Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Nov 19, 2009.
The entire Iranian issue is about resources and power. You've already covered the resource part: oil.
As for power, currently Israel (and by extension the US) enjoys a power monopoly in the middle east considering its powerful military, nuclear weapons stockpiles and close influential ties to powerful western countries. Iran is politically opposed to Israel (and the US), and to have a politically opposing nuclear powered country that can potentially balance the power in the middle east is not in US/Israeli interests. As far as the US is concerned, the only influential powers in the middle east should be those that are essentially puppets and will do as told. Iran is no such country, and this will cause problems for US policy in the ME.
Then there is the military. The arabs are already rushing to buy American war planes and other military equipment because of the fear and hype created around Iran. The only ones who benefit here are those in the defence industry who have seen brisk sales as a result of the fear mongering surrounding Iran. Once Israel launches its strike and all out war begins, it is these people who will benefit the most.
As long as Israel has the bomb, and continues to disregard international law, the Iranians will not take any US or international calls to halt its nuclear program seriously, and I don't see why they should. It's like thieves crying foul when other thieves are stealing.
That non-proliferation treaty you mention commits Iran to various reporting and inspection requirements to verify that its nuclear programs aren't for weapons. They obligated themselves to meet these terms requirements when they signed the treaty.
It's their own failure to openly comply with the terms they agreed to that's brought about the current situation. And from the link you provide, it's clear that the Iranians are telling the IAEI team things that contradict evidence that the IAEI has obtained. If they're complying with the treaty, why all the deceptions?
Certainly a civilian nuclear program could be of benefit to Iran, and they've had nuclear research programs for decades. So why all the lack of cooperation with the IAEI if all they're working on is a civilian program?
This issue goes back 30 years and deals with a lot of other things. I suggest watching the three part BBC special Iran and the West. Good journalism and really unbiased.
A civil program isnt hidden under a mountain for years This is a program for weapons. Lets not fool ourself, but heck if China can give them to Pakistan and not be held accountable, and we can give em to Israel, what is there to say here?
I'm pretty sure all the tough talk on Iran is just to pre empt something there if "need be". That always seems to be the trend anyway.
They'd be stupid not to be pursuing a weapons program, and it would be stupid of anyone to believe that they are solely pursuing a civilian nuclear program.
Now, personally I'm not a big fan of nuclear weapons, and would like to see their numbers decreasing rather than increasing. But I'm sure most of those who view Iran as a direct and immediate threat would also assert, without a moment's hesitation, that the US has the right to develop any weapons system it deems necessary to it's national interest.
One would assume that the Iranian people are much like ourselves. Therefore, as an outsider I would assume that certain factions of the Iranian government also look at themselves proudly, and say "we have every right to develop any weapons system necessary to our national interest. No foreign government has a right to dictate our choice of military hardware."
You also have to consider that Iran learned an important lesson from the Bush/Cheney foreign policy recklessness -- that of the members of the "Axis of Evil", the one country that was never truly threatened with invasion was the one country that possessed nuclear weapons.
So if one assumes that Iran will become a nuclear power at some point (and we've managed to live with India and Pakistan joining the club, not to mention Israel and North Korea), then the question becomes threat assessment and containment.
Now, this doesn't mean I think the US should cease our diplomatic efforts to expose and monitor any Iranian nuclear program; far from it. I would happily support any and all legal measures to expose and deny secretive weapons development for as long as is possible. But we need to prepare our foreign policy for the inevitable day when Iran becomes a nuclear power. Whether they are successful in hiding their program, or whether they find someone willing to sell them designs or materials (and others willing to look away), they will someday have a nuclear weapon. Whether it happens in 5 years or 50 years is the only question.
(And, quite honestly, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Nuclear weapons are only going to become simpler to make as technology improves. And of course, the day will eventually arrive when a new technology surpasses even the most powerful thermonuclear device possible. Anti-matter cannons? Death-Star-sized super-lasers? Who knows. All I know is that all the brightest boys will be called on to play with the biggest toys, all while someone cries out that we need to pursue such technology with all haste because if we don't THEY will.)
Perhaps you can explain to us why Iran needs nuclear capability when Iran sits on, as you said, "on the world's 3rd largest oil reserves"?
Moreover, perhaps you can provide some clarification on Iran's need for nuclear power (or a weaponized nuclear device) if not to eliminate Israel, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to do.
I am inclined to fully support Israeli airstrikes on Iran's nuclear development capacity and infrastructure since it has repeatedly lied about these facilities, and also Iran has not complied with United Nation's restrictions, though I know full well our weak Executive would not be as decisive as Israel.
