directly and openly funds Hezbollah, whose stated ideology is the destruction of the State of Israel. They are openly supportive of this cause and have consistently provided Hezbollah with weapons and supplies to carry it out.

And would you honestly tell me that one may name another nation "the Little Satan" and not be declaring their desire to destroy it? If anyone of power in a country is permitted to make such a comparison and keep their job then surely this is a sign of declared and deep enmity?

There is perhaps an element of naivete at work. I've recently been reading about the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and that many in Iran expected at the time that after the hostages were released relations would normalize. But being naive and armed with nuclear weapons is nearly as bad as being destructive and armed with nuclear weapons.

[karajorma]

Iran directly and openly funds Hezbollah, whose stated ideology is the destruction of the State of Israel. They are openly supportive of this cause and have consistently provided Hezbollah with weapons and supplies to carry it out.

Given that the original post is about Israel recruiting Sunni terrorists to overthrow the Iranian government and install a Sunni leadership for the country you're making an argument that is massively hypocritical.

And would you honestly tell me that one may name another nation "the Little Satan" and not be declaring their desire to destroy it? If anyone of power in a country is permitted to make such a comparison and keep their job then surely this is a sign of declared and deep enmity?

But enmity is not enough. Did not a previous American President refer to Iran as being part of the Axis of Evil and yet keep his job? Hell, during the cold war (when MAD was pretty much the only check and balance) didnt an American president mention The Evil Empire?

In case it wasnt clear, I'm not asking you to prove that Iran has a problem with the existance of the state of Israel. I want you to prove your earlier assertion that there is reason to believe the Iranians might launch a suicidal first stike. That's a rather massive assertion and it therefore requires some pretty serious proof.

Now before anyone goes off the deep end, I'm not in favour of them having nukes. But my objection is not one against the current regime, its a simple argument that I do not believe Iran is stable enough keep nuclear weapons safe. If that is your issue, so be it. But to argue that Iran won't understand or respect MAD you're going to have to provide a little more proof than some petty name calling at the level your own country has engaged in. Even showing the support terrorism isn't the level of proof required for this argument.

[MP-Ryan]

As for the tyranny of the majority comment, how is a tyranny of the minority any better?

It's not - hence a two-state solution.

And can anyone honestly say that they are 100% OK with the Iranians having control of nuclear weapons?  FFS, I'm not 100% OK with the Americans having control of nuclear weapons.

[karajorma]

Yes but the issue is not whether Iranian foreign policy is fair or just or even a good idea. The issue is the assertion that Iran can't be relied on to not launch nuclear weapons because they somehow are too insane to fear MAD.

This assertion has not been proved in any way, shape, size or form and I've even posted evidence of the Iranians seeking a diplomatic, non-violent solution. You might not agree with that solution, but you can't discount it and replace it with a paranoid fantasy that Iran want to launch a first strike simply because you don't like the idea of them having nukes.

There are valid reasons to not want them to have them. But arguing that they will attack Israel and damn the consequences, despite a complete lack of evidence, simply proves Turambar's comment

Looks like the propaganda's working, guys

was spot on.

[NGTM-1R]

Given that the original post is about Israel recruiting Sunni terrorists to overthrow the Iranian government and install a Sunni leadership for the country you're making an argument that is massively hypocritical.

Hypocrisy does not make it factually wrong, so I will assume you've conceded to my argument.

You're also making a bizarre assumption that I support what Israel did. I haven't said that anywhere and for the record I don't. I engaged with Joshua's discussion about why people don't want an Iran with nukes. There's no hypocrisy here to be had even if it had a factual bearing on this argument, which it doesn't.

I want you to prove your earlier assertion that there is reason to believe the Iranians might launch a suicidal first stike. That's a rather massive assertion and it therefore requires some pretty serious proof.

Did we not spend damn near fifty years very close to somebody launching a suicidal first strike? I'm old enough to remember the Cold War, just barely. I presume you're not since you're even going to try to make this argument.

