Military Review

We asked two military experts what would happen if Iran had a nuclear weapon.

28
This week, the Republicans in the US Senate sent a strange open letter to Iran’s leaders, informing them that any nuclear deal they made with President Obama would be blown apart by Congress. At first glance it may seem that Republicans want Iran to create a nuclear weapon. But it is not. With this letter, they make it clear that they do not want Obama to conclude a deal that will allow Iran to go dry. In addition, heating up passions and tensions is a good way to insure that he will not be able to do this.

But why is everyone so afraid of it? Can Iran really become the second North Korea? Will one day they be able to press the red button and strike at the very heart of Tel Aviv? Will they use this argument to intimidate us and take away our access to foreign oil? Or, despite all our fears, Iran will become a responsible member of the international community, albeit with a nuclear arsenal?

To find out what the world could be like if the Islamic Republic of Iran starts producing nuclear weapons, I asked two experts to clarify the situation: William H. Toby, a senior researcher at the Harvard Harvard Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, and Kamran Bohari, Business Advisor Middle East and South Asia in Stratfor.


The artists depicted two competing warriors, not two of our respected experts.


VICE: Before we get to the discussion of hypothetical scenarios, what is the likelihood that Iran could develop nuclear weapons?

William H. Toby: They took some steps that caused quite serious actions by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council, so I don’t think that this is possible. But things can change at any time.

Kamran Bohari: The main question is: do they want to have a nuclear weapon or want to have a geopolitical influence. What is more important for them? Maintaining influence in Syria. Cooperation with ISIS - a threat to get retaliatory harsh steps from the US? To be sure that the Shiites will hold power in Iraq? Hezbollah remains the dominant force in Lebanon? To be sure that the Houthis continue to dominate Yemen? These issues interest Iran more than nuclear weapons.

Well, well, suppose they got a weapon. What can happen?

Bohari: They would have developed the technology in a quiet way and would not have experienced it until the coast was cleared. Or do not experience it at all. If I were an Iranian, then why should I test technology, knowing that it would anger the international community? I'm already under sanctions. I am already negotiating to get rid of sanctions, and here I am doing something that can only aggravate sanctions. This would mean leveling all the concessions they have achieved, especially in negotiations with the United States over the past two years.

Toby: It completely changes the risk calculation for Iran. This will give Iran opportunities to destabilize the situation in the region. This may lead to an escalation of conflicts with their neighbors. They would know that Iran could go to extreme measures and this could cause, for example, a wave of terrorist attacks in the region.

Is Israel scared by this? Bohari: If you look at the size of Israel, you can understand that the existence of an enemy state that could potentially use nuclear weapons against Israel, for the latter, is equivalent to the end of the world, and they will not survive even a single blow. The fact is that countries such as Israel cannot afford to build several scenarios, whether the enemy will do something or not. Usually, the military-strategic doctrines of such countries are based only on the worst scenarios.

Tobi: They hear that people in Iran say that "Israel is a country for one bomb," and they fear that a slightly more extreme government than the current, with certain religious convictions, may find that the apocalypse is useful with some kind of their point of view. So think the people who are now in power in Israel, for them it is a question of existence. And if nuclear weapons appear in Israel, people will not want to live there. This weapon causes great destruction.

What happens to Israel in the event of a nuclear strike?

Toby: First of all, people discuss the political and economic effect. For the remaining people, this would mean the realization that they are no longer safe. One bomb will not destroy the whole country literally. A single nuclear strike cannot destroy Israel, but if the economic and political viability of the country is undermined, in essence, by eliminating a sense of security, Israel could fall apart as a state. This, of course, is difficult to imagine, but, unfortunately, there are people who want it. Not the bomb itself, but secondary effects, will have major consequences.

Bohari: For many years, the idea existed that "Israelis are going to attack Iranian nuclear facilities." Let's talk about the fact that this may entail: this operation requires a certain number of aircraft, fuel, the possibility of refueling in the air, the calculated flight trajectory, in order to penetrate God knows how many meters of concrete, under which Iranian nuclear facilities are buried, which spread over many kilometers. Not to mention the fact that Iran is physically located in 1200 km from Israel. If you make some simple calculations, you will see that there are certain physical and technical difficulties that must be taken into account before conclusions can be made about whether Israel can successfully strike at nuclear facilities.

