It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What Would Happen if we’re wrong about Iran?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:31 PM
My question is purely theoretical but…
What would happen if we invaded Iran and it turned out they never had a nuclear weapons programme or any intention of developing one?

1. Would the current wave of politicians be disgraced and replaced with a new generation of thinkers?
2. Or in the absence of this; would there be widespread civil disobedience moving beyond simple protest and into the stages of something that may even amount to a popular revolution?
3. Or would things carry on as normal? Would in spite of various “intelligence failings” the current government carry on governing until the next scheduled election where there may be an opportunity for a new government in the same cloths of the old one (or just a new government depending on how you look at it)?
Could it even be that domestic issues would carry on to be the most dominant group of factors in the coming election?

Because is if point 3 is correct why don’t they invaded Iran? Could it be that preference alone more or less solely governs whether or not the powers that be choose to tolerate Iran right now?
What I'm really asking is that despite us all living in a post Iraq world could it still be that: Our politicians do not 100% need a country to be (mostly) guilty of the crimes they accuse it of in order for the system to continue to govern with the bulk the people behind it?

Because surely however hypothetically so this may be; it is equally hypothetically true that the West may choose to attack almost any country at will with the same old structure (of a political system) emerging, unscathed time and again (no matter the harm it causes to its “electing” people)?

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:37 PM
Me? I go for point 3. But just because of the nature of this question does not mean I don’t believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Equally though I don’t believe we should invade them for it. Personally I think all this talk of Iran developing nuclear weapons; but then also going on to fire them at the West or donate them to terrorist organisations is trash. I think it’s nothing more than propaganda trash designed to win over the Western people for a war, or set of violent military operations we don’t need to sponsor.
If any anybody should be worried about Iran surely it should be Israel? And if that’s the case then surely it should be they (if anybody) who splash out their cash and reap their bloody poisonous consequences as a result?
In my opinion Iran only wants nuclear weapons to politically safeguard itself against the a-moral outlook of the Western world; and for that matter the mad president of the United States who invaded their neighbour after watching them disarm (and oh, now apparently says God told him to do it). Will somebody please tell bush to formerly deny that allegation? (Could maybe talk of God telling the president to do things be pushing Iran closure to the Red safety button of a nuclear deterrent?)
Neither do I believe the talk of Iran being willing to commit collective suicide by the nuclear retaliation of the international (or even a unilateral) community, brought on through using their nuclear weapons first or selling them to terrorist who did.
Iran would know that these things would lead to a very angry America equipped with George Bush (and a God) with one very loud speaker.
Other people say it’s in the Iranian religion to want to go round nuking stuff. (Could that be a smart way of playing on people’s unknowns?). Well all I can say is maybe; but, but just explain this: How come nuclear weapons weren’t invented at the time of Korean!!!?
And if Iran is ruled by such immoral leaders then why would dying for such “thermo-religious” objectives be in their personal interests? (Talk of having it both ways).

To my mind (the above alone) also goes some way to demonstrate just why the West could successfully (military and politically) invade a hypothetical Iran without nuclear weapons intentions.
Therefore is it really true to say that with the president on his side God could destroy any country on earth at any given time?

One source (one of Many)
(Well at least the white house denies it, but has the president or truth?).

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:37 PM
I don't think its a question of if they have a program and what they plan on achieving with it. Its the question that what bussines is it of ours to say who can or can't have nuclear capabilities and who are we to judge if they'll be more responsible in using these capabilities then we are?

The US is the only nation to ever nuke another country (TWICE).
The US is the nation currently saying they find nukes viable first strike weapons instead of MAD weapons.

The worst Iran can do when they have nukes is treaten to or bomb Israel and Israel itself does have nukes too. So if Iran uses them on Israel they can be sure to get both the US and Israeli full brunt on their behinds.

I doubt Iran is that stuppid.

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:47 PM

Originally posted by thematrix

The worst Iran can do when they have nukes is treaten to or bomb Israel and Israel itself does have nukes too. So if Iran uses them on Israel they can be sure to get both the US and Israeli full brunt on their behinds.

I doubt Iran is that stuppid.

Iran would never do something that stupid. Sending a missile with your return address is just plain dumb as there are other ways to get the job done. If they wanted to nuke Israel they would just sneak a Iran made nuke into the country.

Then they could deny everything and there could be little or no proof of who did it. Israel has alot of enemies and there are alot of nuclear weapons in the world.

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:46 PM

Iran would never do something that stupid. Sending a missile with your return address is just plain dumb as there are other ways to get the job done. If they wanted to nuke Israel they would just sneak a Iran made nuke into the country.