The power to launch a first strike has never lain in the hands of the people whom it will do the most harm to. You don't poll the population of Tehran or Moscow before the missiles fly. It lies in the hands of the leadership. With the Soviet leadership (and indeed the US leadership of the Cold War) there was always a bottom line: these were men who did not want to die, and who had invested their lives in building their own empires inside the state, things they did not wish to see destroyed as any man does not wish to see all he has created destroyed.

With the people who can make this decision in Iran, there are very large differences from this model. The people who can authorize a first strike are religious leaders who speak of the glory of martyrdom and the rewards it will gain you. If you say something enough times, there is always a danger you will start to believe it.

More concretely they are a separate body from the bureaucratic machinery that runs the country, untouched by it. They have not built their own empires or otherwise committed themselves to the life of their country and their people. There is no investiture here, no stakeholding. The country and the people are abstracts to those of ultimate authority. (Over and above the already abstract nature of these things to someone of an authoritarian government.) There is danger to both parties in this distance no matter how you consider it.

You are in effect saying that someone who has ascribed a nobility to suicide, and who has no vested interest in his own survival, is not more likely to take an action that will result in his death.

[karajorma]

Given that the original post is about Israel recruiting Sunni terrorists to overthrow the Iranian government and install a Sunni leadership for the country you're making an argument that is massively hypocritical.

Hypocrisy does not make it factually wrong, so I will assume you've conceded to my argument.

You assume incorrectly. As I posted later you need to do better than point out that they support terrorists before you can claim what you have claimed. Next time try reading my posts before you reply to them.

You're also making a bizarre assumption that I support what Israel did. I haven't said that anywhere and for the record I don't.

Again, I made no such assumption. I pointed out that your evidence is flawed since it isn't used as evidence that Israel is a danger to Iran.

Did we not spend damn near fifty years very close to somebody launching a suicidal first strike? I'm old enough to remember the Cold War, just barely. I presume you're not since you're even going to try to make this argument.

You presume incorrectly. You really need to stop making these assumptions as my last three responses clearly prove you're really bad at it.

The power to launch a first strike has never lain in the hands of the people whom it will do the most harm to. You don't poll the population of Tehran or Moscow before the missiles fly. It lies in the hands of the leadership. With the Soviet leadership (and indeed the US leadership of the Cold War) there was always a bottom line: these were men who did not want to die, and who had invested their lives in building their own empires inside the state, things they did not wish to see destroyed as any man does not wish to see all he has created destroyed.

With the people who can make this decision in Iran, there are very large differences from this model. The people who can authorize a first strike are religious leaders who speak of the glory of martyrdom and the rewards it will gain you. If you say something enough times, there is always a danger you will start to believe it.

More concretely they are a separate body from the bureaucratic machinery that runs the country, untouched by it. They have not built their own empires or otherwise committed themselves to the life of their country and their people. There is no investiture here, no stakeholding. The country and the people are abstracts to those of ultimate authority. (Over and above the already abstract nature of these things to someone of an authoritarian government.) There is danger to both parties in this distance no matter how you consider it.

You are in effect saying that someone who has ascribed a nobility to suicide, and who has no vested interest in his own survival, is not more likely to take an action that will result in his death.

That's a pretty weak argument though. The same argument could easily have been made about several people in both the American and Russian militaries during the Cold War. Are you actually claiming that neither of those sides should have had nukes?

[MP-Ryan]

The issue is the assertion that Iran can't be relied on to not launch nuclear weapons because they somehow are too insane to fear MAD.

That wasn't in evidence from your response to NGTM originally, and I confess I had just been skimming the thread until that point.

While I wouldn't go so far as to claim the Iranians are too insane to fear MAD, NGTM made a very legitimate point earlier - it doesn't have to be too insane to fear MAD, a simple failure to fully comprehend what the other side is thinking can be enough to render MAD useless.

