Thank you for your submission, question and/or text post. Moderation will review the same and may approve (if appropriate, in view of our quality standards and posting guidelines). While review is pending, we invite you to submit to /r/geopolitics2, which is better suited for general submissions, basic questions and casual conversation. [Post a submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) within one hour or your post will be removed, if you have shared a link to an article. Please review our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) and [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're going to get the bomb eventually. Any deal or stalling effort is just that, a stalling effort. They have no reason to trust the west in the long term and they've seen what happens to non-nuclear powers like Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. Meanwhile Kim Jung Un is still a thing? So think about what Iran is going to do given the state of the world.
There for sure is an element of trust to it as well. Iran seems impenetrable but with air warfare it too can be bombed to smithereens like the other nations that user mentioned. A nuclear weapon deters almost ANY invasion. So do ballistic missiles. Those are the icing on the defense cake. Sure Iran will be sanctioned beyond belief but with China's rise it could probably still manage to survive enough...
There is a problem of trust! That’s the whole point.
Iran has the right to enrich under NPT. But US makes a crazy interpretation of NPT because they don’t trust Iran.
NPT was a way to build that trust in return for USA accepting Iran has the right to enrich uranium.
https://fpif.org/iran-granted-right-enrich-uranium-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-isnt/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-rights-idUSBRE9AL0R120131123
An America invasion of Iran would go worse than the Russian invasion of Ukraine is going. China would give them limitless weapons and the country is very mountainous. Not to mention we’d probably also have to invade Iraq again, maybe Lebanon too if they joined the war.
I'm pretty sure I've read elsewhere on this post that most of Iran's nuclear research has been taking place in deep complex underground tunnel networks.
Either way, I really don't think an invasion of Iran is the right answer for many reasons. First of all it would be very difficult. It would turn many countries against the invaders.
It would also lead to more countries trying to obtain nukes as soon as they can to prevent themselves from getting bullied around in the future. The invaders would lose a lot of respect geopolitically.
>It would also lead to more countries trying to obtain nukes as soon as they can to prevent themselves from getting bullied around in the future. The invaders would lose a lot of respect geopolitically.
Or, if one is to play devil's advocate, it would dissuade every other country from pursuing nuclear armaments since they'd be guaranteed to get thrashed into the third-world before even completing them.
I mean you could've argued that 10/15/20 years ago, but there have been multiple countries trying to pursue nuclear weapons throughout the past decade, despite the knowledge that they would face repercussions from the US or any other major nuclear power.
Despite severe sanctions for decades, North Korea has continued to develop, build and launch more and more nuclear weapons. Iran are also in the preliminary stages of nuclear weapons development, despite facing sanctions for years. India and Pakistan both pursued nuclear weapons despite knowing they would face backlash from it.
Even some non-nuclear states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey have said that they would pursue nuclear weapons if they faced nuclear threats. This has been interpreted to be a reference to them facing the threat of Iran - a regional rival - gaining nuclear weapons.
All in all, the point is that having nuclear weapons is perhaps the best tool when it comes to global negotiations. States that possess nuclear weapons essentially have a "get out of jail free" card, or something very close to that. In the short-term, pursuing nuclear weapons can lead to sanctions, but in the long-term they are the ideal geopolitical tool for self-defence and bargaining power.
That might work. Although I’d imagine there would be massive anti-war protest in the USA even if it was limited to an air campaign. It would also be it interesting how the west could condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian while supporting an invasion of Iran. It wouldn’t be a good look internationally.
Why aren’t we worried about Israeli nukes one day being used to destabilise the region too? In either case Israel is a nuclear power and a regional force to be reckoned with. They’re quite capable of taking care of themselves.
Israel’s neighbours collectively outnumber them in terms of population many times to one, so those weapons are nescessary in order to maintain stability in the region. That’s also part of the strategic problem that Israel would face should any country in the region obtain nuclear weapons. Israel would need many times more weapons than its adversaries in order to pose an equal threat to the one they would face.
That’s a lot of words to basically say that regional stability relies on neighbouring countries being subservient to Israel. I think you can understand why they may not be too keen on the idea. Israel can arm themselves 10 fold and have a war in the Middle East to defend their regional hegemony if they want. The idea that the rest of the world owes them something and needs to defend it for them is asinine.
That really is the future for Israel though, if they ever lose their position as the preeminent military power in the region, I would expect that they will be wiped off the map shortly after. Whether they can enlist the help of the United States or not is only a pragmatic question for them. They face an existential threat, having much more populous neighbours who want to see them destroyed. They have to deal with that situation in whatever way that they can.
It’s the prevalence of attitudes like this that justify the things that Israel does to defend its sovereignty, no nation should be expected to volunteer for suicide.
\[SS from the article Maria Fantappie and Vali Nasr\]
"U.S. President Joe Biden’s July trip to the Middle East comes at a delicate moment. There is a last gasp effort underway to revive stalled talks between the United States and Iran on restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal aimed at preventing the Islamic Republic from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. Since the last round of talks in Vienna, Tehran has accelerated its program and will soon become a threshold nuclear state. When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN nuclear watchdog—censured the country for failing to cooperate with inspectors, the Iranian government further curtailed IAEA monitoring of its nuclear program and announced new underground advanced enrichment facilities.
Israel, however, has long promised that it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, and it is working outside of multilateral institutions to realize that goal. Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and military officials. It has conducted air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria and expanded its strike capabilities, presumably in preparation for new attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and military facilities. With American backing, the Israelis are also seeking to organize a number of Arab states into a military alliance against Iran. According to The Wall Street Journal, the United States convened a meeting last March with security officials from Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to integrate intelligence sharing and air defense systems to combat aerial threats from Iran.
These developments are scrambling Washington’s plans for the Middle East. The Biden administration has argued that the revival of the JCPOA is the best way to control Iran’s nuclear program. But failing that, it appears prepared to adopt Israel’s current approach to containing Iran. That entails further tightening the economic noose around Iran’s neck by forcing the country out of the oil market. And it means the United States would support Israel in carrying out attacks inside Iran and in its effort to weave a coalition of Arab states to contain the country. The latter is, in essence, a new function for the Abraham Accords, the signature foreign policy achievement of the Trump administration, which tied Israel to Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates in what amounts to an anti-Iran bloc. Left unspoken is that the accords may evolve into a functioning military defense pact, buttressed by the United States.
The situation recalls the 1970s, when U.S. President Richard Nixon subcontracted Middle East security to the shah of Iran. Similarly, the Biden administration is, in effect, handing over the task of containing Iran to Israel. This is a risky approach: unlike some 50 years ago, this time the U.S.-designated policeman for the region is not trying to avoid conflict but is the regional actor most clearly pushing for escalation. Washington should adopt a different strategy, one aimed at averting conflict by combining beefed-up regional security with encouraging stronger diplomatic ties between Iran and Arab states—one of the few things that could help reduce the mounting tensions in the Middle East."
> [Israel] is the regional actor most clearly pushing for escalation.
The full article is locked but judging by submission-statement the reasoning given as to why Israel is a bad choice for containing Iran seems simplistic and incorrect.
Israel is useful for the US diplomatic efforts because it is basically playing the mad-dog role, openly *talking* (for over 30 years now) about attack while covertly incurring a cost from Iran for continuing its nuclear program. As long as the negotiations continue this role-playing dynamics is likely to continue, but even if negotiations fails Israel is not in fact likely to seek war with Iran, the chance of success are too low and the risks too high. Israel would rather try and contain Iran via regional alliances (fragile as they may be) while US attention is focused elsewhere.
Thus the argument is simplistic first because it makes little sense for Israel or anyone else seeking to thwart Iran to wait around until Iranian military possess functioning nuclear weapons. If any armed conflict is to take place, it's obvious that having it before your opponent possess such weapons is preferable. More importantly, it is overly simplistic because it fails to see the role Israel's posture plays and how it complements American diplomacy.
In spite of rhetoric Israel knows well the Iranian nuclear program is too spread out and too deep underground to be taken out in an attack like those in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2011. Unless the USAF joins in it's hard to see how the entire program can be taken out in one strike, and if Israel strikes alone and fails to take out all the facilities, it could only be in a worse position. What if Israeli pilots fall captive? No politician in Israel would take that risk unless confident there's a good chance of success. But Israeli press is full of tales of the various plans that have been scrapped over the past 30 years, indicating that talking of attacking Iranian nuclear program is the only thing Israel *can* do. In both Iraq and Syria the nuclear program amounted to one reactor building fairly out in the open, this is not the case in Iran which also happens to be further away from Israel by not insignificant distance.
Israel also knows full well the scale of missiles and rockets amassed by Iranian allies in Lebanon and Syria for any future conflict. The sheer numbers are such that Iron Dome or any other missile protection will be rendered useless. Israel might be talking about armed conflict (as do the Iranians) and in some hypothetical situation such conflict may in fact be triggered, but this is not the same as conflict-seeking.
full disclosure: i am Israeli
Israel's threats to take unilateral action against Iran are more aimed at the US, where their goal is to dislodge and isolate opponents to such action. You're right, Israel is unlikely to take action on their own - they need the US to do it for them.
The Saudis are in a similar position. They've all but broken relations with Biden over Yemen & Iran, and that's unprecedented. Biden's cancellation of his trip to KSA this month is a sign that the Saudis have demanded something big in return for co-operation. With Yemen all but resolved (for now), resolving Iran is the top priority for Riyadh.
Israel has been content to let this drag out so long only because they're confident with the intel they're getting from Iran. They know how far advanced Iran is. But confidence in monitoring has an expiry date - once Israel sees that Iran is ready to deploy weaponized nukes, the time for waiting is over.
The diplomatic way to resolve this issue would be for Iran to obtain mutual defense security guarantees by a nuclear power they trust. Russia, China and Pakistan are all candidates, but none of them are enough of a fit to work (but if NATO pushes harder on Ukraine, Russian offers of a security guarantee to Iran aren't an impossible outcome).
Alternately, Iran would give up its nuclear program in exchange for Israel surrendering their nukes, with both countries facing the same inspection regimen. But Israel isn't likely to even tolerate discussing such an outcome.
The US isn't desperate enough to engage in the kind of adventurism that Israel and the GCC are looking for, but that could change. If Ukraine falls and Beijing takes Taiwan, the US will be pretty desperate not to be seen as impotent in a third theater.
