Quantcast
Help me write my college paper. - Iran

Forums - Politics Discussion - Help me write my college paper. - Iran

Will you help me?

no, write your own damn paper 17 85.00%
 
yes, I like to help and cookies 3 15.00%
 
Total:20
PDF said:

Mr Khan said:
- Is a nuclear Iran really a threat?

Probably not in the sense that they would actually nuke anyone. Even North Korea hasn't, and North Korea isn't a republic that has to worry about popular demand. The Iranian people are already fed up with being pariahs and have voted in the most moderate person the government would allow. The bigger trouble would be that nuclear Iran would inspire Saudi Arabia and possibly others to go nuclear in a regional arms race
 

 * Iran using the weapon is highly unlikely but the best counter argument to that is organizational theory on a state level.  There are domestic factors that do infact cause States to act irrational.  (1)

* Nuclear proliferation in the middle east is likely is the stance I took.  Heres a counter argument to it.  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/02/don_t_fear_a_nuclear_arms_race?wp_login_redirect=0                                                 (argues Egypt, Saudia Arabia, are incapable and Turkey is in NATO therefore uner USA nuclear emberalla)

  * Coming from a US point of view, does a nuclear Iran effect US interest  in the region enough it could be considered a threat to national security? (2)

- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?

Because while there's little danger of them actually using the nukes, doing so changes the bargaining position, because a nuclear-armed country, even if they don't have the strength to win wars otherwise, can do terrible damage such that you don't want to go to war with them, ensuring that Iran won't be messed with militarily outside of some total war scenario

* Does nuclear weapons bolster Iran ability to fight proxy war against US and US allies? and is this a big enough threat that Iran should be stopped at all cost? (3)

- Are economic sanctions effective?

It seems to be the case, given the election of Hassan Rouhani on a platform of detente with the West (not a major turnaround, mind, but one who is willing to engage unlike Ahmadinejad, whereby some of the sanctions can be eased)

* I make the same the point.  

Though so far economic sanctions have not stopped Iran and they did not stop North Korea.  An argument is made that sanctions hurt US chances at stopping them.  The sanctions only further encourage Iran to seek Nuclear weapons in order to gain bargaining leverage.  It also turns future generations of Iranians against the US.  The chance at diplomacy is now with the new president and the US shouldn't play hardball because its been proven ineffective. (4)

 
- Would military actions be effective?

Highly counterproductive, in my mind. While sanctioning has worked, actually striking would create a "rally around the flag" effect that would throw the more fanatical elements of the Iranian state back into power. It would be short-term gains for long-term headaches

* Attacks on Syria by Israel worked to thwart their nuclear ambitions, and after the first Gulf War Iraq did not restart their program either. (5)

 
- What other options are there for stopping Iran nuclear ambitions?

Beyond punishing them, there is an effort to effectively outmaneuver them. They claim that their program is purely for the purposes of peace, so offers have been made to have the Russians sell them fuel and build them reactors without Iran having to do any fuel enrichment.

* Forgot about the Russian thing,  That actually really helps.

 


I've already used most of your points in my paper but going back and fourth helps me work out kinks in the arguments.

1. Factors of irrationality are not present in the Iranian case at the moment, although that could change. Sometimes domestic leaders are "forced" to go to irrational war due to the demands of the populace, but again, Iranians have demonstrated a weariness of any sort of national struggle.

2. Probably not. Northeast Asia is also a critical area for US foreign policy, and yet we did not deem North Korea's acquisition of the bomb to be an unacceptable development. It's unacceptable up until the moment it happens, at which point it is a fait accompli.

3. Iran's ability to fight proxy wars is limited only to certain terrorist groups, the main of which is Hezbollah. Iran would have to demonstrate a willingness and capability to conduct larger-scale proxy wars than they have. They are not the Soviet Union.

4. Sanctions have to work in tandem with diplomacy, and so far Rouhani has demonstrated a willingness to come to the table that was not present in Ahmadinejad, and this is due to the electoral mandate he received, due in turn to the people's dislike for the sanctions. Sanctions failed in North Korea because it is an undemocratic society that is unconcerned with the people's suffering due to the sanctions. Compromised though they may be, Iran still has competitive elections and a leadership that must be accountable.

5. I had not considered this. I suppose it depends on how the attacks are interpreted, and how popular the country's nuclear program actually is compared to how much of that is just the leadership wanting to be important on the world stage. Would the people consider anti-nuclear strikes to be egregious interference from the West or would they quietly breathe a sigh of relief?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
the2real4mafol said:

1. - Is a nuclear Iran really a threat?

Not really, but for some reason Israel see it as a massive threat and often lobby congress through AIPAC. I think it's got nothing to do with us though and it's in Iran's sovereignty what they do in there own country

2.- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?

it's in their sovereignty to have nukes if they want, and it will like help them if they negotiate with Israel. Also, countries with nukes have not fought another state with nukes yet, so it could be a position of strength for Iran since Israel already has some. 

~http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/02/iran-nukes-deterrence

3.- Are economic sanctions effective?

All they have done is hurt ordinary Iranians, it has done little to the government who carry on as normal. Also, all sanctions have done is prevent the west from trading with Iran. Trade still carries on between Iran, China and it's neighbours. 

