What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A second Obama term puts Iran closer to nuclear weapons

TheGreatGatsby

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
24,364
Reaction score
3,060
Points
280
Location
California
Have you noticed Obama operatives talking about the last two years of sanctions crippling Iran; but not about how Iran has stalled in its efforts to build a nuclear bomb? Shouldn't those two things logically go hand and hand?

And now, we are hearing about how Obama's regime is secretly meeting behind our backs with Iran to ease sanctions if they agree to.... well I zoned out after that. Nobody and their f'ing dog doesn't think that Iran is going to slow down work on their nuclear program.

Any talks that are not an all or nothing proposition is a scam and we all know it.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
17,073
Reaction score
3,313
Points
280
Anyone who wants to parachute into Iran to begin the struggle against obtaining nukes can probably find a way.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,694
Reaction score
2,387
Points
265
Have you noticed Obama operatives talking about the last two years of sanctions crippling Iran; but not about how Iran has stalled in its efforts to build a nuclear bomb? Shouldn't those two things logically go hand and hand?

And now, we are hearing about how Obama's regime is secretly meeting behind our backs with Iran to ease sanctions if they agree to.... well I zoned out after that. Nobody and their f'ing dog doesn't think that Iran is going to slow down work on their nuclear program.

Any talks that are not an all or nothing proposition is a scam and we all know it.

"if they agree to..."...what?
 

oldfart

Older than dirt
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
2,411
Reaction score
476
Points
140
Location
Redneck Riviera
Have you noticed Obama operatives talking about the last two years of sanctions crippling Iran; but not about how Iran has stalled in its efforts to build a nuclear bomb? Shouldn't those two things logically go hand and hand?

I don't follow this as closely as I should, but here is my understanding. It takes three things to have an effective nuclear weapon (as opposed to a radiological weapon which is much easier to achieve) : 1) a sufficient amount of weapons-grade fissile material, 2) an effective bomb to put the fissile material in, and 3) a delivery system for the bomb. Most of the discussion has been about the first issue, and I think it is fair to say that Iran has enough fissile material for several radiological weapons and 1--2 nuclear weapons. They will be able to produce enough fissile material for 2--3 weapons per year.

There is a claim floating around that Iran does not yet have a workable bomb to put the material into. As this is the easiest of the the three components, I wonder about this. Even if true, I don't see how this would slow Iran down by more than a few months. I think there is no question that Iran has a theater-range missile capability.

So that is where it stands regarding capacity; what do we know of intentions? Based on behavior rather than rhetoric, Iran seems to be reasonably circumspect. They have had a "dirty bomb" capacity for several years but show no signs of moving in that direction. They put up a facade of wanting only a peaceful nuclear program rather than using the nuclear program for sabre-rattling. The sanctions have obviously reached a tipping point and the economic damage is cumulative (especially the European oil embargo in that Europeans are finding other suppliers and may never switch back). Continuing the status quo has become an unacceptable option.

So if waiting it out is no longer an option, Iran has a choice between two courses of action. One is to pull a Khaddafi and get the best deal it can in exchange for a real denuclearization. The other is to develop and test a weapon, then try to negotiate. The goal of US policy has been to make the status quo unacceptable, and this has been done. The logical follow-on strategy would be to make the prospects of negotiation after a nuclear test unpalatable to Iran. We are not quite there yet.

I think the chances of Iran using a nuclear weapon in a first strike is remote. They are simply not that fanatic. I think their purpose is political and the object is not Israel, it is the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. Iran wants regional hegemony and control of a large part of the world's oil supply. A major danger is that while distracted by the nuclear issue, the West will not detect Iranian involvement in fomenting revolution in the Gulf. Right now Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey are also providing a distraction. This is what most worries me.

Finally, does the US have any real military options available? I think we do, but they are not likely to be anything that is talked about in public. I would hold that both a nuclear strike and a substantial ground presence are not considered feasible. Air strikes, drone attacks, and special forces actions, as well as unconventional action such as cyberwarfare
aimed at the softer targets in the Iranian system (radar, command, communication & control systems, missile launch sites, blockade, naval capacity, selective industrial and transportation targets) could be successful in halting further development and rendering existing stocks of weapons unusable in practice. I don't have high hopes for military action and it is high risk, but if military action becomes necessary, this is what I would expect. If it comes to this, military action should be unilateral and not involve Israel in any way. Remember the assets we most care about are in the Gulf and vulnerable to subversion.

So if anyone wants to put away the political sound bites and have a realistic discussion of our options (please, no more "We will not let...." comments; the question is HOW), let's have at it.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,481
Points
1,830
If obama gets a second term, Iran will absolutely get nuclear weapons. Egypt wants them too.
 

High_Gravity

Belligerent Drunk
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
40,159
Reaction score
7,089
Points
260
Location
Richmond VA
Iran will just say yes to whatever Obamas says and than continue with their nuclear work, its not hard to figure out. I don't know why us Yankees continue to think someone from Iran or Pakistan will take any agreements we make with them seriously.
 

