I appreciate your commitment to active and honest discussion, listening, disagreeing, and understanding.
I’m fully supportive on reasonable efforts to stop Iran for acquiring nuclear weapons. For the reasons you related and also the likelihood that Saudi Arabia and maybe Egypt would want to develop their own nuclear weapons.
That said, I would not be supportive of invading Iran to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. My biggest concern is that our action (and Israel’s) has convinced the Iranian government that the risk of having nukes is worth it. After all, no one bombs North Korea. Claims have been made that the Iranians were able to hide their enriched uranium and that the Fordow facility is only partially destroyed, and thus Iranian capabilities have only been set back a few months or a year.
Lots of hawkish folks criticized the previous deal because it only postponed Iranian attempts. And yet seems like this strike may have only delayed them by much less than the original deal.
Now it seems the choices are entice them with diplomacy, invade, or allow them to build their own nukes. Hard to say we’re in a better spot then we were a month ago.
My second biggest concern is that this would convince other states they need a nuclear bomb as well. I wonder if folks in Taiwan’s security sector wish they didn’t close their nuclear power plants?
The overall point is correct but I will quibble with the fact that the Iran affair is only on the surface about nuclear weapons. This attack on Iran is a longer war that is political for both Iran and Israel. As I wrote in my anti-war protest article the other day (one with plenty of chess), the current strikes were more likely related to Netanyahu's political ambitions than anything. Iran uses them to bolster anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment. As for Trump, he set up his own real life Strawman in pulling out of the Iranian nuclear deal and now "devastating" their program all without a shred of evidence that Iran was actually close to gaining a bomb. It's all very reminiscent of the WMD debacle and the Bush Admin.
And, even worse, I think it detracts from attempts to solve the World's worst conflicts in the Ukraine, Gaza and South Sudan.
My two cents - love your work and games, please keep fighting for Democracy.
Certainly, they've stayed out for this twelve day war that's significantly reduced the Iranian regime's defence/ offense capabilities. There was little they could do to counter Israeli attacks. But Israel and the USA will have pushed Iran further and faster into the arms of both powers.
In the medium to long term, first Russia will take advantage to establish military bases inside Iran - I expect to see these within the next five years. And alongside Russia, China will fund infrastructure development, and perhaps even help with construction using its own manpower.
Netanyahu may think he's done the world a favour, and sure, right now it might seem so, but once Russia has military bases inside Iran, and with Chinese workers constructing nuclear facilites, will Israel be so fast to attack Iran the next time they're enriching uranium 235 to weapons grade?
Israel and the USA have only ensured that Iran will have nothing to do with the IAEA from now on. Trump's cancellation of the nuclear deal - JCPOA in 2018 was the beginning of the end of Iran's cooperation, and Israel, along with Trump's bunker buster bombing, have, in my view, guaranteed that one day in the not too distant future, Iran too will have nuclear weapons. Russia will see to that, unless there follows now regime change. The window of opportunity for this will rapidly close.
I like your clarity and strait forward common sense approach to complex issues. My question: does not it look possible to you that Iran might have something hidden "за пазухой"/"under one's armpit" ? They seem to be suspiciously quiet!
My question about something I heard on Facebook from a Russian volunteer fighting on the side of Ukraine Aleksey Baranovsky, not verbatim: "What is the difference between the cases of Syria, where the Assad regime was overthrown, and Iran, where it did not work out? In Syria there was an armed opposition, but not in Iran. Regimes are not overthrown by bombing, you need armed opposition." Garry, do you agree with this statement? Please comment.
The thing is, we are talking here as if the Iranian Regime were reasonable and wanted only a sensible stable way forward. In other words: a normal state. But it’s not. The president and Majlis have zero real power. All true power is in the hands of the Republican Guard and the Supreme Leader. And they have a stated commitment to destruction of Israel, the US and the UK in more or less that order. Some of them even want nukes to bring about the apocalypse (the Niner sect). Trusting them to negotiate in good faith, or to follow the rule of MAD is exactly equivalent to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich.
