NationStates Jolt Archive

How should the Intn'l community deal with Iran on the issue of Nukes and Uranium enrichment? What should we do? Should Iran be allowed to carry on with their Nuke programs? Is it for Energy or Weapons?

I'd say its for energy Iran would have a much easier time saying there developing nukes and I think we should do nothing about it I couldn’t give a rats arse if a nation who has been at peace since the Iran-Iraq war gets a nuke in fact I see it as a wise choice considering everyone was saying Iran’s next

That being said we should help Iran if anything if they want to have clean energy we may as well make sure its safe

Perhaps the US should give up all of its nuclear weapons so it can then be in a position to preach to other independant nations about 'how they shouldn't have nukes'

Probably the international community should abstain and leave Iran alone. There has been too much tension in that region already, and Iran isn't a rogue state.

And do you remember on which side was the Int'l comm in the Gulf War?

Reinstall Saddam in Iraq, then reassign the spare troops to Iran.

Perhaps the US should give up all of its nuclear weapons so it can then be in a position to preach to other independant nations about 'how they shouldn't have nukes'
How about the police should destroy all their guns so they can preach to the criminals about illegal gun ownership without being hypocritical?
Anyway, on Iran; everything short of war.

Clearly America needs to conquer Venezuela.

I defy you to tell me that makes no sense! I DEFY YOU!

I guess by the so many replies this topic is of no importance. Maybe all nations should have nukes.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Perhaps the US should give up all of its nuclear weapons so it can then be in a position to preach to other independant nations about 'how they shouldn't have nukes'

Yes, because life is always fair.

How should the Intn'l community deal with Iran on the issue of Nukes and Uranium enrichment? What should we do? Should Iran be allowed to carry on with their Nuke programs? Is it for Energy or Weapons?

It's for energy. Unfortunately, the last thing the West wants is the Middle East to remain at the front of the energy production industry.

It's for energy. Unfortunately, the last thing the West wants is the Middle East to remain at the front of the energy production industry.

If it's for energy then Iran should not have any problems letting in UN Nuclear team to check it out for themselves.

For a country to public announce how Isreal must be wiped off of the face of the world in itself sounds very suspicious when they also declare that the Nuclear program is for energy.

What ever happened to the Common Sense? With a statement as strong as Iran's towards the future of Isreal and Nukes.....I wonder what his real intentions are.

For a country to public announce how Isreal must be wiped off of the face of the world in itself sounds very suspicious when they also declare that the Nuclear program is for energy.
It isn't like many countries in the Middle East have a different position.

It's very simple. Give Iran a deadline by which to stop its nuclear programme. If it does not meet that deadline, skip the sanctions and go right on ahead to the bombardment. We cannot allow nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of religious zealots, fundamentalists, Islamo-fascists, etc.

How should the Intn'l community deal with Iran on the issue of Nukes and Uranium enrichment?
Who, exactly, is the International Community?

It isn't like many countries in the Middle East have a different position.

Those countries don't have nuclear programmes.

How about the police should destroy all their guns so they can preach to the criminals about illegal gun ownership without being hypocritical?
Not really the same situation.
Guns tend to be reasonably precise at targeting the guilty. Nukes aren't.
If you think they are the same, why don't we give the police nukes? I bet it would cut down on re-offending rates.

A friend of mine lived in Beiruit for a year in the early 90's. He said it was the safest place he had ever lived because if anyone made any trouble, everyone drew a gun.
No one made any trouble.

I don't see what the problem is. We can kill two birds with one stone!

With Israel nothing more than a glassy crater those in the middle east will turn on each other and with all that nuclear winter that will come when the missiles fly world wide will take care of global warming. It's bloody genius!

Trilby63;11703869']I don't see what the problem is. We can kill two birds with one stone!

With Israel nothing more than a glassy crater those in the middle east will turn on each other and with all that nuclear winter that will come when the missiles fly world wide will take care of global warming. It's bloody genius!

