Of course Iran has the “right” to develope nukes or back out of the treaty if it wants to. Just as every other nation has a “right” to punish, penalize, fight, or ignore them if they do. It seems to me that you may be asking the question that if they have the right to nukes, then does anyone else have a right to (try to) stop them however they see fit. And, of course the answer is;" Yes, Virginia, might does make “right”".
‘Rights’ are a social concept
- one can only have a ‘right’ if others agree - they are a form of contract
As others have pointed out by signing the NNPT they promised not to develop the things.
Personally I think that they are howling mad even thinking about developing WMD
- a complete waste of money, and an unnecessary provocation
I find it very hard to understand why their ‘glorious leader’ thinks that there is anything to be gained from grandstanding, something I read this morning (which was informed but biased) said that he really is a religious nutter and believes in some sort of second coming
- apparently some kid disappeared down a well about 1400 years ago, and is expected to pop up like a gopher in the next few years
@Der Trihs, what do you mean about the USA attacking Iran before ?
Are you referring to the CIA meddling to install the Shah
- or was it giving arms to Iraq
- or was it Carter’s failed helicopter raid
At the time I reckoned that the Shah was doing a pretty good job of modernizing the place, and that the worst thing the USA and others did was bleat about him rounding up a few very unpleasant fanatics. SAVAK were pussy cats compared with the Revolutionary Guard
You need to read up on the Iran-Iraq War, in which Iran lost between 450,000 and 950,000 people. In it, Saddam Hussein (who the US was at that time friendly with), invaded Iraq. It’s generally accepted that he did it with the US’s blessing, because the US was very unhappy with the Iranian government after the fall of the Shah.
So the current Iranian government:
(1) Remember being invaded and having very high casualties by a country then supported by the US.
(2) Have seen a neighbouring country invaded and occupied by the US, for allegedly having WMD.
(3) Hear the US making noises about them being part of the “Axis of Evil” and developing WMD.
Why wouldn’t the Iranians be doing all they could to prepare for a invasion? Don’t they have that right as a sovereign nation?
No. Not in this case.
The things that they’re doing which would merit invasion are, for instance, the funding and support of global terrorism. Is that a cause that they should be able to defend, sovereign or not?
That’d be like claiming “Iran keeps launching unprovoked attacks via proxy forces and those attacks are directed at civilians, so obviously they have every right to defend themselves from folks who might try to stop them.”
Or, more abstractly: Country A keep launching attacks over the border at Country B. Country B says “Cut it out, or we’ll take military action.” Country A says “Ah-hah! Now we need nukes.” And then people support those atomic ambitions.
What cause would the US have to invade or support invasion in the current day and age if Iran stopped its WMD acquisition program and stopped acting as a rogue terrorist state? Why ignore the real reason that they’d need to “protect” themselves now, as opposed to a different reason decades ago?
Is Iran supporting global terrorism? All that I’ve heard is that they are funding terrorism against Isreal, and perhaps funding some of the factions in the chaos that Iraq now is. That’s not good (though perhaps understandable), but it’s not global terrorism.
And the United States doesn’t use proxy forces? From the Iranian point of view, Iraq in 1980 was, and Israel now is, proxy forces for the United States.
I’m not saying that everything Iran does is correct, and I’m certainly not defending their fundamentalist Islamism. What I am saying is that what they are doing makes a lot of strategic sense, looking at it from their point of view, and looking back at a bit of recent history.
Really? So, in spite of the fact that treaties have the force of law Constitutionally you would say that we have the right to break them in our own interests, just like the rights you would extend to Iran?
Do they have a right? I suppose as a soverign nation they do.
Except they also need to expect that if they are going to develop nuclear weapons while preaching “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”, America and Israel are going to resist those developments.
Yes, that’s true. Both the US and Israel were born in insurrections of doubtful legal validity (at least under the laws of the previously occupying powers). However, they are nations like any other (including all the others born in unlawful insurrections), and have the right to defend themselves against other countries.
Sure. Hezbollah, for instance, has global reach and has engaged in terrorism abroad as well.
First off, no, as Israel is a sovereign nation, I would say that it it is properly an ally, not a proxy, of the US.
Second, this is the same lack of context that leads to discussions of the aggressor needing to ‘protect’ itself. Iran uses groups like Hezbollah to attack others in acts of naked aggression. It isn’t the same as the US helping Israel to, actually, protect itself.
But it only makes strategic sence if they’re commited to remaining the aggressor. If they signed a peace treaty with Israel, stopped their connections to terrorism, no longer had a political discourse where “death to the United States!” was acepted rhetoric, etc… what would they have to worry about?
It just seems to be a bit like the schoolyard bully saying that he needs to carry a gun because he deserves ‘protection’ while attacking people. Or a murderer saying he needs to carry anthrax to ‘protect’ himself if the cops try to stop him.
Or Iran saying that they need nukes to ‘protect’ themselves from those who might try to stop their actions as a rogue state.
This analogy sucks almosts as bad as your rapist analogy.You fired off a preemption when you knew I would bring up Bush axis of evil speech. When 4 countries are named and 2 attacked you are surprised the other two feel a need to arm. You reject it . I feel it is valid. Nuclear weapons do seem to give pause to agressive nations. I include us in there. You say they are a criminal country. They say we are.
