Is Iran Rational?

All the news that's new and approved. We want your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Moderator: EG Members

Post Reply
User avatar
Killfile
Flexing spam muscles
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
Contact:

Is Iran Rational?

Post by Killfile »

Recent articles on the Iranian zinger about its "mentally ill" opposition has engendered a debate which seems to center around a single contention: does Iran constitute a rational actor?

A Question of Rationality

So is Iran rational? First, we need to establish why that matters. Some Conservatives I've encountered, put forth the following contention:
What separates legitimate nuclear powers from illegitimate nuclear powers is their rationality. If a nation lacks rationality, they lack a foreseen group of consequences. If they don't feel consequences for their actions, they are more dangerous than anything else.
The argument is sound - though the use of legitimate v illegitimate is wrong. Technically speaking, legitimate nuclear powers are those enumerated in the Non Proliferation Treaty, namely the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France (looks a lot like the Security Counsel doesn't it?). That said, irrational nuclear powers are a frightening thought because of what Rationality means in the sense of Game Theory.

A Little Background

In its most simplistic form, Game Theory stipulates that so called "Rational Actors" will always choose the actions which yields the most beneficial expected result. In the case of a mugging, given the choice of "your money or your life" a Rational Actor will hand you his wallet. In the case of Nuclear Deterrence, a Rational Actor won't launch, because launch ensured a counter strike and thus Mutually Assured Destruction. An Irrational actor can not be counted upon to make these rational decisions. He might decide to punch the mugger in the face or launch his missiles with the full knowledge that doing so means certain death for him and his nation.

Clearly rationality is very important for anyone in possession of nuclear weapons. The idea of a nuclear weapon in the hands of an irrational person or nation is about as appealing )on the international scale) as a coke-head loose in the mall with a pistol (on the personal scale). The contention then, that Iran is irrational, is a serious one. Clearly if Iran really can't be dealt with as a Rational Actor then the risk of them acquiring a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. With millions of innocent lives in the balance, the United States and the International Community can ill afford to let Iran get its hands on the awesome power of the atom.

A Second Look

But wait - what if Iran's not as crazy as the Bush administration and Fox News would have us believe?

In order to demonstrate Iranian rationality we'd need to see evidence of Iran having the capability to act irrationally and restraining itself. We'd also have to see sane explanations for recent Iranian actions that seem, at least on the surface, to be the decisions of a madman. Let's take this from the top.

A Model of Restraint

According to Ken Alibek, a former First Deputy Director of Biopreparat in the Soviet Union, one of the prides of the Soviet Bio-weapons program was a strain of Smallpox derived from a late and particularly nasty outbreak of the disease in India. Termed "India 1" the Soviet engineered strain contained all the hallmarks of a "doomsday weapon." Immune to all known Western vaccines, unresponsive to all known conventional treatments, air-born, and possessing a near 100% fatality rate - India 1 was seen by the Soviets as the ultimate deterant to an increasingly overwhelming Western nuclear advantage. India 1 was distributed to close allies of the Soviets, in large part to help hold the Soviet Bloc together militarily. Among its recipients -- Iran*.

To this day the United States and the West has been unable to acquire a sample of India 1. Its exact genetic makeup remains a closely guarded state secret of Russia and the other nations that possess it. The Soviets delivered, into the hands of Iran, a weaponized biologically engineered supervirus, possessed of a human vector and capable of inflicting severe and unthinkable human suffering.

Sounds like the kind of toy a deranged madman would want to get his hands on, doesn't it.

Many in the US ridicule Iran's President as being an apocalyptic nutjob - seeking the end of the world, the last great war between the West and Islam, and the destruction of Israel, the US, and anyone else with a Western liberal society. So the fact that Iran's had this stuff for some time, and yet has failed to use it raises an interesting question. If we accept the mockery of Iran's leadership as fact, why haven't they used India 1 already? Maybe, beneath all the bluster, all the rhetoric, all the vitriol - Iran really is a Rational Actor.

A Rational Explanation

If that's the case then, how do we explain all the tough talk and the confrontational language coming out of Tehran? If the leadership of Iran isn't completely insane, why are they provoking a confrontation with the United States? First, let's question some assumptions. Most in the US and the West in general regard the United States an an unassailable military power. After the defeat of the Soviet Union, the United States stood alone as the world's last remaining superpower.** From this we take the assumption that the US military is unbeatable, untouchable, and unassailable. But that's not the case - at least not anymore. The United States is stretched thin - Afghanistan requires our continued attention, as does the occupation of Iraq. Both present attractive bases from which to stage operations against Iran, but for the same reason are within range of Iran's own military. Iran's highly modern military is well equipped, well supplied, and retains strategic advantages due to the geography of the area.

That same geography, in combination with Iran's access to Russian missile technology, effectively neutralizes the US Naval advantage.