Toby: I think the real threat will be that it will give Tehran the opportunity to be more active in supporting groups like Hezbollah, and fear of a response from the United States or Israel will decrease because nuclear weapons reduce the chances of action against forces im possessing it. Hezbollah is now present in Lebanon and Syria. From the point of view of the [non-nuclear] attack on Israel, the attack could begin from the north.

Bukhari: The United States will not go for it, because —and again, you can never be sure — but by negotiating with Iran, you are keeping Iran in the role of the “bad guy.” You do not want to attack him, which will result in sympathy for him all over the world. The Chinese and Russians will then refuse to negotiate. I am sure that the Europeans would be shocked as well.

Tobi: The Iranians will argue that for the past or so 300 years or so their borders have remained almost unchanged, and that Iran does not wage wars of conquest, and if we analyze history over the past few centuries, it turns out that in essence, such an assertion is true. But what Iran did was use its controlled groups or the authorities of other countries to spread its influence. Thus, in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the Iranian influence is very strong, and this is done at the expense of other countries in the region, namely the Sunni countries. Shia spread is a strategic goal of Iran, [although] probably not only that. I am sure that it is much more profitable for Tehran to have a friendly government in Baghdad than, for example, the government of Saddam, which waged a very complicated and long war against Iran.

Will it have an economic impact on other countries, such as the United States?

Bukhari: I think Iran itself will feel the greatest economic effect. This will lead to the introduction of new sanctions.

Tobi: The cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been going on for quite a while. If the cold war heats up, it can affect oil flows, because oil production or refining capacity in Saudi Arabia can be damaged, which can affect oil prices and our economic interests. We are not so sensitive to such a development of the situation, because now we produce enough oil in our country, and China is the largest buyer of Saudi oil. But global economic flows are so interdependent that a recession in China can affect the United States.

Does Iran know how to deal with nuclear weapons, or can they do something stupid?

Toby: If you put a nuclear weapon on board, the possibility of an accidental or unauthorized launch increases. There is a whole new country that owns nuclear weapons. You do not know what the start rules are for them, for example, there are special locks on the American systems that exclude unauthorized starting. Will Iranian weapons be equipped with such mechanisms? And even if they had them, what would their command and control structure look like? Who is responsible? Supreme leader? The president? Can one person give an order to use nuclear weapons?

Bukhari: You can miscalculate, but you are not going to intentionally do something stupid. [For example, when the militants of the Islamic state] burned the pilot, which was an act of barbarism, I am sure there was a certain logic behind it. It does not happen like this: “You know, I want to cut off my leg today. May I go and burn another Jordanian pilot. ” This is not a deliberate mistake. Behind the madness is the goal.

Is it possible for Iran to transfer nuclear warheads to such groups as Hezbollah or Hamas?
Toby: There are people who are worried about this, and there are people who object that this is unlikely, given that such weapons will lead to the trail of Iran, and the consequences will be so serious, up to a military operation against Iran, so I think refrain from such. But I think this is a hard question. We know that Iran has supported terrorist attacks on civilians. Can such a policy be continued in the form of nuclear transfers to terrorists? I dont know.

Bukhari: You can not find a nuclear weapon lying somewhere on the shelf, take it and go to use. It is not so easy. It is in a deactivated state, unless there is a situation in which the weapon must be brought to full combat readiness. We at Stratfor dealt with this issue in 2006. We have conducted a large study of chemical, biological and radiation weapons that could be at the disposal of non-state actors and, frankly, we came to the conclusion that taking into account the infrastructure necessary for such weapons, possession of such weapons by non-state actors is almost impossible. You need territory, resources, technical know-how and opportunities, so it’s just impossible. It’s like the horror story that the Taliban tribes in Pakistan can get their hands on a nuclear bomb, which sounds absolutely fantastic.

Can obtaining such weapons by Iran turn out in some not horrible way?