Iran and any country has a right to protect itself. If you reject something as fundimental as that, you certainly can not be taken serriously.
At this moment there is no evidence they are persuing weapons. Sorry, it just isn’t there.
I have always found the Iran-Iraq war rather opaque
I do remember at the time that Iraq promised a Packard car to the family of any guy who got killed - an interesting variation on ‘buy the farm’.
The invasion of Iraq was a fiasco, and totally stupid, if I were an Iranian I would be looking for a country cottage and … almost … looking forward to the US trying the same thing.
Being from the UK, I am deeply embarrased by Blair, and anyone from the USA has my sympathy.
It is not pleasant being represented by a posturing idiot.
Even so, Iran’s glorious leader is baiting people and begging for a kick in the slats.
I find it hard to understand why, since everyone knows that the Israelis will do something covert and very unpleasant if Iran gets a bomb.
Actually, I’m coming to the view that Iran should be bombed, with underwear clearly printed with Ahmadinejad’s image on the back, next toilet paper and I guess the ideas will develop.
We should be mocking him.
Excellent factual rebuttal.
But no, sorry, the analogy stands. Iran, a rogue state, wants to ‘protect’ itself from those who want it to stop being a rogue state. Much like any criminal (replace ‘rapist’ with ‘robber’ if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy) wanting to ‘protect’ themselves from justice.
:dubious:
I can assure you, knowing about the debate and taking issue with opposing positions has nothing, at all, to do with you. Be careful you don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.
You might also want to read the thread a bit closer. The “Axis of Evil” was mentioned in the third post.
Four countries? Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Which two were attacked again? And which extra country are you adding?
North Korea admitting to working towards enrichment in October 2002. We’d had rather good intel that as of at least 1999 NK was working on enrichment. Likewise, Iran has had a secret nuclear program for about two decades, and has made quantities of plutonium in the past.
Causality does not work backwards in time.
And, of course, Iran either had the incentive to stop being a rogue state, or try to be a rogue state with nukes. One might wonder why an oil rich nation feels the need for weaponizable nuclear technology. One might.
A tu quoque fallacy and then the claim that the aggressor needs protection. I shouldn’t be surprised.
So you’ll stop posting to me? I’ll cry myself to sleep later.
So you just want to argue that Iran should have nukes to ‘protect’ themselves, and then want to argue that they’re not actually seeking nukes to ‘protect’ themselves. Okay.
The creation of plutonium isn’t at all suspicious. A country with no energy problems wanting nuclear power isn’t suspicious. A secret nuclear program going on for decades isn’t suspicious.
One might indeed, if that oil-rich nation had recently:
(1) Itself been invaded by a country that was at the time friendly with the US.
(2) Had seen that neighbouring country fall out with the US.
(3) Had seen that country once defeated by the US, and then comply with various requirements to limit its weaponry (even if a bit truculently).
and
(4) Had seen that neighbourig country invaded by the US without any good pretext.
So, you want Iran to weaken itself to keep the US happy? What guarantees are you offering that the US won’t then invade anyway? International treaties? The United Nations?
No, Iran does not want US troops marching into Tehran as easily as they marched into Baghdad. And why should it? How did the US invasion improve life for the average Iraqi?
No…I would LIKE them to honor the treaty they signed. In addition, its not solely the US who wants Iran to ‘weaken itself’, nor is it only the US that is trying to be kept happy. Maybe you missed the Europeans trying to reason with Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb?? You probably did as its been a fairly well kept secret and all…no news to speak of. 
If Iran (seriously) thinks the US will be marching into Tehran then they are more delusional than even I think they are. First off, what pretext would the US use…the only REAL pretext the US could use is, ironically, Iran’s insistance on building a nuclear program. They have therefore DELIBERATELY put themselves at risk, when they wouldn’t need to be. The US would have no other pretext to invade Iran…unlike Iraq.
Secondly, what the hell would the US invade Iran WITH?? Iran has got to be as aware of the realities of the current US situation as you and I are. Unless they are delusional of course.
No, they aren’t building this program from any sense that they feel threatened…but because having such a weapon will make them a regional power and give them tremendous influence in the ME…especially among the Shi’ite population. You are fooling yourself and swallowing the propaganda if you think Iran is doing this to protect itself from the US.
-XT
Naw, it has nothing to do with the US in my calculus. I just want a rogue state not to have nukes.
Peaceful relations and an end to support of terrorism, to start.
There’s a reason that Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, etc… aren’t worried about an invasion.
Both.
I’m sure that was great consolation to the people they tortured.
Saddam tried cooperation; look where it got him. We don’t need a cause to invade.
For our own survival, not our mere interests. If obeying a treaty would result in America’s ( or any other country’s ) destruction, then they have both a right and a duty to their people to do so. To use an analogy, if someone signed a contract to do a job for me, wouldn’t you consider it reasonable for them to break the contract if they realized following would lead to their death ?
Our own insane agression and ambition and greed and religious fanaticism and lust for revenge.
