[MP-Ryan]

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.

...and would therefore never sign a mutual defense treaty with Iran, because the terms would be impossible to live up to.  Not a bad idea on paper, but distinctly impractical =)

[NGTM-1R]

An interesting discussion I had with somebody off an SSBN pointed out something else about Iran vs. The World and their nuclear program.

There's actually a great deal of thought that went into the planning with the US vs. the USSR/Russia because of the sheer number of warheads both sides had. Both sides employed a counter-force strategy because they had a lot of nukes and counter-force makes a degree of sense. As their plans got more elaborate and they had to come up with uses for all these extra nukes it meant delving into where they'd go and what that means. They started thinking about Day Two and Day Three, about what would be left standing and the consequences of preceding actions, and everybody got pretty scared.

Iran will never build and maintain enough nukes to delve into the strategy of their employment. They don't have a targeting problem because they don't have enough weapons. Their capability will be essentially demonstrative. They cannot destroy the ability of their enemies to make war with the nuclear capability they could build, to physically allocate enough bombs to destroy all major bases, units, and communications hubs. They can only terrorize a prospective opponent by vaporizing a few major cities or a few military units.

Iran has no physical reason to think of nuclear weapons and their usage the way the major nuclear powers or even India and Pakistan do.

[samiam]

  Giving the Iranians access to nuclear weapons just increases the risk.

It does, and it allows them to sell the technology to anyone else too. The one good thing is that it will deter the US from trying to invade. But I don't think that either are particularly likely. The main downside to Iran developing nuclear weapons, though, is just the increased tensions we've already seen. Pricier oil and people dying due to the rhetoric on both sides and Israeli countermeasures.

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.

Iran's only real external threat is the United States. Which would create problems if we invaded, but hopefully that won't happen. Romney isn't crazy. Otherwise, internal use of nuclear weapons is a risk, just like it was with the breakup of the USSR. But if the government desired to do that, they have plenty of chemicals at their disposal anyway.

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.

That (sanctions) has been tried many times and has never once worked. Not sure what these non military measures are. It probably is worth letting Israeli intelligence do what it can to slow down Iran's nuclear research, but it's not something the United States should get involved in. The drama over the threatened strait closure, for instance, accomplished nothing besides higher oil prices.

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.

If Iran was attached to one of the (practically nonexistent) nuclear power blocs around today, that would make little difference. It wouldn't add much restraint to their policy, since proxy states are expendable (part of the reason why the CMC occurred). I haven't seen anything to indicate Iran has little knowledge of the world outside their own region, whatever that means; they're ideological and violent, but that's not the same as not knowing what you're doing. Likewise, if their leaders have ever taken a history class I'm sure they understand MAD as well as anyone posting on General Discussion. But we already seem to agree that an Iran-Israel nuclear war is largely a video game plot idea, so there's nothing else to be said about MAD.

[samiam]

Iran will never build and maintain enough nukes to delve into the strategy of their employment...
Iran has no physical reason to think of nuclear weapons and their usage the way the major nuclear powers or even India and Pakistan do.

Iran might end up building 10-20 nukes. That's about what the arsenals of India and Pakistan were during the Kargil war. No particular grounds for saying that the three countries differ in capability. This is a tangent, though.

[MP-Ryan]

It does, and it allows them to sell the technology to anyone else too. The one good thing is that it will deter the US from trying to invade. But I don't think that either are particularly likely. The main downside to Iran developing nuclear weapons, though, is just the increased tensions we've already seen. Pricier oil and people dying due to the rhetoric on both sides and Israeli countermeasures.

Iran doesn't need nuclear arms to deter a US invasion.  Nobody in US policy is stupid enough to think a military invasion of Iran would go well, particularly after the Afghanistan/Iraq debacle.  The West has other means of effecting regime change in Iran (which is undoubtably in progress).

Iran's only real external threat is the United States. Which would create problems if we invaded, but hopefully that won't happen. Romney isn't crazy. Otherwise, internal use of nuclear weapons is a risk, just like it was with the breakup of the USSR. But if the government desired to do that, they have plenty of chemicals at their disposal anyway.