Aristotle

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
126
Points
48
Who cares if Iran gets nukes....Only reason why this is an issue is because we cow tail to the Jews of Israel....The Christians of our government need to protect the Holy land so the prophecy can be fulfilled. Didn't you guys get the memo?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
93,968
Reaction score
25,539
Points
2,180
Location
in between
The way the Obama administration is handling Iran reminds me a little of the way Reagan handled the USSR. According to this article, sanctions are having a serious effect on Iran's stability and one thing they don't want is large-scale social unrest of the type that lead to their revolution in the first place. What is said publicaly isn't always what is said behind the rhetoric.

Signals From Iran Indicate Willingness To Talk : NPR

Iran is hurting. Economic and banking sanctions, plus an effective oil embargo led by the European Union, have brought chaos to Iran's economy. The bottom fell out of its currency, the rial, a couple of weeks ago, provoking street protests. Iranians of all social classes are struggling to cope.

These challenges, along with other signals, hint at Iran's willingness to engage in bilateral talks with the U.S. about its nuclear activities. Over the weekend, The New York Times first reported that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to face-to-face talks after the election.

The White House quickly issued a denial, and the Iranian government on Sunday also said no such talks were planned.

'Despite Their Rhetoric'

Publicly, the rhetoric coming out of Iran has been tough and uncompromising, like the comments last week from the spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, Ramin Mehmanperast.

"These sanctions are illegal, irrational and inhumane," he said, "because they were imposed on our nation under the pretext of our peaceful nuclear program."

Many of Iran's leaders use the same language in public. But Alireza Nader, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, believes there's been something else going on below the surface.

"The Iranian government is indicating that it is serious about negotiations," he says.

The results of the sanctions have come as a shock, Nader believes.

"Despite their rhetoric, they realize that they are facing a national crisis. And we hear this from a lot of Iranian officials today that Iran is facing the most serious national crisis since the Iran-Iraq war," he says.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,694
Reaction score
2,387
Points
265
Maybe the NRA has the right idea.
Let every country have nuclear weapons so that no one will use them.
The real problem is clearly that there aren't enough nuclear weapons.
 

oldfart

Older than dirt
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
2,411
Reaction score
476
Points
140
Location
Redneck Riviera
Iran will just say yes to whatever Obamas says and than continue with their nuclear work, its not hard to figure out. I don't know why us Yankees continue to think someone from Iran or Pakistan will take any agreements we make with them seriously.

And you think we should do ..........
 
OP
TheGreatGatsby

TheGreatGatsby

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
24,364
Reaction score
3,060
Points
280
Location
California
Who cares if Iran gets nukes....Only reason why this is an issue is because we cow tail to the Jews of Israel....The Christians of our government need to protect the Holy land so the prophecy can be fulfilled. Didn't you guys get the memo?

I have no doubt that the real Obama very much sympathizes with this outlook. Real Americans however, don't want nukes in the hands on genocidal maniacs. That's why we get the double talk from him.
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,694
Reaction score
2,387
Points
265
Who cares if Iran gets nukes....Only reason why this is an issue is because we cow tail to the Jews of Israel....The Christians of our government need to protect the Holy land so the prophecy can be fulfilled. Didn't you guys get the memo?

I have no doubt that the real Obama very much sympathizes with this outlook. Real Americans however, don't want nukes in the hands on genocidal maniacs. That's why we get the double talk from him.

What would Charlton say?
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,304
Reaction score
9,446
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
Nutters think they can frighten intelligent people. They STILL think that.
 

Rozman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,091
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
I don't think this President would care if Iran got Nukes.
And as far as sanctions go Iraq did fine with sanctions
they went on for years.

When a few surviving Israelis make a call to the press to let them know most of Israel is gone
Obama will say the sanctions needed more time and will find a way to blame Bush...
Chris Mathews will be doing his show and it may go something like this.
When we get back from commercial will will have a one on one with Michelle Obama
and she will tell us what's the first thing the President does after making sweet love to her.
And later on an MSNBC exclusive ...Israel and what's left of her.
 
Last edited:

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,694
Reaction score
2,387
Points
265
I don't think this President would care if Iran got Nukes.
And as far as sanctions go Iraq did fine with sanctions
they went on for years.

When a few surviving Israelis make a call to the press to let them know most of Israel is gone
Obama will say the sanctions needed more time and will find a way to blame Bush...

You're dead right.
Obama should stop the sanctions and the talking and..........ummm, could you help me out here?....
 

Rozman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,091
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
Iran gets nukes and a delivery system in 5 years.

Obama would like sanctions to last 7 years to be sure the sanctions
are having their desired effect...
 

idb

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
14,694
Reaction score
2,387
Points
265
Iran gets nukes and a delivery system in 5 years.

Obama would like sanctions to last 7 years to be sure the sanctions
are having their desired effect...

Yeah, dead right, Obama wants Iran to get nukes all right!
If he really cared about America he would stop the talking and sanctions and....aaaah....mmmm....
 

oldfart

Older than dirt
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
2,411
Reaction score
476
Points
140
Location
Redneck Riviera
If obama gets a second term, Iran will absolutely get nuclear weapons. Egypt wants them too.

And you think we should do ..........

You will never get an answer to questions like yours.

Perhaps not. But it is way better than trying to have an intelligent discussion wth people who throw out one-liners they think are cute rather than think about issues and evaluate options.
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top