Yea, but we won't be around to see it.

Yea, but we won't be around to see it.

:rolleyes:
Do you only see negatives?

For a country to public announce how Isreal must be wiped off of the face of the world in itself sounds very suspicious when they also declare that the Nuclear program is for energy.

What ever happened to the Common Sense? With a statement as strong as Iran's towards the future of Isreal and Nukes.....I wonder what his real intentions are.
It's an old article but bear with me.

Peres says that Iran 'can also be wiped off the map'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHRAN, Iran

Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

According to Peres, "Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program."

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added.

Peres' vehement expressions came the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly wrote to US President George W. Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Teheran, which has a US interests section, Elham told a press conference.

In the letter, Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Elham said.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Monday that the Iranian president's letter to Bush could create a "new diplomatic opening," but also warned that the letter did not reflect a softening in Iran's position.

Ali Larijani refused to give details of the letter's content, but said, "Perhaps it could lead to a new diplomatic opening. It needs to be given some time."

"There is a need to wait before disclosing the content of the letter, let it make its diplomatic way," Larijani said in an interview with Turkey's NTV television.

Larijani added, however, that the "tone of the letter is not something like softening."He also warned against any US attack against Iran.

"If they have a little bit of a brain, they would not commit such a mistake," he said. "Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was a weak country, it did not have a legitimate government. Iran is a powerful country."

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his US counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the US Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

Do you advocate the removal of nukes in Israel? 'Cause I see the statement of Peres as dangerous as the one you accuse Iran of having said. Why should one gets to back their threat with nukes while the other doesn't?

Do you advocate the removal of nukes in Israel? 'Cause I see the statement of Peres as dangerous as the one you accuse Iran of having said. Why should one gets to back their threat with nukes while the other doesn't?

Israel has proved it will not use nukes. It had ample chance to do so -- during the June War, when all the neighboring Arab countries (and then some) decided that Israel had no right to exist and that they wanted another Holocaust, Israel could have deployed its nukes. However, it fought a conventional war against a numerically superior enemy bent on the destruction of Israel. And Israel did not threaten Iran. It simply said that if Iran tries some funny stuff with its nukes, Israel is going to bomb the shit out of it.

Israel has proved it will not use nukes. It had ample chance to do so -- during the June War, when all the neighboring Arab countries (and then some) decided that Israel had no right to exist and that they wanted another Holocaust, Israel could have deployed its nukes. However, it fought a conventional war against a numerically superior enemy bent on the destruction of Israel. And Israel did not threaten Iran. It simply said that if Iran tries some funny stuff with its nukes, Israel is going to bomb the shit out of it.

And Iran merely stated that the state of Israel was a mistake and shouldn't have existed. They didn't call for the destruction.

Furthermore, the mere presence of nukes lets Israel act like a bully. I see no reason why we can't modify the game my levelling the odds. I see two ways to do this: let Iran get the nukes with a MAD effect getting into place. Or removing the nukes of Irsrael which I find a more peaceful solution for everyone as less nukes = better in my mind.

But you sir, are a hipocrit if you think that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander because you don't like the colour of the gander.

Honestly, I think we should leave Iran be. We created the power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan, its only natural that Iran would stretch to fill it. If we act against Iran it can pull on its threads and cause the collapse of the two occupied nations, inflicting heavy damages to our troops and our pride.

Iran is above all a pragmatic nation, and although it may not bring itself to being our friend, there is no reason why it should be our enemy. Logically, they would be able to get on with more peaceful activities if they did not have Coalition invasion to worry about. Including its nuclear program, which I believe to be peaceful (even if they are building a nuclear weapon, that could hardly be construed as an item of war, as nuclear weapons only act to deter aggression and secure peace).

Iran may well one day have a nuke, and it may chose to aim that nuke at Israel. In return Israel and ourselves will aim nukes back at Iran. As a pragmatic nation, Iran will understand that MAD applies. Besides, there is nothing saying that nations cannot have productive relations even if they are poised to eliminate eachother, example, the USA and China have one of the fastest growing trading relationships.