Iran's main external threat is the array of Sunni and other non-Shia Muslim states it is surrounded by, NOT the United States.  The only thing that fundamentalist Muslims in the region hate more than the US is the different fundamentalist Muslims in the region.  This is why Iraq basically erupted into civil war after the 2003 invasion.

That (sanctions) has been tried many times and has never once worked. Not sure what these non military measures are. It probably is worth letting Israeli intelligence do what it can to slow down Iran's nuclear research, but it's not something the United States should get involved in. The drama over the threatened strait closure, for instance, accomplished nothing besides higher oil prices.

Harsh UN sanctions can economically cripple Iran.  In fact, they're well on their way to doing so, which is why the Iranians started with all the military posturing in the Gulf, trying to save face back home and put on a good show for the domestic audience (nobody else took them the slightest bit seriously).  Sanctions can and do work against hostile regimes, particularly those with large internal resistance groups, which Iran has in spades (as you'll note every time a viable political challenge occurs).  Non-military measures include intelligence, monetary, and materiel support of internal resistance groups, and can be quite effective - ask the Russians sometime.

If Iran was attached to one of the (practically nonexistent) nuclear power blocs around today, that would make little difference. It wouldn't add much restraint to their policy, since proxy states are expendable (part of the reason why the CMC occurred). I haven't seen anything to indicate Iran has little knowledge of the world outside their own region, whatever that means; they're ideological and violent, but that's not the same as not knowing what you're doing. Likewise, if their leaders have ever taken a history class I'm sure they understand MAD as well as anyone posting on General Discussion. But we already seem to agree that an Iran-Israel nuclear war is largely a video game plot idea, so there's nothing else to be said about MAD.

Iran has spectacularly failed to predict intervention by West on several occasions, despite obvious signs that intervention would show up.  Their biggest blunder was probably the Iran-Iraq war, but they haven't done themselves any favours in the last decade either.  Their worldview is myopic at best.

Now, whose alt-nick are you?

[samiam]

Nobody in US policy is stupid enough to think a military invasion of Iran would go well, particularly after the Afghanistan/Iraq debacle.

Do you believe George W. Bush and Mitchell Bachmann are intelligent men and women? It can happen. I'm not even kidding.

Iran's main external threat is the array of Sunni and other non-Shia Muslim states it is surrounded by, NOT the United States.  The only thing that fundamentalist Muslims in the region hate more than the US is the different fundamentalist Muslims in the region.  This is why Iraq basically erupted into civil war after the 2003 invasion.

Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Come on. They are worried about Iran invading them, if anything. The one regional power that can stand up to them is Iraq, but there's nothing we can do about that. It would involve another bloody chemical warfare slugfest regardless. I guess I can't really disagree with you though. Another Iran-Iraq war wouldn't make any sense, but it could still happen.

Harsh UN sanctions can economically cripple Iran.  In fact, they're well on their way to doing so, which is why the Iranians started with all the military posturing in the Gulf, trying to save face back home and put on a good show for the domestic audience (nobody else took them the slightest bit seriously). 

Not going to work. There's too much at stake for them to drop their nuclear program. Most likely things would end up like Iraq, where we were still dependent on inspections to prevent a nuclear program. The Iranians do not want inspections and sanctions at the same time.

I would have preferred the approach that Colin Powell suggested, where we're basically willing to accept reactor construction while making weaponization a little harder, discarding sanctions in exchange for inspections. This is an approach the Iranians had, earlier, been agreeable to. It would at least slow things down. But too late for that, probably.

Sanctions can and do work against hostile regimes, particularly those with large internal resistance groups, which Iran has in spades (as you'll note every time a viable political challenge occurs).

I think you'd have a hard time finding more than or two (if any) historical examples of sanctions having effect in changing national policies. South Africa isn't the clearest one.

  Non-military measures include intelligence, monetary, and materiel support of internal resistance groups, and can be quite effective - ask the Russians sometime.