Then they could deny everything and there could be little or no proof of who did it. Israel has alot of enemies and there are alot of nuclear weapons in the world.

i thought nukes could be traced by the very specific signature that they produce. If a nuke went off and it didnt match any known sig from an acknoledged nuclear country, then I think alot of eyes would turn to Iran....

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:50 PM
First of all, I'd like to say I don't think it will come to this - at least under Bush.

I think #3 is what would happen. Frankly, even if Iran is completely honest and only wish to have nuclear power, they are still one of the most dangerous nations in the world. They support radical Islam, and frankly, that is enough for me to give
to any nation that takes them out.

The reason we aren't going in right now is we are already preoccupied in Iraq. Secondly, there is about 50% of the population that would not support the war - in fact, they would undermine it.

Frankly though, the Western world will eventually be compelled to take Iran out if they do not give up their nuclear ambitions - and the reason is another hypothetical situation:

What happens if they don't take out Iran, and Iran is trying to build nukes with the purpose of using against the Western world and Isreal?

Frankly, I'll take being wrong about invading 100% of the time over taking a chance that Iran gains nuclear weapons and uses them - and so will every major Western governent, including France and Germany.

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:56 PM

Originally posted by stumason
i thought nukes could be traced by the very specific signature that they produce. If a nuke went off and it didnt match any known sig from an acknoledged nuclear country, then I think alot of eyes would turn to Iran....

They can be identified by the nuclear material they use. The problem is that Iran doesn't have their own - everything is Russian, from the nuclear material, to the nuke plants and the equipment.

So it would be impossable to say that Iran did it, especially after the post Soviet collapse and the resultant black market of Soviet weapons.

Not only is it confirmed that their nuclear weapons were for sale, but it is confirmed that nuclear submarines were for sale on the black market, and could be purchased fully loaded with nuclear missles, each of which contain several warheads.

Thus, all Iran has to do is hand over a nuke to a spec ops unit or terrorist, and they can set it off anywhere they want, and say "it wasn't us".

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:07 AM
1. Iran does have a nuclear weapons program

2. Invading Iran would be a big mistake...

3. Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program, but the current government should not have them...

The best solution would be if a revolution in Iran happened. One that removes the current government and turn Iran into either a republic or a monarchy. Invading or bombing Iran would have the opposite effect and would be exactly what the current government wants. The people in Iran would then not revolt but support the current government instead. There would be a very nasty war and if it would ever "end", there is no way Iran would become any kind of "peaceful democratic country" afterwards. Support the revolutionary groups/movements and encourage revolution instead, don´t invade them and don´t bomb them.

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 03:41 AM
I still don’t think anyone has answered how an Iranian democracy or dictatorship alike would be prepared to commit mass thermonuclear suicide; ether by supplying nuclear weapons to terrorists or using them.
Surely we accept that if Iran ever used nuclear weapons against any western city (possibly any city in the world) the retaliation would be swift and unforgiving?

I don’t think the Iranian people would welcome this. But some of you say if Iran was more democratic then a nuclear Iran would be less dangerous.
Trouble is if I'm a dictator I'm hardly a man of God. Whatever you may think of the “Clerics” who effectively run the country; ask yourselves: “Would they be executing journalists, using police brutality and many other like tactics to maintain their grip on power if they were true devotees to god, religion, faith and or wisdom”?

Surely the “dictators” who grip Iran’s government would be even more fearful of the consequences from a first strike nuclear policy than there people?
This is because though they mask themselves as men of religion, the truth must surely be that even by the standards of their own religion the overwhelming majority of them would go to hell for a whole host of things that they have done?

Therefore surely Iran is even less likely to first strike with nuclear weapons, with their country being controlled by undemocratically elected people, than without?

How does anyone sincerely believe that…
1. Iran’s leaders are genuine men of religion?
2. A religion which relieves power hungry killers of punishment?
3. And rewards them with heaven should they cause the effective extinction of their nation (even against the will of that nations people)?

Ok, I know Islam tells its people you that you go up to heaven if you die in battle (Just like the propaganda of both Christian sides told their troops they would go to heaven in the first world war, and have done in many wars before and since).
But surely the 3 bullet points above stretch this infamous passage of Islam just a bit?

Also some people seem to think Iran needs to be liberated. Liberated from what?
Ok, Iran is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. In actual fact it’s more of a “theocracy” because it’s a dictatorship which allows a sort of democracy to function at its will. Even then, the June the 17th presidential elections saw Iran's rulers deny over a thousand people from putting themselves up as candidates.