Bukhari: One cannot rule out the possibility of working with Iran to counter Deschamps and jihadists. The idea that the United States and Iran can share some ideas does not go beyond the bounds of decency. We did this in the past. The United States has a history of working with questionable actors. Washington worked with Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany. He worked with communist China, dealt with the Soviet Union. We overthrew the Taliban regime, cooperating with the Iranians, and also coordinated actions and collaborated on the issue of overthrowing the Saddam regime. These actions are not black, but not white.

Toby: I just don't know. I hope this can be avoided.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vice.com/ru/read/what-would-happen-if-iran-had-nuclear-weapons-772
28 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Reserve officer
    Reserve officer 25 March 2015 22: 01
    +19
    The presence of nuclear weapons, of course, significantly strengthens the sovereignty of the country. Before attacking, they think a hundred times. But, frankly, I really do not want the club of nuclear powers to expand. The degree of protection of a particular country is increasing, but the degree of general security in the world is decreasing.
    1. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 26 March 2015 01: 34
      +2
      Quote: Reserve officer
      РќРѕ, С З РµСЃС‚РЅРѕ РіРѕРІРѕСЂСЏ, РѕС З З РµРЅСЊ РЅРµ С ... РѕС З З РµС‚СЃСЏ, С З С‚РѕР ± С ‹РєР» СѓР ± СЏРґРµСЂРЅС ‹С ... держР° РІ СЂР ° СЃС € РёСЂСЏР» СЃСЏ.

      РћСЃРѕР ± енно РЅРµ С… РѕС З З РµС‚СЃСЏ, С З С‚РѕР ± С ‹РєР» СѓР ± СЏРґРµСЂРЅС ‹С ... держР° РІ СЂР ° СЃС € РёСЂСЏСЏР» РґСѓСЂР ° РєРѕРІ.

      RЇ RІRѕS,, RЅR ° RїSЂRoRјRμSЂ, RЅRo RєRѕRїRμR№RєRo RЅRμ RґR Rј ° F · F S,Rѕ ° C ‡ S,Rѕ RєR ° RєR ° SЏ-RЅRoR ± SѓRґSЊ RіRѕSЂSЏS ‡ ° F SЏ SѓRєSЂSЃRєR ° SЏ RіRѕR "RѕRІR ° РЅРµ жР° С ... РЅСѓР »Р ° Р ± С‹ РїРѕ Р ”РѕРЅР ± Р ° СЃСЃСѓ, есл Рё Р ± С ‹Р ± С‹ Р »Рѕ С З РµРј. RҐRѕSЂRѕS € of the PS, C ... C ‡ S,Rѕ RѕS,SЊ SЏRґSЂS'RЅS <Rμ F ± ± RѕRјR C <SЃRІRѕS PI 'RІSЂRμRјSЏ RґRѕRґSѓRјR ° F "RoSЃSЊ Sѓ RЅRoS ... RѕS,RѕR SЂR ° ± S,SЊ. R§S,Rѕ ± F C <F "of the PS RѕSЃRѕR ± RμRЅRЅRѕ SѓRґRoRІRoS,RμR" SЊRЅRѕ PI SЌRїRѕS ... Sѓ RІSЃRμRѕR C ± ‰ RμRіRѕ SЂR ° F · RІRѕSЂRѕRІS <RІR ° RЅRoSЏ, RїSЂRѕRґR ° RІR ° RЅRoSЏ Ryo RїSЂRѕRїRoRІR ° RЅRoSЏ.
      1. Talgat
        Talgat 26 March 2015 01: 56
        +1
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        I do not want the club of nuclear powers to expand due to fools


        In fact, unfortunately, the most dangerous and aggressive countries already have nuclear weapons — they are openly attacking everyone — we know that these are states. Israel. NATO countries - all aggressors

        But I somehow did not notice Iran in aggressive actions - we are neighbors in the Caspian - and you know - unlike Western countries, Iran does not bomb its neighbors (and not only because it is afraid of Russia) - it simply does not need this

        on the contrary - this is how I already posted - recently our presidents jointly held the grand opening of the Kazakhstan-Iran railway - we will increase the export of wheat many times, etc.