The fact that they have a superpower run by people who want to conquer them on the border, which has already conquered their neighbor for no sane reason.
At this point, I feel that it is the clear duty of all countries, not just Iraq, to acquire nuclear weapons and point them at America.
So America should have it’s nukes removed ?
Because they know we are bogged down in Iraq, and that Iran is next on the list anyway.
Since Europe has nukes, they aren’t afraid of us trying to conquer them. They have a different perspective than the Iranians; they aren’t looking down the barrel of a gun held by history’s most powerful thug.
We didn’t have a pretext to invade Iraq either, so we made one up. Iraq demonstrates that cooperation with American demands is pointless.
What universe do you live in? We certainly had a pretext to invade Iraq. You (and I) may not think it was a particularly GOOD pretext, but we certainly had one. There was that whole Kuati invasion thingy (maybe you heard about it?), and the imposition on Iraq (who lost…in case you hadn’t heard) of conditions for a cease fire. Conditions that still were in effect. Then there were various UN resolutions against Iraq. Sure, none of them said specifically ‘The US can go ahead and invade if it likes’, but they WERE there. And there was the whole history between the US and Iraq after GW I…no fly zones, embargo’s, ect.
That all adds up to a plausable pretext (obviously…its the fig leaf GW and friends USED after all). No such pretext exists between the US and Iran. With the possible exception (ironic, as I said) of Iran’s nuclear program. So…the only REAL pretext the US could or would have to invade or attack Iran is the one thing they insist they will not give up, despite urging from the Europeans and a big fat bribe by the Euro’s, the US, Russia AND China.
-XT
:rolleyes: Oh…missed this little gem. So, you figure that Europe doesn’t worry about a US invasion because they have nukes, ehe? No other reason…if Europe didn’t have nukes they would be shaking in their boots about an eminent US invasion, right? Again, I have to ask…what universe do you live in there Der?
Why doesn’t Canada fear invasion? Afaik they aren’t a nuclear power and they are right next door…within easy striking distance of our evil grasp. How about Mexico? There are any number of peaceful nations who have absolutely nothing to fear from the US military (well, except in your own head). Saudi Arabia doesn’t have nukes, they have oil and guess what? THEY have nothing to fear concerning a US invasion either! If Iran would BE a good and peaceful neighbor THEY would have nothing to fear either.
-XT
No, there’s a mixture of reasons. I wouldn’t put all of those countries into one basket, anyway.
On the one hand, you have three large and relatively strong countries – Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia – that have the resources and the internal cohesion to look after their own interests pretty well. They even have the occasional bit of limited warfare over external territory (think of Cyprus, the Suez Canal, East Timor, Netherlands New Guinea). In fact, Indonesia is the only country that could credibly invade Australia (credibly in terms of miltary resources, and in terms of foreign relations between countries – the US has the military resources, but why woiuld it invade a country that is one of its closest allies?).
On the other, you have countries that depend on the goodwill of more powerful neighbours, i.e…, Jordan and Kuwait. They can only defend themselves with the help of allies: remember the invasion of Kuwait? And remember that Jordan isn’t much stronger than Lebanon, which is basically under the thumbs of Hizbollah, Israel and Syria.
Strategically, Turkey wants to join the economic powerhouse that is Western Europe, but they also want to control ethnic minorities that are linked to countries on their Asian borders: Armenia and Kurdistan. And it’s not too interested in Israel: if anything, its historic enemy is Greece.
Egypt is run by realists, who know that half a century they were strong enough to push Britain and France out of the Suez Canal Zone, but that they are in a stalemate with Israel. So they just want to live and let live – but there are a lot of Egyptians who feel more passionate, and have joined with the anti-Israeli terrorists.
And Indonesia is in another ball game. It’s at the other end of the Muslim world, so Israel is pretty well irrelevant. The main countries that it has disputes with are Malaysia (another Muslim country) and Australia (with which it has a love-hate relatioonship. It has its own brand of terrorists, who spend time blowing up Australians in Bali – not just because Australians are decadent westerners, but because the Balinese are fun-loving Hindus. It has had a very painful history (on all sides) with East Timor, and it still has major problems with independence movements in Aceh and Western New Guinea. So its military has had lots of practice fighting insurgents, and they are pretty good at it.
So there’s not one reason: in each case, there’s a whole bundle of reason why those countries won’t be invaded.
And there’s a whole bundle of reasons that Iran won’t be invaded anytime soon either.
- We’re bogged down in Iraq.
- Bush’s popularity is in the shitter over the failed war in Iraq.
- A successful war would boost Bush’s popularity, another failed war and he’d be impeached.
- Any invasion of Iran is likely to be a horrendous failure.
- Iran has a much larger population and military than Iraq.
- Iran has a much more popular leadership than Iraq.
- Iran has a much more difficult terrain than Iraq.
- Iran is only a semi-pariah state, not a total pariah state like Iraq was.
- Iran hasn’t invaded any of its neighbors since the mullahs took over
- And so on.
The only credible justification for invasion of Iran would be if Iran was working as hard as possible on getting their hands on a nuclear bomb and started hinting about what countries would be on their first strike list.
Which Iran is providing.