In other words, the willingness to stare down the United States at this point in history isn't so insane after all.

If a confrontation isn't tantamount to suicide anymore, than Iran can hope to gain something from it. In this case, the expected gain is quite obvious. Iran, in all likelihood, wants to establish nuclear parity with Israel. By drawing the US out now, while simultaneously developing its own nuclear technologies, Iran hopes to create a window wherein it can achieve it's own nuclear insurance policy while the United States is unable to act. Moreover, by making this public and forcing a confrontation with the US, Iran has effectively tied Israel's hands. An Israeli strike will draw the US into a conflict it can not afford, and thus Iran can count upon US pressure to keep Israel quiet.

Conclusions

So Ahmadinejad isn't crazy. He isn't irrational. He's smart, savvy, and he's one step ahead of the Bush administration. We have to decide if we're willing to let Iran into the Nuclear Club. If we're not, we need to decide (and in a hurry) what price we're willing to pay to keep them out. We need to make that decision honestly, openly, and rationally - untinged by the fear of a rogue nation possessed of nuclear weapons. Iran isn't that nightmare. It's a serious player; and the United States needs to start treating Ahmadinejad like it or risk loosing what foothold we have in the Middle East.

* On-line sources for this are lacking. Those interested can find a more through writeup in Biohazard, Mr Alibek's autobiography.

** A contradiction in terms. A superpower is a country that has the military capability to destroy any other superpower. QED...
Carthago delenda est!

--Killfile @ [Nephandus.com]
Image
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

What does the UN (and the US) have to benefit from Iran having nuclear weapons. What does they have to lose?

I gotta run, but I wish to expand on this later.
User avatar
Buzkashi
Devourer of Children
Posts: 5727
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:23 am
Location: Hiding from the flying beavers..

Post by Buzkashi »

I feel like if Iran gets there nukes then the west will have less of a vice grip on the middle easts balls.
User avatar
dronedevil
notanewb
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: listening to type o negative

Post by dronedevil »

I would have to say iran's president is ignorant of world stage just like a certain president *cough*. Face it this happens people choose ignorant leaders and fox blows it out of proportion since the rest of the middle east is talking about moving to nuclear power also.
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

Be careful when comparing the US's Presidential status to that of the Iranian President's status.

Iranian President is not commander in chief of their armed forces. While he was democratically elected, he has about as much power as the Speaker of the House of Representatives here in the states.
Libaax
Of The Abyss
Posts: 6444
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:21 am
Location: Hell if i know

Post by Libaax »

People tend to forget who is the true power in Iran.


Doesnt matter how ignorant the prez of Iran is, he doesnt rule Iran.
User avatar
dronedevil
notanewb
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: listening to type o negative

Post by dronedevil »

I've heard reports on the news networks minus fox that the supreme leader of iran has said that nuclear weapons are unethical and they werent going to use them but nuclear energy is a different matter especially on international news net interviewed a un employee and the official was told iran had enriched the uranium to 0.093% but it takes an enrichment of 90% to produce a nuke. Now why attack iran when they havent even enriched to the 10s??
reiketsu
imanewbie
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm

Post by reiketsu »

One could say "it's better hit them hard while they can't hit back, than wait to be hit hard and not have much time to get ready to hit back".

Iran is ruled by a monority of lunatics with a big ego and a twisted vision of their own beliefs (contraditory?), which belives that the whole world should be under their ruler.

What we can't forget is that Iran's President once, in his blog, posted a poll inquirying the population if US and UN by "attack Lebannon" would be trying to start the Third World War.

70% of the votes was for "no, they aren't".

That's my reason to say:

"One may try to beat this minority of lunatics who are opressing that people"

But we saw what happened to Iraq, then if that happen, it ought to be done in a right way. No peopel like to have it's country invaded, no matter the reason. Any move on that area shall be made with carefulness.
User avatar
Shisho
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:46 am

Post by Shisho »

There is a degree of insane zealotry present there, but from what I've read about things some of their officials have written they're by no means ignorant people. It's hard to disagree with some of the things I've read. It's really hard to say what their goal actually is with a nuclear weapon, so I'm not even sure if it can be classified as irrational just yet.

They're working with China on taking us over. ;)

It was a good read Kill.
User avatar
dronedevil
notanewb
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:15 pm
Location: listening to type o negative

Post by dronedevil »

I don't know how many of you watched ted koppel's inside iran program on the discovry chaannel a few months ago but what would we benefit from bombing pro american supporters in cities in iran?
User avatar
Shisho
Augh! Bright sky fire burn eyes!
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:46 am

Post by Shisho »

Yeah it's a tough spot for sure. If the US takes any shitty action that'll lose the support it has there, because a lot of the people over there hate their government more than we do. It might unify Iran against the US if the US does some stupid shit, which it typically tends to do.
Post Reply