(Yarrr, avast, ahoy ye scurvvy landlubbers!)

And Iran merely stated that the state of Israel was a mistake and shouldn't have existed. They didn't call for the destruction.

Ah, I see. They want to peacefully "wipe Israel off the face off the world." They are building nuclear weapons, are led by fundmentalist rulers who place religion above rationality, and would stop at nothing to destroy Israel. If you don't thinking wiping something off the face of the world is calling for the destruction of that entity, you are seriously deluded by the liberal media.

Furthermore, the mere presence of nukes lets Israel act like a bully. I see no reason why we can't modify the game my levelling the odds.

Hmm...let's think for a second. Why should Iran not be allowed to acquire nukes? Is there any reason at all why we shouldn't give rogue states that are hell-bent on the destruction of another country and are led by raving, irrational religious zealots? Oh, that's right! Because as soon as they get nukes, they're going to use them!

I see two ways to do this: let Iran get the nukes with a MAD effect getting into place.

MAD does not apply when the leaders of the country are stark raving mad, when they are religious fanatics who wish to expediate the coming of the Mahdi (and have widened the streets in Tehran for their advent, actually).

It's very simple. Give Iran a deadline by which to stop its nuclear programme. If it does not meet that deadline, skip the sanctions and go right on ahead to the bombardment. We cannot allow nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of religious zealots, fundamentalists, Islamo-fascists, etc.

unless its pakistan and they are americas buddies at the moment.

iran is perfectly entitled to find an alternative energy source and they are 10 years off a weapons enrichment program.

this is just typically inane saber rattling from the good ol' boys

Israel has nukes, anyway. It can defend itself from Iran.

I cannot find a rational justification for some countries being permitted nuclear weapons while others are not. If they agreed, sure, but Iran's not exactly a big fan of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

Now, I can imagine a self-interested reason to keep nukes out of the hands of one's enemies, but I would expect that sort of endeavour to be somewhat more covert.

Ah, I see. They want to peacefully "wipe Israel off the face off the world." They are building nuclear weapons, are led by fundmentalist rulers who place religion above rationality, and would stop at nothing to destroy Israel. If you don't thinking wiping something off the face of the world is calling for the destruction of that entity, you are seriously deluded by the liberal media.



Hmm...let's think for a second. Why should Iran not be allowed to acquire nukes? Is there any reason at all why we shouldn't give rogue states that are hell-bent on the destruction of another country and are led by raving, irrational religious zealots? Oh, that's right! Because as soon as they get nukes, they're going to use them!



MAD does not apply when the leaders of the country are stark raving mad, when they are religious fanatics who wish to expediate the coming of the Mahdi (and have widened the streets in Tehran for their advent, actually).

Except there is no proof from any of Iran's actions that the leadership, or any significant proportion of the population is 'stark raving mad'. Iran has never aggressively acted against its neighbours or threatened to do anything of the sort.

In fact, although this would be difficult to verify, I would argue that much of Iran's Islamist exterior is just for show. It is an effective way of assuring the support of traditional institutions, while underneath, surveys have shown that Iranians are amongst the most liberal people in the Greater Middle East. By no means are they our natural enemies.

It doesn't matter to me. It's not like their going to shoot nukes at anyone. If they do they'l get wiped off the earth.

Along with every other nation on earth.

If only countries with Nukes dismantled all their WMDs and made it illegal to posses one (nuclear bomb). Second, assist Iran in producing commercial nuclear power and monitor them if they ever cross the agreement.

The international community needs to keep Iran away from nuclear technology. If they get it for energy, eventually they'll try to make a nuke, at which point Israel will do everything in it's power to stop it and all hell will break loose. I've heard people say they don't think Israel would use a nuke, but I'm pretty sure they would if they believed(rightly or wrongly) that they were going to face one. What people need to understand is that Israel has traditionally enjoyed three major advantages in it's conflicts: better training, better equipment, and the implied threat of US/UK/NATO back-up. A nuke on the other negates those advantages, and I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate Israel's will to survive.

