COMMENTS:
I would actually say very unlikely. Realistically, sending a nuclear attack to the West (or Israel) via a terrorist cell would have the same affect as sending a conventional attack. They know that Western intelligence would figure out where the bomb would have come from, and they would know that the West would respond with a full scale attack in the same manner as if it were a conventional attack.
Besides which, no nation-state, not even Iran, would be fond of giving non-governmental organisations high-tech military goods. Arming non-state actors with such technology? No. That would be threatening to the very hierarchial structure of Iran itself.
Iran wants nuclear weapons not to launch an attack conventionally or in an unorthodox manner via terrorist cells, but most-likley as a defensive strategy, to lessen the likes of an invasion or war against it. It would also certainly give it a higher status, and a sense of intimidation to be the regional superpower, but an actual attack seems unlikely.
They did call on an end to the state of Israel- but this could just be the usual nationalistic jingoisitic rhetoric that is actually nothing new, but something repeated by many regimes for many years. It is doubted that Iran would actually want to nuke the holy land anyway. If anything, in the most extreme, it wants a transition from a state of Israel, to one of a Palestinian state. Calling for the end of a state does not necessarily mean the obliteration of its land or even its people. More generally, it is a reference to forcing a state (meaning government) to collapse.
My vote was actually supposed to be 'Very UNLIKELY'.
Its funny that none would like to explain how it is supposedly very likely. Think long and hard if it would be in Iran's national interests to do give such high-tech weaponry to non-government agencies and to indirectly declare war on the West.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend Socrates and if Iran feels threatened by America,Israel or any other nation I do not doubt that they would be willing to give terrorist the tools necessary to attack their perceived enemies.
Iran sees itself as a protector for numerous islamic groups, like Lebanon's Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In a scenario, in which Israel is about to invade Lebanon or Palestinian territories, for whatever reason, and Iran vows to stop Israel, do you see a better way of doing so, other than handing the nuclear card to the organizations I mentioned above?
That way, the move will be above the table, placing explicit threat to Israel, but creating a dynamic, in which retaliation against Iran (especially if the nukes aren't used...) is highly unlikely, but still Iran gets significant tactical victory using its nuclear capabilities.
And if the organization does use nukes against israel, I can see why Israel would nuke Lebanon or Palestine - but why do you think we'll be so eager to open nuclear war with a nation that manufactures and has more than 1 nuke, they gave the organizations...
by Yosi on Sun Jun 25, 06 11:09am
[+]
I don't know how likely it is, or when such scenario or another one will occur, but I really don't want to find out.
by Yosi on Sun Jun 25, 06 11:15am
[+]
They certainly don't hesitate to support other terrorist groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hammas with all the weapons they want. I doubt they would hold back if it served their needs or desires.
Yes, in all likelihood, the Iranians would play some role in getting nukes to some Islamic terrorist organization or other.
Personally, I think that, were Iran to develop nukes, they'd be more likely to keep them for themselves. It's all about self-power, in the end.
Corrupt- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend "
_ I do not deny that iran would ahve overlapping interests with these groups, and I admit that they already have strong links with these groups. But then the question becomes: From a realist calculated point of view: 1) The West would interpret such a rash move as an open declaration of hostilities and would respond to Iran immediately. 2) It is good to have allies of course. But clearly, you want to use them and keep them LESS powerful than oneself. They must remain bowing to yourself. All alliances are temporary from a realist perspective. What if these terrorist groups began to turn against Iran claiming they were not tough enough against the West? That they were not dogmatic enough? What if these Islamists challenged the IRanian regime? It is never a good idea for any nation-state to over empower their allies. When China asked the USSR for nuclear weapons, Moscow's answer was 'no'. The US was not pleased when Britain and France developed nuclear weapons. Bring you friends close, but keep them subordinate. This is how IRan would work things, that is how all nation-states would. Iran would be taking a huge risk if it decided to give nukes to non-governental terrorist cells.
Yosi- Yes, indeed the West and Israel would respond. Firstly, any Iranian nuke would be inferior, and quite small. The number of nukes would also be small. The fact is The US, Britain, France and Israel (actually merely Israel alone) is technologically superior. Iran would be smashed. Even the USSR which was on a near equal footing did not think of giving nuclear weapons to communist rebels around the world. Too messy, unpredictable, the West would ahve responded to MOSCOW immediately, these communist rebels would stop having to listen to Moscow as they would become more independent and powerful on their own, etc, etc.
FiddleFaddle- "They certainly don't hesitate to support other terrorist groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hammas with all the weapons they want. I doubt they would hold back if it served their needs or desires."
- Indeed. But that doesn't mean that if they got nuclear weapons that they would share it (with anyone for that matter), especially not with unpredictable groups that could get it into big trouble and pose a challenge to Iran's regime later possibly.
For example, it widely known that Iran already has chemical weapons. Have they passed this on to terrorist groups? Strongly doubted.
Iran will continue to send cash and conventional weapons to non-governmental terrorist organisations. It best suits their agenda: it maintains close relations with partners, but keeps them reliant and subordinate to Tehran at the same time.
First of all, there is the issue of just handing them one or two bombs as a deterant against Israeli/Western action. That alone satisfies your question in this ballot.
And I'm not sure, that if, hypothetically, the Soviet Union had given North Korea nukes during the Korea war, and they would have bombed Seoul and other South Korean cities, I don't think the US would have bombed Moscow - the bombings will be directed against North Korea, that I can understand, but how nuking the USSR serve the goals of the west, if as a retaliation, thousands of nukes would be launched against American targets?
by Yosi on Mon Jun 26, 06 10:56am
[+]
|
