If we never went to Iraq, how many of you think Iran would have had a nuclear weapon by now?

Question

The latest news from Iran about the supposed abandonment in 2003 of the effort to produce a Bomb — if even remotely accurate — presents somewhat of a dilemma for liberal Democrats.

Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes? But to advance that belief is also to concede that Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture (around say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.

After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war — aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region — might have been the elimination, for some time, of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

War is unpredictable and instead of "no blood for oil" (oil went from $20 something to $90 something a barrel after the war, enriching Iraq and the Arab Gulf region at our expense), perhaps the cry, post facto, should have been "no blood for the elimination of nukes."

In the meantime, expect a variety of rebuttals to this assurance that for 4 years the Iranians haven't gotten much closer to producing weapons grade materials.

Answer 1

The fact that they stopped working on the bomb in 2003 when we were right next door on two sides can't possibly be a coincidence.

Take care,
Dana

Answer 2

What a typical conservative spin. Bush has been beating the drums of war with Iran for the past 6 months, overlooking the fact that we are still in an Iraq that is far from stable. If Iran had continued their bomb making capabilities back in 2003 and had we not invaded Iraq for little or no reason, we would have had every reason plus the resources to invade Iran then. Plus the backing of most of the world, not the half a$$ed support we get from a few allies.

Answer 3

I don't really understand what makes you think Iran would think any differently about procuring nuclear weapons. They have always wanted them, but they haven't yet been able to develop / buy them (unless in secret, or course). Iraq hasn't changed this, to them they can just fund a little terroism on the side to blatantly wind the yanks up.

All Iraq did from their point of view was show The West what a kicking they can get from a country who's army basically gave up and is still giving them a run for their money.

As much as it is a scary prospect Iran having nukes, you can't blame them for trying. If America did attack Iran, they would need the full backing of Nato, which they would never get because of Russia and China's involvement.

If America invade Iran, i just hope that whoever is in charge of Britian at the time is strong enough and wise enough to realise the mistake.

Answer 4

Nice spin. Do you work for Fox News or was this their talking point today? I must have missed it. First, the debate is not about whether or not Iran has a nuclear program. The debate is about whether they are creating enriched plutonium which could be used for a bomb. It was the EU-3 that intervened in 2003 and caused Iran to back down from producing weapons grade plutonium. The US was not involved in those talks at all. The IAEA has consistently monitored Iran's program since and has always maintained that their program is for energy and not weapons. Having said that, does it concern me that they have a nuclear program at all. Of course it does. It concerns me to the point that I would like real progress there, not an Iraq like invasion that is going to lead to more chaos. Lets face it, at some point in time we are going to have to leave Iraq and they are going to have elections. I think you have to be delusional to believe that they are not going to elect someone worse (from our perspective) than Saddam as soon as we are out of there. When they do, they will ally with Iran and the two will be a major threat in the region.

PS. If it was G. Bush's top secret mission to invade Iraq to keep Iran from getting nucular (sic) weapons, why didn't he just invade Iran in the first place? Did he think it might be too difficult?

Answer 5

Why don't you look at my other question as my answer to this ridiculous ideal that Iran may get the BOMB in just a few more years.

Our military might (as you so eloquently put it) is a joke.

Really.

Why does it take a superpower military to pick on weak and defenseless nations like Iraq? Mmm?

And to find out that Iraq was NEVER a threat to the US to begin with?

The only security that the American government (and politicians worry about) isn't really ours--in case you haven't noticed.

BUT ISRAEL'S.

Gee...I wonder why! lol

Answer 6

The war in Iraq has strengthen Iran's position as a Middle Eastern power. If anything, this will only make it more likely that they get what they want in the future, including nukes.

There is no evidence that the war in Iraq affected Iran's nuclear ambitions or the lack thereof. What a surprise that you somehow interpret justification out of the thin air - just like you guys did with the supposed WMD's.

Typical short term thinking and claiming victory where there is none.

Answer 7

If anybody and his canine could have ICBMs then so might desire to Iran. Iran is that's very own Sovereign state and has each ideal to take care of itself from a close-by enemy state. additionally if Iran went forward and equipped the rockets to propel the warhead a minimum of the UN or NATO might comprehend they weren't development a static sort weapon. as quickly as that must be planted or hidden and untrackable in the process the air . yet thats to no longer say they does no longer or could no longer try this type of situation. incredibly anybody who has nukes so a techniques as i care is a capacity hungry conflict monger. humorous how the US replaced into never delivered earlier a conflict crimes courtroom after Hiroshima and Nagisaki, i understand conflict yet i don't understand the ought to obliterate the enemy. Why decimate an entire united states of america thats now valueless airborne dirt and dirt after a nuclear explosion. solid for planting corpses interior the floor and not lots else.

Answer 8

I suggested that on this forum and got bounced on.
It is also a possibility that Iran was developing the weapon to fight Iraq, which was their major enemy. After the USA invaded Iraq, Iran had no need to waste the money on weapon development.
Either way, the invasion of Iraq may have been the reason Iran dropped the project. It could have been just a lucky consequence or serendipity.

Answer 9

"Good question" I could not help but of wondered what Saddam H. response would have been. It is reasonable to believe it would have not caused American loss of lives or even impacted our economy and for the most part we would have still been in the driver seat sort of speak. But that kind of thinking is about as real as believing the abandonment of the 2003 production of a bomb. It always has been about money and it will always be except for now it is money we do not have. And if one would elect to take money out of the equation than it would be about creditability. Perhaps that is why we have accepted tacitly today's oil gouging.

Thank you for listening.

Answer 10

I think there are more chances that Iran would have used their nuclear capabilities and pushed the research more toward an energy creation scale as opposed to a nuclear weapon had we not invaded Iraq.

Now they need a reason for us not to put troops in their country, so as such of course they're going to look into nuclear weapons.

Answer 11

If GW had never given the axis of evil speech, Iran would have kept it's nuclear ambitions shelved. The actions of GW have only encouraged Iran to thumb their noses against us and start thinking again about obtaining a nuke.