Honestly, I don't really care if any of the nations in that region survive or fall, it doesn't really effect me, but the fallout will. A major war between Israel and the Arab world will require international involvement(to pull them off eachother, at the very least). Further, I don't trust anyone in the region not to resort to chemical/biological/nuclear weapons if they feel they're going down, theres just too many fanatics on both sides.

Is it fair? No, not really. Does Israel use it's nuclear technology to be a bully? Of course it does. Neither of those facts changes anything. Iran cannot be allowed nuclear technology because it would cause too much trouble in the region. The entire point of the UN is to enact policy and diplomacy in order to avoid wars, sometimes that means compromise, and generally that means someone gets screwed.

Okay, first and foremost, the nuclear powers created this problem of current proliferation with their own bitching about the NPT. If they don't stick to disarmament targets, if they don't make a clear statement that nukes are no longer necessary as a tool of diplomacy or warfare...who would be surprised that other countries (especially ambitious regional powers) would want them as well?

So the NPT and the whole nuclear weapons issue needs an international reform that everyone sticks to. Here's to hoping.
Ignoring North Korea's nukes and giving an okay to Pakistan's, India's and Israel's wouldn't have helped. There needs to be one standard for it all to be believable.

Secondly, there is no way in hell that Iran wants a nuclear program for energy purposes. A nuke would help them, a nuclear energy program wouldn't. Have you seen the size of Iran's gas reserves? Not even the Iranians themselves (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432788,00.html) buy the crap about a peaceful program.

Thirdly, the only way to deal with this is with a good shot or two of realpolitik. That's been missing from US diplomacy in recent years. Iran is a major regional power, and it's only been getting stronger thanks to the Americans taking out its enemies, and the Sunni and Shi'ite extremists starting this funny new Hamas-Hezbollah friendship.

Ignoring Iran or getting all ideological is not going to solve anything. So the US needs to talk directly with the Iranian government. The efforts of the EU are all fine and dandy, but everyone knows that without the US being actually present, it all counts for little. The US is the main power in the West, and so they need to take a much more active part.

Then there is also the natural resource issue. Indians, Chinese and Russians are all over Iran's reserves, and at the rate things are going the West will be shut out completely in no time flat. In this era, this isn't exactly good news.

A giant regional conference is needed, I think. Everyone from the Middle East must attend, and it must be truly global in focus: What is the future of the Middle East in the world? What can and cannot be done about Iraq?
I don't see how concentrating on any single player in that region will really solve the issues that drive the Iranian nuclear program for example.

So the US needs to talk directly with the Iranian government.

It's useless. No one in the world is going to trust US anymore. And everyone will take threats not as negotiations, but as a sign to prepare for a war.

It's useless. No one in the world is going to trust US anymore. And everyone will take threats not as negotiations, but as a sign to prepare for a war.
Don't be silly. The US government has eroded a lot of confidence, but when I mean "realpolitik", I mean exactly that. The US is a world power, Iran is a regional power. Trust or no trust, direct talks are the only way either will agree to anything. And confirming Iran's status by acknowledging them properly and integrating them on a big scale may already take away a lot of their reasoning for a nuclear arsenal.

I say ignore it. The same people who are saying Iran's nuclear program is a danger to us are the same people who said Saddam was a danger to us.

I don't believe those people.

So, ignore it. It's not that big of a deal.

Ah, I see. They want to peacefully "wipe Israel off the face off the world." They are building nuclear weapons, are led by fundmentalist rulers who place religion above rationality, and would stop at nothing to destroy Israel. If you don't thinking wiping something off the face of the world is calling for the destruction of that entity, you are seriously deluded by the liberal media.
It has not been shown that they are building nuclear weapons. Countries have come into existence and been dissolved peacefully in the past, Montenegro for example has just peacefully come into existence. Personally I have to say I agree on some point, Israel was created when and where it shouldn't have been. It's impractical to dissolve it now though. Also I wonder how much of his speeches are playing to a local audience.



