It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Objectives of a Nuclear Iran (an unlikely "what-if")

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It's been a while since I've stirred up an arm-chair war, so just for the sake of exploring certain possibilities in order to gain insight into the national security interests of countries with a stake in the war on terror, why don't we have one now.

The scenario in a nutshell: What happens if Iran acquires nukes and uses them for a series of low-stakes blackmail operations, hoping to take advantage of appeasment or "the boiled frog effect" if you will, in order to give birth to a greater Persian empire.

Iranian objectives:
1. Increase oil revenues without prompting first world nations to attack.
2. Develop client states to and allies to increase Iran's political, economic, and strategic power.
3. Threaten the security of Europe and the United States

My proposed scenario:

2005: Believing that another war would be political suicide, Republicans back off of the Iran nuclear issue and start pressing domestic agendas and planning to completely hand over Iraqi security duties to Iraqi forces by 2008.
The pentagon advises the administration that allowing Israel to hit Iran's nuclear facilities would likely result in a full-scale war. In response the administration forbids Israel to operate against Iran using Iraqi airspace.

Early 2008: Iraq is fully handed over to Iraqi forces, with US troops maintaining a presence only in isolated bases in Iraq. Tensions with Kurdish Nationalists begin to grow.

2008: Shortly after the US election (not wanting to help put a hawk in office) Iran tests its first nuclear weapon. A standoff with Israel follows. The UN security council passes a resolution authorizing in advance any Security Council Member to launch a nuclear retaliation on any nation which launches a nuclear first-strike, and disaster is averted.

Early 2009: Eager to try it now much freer hand as a regional power, Iran makes a pact with Azerbaijan to work together in negotiations over Caspian Sea boundaries to favor Iran, while Iran materially supports and by deterrence protects an Azerbaijani war effort to take Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia and consolidate control over the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. The OSCE and CIS cry foul, but nobody sees it as worth fighting over.

Not long after, Iran brokers a regional security agreement with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The terms of the agreement promise non-agression between all participants, establish territorial agreements in the Persian Gulf, resolve the conflict over islands between Iran and UAE, ensure freedom of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but most importantly- forbids any participant nation from hosting foreign military forces, as well as agreeing that all participants will forbid and forcibly oppose the operation of foreign navies in the Persian Gulf.
The treaty is widely viewed as a thinly veiled blackmail. The treaty also neglects Iraq as a gulf state.

A steady increase in oil prices begins as the Gulf States are not only defended from Western threats but are quietly blackmailed by Iran.

2010: Iran accuses the Iraqi government of being a puppet organization designed to "give away" their oil to America. Iran asserts that the Regional Security Agreement recognizes Iranian sovreignity over the Shatt Al Arab and blockades Iraqi oil.

Chaos ensues in Iraq- Iranian agents incite violence and blame the economic strangle hold on Iraq on the "American Zionist puppet government which caused the blockade to be imposed". Iran, supporting the uprising, calls for new elections to be scheduled in Iraq and for all US troops to be removed, promising to call for an oil embargo on America and an intervention in Iraq if their demands are not met.
Facing a region-wide diplomatic crisis if they refuse to withdraw their troops, America agrees to withdraw on the condition that Iran extends membership in the Regional Security Agreement to Iraq. The calls for new elections subside as Iran instructs agents to let the conflict cool.

2011: Benefitting from newfound security and oil prices in excess of $100/barrel, Iran recieves large amounts of foreign investment. With this comes more military spending and more indigenous production of military hardware. Iran slowly begins to develop into a distrusted but important player on the world stage.

Iran concludes deals with regional governments in Afghanistan, ignoring the Kabul-bound central government, and begins to establish mining and natural gas operations in Afghanistan in trade for arming the regional warlords. China and Iran begin discussions of creating connections via road and rail through Afghanistan to increase trade

2012: Having spent several years preparing and inserting agents, Iran begins to support an Islamic revolution in Turkmenistan. The revolution succeeds. Iran concludes a deal with the new government for rights to their claims in the Caspian Sea. Fully half of the Caspian Sea is now under Iranian control. The Russian government becomes increasingly wary of the Iranians.
Iran extends this effort into Uzbekistan immediately and almost immediately succeeds in bringing an Islamic government into power (although it is Sunni and characterized by Turkic Nationalism). Never the less, the new Uzbekistani government allows Iran to begin building military bases in Western Uzbekistan. Half of Kazakhstan's Caspian Sea coast is threatened by these developments- the Russians become very upset.