Oil != sustainable.
Not committing an act of war is "weak"?
Iran has never threatened Israel or any other country with military action, let alone to "destroy". On the other hand, two nuclear armed nations, Israel and the US have threatened or at least hinted at military action against Iran countless times. Iran would be stupid not to develop nukes under such circumstances, considering there are two trigger happy nuclear powers constantly giving it trouble.
utter nonsense.....iran has made just that sort of veiled threats. As for threats against Iran, who has suggested that iran should "vanish from the pages of time"?
Iran is entitled to pursue power generation by whatever means it sees fit. Iran does not owe you an explanation.
Ahmedinejad quoted someone else in saying that "the Zionist regime should be wiped from the page of history", which is a quite different thing from asserting it himself or threatening to physically destroy the geographical area which Israel occupies. I felt likewise about the "Neo-Con regime" in your country, without feeling the need to render the entire continental United States uninhabitable.
Would you therefore, in the same spirit, be "inclined to fully support" nuclear or other strikes against any secret US research or weapons facilities? If not, why not?
If everyone making "veiled threats" was subject to retaliatory airstrikes, we would all be under threat.
Actually Iran itself agreed to United Nations treaties not to develop nuclear weapons. It owes us an explanation and sanctions when it violates those agreements. Moreover, Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.
Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue
Wrong. Ahmedinejad has threatened Israel directly and repeatedly. He has also threatened the United States. That is why he must be prevented from developing nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel with Destruction
Iran's Ahmadinejad issues new threats against Israel, U.S.
Iran has asserted that it is not developing nuclear weapons. It owes you nothing.
The Spiegel article quotes him as saying:
This is hardly a direct threat, and clearly no more than political rhetoric, while I can see nothing in the rabid Daily News article even approximating to a threat against the US.
I disagree... I provided UN Security Council link that showed which agreement(s) Iran has pledged to follow that it has broached or violated. Iran itself broke these agreements; Iran is also defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Far worse, in my opinion, it has lied about its internal nuclear weapon development programs. Several years ago Newsweek documented this deception by Iran: "Iran's Nuclear Lies; Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses only. But a history of deception raises doubts," (Newsweek), July 11, 2005. Dickey, Christopher.
Ahmadinejad had demanded that "Israel must be wiped off the map." This has been widely reported. Source:
((New York Times)
(Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel-Wikipedia)
Moreover, even the Muslim newspapers in the Middle East have documented Iran's threats against Israel; "Jihad Watch," Iran threatens Israel with "destruction in 11 days, among others, documents these threats by Ahmadinejad against Israel.
Iran is under no obligation to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Perhaps you should actually read the treaty.
You have no evidence whatever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and even if it was doing so, unless you are prepared to insist that your country and Israel suddenly become completely open about their own activities, you have not a leg to stand on.
Widely misreported. Again, perhaps you should read the links you post so prolifically, as they seem to say completely different things from what you think they say.
yet ayatollah khamenei, supreme leader of iran (and actually responsible for foreign policy) issued a fatwa in august 2005 which stated that production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under islam
The failure of various states to comply with UN Security Council resolutions is endlessly referred to on this forum as some sort of international crime.......so if Iran isn't legally obligated to comply with Security Council resolutions, why would any other country in the middle east be under any such obligation?
Unless the SC resolutions are in line with the Treaty obligations, they have no validity. Iran, like any other signatory, is allowed to own the entire enrichment cycle. Putting further restrictions on them is simply the SC overreaching its authority.
Things that make you go hmmmmm...
But of course the SC resolutions are in line with the treaty....the treaty imposes a number of obligations on Iran which Iran accepted when it signed onto the treaty. If the SC determines that Iran isn't meeting those obligations, and the head of the IAEI has said Iran isn't, then the SC has the authority under the UN charter to consider whether Iran's actions constitute a threat to peace. Requiring some action on the part of Iran to correct the situation is well within the authority of the SC.
Any and all acts banned by international treaties (that may or may not have been signed in a certain place in Switzerland) are in fact illegal.
UN Resolutions, on the other hand, are more or less pointless. No country is obligated to follow the resolution, even if they were a sponsor themselves.
I don't think there's any question that Iran has a clandestine nuclear program. As I've noted before, they would be stupid NOT to.
The question isn't whether they have such a program, the question is what do we do?
Yet, we recently conducted an undeclared war based on UN Resolution violations.