Why does the US forbid Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

[norseamd]

Just go to Wiki or our State Dept site and look at all the terrorism Iran has been involved. They have not been contained to the ME either.

Bad but not much different than the Israelis or US.

 

[blankslate]

After all, the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, France, England, etc., etc, have nuclear weapons. How can any nations forbid Iran having nuclear weapons unless all nations disarm?
Is it hypocrisy? Or is there legal justification?

here's an interesting point made by a CIA veteran
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0216/What-would-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video

"If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons," Bruce Riedel, a 30-year veteran of the CIA now at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in January.

"Look at the neighborhood that I live in: Everyone else has nuclear weapons who matters; and those who don't, don't matter, and get invaded by the United States of America," Mr. Riedel said on a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.

In other words, the reason Tehran might pursue a bomb is the same one that has propelled every nuclear state in history: self-protection.

We also had the same concerns about China.

Yet the day China's test happened half a century ago, Washington's description of the "threat" changed dramatically. Johnson told Americans that the military significance of China's test "should not be overestimated" because "many years and great efforts separate the testing of a nuclear device from having a stockpile of reliable weapons with effective delivery systems."

China's test did "not serve the cause of peace," Johnson added, "but there is no reason to fear it will lead to immediate dangers of war."

Within five years, in fact, the US and China began a covert dialogue and later started an anti-Soviet alliance that helped end the cold war.

"Nuclear weapons did not make China more hostile. If anything, its foreign policies became less aggressive and more mature over time," noted Dr. Gavin. "Nuclear weapons could make Iran more aggressive. Or, as with China, they could provide international legitimacy and security, making Iran less aggressive than it has been."

Some of the countries you listed are our allies so we have no real concern in whether or not they have Nukes. Russia and China have Nukes but we know if they attack us or vice versa it would be insane.

Iran well they don't have nukes and if they get them invading them will be about as enticing an idea as invading N. Korea.

Of course some will argue that Iran will just nuke Israel if they get a nuclear weapon.... but Israel has nukes (some estimates suggest close to 200 warheads). So unless Iran is insane and has a death wish it's not very likely that they will choose to willy-nilly use nukes on Israel.


....

 

[gryphus]

I don't understand the argument the OP is making. Because we have nukes means anyone "should" be able to get them due to fairness?

<Little Girl Whiny Voice>But! Its not fair!</Little Girl Whiny Voice>

what do you have against fairness?

 

[Jhhnn]

maybe because President Ahmadinejad regularly runs around spouting anti-zionist rhestoric saying they want to wipe them off the face of the map? That sort of silliness is simply not allowed if you want nuclear weaponry.

Assuming that they want nuclear weapons despite the fatwa against them by Khamenei. Or that they can secretly produce weapons grade material with the IAEA heavily monitoring their facilities. You might also want to study the use of idiom in language.

The truth is that the US has never granted the revolutionary govt any legitimacy. OTOH, it's been 37 years & Iran obviously isn't N Korea.

Like it or not, they are an advanced society & an emerging regional power, largely because we & our Saudi/ Israeli friends have given them a lot of openings to lend a hand in Kurdistan, Shia Iraq, Syria, Lebanon & Yemen. They obviously have a deeper understanding of their neighbors than western govts or they wouldn't be so successful.

Imagine that.

They also have a strong national identity & are proud of what they've accomplished despite our enduring hostility. They made enormous sacrifices to repulse Iraq & to defend their revolution. They're tough customers, and there are 77M of them. They know how to hold a grudge. They also control the Persian Gulf. The consequences of initiating hostilities are incalculable or the Bushistas would have done it long ago.

The whole "Mad Mullahs!" is a figment of propaganda. They have a long border with Afghanistan, for example. If they were out to stick it to the Great Satan, they'd have been sponsoring the Taliban, but they never have. If they hated Jews pathologically, Jews wouldn't be a protected class in Iran, guaranteed a seat in the national assembly. They'd have just annihilated them following the revolution.

They could have attacked Saddam's Iraq quite successfully any time after GW1 & nobody would have stopped them, but they never did. You know, the regime that attacked them, cost them a million lives to repulse. They held to the terms of the peace treaty. They certainly could have stirred the shit with Iraqi Shia a lot more than what happened, too.

