Is Iran a threat that we should deal with?

Question

Iran is supplying terrorists will traiing, missles, and small arms, so should we as a country deal with them?

Answer 1

You are right. Iran is a threat that must be dealt with.

Iran may have plans to expand its power in the Middle East - to have a Shiite caliphate from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is unlikely, however, that Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel to "wipe it from the map" (which Iranian President Ahmadi-nejad said paraphrasing Ayatollah Khomenei). Iran needs the bomb to insure that no country will challenge it.

With the "industrial scale" enrichment of uranium using at least 3,000 centrifuges, Iran could have enough material for several atomic warheads.

In defiance of the UNSC and the IAEA, Iran not only continues to enrich uranium but has gone from 3 arrays of 164 (P-1 slow) centrifuges to 18 arrays of (P-2 fast) centrifuges (=2952) in its underground facilty at Natantz. The facility was built to hold up to 60,000 centrifuges.

ISIS was skeptical of the Natanz FEP (fuel enrichment plant) being fully operational with 3,000 centrifuges by May 2007 to produce HEU which could be combined with the plutonium production at the "heavy water" facility at Arak and make a nuclear weapon.

Iran's President Mahmoud Admadi-Nejad announced on Monday, April 9, 2007 that the Natantz FEP plant had indeed installed the 3,000 centrifuges as was enriching uranium on an "industrial scale". This is in defiance of the UNSC expanded sanctions imposed on March 24, 2007. Leading Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, indicated that Iran would quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty rather than comply with the demands of the IAEA. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani announced, "The Islamic republic of Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges and begun feeding them with uranium hexafluoride gas."

Furthermore, in defiance of the UNSC travel ban, Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general, made a 6-day trip to Russian boasted his trip showed "the ineffectiveness of the resolution."
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4045
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6538957.stm

In the enrichment process, uranium hexafluoride gas is pumped into centrifuges, which spin and purify the gas. Enriched to a low degree, the result is fuel for a reactor, but to a high degree it creates the material for a nuclear warhead. The aim of enrichment is to increase the proportion of fissile uranium-235 atoms within uranium. The slightly denser isotope u-238 (see depleted uranium) is separate from the lighter u-235 (fissile uranium).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/nuclear_fuel/html/enrichment.stm

The head of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Organization, Gholam-Reza Aghazadeh, explains it thus:
The simple way is to inject 0.7% (uranium) and obtain 3.5%, right? Now, if you take this 3.5% and inject it again into the chain (of centrifuges), the result will be 20%. If you inject the 20% back into the chain, the result will be 60%. If you inject this 60%, the result will be 90%.
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1120

On Tuesday, April 10, 2007 Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Reza Aqazadeh said that "industrial scale enrichment" means Iran is proceeding to install and operate the complete array of 50,000 centrifuges for maximum capacity of uranium enrichment.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0704102262112737.htm

Iran's key nuclear sites.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm

The Isfahan plant is above ground, but Natanz is more than 50ft below and would require either a tactical nuclear missile or a conventional bunker-buster bomb to destroy it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1753223,00.html.

Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight as electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. Iran will have that capability – at least theoretically – as soon as it has one nuclear bomb ready to arm such a missile
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki attended a regional conference on Iraq in Egypt on Thursday. After taking his seat across the table from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he excused himself from the table saying that the violinist was inapropriately dressed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/04/iraq/main2760338.shtml

The United Nations has imposed two sets of sanctions on Iran since December over its refusal to freeze enrichment -- a process that can be used to make atomic warheads. Ali Larijani made it clear to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Ankara that Iran had no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050300625.html
.
.

Answer 2

Of course Iran is a threat that we should deal with. If you mean, however, a country that we should overthrow its dictatorial government, no, not yet anyhow. Iran is persistent in defying UN and WAE restrictions in regards to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, of which they are a signatory country. I believe that Iran supports the Shi'ite militants in Iraq and are responsible for a good deal of the insurgent violence there, and that is a threat that needs to be dealt with in Iraq (Just as we had to deal with Iraqi combatants in Kuwait in Desert Storm). When Iraq is secure from the external influences, the radical Islamic extremists are afraid that the Iraqi people will learn to live together in a free society regardless of their Islamic branch (Shi'ite, Sunni or Kurd) and that would be a major blow to the radicals plans to have a single Islamic state that could eliminate the infidels (that's us non-Islamic folks) from the face of the earth (starting with the Jews).

Answer 3

Iran scares the crap out of me. It is being run by a lunatic that seems to really want to get in a fight with either the US or Israel or both and to think they are on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. Anyone that isn't frightened just isn't listening to that crazy lunatic they have for a president.

Answer 4

IMHO It's a question of what they see is in their best interest.
If the costs of supplying the insurgency are so high that they have to invest large portions of their oil money, then their financiers, (yes they have them) will advise them to a moderate road.
So yes will we deal with them, one way or another.
The choice is theirs, and france's.

Answer 5

I'm not so sure Iran is a threat. I do think they are saber rattlers and bluffers. Should we "deal" with them? I'd much prefer that we just ignore them.

Answer 6

They are not a dangerous as everyone thinks they are the Iranian President is just trying to make his country better not start an all out war with everyone.

Answer 7

no they aren't a threat at the moment

the people attacking soldiers are being funded by saudi arabia.
the people we're trying to stop from being killed (because they can't fight back) are being aided by iran

Answer 8

Of Course

Answer 9

Dubya can´t even deal with Iraq.

Answer 10

This sounds like World War III to me, but if they are attacking us and helping our enemies, we should do something about it.