Minor nitpick:
It’s not up to Rouhani to decide how to respond. He has no control over the Iranian military, especially the Revolutionary Guards.
A response would probably be more like a French Synagogue getting blown up or Hezbollah flinging a few missiles at Israel then a direct attack by the Iranian military.
I agree that I should not have included the libertarian isolationists like Paul. But McCain, who is not an extremist, does get included. I don’t think Bolton is really an extremist either.
Should we have bombed Pakistan before they got the bomb? Should we have bombed North Korea before they got the bomb? Why the hell is Iran so special?
I say we bake them a pie and welcome them to the nuclear neighborhood. If a country with such a history of human rights abuses as the US can be trusted with nukes, I don’t think any other country should be forbidden from having them.
That doesn’t mean they should use them. And of course, preferably no one would have them. But if any country does have them, every country should be allowed, considering self defense, MAD and all…
The words “Middle East nuclear arms race” float to mind. Does that answer the question at all?
And that would be worse than last century’s “NATO-Warsaw” nuclear arms race how?
The period since we invented nukes has been one of the most peaceful in the history of humanity. I used to be a big disarmament proponent, but I’m not so sure now. If NK and Pakistan can be trusted with nukes, I don’t see what makes Iran such a threat.
Yeah, Iranians say a lot of anti-semitic, anti-Israeli things on TV. All the more reason for Israel to keep a close eye on them. But if someone isn’t harming you, you don’t get to go around and blow them up just because they might find a way to arm themselves in the near future. That would be a heinous atrocity.
Last I heard, the estimate was that Israel just can’t do it; America could, but not Israel. They’re too hardened and dispersed, precisely to resist such a strike.
The Middle East is a titch more volatile.
What’s your basis for saying they can be trusted? The fact that they’ve marketed nuclear technology to other countries but haven’t blown anyone up?
And they support Hezbollah, which occasionally kills Israelis. Which might count as actually harming Israel, I think.
[QUOTE=Former UN Ambassador Bolton]
… because we all know intelligence is imperfect .
[/QUOTE]
Credit where credit is due.
Given the quality of intelligence used by the administration that appointed him, you’ve got to concede he’s right on that money in that regard.
So you support an immediate strike on Israel to destroy its nuclear capability?
If a Middle East arms race is so terrible, why did it only become an issue after Israel ceased to be the only Middle East nation with nuclear weapons?
And while Hezbollah certainly occasionally kills Israelis, Israel just as certainly occasionally kills Palestinians and Syrians.
The whole thing seems like a horrendous and racists double standard. Those Towel Head simply can’t be trusted with Nukes.
I don’t trust *anyone *with nukes, including the United States.
Bolton may be a crazy person, but there are obviously non-crazy people who listen to him. Having said that, this is the same guy who was most responsible for the Bush Administration telling everyone Iraq had yellowcake uranium, so it’s rather hard to take him seriously when he talks about anyone’s nuclear aspirations.
The people who use terms like “towel head” are unlikely to distinguish between Iran and Pakistan.
But it seems like bombing Iran could easily push a nuclear arms race in the region. After all, the flip side of the "bomb Iran before it’s too late" argument is “you can’t bomb Iran once it’s got a working bomb” and a lot of countries in the region are going to look at the latter argument a lot harder than the former. There are going to be dictators reflecting that the difference between Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il is that Kim had a nuclear bomb and the others didn’t - and that’s the reason Kim died in bed and the others were overthrown. Let that message sink in and every regime starts thinking it needs its own nuclear weapon to defend itself.
If you’re going to use racial slurs would you mind using proper ones. The Iranians aren’t bedouins or come from a Bedouin culture and we rarely where anything resembling a Keffiyeh so referring to us as “towel heads” makes little sense.
Not of course that it is acceptable to use that term regarding Arabs either.
Yeah, one more repeat of the basic question of who the hell you think are “trusting” those countries with nuclear weapons. Name names of these people who are doing the trusting, please.
So let’s ignore the source.
What happens if Israel makes a best possible effort to destroy the nukes? Just about everything I’ve read is that the best case is that they slow the process down a few years.* No more. They do not solve the issue, only delay it some small finite period of time.
Meanwhile at what cost to themselves and to the region? What might be the responses from Iran and from other regional actors? What might be the United States response to those responses in a context of recent apparent new willingness to talk and develop longer term diplomatic solutions from the Iranians? What might be the consequences of those American responses to America’s influence in the region and/or to its relationship with Israel?
Can’t say I know all the answers and I doubt anyone does. But this much is clear: the upside is limited and the downside very open-ended and harder to predict.
It could be someone I respected saying what Bolton said and I’d say the same thing: “You nuts boy.”
*As below for example:
Wow. Holy crap is that wrong. The period since 1945 has been if anything more violent than beforehand.
Something is not right-the CIA says that Iran halted their atomic weapons program years ago…and never restarted it!
So what info is Bolton privy to?
Oh… Netanyahu thinks there is a Iranian weapons program? OK-show us the evidence!
First, Bolton’s an idiot.
Second, I don’t think anyone needs to strike at Iran for nukes. You can’t stop them and if they really wanted it, they should have the right to make them.
Third, I hope that if Israel does it, they do so alone and without any help whatsoever from the US.
I think that’s the point Blake was making. He used a racially derogatory term to emphasize that there’s a racist mentality behind this viewpoint. The world has accepted that various powers have nuclear weapons. So why is it considered unacceptable for Iran (or Egypt or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Libya) to have nuclear weapons? The general argument behind this viewpoint seems to be that somehow it would be more dangerous for a Muslim country to have nuclear weapons. (And I realize this argument is not only racist but absurd - Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.)
FWIW, I wasn’t offended because it was obvious to everyone that he wasn’t trying to express hatred of Iranians.
I have a rather dry and deadpan sense of humor and was being fairly tongue-in-cheek.