Well, if we're going to speak very generally, I guess I can't disagree with you. Sure, we can probably fund Freedom House and stuff like that without creating too much problems.

Still, intervening in a country's politics could easily go wrong. We thought supporting the mujaheddin and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets was a pretty morally unambiguous cause, but in the long run those kind of projects ended up creating problems and breeding resentment. So I'm not too excited about tweaking with the politics of other countries. The current government in Iran is pretty sane by middle eastern standards. It could be a lot worse and a lot more unstable.

Iran has spectacularly failed to predict intervention by West on several occasions, despite obvious signs that intervention would show up.  Their biggest blunder was probably the Iran-Iraq war, but they haven't done themselves any favours in the last decade either.  Their worldview is myopic at best.

Doesn't prove that "Iran" has no knowledge of the world anymore than Poles or the Russians must have no brains for allowing themselves to be invaded so many times. But whatever.

Even failing to call the Iran Iraq war is forgivable. They can't predict idiotic moves on other countries' part, especially when the US misled Saddam into expecting help.

And mods, please, what is it with the verification?

[samiam]

Now, whose alt-nick are you?

Huh? What's an alt nick? I'm too busy supporting Karajorma's point to look that up.

[karajorma]

You're getting the verification thing because you haven't posted anywhere that actually counts your posts (i.e anything actually Freespace/FS2_Open related).

Now, whose alt-nick are you?

Huh? What's an alt nick? I'm too busy supporting Karajorma's point to look that up.

MP-Ryan was questioning whether you're a legitimate new poster or someone using a second account in order to post.

Iran doesn't need nuclear arms to deter a US invasion.  Nobody in US policy is stupid enough to think a military invasion of Iran would go well, particularly after the Afghanistan/Iraq debacle.  The West has other means of effecting regime change in Iran (which is undoubtably in progress).

It's okay if you've blanked out Bush's term in office as a traumatic event. I sometimes wish I could.

But to claim that there is no reason for Iran to believe that someone in the US might try an invasion of their country is ridiculous in the extreme. Bush was still pushing for it even when it was obvious Iraq's invasion had turned to ****. While no one might plan one now, idiots have short memories, it's doubtful that in 10 years the lessons of Iraq will be as fully appreciated as they are now. I can't blame Iran one iota for not being willing to wait for the idiots in America to start sabre-rattling before they start working on nukes.

This entire debacle is, after all, the direct result of the previous American idiot president and his inability to keep his mouth shut.

[Janos]

Actually, yes, Iran's government's grasp of history is very limited.

umm

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.

You are seriously comparing diplomatic rhetoric with political savviness?

Do you think Iranian leadership actually acts the way it talks? Like, just as we speak they are doing their hardest to bring down the Great Satan and Israel, bombing them all the time?

I keep looking and I don't actually see Israeli government performing a literal holocaust in Gaza. I cannot really see Iranian government currently in the process of "kill all jews", can you point me in the right direction? I think I once even saw a president to talk with the leaders of a country he called "Evil Empire"!

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).

What is the difference between economic and sociopolitical ties in international relations?

Why are China's interests in Iran's oil somehow just economic and not sociopolitical. How Russia selling them modern armament is just economic and not sociopolitical. How India's refusal to participate in sanctions against Iranian oil is just economic and not sociopolitical.

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.

Iran, the nation with poor understanding of history (btw a previous large regional power, subject of Middle Eastern politics since... forever)

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.

New nuclear powers have always been very stable and popular. I mean, Mao and Stalin - they certainly didn't kill anyone.

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.

You kinda forget about some relatively important developements here.

You do realize that one of the reasons Iranians are so suspect of Western influences was the Shah, right?

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.

And yet you seem to be worried about the potential nuclear weapons of a state that does not possess them instead of something like Pakistan, which has nice elements like rogue intelligence etc.

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.

No.
Iran has been one of the more predictable and above all peaceful than most actors in Middle East. They have been so peaceful that the last time they were at war wasin 1980s when a US-backed neighbour attacked them in a resource war and then the rest of the world ganged up on Iran while they were being bombed with nerve gas.

