Iran has the right to defend its country.

"Zionist"?? Why didn't you say "isrealis"? Are you an anti-semite, too?

Most people who are politically informed know the difference between a Zionist and an Israeli. I think my use of the word 'Zionists' was correct.

I do not take kindly to people suggesting that I am an anti-semite!
 
Werbung:
Most people who are politically informed know the difference between a Zionist and an Israeli. I think my use of the word 'Zionists' was correct.

I do not take kindly to people suggesting that I am an anti-semite!

No, informed people know that "zionist", as used by islamofascist sympathizers, is a standard anti-israeli slur. Eg, such as Hamas refers to the "zionist entity", not israel.
 
Hi Rob

Obama wants to hold direct talks, which is stupid. We have nothing to offer Iran.

...just an observation Rob, but it depends on what you consider offering them! There is a wider appeal to the US than you think, and despite those who contribute negativity towards the US believe me you underestimate the influence the US has for example its cultural appeal to outsiders.


In Iran, the President is not popular. He is attacked in the state run media and many people are upset that his domestic policies have been total failures. If we refuse to talk to him and give him ammunition to take their minds off of that we may just end up with a more pro-Western leader in a few years who does not even want to pursue the bomb.
....exactly the point I was trying to make. By and large the population of Iran is reasonably moderate thus invest in that asset and widen the appeal of US through alternative means rather than banging heads at conference tables, the “grab em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow” school of diplomacy has failed. I guess that as long as there is a polarization you can work on the moderates and further alienate the zealots. Ultimately the Clerics are the leaders and ruling class and there are moderates that want to reform and enter into “normal” relations with the west. The more support they get from the population at large the better chance they have of out maneuvering their conservative hardliner colleagues..



So yes, we should follow a diplomatic route, but not with Iran, we need to be talking to Europe and China and Russia about cutting off their oil exports.
......where's your carrot? You offer only sticks :) And yes its good to talk but you have to talk to everyone including the Iranians.
 
Direct diplomacy would be fruitless since WE are not approaching from a position of strength, our stick, and Iran isn't interested in our carrots.

I think if you make the right noises it won't be. Remember up to now the stance taken by the Bush Government has been hardline and not aimed at the right audience (hopefully) that is changing and I hope will bear friut.

The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability.

A frequent complaint of the Iranians is that they want to deal directly with the Americans instead of its surrogates, Britain, France and Germany.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

Personally I think that in future the rhetoric has to be tempered to a more moderate level in order for the diplomats to get to work and sort this out. By far the most important player in this debate (who incidently no one has mentioned yet) is Ayatollah Khamenei who is the most powerful man in Iran and who dwarfs Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is a very conservative pious man who, when he came to power, further entrenched the rule of the conservative clerics. However, he has allowed moderates to co-exist within the ruling elite and it is through dipomacy and contact with him that you will get results.

The clinton administration made the mistake of engaging with the moderates via their leader Khatami which was a huge mistake. Khamenei like any politician is always keeping an eye on his powerbase and his position and he saw this engagement to Khatami as a challenge to his position and thus you have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as his President as a reaction to move. If the right chanels had been adhered to then you may now have a more moderate President. Once again it seems to be a failure of US diplomacy that has brought the US to their present position.

Iran is going to be a difficult nut to crack and pretending like there is a best solution is pure fantasy... Much like our presidential elections, we will be looking at our options from a viewpoint of picking the lesser of many evils in dealing with Iran.

I absolutely agree and this is why I think that you/we indeed everyone needs to keep talking to the Iranians and not this constant hardline approach and banging the war drums but engage them in meaningful dialogue and Isreal should be told to shut the f**k-up and stop bolloxing everything up!

But you are right it is not going to be easy and it will take time and some major re-thinking of how the US views Iran and its Revolutionary Government. Khamenei needs to be convinced that he is not being backed into a corner and concedeing authority. He needs to be convinced that any change in Iran's foreign policy is not "Change" but an "evolution" and we need to give the moderate elements in Tehran ammunition so that they can make that case to Khamenei. He needs to convinced that further isolationism and entrenchment will only harm Iran and its' economy further and its relationships with the outside world and that softening of the approach will bring positive benefits without changing the original pillars of the revolution upon which he bases his moral position.