I appreciate your commitment to active and honest discussion, listening, disagreeing, and understanding.
I’m fully supportive on reasonable efforts to stop Iran for acquiring nuclear weapons. For the reasons you related and also the likelihood that Saudi Arabia and maybe Egypt would want to develop their own nuclear weapons.
That said, I would not be supportive of invading Iran to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. My biggest concern is that our action (and Israel’s) has convinced the Iranian government that the risk of having nukes is worth it. After all, no one bombs North Korea. Claims have been made that the Iranians were able to hide their enriched uranium and that the Fordow facility is only partially destroyed, and thus Iranian capabilities have only been set back a few months or a year.
Lots of hawkish folks criticized the previous deal because it only postponed Iranian attempts. And yet seems like this strike may have only delayed them by much less than the original deal.
Now it seems the choices are entice them with diplomacy, invade, or allow them to build their own nukes. Hard to say we’re in a better spot then we were a month ago.
My second biggest concern is that this would convince other states they need a nuclear bomb as well. I wonder if folks in Taiwan’s security sector wish they didn’t close their nuclear power plants?
The overall point is correct but I will quibble with the fact that the Iran affair is only on the surface about nuclear weapons. This attack on Iran is a longer war that is political for both Iran and Israel. As I wrote in my anti-war protest article the other day (one with plenty of chess), the current strikes were more likely related to Netanyahu's political ambitions than anything. Iran uses them to bolster anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment. As for Trump, he set up his own real life Strawman in pulling out of the Iranian nuclear deal and now "devastating" their program all without a shred of evidence that Iran was actually close to gaining a bomb. It's all very reminiscent of the WMD debacle and the Bush Admin.
And, even worse, I think it detracts from attempts to solve the World's worst conflicts in the Ukraine, Gaza and South Sudan.
My two cents - love your work and games, please keep fighting for Democracy.
"Russia and China have stayed out"
Certainly, they've stayed out for this twelve day war that's significantly reduced the Iranian regime's defence/ offense capabilities. There was little they could do to counter Israeli attacks. But Israel and the USA will have pushed Iran further and faster into the arms of both powers.
In the medium to long term, first Russia will take advantage to establish military bases inside Iran - I expect to see these within the next five years. And alongside Russia, China will fund infrastructure development, and perhaps even help with construction using its own manpower.
Netanyahu may think he's done the world a favour, and sure, right now it might seem so, but once Russia has military bases inside Iran, and with Chinese workers constructing nuclear facilites, will Israel be so fast to attack Iran the next time they're enriching uranium 235 to weapons grade?
Israel and the USA have only ensured that Iran will have nothing to do with the IAEA from now on. Trump's cancellation of the nuclear deal - JCPOA in 2018 was the beginning of the end of Iran's cooperation, and Israel, along with Trump's bunker buster bombing, have, in my view, guaranteed that one day in the not too distant future, Iran too will have nuclear weapons. Russia will see to that, unless there follows now regime change. The window of opportunity for this will rapidly close.
I like your clarity and strait forward common sense approach to complex issues. My question: does not it look possible to you that Iran might have something hidden "за пазухой"/"under one's armpit" ? They seem to be suspiciously quiet!
My question about something I heard on Facebook from a Russian volunteer fighting on the side of Ukraine Aleksey Baranovsky, not verbatim: "What is the difference between the cases of Syria, where the Assad regime was overthrown, and Iran, where it did not work out? In Syria there was an armed opposition, but not in Iran. Regimes are not overthrown by bombing, you need armed opposition." Garry, do you agree with this statement? Please comment.
The thing is, we are talking here as if the Iranian Regime were reasonable and wanted only a sensible stable way forward. In other words: a normal state. But it’s not. The president and Majlis have zero real power. All true power is in the hands of the Republican Guard and the Supreme Leader. And they have a stated commitment to destruction of Israel, the US and the UK in more or less that order. Some of them even want nukes to bring about the apocalypse (the Niner sect). Trusting them to negotiate in good faith, or to follow the rule of MAD is exactly equivalent to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich.