US hegemony has kept the region from plunging into real chaos. Consider what the last 30 years in the region would have looked like if Israeli wasn't checked by the US and the Carter doctrine did not exist. No evidence? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you have any evidence please share it. We need evidence that uranium (as per the IAEA) has been (a) diverted, or (b) diverted for purposes other than for the production of peaceful nuclear energy. :m:
Its a matter of pros and cons, the above pros of purely peaceful nuclear research (not even power!) are far out weighed by the cons of international condemnation and suspicion, yet they continue, one must conclude there getting more out it then say medical isotopes. Certainly if say I wanted to build purely peaceful nuclear power program I would do all I could to appeal to NPT safeguards, inspections and IAEA reports, which Iran has not, which leads to significant suspicion. True that not proof of nuclear weapons intent and without proof and majority world support for military strikes one can't just run there smash the place up and declare mission complete, we all know how well that works out.
No doubt Ahmadinejad is playing party politics and posing as a strongman in his approach to the whole issue. No doubt he could do this better and stop his posturing. But in fairness, and as he has stated, if Iran is being scrutinized around the nuke issue then why not Israel, and as we know Israel is the thorn in the ME, that a lot of ME politicking revolves around. Also Iran is in fact complying with all standard IAEA inspections, controls and protocols. Its the extraordinary compliances that they are resisting. (this is seldom included in press reports) Furthermore, there is little doubt that there has been for decades, and still is, an overall US agenda against a resurgent and increasingly regionally influential Iran. No wonder Ahmadinejad is a little belligerent. And of course the nuke issue is a handy card to play in the vilification process and a fortuitous pretext for military adventures. :m:
Every Iranian I know says Iran is building nukes. They then say: AND why not? Israel has them?!? Which is true. I mean, the USA is selling what? 50-60 BILLION dollars worth of military "aid" (is there any better oxymoron) to KSA - and they're the one's who blew up the twin towers! It's all a bunch of bullshit to keep the US millitary industrial complex churning away.
That description is not all that accurate, barring the eschewance of substantiation part. Unless "Zionist" or "military-industrial complex" is namecalling, none is evident, for example. Nor is a claim of logical incomprehensibility made. You are not under siege by the United States, a country with a long track record of using "inspections" and so forth for political leverage and even direct military advantage. After what happened to Saddam and Iraq, any Iranian official who simply opened up his country's military and civilian infrastructure to whatever inspections and so forth its US dominated enemies claim they wanted would be obviously taking a significant risk. The main argument that Iran is building nuclear weapons is the same as always, and has nothing to do with inspections etc: it's because anyone can see that Iran - almost uniquely among the countries of the earth - has both the capability and the need for the things. They are under direct and severe threat, and need the shield that is their only major advantage. As pretty much everyone acknowledges - the latest example:
Yeah that makes so much sense considering how opened up Iraq was to inspection, Oh wait they weren't! So the argument is void as we have no evidence that being totally open to inspection would be risk of anything other then having charges drop against you. or the threat to their very existence. How long do you think it would take for them to have a nuclear arsenal, and that they would be totally open to an near guaranteed attack from the time of their first test bomb to a mounted arsenal. No, making nukes would nearly guarantee war against them.
They were. Their enemies then used the opportunity to gather military intelligence on everything from anti-missile sites and bunkers to communication networks and power systems, which was used to target bombs during the late 90s and abet military assault in 2003. Iran probably took notes. Hasn't happened to anyone else. Assault on a country with nukes of its own would be an unprecedented event - very high risk for Israel, at a minimum. A nuclear Iran with nothing to lose and its survival at stake is not something the prudent would create lightly. Meanwhile, the risk of assault without nukes seems pretty high - enemies with armies right on their borders, intense levels of rhetoric, credible and serious threats on top of economic and political siege, month after month for years now.
I count "nefarious" and "evil" as explicit name-calling, and note a variety of other implied tarrings along those lines. And, yes, "Zionist" and "military-industrial complex" are more loaded terms of derision than objective analytical categories in this sort of polemic context.