Even during the Cold War, MAD doctrine was always a shaky concept at best (despite what some analysts still say on the subject) because the Soviets and the Americans did not fully understand each others politics - there was always the very real possibility that one side could misinterpret the other's actions and the nukes could start flying due to nothing more than an innocuous mistake in interpretation.  Fortunately for all of us alive today, the hotline was established to help resolve these issues following the Cuban missile crisis when cooler heads realized that MAD only works if you understand the position the other guys are taking.

The trouble with Iran today is there is a massive disconnect between the position of their leaders, and the position of the Western world.  We really don't understand Iran, and they sure as hell don't understand the rest of us (a fact that's done nothing but get worse since the 80s).  The trouble with Iran entering the nuclear game is that the rules, so to speak, are already fairly-well established, but the Iranians are quite likely not to realize that fact.  Unlike Pakistan and India, which both had relationships with Western powers that basically said "here are the rules we're all playing by, don't do something outside the rulebook that looks crazy to the rest of us," or North Korea, who got the memo from the Chinese, Iran doesn't have a real nation sponsor.  China is a major economic partner for them, but the foreign policy interaction seems to end where the money stops.  Russia has little to no influence there, the Middle East in general despises them, and the West is collectively tearing its hair out.  For MAD to work, Iran needs to understand the game.  Whether or not they will is an entirely open question, which means MAD doctrine as far as the Iranians are concerned is unreliable, and therefore Iran having nukes is a really bad idea.

I didn't get the impression that NGTM was saying that Iran would rush out to nuke Israel, more than Iran cannot be relied upon to understand the rules by which MAD operates and therefore there is a distinct possibility that they could be willing to use nukes or nuclear threat in a way that they might deem limited but the rest of the world would not.  Middle Eastern politics are crazy by anyone's standards - the Israelis have also shown a willingness to use nuclear weapons outside of the traditional limits of MAD (it is surprising how few people know how close the Israelis came to using them in the Golan Heights), and it really isn't that far a stretch to see an Iranian willingness too.

So to address Joshua's original post in the thread:  no, MAD is not still in effect when it comes to the Middle East.  Letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is a really bad idea - not because they would immediately rush out to nuke Israel, but because their actions are not predictable by other nuclear-armed nations.

[NGTM-1R]

MP-Ryan makes the point. The danger here is not only that Iran would launch a first strike and either not appreciate or not care about the consequences, but that they would do something that will provoke an Israeli/US/European first strike because they don't understand or don't care about what Israel/US/Europe thinks of what they're doing, and one of the oldest tenants of warfare is that it is better to give than to receive.

Add this to the other risk factors I've enumerated about the people who have the button in Iran and it gets substantially worse, because they say things that make them look significantly more dangerous than anyone else on the face of the planet when it comes to understanding MAD.

So this stop assuming thing you keep talking about, you'll have to forgive me, but I don't think I need to consider your advice valid when you've been arguing against a thing in your head this whole time.

[Janos]

MP-Ryan makes the point. The danger here is not only that Iran would launch a first strike and either not appreciate or not care about the consequences, but that they would do something that will provoke an Israeli/US/European first strike because they don't understand or don't care about what Israel/US/Europe thinks of what they're doing, and one of the oldest tenants of warfare is that it is better to give than to receive.

I think Iran knows exactly well what they are doing. After all, they have been stripped of their internationally guaranteed rights despite their compliance with the treaties , their nuclear-armed neighbour is publicly considering military strikes and contemplating forceful regime change, they are under covert terrorist attacks and a superpower is boasting gunboat diplomacy right across their their borders.

Add this to the other risk factors I've enumerated about the people who have the button in Iran and it gets substantially worse, because they say things that make them look significantly more dangerous than anyone else on the face of the planet when it comes to understanding MAD.

Now you can tell me who are responsible for pushing the button in Iran, why they are apparently unstable and what exactly they have said. Thank you in advance.

