NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran

WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.

Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."

Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.

"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."

He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.

He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.

Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.

Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.

"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.

He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.

The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.

(This version SUBS 9th graf, Iran says ..., to CORRECT word to 'program,' sted 'problem'))

Interest that this comes on the heels of Kouchner's comments about being prepared for war.

Well Iran is smart, they know when they have a big enough deterrent (ie a nuke) then they're invincible.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran.."

"Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." we can live with a nuclear Russia? and with a nuclear China ??
Are you out of your freaking mind? /casm

Well Iran is smart, they know when they have a big enough deterrent (ie a nuke) then they're invincible.
Thinking you're invincible is never smart.

Thinking you're invincible is never smart.
Well when you have nukes, for all intents and purposes you are, no one would dare attack a nuclear power, which is obviously why Iran wants them, it's pretty simple and has no sinister motive, unless you consider self-preservation from US occupation to be sinister. Iran learn it's lesson from Mossadegh, a weak nation will be defeated.

Iran if it got a nuke would more than likely face a preemptive strike from someone else...and if it didn't it would still be far from being invincible...considering its not going to have MIRV ICBM's like other nuclear powers...and won't pose a threat outside the mideast which is a giant fuck up anyways...unless of course the Iranian government decides to sell its nukes to radical cells...\

middle east (http://www.killsometime.com/pictures/images/Middle-East.jpg)

Well when you have nukes, for all intents and purposes you are, no one would dare attack a nuclear power, which is obviously why Iran wants them, it's pretty simple and has no sinister motive, unless you consider self-preservation from US occupation to be sinister. Iran learn it's lesson from Mossadegh, a weak nation will be defeated.

Correction:
When you have a LOT of nukes. Just one nuke isnt going to do it if youre enough of a threat, or if the other side thinks they can get you before you can deploy that nuke.
Why do you think the United States was so freaked out when Russia launched Sputnik? It takes bombers a LOT longer to get to their targets than a missile, and missiles are a LOT harder to shoot down.
And if you only have, say, ten operable nuclear weapons, and the other side has, if I recall, about 2,500 active warheads and something like 5,000 in reserve, its no-contest. We lose 50 cities, you lose your country. Then everybody grows four extra arms and we all learn to play Galactic Hypercricket.

Well when you have nukes, for all intents and purposes you are, no one would dare attack a nuclear power, which is obviously why Iran wants them, it's pretty simple and has no sinister motive, unless you consider self-preservation from US occupation to be sinister. Iran learn it's lesson from Mossadegh, a weak nation will be defeated.

If any of the other nuclear club members wanted to they could turn Iran into a plate of glass and Iran wouldn't be able to do anything except threaten Israel..You are such a sad figure blinded by ignorance I pity you...

If Iran had a few hundred nukes and MIRVS capable of reaching any point in the world...then they would have some weight to throw around...but they won't and they don't....

Correction:
When you have a LOT of nukes. Just one nuke isnt going to do it if youre enough of a threat, or if the other side thinks they can get you before you can deploy that nuke.
Why do you think the United States was so freaked out when Russia launched Sputnik? It takes bombers a LOT longer to get to their targets than a missile, and missiles are a LOT harder to shoot down.
And if you only have, say, ten operable nuclear weapons, and the other side has, if I recall, about 2,500 active warheads and something like 5,000 in reserve, its no-contest. We lose 50 cities, you lose your country. Then everybody grows four extra arms and we all learn to play Galactic Hypercricket.
Something obviously no country is willing to do just to make a point.

See, the operative difference in the cases here is that every other country that has possessed nuclear weapons hasn't been run by MENTAL CASES.

And yes, if anybody says Bush, I will have to contort your body and shove your head up your own ass.

Neocons=mental cases

See, the operative difference in the cases here is that every other country that has possessed nuclear weapons hasn't been run by MENTAL CASES.

And yes, if anybody says Bush, I will have to contort your body and shove your head up your own ass.

