You are right, and thank you for your nuanced analysis rather than my overly-glib summation.
I was, however, getting at the fact that none of those would be invaded because they aren’t an international threat. I was focusing more on the idea of peaceful relations and not having state-sponsored terrorism.
Iran expects the US to bomb them. They may not think we will try to occupy them. I think for our overstretched army that would be impossible. Iran is much bigger than Iraq and has not had to recover from recent wars. They do believe they will be bombed. I think they may be right and I abhor the thought. I think our present administration is capable of talking itself into this.
The second oil war was not about quait It was a manufactered piece of bs. It was planned in think tanks long ago. It required rejecting any and all data that disagreed with them. They can do it again. They will do it again.
They believe they will be bombed because we think they are trying to get nukes so they try to get nukes to stop from being bombed? 
They are both used to us.
Because Bush is buddies with them. Nothing they do could get them invaded; Saudis destroy the WTC, and Iraq gets invaded.
Gonzomax, your above post ignores reality on a scale only matched by those neoconservative think tanks who projected flower-strewn boulevards in Iraq for our conquering armies.
For the 10 years between Gulf War I and Gulf War II we had been in a low-level war with Saddam. Iraq was perceived as an easy nut to crack. We knew for sure we could crush Saddam’s army in weeks. We knew Saddam was incredibly unpopular in Iraq. We knew an invasion of Iraq would result in only token protests around the world, even if countries would not support us they wouldn’t exactly shed any tears over Saddam. We thought we could get Iraq back in shape pretty quickly, the reconstruction could be funded by Iraq’s own oil. The invasion of Iraq was presold to the american public for 10 years.
Of course, now we know that we were scenarioed rosily with counterfactuals that turned out not to be operational.
So the methods used to sell the invasion of Iraq aren’t exactly going to work again against Iran, will they? Back in 2002 it was possible to imagine that reconstruction of Iraq might go pretty smoothly. Never mind whether that could actually ever have happened under some combination of military force, economic aid, and skillful diplomacy, or whether it was in reality a guaranteed loser no matter what. But the list of reasons why an invasion of Iraq might work was pretty long.
In 2002 if the Bush administration had tried to invade Iran instead of Iraq the list would have been a lot shorter, right? And the downside a lot more obvious, right? In fact, even in 2002 you couldn’t have sold an invasion of Iran. And with the example of the failure in Iraq, it will be ten times harder to sell an invasion of Iran in 2006 than it would have been in 2002.
And only a political naif–like yourself–could imagine that the American people are chomping at the bit to invade Iran and are only awaiting a neoconservative think tank to manufacture an excuse. In 2002 we WERE chomping at the bit to invade Iraq. Kick a little ass, show them there Ay-rabs who’s who and what’s what. In 2006, not so much. Hmmm, what happened to change the situation?
I naif that I am .do not think the American people are ready for bombing. I do know Bush has said that he has 2 yrs to accomplish his goals. I believe the Regime changers are alive and well. Iran is much bigger and invading does not seem to yield the results we want.
This admin has claimed the right to invade or wage preemptive war. This would fit that quite well. Whether you believe they will bomb , is less important than the fact they do.This is where I should insult you but it is not my way.
If the last few years demonstrate anything, it’s that America is largely composed of bloodthirsty gullible fools. Bush did get re-elected, after all. Wave the flag, make some references to God and terrorism, and Amercans will support a call to invade Iran- or Brazil or Uzbeckistan or Uganda, for that matter.
My new philosophy on the last two posts comes from here (I’ve bookmarked the thing):
Apt words IMHO.
-XT
XT, while you and I have had our disagreements on some international issues, I’ve always felt that we’ve debated the issues in a rational manner, with facts and reasonable logic rather than insane hyperbole and personal attacks. Unfortunately, as this thread once again demonstrates, not everybody is so inclined. It’s like we’re having two parallel dialogues here; some of us are discussing treaty obligations and geopolitical strategy while others are arguing about which nation committed which metaphorical felony first.