Hmm...let's think for a second. Why should Iran not be allowed to acquire nukes? Is there any reason at all why we shouldn't give rogue states that are hell-bent on the destruction of another country and are led by raving, irrational religious zealots? Oh, that's right! Because as soon as they get nukes, they're going to use them!

Rogue states being the name the US uses to describe countries that it doesn't like. Pakistan is in the US's good books and hence isn't defined that way. The USA has used nukes as I'm sure most people know.


MAD does not apply when the leaders of the country are stark raving mad, when they are religious fanatics who wish to expediate the coming of the Mahdi (and have widened the streets in Tehran for their advent, actually).
Stalin was hardly the most sane of leaders (depending on your definition of sane) and it applied to him. Ditto for Pakistan.


Israel has proved it will not use nukes. It had ample chance to do so
And Iran hasn't. Has any country had to pass some sort of test to become "allowed" to have nuclear weapons? Why should Iran be the only ones?


From an Iranian point of view, they can say that nuclear weapons give you political influence, and that countries threatened with sanctions (like India for example) when they had developed nuclear weapons were "welcomed into the nuclear community" by Bush.

Also how many times have leaders of "rogue states" asked for a debate with the "leader of the free world" to put their points across. Bush doesn't seem exactly keen to engage in dialogue and diplomacy.

We cannot allow nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of religious zealots, fundamentalists, etc.
Do you include Bush?
Because to many people in the Middle East he fits your description to a T!

If only countries with Nukes dismantled all their WMDs and made it illegal to posses one (nuclear bomb).

That would turn a lot of decent, law abiding, citizens into criminals overnight. Er...

Second, assist Iran in producing commercial nuclear power and monitor them if they ever cross the agreement.

Wait, monitor them if they cross the agreement? But we would have to monitor them beforehand, which I don't see Iran agreeing to, in order to know that they had crossed the agreement!

Stalin was hardly the most sane of leaders (depending on your definition of sane) and it applied to him. Ditto for Pakistan.

Stalin was grade-A insane. However, he was also highly rational and completely secular. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, may be considered as sane as any other religious nut. However, he makes insane policies based on religion (ie, widening the roads in Tehran to make way for the Mahdi) and believes in extreme religious phenomena (ie, he stated that nobody blinked for 20 minutes straight and he was surrounded by a holy aura at the UN).

It's useless. No one in the world is going to trust US anymore. And everyone will take threats not as negotiations, but as a sign to prepare for a war.

Not really. Threats could force Iran to the table simply because Iran knows that the US is willing to follow through. It isn't like Saddam was following the rules, he bent them, he tested them, and finally he kicked out weapon inspectors. That gave Bush an excuse to wage the war he had been gearing up for since he was elected. For all the sound and fury, the international community stayed out of it. The EU, Russia, China, and the UN might not have been behind the war, but they didn't really try to stand in the way, either.

Iran knows that it doesn't have any real friends. A threat from the US would mean that Iran would have to either follow the law to the best of it's ability, or gamble on being invaded. Six months or a year from invasion everyone buying Iranian oil will have access again, and oil is the only reason anyone even pretends to care about Iran. Sure, if the US decided to go in the international community would complain, but no one would bother to do anything because a disruption in oil supply for 12 months is nothing in the grand scheme of things. A threat could push Iran to the bargaining table.

That said, I think its a bad idea. Iran has been on the brink of civil war for a few years now, and the young people do not like the rule of the Mullahs. The best solution would be for Israel to kill off Iran's leaders and let entropy do the rest, its hard to sustain a nuclear program when you're fighting an internal war and whoever wins will either be too weak to be a problem or more friendly than Ahmadinejad.

Do you include Bush?
Because to many people in the Middle East he fits your description to a T!