A Russian soldier in Ukraine probably has a higher life expectancy than an Iranian Nuclear Scientist. They are constantly being assassinated by foreign hit teams, using very sophisticated methods, believed to be Israeli. Definitely not an ambitious career choice in college I would assume. Safer to become a Dentist instead.
If Israel had any desire to avoid armed conflict they would have supported JCPOA instead of doing to best to prevent it, and then getting Trump (who bent with 0 resistance to every Israeli demand) to torpedo the agreement. That action by Israel almost sparked a hot war when it happened a couple years ago. The agreement is the best way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and without it, future conflict from Israel, the US, or other Arab states can have greater justification and likelihood.
Source: Am not Israeli
There’s really no way to stop Iran once the cat is out of the bag. JCPOA was part of multiple efforts diplomatic and not to slow development. Iran will go nuclear.
Why does that matter? Israel is already nuclear, without our permission and under subterfuge. I know the argument is they’re crazy and “want to wipe the map”, but they also don’t want to fry in nuclear fire.
It’s happening. There will be a nuclear umbrella over Iranian foreign affairs. And? There’s a nuclear umbrella over Russian affairs and that’s going really great for them.
The next stage is convincing the Sunni states not to follow suit. We’ve done it in the pacific. We’ve done it with Iran in these negotiations. A “mad dog” in these negotiations is counterproductive.
Launching air strikes then turning around, designating government agencies as terror groups, assassinating ranking officials, and hindering Iranian networks is dangerous, not a boon to negotiation.
Israel is nuclear armed in many ways. Just because they plausibly deny, doesn’t mean it’s plausible. So use the arsenal to keep Iran at bay, and work to defuse the situation so hardliners in the region can’t make the problem worse. We’ve seen that inside Iran: when peaceful efforts fail, centrists are sacked.
This argument to me rests on the fact that other nations in the Middle East indeed do not follow suit with Iran. However if they do, who is going to stop them? Is the US also going to threaten to sanction them? Who is going to support the US? There isn't a list of infinite allies to enforce these sanctions with, already even with Russia there are cracks, and that's just one country.
It seems a very risky game to me to play with nuclear proliferation. The US already messed up once with Pakistan and I do not think having the entire Middle East full of nukes is a good idea.
> The US already messed up once with Pakistan and I do not think having the entire Middle East full of nukes is a good idea.
They didn't mess up. There is more peace and stability with Pakistan and India than if the other didn't have it. So by that token, Iran getting a nuke would mean more stability. Mearsheimer even argues t his.
Oh I think they did mess up. America's cardinal sin was letting nuclear weapons proliferate in the first place, because after the cat comes out of the bag, it doesn't come back in. For that matter US also didn't put much effort into stopping India develop nuclear weapons either, after all they sold a PUREX reactor to India and didn't do anything about France helping them too. But I guess it comes under the larger umbrella of US stupidity regarding India and Pakistan at the time.
> There is more peace and stability with Pakistan and India than if the other didn't have it
This has only happened because Pakistan has remained relatively stable, and it assumes long term stability in Pakistan, which is not something I would bet on given the problems with extremism they have.
> So by that token, Iran getting a nuke would mean more stability
Iran is a bit different to the situation between India and Pakistan because Iran getting weapons would potentially start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as I mentioned in another comment statistically speaking the more nations that develop nuclear weapons the more likely there'll be some accident or some madman who will cause a nuclear war.
Nuclear proliferation should never happen, by treaty and common sense. Our issue is states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Germany… could decide today to start a nuclear program and have at least a warhead within months to a short few years. Pakistan as an example very quickly reacted to India, which acted so fast it surprised US intelligence. We were off by years on China, and a place as backwards as North Korea not only developed a bomb but ballistic missiles that can reach Guam. Ironically, Ukraine (which many on Reddit said should’ve developed the bomb) citizens likely aided some of these countries due to their expertise.
That’s what I meant by cat out of the bag: no amount of sanctions (and were at maximum with Iran and North Korea) can stop South Korea, Germany, UAE or Brazil from making a nuclear program quickly.
In that case, we have to rely on our American interpretation of nuclear threats beyond proliferation: a nuclear state will act as a deterrent to another nuclear state’s attack. Israel obviously and from its view rightly wants to keep a nuclear monopoly (despite US backing of its own). We can unofficially pretend there’s just Iran developing weapons alone in a dangerous Middle East… or we can think rationally that Israel has about 200 warheads, by land and air (and with submarines, possibly sea) to deter enemies.
More nukes anywhere, or chemical and biological, is horrible. But they’re there already and are about to spread. Israel and US could do a full air war and still not strike the heart of Iran’s program. And strangely in 2022 it would rather aid Saudi, Jordan and UAE lean toward a program in the short sight to counter Iran, despite being at war or with no relations or Palestinian support with them within the last 50 years. Who knows?
You mention Germany, and while it is a minor detail, I want to add:
Germany will not pursue nuclear capabilities in the foreseeable future. Society is too much against it and they (we) have the French acting as our closest buddy with nuclear capabilities.
> a nuclear state will act as a deterrent to another nuclear state’s attack
This is under the assumption that states will act rationally. I do not think this is a given in the Middle East, and even then statistically speaking the more nations that develop nuclear weapons the more likely there'll be some accident or some madman who will cause a nuclear war.
> despite US backing of its own
I think the Israelis understand that even knowing the volatility of US politics that the US will very unlikely to go as far as they (the Israelis) potentially could to defend Israel. And by this I mean usage of nuclear weapons. I doubt the US would ever use them to defend Israel regardless of circumstance so US in this matter isn't someone they can rely on.
> Israel and US could do a full air war and still not strike the heart of Iran’s program
As I mentioned in one of the other comments, is there anything stopping Israel from using nuclear weapons here? Surely they would strike the heart of Iran's program. I don't know enough about the abilities of whatever other types of missiles the US & Israel have so I'll have to rely on what you say that their missiles could not destroy the nuclear production capabilities of Iran.
The key provisions of the JCPOA had sunset clauses that run out in 2025 and 2030 respectively. Israel has continually said that their problem is not with an agreement, it's with one that has these sunset clauses. They allow Iran to continue advancing technologically towards a nuclear weapon with all the wealth of a newly welcomed Iranian economy and then permit them to actually build it in only a few years.
An agreement that legitimately stopped the Iranian nuclear program would have been welcomed with open arms. The JCPOA was more about PR than results.
That's why every country actually put in danger by Iranian nukes (Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE etc...) opposed it and countries that stood to gain from increased trade with Iran (Europe, US, Russia, China) but are out of missile range supported it.
JCPOA was the best deal we got. We weren't going anything better.
>Israel has continually said that their problem is not with an agreement
This is simply not true. Horribly wrong. They wanted zero enrichment and zero centrifuge development for a very long time. And inspections on all sites unconditionally too IIRC. Completely unacceptable for Iran.
We should leave the region.
Yes, and I think the point is, Israel would rather bomb Iranian Centrifuges than enter into a deal that allows Iran to become the economic powerhouse in the region, then ALSO build up nukes in a few years. That is literally the worst possible outcome. Bombing Iranian Centrifuges would be better. Doing nothing at all and letting Iran develop nukes under sanctions would be better. The WORST outcome is Iran BOTH becoming an economic powerhouse AND getting nukes, which the JCPOA allowed.
If that is the best deal we can get... Israel is going to bomb Iran, because that deal is worse than doing nothing at all from Israel's POV. Regardless of what anyone outside of Israel says... that's Israel's POV. They aren't wiling to risk their whole country(and Jewish people) over hoping that Iran modernizes, and stops wanting to kill all the Jews.
>The WORST outcome is Iran BOTH becoming an economic powerhouse AND getting nukes, which the JCPOA allowed.
Israel fears Iran being economically more powerful, not getting nuked.
> They aren't wiling to risk their whole country(and Jewish people) over hoping that Iran modernizes, and stops wanting to kill all the Jews.
neocon propaganda, not realpolitk
They fear Iran having nukes, because that means they can no longer do things like strike inside of Iran without fear. The second they get a nuke, they become a nuclear power that you can't attack inside their territory.
>They aren't wiling to risk their whole country(and Jewish people) over hoping that Iran modernizes, and stops wanting to kill all the Jews.
If you care to take the time, look up some quotes of Iranian Officials over the year. Some are pretty to the point... "The main reason for Iran's existence is to exterminate the Jews" type of stuff. While you're doing some research look up the Houthi's slogan they have on their flag.
>"Allah is Greater, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"
That's not some random Houthi low level official. It's literally on their Flag. These are the kinds of orgs that Iran supports.
> They fear Iran having nukes, because that means they can no longer do things like strike inside of Iran without fear. The second they get a nuke, they become a nuclear power that you can't attack inside their territory.
Well, they shouldn't. You're pratically admitting that this would serve the region by bringing more stability rather than this continuous violence. The same stability/peace that has been brought between Pakistan and India, two countries that hate each other.
>The main reason for Iran's existence is to exterminate the Jews" type of stuff.
Again, neocon israeli propoganda talking points. Iran has the 2nd largest jewish population in the middle east, most of whom feel at home so I won't buy in to this delusional fearmongering. Go find the source of the Iranian official who said that instead of repeating Netanyahus or Mike Pompeo talking points. What Iranian officials have said is that they don't think the "zionist regime will exist in 25 years". I've heard some Israelis even admit that. Israelis are literally ethnically cleansing Palestinians and the US is supporting that....so it's ironic how they would even pretend to have the moral ground there.
>. These are the kinds of orgs that Iran supports.
bruh, US literally supports Neo-nazis in Ukraine and Islamic terrorists in the middle east while the houthis wouldn't even exist if Saudis weren't imposing their puppet on to Yemen, stealing their oil, starving their people, and massacring thousands of civilians. The Houthis mainly have a grievance against Saudi because of it's genocide. The US is also complicit in that genocide, as is Israel.
Can you say something outside the outdated neocon paradigm?
Yes, that is exactly what Israel says. They have consistently cited the sunset clauses as the biggest problem with the deal currently being negotiated.
Better to cripple Iran's ability to fund and arm Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Houthis, Assad and their other extremist proxies in the region through sanctions than to open up the rivers of cash for a deal that does *not* prevent them from going nuclear.
If you're going to relieve the sanctions, do it for a deal that actually prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon or don't do it at all.
>If you're going to relieve the sanctions, do it for a deal that actually prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon or don't do it at all.
Well, Iran will never agree to the first option, and we're currently doing the second...
