"Our Finger is always on the trigger"

[John Galt]

Going nuclear is the rational choice from the perspective of smaller nations, as it seems like those are the only nations that the greater powers respect. Case in point: India and Pakistan.

[Arcesious]

Rationality is a term subject to misuse by the irrational. (The Iranian government thinkign they're doing the logical thing, but actually not)

[mur'phon]

Untill and unless their "bluff" is called.

 

If you by calling their bluff mean massive coalition invasion, sure, but that's a huge loose/loose scenario for all involved.

 

John Galt: Agreed

 

Arc: mind explaining why it's irrational? Their logic seems sound, if nasty, to me.

[Totenkopf]

One doesn't have to invade with a huge army to call a bluff, however. When it comes to jingoism and sabber rattling, the results are never good for at least someone, if not all.

 

Arc: logic is a process, not an end.

[Arcesious]

Logic is a process usually followed by a conclusion formed by a judgement. These judgements are subject to bias; and, in fact, creating a conclusion requires 'bias' towards beleif and analysis of something's revelence or value. In the case of the Iranian goverment, I'd say that their negotiation tactics are a flawed conclusion created by a narrow minded, biased judgement, thus, irrational. (However, it is impossible for any human being to avoid being biased in some way.)

 

They were not irrational in wanting to make sure Isreal leaves them alone, however. They were irrational in threatening the rest of the world with nukes.

[mur'phon]

Tot: The only bluff to call is their ability to strike the U.S directly, and the strenght of their army. Tell me, how will they be harmed by someone calling their bluff?

 

Arc: The nuclear threatening did improve their standing in much of their back yard, which, for a shi'ite country on "continent" sunni is a huge benefit. It also works/ed fairly well to fire up their people. A final benefit is that the carrots offered it if it stops just get bigger and sweeter. Besides, how likely is it that they'll be harmed, with the security counsil playing "my veto is bigger than yours", and nothing else nasty in the pipeline, my guess is that they'll come out ahead.

[Totenkopf]

Well, I think the kind of hurt you're looking for is forcing someone's hand*, not merely calling their bluff. If they are truly bluffing, most of the hurt is prestige and probably economic. Might also lead others to believe that a series of airstrikes would be enough to repeat an Osirak.

 

*by which I mean doing something that makes them miscalculate to the point of a military exchange. Japan and Germany wrote America off as weak (willed, if not materially) and acted accordingly, with dire results for themselves. Not claiming Iran= Japan/Germany (or WW2), just that they were led to or allowed themselves to believe they were in a stronger postion than they ended up being in vis-a-vis their adversary.