You state that Iran is essentially a mad dog. What you can bring forth is a bunch of words. Bring us actions! Bring us actions that clearly, demonstrably show that Iran is somehow worse than everyone else, including nuclear powers and other players in the Middle East. You show us how a nation that has been a target of angloamerican meddling since 1950s should trust them. How they act completely unrationally when they are constantly attacked and when they are under constant threats of regime change. When their neighbours are occupied by a hostile power that beats the wardrums. When their last war was a US-sponsored war where chemical weapons were used against them.

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.

Should they just DIE or something?

Hey wait a minute:

Letting Pakistan and India arm themselves with nuclear weapons was a tiny mistake compared to the catastrophe of allowing the Iranians to develop them.

India and Pakistan had hostile relationships. They had been in a war. They have huge populations and large armies.

Somehow, arming these two guys with nukes is a tiny mistake compared to Iran. Which has not attacked it's neighbours for 250 years.

Just why you think this is - is it because of your very, very special own "Iranians are dumb and cannot understand for example what is written right here."

Look, I am willing to believe that you really forget about Iran's geopolitical situation and their situation with IAEA and Israel - which is really relevant - because you simply forget them, not out of malice. Because it really follows the hawkish Western line, where Iran must. Be. Put. Down. (lolz).

Then, however, you are willing to state that Iranians do not know history or MAD. That because of their lack of allies in political sense means that they are somehow more untrustworthy. That nuclear Iran is somehow a larger threat to the world than nuclear Pakistan and India.

What do you base this on? Because your argument is full of both or prejudices (Iranians are bad), weird statements (Iran does not know history and are unable to, like, you know, read books) and pretty grand sidelining of the entire reason why the Iranians feel threatened and act in that way.

edited because yeah, the last one was pretty hars.

[karajorma]

Calm down Janos. I happen to largely agree with you but there's no need to get nasty about it. That said, I've already overlooked some pretty snide comments from the other side of this discussion so if anyone starts getting shirty, they're taking some time off.

[samiam]

This entire debacle is, after all, the direct result of the previous American idiot president and his inability to keep his mouth shut.

I'll see your Dubya, and raise you a Michael Moore.

Janos... at least give him a chance to respond first. I don't think MPRyan is a textwall climbing enthusiast.

[Janos]

Ok, I made a mistake and wrote a reply before I had gotten my morning coffee and nicotine Sorry!

[Janos]

Not going to work. There's too much at stake for them to drop their nuclear program.

This assumes a nuclear weapons program going on. This is highly debatable. Right now it actually looks like a good deterrant.

Most likely things would end up like Iraq, where we were still dependent on inspections to prevent a nuclear program. The Iranians do not want inspections and sanctions at the same time.

It worked really well on Iraq. After a decade of crippling sanctions they are blamed for developing WMDs. A war is propped up. Even inspections cannot stop the progress. Iraq is invaded, it's economy crushed, population slaughtered and the country descends on sectarian chaos. All while they were being both under sanctions and under inspections.

I would have preferred the approach that Colin Powell suggested, where we're basically willing to accept reactor construction while making weaponization a little harder, discarding sanctions in exchange for inspections. This is an approach the Iranians had, earlier, been agreeable to. It would at least slow things down. But too late for that, probably.

Why? IAEA and Iran are actually talking right now. They have scheduled more meetings. IAEA even stated that they did not find Iran redirecting enriched uranium to weapons program.

However, the recent rhetoric from the West has made it evidently clear that after Iraq, they are pretty ready to attack yet another nation. Iran is ****ed, they are trying to minimize damage. It's pretty certain that Iran will be bombed, no matter how well they comply.

[samiam]

This assumes a nuclear weapons program going on. This is highly debatable. Right now it actually looks like a good deterrant.

Or they might have their first successful nuclear test next year. Who knows.

It worked really well on Iraq. After a decade of crippling sanctions they are blamed for developing WMDs. A war is propped up. Even inspections cannot stop the progress. Iraq is invaded, it's economy crushed, population slaughtered and the country descends on sectarian chaos. All while they were being both under sanctions and under inspections.

