@medicineman:
"In other words the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction won't apply to a nuclear Iran as their leadership won't be put off nuclear war by something as trifling as the deaths of thousands.  If they can take out as many infidels as possible then they'd go for it I think."
Many fanatics may not, but I think Irans current leaders still fear death and will only play suicide if they're sure they're gonna die.

@einstein:
Agreed with most of your thread. Except for the part where war is involved. I believe they chicken out if tension increases. Despite a lot of fanatics, Iran's leaders are weak fearful losers.

I also agree Europe should have acted quicker. But I'm happy they did so none the less. I just hope they don't stop the blockade until Iran stops its nuclear ambitions.

I agree, we should nuke the population centers and seize the oil for ourselves!

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-26/ahmadinejad-says-iran-open-to-fresh-talks-on-nuclear-program.html

Not going to call any predictions just yet, but... it's possible Iran may have just chickened out. 

Oh, I definitely recognize this could easily be the exact same thing... but Iran did just lose one of its major oil trade partners, and has seen its currency drop to rock-bottom prices.  I give it about a .1% shot at being legitimate... but considering international sanctions are starting to come against Iran, time is slowly coming on the side of the West, not Iran.

Saudi Arabia has already said it can increase production to offset European losses from ending trade with Iran.  So that argument's a non-starter.

As for India, although I definitely see articles that say India is willing to continue current purchases of Iranian oil, I find nothing indicating they would increase purchases of oil in response to the sanctions, as you seem to indicate.  Regardless, though, this is all still preliminary.  The next 180 days is the time for the US to pressure nations (including India, a nation with very close relations with the US, and which requires the US to legally supply nuclear material for its nuclear power program).

I'd also like the source on China.  As far as I can tell, China hasn't taken an official stance, except to say the sanctions are a bad idea (which is very different from saying they won't cooperate).

Even if you're correct, though, Iran is already seeing the economic pressure.  The rial has utterly collapsed in value over the past couple months (shortly following the announcements of sanctions by the US and EU), which means Iran has to pay more for any imports due to currency conversions.  This may affect the oil exchange, because the system which insulated oil markets from inter-currency instability (global use of a single currency for the oil market) would no longer protect the market... thus Iran should receive much smaller return than it would otherwise gain.

Add to this that Obama suddenly wants to expand US natural gas production (which could very easily be an effort to further push Iran out of the oil market by freeing up US consumption away from petroleum for use in the global market)... and yeah, Iran's role in the oil market is getting slowly marginalized.

And even if this fails... there's no non-military alternative, really.  Unless you've got some other idea... just sitting there without employing sanctions is easily the best way to ensure Iran builds a nuclear weapon.  I'm all ears on alternatives, Firewing.

> Firewing wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Saudi Arabia has already said it can increase production to offset European losses from ending trade with Iran.  So that argument's a non-starter.

Saudi Arabia sells for world market prices, Iran does not. Iranian oil is cheap and for the ruined european states a good choice. Nobody knows how the european states shall pay world market prices.

Iranian oil is cheap because Iranian oil isn't of the quality used by conventional oil assessments (light, sweet crude oil).  And I just checked... both Saudi Arabia and Iran produce sour crude oil, so I dunno where this is coming from.

> "As for India, although I definitely see articles that say India is willing to continue current purchases of Iranian oil, I find nothing indicating they would increase purchases of oil in response to the sanctions, as you seem to indicate.  Regardless, though, this is all still preliminary.  The next 180 days is the time for the US to pressure nations (including India, a nation with very close relations with the US, and which requires the US to legally supply nuclear material for its nuclear power program)."

The next 180 days will be full of propaganda in Iran. The regime will tighten their grip on the population.

No argument there.  But remember, Iran's influence abroad is waning... giving the US capability to try and get other actors on board with the sanctions.

"I'd also like the source on China.  As far as I can tell, China hasn't taken an official stance, except to say the sanctions are a bad idea (which is very different from saying they won't cooperate)."
There is no source, because China celebrates new year. But this may help:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/20/china-foreign-investment-tracker-markets-economy-glonal-2000-10-derek-scissors.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40361.pdf

As you can read China tried several investments in Iran, their hunger for energy has no limits.

Fair enough.  However, recognize that, in the next 180 days, China will essentially have to choose its relations between two of its most important trade relations.  Calling China now as an Iran supporter could definitely be shortsighted, especially with so much time for new energy development to offset Iran.  China may feel they have no choice but to support Iran now, but if the effort to isolate Iran is comprehensive, they may yet have a choice.

"Even if you're correct, though, Iran is already seeing the economic pressure.  The rial has utterly collapsed in value over the past couple months (shortly following the announcements of sanctions by the US and EU), which means Iran has to pay more for any imports due to currency conversions.  This may affect the oil exchange, because the system which insulated oil markets from inter-currency instability (global use of a single currency for the oil market) would no longer protect the market... thus Iran should receive much smaller return than it would otherwise gain."

The world needs oil and there will be ways to avoid the sanctions. Iran will sell oil and when the current economic crisis is over, the world demand for oil will hurt the euopean economy. For the US this may be good, but not for europe.