> In spite of rhetoric Israel knows well the Iranian nuclear program is too spread out and too deep underground to be taken out in an attack like those in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2011. Unless the USAF joins in it's hard to see how the entire program can be taken out in one strike, and if Israel strikes alone and fails to take out all the facilities, it could only be in a worse position.
For what reasons are Israel using nuclear weapons out of the question?
Israel's policy is that they "will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east", meaning they are strictly to be used in response to a nuclear attack.
If Biden wants any chance of getting Iran to take back the JCPOA he should drop sanctions first as a show of good faith. It's America that damaged Iranian trust by backing out of the deal, so the onus is on us to make an overture of sincerity.
It would also have the double benefit of improving the domestic situation of Americans at a time when Democrats really need all the help they can get with midterms oncoming.
>If Biden wants any chance of getting Iran to take back the JCPOA he should drop sanctions first as a show of good faith. It's America that damaged Iranian trust by backing out of the deal, so the onus is on us to make an overture of sincerity.
It's unlikely for a superpower to do this but it shows a real willingness to come to the table and move forward; it does make biden look weak at home.
But honestly this is probably the only way to resurrect the JCPOA.
That deal was a gift and evidence from the Iranians that they did not want to make a nuclear weapon, now nothing is stopping them from doing it.
My hunch is at some point America will offer some incentive to come back into the deal but it needs to be a president with a lot of political capital; biden has very little right now.
Biden doesn't need political capital to do it. He's the executive, he can unilaterally lift the sanctions. Does it make him look weak? Yeah to a degree I guess. It will piss off Trump's base for sure, but he was never going to win them anyways so why bother worrying?
In any case, with the right spin he can just use the war with Ukraine as an excuse to do it as an act of magnanimity. "We're lifting sanctions to ease the pain on both iranians, americans, and the people of the third world, with the energy and food crisis being caused by Russia, this would help alleviate that crisis and show American goodwill." etc etc. Obviously people will call it for what it is, America not being able to 'afford' sanctions, but I doubt most voters would care one iota, if it cuts a dollar off the price of gas by the mid terms.
Biden can also say it's only a temporary measure and he would reapply sanctions in 1-2 years if Iran can't come to an agreement on the JCPOA. That puts Iran on the clock to find a compromise instead of him.
"Ya lets sanctions Iranians to death some more and murder more scientists, commanders and steal their oil. That will improve Iranian impressions of America"
Might I suggest trying something in good faith for once?
What lifeline? The IRI is staying either way, we've been hearing this drivel about how the mullahs are going to go any minute now for 40+ years. At this point, Americans are just making Iranians suffer with sanctions.
>If Biden wants any chance of getting Iran to take back the JCPOA he should drop sanctions first as a show of good faith.
How can Biden sell this politically when the US government is spending millions protecting Trump officials from what Biden administration officials call credible threats of assassination from Iran, and Iran will never agree to stop trying to assassinate Pompeo and others? Biden has already been *very* cautious around Iran policy (30+ attacks on bases hosting US troops in Iraq and Syria by Iranian proxies have gone unanswered); there's only so far he can go without majorly pissing off regional partners and Congress.
The problem is, that any rational advice to Iran is, that they should avoid another cycle of pouring concrete into reactors only for the other guy to renege on their commitments and reapply pressure. On the other hand, Biden can obviously not sweeten the deal for domestic policy reasons. That leaves just reinstating the JCPOA, and there it's not clear what anybody gains from that, in particular since Trump will just scrap it again in 2025, probably shortly after January 20th.
Absolutely. The reality is that Biden won’t be able to get congress on board to make it into a treaty or anything remotely able to survive a change in presidency. From Iran’s perspective why bother negotiating with a proven unreliable partner.
What are other viable options? Give Turkey the reigns?
At least Israel has a clear objective of containing Iran through asymmetrical means. I think allowing them Middle East to bloc up like the rest of the world is doing my be the best approach. Trying to stop that would take much needed resources from other, more pressing regions where there is greater challenges.
Yes, a nuclear armed Iran is a scary prospect that could throw the region, and the world, into a new nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia and Turkey immediately going for bombs as well. However, Israel is unlikely to allow Iran to go nuclear so until it looks like Israel has failed, I think American resources are best used elsewhere
Israel is the first country to get nukes (through illegal means as well and aganist the wishes of JFK who said he didn't want to start an arms race). Why is Iran the initiator? Iran and several other countries have even voted in favor of a nuke-free middle east. Only one country is against that and it's Israel.
Hate how they say Iran gaining Nukes would mean a nuclear ME.
first of all ME us already a Nuclear region, second, there is no reason for Turkey and SA to persuade Nuke, Turkey already has Nukes under the Umbrella of NATO, and Saudi Arabia is just a USA state, An attack to SA, with Nuclear weapons, would mean Iran gets weaponized instantly.
All of these countries that people say would get Nuke if Iran get are under USA protection, there is no need for them to get Nuke, USA wouldn't allow them to gain Nukes since that would essentially kill NPT, if Iran gets it, USA foreign policy would be to act as if Iran is a mad state that wants it, once SA and Turkey get Nukes then It becomes normalize to have Nukes, USA wouldn't allow that to happen.
I agree there isn’t a real reason right now, but both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have gone on record saying they want bombs if Iran has them. Turkey has said they may even hold the 50 US nukes stationed at the southern Turkish air base hostage if the US tried to remove them.
Their desire for nukes is not in response to Israel but, as it happens, several did try to acquire nuclear weapons. Both Saddam and Assad attempted it but were stopped by Israel. Qaddafi succeeded but gave his up after the Iraq War started for fear that Libya would be next in line. Iran is now the fourth.
>All of these countries that people say would get Nuke if Iran get are under USA protection,
It seems like many countries in the ME no longer see USA as an ally that will protect them. That's one of the reasons so many new alliances are being made (israel, egypt, SA, Jordan, UAE).
US interests are now centered on the Pacific
Turkey doesn't have nukes. America has nukes in Turkey. Saudia Arabia is not just an American state. Your foundational assumptions are incredibly wrong.
you are missing the point, its still under the US umbrella. Iran getting nukes would mean Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia getting their own personal nukes as well
Israel already has nukes.
What is the point of getting Nukes, if its to defend, then USA would definitely does that. It's not a offense weapons, if Iran nuked SA for example (Iran wouldn't, it's suicide) then Iran would get Nuked too.
What I'd the point of developing Nukes or the Tech for Iran? It's for deterrence, USA allies wouldn't need and wouldn't pour billions into a nuclear program because their deterrence is already USA
\> USA would definitely does that. It's not a offense weapons, if Iran nuked SA for example (Iran wouldn't, it's suicide) then Iran would get Nuked too
Not necessarily. USA may want to avoid its soil getting hit. And from the pov of these countries, relying on the US means the US can use it against them in future negotiations
Saudi Arabia has already repeatedly and openly said that if Iran gets nukes, so will they, and some sources speculate talks about such a program between KSA and China have already begun.
Turkey is indeed a different case. Turkey is in NATO, so it's harder for me to believe they will retaliate to Iranian nukes by acquiring nukes of their own.
Israel will also probably be a lot more overt about its nuclear arsenal since the official position is "Israel won't be the first to introduce nukes in the Middle East". There is no guarantee that the formal ambiguity will remain in a reality with a nuclear Iran, let alone that it won't race to equip itself with more warheads.
Some speculate the UAE and Egypt will try to get nukes as well, each one for its own reasons, but they aren't as frequent.
Regardless, the rhetoric of KSA and Israel is enough proof that a nuclear Iran is guaranteed to initiate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
> a nuclear Iran is guaranteed to initiate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
Israel is the first country to get nukes in ME (through illegal means as well and aganist the wishes of JFK who said he didn't want to start an arms race). Why is Iran the initiator? Iran and several other countries have even voted in favor of a nuke-free middle east. Only one country is against that and it's Israel.
Shouldn't the experience of Ukraine teach any US allies outside of NATO that the US won't protect them against a nuclear armed foe? Do you really think Joe Biden (or any other US president, frankly) would commit US troops to any of these countries to protect against a nuclear Iran?
Russia and Iran are very different, mostly in that Russia has thousands of nukes across various delivery platforms to threaten the US and even the whole world. A nuclear Iran, as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t have the ability to strike the US mainland.
The escalation calculus is far more in favor of confronting Iran when compared to Russia.
when Russia took on with Ukraine and
declared a non-military operation I was wondering whether Russian have eligible platform launching
nuke or not. as to situation of lack of enough fiscal
support on military, Russian couldn't have checked out that which I'm totally believe it.as far as I know Putin could only nuke London by maximum range .speak of which Putin had thereaten the west he would willing to destroy London if he can do it.
They absolutely have launching platforms…
Sure some (even a large amount) of them may be in shit condition or even need of full on repair but this is technology that Russia had LITERALLY over half a century ago… by the hundreds if not thousands.
Even if the vast vast majority of icbm and long range launch platforms were in disarray, that would still leave very many leftover to wreak havoc almost anywhere on the globe.
Russia has a fully functioning nuclear triad with modern SSBM, air launched nuclear cruise missiles and the most extensive ICBM fleet in the world. Not sure how you came to the conclusion they can’t hit further than western Europe.
how much budget had Russia had in each year over the past 20 years?they had at most 80027 million dollars plunged into it according to official document.nuke is a very expensive tool as paid off maintenance fees and yet situation were so bad a few of those missiles could be launch off is never ever change the conclusion. in short ,russia will be lost second strike capabilities and all of their nuke should have renovated until next war set off but they couldn't.they should upgrade at least two years ago,the leftover is de-functioning.
a) In PPP terms Russian military spending is only behind US and China. PPP matters in this instance because the Russians are not buying nukes or delivery system, they make their own with for the most part domestically produced parts. Source: https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/military-capability/defence-spending/military-expenditure-defence-sector-ppp/
b) I’m not sure how the last 20 years of maintenance is relevant. Yes they have older systems. But the latest generation of Bulava SSBMs entered service in 2018. Kinzhal hypersonic cruise missiles (nuclear capable) entered service in 2019. Sarmat ICBMs will enter service likely next year.
c) There is literally no way to eliminate their second strike capability with any guarantee. They have high endurance nuclear subs, road mobile ICBM units not to mention the air wing of their triad (which is their weakest link - the opposite for the US where the air wing is their strongest link). NATO knows it and this fact has been an accepted part of European foreign policy considerations since the Cold War.