To many people in the west he fits the description. Still, he'll be gone in two years and his power is already waning as his own party starts to break with him and the democrats threaten to take the house. Bush(or, for that matter, any shitty western President/Prime Minister/Chancellor) is a short term threat with strong limitations on his power. Crazy as he is, hes a short term leader.

Honestly, I think we should leave Iran be. We created the power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan, its only natural that Iran would stretch to fill it. If we act against Iran it can pull on its threads and cause the collapse of the two occupied nations, inflicting heavy damages to our troops and our pride.

Iran is above all a pragmatic nation, and although it may not bring itself to being our friend, there is no reason why it should be our enemy. Logically, they would be able to get on with more peaceful activities if they did not have Coalition invasion to worry about. Including its nuclear program, which I believe to be peaceful (even if they are building a nuclear weapon, that could hardly be construed as an item of war, as nuclear weapons only act to deter aggression and secure peace).

Iran may well one day have a nuke, and it may chose to aim that nuke at Israel. In return Israel and ourselves will aim nukes back at Iran. As a pragmatic nation, Iran will understand that MAD applies. Besides, there is nothing saying that nations cannot have productive relations even if they are poised to eliminate eachother, example, the USA and China have one of the fastest growing trading relationships.



(Yarrr, avast, ahoy ye scurvvy landlubbers!)

pretty logical points.

i would also add,even if whatever the pres of irans name is...did call for the elimination of israel,i would put good money it was for internal consumption,or to add prestige in the middle east to his admin(pathetic to have to call for genocide to get acceptance)or to placate the fundies in his own country.

for iran to attack isreal would be suicide...period...and they are not stupid and know it would leave them a glass crater.

they want a seat at the big boys table,and this is there way to do it..to be taken seriously as a player,and they have as much right as any one else(excepting lil kim in korea)

the israilis have nukes,and as so eloguently stated above,they never used them,and i dont see iran using them either.

iran can and will probably cause mischief in iraq for us,and we should punish them for this,as it hurts our national security interests..but having a cock fight over nukes is stupid.

fuck with them for fucking with us in iraq..yes..no problem here.

they keep up messing with isreal thru hezbollah,and the israelis will mess with them..no problem there either...thats the way shit works..but the nuke thing is not an issue at this time.
just like saddam was not a pressing issue...afghanistan was the urgent issue.

all toppling saddam accomplished was a power vaccum that the iranians see as an inroad to expand into...just like we did.

i support staying in iraq now we are there...but to do the same in iran would be to repeat a mistake.

if they screw around with us in iraq(the iranians) punish them with airstrikes or punitive economic pograms...or destabalize their seat in power..their are plenty of dissatisfied iranians that would sign on...just let them know..you fuck with us,we will fuck with you right back.

the nuke thing is silly.

Don't be silly. The US government has eroded a lot of confidence, but when I mean "realpolitik", I mean exactly that. The US is a world power, Iran is a regional power. Trust or no trust, direct talks are the only way either will agree to anything. And confirming Iran's status by acknowledging them properly and integrating them on a big scale may already take away a lot of their reasoning for a nuclear arsenal.
I'd rather say the government eroded all of it. Quite amusing to see today crusades against exactly the ones grown up by US in the first place. Afghan bandits, Al-Quaeda, now possibly Iran.

What can be said for sure is that Ahmadinejad is not an idiot. Probably the smartest leader in the Middle East today. And he understands that US government negotiates with him with respect exactly proportional to the power he has. Is he threatened and repels threats by nuke, or is he accepted into the community - the nuclear program will reach success. In any case he will not stop the program that brings good results. So it's a just question of whether the government wants good relations with Iran, not what Iran wants.


Threats could force Iran to the table simply because Iran knows that the US is willing to follow through.
Not for sure this time. When the US is busy with Iraq and Afghanistan, another war is the last thing to go for. And Iran is a much more serious force than Iraq. Iraq was weakened with the Gulf War and ten years of sanctions, and became clearly a rogue state.