The key to succesful dialogue will be finding the common ground upon which to build a relationship, I would suggest that is probably talking about Iraq and the future of that country and what role Iran will have. I dont see this as acquiescing to Iranian rhetoric more as being a catalyst upon which we will be able to build a base for further and more substantive discussions and hopefully ellicite a more concilliatory tone towards the West and the USA (which incidentally was what I meant by using the Diplomats the "old hands" who knew how to play the game when dealing with the Russians).

Its either that or wait a long time for Khamenei to die and hope that a more moderate Ayotollah takes over.
 
I think if you make the right noises it won't be. Remember up to now the stance taken by the Bush Government has been hardline and not aimed at the right audience (hopefully) that is changing and I hope will bear friut.

You can interpret this sitting in as the US playing up to Europe so that when the talks fail, as they always do, we can demand sanctions or be set up for an air strike.

Personally I think that in future the rhetoric has to be tempered to a more moderate level in order for the diplomats to get to work and sort this out. By far the most important player in this debate (who incidently no one has mentioned yet) is Ayatollah Khamenei who is the most powerful man in Iran and who dwarfs Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is a very conservative pious man who, when he came to power, further entrenched the rule of the conservative clerics. However, he has allowed moderates to co-exist within the ruling elite and it is through dipomacy and contact with him that you will get results.

Yes, he is a powerful force in Iran, but even he must must be delicate with how he handles the situation. A lot of the youth in Iran is not pro-Western persay but friendly towards the West and want to embrace its culture. Khamenei cannot take to hardline a stance against the moderates or he could risk another revolution, much like the one that even allowed him to be in power.

The clinton administration made the mistake of engaging with the moderates via their leader Khatami which was a huge mistake. Khamenei like any politician is always keeping an eye on his powerbase and his position and he saw this engagement to Khatami as a challenge to his position and thus you have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as his President as a reaction to move. If the right chanels had been adhered to then you may now have a more moderate President. Once again it seems to be a failure of US diplomacy that has brought the US to their present position.

Ahmadinejad ran as a populist as well, which is now hurting him because the domestic situation is not getting better and inflation is getting worse. I think again that Khamenei has to be careful with the moderates and youth or he could risk losing all power.

I absolutely agree and this is why I think that you/we indeed everyone needs to keep talking to the Iranians and not this constant hardline approach and banging the war drums but engage them in meaningful dialogue and Isreal should be told to shut the f**k-up and stop bolloxing everything up!

I disagree. I think that moderates and the youth would look at US engagement of Ahmadinejad as lending him legitimacy. I think a hardline stance would further the Iranian unrest with their current leadership and lead to a changing of the guard.

And I think Israel has every right to be worried about the situation. It is easy for us to tell them to back off, but we have not been invaded multiple times by Arab nations, we are not viewed as illegitimate in our existence, and we do not have a nation calling for our destruction about to obtain the bomb. While Iran is not Arab, they are certainly no friend of Israel and need to gain favor with the other Arab states.

Israel also looks at it like the more time we waste talking, the closer Iran gets to the bomb. Israel sees Iran continue to break agreements and refuse to give up their nuclear program, and they are justifiably alarmed.

But you are right it is not going to be easy and it will take time and some major re-thinking of how the US views Iran and its Revolutionary Government. Khamenei needs to be convinced that he is not being backed into a corner and concedeing authority. He needs to be convinced that any change in Iran's foreign policy is not "Change" but an "evolution" and we need to give the moderate elements in Tehran ammunition so that they can make that case to Khamenei. He needs to convinced that further isolationism and entrenchment will only harm Iran and its' economy further and its relationships with the outside world and that softening of the approach will bring positive benefits without changing the original pillars of the revolution upon which he bases his moral position.

If you look at freedom in Iran, there is a direct relationship with the price of oil. As the price goes higher, freedoms are constricted. As the price falls, controls are loosened. So, with the price of oil being what it is, and given this history of Iran, it seems dubious to me that we would be able to convince him of any "evolution" that the moderates can propose.

The key to succesful dialogue will be finding the common ground upon which to build a relationship, I would suggest that is probably talking about Iraq and the future of that country and what role Iran will have. I dont see this as acquiescing to Iranian rhetoric more as being a catalyst upon which we will be able to build a base for further and more substantive discussions and hopefully ellicite a more concilliatory tone towards the West and the USA (which incidentally was what I meant by using the Diplomats the "old hands" who knew how to play the game when dealing with the Russians).