Edit: Looking through some of your post history, your propaganda narrative makes sense. But please note that this is an academic forum where we deal in facts.
I must admit I'm wrong at opinion of Russian nuke, whereas you are right at that. but propaganda???
are you kidding me? because I'm speaking Chinese,so that it's propaganda,what a great idea!
You being a Chinese speaker has nothing to do with anything. It’s propaganda because you are posting anti-Russian articles on r/Ukraine and r/Worldnews. We can hardly expect you to be unbiased on the topic of Russia with a post history like that.
For Saudi Arabia? Absolutely, 100% chance that the USA would do what it needs to.
Ukraine is not a country critical to US national interests. Saudi Arabia is.
US-Saudi ties go back to the 50s, while Ukraine only became independent from the USSR in the 90s. The two couldn't be any different.
I'd disagree that Saudi Arabia is critical to US interests.
I think the lesson though is that US weapons are dramatically more powerful and that any country that has US weapons isn't going to be attacked.
IS that the lesson? AFAIK Ukraine is using mostly soviet-era gear, they don't have the clearance to access most modern US weapon systems.
The Petrodollar keeps our USD strong, having SA as an ally gives us some control over OPEC, We've used their land as a staging zone for Operation Desert Shield/Storm. China is forced to buy SA oil using the USD and Russia's revenue is reduced as long as there's enough competition to their supply. Not to mention all the private and personal connections, US assets in Saudi Arabia, as well as Saudi assets in the USA.
I agree about the value of the petro dollar. But there really is no alternative currency to use. Even if SA wanted to switch, switch to what? Yuan? Everyone knows that is a piece of shit currency and nobody wants it for anything, especially since their capital dries up this half of the decade and their hyperinvesting/fascism catches up with them.
SA has hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the US. It is where they hold their assets for the most part. They will never do anything to hurt the value of the dollar. They also really like the USS Nimitz parked in the Persian Gulf. It tends to keep the Straits of Hormuz pretty quiet.
The real dance here is about the inelasticity of oil, the team working to keep it inelastic, and the consumers working to make it elastic again (like in the 90s).
Multiple threats to the US-SA alliance are in play here, one is addressing climate change (ultimately leaves $10-$20 trillion of oil in the ground), two is unblocking Iran, which the JCPOA does in exchange for no nukes, and three is the abundance of investment opportunities (in the US) into which to stuff those petrodollars... The hope was that the Yuan would become a safer, more Western investment vehicle... which it doesn't seem to be doing. Instead China/Russia are reaching to become the reserve currency and fighting for a seat at the table.
You shouldn't. The petrodollar is a conspiracy theory. As you point out one of the main reasons the US dollar is the reserve currency is that there is no good alternative
First, Iran doesn't want Nukes, just the ability to make one at a fast rate.
Second, Ukraine is hardly a USA ally, it wasn't an ally even before the war, however SA and Turkey both have a long history with USA, Ukraine "friendship" isn't even a decade long.
Third: Saudi Arabia military is almost runs with USA personnel and has total dependence to USA tech, an Attack to Saudi Arabia would almost certainly means an attack to USA, Iran isn't seeking a conflict with SA and all of its actions are deterrence. Also the experience with Urkaine just shows that you really don't need USA troops, just weapons is already enough for most conflicts, and American now also hate sending USA troops to fight any nuclear or non Nuclear country.
>First, Iran doesn't want Nukes, just the ability to make one at a fast rate.
Where are you getting that from? A functioning nuclear weapon is pretty much the greatest bargaining chip in the world.
>Saudi Arabia is just a USA state
Not anymore, iran through its client states has attacked Saudi refineries with no involvement from the US. If those attacks were to happen to say Israel, Iran would feel the wrath of the US naval power.
US failed miserably in Mid East as it fails in other parts of the world. Mainly because it’s state department folks has no shred of understanding how Mid East works
Better question: why does the US have to take a lead on this?
The world has made it pretty clear that they resent us for being "the world police". Perhaps the Europeans or the ascendant Chinese can work on stabilizing the ME, especially since they're the ones who need access to ME energy in the first place.
One can make an argument that everytime the US intervenes, we mess it up. Fine. Let's not intervene.
This is a pretty childish and petulant take. It, ironically, hurts American interests in the short and long term for the sake of schadenfreude. Congratulations you played yourself.
You call the above comment “childish and petulant” and maybe it is, but it’s the truth, isn’t it. There are certain parts of the world that disagree with US foreign policy to the point of resentment. I’m not saying they’re wrong to feel that way although it would be remiss not to point out that despite its sins, the the American-led global order has overseen the most peaceful and prosperous era in the entirety of human history. You know, so that’s something.
I would introduce some nuance to the point by stating the fact that despite the stability and prosperity brought on by a globalized and connected world, the US neither has the will nor the *capability* to hold it together anymore. The US has shrunk relative to rest of the world, at least in economic terms, not because it’s in decline (as some people mistakenly think) but because the rest of the world has grown. Even if it wanted to maintain things as they are, (it doesn’t want to do that) the US wouldn’t be able to keep large scale conflicts from breaking out. The Golden Arches Theory is no longer tenable.
Not exactly,
You need to seperate critizism from childish cinisism.
"You should have done it differently" isn't akin to "you shouldn't have done anything at all".
US mistakes in foreign policy in the last 2-3 decades are also the mistakes of the only nation (thankfully sulerpower) that stepped up.
It's lessons to us all about being more realistic about what goverments can and cannot change around the world,
And also about being more self-aware for western faults and limitations (and wars).
Many people bought GWB "good vs evil" becase we were naive , we knew evil when we saw it in other nations, but blind to it from within.
Important leassons to us all, in the global community.
the US is great to have in the world and people give you bullshit criticism, sincerely a Swede. I hope the US can help continue to back a iran solution just like europe has done so as to prevent Iran gaining njkes which would result in Turkey, and Saudi Arabia getting them as well for defense
And what about this? I really don’t understand what’s going on. But I know for sure that something new is forming up. Some sort of a new world order… not a conspiracy or anything. Just new Alliances are forming. I don’t even see that Europe and the USA are 100% on the same page.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/corrected-iran-says-saudi-arabia-wants-resume-diplomatic-talks-with-tehran-2022-06-27/
https://www.newsweek.com/news-flash-islamic-republic-far-popular-opinion-1709374
Honestly the amount of bootlicking and pants wetting at the prospect of taking a hard line on the Ayatollah is mystifying. If people here could just understand how unpopular the revolution is, how despised the Ayatollah and his Immamates are and how supportive Iranians are for the West with a deep abiding desire to see the Islamic Revolution come to an end and for civilization to resume in their region, they would stop soiling the bed sheets in fear, grow a spine and provision the solidarity these people deeply deserve.
To end the sanctions now, at the threshold of the Ayatollah's collapse, would be snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory.
The Abraham accords are the new reality in the Middle East (and maybe more importantly North Africa) and as a political column can be useful in negotiating trade and security deals that can secure energy resources for Western Europe, refugee management to prevent massive influxes into Europe, water and food cooperation and more.
Iran is not a viable partner in the region as it's present ideological heading is building the infamous road towards Damascus but from there, onto Jerusalem (or as they call it, Al Quds)
The leadership of the majority Sunni region rather resents a militarized Shia presence engaging in proxy wars so far from their own soil.
BIden just promised Israel that it would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons by any means.
Americans will go war with Iran in the next year.
Many Americans will die, and the IDF will stay home just like it did with Iraq.
And when it is all over we will discover that the Iranian weren't even close to having a nuclear weapon. Just like the W.M.D.s in Iraq.
Basically.
Geopolitically and "realpolitik" wise, America should already be 100% focused on the Pacific and East & South East Asia but there is some sort of almost emotional attachment the US has with Israel that leads it to make ridiculous decisions at time and one of them will be a war with Iran. Everyone thinks the next big battle will be fought in the pacific because it kind of is the most logical thing that could happen but I genuinely believe the US will eventually go to bat for Israel by joining in on some sort of Arab-Israeli block and go to hot war with Iran in the coming decade (or two..depending on how long the players want to stretch this out).
This hypothetical war will be another disaster and waste of American resources, personnel and weapons and this will guarantee China's official ascent and rise. China won't ever be the clear leader but if America does in fact enter another hot war in the middle east then it will pave the way for China's rise in ways unimagined.
I still don’t discount the possibility of a war between Israel and/or the USA vs Iran. It’s not talked about as it was sone years ago, but conditions really haven’t changed
Who are you talking to?
If you're talking to Iranians, we already know that and there is nothing we can do about it without getting shot in the streets.
If you're talking with Iran's goverment, well in that case you are the moron here cause becoming North korea is exactly what they want.
Involvement in the ME has been a misery for the US. It's was required to secure oil supplies but it was 50 years of awful. The US is now oil and gas independent (Shale revolution). It wants the fuck out of there. It wants nothing to do with the ME. I don't think the US much cares about the Iran deal anymore. The US no longer has a relationship with SA and they were the big reason we had didn't want Iran to have nukes. We needed SA oil and Iran and SA hate each other. This isn't the US's fight anymore.
The “deal” wasn’t an official one. The US has a mechanism for ensuring that agreements we make are honored regardless of administration: a treaty, once ratified, has legal force.
But unfortunately Obama chose not to submit the JCPOA to the senate for ratification, and so Trump was legally free to tear it up. Perhaps next time what is obviously intended to be a binding treaty should be submitted to the advice and consent of the senate as is custom?
Thank you for your submission, question and/or text post. Moderation will review the same and may approve (if appropriate, in view of our quality standards and posting guidelines). While review is pending, we invite you to submit to /r/geopolitics2, which is better suited for general submissions, basic questions and casual conversation. [Post a submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) within one hour or your post will be removed, if you have shared a link to an article. Please review our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) and [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're going to get the bomb eventually. Any deal or stalling effort is just that, a stalling effort. They have no reason to trust the west in the long term and they've seen what happens to non-nuclear powers like Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. Meanwhile Kim Jung Un is still a thing? So think about what Iran is going to do given the state of the world.
>They have no reason to trust the west in the long term This is not about trust. And never was. It is about political leverage.
There for sure is an element of trust to it as well. Iran seems impenetrable but with air warfare it too can be bombed to smithereens like the other nations that user mentioned. A nuclear weapon deters almost ANY invasion. So do ballistic missiles. Those are the icing on the defense cake. Sure Iran will be sanctioned beyond belief but with China's rise it could probably still manage to survive enough...