2015: Iran reaches an agreement with Russia over the security of Kazakhstan, recieving deals to purchase military equipment, especially advanced aircraft and a few submarines from Russia's reserve forces.
Iran also acquires Taepo Dong II missiles from North Korea, putting all of Europe within Iranian missile range, as well raising the specter of a nuclear threat on the Continental US from their new subs.

With nuclear deterrence against most of the world and the ability to all but monopolize the oil industry on a whim, Iran becomes virtually untouchable. Although for the moment it seems unlikely, some at this point could speculate that Iran would attempt to conquer Turkey and Kazakhstan, overtime leading to the success of Islamic nationalism in Russian territory south of Volgagrad, and also in the Islamization of South-Eastern Europe.
If this were accomplished Islam would in fact have the potential to truly threaten the west for the first time in quite a while.




posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I agree that Iran's long-term goals may be directly along these lines. Rather than a suicidal attack on Israel or the west, simply use the threat to strongarm their neighbors while scaring the west into inaction. Good post


BTW: Love the avatar and sig.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I agree that Iran's long-term goals may be directly along these lines. Rather than a suicidal attack on Israel or the west, simply use the threat to strongarm their neighbors while scaring the west into inaction. Good post


BTW: Love the avatar and sig.


Thanks for the nod on the avatar and sig. Don't be surprise if you find yourself being quoted in another thread, since currently a certain somebody with an aversion to facts is claiming that my avatar and sig are racist.
By the way, I can't help noticing that the bottom line of your signiture is cut off. Just insert a carriage return at the end of it and it will expand the text box to make it fully visible.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Pretty scary stuff and the time-line of the events sound like a coming storm. IMO, America will not leave the Middle-East until the Mullahs in Iran are taken out of power.

The Iranian Mullahs are playing a very dangerous game with America and the Europeans and their gonna lose.


Maximu§



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Iran's nuclear agenda is simple: to have a credible threat of retaliation against the Israelis. Iran's Islamic government may certainly be repressive, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe they are expansionist. The war with Iraq was started by Saddam, not the Iranians.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Iran's nuclear agenda is simple: to have a credible threat of retaliation against the Israelis.


Sorry, but I find that logic ridiculous. Israel has never threatened Iran before they began embarking on a nuclear weapons plan. Isreal doesn't border Iran and wouldn't want to have anything to do with them unless they proved to be a direct threat to Israel.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The logic is blindingly obvious, these are two countries that have hated each other for 20+ years, one has 200+ nuclear warheads, the other does not.

Whatever your political inclination, it's not hard to see why the Iranians think they need them.

There's another country in the region that is believed to have a covert nuclear weapons program, including purchasing technical information from Pakistan's AQ Khan. Despite the fact that the majority of the 9-11 hijackers came from this country, along with the Wahabbiist philosophy they followed, their nuclear weapons program (also believed to be a response to Israel's) does not seem to get nearly as much attention from us.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Is this post a prophecy? Sorry but I am very skeptic about all you have stated.

I can't wait to see this war begin.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
To wisdom master: no this post is not intended as prophecy. This post is intended as a serious exploration of what sort of realistic capabilities Iran would have, if they so chose, other than simply plunging themselves into a nuclear holocaust with Israel.

To Xmotex: I agree that Israel (actually Islamic pride/nationalism- but that's closely tied to Israel) is the primary reason for Iran's plans to develop nuclear weapons. I also believe that the Iranians see themselves as a regional power and because nuclear weapons would give them great strength at the bargaining table I believe they would attempt to create new initiatives in their region.
Particularly, I think what I called the "Regional Security Agreement" would be a good thing, and might be very high on Iran's list of priorities as well. The only way it would not be a good thing is 1. If Iran planned to violate it (i'm far less certain that they would violate that than I am about their desire to create such an agreement) or 2. If it was used to gouge oil prices or wield oil as an economic weapon.
The "RSA" incorporates a series of Iranian foreign policy objectives which I would certain bet money they would hope to accomplish once they were a nuclear power. 1. Control of the disputed islands between them and UAE. 2. Improved relations with Kuwait and Saudi. 3. Getting Western forces out of the gulf region.
We have every reason to believe that Iran will persue such objectives once they have nukes. This "RSA" is the best case scenario of how they might persue it (because it doesn't involve directly threatening, destabilizing, or attacking their neighbors). We have every reason to believe that they are aware of the role nukes will play in accomplishing those objectives, and therefore even if Israel is considered the primary motive, those other concerns can also be considered as objectives of their nuclear program. The Caspian Sea also represents a vital economic interest to all nations bordering on it and it only stands to reason that the one (soon to be two) major military powers with Caspian Sea coast will be the ones who ultimately say if the deal is partition is acceptible or not. This can hardly be absent from the minds of Iranian officials either.