There are three problems I have with Iran having nukes:

1) I don't trust them when it comes to Hezbollah and other radically anti-Israel factions and groups. I'd like to think they're smart enough not to think about it, but I can't trust them.

2) Iran having nukes means Saudi Arabia will need nukes to restore the balance. So you have one of the most radical and unstable Islamic countries with nukes, controlled by a nutcase dictatorship. Which in turn would have to prompt other middle eastern countries to work towards getting them...Egypt, Turkey, Syria etc. And if that can't be prevented either, you have the most unstable region in the world, full of religious fanatics, armed to the teeth with nukes. Great.

3) This one ties in with point 2: nukes are bad and nuclear proliferation is bad. The more nukes there are, the more risk they are used. Especially if religion is mixed in there. So at best you have a new Cold War, except with even less trustworthy players on both sides.

So no, the world isn't gonna end if Iran has nukes. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Neocons=mental cases

See, look. You said it. And now you're staring at your own colon. Was it worth it?

Well when you have nukes, for all intents and purposes you are, no one would dare attack a nuclear power, which is obviously why Iran wants them, it's pretty simple and has no sinister motive, unless you consider self-preservation from US occupation to be sinister. Iran learn it's lesson from Mossadegh, a weak nation will be defeated.

Ever since nuclear weapons were first used and the true scale of the sheer power and devastation of the weapons was actually understood--until then only the scientists fully understood just how powerful the bombs were...no one else did--nuclear weapons have never been utilized. They are purely a deterrent weapon.

You could actually get away with attack a nuclear power and not get nuked...we see this happen all the time...Russia is attacked by Chechnya yet the Chechnyans have yet to be irradiated...no nuclear weapons have been used on Saudi Arabia despite the attack from the Saudis on September 11th...and so on and so forth.

Of course, these attacks are small peas. If you attacked a nuclear power in a major fashion--say, using a nuke against them--your country will be turned to glass. That's what will happen if Iran is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon. I truly hope they never do. More power to them if they want nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes only, but they should never use them. Never.

Something obviously no country is willing to do just to make a point.

Depends. Youre saying Bush isnt willing?

I would trust Iran with a nuke far more than I currently trust the US with nukes.

Originally Posted by Andaras Prime View Post
Well when you have nukes, for all intents and purposes you are, no one would dare attack a nuclear power, which is obviously why Iran wants them, it's pretty simple and has no sinister motive, unless you consider self-preservation from US occupation to be sinister. Iran learn it's lesson from Mossadegh, a weak nation will be defeated.

Originally Posted by Andaras Prime

I would trust Iran with a nuke far more than I currently trust the US with nukes.

You're not really that naive are you?

@ 2nd quote never mind that statement answered my question...

I would trust Iran with a nuke far more than I currently trust the US with nukes.

You're mentally unstable, you know that?

You're mentally unstable, you know that?

I sure as hell do now...

See, the operative difference in the cases here is that every other country that has possessed nuclear weapons hasn't been run by MENTAL CASES.

And yes, if anybody says Bush, I will have to...Bush. enuff said.

I would trust Iran with a nuke far more than I currently trust the US with nukes.

More than Pakistan? Yes...

India and Israel perhaps...

But the US?

I do not trust the US... but do not percieve them to be a graver nuclear threat than other powers at the moment

See, the operative difference in the cases here is that every other country that has possessed nuclear weapons hasn't been run by MENTAL CASES.

And yes, if anybody says Bush, I will have to contort your body and shove your head up your own ass.

Iran is many things, but irrational is not one of these... It is a perfect example of a rational power maximizing and security maximizing state...

Pakistan is more dangerous because it is unstable. Israel because of its many enemies, quite understandably, can sometimes feel overly threatened, which might induce it to strike first when nuclear war could be prevented…

India and Israel perhaps...

But the US?

I do not trust the US... but do not percieve them to be a graver nuclear threat than other powers at the momentUS are currently a greater threat to the world -conventional AND- nuclear.

