What should the U.S. do if Iran manages to create nuclear weapons?

[Radio_Guy]

A freeper on one of their attempts at a message board asked this question: What should the U.S. do if Iran manages to create nuclear weapons?

I would love to see other opinions on this, namely because we have the best and brightest minds here on DU.

Personally, I say so what? Iran is still not a threat to the US. Iran has said they would like to see Israel wiped off the map. That is Israel's fight, not ours. Iran has every right to defend itself as any other country does. Who are we to tell other countries how they can defend themselves from threats?

I don't think Iran is using nuclear technology for weapons. Only for power, something we should look into here to stop our reliance on oil and knock big oil companies down to size. But I digress.

Thoughts?

[dipsydoodle]

1. Absolutely nothing -

which is exactly what they did when Israel created them.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. That's something I really don't get

I try to stay away from the I/P discussions due, in part, to the emotional polarity it touches off. It always ends up being a Chicken or Egg debate, IMO.

It just seems like Israel's nukes never get discussed. And why is the U.S. government so willing to go to war "to protect or ally, Israel"...will Israel be joining in the effort? I just have too many questions about that part of our foreign policy that we blindly put it #1 in importance above everything else, even if it is against our interests as a nation. :banghead:

[Rude Horner]

2. I guess my first thought is

what makes this freeper think this administration is telling us the truth about Iran, considering the fact that NONE of the "facts" they told us about Iraq turned out to be true. Why should we believe them now?

[Selatius]

3. Iran will not stop pursuing WMD if Israel isn't disarmed of its own WMD

I am perfectly sure that if you got both the Iranian and Israeli governments in face-to-face talks about nuclear disarmament, an agreement can be struck where Israel destroys its illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons and opens up its nuclear refining facilities for IAEA inspections. In exchange, Iran drops its weapons program as well.

[kenny blankenship]

That's a dry DRY martini I said!

Very commendably dry, Sir or Madam!
You should write for the Daily Show. I'm perfectly sure!

[tatertop]

13. Iran knows israel, under current rule, would not bargain in good faith

Even if israel agreed to such talks, which they will not,
Iran would have to be crazy to trust them.
Either the US would bully the IAEA into filing a false report
or the US would re-supply israel with nukes
the second Iran's 'weapons program' was destroyed.

The crazed ambition of a greater israel still
drives the engine of israeli policy.
They want it all and they have chosen open repression
and violence as the tools of acquisition.

[benburch]

4. Let them know we plan no first use.

But that we WILL retaliate in kind if attacked.

Same as we do with every other nation that has the Bomb!

[Burning Water]

5. What is the threat to

Iran? Isn't it rather to Israel? Just curious.

[Guy Fawkes]

7. Israel's fight...

is more or less our fight, too. They are our biggest allies in the middle east. And while they (may) have nuclear weapons, that doesn't make Iran any less of a threat. Remember that Iran is run more or less by religious fanatics who hate Israel.

I'm not sure how best to describe Iran, but I think this will do: Iran is nazi Germany with Islam and the potential for nuclear weapons.

[tatertop]

14. israel is no friend of ours

They take our money and do as they please.

We would have friends in the middle east
if we stopped assisting in the construction
of a 'greater' israel.

[Selatius]

22. Israel is as much a liability to US interests as Saudi Arabia is.

If we're talking about who our friends are, we may as well be frank about what Israel's policies are with respect to the West Bank. Either Israeli leaders support occupation of Palestinian lands, or Israel does not support occupation, and by their actions, they have supported occupation and colonialism since 1967, and that is a liability for the US in as much as it makes the US a co-sponsor of the occupation of the lands Palestinians want to form their own nation.

The fact that Israel also has an illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons destabilizes the region further.

[Beelzebud]

8. The same thing we did to Pakistan and India....

Nothing.

They are a soverign country, and with our madman at the helm, I'd want a deterant too...

[Swamp Rat]

9. Invade another country that has no WMD.

[MadHound]

10. I would suggest that we wait and see what Iran actually does

After all, even under the best circumstances, it is going to take Iran at least ten years to have a functioning bomb. So we have the time to wait and see if this is actually what they're doing, or if they are indeed doing what they stated, developing a peacetime nuclear program.

[smoogatz]

11. The greater threat to the US is not from Iran itself,

but from Hezbollah or another stateless terrorist outfit that might obtain a nuclear weapon--or even radiological material--from Iran. If Bushco had not illegally invaded Iraq, blowing our mid-east credibility for all time, we could have led an international effort to disarm the middle east, including Israel. But our best bet now is to work through our allies and the UN to convince Iran that having nuclear weapons is not in their best interests. But even harsh economic sanctions have done little to slow North Korea's drive to arm itself with nuclear weapons: once a regime settles on this course of action, there's little other nations can do to stop it, short of military action. Iran seems to be flirting with the idea--sending out one trial balloon after another in an attempt to gauge international response--which has been mixed. The military option would be a terrible idea in Iran's case, for all the obvious reasons. According to Sy Hersh, Bushco's "plan" for overthrowing the current regime in Iran hinges on the same sort of wishful thinking they employed, with disastrous results, in Iraq.

My own view is that Bushco is still hell-bent on following the PNAC blueprint for the middle east, and are attempting to stir anti-Iran hysteria in the same way the drummed up support for the invasion of Iraq. By all reasonable estimates, Iran is at least five years from developing a functional nuke. That's plenty of time for carrot/stick diplomacy to work.

[donsu]

12. nothing - they just want to protect themselves from bushmilhousegang

just like we are trying to protect ourselves from the criminal bushmilhousegang

[tatertop]

17. Unfortunately they will not be ready in time to dissuade the bush invasion

and that is the great tragedy.
Nothing good can come of this unwarranted american
aggression. Nothing.
Unless WW-III is considered good.

[ProfessorGAC]

Deleted Multipost

.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. There Would Appear To Be Three Issues

First, the action in Iraq has made it abundantly clear that the only way a country can prevent being stomped on by the U.S. military is to ACTUALLY HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! So, we went to Iraq using the excuse of WMD's that didn't exist, only to provide the world with a lesson learned: You better actually have some!

Secondly, the tyrannical leadership of Iran is no more tyrannical, and no more despotic than the Soviet or Maoist Chinese leadership. They had nukes, and they knew if they used them, they would get annihilated. It is ridiculous to suggest that these leaders are any more insane than the Stalinists or Maoists. They don't want to die either. They just want to rattle sabers to cement their power within the country. But, they DO want a country to rule. Using a nuke against the U.S. or an ally is a sure way to be in charge of a wasteland. So, if assured retaliation and destruction worked for 40+ years, it would work now.

Thirdly, it's interesting that we are worried about these nukes, but not China's or North Korea's, or India's (plus that new deal). There's no oil there. So, this isn't even about nuclear weapons. It has everything to do with control of a diminishing strategic resource
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Again With The MultiplePost

..

[Bridget Burke]

18. Iran is years away from having nukes but Pakistan already has them.

It would be better if nobody had nukes, but starting a war to prevent SOME countries from perhaps having them in the future is extravagantly stupid. (Damn, that's scary. Who fits the profile of "extravagantly stupid"?

[YouthInAsia]

19. nothing. n/t

[jukes]

20. mind they're own business

and repair their own house.

[area51]

21. What should we do about Iran if they get nuclear weapons?

Nothing. What should another country do about our nuclear weapons? It's none of our g-ddamned business.