But guess what? The Iranian people elected an even more hard-line leader than before. Apparently they could have elected a more moderate one (I don’t know if the old one stood). But certainly the news over hear was hoping that they might with several “likely” options.
Iran’s system of government is very clever. It uses democracy to ensure that its government never gets too out of touch with its people for them to revolt. So “liberate” the Iranian people from what exactly?
Every time the flames get too high some reform can be made, and arguably this is how Iran is already on the road to reform, but from within.
Therefore I think any talk of “liberating” the Iranian people with American bombs and missiles is completely unjustifiable (at least from human rights grounds). Do even smart American people not know that war will kill more people than the system you are trying to destroy ever did?
At least the first Gulf war killed about 250,000 people, and although in this one we have lacked ether the respect or guts to count the Iraqis we kill it would appear that it will be than the last because it has gone on much longer.
Yet through oppression (and not foreign policy) it is thought Saddam killed anything from 250,000 to 500,000 people over 30 years of power.
So (using Iraq as a model) it is likely that any war with Iran would kill far more lives than it saves, and would be all the more unjustified given that there is an already established path to internal reform (so be it a slow one).

I believe Americans and Westerners alike are having propaganda chucked at to them, namely…
1. Iran will use nuclear weapons on a first strike basis
2. Their religion makes them suicidal
3. They will supply nuclear weapons to terrorist (presumably also on a first strike basis).

Surely all these are lies to get you and me to sacrifice money (possibly even friends and family) for a war or set of military operations we don’t need?
If anything Iran is an Israeli problem because it is Israel that would see America’s protection of itself hindered by Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons, and if Iran where to use them it is quite likely that Israel would be the receiver.
So if Israel feels Iran is such a threat then it is Israel which should decide the appropriate course of action. Personally I think it is not only propaganda to say Iran would launch its nukes against the United States, but also such a distortion of reality that is quite funny to think many peoples imagination’s actually take this scenario seriously.

I don’t believe our government’s foreign policy governs for the interests of our people. And I think our government uses democracy to stop the people getting too angry. Kind of like the Iranian elections where people are presented with candidates who support a hard-line foreign policy, and another set candidates who support a slightly less hard-line policy; is it not the case that in the recent American elections you were presented with a candidate (Bush) who supported the war in Iraq, and another candidate (Kennedy) who also supported the war in Iraq (apparently just not quite so much).

Is this not a demonstration of where Iran joins much of the West as places where there is precious little EFFECTIVE deviation from the status quo?

Also in Iran only those with the “support” of the supreme council can stand for president. Yet in Britain, America (and most other western countries) only those with the support of the business lobbyists, the mass media (owned by so few) can actually win. Yes here (unlike Iran) virtually anyone can stand for government, but here (like Iran) you can’t win unless you conform to the undemocratically elected (and often even unaccountable) powers that are already held by a “political policy” few.

Could it be that like Iran the problem here and there is not “who can vote”, but “what voting for can achieve”? Could it be that like Iran the problem here is not who can stand for office but who can win?
Maybe it follows that both in Iran and the West are represented by a mechanism (which regardless of its history) today only effectively serves to prevent the people getting too angry.
This is why I am disappointed that options 1 and 2 of my original post are really most unlikely to ever happen. Because if our government’s structure of power-democracy can remain intact even in a scenario where (after Iraq) we go on to invade Iran and then discover they never had a weapons nuclear programme, then this testimony to the strength of a system that uses democracy to prevent people getting too angry.

It’s really very sad because for Westerners to hope that Iranians will rebel against what Iran’s system and people call “democracy”, is rather like hoping our people will rebel what our system and our people calls “democracy”. I think one could say that (in both cases) the effect of some democracy (rather than a functional democracy) has made the chances of getting to a functional democracy a whole let likely.

But as Iran is way more oppressive than we are in the West (e.g. they actually imprison-kill people) (as opposed to ignore them) you might think that a rebellion is still quite a bit more likely there than here. But in a system where more democracy reform will always be given to prevent a rebellion, one has to ask how much more likely is a rebellion in Iran? Surely anything other than a brake down between government communications and people is not likely to cause a rebellion? And even then it is possible to run a system without reading (or at least giving much in) to the people. Surely the “prison regime” of North Korea demonstrates this every day?

If Bush could give a monkeys about human rights he would certainly be pressing countries like North Korea over human rights a lot more. Or as that country is so heavily armed and exceptionally dangerous; perhaps he could be forgiven for leaving that one alone.
But there is no way a military foreign policy geared towards democracy and human rights could leave a country like Zimbabwe of the top of the list.