Good, bad? I'm not really saying for sure. It has the potential to be either, depending on the extent of Iran's ambition. The further into the projected scenario you go, the more we assume that Iran has greater ambitions- at any point in that scenario we could hope they'd say "Ok, we're happy with what we have now", but considering that Iran is a nation at odds with many of its neighbors and with much of the world, it is prudent to explore the greatest depths of a possible conflict with them, because Iran is much more likely than many other nations to push the stakes with us.


Originally posted by xmotex
There's another country in the region that is believed to have a covert nuclear weapons program, including purchasing technical information from Pakistan's AQ Khan. Despite the fact that the majority of the 9-11 hijackers came from this country, along with the Wahabbiist philosophy they followed, their nuclear weapons program (also believed to be a response to Israel's) does not seem to get nearly as much attention from us.


My googling hasn't turned up much on this matter so I'm hoping you'll be able to tell me- does Saudi Arabia pose the same immediate threat of becoming a nuclear power as Iran does? By that, I mean does Saudi Arabia currently possess or are they building heavy-water nuclear reactors or fast reactors, and/or do they have uranium enriching facilities?
My googling turned up little more than a Saudi report which concluded that Saudi needed a deterrent and suspicions that Saudi may have recieved information from Dr. A.Q. Kahn (although they are not actually named among the nations which did). My googling may not have turned up everything, so I'm asking honestly, but if that is all there is, i think it's only logical that an "Iran first" approach is being taken by our government.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I beleive if anything; that the only reason Iran would want nuclear weapons is for deterence. After all isn't that what all the worlds nuclear powers have in mind... Iran knows the US is eyeing off their oil, so they are merely thinking in advance...

The US should just step back from the Middle-East entirely, and trade with them like civilised countries do, rather then come in and destroy the place, then instigate unfair trades for nothing other then personal gain...



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
I beleive if anything; that the only reason Iran would want nuclear weapons is for deterence. After all isn't that what all the worlds nuclear powers have in mind... Iran knows the US is eyeing off their oil, so they are merely thinking in advance...


As I have said, I think that is the primary reason, but I don't think that means that Iran wouldn't embrace other uses as well. What do mini nukes, proposed bunker buster nukes, and above all the "Davey Crocket" nuke fired from a recoilless rifle have to do with deterrence? Some weapons are definately first-strike or tactical in nature and we have to wonder if they wouldn't be used if America wasn't so powerful conventionally.

There are 8 nuclear nations- 5 of them are world powers who have no motivation other than deterring one another- they can't get anything with nukes that they couldn't get with conventional blackmail.

The 3 remaining nations, India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes do deter neighbors who would be difficult in conventional war. These all stem from very deep rivalries/hatreds though, at least partially religious in nature in every case, which means that blackmail probably wouldn't work.

Iran getting the bomb would seem to be unique so far in history because of its borders. This would be the first time that the new nuclear power had potential objectives that would not be regionally refused no matter what. This means two things. 1. Blackmail could work. 2. Because of this nuclear deterrent Iran would be able to take non-nuclear actions without being stopped by outside forces. Deterrence doesn't just protect your security- it protects your ability to do stuff that others dont want you doing.

Now I said it wuld seem unique in history, not that it would be. This is because we Americans sometimes don't look at ourselves very closely. America used deterrence during the Cold War (and since) to cover for activities that never would have been allowed otherwise.
We undertook aggression both overt and covert all over the world. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Panama, etc etc. We propped up unpopular dictators, backed coups, sold weapons, and invaded nations, but nobody ever dared to resist us outside of our chosen theater of battle. If we went to Korea, our enemies fought in Korea- they wouldn't dare to bring the fight to us or our allies. If we sent Iraq after Iran, then Russia helped Iran fight back- they wouldn't try to stop our shipment of weapons even.

So what is going to happen when a nuclear Iran goes to Turkmenistan? They will only be fought in Turkmenistan, and if they can't be defeated "gently" there, they will be allowed to win. That's an often overlooked feature of deterrence- it protects your foreign policy, and foreign policy is often aggressive.


The US should just step back from the Middle-East entirely, and trade with them like civilised countries do, rather then come in and destroy the place, then instigate unfair trades for nothing other then personal gain...

