I'm familiar with that website WRT carrier locations, i was thinking more along the lines of which ships/subs are accompanying the battle groups.
Thanks for the tip though.
Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues
- Thread starter LogisticsGuy
- Start date
Thanks for the tip though.
I found both of your arguments quite sensible. However, on weakening Iran (any further) the U.S., Israel and the West need to take into accord one thing. Although there is no litmus test for it, it appears that weaker you make a state more the chances of them acquiring nuclear weapons - especially when it is surrounded by economically and militarily powerful hostile states.
Example; with no food and funds to go around North Korea still developed nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan under strong sanctions not only managed to develop nukes but continued to improve on them. China in 1960s was also not in a very good shape when they developed nukes.
In simple; the more Iran is threatened the more the chances of it acquiring nuclear weapons.
I think you have an overly broad criteria, otherwise you would need to explain why Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and Lichtenstein do not have active nuclear weapons programs.
Now if you to restrict the criteria some to “The weaker a state whose central government is actively trying to piss off stronger neighbors and their allies is, the more likely they are to acquiring nuclear weapons.” I think the theory will fit the data much better.
My personal opinion is that the Iranians are trying to develop the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, should they need to. They have not yet decided whether they want nuclear weapons and are not currently in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons. And as you mentioned, the more pressure the West applies on Iran, the higher the chances the Iranian leadership will decide that they must have nukes. In addition to the sanctions and efforts to politically isolate Iran, behind the scenes there is a lot going on, such as cooperation with Sunni Iranian dissident groups, targeting of Iranian scientists and active intel gathering. What is also very worrying for Iran are attempts to force a regime change in Syria, Iran's only Arab ally, which if successful would further isolate and weaken Iran and would effect its interests in Lebanon and Iraq.
Beatmaster
New Member
Thats exactly what i said a couple of weeks ago.
If Iran did not have a reason to take it to the next level, then this reason is being forced upon them.
From a Iranian pov, this aggression and diplomatic sanctions can be seen as a attack upon their sovereignty as a nation, added the many black ops and assassinations of their top science guys can be seen as a attack.
Maybe i put this out of proportion but if Iran where to assassinate one of the US key figures then this will be seen as a terroristic attack and might trigger a US counter attack to revenge such act.
On the other hand it seems US and Israeli agents roam free and Iran is not allowed to do anything about it.
Which is imo kinda hypocrite and way beyond double standards.
Also a couple of weeks ago there was a news broadcast by most major news agencies / papers that the US, Israel and the west agreed upon the fact that its clear that Iran does not build a bomb and did not take any steps towards it.
Which is kinda funny as 90% of all the sanctions are based upon the fact that Iran would have taken that step.
Imo its pretty simple Iran did do some stupid actions and their hardline (How justified it might be from their side) is not helping either, but fact remains that the US and Israel force Iran onto a self defense situation where if this continues long enough nuclear weapons might be the only way out for them.
And regardless what all the other people say If Iran where to have 2 or 3 bombs ready then both Israel and US will back off right away for the simple reason: Iran will not be using this bomb (you can say whatever you want but they aint stupid) But if the US or specially Israel where to push them to the edge then i can guarantee that Iran might consider these weapons as a all or nothing thing.
I am not saying that Iran would use them i just want to point out that if everything else fails and Iran where to be pushed with their backs against the wall then honestly i would not be surprised to turn on the news next morning and see Tell Aviv glowing for the next 50 years. (Next to Teheran)
Imo Iran would be not that stupid they know perfectly well that this is a line not to cross, and so does Israel and the US know.
However forced and pushed moral values might trigger insanity simple as that.
And the way the 3 nations going: US , Israel and Iran is bringing such a event closer and closer because IF Iran does not wish the bomb and does not build them, all the sanctions might change that wish.
And fact remains that the US will not be able to deal with Iran if if would have nuclear weapons, just having these weapons adds enormous to the diplomatic scale in sheer weight.
