http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8634204.stm

- I think he's saying what everyone's been thinking for a long time, especialy as sanctions are about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Which raises the question - how would the West live with a nuclear Iran?

Same way we live with a nuclear North Korea, lots of handwaving and pretending we're not getting pushed around by China.

The more pressing question is would Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan live with a nuclear Iran. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have political influence far outsize of their own resources.

Doesn't bother me. Korea having them is far worse and we are already living with it.

I support "forcing" countries like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan to de-nuke as long as we do exactly the same thing to Israel and their nukes.

I support "forcing" countries like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan to de-nuke as long as we do exactly the same thing to Israel and their nukes.


You'll get a Texan to give up his guns and Lone Star beer before Israel will give up any edge over the rest of the region. I still expect Israel to attack Iran; of course, I am a pessimist when it comes to that area of the globe.

Only one country has ever de-nuked after independent development of a bomb: South Africa.

Many tin foil hatters might claim that SA's nukes were nothing but a red herring for Israel's nuclear program and device test since there was some alleged evidence of collaboration. Tinfoil hats aside, SA de-nuked because their political and military minds perceived the Cold War threat was over.

That really is the key. Unless governments perceive there is no viable threat worthy of all the baggage and general global ill will towards developing nuclear weapons, then they can't of sound mind part with them. Iran is convinced the world is against them, so they won't be parting with them. Ever.

On a bright note once Iran has their bomb, it will probably force the world to the table and also persuade many that Iran has to be let into the fold. Its in Iran's benefit economically to build a bomb. Nations will be more sympathetic to ensuring that Iran is economically and politically stable from there on and will open up many doors for development and aid etc. Iran left starving and ostracized might be more willing to sell the technology or devices otherwise and that is far worse than being forced to have to do business with them. So in a way, Iran having a nuke may do far more good for the peace process than just mere talk ever would have.

That still leaves a wild card though as Israel is the only factor that really could fuck this all up......

That still leaves a wild card though as Israel is the only factor that really could fuck this all up......


Israel, to the best of my knowledge, does not have it's religious leaders preaching the destruction of any that do not follow Judaism; there have been countless examples of Imams doing so in Muslim nations regarding the varied 'jihads' and 'fatahs' against the West (which in this scenario includes Israel).

There are too many 'wild cards' involved in the higher echelons of Iran's government to believe allowing them to achieve a nuclear weapon would not be tantamount to global suicide. Ahmanutjob and his Royal Guard posse have already established a track record of meddling in Iraq via IUD's; does anyone seriously believe they would not believe themselves righteous to further escalate that behavior with nuclear devices in cargo containers?

Israel, to the best of my knowledge, does not have it's religious leaders preaching the destruction of any that do not follow Judaism; there have been countless examples of Imams doing so in Muslim nations regarding the varied 'jihads' and 'fatahs' against the West (which in this scenario includes Israel).

Israel is a rogue nation which has nuclear weapons and has not declared them or signed the NPT. Just because they don't OPENLY speak of destroying anyone doesn't mean that they do not believe in it.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial." -- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online



Trust me... They don't give 2 shits about what happens to you as you do for them


There are too many 'wild cards' involved in the higher echelons of Iran's government to believe allowing them to achieve a nuclear weapon would not be tantamount to global suicide. Ahmanutjob and his Royal Guard posse have already established a track record of meddling in Iraq via IUD's; does anyone seriously believe they would not believe themselves righteous to further escalate that behavior with nuclear devices in cargo containers?

I seriously believe it... Any aggressive action leading in the deaths of civilians of a western civilization will be the nuclear destruction of Iran. Just because you view them as barbarians and monsters who want to destroy the world doesn't make it true. This is real life, not battlestar galactica.

There are too many 'wild cards' involved in the higher echelons of Iran's government to believe allowing them to achieve a nuclear weapon would not be tantamount to global suicide. Ahmanutjob and his Royal Guard posse have already established a track record of meddling in Iraq via IUD's; does anyone seriously believe they would not believe themselves righteous to further escalate that behavior with nuclear devices in cargo containers?

By that logic, the world should have already been nuked to a crisp by now, as many proxy wars as we've supplied since WW2.

Iran would never use nukes against the US or Israel. They may be religious crazies, but even people like Ronald Reagan who believed that Jesus was coming back really soon were terrified of nuclear exchange. The use of those weapons would be an instant civilization ending move for them, and even their bizarro-islamic revolution world, they know that.

Iran maintains a persecution complex because other big players in the Muslim world hate them like we hated the Commies. Saudi Arabia and other oligarchical states are mortally terrified that the Islamic revolution will spread out of Iran. The most likely targets of Iranian weapons are not in Israel, but Pakistan or Iraq.

We like think the world revolves around an imaginary line drawn between Washington and London.

Iran maintains a persecution complex because other big players in the Muslim world hate them like we hated the Commies. Saudi Arabia and other oligarchical states are mortally terrified that the Islamic revolution will spread out of Iran. More accurately, they hate them like we hated negroes.

The majority of the muslim world are sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam)s. Iranians are shiite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam)s. Sunnis perceive shiites as almost-heretics and so shiites are treated like crap in sunni nations [1]. The distinction has to do with a historical argument over "who will lead Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_Muhammad)." The shiites held that only direct descendants of Mohammed should do so, while the folks who won at Karbala [2] (and became what are called sunni today) held that a different scheme of authority was to be so. The distinction is about as fundamental as the difference between Catholic and Protestant [3].

The "fear of revolution" is that most muslim nations are terrified of the uppity shiites [4] who might be encouraged to push for representation in their governments or independance of any sort. Because Iran is shiite, any shiite groups that get uppity around the world are denounced as being puppets of Iran [5] and funded by Iran - such as the ones in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza.

Notes:
1 - Iraq was a country where the majority of the population was shiite, but until we deposed Sadam, and ended the Iran-Iraq war permanently on behalf of Iran, the shiites were shut out of power at all levels. Now there are 2 shiite nations.
2 - The battle of Karbala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karbala) was where Mohammed's grandson Hussein (which is why so many men are named Hussein) with 72 fighters rode out to fight Yazid's 40,000 troops. Glorious defeat, indeed. As an aside to this aside, clerics/imams who have graduated from a "divinity college" wear a white turban (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safwat_Al-Shwadfy)), while those graduates who are direct descendants of Mohammed may wear black turbans (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei)) instead of white.
3 - I know many evangelicals like to claim that they are neither Catholic nor Protestant, however by being non-Catholic, they are by definition Protestants.
4 - From a sunni perspective, think of shiites as something like "stealth negroes" as one can't tell sunni from shiite by look (except maybe during Ashura), but the shiites get treated like jim-crow-era negroes in most muslim countries. The largest oil deposits and oil terminals in Saudi Arabia are in lands where the locals are predominantly shiite - so if KSA had a revolution of some sort, it would bankrupt the nation for the shiites to gain independance of any sort.
5 - Whether they get any support or not from Iran is irrelevant to the critics as they are all shiites, and automatically guilty just for being shiites: it is just a kneejerk reaction.