I agree completely. If our leaders truly believed in democracy, this is what they would do. I also think that in our negotiations with emerging nuclear powers that we should agree to destroy X number of our nukes if they allow unfettered access to their nuclear facilities. Right now, we offer them trade benefits, but no promises of reduction of our own weapons, other than “someday.” We wouldn’t have to scrap all our weapons, just enough to show that we’re serious about getting the total number down.
And what if the people choose a totalitarian government? Happened in Iran, and I’m sure many Iranians deeply regret it, but it happened. Have we some privilege to judge that, and overturn it? And yes, you most certainly can negotiate with such governments, and even ally to such, as witness Stalin in WWII.
Besides, I’m not talking about the most attractive option, I’m talking about the only option.
Upon preview: golf claps, Tucker.
Then they’d be out of the club. If they want to go back to the dark ages, then so be it. But they shouldn’t get to expect the rest of the world to accommodate and support their choice.
Is Iran a “totalitarian government”?
Less now than it was, but like many revolutionary governments, it was well along the authoritarian path. Whether or not you want to say “totalitarian” is tomato-tomahto. Which would amount to a quibble not worth troubling the hamsters over.
Let’s say we decided to reduce our nuclear weapons cache by X% tomorrow. Why would Iran be any less interested in getting nukes of their own? It seems to me that, if anything, they would be more interested. The fewer nukes we have, the easier it is for them (or anyone else) to approach parity.
OK, but it’s unclear to me that the Iranians chose the current government they have. Was there an election and the clerics won? Iran is a pseudo-democracy-- they have elections all the time, but unelected clerics get to choose who the candidates are. It might be accurate to say they chose to get rid of the shah, but what happened afterwards did not happen democratically. At least that’s not how I remember it.
At any rate, I think we both agree that Iran poses much less of a threat to the US than Bush et al would have us believe. There is no reason we can’t sit down at the table with them and talk. We don’t have to endorse their form of government, but if we aren’t talking to them, we really don’t have any way of influencing them. There are plenty of other powerful countries they can talk to, and get whatever they want from.
Too close to agreement for quibble. But yes, there was an election, and the people chose the party most fervently “anti-Shah”. Heat of the moment, and all that. Not a wise choice, by any means, but definitely within the bounds of “democratic”.
And I would carry your willlingness to talk a step further: I think Iran and the US have any number of grounds for agreement and cooperation. For instance, the Taliban derives from a virulently anti-Shia sect and are Irans avowed enemy. (IIRC, there were a number of stories circulating about diplomatic “feelers” from Iran over cooperating in Afghanistan…)
And, like you, I am far more concerned with Pakistan, whose possession is not a prospect, but a fact on the ground.
Yes. Iran is much more of a natural ally* to the US than a country like Saudi Arabia is. The Iranian people actually like the US. The Saudis… not so much.
*using the term in a relative sense.
So what do people think IRAN will do? (once in posession of nuclear bombs)?
Will they say to Israel-leave, or we will attck you with nuclear bombs? Will the announce to the USA: "Get your ships OUT of the Persian Gulf, or we will nuke SA?)or to Pakistan: “Stop supporting the USA (to Musharraf)”-or we attack?
Honestly, I don’t see the Iranians being so crazy. Let’s assume they are telling the truth-they are developing fuel for power plants, not bombs-wht would attacking them accomplish?
Because as is often pointed out, it’s rather hypocritical for us to say that nukes are bad and no one should have have them, but we’re going to keep ours. And even reaching parity isn’t that big of a deal, since we can probably build new ones faster than anybody.
Just chiming in to agree with this and to wonder aloud why we haven’t sought rapprochement with Iran, or responded to their feelers in that direction.