And all the rhetoric aside, Iran has rights, which are being violated and they are being attacked from all sides in nearly every way.
However right or wrong Iran has proven in the past 15 years that they always did grab the stick on the right side, and this is something that cannot be said about the US and Israel. Their intelligence is only adding oil to the fire, the old saying shoot first ask questions later does not work very well, specially because all those reports are not even remotely correct.
So regardless what one might say about the whole issue but thing remains that the US and Israel have taken a specific road and this road just does not have a happy end and personally this has been said for the past 15 years by both Pro and Anti Iran people, and this has been the verdict of every big think tank in the west, report after report concludes the same thing.
And for those in power, they do not have to be necessarily be smart but you can assume that they can freaking read.....
Why else would these reports being made by the smartest and brightest people on the world if you intent to just ignore them....
Because in the end if everything did go wrong then hiding behind the saying: We did not know, and we did have grave concerns will not go very well...
See my point?
What I can't figure out is what these scientists, who are allegedly so vital to the Iranian nuclear programme, are doing driving themselves around Tehran without a security detail. If I recall correctly, the first killing of a scientist occurred 2-3 years ago but only intensified recently. As the saying goes, history always repeats itself. Back in the early 1960's, foreign experts who were working in Eqypt on missile technology, were also murdered by foreign agents [mostly through letter bombs], effectively putting an end to the whole programme.
It's not that Iran is not allowed to do anything about it but a case of Iran not wanting to 'push' too hard in case of retaliation. It certainly has human assets in places like Iraq and Lebanon, but there is only so much they can do without raising the ante. Remember how the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London [all evidence points to the Abu Nidal Group who were always out to discredit and damage Fatah] gave Israel the pretext it was seeking to invade Lebanon? Despite the beating of war drums by Israel, Obama is not keen on strikes but if Iran were to do something drastic such assassinating Israeli diplomatic staff in Cairo or attack an Israeli merchantman in the Red Sea, he would have no choice.
Beatmaster
New Member
Agreed.
However on a personal note:
Obama is not keen on strikes but if Iran were to do something drastic such assassinating Israeli diplomatic staff in Cairo or attack an Israeli merchantman in the Red Sea, he would have no choice.
That does not justify the fact that both US and Israeli agents are killing Iranian key figures.
Aside from the program itself and all the sanctions around it, there is nowhere written that its allowed to neutralize key figures.
If Iran would make a fuzz about that then they have a legal ground which has a lot more weight at this very point then the claims by the US and Israel that they would make a bomb.
And infact if Iran would neutralize a few key figures then there is hardly anything Israel and the US can do about it, because they will have the same problem as Iran.
Proving that it was Iran, or Proving that it was Israel/US.
Having that said the international community is not very happy with Iran but i do not believe that they would accept random assassinations of Iranian key figures.
As if Iran where able to proof that it was Israel or the US who is behind the job then this can be seen as a act of war or at least terrorism and imo that will not go well with the international community i think.
For example if the US where to assassinate a Chinese or a Russian (Or a EU based key person for that matter) and it would be traced back in a way that it can be proven well then Obama has some serious explaining to do, not to mention the fact there will be hell to pay.
So doing these black ops in the middle east against Iran must have some weight in the scale that Iran could use to fire back at both Israel and the US.
However there is one other option i just think about :idea2, what if its a inside job?
Because Iran does have actually a few pretty powerful political groups around who do not like the program and would love to see it stop.
And some of these groups do have actually the power and internal structure/ network to plan & execute such covert op.
That would explain why Iran is being ridiculously silent about the whole thing because if they wanted to they could legally blow this right into the international communities face.
A quite simple answer would be lack of scientific know how, nuclear infrastructure & technology, and requisite funds.Compared to Zimbabwe its more scientifically advance neighbor - South Africa - did pursue and develop nuclear weapons under very harsh sanctions.