[samiam]

The trouble with Iran entering the nuclear game is that the rules, so to speak, are already fairly-well established, but the Iranians are quite likely not to realize that fact.

Catchy! You could have a career at Time Magazine or Newsweek.

Like the last guy said (and what somehow hasn't been brought up so far) is that Iran began didn't really begin investing in weaponized technology until after the invasion of Iraq. Technically their program began after the Americans gave them nuclear technology in the 1950s, but that's another story. Looking at how things went, they know they're living American election cycle to American election cycle hoping they don't vote in another idiot. There's a risk that they will, and Iran would be insane not to develop nuclear weapons. For them it's a matter of survival.

Being able to shake their nukedick at Israel is just a nice bonus. Actually starting a nuclear war with Israel would still be a very bad idea on their part. The few dozen relatively low yield nuclear missiles they might be able to build over the near term would be a fraction of Israel's arsenal, and first strike has never been a viable strategy with these weapons involved, especially since the invention of hardened silos. A "Remember Pearl Harbor!" type retaliation would devastate the country and very likely result in political instability. So realistically, attacking Israel is probably the last thing Iran would want to do with its weapons. They will still rouse the masses in calls to exterminate Israel, but what's new there?

I didn't get the impression that NGTM was saying that Iran would rush out to nuke Israel, more than Iran cannot be relied upon to understand the rules by which MAD operates and therefore there is a distinct possibility that they could be willing to use nukes or nuclear threat in a way that they might deem limited but the rest of the world would not.  Middle Eastern politics are crazy by anyone's standards - the Israelis have also shown a willingness to use nuclear weapons outside of the traditional limits of MAD (it is surprising how few people know how close the Israelis came to using them in the Golan Heights), and it really isn't that far a stretch to see an Iranian willingness too.

It is a stretch. If you're referring to 1973, Israel was close to being overrun and depleting its remaining oil. Iran and Israel are just not likely to start a conventional war that would threaten the survival of either.

So to address Joshua's original post in the thread:  no, MAD is not still in effect when it comes to the Middle East.  Letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is a really bad idea - not because they would immediately rush out to nuke Israel, but because their actions are not predictable by other nuclear-armed nations.

Nothing in this post is meant to advocate assisting undemocratic countries with a history of funding terrorist attacks against the West in developing nuclear weapons. But there is nothing we can do at this point to prevent it apart from very expensive measures. The Iranian government probably sees its nuclear program as important insurance against the return of Cowboy Diplomacy, and sanctions and airstrikes are unlikely to sway them.

[karajorma]

Best solution : Sign a mutual defence treaty with Russia or China in return for stopping development of nukes.

[samiam]

That actually might work, but they can't really trust someone else. What Iran could do is play the old Alpha Centauri AI trick like Iraq did. Borrow money from France and Germany on a very long payment plan during one of your wars. Then when you get invaded, at least the international community will decry the injustice. It's a moral victory.

[MP-Ryan]

Catchy! You could have a career at Time Magazine or Newsweek.

Like the last guy said (and what somehow hasn't been brought up so far) is that Iran began didn't really begin investing in weaponized technology until after the invasion of Iraq. Technically their program began after the Americans gave them nuclear technology in the 1950s, but that's another story. Looking at how things went, they know they're living American election cycle to American election cycle hoping they don't vote in another idiot. There's a risk that they will, and Iran would be insane not to develop nuclear weapons. For them it's a matter of survival.

Being able to shake their nukedick at Israel is just a nice bonus. Actually starting a nuclear war with Israel would still be a very bad idea on their part. The few dozen relatively low yield nuclear missiles they might be able to build over the near term would be a fraction of Israel's arsenal, and first strike has never been a viable strategy with these weapons involved, especially since the invention of hardened silos. A "Remember Pearl Harbor!" type retaliation would devastate the country and very likely result in political instability. So realistically, attacking Israel is probably the last thing Iran would want to do with its weapons. They will still rouse the masses in calls to exterminate Israel, but what's new there?