Why? because its the power most likely to use nukes.

and the fact that we elected the war party+Bush does not help at all.

Pakistan is more dangerous because it is unstable. Israel because of its many enemies, quite understandably, can sometimes feel overly threatened, which might induce it to strike first when nuclear war could be prevented…true. Iran is more stable than Pakistan.

US are currently a greater threat to the world -conventional AND- nuclear.

Why? because its the power most likely to use nukes.

and the fact that we elected the war party+Bush does not help at all.

Lol...I guess I'll have to throw you into the AP pile....of overwhelming naive ignorance and possibly mental problems and/or complete and total idiocy...

..the only way the US would use nukes would be as a retaliatory attack AFTER someone else used them on the US first...

Go ahead and bring up nuking of Japan because trying to compare that to the new understanding worldwide not just with the USA and doctrine for using nuclear weapons for the USA and all other major Nuclear powers ...Every major nuclear power uses its nukes as a deterrent weapon...and since JFK the USA has had the retaliate policy... for us to have nuked Russia during the cold war they would have had to have shot off their missiles first...

.... but you can try to make a connection between the two A bombs dropped on Japan and our policy we have now and have had for more than a decade... I need a good laugh this morning anyways....

..the only way the US would use nukes would be as a retaliatory attack AFTER someone else used them on the US first... 2 words:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


..the only way the US would use nukes would be as a retaliatory attack AFTER someone else used them on the US first...

Go ahead and bring up nuking of Japan because trying to compare that to the new understanding worldwide not just with the USA and doctrine for using nuclear weapons for the USA and all other major Nuclear powers ...Every major nuclear power uses its nukes as a deterrent weapon...and since JFK the USA has had the retaliate policy... for us to have nuked Russia during the cold war they would have had to have shot off their missiles first...

.... but you can try to make a connection between the two A bombs dropped on Japan and our policy we have now and have had for more than a decade... 2 words:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

after all your "that does not count because we actually saved millions of Japanese lives" or "yeah but that civilian killing does not count because it was so long ago".. my 2 words are still standing

Lol...I guess I'll have to throw you into the AP pile...whatever pile you want to throw me to..
It is not going to change my posting.

2 words. still standing.

Actually OceanDrive, those two words aren't standing. The nuclear attacks on those two cities was more than 50 years ago. I would surely hope that you would think that the culture of the U.S., then and now, has changed. Looking back at WW2, would you rather that we had landed ground forces in Japan instead of nuking them? Death is the result either way, but we did actually save lives. the lives of the Japanese that would've flocked to the landing cities and the lives of the servicemen that would've been in those landing cities. Plus, WW2 was a formal declaration of war, not like now where we have little proxy wars with other countries. I could live with a nuclear Iran, as long as Iran's leaders don't get failsafe-happy.

Neocons=mental cases

What a lovely example of bi-partisanship and co-operation.

For a socialist, you're not very social. :(

@ OceanDrive2 obviously you can't read and comprehend.maybe you should pay more attention in English/literature class.whatever it is you take ...nor can you make a decent argument...

I already stated why you can't use the bombs dropped on Japan as an argument over Iran using nukes...and our retaliation doctrine has been in effect ever since ww2 ended...otherwise we probably would have just nuked Russia before they even got the bomb...

Now if you want to continue making a complete fool of yourself please by all means continue..

I find it funny that I already countered the argument I knew you were going to make before you did and you still made it anyways...

I don't really need to say anything else...your ignorance and foolishness speak for themselves

@ OceanDrive2 ...

I already stated why you can't use the bombs dropped on Japan as an argument over Iran using nukes...I can use any argument I want.
You can try to stop me.. You can always try.. ;)

I could live with a nuclear Iran, as long as Iran's leaders don't get failsafe-happy.and so can General Abizaid

I can use any argument I want.
You can try to stop me.. You can always try.. ;)

....sigh... I shall still hold hope that you are not yet a lost cause like AP is...