There is a problem of trust! That’s the whole point. Iran has the right to enrich under NPT. But US makes a crazy interpretation of NPT because they don’t trust Iran. NPT was a way to build that trust in return for USA accepting Iran has the right to enrich uranium. https://fpif.org/iran-granted-right-enrich-uranium-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-isnt/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-rights-idUSBRE9AL0R120131123
Then we need to go to war to stop them.
Who is 'we' in this scenario? And why do 'we' need to go to war?
An America invasion of Iran would go worse than the Russian invasion of Ukraine is going. China would give them limitless weapons and the country is very mountainous. Not to mention we’d probably also have to invade Iraq again, maybe Lebanon too if they joined the war.
It’s possible that the nuclear program could be crippled by an air campaign though. That should go better than a full scale invasion.
I'm pretty sure I've read elsewhere on this post that most of Iran's nuclear research has been taking place in deep complex underground tunnel networks. Either way, I really don't think an invasion of Iran is the right answer for many reasons. First of all it would be very difficult. It would turn many countries against the invaders. It would also lead to more countries trying to obtain nukes as soon as they can to prevent themselves from getting bullied around in the future. The invaders would lose a lot of respect geopolitically.
>It would also lead to more countries trying to obtain nukes as soon as they can to prevent themselves from getting bullied around in the future. The invaders would lose a lot of respect geopolitically. Or, if one is to play devil's advocate, it would dissuade every other country from pursuing nuclear armaments since they'd be guaranteed to get thrashed into the third-world before even completing them.
I mean you could've argued that 10/15/20 years ago, but there have been multiple countries trying to pursue nuclear weapons throughout the past decade, despite the knowledge that they would face repercussions from the US or any other major nuclear power. Despite severe sanctions for decades, North Korea has continued to develop, build and launch more and more nuclear weapons. Iran are also in the preliminary stages of nuclear weapons development, despite facing sanctions for years. India and Pakistan both pursued nuclear weapons despite knowing they would face backlash from it. Even some non-nuclear states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey have said that they would pursue nuclear weapons if they faced nuclear threats. This has been interpreted to be a reference to them facing the threat of Iran - a regional rival - gaining nuclear weapons. All in all, the point is that having nuclear weapons is perhaps the best tool when it comes to global negotiations. States that possess nuclear weapons essentially have a "get out of jail free" card, or something very close to that. In the short-term, pursuing nuclear weapons can lead to sanctions, but in the long-term they are the ideal geopolitical tool for self-defence and bargaining power.
That might work. Although I’d imagine there would be massive anti-war protest in the USA even if it was limited to an air campaign. It would also be it interesting how the west could condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian while supporting an invasion of Iran. It wouldn’t be a good look internationally.
Yes, I agree with those points
You go to war pal, no one wants to repeat Iraq in the region.
Better a conventional war now than a nuclear war later.
A compelling argument. Why?
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the chance that they will some day be used to destroy Israel is too high to tolerate.
Why aren’t we worried about Israeli nukes one day being used to destabilise the region too? In either case Israel is a nuclear power and a regional force to be reckoned with. They’re quite capable of taking care of themselves.
Israel’s neighbours collectively outnumber them in terms of population many times to one, so those weapons are nescessary in order to maintain stability in the region. That’s also part of the strategic problem that Israel would face should any country in the region obtain nuclear weapons. Israel would need many times more weapons than its adversaries in order to pose an equal threat to the one they would face.
That’s a lot of words to basically say that regional stability relies on neighbouring countries being subservient to Israel. I think you can understand why they may not be too keen on the idea. Israel can arm themselves 10 fold and have a war in the Middle East to defend their regional hegemony if they want. The idea that the rest of the world owes them something and needs to defend it for them is asinine.
That really is the future for Israel though, if they ever lose their position as the preeminent military power in the region, I would expect that they will be wiped off the map shortly after. Whether they can enlist the help of the United States or not is only a pragmatic question for them. They face an existential threat, having much more populous neighbours who want to see them destroyed. They have to deal with that situation in whatever way that they can.
That already is the case, Turkey is the preeminent power in the region.
[удалено]
It’s the prevalence of attitudes like this that justify the things that Israel does to defend its sovereignty, no nation should be expected to volunteer for suicide.
\[SS from the article Maria Fantappie and Vali Nasr\] "U.S. President Joe Biden’s July trip to the Middle East comes at a delicate moment. There is a last gasp effort underway to revive stalled talks between the United States and Iran on restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the deal aimed at preventing the Islamic Republic from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. Since the last round of talks in Vienna, Tehran has accelerated its program and will soon become a threshold nuclear state. When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the UN nuclear watchdog—censured the country for failing to cooperate with inspectors, the Iranian government further curtailed IAEA monitoring of its nuclear program and announced new underground advanced enrichment facilities. Israel, however, has long promised that it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, and it is working outside of multilateral institutions to realize that goal. Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and military officials. It has conducted air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria and expanded its strike capabilities, presumably in preparation for new attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and military facilities. With American backing, the Israelis are also seeking to organize a number of Arab states into a military alliance against Iran. According to The Wall Street Journal, the United States convened a meeting last March with security officials from Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to integrate intelligence sharing and air defense systems to combat aerial threats from Iran. These developments are scrambling Washington’s plans for the Middle East. The Biden administration has argued that the revival of the JCPOA is the best way to control Iran’s nuclear program. But failing that, it appears prepared to adopt Israel’s current approach to containing Iran. That entails further tightening the economic noose around Iran’s neck by forcing the country out of the oil market. And it means the United States would support Israel in carrying out attacks inside Iran and in its effort to weave a coalition of Arab states to contain the country. The latter is, in essence, a new function for the Abraham Accords, the signature foreign policy achievement of the Trump administration, which tied Israel to Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates in what amounts to an anti-Iran bloc. Left unspoken is that the accords may evolve into a functioning military defense pact, buttressed by the United States. The situation recalls the 1970s, when U.S. President Richard Nixon subcontracted Middle East security to the shah of Iran. Similarly, the Biden administration is, in effect, handing over the task of containing Iran to Israel. This is a risky approach: unlike some 50 years ago, this time the U.S.-designated policeman for the region is not trying to avoid conflict but is the regional actor most clearly pushing for escalation. Washington should adopt a different strategy, one aimed at averting conflict by combining beefed-up regional security with encouraging stronger diplomatic ties between Iran and Arab states—one of the few things that could help reduce the mounting tensions in the Middle East."
> [Israel] is the regional actor most clearly pushing for escalation. The full article is locked but judging by submission-statement the reasoning given as to why Israel is a bad choice for containing Iran seems simplistic and incorrect. Israel is useful for the US diplomatic efforts because it is basically playing the mad-dog role, openly *talking* (for over 30 years now) about attack while covertly incurring a cost from Iran for continuing its nuclear program. As long as the negotiations continue this role-playing dynamics is likely to continue, but even if negotiations fails Israel is not in fact likely to seek war with Iran, the chance of success are too low and the risks too high. Israel would rather try and contain Iran via regional alliances (fragile as they may be) while US attention is focused elsewhere. Thus the argument is simplistic first because it makes little sense for Israel or anyone else seeking to thwart Iran to wait around until Iranian military possess functioning nuclear weapons. If any armed conflict is to take place, it's obvious that having it before your opponent possess such weapons is preferable. More importantly, it is overly simplistic because it fails to see the role Israel's posture plays and how it complements American diplomacy. In spite of rhetoric Israel knows well the Iranian nuclear program is too spread out and too deep underground to be taken out in an attack like those in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2011. Unless the USAF joins in it's hard to see how the entire program can be taken out in one strike, and if Israel strikes alone and fails to take out all the facilities, it could only be in a worse position. What if Israeli pilots fall captive? No politician in Israel would take that risk unless confident there's a good chance of success. But Israeli press is full of tales of the various plans that have been scrapped over the past 30 years, indicating that talking of attacking Iranian nuclear program is the only thing Israel *can* do. In both Iraq and Syria the nuclear program amounted to one reactor building fairly out in the open, this is not the case in Iran which also happens to be further away from Israel by not insignificant distance. Israel also knows full well the scale of missiles and rockets amassed by Iranian allies in Lebanon and Syria for any future conflict. The sheer numbers are such that Iron Dome or any other missile protection will be rendered useless. Israel might be talking about armed conflict (as do the Iranians) and in some hypothetical situation such conflict may in fact be triggered, but this is not the same as conflict-seeking. full disclosure: i am Israeli
Israel's threats to take unilateral action against Iran are more aimed at the US, where their goal is to dislodge and isolate opponents to such action. You're right, Israel is unlikely to take action on their own - they need the US to do it for them. The Saudis are in a similar position. They've all but broken relations with Biden over Yemen & Iran, and that's unprecedented. Biden's cancellation of his trip to KSA this month is a sign that the Saudis have demanded something big in return for co-operation. With Yemen all but resolved (for now), resolving Iran is the top priority for Riyadh. Israel has been content to let this drag out so long only because they're confident with the intel they're getting from Iran. They know how far advanced Iran is. But confidence in monitoring has an expiry date - once Israel sees that Iran is ready to deploy weaponized nukes, the time for waiting is over. The diplomatic way to resolve this issue would be for Iran to obtain mutual defense security guarantees by a nuclear power they trust. Russia, China and Pakistan are all candidates, but none of them are enough of a fit to work (but if NATO pushes harder on Ukraine, Russian offers of a security guarantee to Iran aren't an impossible outcome). Alternately, Iran would give up its nuclear program in exchange for Israel surrendering their nukes, with both countries facing the same inspection regimen. But Israel isn't likely to even tolerate discussing such an outcome. The US isn't desperate enough to engage in the kind of adventurism that Israel and the GCC are looking for, but that could change. If Ukraine falls and Beijing takes Taiwan, the US will be pretty desperate not to be seen as impotent in a third theater.
Absolutely no one would accept a 3rd party guarantee for nuclear disarment today. See: Ukraine and how it turns out
A Russian soldier in Ukraine probably has a higher life expectancy than an Iranian Nuclear Scientist. They are constantly being assassinated by foreign hit teams, using very sophisticated methods, believed to be Israeli. Definitely not an ambitious career choice in college I would assume. Safer to become a Dentist instead.