Iran is a well developing country with strong economics and military. First, Iran has a well organized air force, including a fair number of F-14, Mig-29, Su-24, Su-25 as well as other less advanced aircraft, and a lot of choppers. Iranian navy includes over thousand crafts, among them modern submarines. The army has a considerable number of tanks, including Chieftains and T-72, many APCs, and S-300 air defence systems. But that's only what's on the surface. The Iranian army and paramilitary forces are really well armed with modern ATGMs and SAMs. It's not just some RPGs like in Iraq, Afghan or Lebanon, it's about a million men ready to participate in conventional and guerilla warfare, half of million of them fully equipped and well trained.
On top of that, Iran actively purchases or jointly produces modern weapons. Anti-aircraft, anti-tank, and, importantly, anti-ship, the latest supersonic ones, specially designed to penetrate fleet air defences. So it isn't another defenseless country.

Of course, all of that is no match for US. But Iran can put up a good fight. Even a few lost ships can make a lot of difference in the public opinion. War against Iran would be a full-scale war with heavy casualties, mobilization, high expenses, and massive destruction. Quite like having Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan all in one place, but much worse.

Ahmadinejad knows all that better than we do, and he can rest assured that US government won't seriously consider invading Iran without a compelling reason. Empty threats aren't going to make things any better. Negotiations probably are, but expecting closure of the program would be naive. Using terrorism against Iran to start a civil war would be more considerable, but Iran seems well prepared to eliminate unrests as well.

Not for sure this time. When the US is busy with Iraq and Afghanistan, another war is the last thing to go for. And Iran is a much more serious force than Iraq. Iraq was weakened with the Gulf War and ten years of sanctions, and became clearly a rogue state.

Iran is a well developing country with strong economics and military. First, Iran has a well organized air force, including a fair number of F-14, Mig-29, Su-24, Su-25 as well as other less advanced aircraft, and a lot of choppers. Iranian navy includes over thousand crafts, among them modern submarines. The army has a considerable number of tanks, including Chieftains and T-72, many APCs, and S-300 air defence systems. But that's only what's on the surface. The Iranian army and paramilitary forces are really well armed with modern ATGMs and SAMs. It's not just some RPGs like in Iraq, Afghan or Lebanon, it's about a million men ready to participate in conventional and guerilla warfare, half of million of them fully equipped and well trained.
On top of that, Iran actively purchases or jointly produces modern weapons. Anti-aircraft, anti-tank, and, importantly, anti-ship, the latest supersonic ones, specially designed to penetrate fleet air defences. So it isn't another defenseless country.

Of course, all of that is no match for US. But Iran can put up a good fight. Even a few lost ships can make a lot of difference in the public opinion. War against Iran would be a full-scale war with heavy casualties, mobilization, high expenses, and massive destruction. Quite like having Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan all in one place, but much worse.

Ahmadinejad knows all that better than we do, and he can rest assured that US government won't seriously consider invading Iran without a compelling reason. Empty threats aren't going to make things any better. Negotiations probably are, but expecting closure of the program would be naive. Using terrorism against Iran to start a civil war would be more considerable, but Iran seems well prepared to eliminate unrests as well.

Neither the US nor Iran wants a war, which is what is likely to force both to the table. Iran's air force consists mostly of older planes, the handful of modern aircraft the country has have been kept in ill repair, they have been unable to get spare parts for their F-14s since 1979, and their pilots have zero experiance intercepting modern air craft. Indeed, the bulk of the Iranian air fleet is wholly incapable of engaging in the very long range combat that is typical of modern air superiority. Beyond that, Iran faces the same problems Iraq faced during the first gulf war in terms of soldiers and equipment. Their tank force is quite old and highly vulnerable to strafing air attacks, a good percentage of it's army is simply not interested in a fight with the Americans(though you likely won't see the mass surrenders of the first Gulf war because we have broken our tradition of treating detainees properly), and their force lacks the experiance and training of American soldiers. Worse, there is a significant disparity between Iranian and Western elite forces; Iran simply doesn't have a force analagous to SAS or Special Forces. Then there is the MOAB and cluster bombing issue. A huge force simply cannot march directly against the west once airspace is won. Traditional infantry, APV convoys, tank formations, and the like are sitting ducks for the kind of massive anti-personnel tactics that the US has learned to use.

