NationStates Jolt Archive

How far does Iran need to go untill conflict is justified? And as a follow up question, if Iran attacks Israil, should we intervine?

How far does Iran need to go untill conflict is justified?
Well, assuming you mean military conflict - I think Iran needs to attack someone first. And it needs to be proven that it was the Iranian government...Hezbollah only counts if that link can really be proven.
Also, an attack needs to have a certain size. As tragic as a suicide bombing (Hezbollah hasn't attacked Israel for years) is, it probably doesn't justify an all-out war.

And as a follow up question, if Iran attacks Israil, should we intervine?
Yes. The same goes if Iran attacks anyone else.

I don't see any reason for the US to be militarily involved in Iran in the immediate future. Wiping Israel off the map is just angry rheotoric.

How far does Iran need to go untill conflict is justified? And as a follow up question, if Iran attacks Israil, should we intervine?
Far. They have to be a bona fide threat to international peace and security, breach the peace, or commit an act of aggression.

If Iran attacks anybody, the whole world should intervene. Acts of aggression by anyone is not to be tolerated!

How far does Iran need to go untill conflict is justified?

They attack someone.

And as a follow up question, if Iran attacks Israil, should we intervine?

If it's an unprovoked all-out war, yes, and the same applies if Israel attacks Iran.

Well, assuming you mean military conflict - I think Iran needs to attack someone first. And it needs to be proven that it was the Iranian government...Hezbollah only counts if that link can really be proven.
Also, an attack needs to have a certain size. As tragic as a suicide bombing (Hezbollah hasn't attacked Israel for years) is, it probably doesn't justify an all-out war.


What if Iran doesn't attack anyone, but builds nukes and says that they are going to launch them against another country.

What if Iran doesn't attack anyone, but builds nukes and says that they are going to launch them against another country.
Then they'd be in line with the nuclear doctrine of a number of countries, including the US, which has provisions for preemptive nuclear strikes on countries with and without nukes.

Then they'd be in line with the nuclear doctrine of a number of countries, including the US, which has provisions for preemptive nuclear strikes on countries with and without nukes.

Yes but those countries don't actually say they are going to nuke anyone.

Yes but those countries don't actually say they are going to nuke anyone.
They don't go on a news conference and say "We're going to nuke someone", no.
But they do have quite official doctrines and plans for nuking people, and if asked in a news conference, they won't deny that.

Yes, Ahmadinejad is an arsehole, and his rhetoric is taking things about four levels too far - but that's hardly a reason to
a) actually believe what he says
b) kill thousands and thousands of people because we assume there may be some truth to the things he says.

They don't go on a news conference and say "We're going to nuke someone", no.
But they do have quite official doctrines and plans for nuking people, and if asked in a news conference, they won't deny that.

Yes, Ahmadinejad is an arsehole, and his rhetoric is taking things about four levels too far - but that's hardly a reason to
a) actually believe what he says
b) kill thousands and thousands of people because we assume there may be some truth to the things he says.

So whos going to be responsible when they do nuke someone? This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.

So whos going to be responsible when they do nuke someone? This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.

This reminds me of the lead up to Iraq again. Months of media reports gradually gathering in vitriol and strength about how 'evil' the whole regime was, and how 'urgent' and 'imperative' it was to remove the regime.

Scaremongering, feeding the public on a certain type of news until their fervour for war or action was at its highest, then off to war 'justified' of course.

What's next? Trying to tie 9/11 to Iran? Wouldn't suprise me anymore.

So whos going to be responsible when they do nuke someone? This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.
I believe they would be quite responsible themselves. But until there is a real threat (as in them having the weapons and threaten to go to war), attacking them might be a horrible mistake (and wouldn't do any good for how the US is being viewed upon by alot of people already), and definantly not worth thousands of lives. I agree completely with Neu L.

This reminds me of the lead up to Iraq again. Months of media reports gradually gathering in vitriol and strength about how 'evil' the whole regime was, and how 'urgent' and 'imperative' it was to remove the regime.

Scaremongering, feeding the public on a certain type of news until their fervour for war or action was at its highest, then off to war 'justified' of course.

What's next? Trying to tie 9/11 to Iran? Wouldn't suprise me anymore.

Thats different because there were no WMDs. In this hypothetical situation, Iran does have nukes and they do say that they are going to nuke someone.

This is exactly what I mean.

Thats different because there were no WMDs. In this hypothetical situation, Iran does have nukes and they do say that they are going to nuke someone.

No, Iran doesn't have nukes, and the haven't said they are going to nuke anyone.

Its like the real world version of "purple blue monkey dishwasher". Say it enough and it eventually becomes slightly different but more believed.

This is exactly what I mean.



No, Iran doesn't have nukes, and the haven't said they are going to nuke anyone.

Its like the real world version of "purple blue monkey dishwasher". Say it enough and it eventually becomes slightly different but more believed.

Repeat after me: H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-T-I-C-A-L S-I-T-U-A-T-I-O-N.

What's the point in dealing with hypothetical situations? No one really knows what would happen, they can only go on past experiences to judge what they would do.

And considering the only use of nuclear weapons was in 1945, using hypothetics in this situation wouldn't help us. Trying to calmly predict what you do in a shitstorm is foolish- the plans go straight out the window.

Thats different because there were no WMDs. In this hypothetical situation, Iran does have nukes and they do say that they are going to nuke someone.
Well in such a hypothetical situation then they could be determined to be a threat to international peace and security, and action could be taken against them.

Then they'd be in line with the nuclear doctrine of a number of countries, including the US, which has provisions for preemptive nuclear strikes on countries with and without nukes.

lets just remember, the atomic bomb has onlt been used twice.both times it was by american -on largely civilian communities.
remember that when they are trying to stop other countries from producing atomic energy let alone a bomb.

Repeat after me: H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-T-I-C-A-L S-I-T-U-A-T-I-O-N.
While we're on an hypothetical level, could the big hubhub about Iran serve commercial purpose? Like selling missile shield in Europe? (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/world/middleeast/22missiles.html)

Quite convenient, don't you think? Stirring up a nuke threat that is ten years away and selling a mean to conteract it. And for icing on the cake, it gives you an expanded military presence in europe.

Israel can handle on their own. We have no reason to get involved. However, Iran has a prominent jewish population, and I am pretty sure thats the reason we nor anyone else has attacked yet.