I beg your pardon, I was commenting on my previous post. Sorry to be vague.
Matters of war, peace and survival of nations have nothing whatsoever to do with “fairness” or “rights”. Why do you think those who now have nukes are against “proliferation”?
The fact is that the Iranian regime is unstable and unpredictable, and all of its neighbours (not just Israel) are, quite rightly, worried about their intentions.
Will Iran start flinging nukes about wildly the moment they get them? No. Is it conceivavble that they, or some subset of them, will use them at some future moment of international crisis? Certainly.
Now, Israel has successfully screwed its neighbours’ plans to make nukes twice - in Iraq and Syria. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuke plant, rendering it useless. Ironically enough, the main beneficiary of this move was - [drumroll] - Iran! Because, as you know, Iraq and Iran were, from 1980 to 1989, involved in a little scuffle known as the Iran-Iraq War … and few doubt that Saddam, if he had them, would have used them. [As an aside, it is alleged that the Israelis had Iranian cooperation for the attack: the Iranians had earlier, unsucessfully, attacked the same plant]
Was it fair and just for Israel to deprive Iraq of badly-needed munitions while it was in a vicious battle with Iraq? Maybe not. Was the world community of nations outraged at Israel’s unilateral act? Absolutely. Security Council Resolution 487strongly condemned the attack as a “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”; UN Genereal Assembly Resolution No. 36/27 on November 13, 1981, expressed deep alarm and condemned Israel over the “premeditated and unprecedented act of aggression”.
Would the world have been better off if Saddam got nukes and used them on Iran? I can’t imagine why.
And note that the US launched a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives to allegedly get rid of Saddam’s WMDs when he didn’t, in fact, have any, and wasn’t at war with anybody - while the Israelis, in a single strike, got rid of Saddam’s ability to make nukes when he was in the midst of a vicious war.
Israel did the same thing to Syria in 2007 - totally destroyed a secret Syrian nuclear facility. Again, a Syrian regime with its finger on the button would not be a good thing right now, given what happened to Quaddaffi : as you may remember, the West helped out the insurgents with air strikes; partly as a result, the Colonel ended his days sodomized with a bayonet. Hardly fair on the poor old Colonel, who had given up his own nuclear plans to curry Western favour - things may have been rather different if he had a few nukes to threaten with. The Syrian leaders just may have taken note.
I do agree that the Iranians would have to have their heads several feet up their asses to allow the Israelis that sort of opportunity now.
Considering that Osirak was not giving Iraq the ability to produce nukes in any way, that’s not a strawman you’re building there, that’s the Wicker Man.
Yeah, that was the claim of Iraq and France (who was helping Iraq build it). To put it mildly, opinions differ on that score.
I will also note that the same claims used to be made about Iran’s nuclear program - it’s peaceful, cannot lead to nukes. As time goes on, that claim gradually morphs into ‘it is inevitable that Iran will get nukes, might as well accept it’.
To my mind, the telling issue is that Israel itself went down the same route, making clandestine nukes, and both Israel and Iran were of the opinion that the plant was going to be used for that purpose. They oughtta know.
It strains credulity that a dictator, in the midst of a vicious war, would be spending hundreds of millions of badly needed dollars building a a reactor for “peaceful scientific research” (the ostensible “reason”). Only an idiot could, with a straight face, buy that - or perhaps, a country like France who could use a few hundred million dollars and is willing, like Admiral Nelson, to put its telescope to its blind eye …
The Osirak deal was probably conceived, on the Iraqi’s side as the first step into securing future nuclear collaboration from France. By itself, it served no military purpose.
I do like the fact though that your foremost proof is that Israel “committed the crime”, therefore it is legitimate for Israel to assume Iraq did the same.
Good example [referring to Sevastopol’s post]
As demonstrated, some still insist that Iran’s nuclear program is not intended to make nukes.
The whole thing is absurd. Of course Iran wants nukes - owning nukes makes you untouchable. This silly halfway house of ‘well, we aren’t exactly making nukes, but just the capacity to make nukes if we are threatened’ is pure foolishness, since the whole point of having nukes (assuming you are not crazy) is to deter aggression from others.
Wereas you have offered exactly none to support your absolute contention that the plant “served no military purpose”.
My main “proof” is that, while nuclear and security experts on either side of the question disagree, the alleged or ostensibe purpose - nuclear research - makes no sense whatsoever - not even you claim that is what it was for!
Your proposed alternative, that this was a sweetener for some future deal, seems totally your own conjecture.
And yes, Israel committed the same “crime”, which makes it very well qualified to know how to commit it. Set a thief to catch a thief.
You have missed the key point. Mere capacity is adequate deterrent, cf Japan.
No it isn’t, since you cannot demonstrate “capacity” and in any event merely possessing “capacity” to create a nuke deters no-one since you must also weaponize it - that is, make a nuke you can deliver in a missile or otherwise - which is a non-trivial engineering problem.
The hilarious part of your source is that he argues Iran cannot make a nuke because Islamic precepts forbit it.
How, then, is Iran suddenly going to translate capacity into deterrence if this is true? Either it isn’t true (my assumption), or Iran cannot make nukes. There is no halfway house here.
Iran has the ballistic technology in place. Strike one engineering problem.
Professor Cole’s point is the incoherence in the hysteria mongers’ position. Iran said to be governed by medieval precepts as and when it suits certain parties in the West.
If my neighbour tells everyone repeatedly that I and my family should be wiped out, I’m going to do my best to eliminate that threat. Sound fair ?
'Round these parts, a “cite” doesn’t mean some random posting you found on the internet. If you don’t have a primary source who is a actual historian, then all you have is some guy who is pushing yet another conspiracy theory type meme.
The idea that it matters is even more hysterical. The Shah did not actually rule Iran during that period, did he? Not until 1953.
When it comes to Israel facing overwhelming odds in military conflict, my money is on Israel.
The tech to create missiles is one thing. The tech to create nukes small enought to be fitted into missiles is quite another, and much more involved thing.
The good prof is the one being “incoherent” here, since he is claiming, at one and the same time, that (1) Iran cannot make nukes because that is against its religion; and (2) Iran will, if threatened with invasion, quickly make a nuke.
Both cannot be true at the same time. One of the two must be wrong.
You do need to review Iran’s modern history.
I think it’s fair to call many of Iran’s governing principles “Medieval”, and I we do have incontrovertible evidence (the recent killings during the “Green Protests”) that the government has no qualms about killing innocent civilians. The cherry picking is happening in Iran, not outside Iran.
He’s refering to a different dude - “Shah” in question was daddy to the guy who came into real power after the 53 coup.
From your cite:
As for the name “Iran” I have no idea. I do know that may people in the West who immigrated from Iran prefer to be called “Persians” over “Iranians”, but that seems to be because they prefer to be associated with the ancient glories of Persian civilization rather than the current regime.
From Wikipedia on “Susa”