I can’t agree with this, leastwise point B. I think Israel is, of extant nuclear powers (not including North Korea, I guess, but then they haven’t demonstrated themselves to be in the club yet), far and away the most likely to use their arsenal. Perhaps a case could be made for Pakistan, but that’s doubtful, as the Pakistanis are painfully aware of how much bigger India is, and how little will be left of their country if they resort to launching their missiles. I don’t think they would go that far unless the Indian army had Islamabad surrounded. Israel, on the other hand, could use its nukes without fear of nuclear retaliation, and is well known for its determination to win regardless of the cost.
MEK are not Iranians. They gave up their rights when they went against their country and worked with the US and Israel.
That is like saying the American Taliban is an American.
Nice try, though.
You must be unaware of the pact that Iran, Pakistan and Turkey have signed to wage war against anyone that wages war against any of them.
I’m sure the Persian and Azeri-speaking folks in the MEK think otherwise. That’s a bit like saying that Timothy McVeigh ceased to become an American when he attacked his government. Maybe in some emotional, metaphysical sense you could make that argument. But it’s not reality.
And he is.
I thought so.
- Tamerlane
“If either Israel or America decide to put an end to Iran’s nuclear program, it can be done with relative ease.”
This is ignorant bravado of the silliest kind. Do you have any evidence for this statement? You do know that despite Osirak Iraq was very close to making a nuclear bomb at the time of Gulf War 1, right? And if nuclear non-proliferation is this easy how is it that North Korea is now a nuclear power?
And Sam Stone I also would like evidence that there is “no risk” of Israel ever carrying out a nuclear strike. The Israeli government has let you in on their nuclear doctrine? Why have they acquired nuclear weapons if they have absolutely no desire to use them?
When you fight against your people and your country, then you are no longer of that nation. You are an enemy combatant who happens to be born in your country.
Pardon, Farsi.
Are you referring to the Baghdad Pact of 1955? I’m afraid if so that you are referring to a dead document. CENTO died in 1979 when Iran formally withdrew.
- Tamerlane
No, I am refering to the one signed with the Mullahs after the Iran/Irak war (Circa 1988-89).
BTW while I think that it’s extremely unlikely that Pakistan would itself nuke Israel on behalf of Iran, it is possible that it will secretly sell nukes to Iran. I would have judged this also to be unlikely until recent reports of possible nuclear assistance by Pakistan to Iran. If they are OK with giving technical assistance they may be OK with selling the bombs outright. I am not saying this is likely but it certainly can’t be ruled out IMO.
Incidentally I would judge the possibility of Pakistan secretly selling nukes to Saudi Arabia to be significantly higher than with Iran. They are both Sunni countries with an excellent relationship (unlike the Iran-Pakistan relationship which is mixed) .The Saudis also have the financial reserves to make it worthwhile. Something for the neo-con blowhards to think about when making idle threats of attacking this and that country in the ME.
Cite?
Turkey and Iran have been shrieking at each other for a few decades now - mostly over the PKK. There are constant threats of military violence against each other. Plus, Turkey did not back Iran in the Iran/Iraq war believing that a successful Iran would lead to insurgents trying to undo their secular government. Plus, there’s the issue of military cooperation between Turkey and Israel.
You may be thinking of the pact that they signed that said the two wouldn’t meddle in each other’s internal affairs - largely brought on by the PKK mess.
A defense treaty? If you can find a cite, I’d be interested to read it.
- Tamerlane
Sam Stone:
I think that’s been spun to death by Israel and the American right. They get such title due to the amount of their financial support to Hizbollah. But I always wondered, why is it that Iran gets labeled “the world’s biggest and most vociferous state sponsor of terrorism” when Lebanon doesn’t even get an honorable mention when they have a Hizbollah representative in their government.
By the way, other than the U.S. State Department and Israeli government, what other governments consider Hizbollah a terrorist organization?
Which was in no way even remotely close to a terrorism. Don’t install puppet dictators and use your embassy as a spying ground to stage counter-revolutions, and you won’t have your embassy staff arrested. And not a single one of them was hurt. If it was terrorism, they would have gotten something closer to firing squads the members of the deposed dictatorship were receiving. Iran’s revolutionary government may have not have acted in the highest political form with that, but it was nowhere near terrorism.
Implicated? So what? Saudi Arabia has been “implicated” in 9/11, why aren’t you chasing them? And exactly what does any of this have to do with the OP and Iran’s right to posses nuclear weapons?
The hypocrisy on this one is just astounding. Palestinian radicals, known as the Palestinian Authority, right? The same “bunch of terrorists” that even the U.N. recognizes as the sole representative on the Palestinians, right? You mean those radicals?
So then, why is it okay for the U.S. to give Apache helicopters to Israel for to use against apartment buildings, whereas it’s bad for anyone to send arms to the PA?