I don't disagree, but you seem to think that inspections caused all those things. Or at least I think that's the point of that paragraph.

Why? IAEA and Iran are actually talking right now. They have scheduled more meetings. IAEA even stated that they did not find Iran redirecting enriched uranium to weapons program.

That's good to hear. However the IAEA has had some difficulty in the country lately. Still worth trying, since inspections don't cause nearly as much diplomatic tension as some other measures.

However, the recent rhetoric from the West has made it evidently clear that after Iraq, they are pretty ready to attack yet another nation. Iran is ****ed, they are trying to minimize damage. It's pretty certain that Iran will be bombed, no matter how well they comply.

Don't say something is certain unless you're willing to bet on it.

[Janos]

Or they might have their first successful nuclear test next year. Who knows.

Claims of Iran having a functional nuclear program right now require evidence. The evidence for the program right now is circumstantial, subject to partisan interpretations and sketchy. It would not be wise to act on the information itself.

I don't disagree, but you seem to think that inspections caused all those things. Or at least I think that's the point of that paragraph.

No, I tried not to. It just proves that inspections are worth nothing if the decision to go to war has already been made. In this case Iraq cooperated with inspections while under sanctions and what did that get them: conquered. This lesson has not gone unnoticed in the world.

Why? IAEA and Iran are actually talking right now. They have scheduled more meetings. IAEA even stated that they did not find Iran redirecting enriched uranium to weapons program.

That's good to hear. However the IAEA has had some difficulty in the country lately. Still worth trying, since inspections don't cause nearly as much diplomatic tension as some other measures.

[

However, the recent rhetoric from the West has made it evidently clear that after Iraq, they are pretty ready to attack yet another nation. Iran is ****ed, they are trying to minimize damage. It's pretty certain that Iran will be bombed, no matter how well they comply.

Don't say something is certain unless you're willing to bet on it.

"Pretty" is the key word there

[Janos]

An interesting discussion I had with somebody off an SSBN pointed out something else about Iran vs. The World and their nuclear program.

There's actually a great deal of thought that went into the planning with the US vs. the USSR/Russia because of the sheer number of warheads both sides had. Both sides employed a counter-force strategy because they had a lot of nukes and counter-force makes a degree of sense. As their plans got more elaborate and they had to come up with uses for all these extra nukes it meant delving into where they'd go and what that means. They started thinking about Day Two and Day Three, about what would be left standing and the consequences of preceding actions, and everybody got pretty scared.

Iran will never build and maintain enough nukes to delve into the strategy of their employment. They don't have a targeting problem because they don't have enough weapons. Their capability will be essentially demonstrative. They cannot destroy the ability of their enemies to make war with the nuclear capability they could build, to physically allocate enough bombs to destroy all major bases, units, and communications hubs. They can only terrorize a prospective opponent by vaporizing a few major cities or a few military units.

Iran has no physical reason to think of nuclear weapons and their usage the way the major nuclear powers or even India and Pakistan do.

As a deterrent against a hostile nuclear-armed nation in the same region it is a completely viable strategy, though. It's is aimed as a countervalue tool against regional powers, also acting as a counterforce in the case of military attack. They only need a few warheads to form an effective deterrant against hostile neighbours. I think this is their game if they will pursue nukes.

[samiam]

No, I tried not to. It just proves that inspections are worth nothing if the decision to go to war has already been made. In this case Iraq cooperated with inspections while under sanctions and what did that get them: conquered. This lesson has not gone unnoticed in the world.

Inspections and reconnaissance force them to move their program underground, figuratively and sometimes literally, and creates many tiny inconveniences for Iran, like causing them to restrict information on the program to a smaller group of their leadership and scientists. This makes it at least a little bit harder for them to eventually develop weapons. It is not going to conclusively prove that Iran doesn't have a program; you're probably the only person in the world who still believes that.  Actually, that is a legit point. But I'll get to it. You're right that it won't prevent them from being invaded if the decision has already been made. But I'm pretty sure Obama is not going to try that.