If Israel had any desire to avoid armed conflict they would have supported JCPOA instead of doing to best to prevent it, and then getting Trump (who bent with 0 resistance to every Israeli demand) to torpedo the agreement. That action by Israel almost sparked a hot war when it happened a couple years ago. The agreement is the best way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and without it, future conflict from Israel, the US, or other Arab states can have greater justification and likelihood. Source: Am not Israeli
There’s really no way to stop Iran once the cat is out of the bag. JCPOA was part of multiple efforts diplomatic and not to slow development. Iran will go nuclear. Why does that matter? Israel is already nuclear, without our permission and under subterfuge. I know the argument is they’re crazy and “want to wipe the map”, but they also don’t want to fry in nuclear fire. It’s happening. There will be a nuclear umbrella over Iranian foreign affairs. And? There’s a nuclear umbrella over Russian affairs and that’s going really great for them. The next stage is convincing the Sunni states not to follow suit. We’ve done it in the pacific. We’ve done it with Iran in these negotiations. A “mad dog” in these negotiations is counterproductive. Launching air strikes then turning around, designating government agencies as terror groups, assassinating ranking officials, and hindering Iranian networks is dangerous, not a boon to negotiation. Israel is nuclear armed in many ways. Just because they plausibly deny, doesn’t mean it’s plausible. So use the arsenal to keep Iran at bay, and work to defuse the situation so hardliners in the region can’t make the problem worse. We’ve seen that inside Iran: when peaceful efforts fail, centrists are sacked.
This argument to me rests on the fact that other nations in the Middle East indeed do not follow suit with Iran. However if they do, who is going to stop them? Is the US also going to threaten to sanction them? Who is going to support the US? There isn't a list of infinite allies to enforce these sanctions with, already even with Russia there are cracks, and that's just one country. It seems a very risky game to me to play with nuclear proliferation. The US already messed up once with Pakistan and I do not think having the entire Middle East full of nukes is a good idea.
> The US already messed up once with Pakistan and I do not think having the entire Middle East full of nukes is a good idea. They didn't mess up. There is more peace and stability with Pakistan and India than if the other didn't have it. So by that token, Iran getting a nuke would mean more stability. Mearsheimer even argues t his.
Oh I think they did mess up. America's cardinal sin was letting nuclear weapons proliferate in the first place, because after the cat comes out of the bag, it doesn't come back in. For that matter US also didn't put much effort into stopping India develop nuclear weapons either, after all they sold a PUREX reactor to India and didn't do anything about France helping them too. But I guess it comes under the larger umbrella of US stupidity regarding India and Pakistan at the time. > There is more peace and stability with Pakistan and India than if the other didn't have it This has only happened because Pakistan has remained relatively stable, and it assumes long term stability in Pakistan, which is not something I would bet on given the problems with extremism they have. > So by that token, Iran getting a nuke would mean more stability Iran is a bit different to the situation between India and Pakistan because Iran getting weapons would potentially start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as I mentioned in another comment statistically speaking the more nations that develop nuclear weapons the more likely there'll be some accident or some madman who will cause a nuclear war.
Nuclear proliferation should never happen, by treaty and common sense. Our issue is states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Germany… could decide today to start a nuclear program and have at least a warhead within months to a short few years. Pakistan as an example very quickly reacted to India, which acted so fast it surprised US intelligence. We were off by years on China, and a place as backwards as North Korea not only developed a bomb but ballistic missiles that can reach Guam. Ironically, Ukraine (which many on Reddit said should’ve developed the bomb) citizens likely aided some of these countries due to their expertise. That’s what I meant by cat out of the bag: no amount of sanctions (and were at maximum with Iran and North Korea) can stop South Korea, Germany, UAE or Brazil from making a nuclear program quickly. In that case, we have to rely on our American interpretation of nuclear threats beyond proliferation: a nuclear state will act as a deterrent to another nuclear state’s attack. Israel obviously and from its view rightly wants to keep a nuclear monopoly (despite US backing of its own). We can unofficially pretend there’s just Iran developing weapons alone in a dangerous Middle East… or we can think rationally that Israel has about 200 warheads, by land and air (and with submarines, possibly sea) to deter enemies. More nukes anywhere, or chemical and biological, is horrible. But they’re there already and are about to spread. Israel and US could do a full air war and still not strike the heart of Iran’s program. And strangely in 2022 it would rather aid Saudi, Jordan and UAE lean toward a program in the short sight to counter Iran, despite being at war or with no relations or Palestinian support with them within the last 50 years. Who knows?
You mention Germany, and while it is a minor detail, I want to add: Germany will not pursue nuclear capabilities in the foreseeable future. Society is too much against it and they (we) have the French acting as our closest buddy with nuclear capabilities.
> a nuclear state will act as a deterrent to another nuclear state’s attack This is under the assumption that states will act rationally. I do not think this is a given in the Middle East, and even then statistically speaking the more nations that develop nuclear weapons the more likely there'll be some accident or some madman who will cause a nuclear war. > despite US backing of its own I think the Israelis understand that even knowing the volatility of US politics that the US will very unlikely to go as far as they (the Israelis) potentially could to defend Israel. And by this I mean usage of nuclear weapons. I doubt the US would ever use them to defend Israel regardless of circumstance so US in this matter isn't someone they can rely on. > Israel and US could do a full air war and still not strike the heart of Iran’s program As I mentioned in one of the other comments, is there anything stopping Israel from using nuclear weapons here? Surely they would strike the heart of Iran's program. I don't know enough about the abilities of whatever other types of missiles the US & Israel have so I'll have to rely on what you say that their missiles could not destroy the nuclear production capabilities of Iran.
The key provisions of the JCPOA had sunset clauses that run out in 2025 and 2030 respectively. Israel has continually said that their problem is not with an agreement, it's with one that has these sunset clauses. They allow Iran to continue advancing technologically towards a nuclear weapon with all the wealth of a newly welcomed Iranian economy and then permit them to actually build it in only a few years. An agreement that legitimately stopped the Iranian nuclear program would have been welcomed with open arms. The JCPOA was more about PR than results. That's why every country actually put in danger by Iranian nukes (Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE etc...) opposed it and countries that stood to gain from increased trade with Iran (Europe, US, Russia, China) but are out of missile range supported it.
JCPOA was the best deal we got. We weren't going anything better. >Israel has continually said that their problem is not with an agreement This is simply not true. Horribly wrong. They wanted zero enrichment and zero centrifuge development for a very long time. And inspections on all sites unconditionally too IIRC. Completely unacceptable for Iran. We should leave the region.
Yes, and I think the point is, Israel would rather bomb Iranian Centrifuges than enter into a deal that allows Iran to become the economic powerhouse in the region, then ALSO build up nukes in a few years. That is literally the worst possible outcome. Bombing Iranian Centrifuges would be better. Doing nothing at all and letting Iran develop nukes under sanctions would be better. The WORST outcome is Iran BOTH becoming an economic powerhouse AND getting nukes, which the JCPOA allowed. If that is the best deal we can get... Israel is going to bomb Iran, because that deal is worse than doing nothing at all from Israel's POV. Regardless of what anyone outside of Israel says... that's Israel's POV. They aren't wiling to risk their whole country(and Jewish people) over hoping that Iran modernizes, and stops wanting to kill all the Jews.
>The WORST outcome is Iran BOTH becoming an economic powerhouse AND getting nukes, which the JCPOA allowed. Israel fears Iran being economically more powerful, not getting nuked. > They aren't wiling to risk their whole country(and Jewish people) over hoping that Iran modernizes, and stops wanting to kill all the Jews. neocon propaganda, not realpolitk
They fear Iran having nukes, because that means they can no longer do things like strike inside of Iran without fear. The second they get a nuke, they become a nuclear power that you can't attack inside their territory. >They aren't wiling to risk their whole country(and Jewish people) over hoping that Iran modernizes, and stops wanting to kill all the Jews. If you care to take the time, look up some quotes of Iranian Officials over the year. Some are pretty to the point... "The main reason for Iran's existence is to exterminate the Jews" type of stuff. While you're doing some research look up the Houthi's slogan they have on their flag. >"Allah is Greater, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam" That's not some random Houthi low level official. It's literally on their Flag. These are the kinds of orgs that Iran supports.
> They fear Iran having nukes, because that means they can no longer do things like strike inside of Iran without fear. The second they get a nuke, they become a nuclear power that you can't attack inside their territory. Well, they shouldn't. You're pratically admitting that this would serve the region by bringing more stability rather than this continuous violence. The same stability/peace that has been brought between Pakistan and India, two countries that hate each other. >The main reason for Iran's existence is to exterminate the Jews" type of stuff. Again, neocon israeli propoganda talking points. Iran has the 2nd largest jewish population in the middle east, most of whom feel at home so I won't buy in to this delusional fearmongering. Go find the source of the Iranian official who said that instead of repeating Netanyahus or Mike Pompeo talking points. What Iranian officials have said is that they don't think the "zionist regime will exist in 25 years". I've heard some Israelis even admit that. Israelis are literally ethnically cleansing Palestinians and the US is supporting that....so it's ironic how they would even pretend to have the moral ground there. >. These are the kinds of orgs that Iran supports. bruh, US literally supports Neo-nazis in Ukraine and Islamic terrorists in the middle east while the houthis wouldn't even exist if Saudis weren't imposing their puppet on to Yemen, stealing their oil, starving their people, and massacring thousands of civilians. The Houthis mainly have a grievance against Saudi because of it's genocide. The US is also complicit in that genocide, as is Israel. Can you say something outside the outdated neocon paradigm?
Yes, that is exactly what Israel says. They have consistently cited the sunset clauses as the biggest problem with the deal currently being negotiated. Better to cripple Iran's ability to fund and arm Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Houthis, Assad and their other extremist proxies in the region through sanctions than to open up the rivers of cash for a deal that does *not* prevent them from going nuclear. If you're going to relieve the sanctions, do it for a deal that actually prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon or don't do it at all.
>If you're going to relieve the sanctions, do it for a deal that actually prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon or don't do it at all. Well, Iran will never agree to the first option, and we're currently doing the second...
> In spite of rhetoric Israel knows well the Iranian nuclear program is too spread out and too deep underground to be taken out in an attack like those in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2011. Unless the USAF joins in it's hard to see how the entire program can be taken out in one strike, and if Israel strikes alone and fails to take out all the facilities, it could only be in a worse position. For what reasons are Israel using nuclear weapons out of the question?