I agree that there can be some benefit to talks in regards to Iraq, but I think all that would come out of it is a nuclear Iran who then ignores any deal they made and establishes themselves as regional hegemon. We cannot allow this because that will alarm Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Egypt has resumed their nuclear program as well (supposedly) in response to the continued Iranian nuclear activity.
 
Hi Rob - I dont have much time at the moment so will come back to you later on the rest of your comments.....

Yes, he is a powerful force in Iran, but even he must must be delicate with how he handles the situation. A lot of the youth in Iran is not pro-Western persay but friendly towards the West and want to embrace its culture. Khamenei cannot take to hardline a stance against the moderates or he could risk another revolution, much like the one that even allowed him to be in power.

I think that flies the the face of what is actually happening at the moment. Also I don't think you have factored in role of the Revolutionary Guards or the "clerical Commissars" under Khamenei's control.

Consider also the initial endorsements that Khamenei gave to Ahmadinejad in the run up to the elections in 2005 when he was running against Khatami's favoured candidate, Rafsanjani. Khamenei outwardly endorsed Ahmadinejad in various speeches as the best candidate (remember that the Council of 12 can veto any candidate and Khamenei controls the Council) as his credentials were entirely consistent with the 4 pillars of the revolution. Khamenei contiuned to endorse Ahmadinejad after he got into power, however, as Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has become more bellicose Khamemei has started to distance himself thus playing into the hands of the moderates. All the time though Ahmadinejad is still by far the prefered choice of Khamenei - real politik!


will get back to you later on the rest...:)

Cheers mate!
 
Hi Rob - I dont have much time at the moment so will come back to you later on the rest of your comments.....



I think that flies the the face of what is actually happening at the moment. Also I don't think you have factored in role of the Revolutionary Guards or the "clerical Commissars" under Khamenei's control.

Consider also the initial endorsements that Khamenei gave to Ahmadinejad in the run up to the elections in 2005 when he was running against Khatami's favoured candidate, Rafsanjani. Khamenei outwardly endorsed Ahmadinejad in various speeches as the best candidate (remember that the Council of 12 can veto any candidate and Khamenei controls the Council) as his credentials were entirely consistent with the 4 pillars of the revolution. Khamenei contiuned to endorse Ahmadinejad after he got into power, however, as Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has become more bellicose Khamemei has started to distance himself thus playing into the hands of the moderates. All the time though Ahmadinejad is still by far the prefered choice of Khamenei - real politik!


will get back to you later on the rest...:)

Cheers mate!

I look forward to reading the rest.

But in response to this:

I think that you place to much weight on the support Khamenei can bring to the table. Yes he is powerful, and yes he controls the Rev Guard and the council of 12, but I think that this only gets you so far.

For example, the Shah had a firm grip on power and had major US backing, but still collapsed. If the movement of the youth and moderates becomes large enough, he will not be able to keep it silent forever, no matter what he controls.

I agree with your assessment of the politics right now in Iran, but I think that if it continues along the path it is on, it will boil over in favor of the youth and moderates.
 
Hi Rob

I think that you place to much weight on the support Khamenei can bring to the table. Yes he is powerful, and yes he controls the Rev Guard and the council of 12, but I think that this only gets you so far.
....gets you so far in terms of what......could you expand a bit on that comment?

And I think Israel has every right to be worried about the situation.
......Rob I'd like your thoughts on this as I'm sort of confused about this relationship that exists with Iran and Isreal, I can't see a clear reason why Iran takes such issue with Isreal! I understand where and how Khamanei' views on the US were formed and to a certain extent his rhetoric is consistent but not with Isreal. I don't even think he follows Khomeini's views – what are your ideas on this?

Iran has no connection with Isreal it has not come into conflict with them - Iranians are not Arabs. The only connection is Islam and Iran's indeed Khamenei's revolutionary aspirations of being the supreme Islamic leader indeed he describes himself thus “Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei” personally I think he is using the palastinian conflict as a way to give himself legitamacy within a wider Shi'i and Sunni audience. By attacking Isreal is gives the appearance of a common enemy a kind of rallying cry to Islam and Iran as the vanguard of the revolution. However, that said I doubt that dispite the rhetoric if Iran would ever do anything precipitate against Israel and I think Israel knows that too!