        At the Caspian summit, after that, the Iranians agreed with all their neighbors not to let the main arsonists here - amers

        In general, do not believe Amer propaganda! They are trying to inflate a soap bubble, allegedly the problem is that Iran will have nuclear weapons

        In fact, Iran is not going to create nuclear weapons, and even if it did, it does not threaten us, but nuclear weapons in the hands of uncontrollable abnormal aggressors - who attack and bomb everyone in a row - this is a serious problem - why there are strategic missile forces and strategic nuclear forces and nuclear containment is the only way to stop them
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 26 March 2015 01: 39
      0
      Quote: Stock Officer
      The presence of nuclear weapons, of course, significantly strengthens the sovereignty of the country. Before attacking, they think a hundred times. But, frankly, I really do not want the club of nuclear powers to expand. The degree of protection of a particular country is increasing, but the degree of general security in the world is decreasing.


      Cheap experts. In fact, they repeated the position of the American Congress. It's so convenient to talk about hypothetical weapons and "some" actions, especially without supporting evidence ...

      From the words of these two, it is clear that not only bombs, but also nuclear energy will not appear in Iran.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 26 March 2015 01: 50
      +1
      Yeah. Iran is the same world aggressor as Russia. Having the core at the ready is just strengthening sovereignty over the American aggressors. Or will someone give an example of whom Iran attacked without external aggression?
      1. Tajik arian
        Tajik arian 26 March 2015 02: 09
        +2
        EHH, grandfather of ayatollah ... how far are you from the bought but powerful shah ... if it weren’t for yours, well, a morally good revolution, then Iran would be the third superpower now. although you are already starting to gain momentum ... we'll see. In the meantime:

        1960-1970 not only pro-imperialist, but also imperialistic features appear in the Shah’s foreign policy, supported by the rapid growth of Iran’s military potential (military spending grew 1970 times during the 20s), plans to establish Iran’s control over the planet’s “kerosene barrel” - the Persian Gulf that would put the world capitalist economy in a certain dependence on Tehran. Having created the world's most powerful hovercraft fleet, the most advanced air defense missile system in the third world, surpassing all NATO members except the United States in the air force and helicopter fleet, Iran sought overwhelming control of the world's most important oil transportation artery - the Strait of Hormuz. Seeking to be present on the other side of the Strait, the Shah intervened in the internal conflict in Oman and sent his troops against the partisan movement in this Sultanate. Tehran has developed tense relations with other Arab states. The Shah made great efforts to maintain friendly relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan, as he feared the separatism of the Baloch.
        The Shah crowns Empress Farah at the coronation ceremony in 1967.

        On December 1, 1971, after the withdrawal of British troops from the Persian Gulf and the formation of the United Arab Emirates, Iranian troops occupied three islands in the Strait of Hormuz: Abu Musa, Tombe Bozorg and Tombe Kuchek under the pretext that these islands were Iranian territory before the arrival of the British (English Iranian negotiations and protests of some Arab countries on this issue continued until October 1972).

        Shah supported the monarchy of the Persian Gulf. During the civil war in Yemen (1962 - 1970), Iran supported the monarchists. A similar policy was pursued in Oman, where an expeditionary force was sent in 1973, which played an important role in suppressing the anti-monarchist guerrilla movement there in the province of Dofar.

        The Shah maintained friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Mohammed Reza visited the USSR three times in 1956, 1965 and 1972.

        In 1963, 1966 and 1972, agreements were signed between the USSR and Iran on cooperation in the economic and technical sphere, the construction of various industrial facilities, etc.

        Mohammed Reza was the first Muslim leader to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, which used the radical Muslim clergy to criticize the Shah as "an accomplice in Zionist politics."

