Posted on Jul 15, 2015
Does having a Nuclear Agreement/Deal with Iran create more stability in the region? Does it work as a counter balance to Israel?
2.46K
24
20
5
5
0
Prior to this agreement there were only two countries in the ME that have nuclear capabilities. Even though the Nuclear Agreement with Iran states that the Iranian Nuclear program will not have enough uranium or plutonium to arm a weapon will this change the balance of power in the region and or the strength of the United States as viewed by the world?http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-up-to-speed/
Posted in these groups: 
Middle East
Middle East
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
CPT (Join to see)
It will create more instability. Iran will pour more money against Israel and Sunni and Shi'ite fighting will get worse. Iran will have more funds to throw into proxy fighters in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan. Turkey and Egypt will be required to gear up as well, even though they are both largely secular lead governments, they have strong Sunni Islamic leanings.
I think the Sunni and Israeli governments have realized that Obama has no intention of being the stabilizing force in the ME and the world.
When the US creates a power vacuum, Iran and SA will attempt to step up and fill it.
It will create more instability. Iran will pour more money against Israel and Sunni and Shi'ite fighting will get worse. Iran will have more funds to throw into proxy fighters in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan. Turkey and Egypt will be required to gear up as well, even though they are both largely secular lead governments, they have strong Sunni Islamic leanings.
I think the Sunni and Israeli governments have realized that Obama has no intention of being the stabilizing force in the ME and the world.
When the US creates a power vacuum, Iran and SA will attempt to step up and fill it.
(4)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
MSgt Mike Mikulski, one wonders if SA and Egypt will team up with Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Not odd at all, the Saudi peninsula is being invaded by Iranian backed rebels, in this case the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
This is bad news for the world. This will increase instability in the region and start a nuclear arms race among the ME nations, which will ultimately lead to a nuclear exchange. Deterrence does not work against religious fanatics that are willing to commit suicide attacks if it will enable them to kill their enemies.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT M Cannonie, ba silly stuff cause Afghanistan has uranium which is borders Iran, but we do not talk about. Now how about Ebola samples in the hands of a few spreading them around, that is poor men's nuke which is worse then nukes.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Why does this administration continually piss on our strongest ally in the region? IMO they didn't even take into consideration how this would affect Israel.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGM Steve Wettstein, or worse, they DID consider it and desired that effect. Obama has been chilly to hostile to Israel during his entire term in office.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
CPT (Join to see)
I do think it will create even more imbalance in the Middle East. Even if it is truly just a deal to allow Iran to develop reactors to create nuclear power, who is to say they won't secretly try to figure out a way to convert that into nuclear-powered weapons? Then everyone else will want reactors and create a vicious circle.
I do think it will create even more imbalance in the Middle East. Even if it is truly just a deal to allow Iran to develop reactors to create nuclear power, who is to say they won't secretly try to figure out a way to convert that into nuclear-powered weapons? Then everyone else will want reactors and create a vicious circle.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
There is already another thread on this discussion...
For all the naysayers, I challenge you: come up with a better solution that doesn't involve going to war with Iran. Everyone is quick to dis this plan, but I don't see any constructive alternate ideas...
At least it's an attempt to deal with the situation. Kind of like when GWB implemented Medicare Part D. Everyone screamed about how bad it was, but it was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and none of the naysayers made any alternate proposals.
The Status Quo is not a solution.
For all the naysayers, I challenge you: come up with a better solution that doesn't involve going to war with Iran. Everyone is quick to dis this plan, but I don't see any constructive alternate ideas...
At least it's an attempt to deal with the situation. Kind of like when GWB implemented Medicare Part D. Everyone screamed about how bad it was, but it was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and none of the naysayers made any alternate proposals.
The Status Quo is not a solution.
0
0
0
They would do it anyways, with the deal -we can check without warning to see if they're making nuclear weapon grade waste.
It seems like a political power move, the agreement makes it easy for us to DO something about it IF we need to, without even being directly threatened so they don't get the option to bullshit us like Kony has.
It seems like a political power move, the agreement makes it easy for us to DO something about it IF we need to, without even being directly threatened so they don't get the option to bullshit us like Kony has.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
What could we possible do? reintroduce the sanctions we just took off? with a 24 day delay of inspectors this is nothing more than a sham. Should have kept the sanctions in place to limit their economic capacity to build the infrastructure with hope that the rebellions would continue to increase inside Iran. Building a nuclear bomb is very expensive sactions were the best tool to limit their capability.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Charles Williams
1SG (Join to see) - Perhaps... but, the region is a mess, and Iran is the biggest fish in the region, so while I don't like it, I believe keeping your enemies closer might make sense. The region has been a mess for decades, if not more. I believe Saddam Hussein stabilized the region to an extent, as everyone focused on him. Removing him, set many second and third order effects into motion, and the region is more unstable than we have ever seen. Like dealing with the Soviets in the mid to late 80s... I believe we had to something with this. We shall see. SGT William Howell
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Charles Williams, sir, it seems to me that Iran is going to go ahead with their plans to develop nuclear weapons and the means of delivery no matter what we do, and that war will inevitably result. My question is whether it would be better to sort it out now or wait until they are stronger with sanctions lifted and when they are armed with nukes.
It seems to me that we are in a position today equivalent to the times when Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, and we face the same set of decisions.
It seems to me that we are in a position today equivalent to the times when Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, and we face the same set of decisions.
(0)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Capt Seid Waddell - Perhaps... But, there is a reason for dealing with them, vs. not, as the biggest power in the region. No easy answers or options there.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
COL Charles Williams, agreed, sir. The question to me is in how to deal with them. Since we have let the situation go on this long there are no good options left - only terrible and unacceptable options remain.
Just like the world we faced in the '30s, and today we appear to be making the same mistakes for the same human reasons - fear and hope over rationality and determination.
If we really find a nuclear armed Iran unacceptable for the sake of world peace, then legitimizing their nuclear program and cutting off sanctions is clearly not the way to achieve our ends.
And if we must fight them, it would be better to fight them now when they are weakened than wait until later when we will be weaker, we will have less international support, and they will be much stronger and armed with nukes and ICBMs, IMHO.
Just like the world we faced in the '30s, and today we appear to be making the same mistakes for the same human reasons - fear and hope over rationality and determination.
If we really find a nuclear armed Iran unacceptable for the sake of world peace, then legitimizing their nuclear program and cutting off sanctions is clearly not the way to achieve our ends.
And if we must fight them, it would be better to fight them now when they are weakened than wait until later when we will be weaker, we will have less international support, and they will be much stronger and armed with nukes and ICBMs, IMHO.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google