~http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013515121958344336.html

4. - Would military actions be effective?

No, when was military intervention by the US in the past 100 years ever effective? (except ww2 obviously) 

5. - What other options are there for stopping Iran nuclear ambitions?

Why should we when the USA has 1000's of nukes? It's like one rule for Iran and another for the USA.

~http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2103492/Iran-nuclear-weapons-Why-bomb.html

Sorry that i can't give you an answer for intervening on Iran or stopping them from having nuclear weapons but i just don't believe it would achieve anything, we have intervened in Iran enough as it is in the 20th century. I think you should look into a little history of Iran to help understand why Iran is at this point. There are key events like the CIA backed coup of 1953 and the 1979 revolution which help explain why they hate us.  

1. I personally don't believe they are a threat to national security.  However they are currently one of the largest supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.  They currently engage in proxy war like activities and will likely become more bold with a nuclear sheild.  A nuclear Iran could cause Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and Turkey to also pursue nuclear interests..

2. Iran is part of the NPT and getting nuclear weapons would be breaking international law.  It is a strong case that they have already violated the treaty.   This is a bit outside my paper.  Whether or not its their right to build one does not change my paper.  So arguing this wont do me much good, though it is a valid argument in a larger discussion.  I am asking this question because understanding their want for one can help lead to the solution to stop them.

- Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

3. A new moderate president has been elected proving that Iran wants a change in their government actions.  This can be contributed to the sanctions.   In effort to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons you can make the case that sanctions are really the only option or the best option if you belive military intervention wont work.  Its the best of bad choices. - This coming from a Iran must be stopped point of view.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

5. Once again for the sake of my paper this debate doesn't really help.  I know Iran history they have good reasons to be mad at the US. 



 

My Real Redneck friends


Look at this when you've given up hope.



           

PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/

China - Soviet conflict over the border.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

I said Iraq did not pursue nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. When they invaded Kuwait.  Back then they were pursuing nuclear weapons.  We were lied to about them pursuing nuclear weapons again.  In reality after we stopped them once it was enough to discourage them from restarting the program.  Giving leverage to the argument that military action against Iran could deter them.



 

My Real Redneck friends


Around the Network
PDF said:
the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/

China - Soviet conflict over the border.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

I said Iraq did not pursue nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. When they invaded Kuwait.  Back then they were pursuing nuclear weapons.  We were lied to about them pursuing nuclear weapons again.  In reality after we stopped them once it was enough to discourage them from restarting the program.  Giving leverage to the argument that military action against Iran could deter them.

The only thing is that Iran is a regional power, Iraq wasn't. So it could be quite dangerous to destabilise that country again, as it would massively impact the whole region. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/

China - Soviet conflict over the border.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

I said Iraq did not pursue nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. When they invaded Kuwait.  Back then they were pursuing nuclear weapons.  We were lied to about them pursuing nuclear weapons again.  In reality after we stopped them once it was enough to discourage them from restarting the program.  Giving leverage to the argument that military action against Iran could deter them.

The only thing is that Iran is a regional power, Iraq wasn't. So it could be quite dangerous to destabilise that country again, as it would massively impact the whole region. 

I don't think the country would destabalise over an attack. Its not like we are going to invade.  Air strikes with bunker buster bombs would be able to hit Iran nuclear facilities.  How far an attack like this would set them back is heavily debated.



 

My Real Redneck friends


PDF said:

So I am writing my paper and I thought I would let the intelligent people of vgchartz to help me with it.

 - Please use sources when making arguments if possible.  I can only really use your points if you can give me credible sources to back it up

 

Topic:  Stopping/reversing all proliferation problems from Iran.

Some talking points you can think about.

- Is a nuclear Iran really a threat?

- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?

- Are economic sanctions effective?

- Would military actions be effective?

- What other options are there for stopping Iran nuclear ambitions?

 

Any good really good points backed up by sources will be given a cookie.  You will get 2 cookies if you can provide a pro stopping Iran argument.

 

 

- Is a nuclear Iran really a threat?

Not in the covnentional sense, hower Iran as it's run is bound to have a revolution one day, which makes such arms capable of falling into the wrong hands.

 

- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?

Why wouldn't they?  It essentially means the west has to leave you alone.

- Are economic sanctions effective?

No.  I imagine this would help.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/why-the-iran-sanctions-dont-work-8301

 

- Would military actions be effective?

I mean, it depends how much, but eventually it would.  It'd take way more action then people could stomach though... and Iran actually has big defenses and a huge part of the country just rife for hiding shit.

- What other options are there for stopping Iran nuclear ambitions?

Aren't any really, they tried the appeasment route but Iran pretty much steadfastly said they couldn't be bribed.



the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/


Did you actually read your own source?  Because the actual facts in your source contradict the conclusions drawn from it...

outside which said story is laughably out of date.

There was an actual intellegence source which intentionally lied about nuclear weapons.  They believed him because they wanted to.

The US government didn't make anything up.



Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/


Did you actually read your own source?  Because the actual facts in your source contradict the conclusions drawn from it...

outside which said story is laughably out of date.

There was an actual intellegence source which intentionally lied about nuclear weapons.  They believed him because they wanted to.

The US government didn't make anything up.

If they didn't lie, how come they couldn't find any WMD's in Iraq? They were there for long enough 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018