        Sufficiently tense relations continued with Iraq. In 1975, an Algerian agreement was signed with Saddam Hussein. The conflict, however, turned into an open war only after the overthrow of the Shah, when the revolution and repression weakened the Iranian army so much that Saddam Hussein decided to attack Iran.
  2. BARKAS
    BARKAS 25 March 2015 22: 03
    +3
    The United States in the first place in the number of leaks of military nuclear technology is not Iran, no one else can compare with them!
    1. bmv04636
      bmv04636 25 March 2015 22: 25
      0
      and not only leaks "light elves" most of all lost their vigorous poop
      And possession of a vigorous bomb itself disciplines and increases responsibility. Jews will not let lie.
      1. jktu66
        jktu66 25 March 2015 22: 41
        +2
        And possession of a vigorous bomb itself disciplines and increases responsibility.
        Well, not at all like that. Mattress something unbelted smile
  3. tootsy
    tootsy 25 March 2015 22: 05
    +5
    Restrictions on the proliferation of weapons have existed in all ages. Only this had a temporary character. Remember crossbows, then gunpowder and guns, then the whites did not give firearms to the Indians and blacks. In the end, everyone got it. Who is earlier, who is later. The problem must be solved differently.
  4. Revolver
    Revolver 25 March 2015 22: 20
    +2
    Either the translation is of poor quality, or considerable pieces of the original are not included, but most likely both. The ends do not meet.
    1. Dreamwriter
      Dreamwriter 26 March 2015 00: 46
      +1
      I agree - some very crooked interview, often with a lot of grammatical errors.
  5. Ibrahim Botashev
    Ibrahim Botashev 25 March 2015 22: 29
    +1
    If Iran had nuclear weapons, then Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar would go to pray for real, having formed a US company.
    1. arane
      arane 25 March 2015 22: 45
      +2
      Nothing like that! The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention! At the same time, there will be more than enough people wishing to participate in this! Modern nuclear weapons have passed a rather long period of evolution of both the explosive device itself and the means of its carriers!
      Well, Iran created a vigorous bomb from scratch! So what? It will be a hefty, heavy fool, which will be extremely difficult to deliver to the destination (goal)! It’s almost as if someone had invented the food and decided to threaten the modern US army! Both there and there firearms! In short, Iraq has already been smashed due to a non-existent WMD, and Iran will be smashed even faster and by decision of the UN Security Council! The spread of nuclear weapons by the powers that be is not necessary, and it is really dangerous!
      1. Old old
        Old old 26 March 2015 00: 29
        0
        Nothing like that! The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention! ... and Iran will be smashed even faster by the decision of the UN Security Council!

        DPRK talking to you about something? No no - no intervention. Nuclear warrantor from occupation. And the issue of delivery vehicles is not so important.
        1. arane
          arane 26 March 2015 10: 35
          +1
          He speaks! DPRK is actually a product of the USSR! And they also got technology from the USSR! And the DPRK had time to develop them! The DPRK now actually can not threaten the United States (I mean nuclear weapons)! Everything rests on the means of efficient delivery. But their main allies in the region are quite real! South Korea and Japan may well snap off!

          Geographically, the DPRK is located successfully! It has nuclear weapons capable of destroying neighboring states, and itself at the same time. It has a fairly strong and numerous army, although technologically behind! Economy also does not shine! There is no fountain with raw materials. She does not create or support terrorists. It’s easier to endure and talk to her than to try to solve something by armed means!

          And comparing the DPRK with Iran is not correct! These are completely different states in general in everything!
          The DPRK has long had nuclear weapons, but Iran has not! The DPRK can guarantee control over nuclear weapons (as well as over everything), Iran is not! North Korea does not seek to become such a regional "manager", Iran is seeking!
          1. Egor65g
            Egor65g 26 March 2015 11: 31
            +1
            And in addition to the above, Iran is an Islamic theocracy.
            At any time, the Ayatollah can appeal to the faithful to ghazavatu- the "sacred duty" of every Muslim. Should such people be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? The question is rhetorical.
      2. Days
        Days 26 March 2015 00: 32
        +1
        Quote: arane
        Nothing like that! The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention!


        Yeah, someone Yeltsin’s associates also thought about the USA like that: if we don’t curry favor, the USA will leave us alone. Yeah, rolled out his lip.

        Iraq would have been smashed in any case, just as the deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia would also have followed in any case, Crimea is just an excuse.
        1. arane
          arane 26 March 2015 10: 43
          +1
          Quote: Dagen
          Quote: arane
          Nothing like that! The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention!


          Yeah, someone Yeltsin’s associates also thought about the USA like that: if we don’t curry favor, the USA will leave us alone. Yeah, rolled out his lip.

          Iraq would have been smashed in any case, just as the deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia would also have followed in any case, Crimea is just an excuse.


