How unlikely is it that Russia transfers a nuclear weapon to Iran?

[durangodawood]

With the dissolution of the Iran no nukes treaty Russia can now transfer missile and associated tech to its ally Iran. See this article:
Russia says it need no longer obey UN restriction on missile technology for Iran

So I wonder, could this go a lot further and wind up with a nuclear bomb being transferred? I'm pretty sure that would violate certain treaties still in place, but if it could be done without attribution to Russia....?

Now I dont think Iran would use it against Israel, for fear of retaliation. But.... every one of the Iran associated militias would surely love to get hold of one - if Iran could demonstrate "clean hands" in the whole affair.

Or is this whole idea ridiculously paranoid?

 

[Landon Caeli]

With the dissolution of the Iran no nukes treaty Russia can now transfer missile and associated tech to its ally Iran. See this article:
Russia says it need no longer obey UN restriction on missile technology for Iran

So I wonder, could this go a lot further and wind up with a nuclear bomb being transferred? I'm pretty sure that would violate certain treaties still in place, but if it could be done without attribution to Russia....?

Now I dont think Iran would use it against Israel, for fear of retaliation. But.... every one of the Iran associated militias would surely love to get hold of one - if Iran could demonstrate "clean hands" in the whole affair.

Or is this whole idea ridiculously paranoid?

If the target area included the place where Israel stores it's own nuclear weapons, then would retaliation still be a possibility?

I highly doubt President Biden would volunteer to drop a nuke on Iran.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I guess anything's possible, but both Iran and Russia (despite both of their countries having a leadership structure and military apparatuses that are off their figurative rockers) have to be weighing the pros/cons.

Putin's already been exposed as "not commanding a military power that's up to the standard people seemed to think it was". And Iran is already in a position where even other Arab nations (and ones with a lot of money and American "money-buddies") are making alliances with Israel specifically because the represent a bulwark against Iran.

I don't see any plausible way that either entity would want to engage in such maneuver given the implications and knowing what it would mean for them. As long as the allied western powers are on one side of a particular dispute, taking such drastic action against said side is tantamount to suicide.

They're crazy, but crazy doesn't always equal stupid.


Now, if we had a time machine, we could simply go back in time and tell Bush 1 & 2 to leave Iraq be... Hussein (obviously no saint) certainly wasn't the worst of the middle eastern leaders, and did a pretty good job of keeping Iran "in-line" without any western powers having to get involved and get our hands dirty. Keeping him off of Israel's back, but letting him continue to lead Iraq would've been the best option in hindsight. While an "Arab Nationalist" (who largely governed secularly by middle eastern standards) isn't a great thing, recent history has shown it to be preferable to an Islamist.

 

[Petros2015]

if it could be done without attribution to Russia....?

I doubt that is possible; nukes tend to have "signatures" when they go off, I'm pretty sure if it was used we could tell where it came from. But, it's still possible one might be transferred anyway. That would be an interesting play, and not a lot of immediate consequences for doing it that I could imagine, though if it was actually used anywhere what would follow would be anyone's guess. I mean really, what is anybody going to do in response to a transfer? More sanctions? I guess for the right price it might sow a lot of chaos (which I can't see Putin minding) and it's unlikely Iran would then lob it back at Moscow if they had one.

Israel has struck Iraqi nuclear assets before when they felt threatened; if they got wind of the transfer and it's location they would doubtless try to take it out. They were probably behind StuxNet cyber attack on Iranian nuke plants before. I'm not sure if they've ever done an airstrike against Iran though or if they could like the one against Iraq.

Stuxnet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operation Opera - Wikipedia

 

[Desk trauma]

I'm not sure if they've ever done an airstrike against Iran though or if they could like the one against Iraq.

The lack of such strikes is something that has played over in my mind. If they took direct action to remain the only nuclear power in the region before I’m sure they would do so again which makes me think Iran is far from having nuclear capability.

 

[durangodawood]

The lack of such strikes is something that has played over in my mind. If they took direct action to remain the only nuclear power in the region before I’m sure they would do so again which makes me think Iran is far from having nuclear capability.

Recent history has taught us Israel isn't the omniscient know it all we've made them out to be.

 

[SimplyMe]

I doubt that is possible; nukes tend to have "signatures" when they go off, I'm pretty sure if it was used we could tell where it came from. But, it's still possible one might be transferred anyway. That would be an interesting play, and not a lot of immediate consequences for doing it that I could imagine, though if it was actually used anywhere what would follow would be anyone's guess. I mean really, what is anybody going to do in response to a transfer? More sanctions? I guess for the right price it might sow a lot of chaos (which I can't see Putin minding) and it's unlikely Iran would then lob it back at Moscow if they had one.