Bibi, of course, had to be right in the middle of it, warmongering every inch of the way, threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facilities even as they were being monitored by the IAEA, very much undermining US efforts to negotiate peaceful resolution. His most recent power hungry shenanigans have gone too far, I'm afraid, particularly his remarks about a Palestinian state. He revealed the great lie.

I figure that breaking Bibi's balls could clinch a deal with Iran despite a lot of Neocon whining in this country. It'd be hard to come up with a better way to show our sincerity to everybody. There's no point in lying to ourselves any longer.

 

[soccerballtux]

So by that logic, no country should have nukes. I agree!


I wish the people who believe whatever scary boogieman story big gub'mint tells them to believe in would stop believing in those boogieman stories.


The President of Iran is Ahmadinejad? You might want to inform the Iranians!


Or labeling them as a member of a fictitious "Axis of Evil"? But that's OK. Because Murrica.

Perhaps if the US had not overthrown their democratically elected PM in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator, they wouldn't be our "enemy" today. So, if they are our enemy who we label as "evil" when we screwed with them first and started all of this, why would their bluster about "death to great satan" be any more toxic?



Agreed. Perhaps if both the US and Iranian governments began acting rational towards each other, a detente, then we could help ensure that they don't develop nuclear weapons, while retaining the ability to have nuclear power.

Or we can continue labeling them as evil, cause the boogieman is comin' for ya, be very, very scared.

Also: mushroom clouds over American cities. And fear. Plus, boogieman.

oops. doesn't change a thing. no nukes for them

 

[Jhhnn]

You are humanizing an entity that is not human. And you are giving that entity some of the better qualities of humans.

It's like saying no one would ever be crazy enough to enter a military base and open fire with a rifle because of retaliation. Yet, humans have done such things.

We also have a plethora of individuals willing to be suicide bombers in the region. They obviously don't worry about retaliation.

With a nuclear Iran, you also worry about a group unaffiliated with any state obtaining one and you don't have a source to retaliate against. It's easy to go after an official conventional military because you have defined targets. It's not easy to target individuals free to roam wherever they choose, not bound to living within a certain region.

And, seriously, *if* Iran or another group used a nuclear weapon, at that point any and all retaliation will for sure be assumed to cause more nuclear weapons to be used. There is no victory, there is no win. There is only death and more death.

Damn! That's every boogie man in the closet!

 

[nickqt]

oops. doesn't change a thing. no nukes for them

Oops, no reading comprehension.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I think it is beyond reasonable to preclude any country from using nuclear power.

 

[michal1980]

Why are liberals so supportive of Iran getting nuclear weapons? For decades they worked to have the USA disarm its nuclear weapons. Now they are working day and night to give iran weapons? Wtf is wrong with you liberals?

 

[Subyman]

what do you have against fairness?

Fairness is for children.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are liberals so supportive of Iran getting nuclear weapons? For decades they worked to have the USA disarm its nuclear weapons. Now they are working day and night to give iran weapons? Wtf is wrong with you liberals?

Why do you construct such an obvious straw man? Or is that merely what your propaganda addled mind can accept?

Nobody who matters is "supportive of Iran getting nuclear weapons" other than in your frenzied imagination. Obviously not the Obama Admin.

 

[norseamd]

Fairness is for children.

Odd because children need fairness enforced on them all the time. How do you think significant businessmen, politicians, and world affairs professionals think of the world population?

 

[michal1980]

Why do you construct such an obvious straw man? Or is that merely what your propaganda addled mind can accept?



Nobody who matters is "supportive of Iran getting nuclear weapons" other than in your frenzied imagination. Obviously not the Obama Admin.

It's odd you call reality a strawman

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's odd you call reality a strawman

Ok, then you can provide us with verifiable examples of 'liberals' showing support for Iran getting nuclear weapons.

You can, can't you? Especially examples of those 'liberals' who "are working day and night to give iran [sic] weapons?"