I actually agree. Why should the common people's children fight, and the common people's tax dollars be spent on war instead of on domestic concerns, when the profit doesn't come back to the common people? It's not even America's gain- it's a corporation's gain!
The truth is, mutually beneficial trade, in the long run, would be better for America than exploitative trade- but it wouldn't be better for corporate leviathans like Halliburton that will go where ever they can and swallow up whatever they can, indifferent to the destruction caused.

However- I don't think that means America should necessarily let Iran get nukes. I beleive in playing fair by choice, not because you let the other guy get a nuke pointed at you. The reason is that they wont want to play fair anymore than we do, and things will only get more crooked if they get nukes- and this time we'll be getting the short end of it. No thanks. I say Americans need to push their government to be fair with Iran, but also push their government to be firm with Iran and prevent the development of a nuclear blackmail racket in that region.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
The USs involvement in the middle-east or any country who claims to fight for freedom would be pointless if Iran is allowed to become a nuclear power. As mentioned, nuclear capability is not only for defensive reasons but for inconspicuous offensive reasons. If the US or Europe allows the Islamic republic to go nuclear the world will suffer in the long run. Iranian ambitions have been conveyed to me by numerous run-of-the-mill Iranians who wish for the Islamic empire to return similar to the ottoman empire. Just this time Shiite rule that will not stop at the Ottoman borders.
If the US does not do anything Israel will. Iran knows this and are preparing for defensive as well as offensive actions that will probably target the Dimona nuclear facility in Israel and civil structures whose devastation would be similar to the bombing of the Answar dam in Egypt.

Israel knows this as well and is probably mounting defensive and offensive measures in a similar manner.

The question remains - who will flinch first.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is if the UN wakes-up and installs sanctions of the Islamic republic to force them to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Even then if they do go nuclear, economic sanctions will be in place and will be a counterweight to their offensive ambitions. Then the regeim will start to dissolve from within.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
My googling hasn't turned up much on this matter so I'm hoping you'll be able to tell me- does Saudi Arabia pose the same immediate threat of becoming a nuclear power as Iran does? By that, I mean does Saudi Arabia currently possess or are they building heavy-water nuclear reactors or fast reactors, and/or do they have uranium enriching facilities?
My googling turned up little more than a Saudi report which concluded that Saudi needed a deterrent and suspicions that Saudi may have recieved information from Dr. A.Q. Kahn (although they are not actually named among the nations which did). My googling may not have turned up everything, so I'm asking honestly, but if that is all there is, i think it's only logical that an "Iran first" approach is being taken by our government.


The Saudis, Egyptians and other arab gov'ts relied and financed the Libyan nuclear plan which was abandoned by Kaddafi under pressure of the US following the fall of Sadaam. This was covered in www.debka.com if you would like I will try to provide you with the exact article.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
The Saudis, Egyptians and other arab gov'ts relied and financed the Libyan nuclear plan which was abandoned by Kaddafi under pressure of the US following the fall of Sadaam. This was covered in www.debka.com if you would like I will try to provide you with the exact article.


Thats very interesting. If you can find the article please do. I will also look into it. The idea of a "Sunni Bomb" as opposed to a nationalized project would be very interesting, and Kaddafi would certainly be the one to be trusted with such a program- nobody is more "Pan-Islam" than him as far as I know.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Interesting thoughts on Iran's nuclear agenda however, I see the scenario playing out a little differently.

The reason Iran seeks nuclear weapons is for both deterrence and the ability to inflict maximum damage on Israel and Western allies in the event of a full-scale war. Like I've said before, dictatorships whether they be religious or political in nature should be contained and controlled until the proper time has come for the populace to realize that a democratic set of institutions is favorable to current economic and political suffering at the hands of their leaders.

Iran is isolated from Western trade for the most part. As you can see with N. Korea, nuclear weapons quickly bring the 1st world powers to the bargaining table with countries that they would otherwise ignore or keep current sanctions in place. Iran in possession of nuclear weapons stifles all possible Israeli action due to the threat of nuclear detonation on Israeli soil. It also curbs Western support to an extent because of the same fear of all-out war that would have profound religious and political costs for everyone in the world. This brings us to the real supplier of Iranian nuclear power.

