Agreed. Iran has a lot of perfectly good reasons to worry about Iraq, not to mention the milder issues on their north. It’s simplistic to believe that the only reason Iran wants nukes is to immediately use them on Israel.
Well, for one thing, that’s probably the best propaganda stance to take in the ME, that you don’t want nukes so you can dominate your fellow Muslims, but as a threat against the common enemy, Israel. Without Israel to point at, Irans neighbors are much more likely to remember that Iran is Shia, not Sunni. And not Arab, but Persian. And you know what that say, one man’s Mede…
Oh, I think they are. Not because I have some sort of inside info, but apparently the US, several years ago, during the “hated” Bush administration, was able to persuade the Brits, the Germans, the Russians, the French, and the IAEA that they were. I seem to remember that a captured laptop computer was central to that proof. To get all of them to agree, as demonstrated by their participation in the multilateral diplomacy, tells me the evidence must be pretty much undeniable.
I am not so sure that all those countries and IAEA are convinced. To be honest I have not kept track of the situation very closely, but has there been any significant findings since any of these cites?:
and that the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claimed:
Those two I found by some quick googling. They seem to contradict your message saying that the proof must be undeniable. Has anything new come up since then?
Iran has never called for the physical destruction of Israel. Indeed their proposed one-state solution would not be possible if Israel were physically destroyed. The US on its part has obviously been promoting a policy of regime change in Iran and it would hardly be paranoid for the Iranian leadership to be worried about a possible military attack and/or invasion by the US after the invasion of Iraq. So it is quite rational on their part to at least consider building a nuclear bomb.
Ultimately I don't think the current status-quo of an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region is sustainable. The only viable solution in the long run is a comprehensive peace for the Middle East which involves its complete de-nuclearization including Israel's arsenal, a two-state solution with recognition for Israel and normalization of relations with Iran.Pakistan has nukes… they are a much more unstable place then Iran.
We’ve called them part on an imaginary Axis of Evil, engaged in the conquest and mass murder of their neighbor, installed a dictator over them, threatened them with nuclear attack, and have sponsored terrorist attacks on their soil.
And how is that “unstable” man to react when the guy with the rifle is crazy old Uncle Sam, who recently responded to one of his kids getting punched in the nose by mass murdering a bystander’s household, burning it to the ground, and torturing family members whom he caught as they ran out of the flames ?
What makes you think that Iran wants nukes because of Israel ? Israel is a sideshow; the real danger to Iran is the US.
Fair enough, they don’t have oil wells. They do however have massive pipelines running through - same thing.
Psst, F-14s aren’t Russian. And happen to be superior air defense platforms, or perfectly workable AWACS in a pinch.
Henrichek, I think the nature of the actual diplomacy is evidence enough. The record is that in the midst of the antipathy for the Bush administration the French, the Germans, and the Russians agreed to a multilateral diplomatic effort using IAEA resources vis-a-vis Iran. That speaks for itself. IAEA Secretary General El Baradai managed, for instance, to be highly critical of the US views of Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs before the invasion (remember what a bad guy they tried to paint him as?), but just a year or so later he was silent or openly agreeing with US assertions about Iran, and the IAEA was an integral part of the negotiations. Did El Baradei sometimes take some shots at the unsublety of US diplomacy at the time? Of couse, as your 2007 quote indicates. Were there disagreements about tactics among the group? Yup, there were. Did any of them say (between 2003 and 2005, or since) that the US was wrong about Iranian intentions? Nope, not even when it would have been politically popular in those countries to have said so.
It may be that Iran ceased some programs around 2005, after the diplomacy and evidence I cite, but it certainly has not stopped unranium enhancement. And, as you quote from the 2007 NIE, “Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.” Nor is it difficult for the Iranians to restart any programs, I would suggest.
Don’t take me to necessarily be a hard liner on this issue, however. I don’t see any reason to believe that Iran would be any more irresponsible than any current nuclear power, for instance. (The current leaks from the Israeli defense ministry about a possible attack are at least as egregious as anything coming out of Tehran, in my opinion. And history shows that the US inflated the possible casualties involved in an invasion of Japan to justify the use of the weapon. The Soviet’s testing outlandishly-sized weapons certainly didn’t lower the danger of nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. And the list goes on and on.) Moreover, statements that this or that eventuality would be “intolerable” are simply unwise, unless you think you can make Iran believe you’d militarily stop them, which given the current deployment of Western and Russian arms seems unlikely.
But at the end of the day, do I think the Iranians would like to have nuclear weapons just because the Israelis, Pakistanis, and Indians do, and to spit in the faces of those who expressly believe they shouldn’t? And just to assert to the world that they can? Bet your sweet ass I do.
Psst, they haven’t had parts since 1979. I doubt they work very well.
And under your reasoning, what is the level of certitude that Israel won’t launch a nuclear attack against Iran? ’
But they’re just dirty Arabs though right? And 1000 of them is worth less than 1 Israeli.
Sounds more like Israel has launched a massive trial balloon on America.
When did Iran attack its neighbors?
History: We were pushing the Shah in Iran to develop nuclear power . When Khomeini came into power ,he denounced nukes and did nothing to develop them. We loved the Shah . We hated Khomeini ,who was not a threat to his neighbors. He was a threat to oil companies.
If I were an Israeli, I would be a Refusnik. Many in Israel are not happy about the militant aggressive stance of Israel. The neighbors have more to fear from Israel than Israel does from them.
Believe me… I know. If there’s something I could do about it, I would.
And bengangmo, the Iranians aren’t Arabs.
Don’t mistake me for an American. I know a thing or two about the Middle East.
Nice way to dance around the issue - you have never said that ONE of yours is worth more than 1000 of theirs right?
And what guarantee do the IRanians have that Israel won’t use nukes on them?
Let’s not get silly. We all know the exchange rate fluctatates around 8:1 to 10:1.
Are you trying to make me ahamed of our willingness to defend ourselves? That’s almost funny.
Anyway, to answer your question: worth to whom?
Guarantees? None, other than the fact that we don’t do that sort of thing. Why should we give them more than that?
Are you trying to deny the Iranians the same right? Because that’s almost ridiculous.
Yeah, Iran, that great pariah nation, headed up by a kook like Ahmadinejad, who just got many heads of state to walk out on his ass after gong into yet another one of his anti-Israel diatribes…at the UN Anti-Racism Summit, no less: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090420/ts_nm/us_racism_un
He just isn’t being helpful in any of this, is he? Obama wants to engage them now, which is a big reversal of policy for the USA, but Iran just keeps wanting to foist itself on it’s own petard.
So long as it’s done at my expense, then yes, I am. And it’s not ridiculous. It’s perfectly sensible.