Israel has struck Iraqi nuclear assets before when they felt threatened; if they got wind of the transfer and it's location they would doubtless try to take it out. They were probably behind StuxNet cyber attack on Iranian nuke plants before. I'm not sure if they've ever done an airstrike against Iran though or if they could like the one against Iraq.

Stuxnet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Operation Opera - Wikipedia

Yes, if Russia transferred a weapon, everyone would know where the missile comes from due to the "signature" of the atomic material in the bomb. Beyond that, the fear for Russia would not be the West making moves against them for doing it but, if Iran actually used the weapon, that it would move countries like India and China to join in with the sanctions that Western nations have put on Russia. It is one thing for them to ignore the Ukrainian war because it doesn't directly effect them; China may even finds it benefits them as Russia has removed many of the soldiers that were kept on the Chinese border. However, I think they'd see the threat of a nuclear weapon being detonated.

 

[mindlight]

The lack of such strikes is something that has played over in my mind. If they took direct action to remain the only nuclear power in the region before I’m sure they would do so again which makes me think Iran is far from having nuclear capability.

Stuxnet and murdering nuclear scientists on Iranian streets are all the strikes they have needed to this point. Iran has its nuclear facilities buried deep in rocky mountains. The Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza appears to have been destroyed by the kind of bunker-busting technology required to take that out. The USA even has ways of disabling Russian-built SAM software that would threaten any airstrikes, though Trump may have already used up that card.

 

[mindlight]

With the dissolution of the Iran no nukes treaty Russia can now transfer missile and associated tech to its ally Iran. See this article:
Russia says it need no longer obey UN restriction on missile technology for Iran

So I wonder, could this go a lot further and wind up with a nuclear bomb being transferred? I'm pretty sure that would violate certain treaties still in place, but if it could be done without attribution to Russia....?

Now I dont think Iran would use it against Israel, for fear of retaliation. But.... every one of the Iran associated militias would surely love to get hold of one - if Iran could demonstrate "clean hands" in the whole affair.

Or is this whole idea ridiculously paranoid?

Russia has generally been quite responsible in the use of nukes and on proliferation, it has never used one in anger (unless the rumors about tactical nukes in the border war with China are true). Also despite recent tensions, they have never been outrightly anti-Israel. Giving Iran a nuke has a high probability of usage and then that comes back on them. The longer game here is accepting the almost inevitable fact that Iran may one day develop one itself and keeping an open relationship with them that guards their programs with SAM technology transfers but does not directly promote the development of weapons that could, after all, be used against them if things turn south.

This recent pronouncement reads more like posturing to me. Putin is saying hey I am the crazy one who does not follow the rules, do not mess with me. It conceals a certain desperation about the ongoing drain of the war in Ukraine and the need for defense suppliers. The crazy image deliberately scares people but can be distinguished from actual active help for Iran's nuclear program.

 

[mindlight]

If the target area included the place where Israel stores it's own nuclear weapons, then would retaliation still be a possibility?

I highly doubt President Biden would volunteer to drop a nuke on Iran.

Iron Dome has been performing very well recently. Iran could not guarantee the effectiveness of a first strike despite Israel's lack of geo-spatial depth and the response would be overwhelming.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, if Russia transferred a weapon, everyone would know where the missile comes from due to the "signature" of the atomic material in the bomb.....

I doubt that is possible; nukes tend to have "signatures" when they go off, I'm pretty sure if it was used we could tell where it came from.....

I havent kept up on all this. But I'm concerned that some of the treaties that keep us capable of knowing what the signatures would be have expired or degraded in some way, at least enough for deniability.

 

[Arcangl86]

So my understanding is that Russia isn't talking about giving nukes to Iran but rather technology that would allow them to create ICBMs. It's a seemly small distinction, but I think it's an important one. There is no way that Putin would give a working nuke to any entity that isn't in his control. But giving missile tech is different, especially since Russia is already in range of nuclear attacks from Iran.

 

[RDKirk]

If the target area included the place where Israel stores it's own nuclear weapons, then would retaliation still be a possibility?

I highly doubt President Biden would volunteer to drop a nuke on Iran.

I would be highly surprised if Israeli nukes were stored in any single location. Some are probably loaded into weapons and deployed. And all of those locations would be highly classified.

 

[Pommer]

I would be highly surprised if Israeli nukes were stored in any single location. Some are probably loaded into weapons and deployed. And all of those locations would be highly classified.

Tunnels? Perhaps? I hear those are big over there.

 

[RDKirk]

Iron Dome has been performing very well recently. Iran could not guarantee the effectiveness of a first strike despite Israel's lack of geo-spatial depth and the response would be overwhelming.

If Israel destroyed an incoming nuclear warhead, there would not be a nuclear detonation, but the evidence that it had been a nuke would be absolutely plain, verifiable by numerous nations.