Anyway as I say I'd like to hear your views on this.


Israel also looks at it like the more time we waste talking, the closer Iran gets to the bomb. Israel sees Iran continue to break agreements and refuse to give up their nuclear program, and they are justifiably alarmed.
... I confess as to being a sceptic on the weapons development front I do not believe they are developing a nuclear weapon, that said in a number of years hence I am quite prepared to face the choruses of “well I told you so”.
 
No, the Iranians are not manufacturing a nuclear weapon at this point in time but will eventually. And now the US or Israel are powerless to bomb Iran because it implies disaster for the US.

Whoever started this silly ideological argument over negotiating with Iran? It's not going to demonstrate a weakness of the US which Iran doesn't already fully realize.

IMO the American people need to wake up and start demanding that there be meaningful negotiations with Iran. And as Robert Baer says, what's wrong with Iran having a nuclear weapon? It's not going to ever use nuclear weapons as a first strike against anybody.

The answer to Baer's question: Iran will be able to defend itself from US aggression if it possesses nuclear weapons. And that changes everything.

Iraq is a stalemate and will eventually be lost for the US. Make the best of a very bad situation now.
 
No, the Iranians are not manufacturing a nuclear weapon at this point in time but will eventually.
This is acceptable to you? Such an event would spark a regional cold war with massive nuclear proliferation.

IMO the American people need to wake up and start demanding that there be meaningful negotiations with Iran.

Such as? They want us to drop support of Israel and allow them to continue their proxy wars against other countries in the region.

And as Robert Baer says, what's wrong with Iran having a nuclear weapon?

A nuclear arms race in the Middle East....

It's not going to ever use nuclear weapons as a first strike against anybody.

You're asserting opinion as fact. They may, or may not, use it as a first strike weapon... I'd rather not take the chance and I'm sure Israel feels the same way.

The answer to Baer's question: Iran will be able to defend itself from US aggression if it possesses nuclear weapons.

So they can use their proxy armies to attack the US without fear of retribution.

Iraq is a stalemate and will eventually be lost for the US. Make the best of a very bad situation now.

Asserting poorly informed opinion as fact. There has been huge progress in Iraq and even Obama and the Democrats are forced to IGNORE IT because its no longer a major issue - Hence the focus on the "worsening" situation in Afghanistan.

We are looking at being in Iraq for 2-4 more years (2012) and after what we have lost there, I would rather we finish the job and not have to go back... with the possibility of a nuclear Iran next door.
 
Hi Rob

....gets you so far in terms of what......could you expand a bit on that comment?

I think that if you look back in Iranian history, the Shah had a good grip on power and had full backing by the United States, but he was unable to stop the Islamic Revolution. While Khamanei is powerful and controls the Revolutionary Guards, the army remains its own separate entity. While he technically controls this as well, it is important to remember that the army is made up of young people in Iraq, who have been adopting a more pro-Western outlook. So while Khamanei retains power, he is not immune to the growing distaste for the domestic situation. I agree that he is playing politics to attempt to get his person in and maintain his dominance, but it is a sticky situation in my view and could blow up in his face, much as it did to the Shah.

......Rob I'd like your thoughts on this as I'm sort of confused about this relationship that exists with Iran and Isreal, I can't see a clear reason why Iran takes such issue with Isreal! I understand where and how Khamanei' views on the US were formed and to a certain extent his rhetoric is consistent but not with Isreal. I don't even think he follows Khomeini's views – what are your ideas on this?

I think that Iran has the goal of becoming the regional power in the Middle East. Since they are not Arab, this presents them with another potential challenge. I think that much of their anti-Israeli rhetoric is fueled by these causes:

1) In order for Iran to actually achieve regional hegemony they will need the support of the Arab nations. One great way to do this is to be a big enemy to Israel. So, the Iranian rhetoric on Israel could be to curry favor with Arab states to help their bid for regional hegemony.

2) Another reason could be that they simply want good relations with the region. This could be one way to do it.

3) Historically, you could look back to the Israeli involvement in Lebanon as a reason. It was largely seen that Israelis wanted to prop up the Christian regime in Lebanon which had routinely excluded the Shia population in Lebanon.

4) Religion could be an issue. While Iran is not Arab, they are mostly Muslim, and (fairly or not) Muslims and Jews have not had the best relations for awhile.

