Israel v Iran conflict

The point is, once a country has a nuclear weapon it’s basically too late to do anything about it. Iran 1. Does not have one yet and 2. Has made existential threats about what it wants to do with a neighbour who is within missile range.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The point is, once a country has a nuclear weapon it’s basically too late to do anything about it. Iran 1. Does not have one yet and 2. Has made existential threats about what it wants to do with a neighbour who is within missile range.

nicely avoiding the question, If Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb should any country in the region be allowed them?

Are these other countries (in the region) threatening to use them against their neighbours ?

I dont happen to believe Iran would be daft enough do it anyway, as they know the result would be their own destruction.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran would not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon, so could not fulfil "their goal since 1979"…

You really could start an argument in an empty room.

Pedantry, unless you're suggesting that Iran is happy for the state of Israel to exist and wouldn't be keen to facilitate its destruction in any way possible.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Are these other countries (in the region) threatening to use them against their neighbours ?

I dont happen to believe Iran would be daft enough do it anyway, as they know the result would be their own destruction.

Islamic fundamentalists are happy to be martyrs.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

nicely avoiding the question, If Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb should any country in the region be allowed them?

That’s not avoiding the question, that’s rejecting your framing of the issue. Quite a different thing.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

That’s not avoiding the question, that’s rejecting your framing of the issue. Quite a different thing.

interesting spin, but still no answer to the question which was If Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb should any country in the region be allowed them?

yes or no will do

You can't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. If we were continuously being threatened with destruction from an enemy state, we would also stop them from developing nuclear weapons.

But it's a spectacular failure of international diplomacy that it got this far. Obama's deal was working; the UN nuclear watchdog verified this many times. Iran had halted its development of a weapon. Their uranium stocks were depleting. It wasn't perfect, Iran could eventually have broken the agreement and continued, but it was working.

Trump came in and ripped it up because it was an Obama deal and therefore bad. He didn't replace it. His 'talks', as Iran has got closer to a nuclear weapon, were going to be a weakened version of Obama's deal. Now we're just risking further escalation and an Iranian regime that is now unlikely to enter such an agreement again.

This idiot's ego has real life ramifications.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

interesting spin, but still no answer to the question which was If Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb should any country in the region be allowed them?

yes or no will do

Sorry, I tend to assume you understand the concept of framing and use it as a debating tactic. Duly noted - you don’t understand, and require a fuller explanation.

The issue is not whether or not one or more nation gets to decide who is ‘allowed’ to have a nuclear bomb. The issue is whether one nation is allowed, under international law, to pre-emptively strike another in its own national defence. Israel has stated its reasons. The only relevant question is whether those reasons are credible. Badly framed questions, which misunderstand Israel’s actions as some sort of regional policing operation, miss the point and are more than a little tedious.

You’re never going to get a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to a question where both the question, and the answer you want, are intended to score points rather than clarify issues. It’s sort of disappointing you’ve been engaged in discussions on this forum for so many years yet you’re still stuck trying to use tactics like the new boy at your school debating society.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

From the previously linked article



So, under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran would not have the capability to build a nuclear weapon, so could not fulfil "their goal since 1979"…

Except that Iran has not stuck to its obligations. Are you blind to the obvious? Or just anti-Israel?

---------- Post added at 14:26 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

interesting spin, but still no answer to the question which was If Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb should any country in the region be allowed them?

yes or no will do

Who's doing the allowing? Who's enforcing the not allowing? Facts are facts and Iran has enough enriched Uranium to make a nuke.

[mrmistoffelees]

The Iranians are a massive bunch of tools , they are however honest with their intentions.

Also, why isn’t the point that the US blocked Israel’s plans to assassinate the chief Iranian tool being discussed ?

I’m not sure Israel’s objectives are just about stopping Iran from a functioning nuclear weapon, that might be the implied objective sure, but if they could implement regime change as well? They wouldn’t say no would they

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The Iranians are a massive bunch of tools , they are however honest with their intentions.

Also, why isn’t the point that the US blocked Israel’s plans to assassinate the chief Iranian tool being discussed ?

I’m not sure Israel’s objectives are just about stopping Iran from a functioning nuclear weapon, that might be the implied objective sure, but if they could implement regime change as well? They wouldn’t say no would they

The chief American tool is probably worried that he could be next, but the chief Israeli tool is trying his best to bring the USA into his war, meanwhile our chief tool is moving war planes into the region

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Except that Iran has not stuck to its obligations.Are you blind to the obvious? Or just anti-Israel?

---------- Post added at 14:26 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------



Who's doing the allowing? Who's enforcing the not allowing? Facts are facts and Iran has enough enriched Uranium to make a nuke.

They kept to the terms of the JPCOA until Trump ripped it up - there are no "obligations" to keep to...

See you are doing the old Netanyahu ploy of conflating "Israel" with "Israeli Government actions" - nice try...

[noel43]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

To get back to the matter in hand:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn840275p5yo



This is the nub of the matter. You all know as well as I what Iran would do with a nuclear bomb, assuming that it could deliver it onto Israel. That's been Iran's goal since 1979.

That is assuming not fact.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

They kept to the terms of the JPCOA until Trump ripped it up - there are no "obligations" to keep to...

See you are doing the old Netanyahu ploy of conflating "Israel" with "Israeli Government actions" - nice try...

The usual fugg and haze from you.

Iran was trying to make nukes. If you dispute that, then you're not thinking straight.

Iran wants Israel destroyed - not just the Israeli government. The IAEA notes 400kg of highly enriched Uranium. What does Iran want that for?

[noel43]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Israel is defending itself.

As usual isreal can do what it wants and nobody is bothered because the usa backs it.It is now a rogue state and should be treated as one. It is attacking any nation it wants to.