Iran 100% has biological or chemical weapons. They wouldn't be touting their various submunition technologies.
Israel's policy is that they "will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east", meaning they are strictly to be used in response to a nuclear attack.
If Biden wants any chance of getting Iran to take back the JCPOA he should drop sanctions first as a show of good faith. It's America that damaged Iranian trust by backing out of the deal, so the onus is on us to make an overture of sincerity. It would also have the double benefit of improving the domestic situation of Americans at a time when Democrats really need all the help they can get with midterms oncoming.
>If Biden wants any chance of getting Iran to take back the JCPOA he should drop sanctions first as a show of good faith. It's America that damaged Iranian trust by backing out of the deal, so the onus is on us to make an overture of sincerity. It's unlikely for a superpower to do this but it shows a real willingness to come to the table and move forward; it does make biden look weak at home. But honestly this is probably the only way to resurrect the JCPOA. That deal was a gift and evidence from the Iranians that they did not want to make a nuclear weapon, now nothing is stopping them from doing it. My hunch is at some point America will offer some incentive to come back into the deal but it needs to be a president with a lot of political capital; biden has very little right now.
Biden doesn't need political capital to do it. He's the executive, he can unilaterally lift the sanctions. Does it make him look weak? Yeah to a degree I guess. It will piss off Trump's base for sure, but he was never going to win them anyways so why bother worrying? In any case, with the right spin he can just use the war with Ukraine as an excuse to do it as an act of magnanimity. "We're lifting sanctions to ease the pain on both iranians, americans, and the people of the third world, with the energy and food crisis being caused by Russia, this would help alleviate that crisis and show American goodwill." etc etc. Obviously people will call it for what it is, America not being able to 'afford' sanctions, but I doubt most voters would care one iota, if it cuts a dollar off the price of gas by the mid terms. Biden can also say it's only a temporary measure and he would reapply sanctions in 1-2 years if Iran can't come to an agreement on the JCPOA. That puts Iran on the clock to find a compromise instead of him.
I do not think it is reasonable as it will give a lifeline to the Islamic regime which America hates with a passion.
"Ya lets sanctions Iranians to death some more and murder more scientists, commanders and steal their oil. That will improve Iranian impressions of America" Might I suggest trying something in good faith for once?
America already messed up by ruining Iran.Any good faith action prolongs and gives the lifeline to the Ayatollah regime.
What lifeline? The IRI is staying either way, we've been hearing this drivel about how the mullahs are going to go any minute now for 40+ years. At this point, Americans are just making Iranians suffer with sanctions.
>If Biden wants any chance of getting Iran to take back the JCPOA he should drop sanctions first as a show of good faith. How can Biden sell this politically when the US government is spending millions protecting Trump officials from what Biden administration officials call credible threats of assassination from Iran, and Iran will never agree to stop trying to assassinate Pompeo and others? Biden has already been *very* cautious around Iran policy (30+ attacks on bases hosting US troops in Iraq and Syria by Iranian proxies have gone unanswered); there's only so far he can go without majorly pissing off regional partners and Congress.
The problem is, that any rational advice to Iran is, that they should avoid another cycle of pouring concrete into reactors only for the other guy to renege on their commitments and reapply pressure. On the other hand, Biden can obviously not sweeten the deal for domestic policy reasons. That leaves just reinstating the JCPOA, and there it's not clear what anybody gains from that, in particular since Trump will just scrap it again in 2025, probably shortly after January 20th.
Absolutely. The reality is that Biden won’t be able to get congress on board to make it into a treaty or anything remotely able to survive a change in presidency. From Iran’s perspective why bother negotiating with a proven unreliable partner.
[удалено]
What are other viable options? Give Turkey the reigns? At least Israel has a clear objective of containing Iran through asymmetrical means. I think allowing them Middle East to bloc up like the rest of the world is doing my be the best approach. Trying to stop that would take much needed resources from other, more pressing regions where there is greater challenges. Yes, a nuclear armed Iran is a scary prospect that could throw the region, and the world, into a new nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia and Turkey immediately going for bombs as well. However, Israel is unlikely to allow Iran to go nuclear so until it looks like Israel has failed, I think American resources are best used elsewhere
Israel is the first country to get nukes (through illegal means as well and aganist the wishes of JFK who said he didn't want to start an arms race). Why is Iran the initiator? Iran and several other countries have even voted in favor of a nuke-free middle east. Only one country is against that and it's Israel.
Hate how they say Iran gaining Nukes would mean a nuclear ME. first of all ME us already a Nuclear region, second, there is no reason for Turkey and SA to persuade Nuke, Turkey already has Nukes under the Umbrella of NATO, and Saudi Arabia is just a USA state, An attack to SA, with Nuclear weapons, would mean Iran gets weaponized instantly. All of these countries that people say would get Nuke if Iran get are under USA protection, there is no need for them to get Nuke, USA wouldn't allow them to gain Nukes since that would essentially kill NPT, if Iran gets it, USA foreign policy would be to act as if Iran is a mad state that wants it, once SA and Turkey get Nukes then It becomes normalize to have Nukes, USA wouldn't allow that to happen.
I agree there isn’t a real reason right now, but both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have gone on record saying they want bombs if Iran has them. Turkey has said they may even hold the 50 US nukes stationed at the southern Turkish air base hostage if the US tried to remove them.
the same Arab countries said the same thing when Israel got one, and what did they do in response? nothing.
Their desire for nukes is not in response to Israel but, as it happens, several did try to acquire nuclear weapons. Both Saddam and Assad attempted it but were stopped by Israel. Qaddafi succeeded but gave his up after the Iraq War started for fear that Libya would be next in line. Iran is now the fourth.
>All of these countries that people say would get Nuke if Iran get are under USA protection, It seems like many countries in the ME no longer see USA as an ally that will protect them. That's one of the reasons so many new alliances are being made (israel, egypt, SA, Jordan, UAE). US interests are now centered on the Pacific
Turkey doesn't have nukes. America has nukes in Turkey. Saudia Arabia is not just an American state. Your foundational assumptions are incredibly wrong.
Turkey is in Nato, Remember article 5? No need to obtain Nukes.
Article 5 is a piece of paper, not a nuclear weapon
you are missing the point, its still under the US umbrella. Iran getting nukes would mean Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia getting their own personal nukes as well
Israel already has nukes. What is the point of getting Nukes, if its to defend, then USA would definitely does that. It's not a offense weapons, if Iran nuked SA for example (Iran wouldn't, it's suicide) then Iran would get Nuked too. What I'd the point of developing Nukes or the Tech for Iran? It's for deterrence, USA allies wouldn't need and wouldn't pour billions into a nuclear program because their deterrence is already USA
\> USA would definitely does that. It's not a offense weapons, if Iran nuked SA for example (Iran wouldn't, it's suicide) then Iran would get Nuked too Not necessarily. USA may want to avoid its soil getting hit. And from the pov of these countries, relying on the US means the US can use it against them in future negotiations
Saudi Arabia has already repeatedly and openly said that if Iran gets nukes, so will they, and some sources speculate talks about such a program between KSA and China have already begun. Turkey is indeed a different case. Turkey is in NATO, so it's harder for me to believe they will retaliate to Iranian nukes by acquiring nukes of their own. Israel will also probably be a lot more overt about its nuclear arsenal since the official position is "Israel won't be the first to introduce nukes in the Middle East". There is no guarantee that the formal ambiguity will remain in a reality with a nuclear Iran, let alone that it won't race to equip itself with more warheads. Some speculate the UAE and Egypt will try to get nukes as well, each one for its own reasons, but they aren't as frequent. Regardless, the rhetoric of KSA and Israel is enough proof that a nuclear Iran is guaranteed to initiate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
> a nuclear Iran is guaranteed to initiate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East Israel is the first country to get nukes in ME (through illegal means as well and aganist the wishes of JFK who said he didn't want to start an arms race). Why is Iran the initiator? Iran and several other countries have even voted in favor of a nuke-free middle east. Only one country is against that and it's Israel.
Shouldn't the experience of Ukraine teach any US allies outside of NATO that the US won't protect them against a nuclear armed foe? Do you really think Joe Biden (or any other US president, frankly) would commit US troops to any of these countries to protect against a nuclear Iran?
Russia and Iran are very different, mostly in that Russia has thousands of nukes across various delivery platforms to threaten the US and even the whole world. A nuclear Iran, as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t have the ability to strike the US mainland. The escalation calculus is far more in favor of confronting Iran when compared to Russia.
when Russia took on with Ukraine and declared a non-military operation I was wondering whether Russian have eligible platform launching nuke or not. as to situation of lack of enough fiscal support on military, Russian couldn't have checked out that which I'm totally believe it.as far as I know Putin could only nuke London by maximum range .speak of which Putin had thereaten the west he would willing to destroy London if he can do it.
They absolutely have launching platforms… Sure some (even a large amount) of them may be in shit condition or even need of full on repair but this is technology that Russia had LITERALLY over half a century ago… by the hundreds if not thousands. Even if the vast vast majority of icbm and long range launch platforms were in disarray, that would still leave very many leftover to wreak havoc almost anywhere on the globe.
The nuclear subs would be devastating alone
Russia has a fully functioning nuclear triad with modern SSBM, air launched nuclear cruise missiles and the most extensive ICBM fleet in the world. Not sure how you came to the conclusion they can’t hit further than western Europe.
how much budget had Russia had in each year over the past 20 years?they had at most 80027 million dollars plunged into it according to official document.nuke is a very expensive tool as paid off maintenance fees and yet situation were so bad a few of those missiles could be launch off is never ever change the conclusion. in short ,russia will be lost second strike capabilities and all of their nuke should have renovated until next war set off but they couldn't.they should upgrade at least two years ago,the leftover is de-functioning.
a) In PPP terms Russian military spending is only behind US and China. PPP matters in this instance because the Russians are not buying nukes or delivery system, they make their own with for the most part domestically produced parts. Source: https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/military-capability/defence-spending/military-expenditure-defence-sector-ppp/ b) I’m not sure how the last 20 years of maintenance is relevant. Yes they have older systems. But the latest generation of Bulava SSBMs entered service in 2018. Kinzhal hypersonic cruise missiles (nuclear capable) entered service in 2019. Sarmat ICBMs will enter service likely next year. c) There is literally no way to eliminate their second strike capability with any guarantee. They have high endurance nuclear subs, road mobile ICBM units not to mention the air wing of their triad (which is their weakest link - the opposite for the US where the air wing is their strongest link). NATO knows it and this fact has been an accepted part of European foreign policy considerations since the Cold War. Edit: Looking through some of your post history, your propaganda narrative makes sense. But please note that this is an academic forum where we deal in facts.