5) Another reason however that they could be so openly attacking Israel and the West is because they want to shift the focus off their domestic problems. If they see that many young people in Iran are growing up more moderate with semi-pro western views they could shifting the focus to keep pushing anti-west rhetoric. If they are able to use their nuclear program (weapon or not) to point out to the young people that the West tries to dominate their society unfairly, it could shift the opinion back in favor of the religious leaders as the Iranian population rejects the West (if they buy into the rhetoric). Their domestic situation is pretty bad as well, inflation is high, especially on food, and people are getting fed up with it. They wonder since Iran is loaded with oil, why can't the economy get moving and better their situation. If the leaders can shift the blame to the West, then they are accomplishing their goals, if they can't, then they will have a problem.

Iran has no connection with Isreal it has not come into conflict with them - Iranians are not Arabs. The only connection is Islam and Iran's indeed Khamenei's revolutionary aspirations of being the supreme Islamic leader indeed he describes himself thus “Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei” personally I think he is using the palastinian conflict as a way to give himself legitamacy within a wider Shi'i and Sunni audience. By attacking Isreal is gives the appearance of a common enemy a kind of rallying cry to Islam and Iran as the vanguard of the revolution. However, that said I doubt that dispite the rhetoric if Iran would ever do anything precipitate against Israel and I think Israel knows that too!

Iran comes into contact with Israel through proxy groups as well however. Hezbollah is largely back by Iran (and others) and many times these groups are used to carry out small wars (as seen in Lebanon) to cause problems for the others.

That said, I agree with your comment here that Iran is trying to use rhetoric to benefit themselves and 'rally around the flag" etc. That said, Iran could also be trying to get close to other states in the area to prevent any Israeli attack. Israel will defend themselves, as we have seen. (Bombing at Osirak, and recently in Syria, invasion of Lebanon on multiple occasions etc). I think Iran is playing a gamble if they think all this rhetoric will not provoke Israel, which I think is why they are locking up huge oil deals with China, Russia, and playing nice to the rest of the Middle East.

... I confess as to being a sceptic on the weapons development front I do not believe they are developing a nuclear weapon, that said in a number of years hence I am quite prepared to face the choruses of “well I told you so”.

I think evidence points to the fact that they are. That said, we do not know for sure. They could just be using the nuclear program to gain popularity in the area and "rally around the flag" domestically. However, they need to play it carefully since Egypt (the most accepted hegemon in the region) has been weary of a nuclear Iran as well.

Of course it could be another situation like we got in Iraq. Saddam had to play a delicate line on that issue as well. Regardless of if he had weapons or not he had to make it seem like he did to his neighbors and seem like he did not to the UN. The reasons for this are obvious, especially for why with the UN. But with his neighbors, coming on the heels of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam needed to create the idea to Iran that he did have the weapons to not appear weak. Iraq also had goals of regional hegemony and having a stockpile of these weapons is hard to ignore.
 
No, the Iranians are not manufacturing a nuclear weapon at this point in time but will eventually. And now the US or Israel are powerless to bomb Iran because it implies disaster for the US.

I agree, bombing is a terrible idea, but a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to US foreign interest.

IMO the American people need to wake up and start demanding that there be meaningful negotiations with Iran. And as Robert Baer says, what's wrong with Iran having a nuclear weapon? It's not going to ever use nuclear weapons as a first strike against anybody.

The problem is that Iran could pass off nuclear materials or know how to a proxy such as Hezbollah who would have no problem using a bomb in Israel. Given the size of Israel, that would mean almost total devastation for the entire country, and would result in Israel retaliating with a nuclear device.

The answer to Baer's question: Iran will be able to defend itself from US aggression if it possesses nuclear weapons. And that changes everything.

I have heard this argument before and it does carry weight. Iran will be able to defend itself from an all out invasion, but obviously this counteracts the interest of the United States, and should be dealt with as such.

Added to that, should Iran go nuclear, the NPT treaty will all but fall apart, and as said earlier, Egypt will probably go nuclear shortly after Iran does.
 
No, the Iranians are not manufacturing a nuclear weapon at this point in time but will eventually. And now the US or Israel are powerless to bomb Iran because it implies disaster for the US.

Whoever started this silly ideological argument over negotiating with Iran? It's not going to demonstrate a weakness of the US which Iran doesn't already fully realize.