Those things taken into consideration, Iran cannot put up a real fight outside of the kind of insurgency seen in Iraq. While that would be disasterous for the US in the long term, Ahmadinejad must realize that it would be a hollow victory. He realizes(as do his generals and leaders) that nearly every major player in Iraq was eventually either captured or killed. It is important to remember that the leaders of countries threatened by the US saw the same pictures we did of Saddam being paraded around like livestock, stipped of dignity or rank. They saw the pictures of Saddam's sons dead from an airstrike. They have heard stories of "extrodinary rendition" and CIA interrogation. It is clear that the Bush administration meant to send a message that the costs of war would be personal. While I do not like the message, it is important to remember that it is in the back of the minds of Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Iranian power structure. He knows that there is no out, and he knows that Bush has the will to go in after him(even if it is a bad idea in the long term), a good diplomat could use those things to force him to the table.

Neither the US nor Iran wants a war, which is what is likely to force both to the table. Iran's air force consists mostly of older planes, the handful of modern aircraft the country has have been kept in ill repair, they have been unable to get spare parts for their F-14s since 1979, and their pilots have zero experiance intercepting modern air craft.
That's only a part of it. But Iran is upgrading its forces with modern weapons like Mig-29, repairing older ones and training pilots in the same time. That handful stands for over a hundred machines, not counting much more obsolete ones (which still can have their use). Add here a distributed network of modern SAM systems like S-300. It's not enough to defend, but enough to hurt the other side.

It might be interesting to check this:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%27s_missile_forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_Air_Force_aircraft
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002554.html

It's not just a few obsolete jets. Given modern missiles and radar data, with land support, they pose a threat - it isn't about decisive battles all-against-all. Iran probably can afford a few good strikes with its missile forces, both against land bases and the Navy.

Those things taken into consideration, Iran cannot put up a real fight outside of the kind of insurgency seen in Iraq.
Iran and Iraq are incomparable. While all Iraq had was obsolete equipment, Iran has elite forces equipped with modern weapons. There is no reliable defence against AShM and submarines, so Iran has a good chances to sink a couple vessels.
With total resistance Iran has a lot of chances to make coalition losses inaffordable for good public image. We'll have all these "Stop Iraq war!" protests again, coupled with Vietnam-styled ones.
On top of that Iran has funds to purchase more modern weapons, and they are on the market.

I'm dead sure Ahmadinejad has no desire to fight a war, but he really wants to make sure Bush won't have it as well. That's the purpose of the nuclear program.

He knows that there is no out, and he knows that Bush has the will to go in after him(even if it is a bad idea in the long term), a good diplomat could use those things to force him to the table.
Bush may have the will, but he can't go against everyone. I could sign under your first phrase - Neither the US nor Iran wants a war. A war would be a disaster for both sides, with damages (for Iran to economics, for Bush to public opinion) well exceeding possible benefits. But here's the problem... Iran doesn't want a war, US doesn't want a war. Not much to trade with.

How should the Intn'l community deal with Iran on the issue of Nukes and Uranium enrichment? What should we do? Should Iran be allowed to carry on with their Nuke programs? Is it for Energy or Weapons?Iran signed the NPT so it has to be accepted that they will honor it. If the "Intn'l community" (USA) wishes to discourage Iran from developing Nukes then it should level the playing field and insist that it's 51st state Israel eliminate their Nukes. Soviets and Chinese have nukes because the US, Britian and France have them, Pakistan has them because India does, N. Korea after being labelled as part of the Axis of Evil will never give their nukes as it assures them of a defense from invasion from the USA.