Which is all well and good, but does not at all address the fact that Iran does not have a solid connection to an existing nuclear power, has historically shown they have knowledge and interest of little more than their own region, and cannot be relied upon to correctly interpret the way that MAD doctrine functions.  You adroitly stepped by the whole objection in the first place.  Why Iran wants and is developing nuclear weapons is patently obvious, and as I've already said, a direct attack on Israel is also very likely not their intention.  The trouble is, there is really no indication that Iran would be able and willing to understand the rules of the nuclear game as it has been played since the Cuban missile crisis.  Or did you miss that whole theme of inadvertent nuclear disaster due to poor communication?  Since 1949, the world has been more at risk of nuclear war by accident than design.  Giving the Iranians access to nuclear weapons just increases the risk.

It is a stretch. If you're referring to 1973, Israel was close to being overrun and depleting its remaining oil. Iran and Israel are just not likely to start a conventional war that would threaten the survival of either.

Extrapolate.  The Iranian government has shown a willingness to do anything they have to to take and keep power.  If the Iranian government structure was threatened and they had a nuclear arsenal available, it would be considered a viable option.  The Israelis were ready to drop nukes literally on their doorstep when the country was threatened; I don't see the Iranian leadership being any different if it comes down to their own survival versus that of the general population (which they largely consider expendable).  It wouldn't take a conventional war with an aggressor.

Nothing in this post is meant to advocate assisting undemocratic countries with a history of funding terrorist attacks against the West in developing nuclear weapons. But there is nothing we can do at this point to prevent it apart from very expensive measures. The Iranian government probably sees its nuclear program as important insurance against the return of Cowboy Diplomacy, and sanctions and airstrikes are unlikely to sway them.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be making the attempt.  Sanctions and non-military measures may be the impetus ordinary Iranians need to toss their current government and create a democracy, albeit an Islamic one.  Not saying it would be friendly to the West, but it would be a significant improvement in the lot of ordinary Iranian citizens.

[MP-Ryan]

Best solution : Sign a mutual defence treaty with Russia or China in return for stopping development of nukes.

Mutual defense treaties turned out so well in 1914 after all...

[karajorma]

Only cause one of the sides didn't understand the concept of MAD as it was understood in 1914. You've already conceeded that both Russia and China do understand the concept.

[Janos]

Which is all well and good, but does not at all address the fact that Iran does not have a solid connection to an existing nuclear power, has historically shown they have knowledge and interest of little more than their own region, and cannot be relied upon to correctly interpret the way that MAD doctrine functions.

what

Why cannot Iran be relied upon in this matter? Care to elaborate? Is the concept of MAD some kind of secret, instead of forming a very, very public basis for diplomacy for the duration of Cold War? Are the Iranians somehow unable  to skim through thoudands of books, policy reports and intelligence analysises written about the stuff?

And moreover: Why does one think that in the case of Iran actually arming itself - which is apparently not in sight - it will become isolated and lonely? What about their ties with countries like India, China and Russia - all nuclear powers, by the way?

The trouble is, there is really no indication that Iran would be able and willing to understand the rules of the nuclear game as it has been played since the Cuban missile crisis.  Or did you miss that whole theme of inadvertent nuclear disaster due to poor communication?  Since 1949, the world has been more at risk of nuclear war by accident than design.  Giving the Iranians access to nuclear weapons just increases the risk.

Oh, so they are incapable of learning from widely publicized mistakes, that were easily corrected using 1960s technology or improved communications etiquette. Which is all very, very basic for every single developed country in the world. Mind tell us, why do you think Iranians are unable to secure a centralized and tightly controlled launch system, but India, Pakistan and Russia in 1992 were more than able to do so?

