What does N Korea have to do with the discussion at hand, other than as a red herring?
I asked this to have a reference point to what do you think of WMD in the hands of rogue dictators.
I'm not in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons any more than I'm in favor of the Israelis having them.
Not that it matters much for the discussion, but don't you think that based on the track record of Muslim aggression, the unfortunate past of the Jewish people and the ridiculous ratio of Muslims to Jews, Israel is perhaps the single country MOST justified to have nuclear deterrence on earth?
Both situations are beyond our reasonable capacity to act. While Israel's possession of them is *obvious* and admitted, in an underhanded sort of way, Iranian intentions remain unclear. It is clear, however, that Iran will be poised to engage in a "breakout" scenario while adhering to the NPT up to that point. Realistically, any military attempts to stop them from reaching that point, short of invasion, will certainly set them on that path. Their nuclear program is extremely popular at home, cutting across all political lines. Nuclear energy is something the Iranian people want.
Again I kind of agree with you, although it is possible that a targeted attack at their nuclear facilities combined with hitting regime key figures might have the desired effect. However as Muslims proved before, there could be a possibility all demographic tensions will break lose, Iraq style, and who knows what would happen then. Although, I give the Iranians, as a nation, a little more credit than I give their Arab neighbors in this regards (but again, progressive students can only do that much against Taliban militias with AK47s).
For that reason alone, it's not in American interests to allow the Israelis to attack, then run back to the protection of Uncle Sam.
Out of all the significant US allies outside of the American continent, Israel is the only one that never needed any direct action from American troops (even when directly confronted with Russian forces in 1967 and 1973), so I find that comment a little awkward.
It's also not in our interests to provoke or allow Israel to provoke the Iranians given the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This might be true.
KSA is an American client state in terms of foreign policy- they follow Washington's lead, and in return for that, and the oil, we allow them to run their feudal kingdom with the help of the wahabi religious police. We sponsor their investment in the world economy, despite the fact that they're the wellspring and the chief exporter of radical Islam. However repressive the Iranian regime may be, they're no match for the Saudi monarchy in that regard. They rule by the principle of Divine Right. Pretensions to the contrary are absurd.
I never even implied the Saudis are saints or the beacon of humanity. They are, as a regime, the scum of the earth. However they are concerned because of the Iranians, and THEY know why. And please don't tell me they are concerned because US told them to be, while they exert pressure on the state department to skip sanctions and go directly to the military option.
Likewise, Jordan and Egypt both woke up recently and started making noises about wanting nuclear programs of their own. Coincidence? The fact Israel had a nuclear program didn't prevent these countries from attacking it in 1973, they were pretty confident back then that the Jewish finger on the red button is extremely tolerant.
If the Iranians gain dominance in the region, it'll be for economic reasons rather than military ones. World sanctions have forced them to create their own industries in nearly every realm, and they're in a position to exploit that, to compete with producers from all across the globe on a regional level. What they want can be obtained w/o military force greater than the need for actual self defense. Their ambitions are apparently not territorial.
While some of it is true, and while I don't think the Iranians have any intents on physically expanding their borders, the Iranians conduct their business through proxies and are in the business of building a sphere of influence in the Muslim world, a way much more elegant than conquering land.
Having nukes just means they can get away with more shit (similar to the situation with N. Korea).
Don't forget that when morally comparing Israel to Iran, it's the latter who attacks the former using funded, armed and trained proxies (Hizbullah and Hamas) for 20 years now, completely unprovoked. It shows something.
Eventually, though, I think that what will tip the scale, for US and possibly NATO countries, to attacking Iran is the fear of the arms race of all arms races in the Middle East. That could throw the world into real chaos. This probably will overcome any consideration about the future of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Facebook
Twitter