We all know Iran too - like South Africa - possesses what is required for pursuing nuclear weapons. Diverting limited resources to pursuing nuclear weapons is more affordable in the long run then acquiring substandard conventional weapons over a long period. If for Iran two or three bombs suffice against Israel then there would be deterrence.
The only question is - as Beatmaster puts it - is to provide Iran with enough reason to take it to the next level. Right now they are only pursuing the 'capability' route. Pushing them around too much may break the camel's back someday.
That's being single minded. One can also see it as a weaker state trying to challenge the Israeli nuclear monopoly and American hegemony in the region in order to secure its sovereignty (along with regime survival), territorial integrity and national interest.
There are no heroes and villains in international system. Each state strives for its survival and sovereignty.
If I recall correctly most of these men have been killed either while in, or near, traffic, usually with a shape charged limpet mine slapped on the car door or as the result of a drive-by shooting. Some of the men killed probably did have bodyguards assigned. However, with enough intelligence and planning the attackers can neutralize the bodyguards effectiveness. For example, these men had to go to work at the same place every day, probably shopped or went to a coffee house once or twice a week, usually at the same shops each time, etc. The number of routes to each of these locations is limited, and there will be choke points where each set of routes converge, simplifying the attacker’s problems. It also helps if there is little time pressure, so the attackers can back off and try again later if the attackers are out of position, no taking steps that make them look suspicious to makeup the distance.
My2Cents,
In an Al Jazeera report, it was mentioned that one of the victims was driving around without a bodyguard detail. And one or 2 others were driving their own cars, alone - it was not mentioned if they had bodyguards trailing them in other cars. I would have expected such people to have been better protected or maybe, just maybe those killed so far were not the 'main' players in the nuclear programme, hence the lack of security. But you're right, the same routes would have been taken to work everyday and the killers, most certainly Iranians in the pay of a foreign power, would know exactly where and the right time to strike.
In an Al Jazeera report, it was mentioned that one of the victims was driving around without a bodyguard detail. And one or 2 others were driving their own cars, alone - it was not mentioned if they had bodyguards trailing them in other cars. I would have expected such people to have been better protected or maybe, just maybe those killed so far were not the 'main' players in the nuclear programme, hence the lack of security. But you're right, the same routes would have been taken to work everyday and the killers, most certainly Iranians in the pay of a foreign power, would know exactly where and the right time to strike.
How exactly would that bomb get to Tel Aviv? It certainly won't be a small device like the "Back Pack" bombs we've read about from the cold war. But this scenario is exactly why Israel is freaking out over the Iranian nuclear program. Eventually Iran WILL have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
In the interest of equal time though. Iran is perfectly correct in saying they have the right to a nuclear program. The NPT allows them to do this. The west is struggling to limit the Iranian ENRICHMENT program, and only recently have I seen a turn in the western media that hits on that point. If Iran would simply agree to uranium processing beyond its own borders, all this crap would stop. However, the U.S. isn't going to stop its enrichment program either, so again, I understand Iran's point. This has almost no way to be resolved unless the U.S. and other participating countries can do enough damage to Iran's economy to force them to abandon the program. Both sides have interests to protect. Iran wants nuclear power and the image of a nuclear power country, yet it cannot win this war. Israel is extremely scared of a nuclear armed Muslim nation, especially one as hostile as Iran, and the U.S. needs to keep tensions in this area as low as possible to guarantee a constant flow of CHEAP oil.
Beatmaster
New Member
Good question and honestly i am not sure if i can give a proper reply to this.
But if i remember correctly the Sahab 3 would be able to reach Tel Aviv and so is the new Sahab 4.
Now i am not saying that Iran mastered the art of fitting a N-Warhead to the Sahab-3 or 4.
But its my firm believe that if Iran where to successfully develop a warhead small enough to fit on a missile and big enough to seriously create a big boom then fitting it to a missile within their arsenal is not that big of a step.
Because getting a working warhead is the lion share of the work, and i do know that its really hard to fit a warhead onto a missile but given Iran's knowledge base and infrastructure i believe that they relative easy could make that step.