          Dear, read carefully! What does Yeltsin have to do with it now! Well, figs with him!
          Regarding Iraq, of course, they would have been smashed anyway! With or without pretext! But .... the USA smashed Iraq without the sanction of the UN Security Council, that is, in fact, they out of the blue just invaded a foreign country and captured it! At the same time, the West did not say anything against! Conclusion: take international law and shove it in ...... Black Monkey!
          1. Days
            Days 27 March 2015 19: 11
            0
            Well, that is, do you agree that military intervention will be without the creation of nuclear weapons, if it hits our Western partners in the head?

            Surely, if Iran has tactical nuclear weapons that Iran will be ready to use in case of intervention, then the United States will probably think twice before exposing its troops to nuclear explosions, and even against the UN resolution.
      3. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 26 March 2015 01: 41
        +1
        Quote: arane
        RЎRѕR · RґR ° RЅRoRμ RЇRћ SЃ RЅSѓR "SЏ RЅRoS ‡ RμRіRѕ PI SЃRѕRІSЂRμRјRμRЅRЅS <C ... SѓSЃR" RѕRІRoSЏS ... P SЂR ° RЅSѓ RЅRμ RґR ° SЃS,, RєSЂRѕRјRμ SЃRμSЂSЊRμR RЅS · <C ... RїSЂRѕR ± P "PI RμRј RІRoRґRμ RІRѕRμRЅRЅRѕR№ RoRЅS, РµСЂРІРµРЅС † РёРё! РџСЂРё этом желР° СЋС ‰ РёС… РІ этом РїРѕСѓС ‡ Р ° ствовР° ть Р ± удет С ... оть отР± Р ° РІ!

        Р СЂР ° Рє уже СЂР ° Р · несли РёР · Р · Р ° РЅРµСЃСѓС ‰ РµСЃС‚РІСѓСЋС ‰ его РћРњРџ, Р ° R СЂР ° РЅ СЂР ° Р · РЅРµСЃСѓС ‚РµС ‰ Рµ Р ± С‹ стрее Рё РїРѕ СЂРµС € ению СЃРѕРІР ± еР· Р ° РћРћРќ


        Yes, I have a feeling that our "potential partners" will smash Iran regardless of whether it makes a bomb or not.

        In my opinion, Iran has two paths - either continue to blame the United States and prepare for "democratization" with the help of American cruise missiles, or bend under the United States and wait for the Orange (or some other) revolution. R РµС ‰ С 'неиР· вестно, СЗ С‚Рѕ РґР »СЏ стрР° РЅС‹ стрР° С € нее - РИРѕР№РЅР ° СЃ РЎРЁРђ РёР »РёРЂРёРёРёРёР ° РґР ° РЅСЃРєР ° СЏ.
        1. Tajik arian
          Tajik arian 26 March 2015 02: 23
          -4
          The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention!

          most likely they will come with "democratic humanitarian bombing" to a weak Russia than to a strong Iran. think with your head.
          1. arane
            arane 26 March 2015 10: 51
            +2
            [quote = tajik arian]The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention!

            most likely they will come with "democratic humanitarian bombing" to a weak Russia than to a strong Iran. think with your head. [/

            What do you think I think? Anyway....
            If they could, they would already bomb us humanitarianly, and save us from the terrible authoritarian regime!

            Although, your statement is more likely true than not! Really! Only here is bad luck! Russia is not weak enough, and Iran is not strong enough! Why are you writing this?
            1. Tajik arian
              Tajik arian 26 March 2015 13: 24
              -2
              I meant that Russia is weaker than Iran in all respects. So why should they attack Iran, not Russia?
              1. Egor65g
                Egor65g 26 March 2015 13: 29
                0
                All armaments of Iran are the merit of great Russia.
                1. Tajik arian
                  Tajik arian 27 March 2015 11: 50
                  0
                  Of course weaker than Iran, I certainly joked. But Iran is a powerful state. Only modern weapons are only being created, but in everything else (science, culture, medetsina) it does not recede from the European states
                  1. Egor65g
                    Egor65g 27 March 2015 11: 54
                    0
                    Nonsense is an ordinary Islamic theocracy. No independent achievements.
              2. arane
                arane 26 March 2015 15: 51
                +4
                [quote = tajik arian] I meant that Russia is weaker than Iran in all respects. So why should they attack Iran, and not Russia? [/

                I will write the obvious. We will not argue over what parameters and who is stronger, Russia or Iran!
                Russia has a powerful and developed nuclear component, and in the event of a threat to statehood, it will be used! And there will be no winners. Most likely civilization will come to an end after a while! If not for this, they would not have spoken to us at all, but had long been bombed by the whole West! Selflessly and enthusiastically!
                Iran does not have nuclear weapons! But so that it does not appear in the form that would constitute a threat to the hegemony of the United States and its allies, Iran would be riddled to the fullest!