“Iran raped Iraq!”
“Iraq was dressed like a slut and was asking for it!”
“The United States kidnapped France and is holding a gun to its head!”
“No, France held up a liquor store and America arrested it!”
“Canada is looking the other way while the United States molests Mexico!”
“The United States threatened to beat Canada with a tire iron if it told NATO the truth!”
I agree Nemo. And I have to admit I’m one of those who fell for the hijack and went off on the tangent. I think the key points were made better above…to my mind the crux being Iran signing the NPT and seeming to back out of it, as well as Iran’s fundamentally unstable nature. As I said above however, I think the reality isn’t whether Iran has some kind of ‘right’ to nuclear weapons…but whether they have the ability to pull off making them despite international pressure on them to not do so. I think the reality is that Iran WILL have a nuclear weapon…and it will be up to the world to deal with that unfortunate reality.
I do apologize for my part of the hijack however.
-XT
And I agree that this is rarely helpful.
Going back to the OP’s question, one issue that it raises is whether any nation has the (moral) right to nuclear weapons. And I think they are of very doubtful morality, seeing as the main point to them is the indiscriminate damage they cause over a large area, which will inevitably involve high civilian casualties. While they might have made some sort of strategic sense during the Cold War, and while two hostile countries like India and Pakistan each needs them while the other has them, what the US (and Britain, France, Russia and China) should be doing is taking steps towards universal nuclear disarmament. It’s very hard to see the US taking the high moral ground about “rogue states” having nuclear weapons, when the US is the major owner of nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them in wartime.
(And, no, that’s not saying that the US is the bad guy: it just means that it should not be saying there’s one rule for the US, and another rule for the rest of the world.)
Bitch isnt it. When did this crap rely on evidence and logic. And there is no evidence they are after bombs. Claim for peaceful use is not refuted. Scott Ritter had a program not long ago stating that the Iran program is facing very large difficulties and not making much headway.He said their purification was poor ,their equipment out of date and flawed. Saw little success in the next ten years.
In order to be consistent, somebody would have to explain why we’re upset about Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons but don’t think it’s a problem that the United Kingdom does. Or, for that matter, that the United States does.
And I don’t mean explain it in the sense of claiming we’re good guys and they’re bad guys. Or using any equivalent ambiguous phrase like “rogue nation”, “pariah state”, “terrorist sponsor” or “Axis of Evil” - these are all just propaganda terms. I mean, can you explain, in clear and objective terms, what actions a country can or cannot do that distinguishes between a country that is “allowed” to have nuclear weapons and a country that isn’t.
Bush pulled the US out of the ABM and ICC treaties. What’s the difference?
Plus, we have a valid pretext for an invasion of Iran- at least one the American people will accept, and the current administration has shown no sign that it cares what global public opinion may be- They are a state sponsor of terrorism. The same pretext was implied as part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
We have done the same thing in the past in Latin America, and through governments we have fought proxy wars almost continuously until the last decade or so.
The UK (as well as the US obviously, the USSR, even China and France) developed nuclear weapons before there WAS an NNPT, in the climate of the cold war…so obviously they weren’t bound by it. Israel was not a signatory nation…nor is there positive proof they have the things (though tons of circumspective evidence). I’m not sure about India and Pakistan…I don’t believe India WAS a signator though.
So, that would be one reason. The NNPT was originally an incentive for signatory nations, giving them various economic and political benifits of signing and holding to the treaty…and penalties if they didn’t.
Couple that with the obvious instability of North Korea (and arguably Iran) and there really is no comparison between the UK’s situation and NK/Iran.
-XT
One nuclear-weapons-owning state managed to collapse completely, practically overnight, leaving no successor state, but leaving its nuclear weapons in the de facto control of some of the republics that made it up.
Are Iraq and North Korea less stable than the Soviet Union was in 1991?