Extrapolate.  The Iranian government has shown a willingness to do anything they have to to take and keep power.  If the Iranian government structure was threatened and they had a nuclear arsenal available, it would be considered a viable option.  The Israelis were ready to drop nukes literally on their doorstep when the country was threatened; I don't see the Iranian leadership being any different if it comes down to their own survival versus that of the general population (which they largely consider expendable).  It wouldn't take a conventional war with an aggressor.

Isn't that the entire point of nukes? They raise the bar pretty high. Of course, then again, India and Pakistan. Hey, the world still hasn't ended.

Nothing in this post is meant to advocate assisting undemocratic countries with a history of funding terrorist attacks against the West in developing nuclear weapons. But there is nothing we can do at this point to prevent it apart from very expensive measures. The Iranian government probably sees its nuclear program as important insurance against the return of Cowboy Diplomacy, and sanctions and airstrikes are unlikely to sway them.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be making the attempt.  Sanctions and non-military measures may be the impetus ordinary Iranians need to toss their current government and create a democracy, albeit an Islamic one.  Not saying it would be friendly to the West, but it would be a significant improvement in the lot of ordinary Iranian citizens.
[/quote]

[MP-Ryan]

what

Why cannot Iran be relied upon in this matter? Care to elaborate? Is the concept of MAD some kind of secret, instead of forming a very, very public basis for diplomacy for the duration of Cold War? Are the Iranians somehow unable  to skim through thoudands of books, policy reports and intelligence analysises written about the stuff?

And moreover: Why does one think that in the case of Iran actually arming itself - which is apparently not in sight - it will become isolated and lonely? What about their ties with countries like India, China and Russia - all nuclear powers, by the way?

Actually, yes, Iran's government's grasp of history is very limited.  We're talking about a government that consistently denies the Holocaust ever occurred.  MAD is based on well-established rules about how to interpret behaviour which have evolved to form a common ground between cultures.  Iran doesn't have common ground with any of those cultures, and has a poor grasp of how decision-making occurs outside their own borders.

Iran's ties to the countries you've named are economic, not sociopolitical.  Russia, China, India, and Pakistan hold no political sway in Iran, nor do they have any policy influence on Iran's foreign policy (other than economic sanctions).

Oh, so they are incapable of learning from widely publicized mistakes, that were easily corrected using 1960s technology or improved communications etiquette. Which is all very, very basic for every single developed country in the world. Mind tell us, why do you think Iranians are unable to secure a centralized and tightly controlled launch system, but India, Pakistan and Russia in 1992 were more than able to do so?

I didn't say they couldn't secure a centralized and secured launch system, I said they couldn't be trusted to interpret the actions of other nuclear-armed nations correctly.  Again, poor grasp of history, myopic world view, lack of understanding outside of their immediate region, etc.

Isn't that the entire point of nukes? They raise the bar pretty high. Of course, then again, India and Pakistan. Hey, the world still hasn't ended.

India and Pakistan's governments aren't widely detested by a large proportion of their citizenry, nor have they shown willingness to torture or kill their citizenry en masse.  Iran has.  Iran has a very unstable system of government that formed after they made specific promises about creation of a republic in the wake of the Shah's ouster that were in turn broken to create a totalitarian religious state.  Why do you think the Iranian government is so friendly with Syria?  Both have little to no regard for their subject populations.  Both would do nearly anything to stay in power.  Iran cannot be trusted not to use nuclear weapons internally should it appear their government was about to fall, nor can they be trusted not to use them externally should it appear their neighbours decide to get rid of the government that's causing the region all kinds of grief and supporting an enemy (of the neighbors) religious sect.


It boils down to this:  Iran cannot be trusted with nukes because they cannot be trusted to act in a way consistent with other nuclear-armed nations, because at no point since the revolution have they acted in a rational or predictable manner.  Letting Pakistan and India arm themselves with nuclear weapons was a tiny mistake compared to the catastrophe of allowing the Iranians to develop them.  With the exception of Syria, they are surrounded by a religious sect entirely opposed to their existence.  That's not a good recipe for stability.