The Russians see the U.S. and E.U. having their political hands tied by current fiasco's in Iraq, N. Korea and domestically thus allowing Russia to deal with the Iranians. With the current democratic regression taking place by Putin, who comes from the Stalinistic/KGB school of imposing power over the people there is only one direction this is going in. We are witnessing the complete polarization of the world. U.S., W.E.U., E.U. to the left and the Islamic Nations, Russia, China to the right. Israel and Iran are the centerpoints for all the drama. Where Pakistan and India fit in is yet unresolved although the continuing escalation of nuclear and political hostility from the world will reach a boiling point soon and none will be able to ignore or put sanctions on the issue.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Interesting and most likely correct analysis, but I'm not so sure that Iran will always be in Russia's corner. Iran's location makes them prime candidates to start nibbling at Russia's corpse if Russia got to weak or Iran got too strong, and Iran's logical ambitions all aim at former Soviet states, which means Russia will either have to allow Iran to satisfy those ambitions or risk a falling out with Iran.

India and Pakistan are another interesting question. I think both are fairly committed to non-alignment which for all practical purposes puts them on Russia and China's side because they will be of no strategic benefit to America as non-aligned nations. America could seek to change this by grabbing territory in central asia to gain economic leverage over them. Whoever controls Turkmenistan, Iran, and Afghanistan controls massive economic incentives for Pakistan in the form of gas and oil pipelines and ore shipments.
If America gets India and Pakistan they can all but contain any Chinese move to the West or into the Indian Ocean. This would allow America to engage Russia 1 on 1, from two fronts even, in a conventional fight.
If China and Russia hold sway over India and Pakistan then China can build the road and rail they need, as well as have the open airways and seaways they need, to threaten the middle east. This would allow a divide and conquer strategy whereby Russia could handle Europe while China tied in Russia's potentially vulnerable southern flank against any American threat from the middle east or Turkey. (of course it would never come to this, but this covers not only the prospects for conventional war but also potential missile emplacements, aircraft routes, and access to smaller conflicts.)

If neither happens and Iran grows powerful while the superpowers stagnate, Iran could end up in control Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, forcing Pakistan to become more friendly to them. If Iran did this they would likely hope to create a standoff between Pakistan and India so that Pakistani military spending would create a large and highly capable military auxilary for Iran.
This would probably be a threat to India and would force India into Russia and China's corner. In fact letting Iran get out of control could be the perfect way for Russia to consolidate power in central asia and end the non-alignment of Pakistan and India.

Yet another thing that could one day become cause for concern is that China and Russia might seek influence in Indonesia, perhaps through Muslim surrogates. This could pose a threat to Australia. The main benefit of threatening Australia is mainly that the West would defend it- it's a bargaining chip, not a strategic objective.
In some strange scenario where Iran miraculously ended up as a super power by playing both sides of the new cold war off against eachother, Iran may even be the one to do such a thing.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
The India and Pakistan issue is too close to call in my eyes. Both are greatly dependent on U.S. economic investments (outsourcing) and especially American military technology as seen by the recent sale of F-16's to both countries. They are technologied tied to the U.S. However both are bitter over Kashmir which could develop into a standoff and isolate those two countries as an undercard for the greater world conflict. This is where I see both nations heading with nuclear warheads firmly pointing at each other. This is a loss to the West because China and Russia do not have to deal with Pakistan and India in any military situation most likely and can jump over the map if you will to aid Iran and the Muslim collective.

My personal take on world events leads me to believe a similar scenario ala Book of Revelations occuring since it is the only logical explanation for the rapid unfolding of blatently foretold events. By the way, I am not a Christian. Anyway here's where the major players stand.

Russia's deal with the devil includes grand ambitions at a complete European continental takeover. This can only be done with Muslim support. Combination of manpower, logistics, weaponary makes this pairing of these two "powers" an ultimate challenge to Europe/US which are divided amongst themselves as well. The real battle will be in Eastern Europe and the Mid. East (Israel). So you have Russian and Muslim forces pushing west, Chinese forces pushing south threatening all surrounding countries (Japan, S. Korea, Austraila) even N. Korea unless a pact is made assuring their alliance. Suddenly all the U.S.'s allies are preoccupied in regional conflicts of their own. Not to mention the possibilities of Chinese/Russian invasions of American soil from any direction Alaska, California, Texas, Florida. A surprise nuclear attack on the U.S. would cripple Western forces and allow much of what I say to unfold pretty rapidly. I don't know what's worse. Being the U.S., or being an ally of the U.S. if such a grand world conflict broke out.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Thats very interesting. If you can find the article please do. I will also look into it. The idea of a "Sunni Bomb" as opposed to a nationalized project would be very interesting, and Kaddafi would certainly be the one to be trusted with such a program- nobody is more "Pan-Islam" than him as far as I know.


see debka.com...
I recall there was a more indepth article about this but in my preliminary search I wasn't able to uncover it.




top topics



 
0

log in

join