                Understand that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be local! If someone even fights tactics in the confrontation of nuclear powers, then the answer will be maximal and massive, and mutual! And this is the apocalypse! And Bruce Willis nifiga will not save anyone!
                1. Revolver
                  Revolver 26 March 2015 17: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: arane
                  Understand that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be local! If someone even fights tactics in the confrontation of nuclear powers, then the answer will be maximal and massive, and mutual!

                  And it depends on who is with whom. For example, if turkeys begin to butt with packs (well, or packs start - it doesn’t matter), it will remain within the borders of Hindustan, and there will not be enough joint power for a nuclear winter. Israel will hit in any Arab-Islamic country and will not receive an answer, and if it does, it will be non-nuclear, because there is nothing.
                  And even in the version of Russia vs. China or West vs. China will not be a global catastrophe, it’s just that China will cease to exist as a nation, and the second participant will be very hurt, and besides, it will remain at the mercy of the third non-participant, left untouched and, most importantly, with untouched arsenals. Everyone, primarily China, understands this, and therefore China does not pursue parity, preferring to invest in another.
                  But if, God forbid, Russia vs. Russia begins The West then ends badly for everyone, even for Antarctic penguins. Although they are familiar to winter, they are unlikely to survive a nuclear winter.
                  1. Tajik arian
                    Tajik arian 27 March 2015 11: 52
                    -1
                    Exactly. Only China as a nation will not disappear! Do not dumb nonsense!
                2. Tajik arian
                  Tajik arian 27 March 2015 11: 48
                  -1
                  About the apocalypse - this is nonsense! Believe me. If the uss and Russia will fight yao, then a mutual attack will lead to powerful destruction, but not the apocalypse. Do you understand how many countries in the world? How vast is the world?
      4. Tajik arian
        Tajik arian 26 March 2015 02: 19
        -1
        The creation of nuclear weapons from scratch will not give Iran anything in modern conditions, except for serious problems in the form of military intervention!

        they are more likely to come with "democratic humanitarian bombing" to Russia than to strong Iran. think with your head.
      5. The comment was deleted.
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 26 March 2015 00: 56
      +1
      Quote: Ibragim Botashev
      If Iran had nuclear weapons, then Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar
      they will smash Iran to pieces and be right. And for such a thing, they will even forget for some time (well, or pretend) about disagreements among themselves.
      Iran simply cannot physically produce dozens of warheads, and units of its enemies will not stop, but will only anger. And Iran’s delivery systems are tight, or rather, without them.
      The Hiroshima bomb weighed about 4t, the Persians are unlikely to be more compact, and they don’t have missiles of such carrying capacity, at least not yet and are not expected in the near future. F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat, in principle, can lift such a weight, but only on the external suspension. If the Persians will be able to add it so that it does not flock to the ground, tailwind. But even with a fair wind, they will not have enough range to Israel. And all the other countries listed above (well, except Qatar) are too large to be knocked out with one bomb, or even a couple of three.
      1. Tajik arian
        Tajik arian 26 March 2015 02: 26
        -1
        )) Iran will send Turkey with Qatar in 4 weeks to the Stone Age! not to mention Israel and the Saudi scum! these countries are not rivals to Iran!
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 26 March 2015 04: 07
          +2
          Quote: tajik arian
          )) Iran will send Turkey with Qatar in 4 weeks to the Stone Age! not to mention Israel and the Saudi scum! these countries are not rivals to Iran!