IMO the American people need to wake up and start demanding that there be meaningful negotiations with Iran. And as Robert Baer says, what's wrong with Iran having a nuclear weapon? It's not going to ever use nuclear weapons as a first strike against anybody.

Do read ANYTHING but the appeaser blogosphere??? The euroweenies negotiated with them for three years and had nothing to show for it - the president there said TODAY that nobody will stop their nuke program. You don't know what you're talking about. :D
 
I think that Iran has the goal of becoming the regional power in the Middle East.
....its the stated aim of Iran to be the world leader of Islam!!?? that's why all the Arab States are worried about Iran and want them dealt with trouble is they can't do it themselves as its Moslem V Moslem which is a big NO.

Saudi Arabia in particular don't want Iran in the assendent as that threatens control of the Holy sites of Mecca and Medina. I reckon this is why Egypt and Saudi refrain from anti-Israeli rhetoric as they need Israel as the full back in the event Iran starts getting adventurous....

As a nation-state, Iran is not concerned with the Palestinian issue and has no reason to be Israel's enemy. As a revolutionary cause, however, Iran must pose as Israel's arch-foe to sell the Khomeinist regime's claim of leadership to the Arabs.

Wall Street Journal

You mentioned that in order for Iran to control the region they would need the support of the other Arab nations. Do you think they do? I mean, they dont see their Revolution as and "Iranian" revolution, they see it as an "Islamic" revolution. This was the appeal of Ayatollah Khomenini, it was Isalm that was the driving force, therefore they are not appealling to Arab Egyptians, Arab Libyans or Arab Palestinians per-se but to Arab Muslims in general and as Islam comes before state......


Iran comes into contact with Israel through proxy groups as well however. Hezbollah is largely back by Iran (and others) and many times these groups are used to carry out small wars (as seen in Lebanon) to cause problems for the others.

I love the inconsistencies with their rhetoric and who they support. As you quite rightly say they support the Palestinian cause as well as Hamas and Hizbollah, but get this they also supported the Christian militia's in Azerbaijan against the Muslim Shi'i as well as refusing to support the Chechians (all for fear of antagonising the Russians I guess :rolleyes: )


The nuclear (energy) programme I think is their "defiant" bid for economic self-sufficiency. Again if you look at the Pillars of the Revolution this would be a logical conclusion to those stated aims as will as their desire to raise the level of Scientific Research and Development which they claim was once the reserve of the Islamic world and are trying to reclaim. The four core values or pillars of the revolution are Independent, Justice Religious Peity and Self-Sufficiency thus I guess they are building their nuclear programmes under that stated aim?
 
Werbung:
I agree, bombing is a terrible idea, but a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to US foreign interest.

I've read your remarks to the others and I will just remind you that the US created the trouble in Iran to begin with by installing the Shah against the wishes of the people. But that's old history. The issue now is that the US can't do anything to stop Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons some time in the future and for that reason negotiations are what is needed. I don't see the US being successful in negotiations with Iran though because Iran knows it has now gained an opportunity to control it's own destiny.

The problem is that Iran could pass off nuclear materials or know how to a proxy such as Hezbollah who would have no problem using a bomb in Israel. Given the size of Israel, that would mean almost total devastation for the entire country, and would result in Israel retaliating with a nuclear device.

Nuclear weapons are traceable but nonetheless, the current situation calls for a policy of fairness in dealing with the Palestinians. I believe the US is moving to accepting that fact now as we speak. Israel of course is not amenable to a policy of fairness and so will need to be dragged kicking and screaming. Bush has caused a situation now where there is little choice on the fact that the Israeli/Palestinian issue is going to have to be remedied.

I have heard this argument before and it does carry weight. Iran will be able to defend itself from an all out invasion, but obviously this counteracts the interest of the United States, and should be dealt with as such.

That's being very honest. Does Iran have a right to be capable of defending itself? Too bloody bad about the interests of the US. There are few choices now.

Added to that, should Iran go nuclear, the NPT treaty will all but fall apart, and as said earlier, Egypt will probably go nuclear shortly after Iran does.

Iran becoming nuclear armed is not desirable but in the Iranian's view it's necessary because they will not be held ransom to US aggression any longer. And they are determined and focused I believe. So much so that I believe they would become even more determined and focused on their goal if the US were to attack.
 
Back
Top