Wow. The same U.S. military you keep touting the praises of is counting on those same separatist groups to continue it’s illegal occupation of Iraq as we speak. Yet, if Iran supports them, it’s eeeevil, eh? The Kurds supported the Iranians to their own detriment during the Iran-Iraq war. It’s only fair to stand by your allies.
And if the exact same standard is applied to Iran, you get the same answers. So if that’s your qualification, then Iran is most definitely entitled to have nuclear weapons. Especially since Israel takes such an aggressive posture against Iran.
In regards to the OP’s question, I can’t say I couldn’t see Israel’s thinking in attacking Iran’s Bushehr plant. Iran needs to revisit its stance on Israel. When Iran’s policy towards Israel was adopted, the world was a different place. Egypt still hadn’t formally recognized Israel, neither had Jordan, Lebanon was in turmoil, and there was no legitimate organization representing the Palestinians. Today, all those things have changed. It would probably be in Iran’s best interests to no longer be the only non-Arab nation that doesn’t recognize Israel.
True of I-P, but ideological consistency doesn’t appear to have been very important to either of them on these matters. They’ve both dealt with NK on WMDs (and NK is pretty much as infidel as you can get). More detailed replies to the thread as a whole tomorrow. Sorry if it’s appeared like a drive-by so far.
Not good enough. You said, “…In fact, the US sold weapons to the Nazis for the first 2 years of WW2.”. Given that many of us are ‘history enthusiasts’, and that none of us have heard of said alleged sales, you need to come up with a valid cite. Your job, not ours.
The whole ‘secret defense treaty’ needs a cite as well. If it is ‘buried in your paperwork’, you should dig it up, post haste.
I don’t think ideological affinity is either necessary or suffiicent but just something that increases the odds of nuclear technology transfer if the other conditions are suitable.
Pakistan shares a border with Iran (unlike North Korea) plus Iran has a pretty good relationship with India which would tend to make Pakistan warier about supplying it with nuclear technology. Which is why I found the latest reports quite surprising.
The Pakistan-Saudi relationship is a lot closer which increases the odds of a nuclear transfer if the Saudis were ever seriously in the market. Add to this the special status of Saudi Arabia within the Muslim world. A nuclear transfer IMO would be especially likely if it was felt that the US was likely to attack and occupy Saudi Arabia.
I haven’t offered any definition as to what constitutes a terrorist supporting nation. I merely provided a link which lists various terror groups that are affiliated with Iran, proving my point that Iran is indeed one of the major terrorist sponsoring nations in the world. And I don’t see how anybody can make any comparisons whatsoever between the USA, which is a free democratic country, and some fundamentalist state in the Mideast, which is , “the worst dictatorship in the world” reminiscent of the “church during the Dark Ages in Europe” . That qoute comes from the grandson of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.
At first I thought you were describing some anti-war protesters I’ve run into, but I am afraid I’m going to have to ask for a cite on that one.
John Walker Lindh, if I’m not mistaken, has not been stripped of his citizenship, so his presence seems to contradict your assertion. Or does your rule only apply to Iranians perhaps ?
Nietzsche said:
Well, then they got the spin from the U.S. Department of State, which in fact calls Iran the largest state sponsor of terror. This is what they have to say about Iran:
Department of State Backgrounder - Iran
The State Department’s 2000 report on terrorism listed Iran as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”. Note that this was during the Clinton administration, so neo-con conspiratory theorists need not apply.
Here’s some more information: [ur=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7974.pdf]State Department Report on Iraq.
I’m once again amazed.
Americans seem to find it absolutely normal
-
That the USA has a stockpile of WMD that is enough to destroy this planet God knows how many times. (I don’t even speak of the stockpile of other weapons, the most deadly and cruel the world has ever seen).
-
That Israel has WMD and refused until now to have their nuclear programs controlled by the International Atomic Agency.
-
That Israel, still occupying the Palestinian land and daily expanding its land grab and oppressing and murdering the civilians - among whom there are a lot of children - plans once again an attack on a sovereign nation.
You find this absolutely normal to discuss about. Which demonstrates the moral level of your narrow minded hypocritical way of thinking.
Well, it is nothing new for Americans, no?
The USA is not only a terroristic nation with a home made, home supported , home trained terroristic organisation named CIA who plots, murders, instabilizes nations and people world wide. And is that proud of it that they proudly talk about their crimes on TV stations. Prime Time please.
The USA is a terroristic nation that invaded and occupies a sovereign nation right now.
The USA is the greatest funder of the Israeli agression and terrorism.
Where did I see last time the silly quesiton
“Why do they hate us”?
Ah yes, it was on a US message board.
Well people, I can tell you that if anyone who suffers under the USA agressions reads this thread - and similar made on US message boards by the same hypocritial narrow minded type of Americans - you already have one of the answers.
The arrogance one can deduct from these type of posts is nothing less then inhuman.
Salaam. A.
And here’s something I didn’t expect to write anytime soon - I’m in complete agreement with Brutus. Please provide a cite or retract this absurd claim. It isn’t common knowledge, to my knowledge it isn’t true in any way.