If I was this president I would (for reasons given leave Iran alone). But I would also maintain (what is already effectively policy) of nuking it to bits should Iran ever use nuclear weapons without been nuked first.
If I believed in a military backed human rights policy I would have aircraft carriers just of Zimbabwean waters. I might never attack Zimbabwe but I would at least have a list of the world’s ten worst dictatorships; and a policy of resorting to military might for those which refused to engage in reform the most.
Iran already has some democracy so it’s too democratic to be one of the worlds ten worst dictatorships (especially as its human rights are still better than most).
There are many other countries which could do with “liberation” for a whole let less war and effort. And like Zimbabwe (and unlike Saudi Arabia) we are not dependant on anything like all of them for trade.

But the trouble is that the president does not have a military human rights policy. What he has is a foreign policy not much more deferent or less corrupt than those under Clinton and many other U.S presidents. The difference is that it’s far less tolerant and therefore far daring and of course bloody.
Does America have a political system with far too many par ells to the one in Iran? Does it have a foreign policy which if only the lies where true would be respectful? Yet in reality is the worst of what we used to have, merely “improved” with more aggression?
Also am I not right to accuse so much of current arguments put forward to attacking as nothing but propaganda?

Thank you for what you have had to say, and would love to know what you make of this reply.

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 07:14 AM
The US/UK alliance was wrong about weapons in Iraq and nothing happened.

Why should a fradulent invasion of Iran be any different?

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:47 PM
Liberal 1984,I've read all your posts,your style is wonderfull and your thinking correct,I wish there will be more people like you in the world

However,there are some historical facts regarding the end of the Cold War which placed us in this very dangerous position today
Ronald Reagan bluffed the Soviet Union(with the "Star Wars "program which he never followed) into building:
20000 heavy and medium tanks,grouped into 150 tank divisions
(NATO has in Europe 6 tank divisions only)
6000 hunting-bomber aircrafts( NATO has stationed in Europe 253)
300 strategic subs,the most powerfull having 12 missiles with 12 warheads each.
a fleet matching US navy
5 million troops(USA has 1 million)
missile shield capability
This effort resulted into the effective and immediate bankrupcy of the Soviet Union in 1989.USA agreed to provide money for wages if the USSR agrees to let Poland ,Checkoslovakia and Hungary join NATO.

Meanwhile,quietly,the Russians have regained their strength and their control over the largest army in the world,yesterday Putin ordered the Black Sea Fleet to ocupy and hold Yalta's Lighthouse,controlled by Ukraine.
And the americans were glorious in Panama,Nicaragua,Serbia,Yugoslavia,Irak,Somalia and other very interesting and rare countries.
Today US has an Official international debt of 8100 bln $(though unofficial sources cites 12.65 tr $) and the UK has only 4.77 trillion $ debt.This ads more pressure for interventions in the case of Israeli wars and problems.

Political issues:
China,India and Iran joined the Russians in a military and soon,economic alliance to promote "multipolarism" and limit US influence into the world,and particularily,stopping it from monopolizing oil resources(even though,Siberia is full of oil,and so the Caspian Sea)
Israel wishes to eliminate the powerfull Iran (formerly Persian Empire) from the region stage and conquer Palestine completely.
Iran wishes to regain control in the Middle East(like the Persian Empire) and eliminate all rivals,.They have formed alliances with all muslim countries in the region through several decades(in the past 20 yrs Iran,Irak,Lybia,Egypt,Syria and Saudi Arabia developed the "NonDong 1 " rocket into the "Shahab-3" missile with an eff range of 10000 km ,capable of striking the eastern coast of USA) and are prep to counteract a Israel-American attack coming their way
Recently all signs shows the Russians preparing for a long and difficult war(stockpiling resources,selling raw mat to China,rising the ruble against euro and dollar,activating anti-missile bases,deploying new units,sellinf anti-missile cap to Iran,deploying spy sat for Iran)

Military issues:
USA and Israel devised a plan in 2002(2001?) regarding the destruction of 450 burried-deep Iranian facilities by using "very small nuclear weapons".Unfortunately ,the Iranians might use not-so-small ones in return.
Israel has been stockpiling conv and strat weap since June 2004 and has declared it will attack Iran by late March(that's the "deadline")
Iran is prep to attack Israel,with its allies by 24-26th of February.

So,what's next?There are too many political problems to solve this crisis whatsoever.

top topics


log in