It might actually be best to help Iran develop nuclear weapons as soon as possible, so that our future president Rick Perry doesn't have any more excuse to invade them. Wait, did I say that out loud? Just kidding.

Actually, since you asked and it sounds like fun, I'll even start discussing evidence of the existence of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Firstly there's the great risks they're willing to take in the face of sanctions just to establish processing capability when they could instead import fuel from, say, Venezuela with less diplomatic hassle. There's their refusal to accept the nuclear fuel bank plan or international fuel supply guarantees. For some reason, they insist on developing their own processing capacity. It's strange they aren't satisfied with enriching uranium below 20%, above what civilian power generally requires. Lastly, there's "why not?" If they have the plutonium, the centrifuges, and the missiles in hand, there is not a whole lot keeping them from developing nuclear capability fairly quickly.

[Janos]

Inspections and reconnaissance force them to move their program underground, figuratively and sometimes literally, and creates many tiny inconveniences for Iran, like causing them to restrict information on the program to a smaller group of their leadership and scientists. This makes it at least a little bit harder for them to eventually develop weapons. It is not going to conclusively prove that Iran doesn't have a program; you're probably the only person in the world who still believes that. 

http://americanvisionnews.com/1258/defense-secretary-admits-iran-not-pursuing-a-nuclear-weapon

Not quite.

Actually, since you asked and it sounds like fun, I'll even start discussing evidence of the existence of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Firstly there's the great risks they're willing to take in the face of sanctions just to establish a nuclear program when they already have abundant oil power.

Irrelevant. Iran has a lot of gas and lots of oil. It exports a lot of it to get money and struggles with energy problems internally. Gasoline is expensive. Iran has every right to develop peaceful nuclear power under NPT. They are absolutely under no obligation to use their strategic resources simply because it might irritate someone.

There's their refusal to accept the nuclear fuel bank plan or international fuel supply guarantees.

1) Iran already accepted nuclear fuel bank plan, I have no idea what's going on there right now.
2) International fuel supply guarantee is a) a breach of sovereignity in regards to other nuclear-capable nations and b) was shot down by US pressuring Brazil to refuse the plan. It did not work out. Plus it would give Iran's energy independence out to other players to decide. Definitely not a good solution in the current athmosphere.

For some reason, they insist on developing their own processing capacity.

Again, energy independence to a certain degree. Any chain of supply where they would be relying on hostile forces' goodwill (USA) is a bad, bad idea.

Lastly, there's "why not?" If they have the plutonium, the centrifuges, and the missiles in hand, there is not a whole lot keeping them from developing nuclear capability fairly quickly.

1. They do not need plutonium, uranium is fine
2. The inspection program continues in every nuclear nation in the world to prevent that
3. "Why not" is a valid question, but that has more to do with Iran feeling threatened rather than capability.

There are many, many nations that are nuclear ready. Sweden had it's own program running until 1960s. Germany, Japan and Korea are definitely ready to have nuclear weapons in very, very short time - just attach the fuses and loan some bombs from USA. Any rich nation can scramble to have a nuclear weapon ready in less than two years if they have the capital.

Summa summarum: According to NPT - a treaty Iran voluntarily signed - they have every right of peaceful nuclear program, but no right to nuclear weapons. Forcing them to adopt additional protocols simply because while they are under embargo and regime change threats does nothing to defuse the situation and is in absolut breach of the spirit of the treaty.

There is right now no proof of Iranian nuclear program, but it was just announced, that because of Western embargo Iran cannot buy rice. Sure, in the end we have a couple tens of thousands of dead people and maybe no nuclear power plant in Iran, great job everyone. Iranian credit has been devastated, their country is under an embargo, they cannot buy food because their money is in shambles and yet there is no concrete evidence of them building a nuclear weapon and they are cooperating with IAEA right now. Right now the goal seems to be waiting for the sectarian violence erupt after everyone's starved during the upcoming elections.