You're missing the point.  Market corrections assume things like whether illegal oil sales exist.  Even if they do sell oil, Iran will need to jump through hoops to sell it.  But yeah... if you're acknowledging here "the Iranian economy is taking a hit..." you're acknowledging that the sanctions are doing at least part of their job.  +1 sanctions

"Add to this that Obama suddenly wants to expand US natural gas production (which could very easily be an effort to further push Iran out of the oil market by freeing up US consumption away from petroleum for use in the global market)... and yeah, Iran's role in the oil market is getting slowly marginalized."

These plans would take years or even decades. We need solutions now.

Yeah... scratch that argument. 

"And even if this fails... there's no non-military alternative, really.  Unless you've got some other idea... just sitting there without employing sanctions is easily the best way to ensure Iran builds a nuclear weapon.  I'm all ears on alternatives, Firewing."

Let them build nuclear weapons. We live with North Korea and their nuclear weapons. As for Israel we shall not fear, they have nuclear weapons and thanks to german submarines retaliation capabilities. M. A. D. will do the rest.

Let them?

North Korea.  Israel.  Pakistan.  India.  Four countries which have violated the NPT by building nuclear weapons... and which we've had no success in enforcing the treaty against.  Long story short, the treaty is slowly losing its credibility... especially when the world brings its full attention to the issue, knows the nuclear development is occurring, and fails.  Trying and failing is one thing... but saying "screw it, you win, Iran" would utterly devastate the credibility of the NPT.  Result: Nations globally which were considering developing nuclear weapons would have relatively little inhibition against doing so, as long as they have a friend or two at the UN Security Council.

Specifically, there are a couple nations which would suddenly become scared shitless.  Remember, Iran's the only Shiite Islamic nation in a region dominated by Sunni Muslims, with a relationship being tenuous at best.  One could very easily see Saudi Arabia or Egypt feeling the need to obtain a nuclear weapon in response to an Iranian nuclear weapon.

MAD is an extremely unstable principle.  First of all, it makes that assumption of rationality, which has definitely been called into question (the 12th Iman thing).  Second, MAD doesn't work if one nation believes another nation will inevitably take a 1st strike.  Israel, more than about 90% of nations in the world, has been willing to cross the line and make unilateral military strikes against foreign facilities and people to achieve its objectives.  No restraint, no regret.  Israel is believed to have first strike capabilities (missiles able to fuel, launch, and hit their targets before the other side can launch their own weapons... the perfect weapon for taking out an adversary's nuclear force).  One enemy having first strike capability against you is the perfect case to justify launching one's own capabilities.

Next, use of nuclear weapons isn't the only scary scenario from an Iranian nuclear weapon.
So far, Pakistan and North Korea have both been examples of some of the worst case scenarios for nuclear weapons.  No, they haven't used them.  But they did sell secrets to unstable regimes (a Pakistani scientist sold to Iran and North Korea, North Korea sold to Syria).  Each time one nation develops a nuclear weapon, the risk increases that said nation will sell secrets or otherwise give aid to the nuclear program of another non-nuclear nation.  Each time, we end up recreating the exact same problem we are having right now.  And each time, we place our hopes of preventing nuclear war on the fact that the most recent guy who doesn't give a shit about his people will be nice with his nuclear weapons.  Even if MAD works for 9, 10, or 11 nations, once you start turning that number to 20, 30, or more... at some point, it's inevitable that one guy won't trust one other guy, and the system breaks down.

Then there's the Pakistan scenario.  One of the biggest fears regarding Pakistani nuclear weapons isn't focused on its direct use.  Pakistan has obviously had a ton of instability through the past decade.  One of the big worries, then, was that if Pakistan becomes unstable, it may not be able to secure its own weapons... a terrorist group may be able to hijack a nuclear weapon in the midst of any instability.  The result... terrorists get a nuclear weapon, deterrence doesn't work against terrorists... boom.  2-km wide crater in some major metropolitan area.

Not to mention... you're willing to vouch for every Iranian leader in history?  Even if you're right that Ahmadinejad is a rational individual... it would be speculation to assume that every leader following Ahmadinejad would be.  Basing policy on said speculation is just utterly irresponsible.

Finally, MAD only works when nations are actually talking to one another.  Iran and Israel are not on speaking terms.  Unless they're actually talking, accidental wars can always spring up.  Remember, it's only 25 years since the US and USSR almost went to nuclear war over... a weather balloon... the only thing which prevented the war being that the Russians called us first.  And considering Iran's military trade relationships... Iran would most likely be getting that same hardware from Russia for its own threat detection.

> Einstein wrote:

> And Zarf never surrender an argument to quickly. Around the world Natural Gas vehicles exist already, including Semi trucks. They have issues with storing a LOT of the gas, but in limited distance runs they are fine. Production of those vehicles could replace others without any significant issues.

The new idea of Obamas is a pie in the sky idea for leeching new cash funds via a new so called Green Initiative. Watch for more than just Soros who will be waiting in the wings for subsidies and payoffs here.

Oh, the vehicles definitely exist, I agree.  I was just conceding that it would take a while to actually get the production facilities up and running, from the research I was able to do... unless estimates give us at least a year or two until Iran has a nuclear weapon, or unless there's a way to very quickly build the entire supply chain for natural gas (not the demand side, the supply side)... it may not be quick enough, even if it is a good alternative.