          Justify. Especially in relation to Turkey in the light of Article 5 NATO.
          1. Tajik arian
            Tajik arian 26 March 2015 13: 34
            0
            Iran has the top best army in the world! The first in terms of number of servicemen and reservists! Second in rocket science and missile arsenal! Plus it produces its first modern models of tanks, aircraft, naval ships, artillery and a nuclear bomb (they already have). That justified!
            1. Egor65g
              Egor65g 26 March 2015 13: 39
              +1
              Where does this data come from? Dreamed of the Aryan chIlavek? wassat
              1. arane
                arane 26 March 2015 16: 09
                +2
                [quote = Egor65G] Where does this data come from? Dreamed of the Aryan chIlavek? wassat[/

                Now explain to me, stupid, why does everyone who thinks that their nation is the greatest begin to rank themselves among the Aryans? Germans, Ukrainians, now Tajiks are damn!
                And where is the logical explanation?

                I believe that the only and direct descendants of the Aryans are the Armenians! It was from the Aryans that the abbreviated "Ara" came from!
                For the most impressionable, this is a joke!
                1. Egor65g
                  Egor65g 26 March 2015 16: 19
                  +1
                  I hardly communicated with such a contingent, and, in general, I relate to this issue. cool. For me, all people are the same. And their behavior is based on mentality and upbringing.
                  And this Aryan chilavek is as simple as three kopecks. Education, industry, health care in Tajikistan, after the "departure" of the Russian brother was destroyed. The entire able-bodied population is in Russia, in earnings. All that remains is Aryan, great power show off smile
              2. Tajik arian
                Tajik arian 27 March 2015 11: 52
                -1
                I am an Arian! What's bad about it?
                1. Egor65g
                  Egor65g 27 March 2015 11: 57
                  +1
                  Absolutely nothing wrong smile
                  1. Tajik arian
                    Tajik arian 27 March 2015 15: 43
                    0
                    Then a plus to you bully
            2. arane
              arane 26 March 2015 16: 04
              +2
              [quote = tajik arian] Iran has the top best army in the world! The first in terms of number of servicemen and reservists! Second in rocket science and missile arsenal! Plus it produces its first modern models of tanks, aircraft, naval ships, artillery and a nuclear bomb (they already have). That justified! [/

              Oh how! Plus to you! And Ukraine has the strongest army on the continent!
              You don't know much just about Russia! We are the first in intergalactic flights, we have a powerful star empire of hundreds of planets! And in the reserves we have an army of clones! The "death star" with Darth Putin at the head is in the earth's orbit!
              I ALSO JUSTIFIED!
              1. Tajik arian
                Tajik arian 27 March 2015 11: 55
                0
                )))) burn citizen
  6. Dilshat
    Dilshat 25 March 2015 22: 39
    +1
    We have done this in the past. The United States has a history of working with dubious entities. Washington worked with Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany. He worked with communist China, dealt with Soviet Union-who is the dubious subject here? Not Bohari, but Bukhara most likely.
  7. act
    act 25 March 2015 22: 48
    +4
    If grandma ... she would be grandfather
  8. Egor65g
    Egor65g 25 March 2015 23: 03
    0
    Quote: agis
    If grandma ... she would be grandfather

    Most credited koment smile
  9. Dry_T-50
    Dry_T-50 25 March 2015 23: 31
    +3
    The article has many bukaf, because many facts do not agree.
    In general, the United States plays with fire. While in Iran and the DPRK are adequate (more or less in the second country) leaders. But what happens if thugs come to power worse than the current North Korean ones?
  10. Old old
    Old old 26 March 2015 00: 42
    +1
    Bad Iran wants to attack (and probably has the opportunity?) On good Israel with nuclear weapons and therefore it must be crushed with sanctions. And Israel CANNOT attack Iran, as it is very far away ("Not to mention the fact that Iran is physically 1200 km from Israel" -Bohari). Is it much closer from Iran to Israel than from Israel to Iran?
    And again, the nuclear (nuclear weapons) program of Israel is hushed up. Someone can create nuclear weapons, someone not?
  11. grig
    grig 26 March 2015 03: 52
    0
    The Yankees are against the proliferation of nuclear weapons to fuel minor conflicts around the world. This is beneficial to them.
  12. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 26 March 2015 04: 21
    0
    Red button again! The red button by all standards is STOP!