The runup is absolutely similar to Iraq war runup and it's depressing to see.

[NGTM-1R]

Iran might end up building 10-20 nukes. That's about what the arsenals of India and Pakistan were during the Kargil war. No particular grounds for saying that the three countries differ in capability. This is a tangent, though.

As a deterrent against a hostile nuclear-armed nation in the same region it is a completely viable strategy, though. It's is aimed as a countervalue tool against regional powers, also acting as a counterforce in the case of military attack. They only need a few warheads to form an effective deterrant against hostile neighbours. I think this is their game if they will pursue nukes.

10-20 is sufficient for the purposes of annihilating the ability of Pakistan or India to make war. India has major failure points in its power generation and agricultural system because it adopted the Soviet method of building huge hydroelectric dams, the destruction of which will crash the country's power grid in the short term and destroy its agriculture in the long term, causing deaths out of all proportion to actual use of weapons. Pakistan just isn't that big that you need more nukes. Both nations lack strong international friends who would choose to return a salvo in their stead.

Iran, by contrast, cannot launch at anyone without provoking response from a major nuclear-armed power. Israel will gladly return a salvo of nukes and probably get the US to send a second. Launching at anyone on the Arabian Peninsula will provoke a US response, unless it's Yemen, which will provoke a Russian response as well. If they fire their weapons north at former Soviet states, Russia will take an interest. If the fire them east, their list of targets includes many states too decentralized to make a significant impact with the number they'll have and will provoke a response from Pakistan, possibly China and India, probably the US as well.

It's not sufficient to think in terms of merely hostile neighbors, but of who will choose to reply in their stead once you've nuked them. A nuclear weapon is an incredibly polarizing thing. People will take sides very rapidly once one goes off.

[samiam]

There are many, many nations that are nuclear ready. Sweden had it's own program running until 1960s. Germany, Japan and Korea are definitely ready to have nuclear weapons in very, very short time - just attach the fuses and loan some bombs from USA. Any rich nation can scramble to have a nuclear weapon ready in less than two years if they have the capital.

True, but none of those countries besides Korea has reason to try. Korea doesn't need nukes, and it shouldn't have to try. But as long as they don't arm Hamas or become politically unstable, it's not quite as bad as it could be. Iran also has enemies, which unlikely as it sounds, does create a small risk of its weapons actually being used.

They are absolutely under no obligation to (not?) use their strategic resources simply because it might irritate someone.

The world would be a safer place if they just agreed to stop enrichment and imported fuel. It's that simple; the EU would be behind them. They even funded Iran in the past before it broke its promises. The exporting country need not be a hostile foreign power; it could be Venezuela or Russia.

1) Iran already accepted nuclear fuel bank plan, I have no idea what's going on there right now.

An international fuel bank has been set up in Russia, but Iran never agreed to the objective of the program. Namely, to stop domestic enrichment programs and rely entirely on the fuel bank. Until they do this it's a pointless exercise. Likewise, even if there was a fuel supply guarantee, Iran doesn't seem to want to stop fuel processing, which is the whole point. The fuel supply guarantee Iran wants is not the guarantee the suppliers want. Again, though, if all they were interested in was mid-grade fuel for their reactors, and not weapons grade refining capability, they have Russia, Chavez, and probably a few other countries.

Summa summarum: According to NPT - a treaty Iran voluntarily signed - they have every right of peaceful nuclear program, but no right to nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, the NPT is a forty year old document with no limitations on refining uranium to weapons grade, as long as it isn't ostensibly being used for nuclear purposes. Iran could enrich 90% uranium and still claim no interest in weaponization. But that would be almost as implausible as Israel's claims. Already they're at 19% enrichment; that's not civilian fuel.

It's not sufficient to think in terms of merely hostile neighbors, but of who will choose to reply in their stead once you've nuked them. A nuclear weapon is an incredibly polarizing thing. People will take sides very rapidly once one goes off.

I believe in those kinds of cases, most countries would side against the one to first use nuclear weapons. It would be polarizing in that sense, and never a good reason to use nuclear weapons offensively.