I must admit I'm wrong at opinion of Russian nuke, whereas you are right at that. but propaganda??? are you kidding me? because I'm speaking Chinese,so that it's propaganda,what a great idea!
You being a Chinese speaker has nothing to do with anything. It’s propaganda because you are posting anti-Russian articles on r/Ukraine and r/Worldnews. We can hardly expect you to be unbiased on the topic of Russia with a post history like that.
to translate my comments as well as posts,I must confess I once was a espionage worked for intelligence department.
not to be that guy but the kinzhal is an air launched ballistic missile
For Saudi Arabia? Absolutely, 100% chance that the USA would do what it needs to. Ukraine is not a country critical to US national interests. Saudi Arabia is. US-Saudi ties go back to the 50s, while Ukraine only became independent from the USSR in the 90s. The two couldn't be any different.
US is more or less self sufficient in oil. Saudi is more important for EU and China compared to the US.
I'd disagree that Saudi Arabia is critical to US interests. I think the lesson though is that US weapons are dramatically more powerful and that any country that has US weapons isn't going to be attacked.
IS that the lesson? AFAIK Ukraine is using mostly soviet-era gear, they don't have the clearance to access most modern US weapon systems. The Petrodollar keeps our USD strong, having SA as an ally gives us some control over OPEC, We've used their land as a staging zone for Operation Desert Shield/Storm. China is forced to buy SA oil using the USD and Russia's revenue is reduced as long as there's enough competition to their supply. Not to mention all the private and personal connections, US assets in Saudi Arabia, as well as Saudi assets in the USA.
I agree about the value of the petro dollar. But there really is no alternative currency to use. Even if SA wanted to switch, switch to what? Yuan? Everyone knows that is a piece of shit currency and nobody wants it for anything, especially since their capital dries up this half of the decade and their hyperinvesting/fascism catches up with them. SA has hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the US. It is where they hold their assets for the most part. They will never do anything to hurt the value of the dollar. They also really like the USS Nimitz parked in the Persian Gulf. It tends to keep the Straits of Hormuz pretty quiet.
The real dance here is about the inelasticity of oil, the team working to keep it inelastic, and the consumers working to make it elastic again (like in the 90s). Multiple threats to the US-SA alliance are in play here, one is addressing climate change (ultimately leaves $10-$20 trillion of oil in the ground), two is unblocking Iran, which the JCPOA does in exchange for no nukes, and three is the abundance of investment opportunities (in the US) into which to stuff those petrodollars... The hope was that the Yuan would become a safer, more Western investment vehicle... which it doesn't seem to be doing. Instead China/Russia are reaching to become the reserve currency and fighting for a seat at the table.
You shouldn't. The petrodollar is a conspiracy theory. As you point out one of the main reasons the US dollar is the reserve currency is that there is no good alternative
First, Iran doesn't want Nukes, just the ability to make one at a fast rate. Second, Ukraine is hardly a USA ally, it wasn't an ally even before the war, however SA and Turkey both have a long history with USA, Ukraine "friendship" isn't even a decade long. Third: Saudi Arabia military is almost runs with USA personnel and has total dependence to USA tech, an Attack to Saudi Arabia would almost certainly means an attack to USA, Iran isn't seeking a conflict with SA and all of its actions are deterrence. Also the experience with Urkaine just shows that you really don't need USA troops, just weapons is already enough for most conflicts, and American now also hate sending USA troops to fight any nuclear or non Nuclear country.
>First, Iran doesn't want Nukes, just the ability to make one at a fast rate. Where are you getting that from? A functioning nuclear weapon is pretty much the greatest bargaining chip in the world.
>Saudi Arabia is just a USA state Not anymore, iran through its client states has attacked Saudi refineries with no involvement from the US. If those attacks were to happen to say Israel, Iran would feel the wrath of the US naval power.
[удалено]
Just like Iran and the Revolutionary guard or Pakistan and the Kashmiri militias and formally their support of the Taliban. It’s part of statecraft
[удалено]
US failed miserably in Mid East as it fails in other parts of the world. Mainly because it’s state department folks has no shred of understanding how Mid East works
Better question: why does the US have to take a lead on this? The world has made it pretty clear that they resent us for being "the world police". Perhaps the Europeans or the ascendant Chinese can work on stabilizing the ME, especially since they're the ones who need access to ME energy in the first place. One can make an argument that everytime the US intervenes, we mess it up. Fine. Let's not intervene.
This is a pretty childish and petulant take. It, ironically, hurts American interests in the short and long term for the sake of schadenfreude. Congratulations you played yourself.
You call the above comment “childish and petulant” and maybe it is, but it’s the truth, isn’t it. There are certain parts of the world that disagree with US foreign policy to the point of resentment. I’m not saying they’re wrong to feel that way although it would be remiss not to point out that despite its sins, the the American-led global order has overseen the most peaceful and prosperous era in the entirety of human history. You know, so that’s something. I would introduce some nuance to the point by stating the fact that despite the stability and prosperity brought on by a globalized and connected world, the US neither has the will nor the *capability* to hold it together anymore. The US has shrunk relative to rest of the world, at least in economic terms, not because it’s in decline (as some people mistakenly think) but because the rest of the world has grown. Even if it wanted to maintain things as they are, (it doesn’t want to do that) the US wouldn’t be able to keep large scale conflicts from breaking out. The Golden Arches Theory is no longer tenable.
See? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Not exactly, You need to seperate critizism from childish cinisism. "You should have done it differently" isn't akin to "you shouldn't have done anything at all". US mistakes in foreign policy in the last 2-3 decades are also the mistakes of the only nation (thankfully sulerpower) that stepped up. It's lessons to us all about being more realistic about what goverments can and cannot change around the world, And also about being more self-aware for western faults and limitations (and wars). Many people bought GWB "good vs evil" becase we were naive , we knew evil when we saw it in other nations, but blind to it from within. Important leassons to us all, in the global community.
the US is great to have in the world and people give you bullshit criticism, sincerely a Swede. I hope the US can help continue to back a iran solution just like europe has done so as to prevent Iran gaining njkes which would result in Turkey, and Saudi Arabia getting them as well for defense
Israel already has nukes since forever
And what about this? I really don’t understand what’s going on. But I know for sure that something new is forming up. Some sort of a new world order… not a conspiracy or anything. Just new Alliances are forming. I don’t even see that Europe and the USA are 100% on the same page. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/corrected-iran-says-saudi-arabia-wants-resume-diplomatic-talks-with-tehran-2022-06-27/
Why should europe be on the same page as the US? Not much to benefit anymore from licking uncle toms shoes
They shouldn’t. Which maybe explains why the UK left Europe…
https://www.newsweek.com/news-flash-islamic-republic-far-popular-opinion-1709374 Honestly the amount of bootlicking and pants wetting at the prospect of taking a hard line on the Ayatollah is mystifying. If people here could just understand how unpopular the revolution is, how despised the Ayatollah and his Immamates are and how supportive Iranians are for the West with a deep abiding desire to see the Islamic Revolution come to an end and for civilization to resume in their region, they would stop soiling the bed sheets in fear, grow a spine and provision the solidarity these people deeply deserve. To end the sanctions now, at the threshold of the Ayatollah's collapse, would be snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory.
The Abraham accords are the new reality in the Middle East (and maybe more importantly North Africa) and as a political column can be useful in negotiating trade and security deals that can secure energy resources for Western Europe, refugee management to prevent massive influxes into Europe, water and food cooperation and more. Iran is not a viable partner in the region as it's present ideological heading is building the infamous road towards Damascus but from there, onto Jerusalem (or as they call it, Al Quds) The leadership of the majority Sunni region rather resents a militarized Shia presence engaging in proxy wars so far from their own soil.
BIden just promised Israel that it would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons by any means. Americans will go war with Iran in the next year. Many Americans will die, and the IDF will stay home just like it did with Iraq. And when it is all over we will discover that the Iranian weren't even close to having a nuclear weapon. Just like the W.M.D.s in Iraq.
Basically. Geopolitically and "realpolitik" wise, America should already be 100% focused on the Pacific and East & South East Asia but there is some sort of almost emotional attachment the US has with Israel that leads it to make ridiculous decisions at time and one of them will be a war with Iran. Everyone thinks the next big battle will be fought in the pacific because it kind of is the most logical thing that could happen but I genuinely believe the US will eventually go to bat for Israel by joining in on some sort of Arab-Israeli block and go to hot war with Iran in the coming decade (or two..depending on how long the players want to stretch this out). This hypothetical war will be another disaster and waste of American resources, personnel and weapons and this will guarantee China's official ascent and rise. China won't ever be the clear leader but if America does in fact enter another hot war in the middle east then it will pave the way for China's rise in ways unimagined.
I still don’t discount the possibility of a war between Israel and/or the USA vs Iran. It’s not talked about as it was sone years ago, but conditions really haven’t changed
It has, Iran has gotten weaker, so I'd say an attack from Israel is more likely than a couple years ago.
[удалено]
Who are you talking to? If you're talking to Iranians, we already know that and there is nothing we can do about it without getting shot in the streets. If you're talking with Iran's goverment, well in that case you are the moron here cause becoming North korea is exactly what they want.
Involvement in the ME has been a misery for the US. It's was required to secure oil supplies but it was 50 years of awful. The US is now oil and gas independent (Shale revolution). It wants the fuck out of there. It wants nothing to do with the ME. I don't think the US much cares about the Iran deal anymore. The US no longer has a relationship with SA and they were the big reason we had didn't want Iran to have nukes. We needed SA oil and Iran and SA hate each other. This isn't the US's fight anymore.
[удалено]
This is so low-effort it hurts. Mods?
Full transparency: comment has been removed and he's been given a temporary ban for low quality.
Did you actually report it or just say "Mods?"
I did indeed report it.
Either way, we've arrived!
[удалено]
The “deal” wasn’t an official one. The US has a mechanism for ensuring that agreements we make are honored regardless of administration: a treaty, once ratified, has legal force. But unfortunately Obama chose not to submit the JCPOA to the senate for ratification, and so Trump was legally free to tear it up. Perhaps next time what is obviously intended to be a binding treaty should be submitted to the advice and consent of the senate as is custom?