Probably about the same. The difference though is that with Iran at least, the world has a choice…do they allow Iran to push forward or do they prevent it? North Korea developed in secret and pretty much presented the world with a fait accompli. Certainly the world has a choice there too…but the costs of taking nukes away from North Korea would be prohibatively high, what with South Korea and Japan being so close (to name just two nations). The Soviet Union was never was a choice…it would have taken a world war comparable to WWII (or worse) to prevent them getting the weapon.
Iran though (I assume you meant Iran above, not Iraq) is another matter. There are very good reasons why the world is a bit leery of Iran having the things. For one thing, they are a muslim fundamentalist state…during a time when muslim fundamentalism is seen as a particular threat. For another, they in a region of the world that has vital natural resources needed by every industrial nation in the world. These are non-trivial issues. For another, this is a nation who has publically threatened Israel and who has at the very least tenuous connections to various terrorist groups…groups like Hezbollah, for instance.
You really can’t draw a correlation between Iran getting a nuke and the UK, France or even the Soviet Union or China. The world is a different place today than it was when THEY were developing nuclear weapons. In addition, lets not forget that Iran signed the NNPT…and received the benifits of doing so.
-XT
Sorry, yes, I did mean Iran, not Iraq. And, of course, signing the NNPT should mean something – just as all treaties should mean something to the states that sign them.
I guess the other question is how Iran’s fundamentalist Islamism differs in princple from the dogmatic Communism of the Soviet Union and China. (Except that, of course, the US has never been in a position to take out the Soviet Union or China militarily).
The other thing that troubles me is the thought that making Iran into a pariah makes all the Iranians unite against a common enemy. Shouldn’t the US and other western democracies be taking a line which might encourage the more liberal opposition in Iran? I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to see Iran in the future as a country about as liberal and tolerant as Turkey is today – but blustering about it being part of the “Axis of Evil” isn’t going to make that happen.
The difference is that the United States withdrew from those treaties. The same as North Korea withdrew from the NNP treaty. Iran is currently a signatory of the NNP treaty and should therefore be abiding by it. If they don’t want to follow it anymore, they should follow the example of George Bush and Kim Jong Il and publically pull out of it.
I figured it was clear that when I said arguments based on “we’re good guys and they’re bad guys” are implausible, I also meant the “we’re bad guys and they’re good guys” argument. But I realize now in any discussion on this board I need to make that explicit.
Some opponents of the NNPT have made this same point; why was it okay to develop nuclear arms before 1968 but wrong thereafter? India and Pakistan refused to sign the treaty for this reason (India was never a signatory).
As for instability, I see that as a tenous argument. The current regime in North Korea has been in power since 1948; the Iranian regime since 1979. The people leading these countries may be mentally unstable (I’m looking at you Kim) but there’s no reason to think they’re politically shakey.
If you’re speaking of instability in the broader sense - as in, who knows what that country might try to do next? - I hate to say it, but the US is hardly the one to be pointing that finger. You could use a lot of words to describe America’s foreign policy in the last sixty years but “stable” isn’t one of them.
Umm, I thought we did have the right to ignore treaties (of course that means that whoever we are in treaty with will ginore their boligations under the treaty). Congress can and has legislated in direct contradiction of treaties and it is constitutional.
The issue isn’t whther Iran has or doesn’t have the right to develop nuclear weapons, the issue is what rationale could we possibly use to stop them.
I am uneasy with the idea of Iran developing nuclear weapons because they are trying to change the world order and so they are more likely to use nuclear weapons than we are. Then someone always brings up the entire “well, isn’t America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons?” and “what right do you have to tell another country that they cannot develop nuclear weapons?”
Well we do not have the “right” to prevent anyone from developing nuclear weapons so we either invade Iran and force them to stop or we sit there and watch while Iran develops nuclear weapons in the face of a lot of heckling. But once they get their hands on Nukes, I am pretty sure that we will never invade.
Its an ugly truth we are all going to have to get used to, our enemies will have nukes again.