Uh, OK - - they are adjectives, though. ? Not seeing it. The tender, civilized, and decent might have trouble - but the author is not claiming an inability to comprehend via logic for themselves.
Yeah it not like US had reconnaissances satellites for that. No the inspectors were specifically denied access and movement to a variety of suspect places. Again there is a time lag between non-nuclear and viable nuclear deterrent state. If Iran was to demonstrate nuclear weapons capability say testing their first bomb, Israel would attack on the spot specifically because Iran would NOT have a 2nd, 3rd, nth, bomb ready and mounted in ballistic missiles as deterrent. The reason nuclear states have not been attacked are for several reasons including coincidence (Korea) to "no one gives a shit" (France), nuclear deterrence is not all that its crack up to be. Heck if we ran history over and over again I would bet at least 1 out of 10 times the US and USSR would have nucked the world, MAD only worked because we were lucky!
Inadequate - hence the employment of other forms of espionage. Sometimes. So? There were inspectors, they had wide access to many places, and some of them used that access to spy out standard military advantage for planned assault. I doubt ballistic missiles would be the only worrisome option, or the test of the "first" bomb any guarantee that no others existed. For starters, any heavy assault would remove much of the deterrent to supplying terrorists with nukes - currently a worthless option, but in the interests of simple revenge and from a position of having been ruined anyway? Israel (among others) would face a hell of a risk, if anyone attacked a nuclear capable Iran. And everyone knows that - that is the worry so often expressed in tangential reference, as quoted. Which is why Israel is threatening to bomb even ordinary power and isotope reactors.
Call it "insult," then, if you wish to be pedantic. Okay, so reclass that under "insult." Either way, the core complaint of choir-preaching remains unaffected.
UN inspections were not espionage. BS! Pure conjecture. No but it does mean attacking now it your last chance before a guaranteed nuclear defense exists. One terrorist nuke is worth risking over guaranteed assortment of doomsday missiles armed and ready. Israel believes its existence will garanteably be terminated if Iran has nukes: that Iran will nuke Israel in order to complete "jihad" against Israel as soon as Iran can assemble an arsenal. So Israel would attack Iran on the first sign Iran was approaching nuclear capabilities, shit they want to attack right now despite the scarcity of evidence! It likely Israel would come out of the closet and nuke Iran shirtless in a pre-emanate strike the moment they had proof Iran had nuclear weapons! Again to Israel Iran garenteably will nuke them if Iran had the means, they fear another holocaust on them and they promised themselves never again, mark my words, they will shoot first!
So really, what you are saying here is that Israel is a danger to themselves and others, and in nuke terms they should be defanged asap? :m:
Don't make such hasty generalizations. The only chance Israel would use nukes is if Iran was to develop nukes, every other situation everyone safe so there is no danger to themselves or others as long as the status quo remains. Consider the 1973 war when Israel was already suspected of having nukes and yet even under invasion from syria and egypt which in the begining of that war was quite successful, Israel did not use nukes for defense, demonstrating restraint (either that or they are bluffing about having nukes). Israel-Iran scenarios is a good example of why controlling nuclear weapons proliferation is such a good idea, with the amount if crazy in the world giving everyone nukes would assure WW3.
US had little or no other intelligence on Iraq then what it got from the UN or picked up from SIGINT and GEOINT and many authors and former insiders have commented on this. You can't have it both ways. You can't have fudged flawed intelligence (like CURVEBALL) because there was lack of real proof of WMD, then claim you actually had info -- unless, of course, you are claiming the US had good intelligence there were no WMD and just cooked the books, which no one with any credibility has ever alleged.
Then surely it would be a good idea if Israel joined the NPT? Seems like a perfectly reasonable Nuclear good governance proposition. :m:
oh in good time, but first you need to figure out how to get a tiny nation run by people that survived one genocide after another, that are surrounded by enemies that have repeatedly waged war on them with the desire to annihilate them, that attack continuously by suicidal terrorist, to not think a nuclear deterrence is a good idea.