Put it simple if they master nuclear capability then mastering missile tech would be hypothetical child's play.
When did North Korea finally have a successful bomb test?
The 1st was a failure, and the 2nd was a fizzle (< 2kt).
It was a deep bore test, so very little material escaped, it is almost a wonder that they could enough to determine that the test happened at all.
I believe that the principle element that they use to identify a nuclear detonation is Xenon-135, which does not occur in nature and as a noble gas is very hard to contain or immobilize. They also look for the decay products. Radioactive substances are extremely easy to detect and classify, so sample sizes on the order of a 100 atoms are probably sufficient for identification.
:type
Beatmaster
New Member
the concerned
Active Member
Is that not the answer these devices were quite small no matter what the yield but the international community was still able to detect it.Why would that be any different for Iran ,like you said North korea detonated their first device in 2006 but still isn't capable of deploying it. I don't think Iran will be any quicker,so we could actually back off and give Iran the benefit of the doubt that they are developing civilian applications but make it clear that any detonation of a nuclear device would be an act of war
Beatmaster
New Member
Well might be so, but on the other hand Iran has a pretty good infrastructure compared to N-Korea.
Its save to assume that given the size and the infrastructure of Iran, next to its advanced knowledge base that if it wished to deploy a nuclear device it could be done in a relative short time.
And thats something N-Korea cannot.
Its true that N-Korea is far ahead of the program, but for them its a national pride thing and not science driven, Iran on the other hand has the science base and the infrastructure / cash flow to successfully expand their program at any time they wish.
In regards to your statement that Iran would commit a act of war if they where to deploy a nuclear device i think thats not true.
Its a violation of the NPT treaty at best.
Granted USA and Israel will probably use this as their definition of extreme threat and thus carry out military strikes or use it as some sort of justification to do whatever they want to do based on the situation at hand.
However doing so would mean a act of war from their side and not Iran.
You have to understand that the NPT is a binding treaty but if a nation would redraw from it and would go nuclear (Perhaps when it fears its own destruction bad enough to make such move) then its bad but its just the way it is.
Aside from the political storm itself and the harsh words spoken by all the security watchdogs in the UN Council if Iran where to go the distance and would hit the next stage then shitty yes...but they have the full right to do so.
For example its good to see that nations sign the NPT and that they make a effort to make nukes go away, but its a common fact that as long the major powers in the world have nukes them selfs that a other nation has the sovereign right of developing a own nuke.
And i do agree with everyone that if every nation would get a nuke that it would add greatly to the international risk factor as there are enough governments who are not solid enough to carry such responsibility however if a nation like for example Germany would leave the NPT and would go nuclear then yes they have some serious explaining to do...but on the other hand it will be accepted.
So what does Germany have or any nation for that matter more then Iran at this point?
And why would this be a declaration of war /a act of war?
Keep in mind having US and Israel saying that its bad does not mean it actually is.
Because they are the 2 sole powers that are do all the lobby work to isolate Iran.
But i am pretty sure that if Iran where to have a couple of nukes solid stored away that the international community will accept it eventually.
Pakistan did go nuclear: International storm about it? Yes
Sanctions? Yes
accepted in time? Yes
So was the case with India, so is partly the case with N-Korea.
South Africa backed off but if they would have gone trough with it it would be accepted.
My point is that having another nuclear power in the middle east will add to the danger factor, but there are only 2 nations at this point who will get into trouble because of this and thats the US and Israel, the rest of the world would be fine with it in time.
Because as the French president said: If Tehran would ever launch a nuclear device aimed against another nation then it would light up for the next 50 years before their device would hit their target.
And you have to understand the impact and security that comes from such words.
Those words are a 100 times more worth imo then anything the US or Israel says.
So Iran does exactly know where the magic red line is drawn.
And no Iranian leader will dare to cross it.
So one might say that the US and Israel chase their own demon rather then having to face a real danger coming from Iran while we actually can say that that danger does not exists....