 

[norseamd]

Ok, then you can provide us with verifiable examples of 'liberals' showing support for Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Even when I support the fact that Iran has some sovereign right and also logical concerns to build nuclear weapons does not mean that I want them to build nuclear weapons. Again considering they are are improving their missiles and civilian nuclear technology they might just stop at breakout capability until they would have any valid concerns to do otherwise. Strapping a dirty bomb some type of intermediate range ballistic missile is still very concerning for any potential enemies including the Israelis.

 

[Jhhnn]

Even when I support the fact that Iran has some sovereign right and also logical concerns to build nuclear weapons does not mean that I want them to build nuclear weapons. Again considering they are are improving their missiles and civilian nuclear technology they might just stop at breakout capability until they would have any valid concerns to do otherwise. Strapping a dirty bomb some type of intermediate range ballistic missile is still very concerning for any potential enemies including the Israelis.

The whole point of any agreement is to have the IAEA act as a watchdog to warn us if Iran attempts to breakout into HEU production or reprocessing of plutonium from spent reactor fuel.

 

[norseamd]

The whole point of any agreement is to have the IAEA act as a watchdog to warn us if Iran attempts to breakout into HEU production or reprocessing of plutonium from spent reactor fuel.

Exactly. Considering they are probably going to make nuclear weapons if we do not come to a deal getting them to stop at breakout capability is in our interests.

 

[Subyman]

Odd because children need fairness enforced on them all the time. How do you think significant businessmen, politicians, and world affairs professionals think of the world population?

What are you getting at? That we should "enforce" Iran getting nukes so everything is "fair"?

 

[pcgeek11]

How can you actually believe that? Iran has never said that they intend to nuke anybody.

Just that weird term:

— President Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, September 21, 2011

“It was only perhaps three weeks ago that the president of Iran once again said that Israel should be eradicated off the face of the Earth. As you recall, it was about in 2005 when he [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] said before that Israel -- he would use a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.”

1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.

Open to interpretation...

 

[norseamd]

What are you getting at? That we should "enforce" Iran getting nukes so everything is "fair"?

Small minds discuss people

Average minds discuss events

Great minds discuss ideas

 

[Omar F1]

FTFY. This is true. However SA already has a deal with Pakistan where the Pakistanis will give SA nuclear weapons if they want them. Yes this is for real.

I heard there were some negotiations, but a deal has been made already? Do you have any source?

BS

Just go to Wiki or our State Dept site and look at all the terrorism Iran has been involved. They have not been contained to the ME either.

Fern

Whenever the relations between US & Iran are in question, the unanswered one will always be why the strategic, huge & oil-rich Iraq was intentionally destroyed and handled to Iran?

 

[Jhhnn]

Just that weird term:

— President Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, September 21, 2011

“It was only perhaps three weeks ago that the president of Iran once again said that Israel should be eradicated off the face of the Earth. As you recall, it was about in 2005 when he [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] said before that Israel -- he would use a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.”

1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.

Open to interpretation...

Here's the full transcript of that speech-

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...bama-s-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.385820

Your supposed quote isn't in it. Question your source.

Yes, Khomeini's remarks of 30 years ago are open to interpretation, particularly given that we don't understand Farsi idioms.

 

[emperus]

BS

Just go to Wiki or our State Dept site and look at all the terrorism Iran has been involved. They have not been contained to the ME either.

Fern

I don't like the term terrorism. It's a pejorative with no true meaning. But, we live in the US with the world's best covert black ops. I wonder what those people in those countries would think about the things we've done.

Ex. The Israeli's assassinating the Iranian Nuclear physicists. Would you consider that terrorism?

 

[xXandra]

Iran definitely have nuclear weapons and will have it despite any US will

 

[blankslate]

"We prefer to allow only certain countries into the nuclear nations club... we dohn like their kind 'round here..."


....

 

[norseamd]

I heard there were some negotiations, but a deal has been made already? Do you have any source?

No known open contract between the Saudi Arabians and Pakistan because obviously that would cause instant world protesting and UN sanctions. But as I understand it if the Saudi Arabians want nuclear weapons then all they have to do is ask the Pakistanis. Not sure where I read that but I would have to start searching for the article and that is not something I feel like putting lots of time on right now. Possibly was FP or some other world studies magazine.