World cannot accept nuclear armed Iran

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Rice: World cannot accept nuclear armed Iran


Aug. 8, 2004 19:00 | Updated Aug. 8, 2004 23:18

Rice: World cannot accept nuclear armed Iran

By JPOST.COM STAFF



With Iran stepping up its nuclear program, a top White House aide said Sunday the world finally is "worried and suspicious" over the Iranians' intentions and is determined not to let Tehran produce a nuclear weapon.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice also said the Bush administration sees a new international willingness to act against Iran's nuclear program. She credited the changed attitude to the Americans' insistence that Iran's effort put the world in peril.

She would not say whether the United States would act alone to end the program if the administration could not win international support.

Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, announced a week ago that his country had resumed building nuclear centrifuges. He said Iran was retaliating for the West's failure to force the UN nuclear watchdog agency to close its file on possible Iranian violations of nuclear nonproliferation rules.

Kharrazi said Iran was not resuming enrichment of uranium, which requires a centrifuge. But, he said, Iran had restarted manufacturing the device because Britain, Germany and France had not stopped the investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"The United States was the first to say that Iran was a threat in this way, to try and convince the international community that Iran was trying, under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, to actually bring about a nuclear weapons program," Rice said on CNN's Late Edition.

"I think we've finally now got the world community to a place, and the International Atomic Energy Agency to a place, that it is worried and suspicious of the Iranian activities," she said. "Iran is facing for the first time real resistance to trying to take these steps."

Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, included Iran with North Korea and Iraq in an "axis of evil" dedicated to developing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

Since then, North Korea has publicly resumed its nuclear development program. In Iraq, invading US-led forces have found no such programs after President Saddam Hussein was deposed.

Iran announced in June that it would resume its centrifuge program. Afterward, the US official whose job is to slow the global atomic arms race, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, told Congress that Iran was jabbing "a thumb in the eye of the international community."

On NBC's Meet the Press, Rice reasserted that the world has fallen in line on Iran and said she expects next month to get a very strong statement from the IAEA "that Iran will either be isolated, or it will submit to the will of the international community."

She also said, "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen."

IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said in an interview with Channel two weeks ago that Israel shouldn't ignore the threat from Iran.

'In the past two weeks, Iran has broken the rules of the game regarding its monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency and resumed operating the [nuclear] project,' the IDF chief said.

We have to take seriously the Iranian efforts to get nuclear weapons. It has to worry not just Israel but all the free world,' Ya'alon said on Popolitica. 'This problem has been concerning us for the past 10 years.'

Iran earlier repeated its threat to 'wipe Israel off the map' if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's nuclear sites.

'The United States is showing off by threatening to use its wild dog, Israel,' Revolutionary Guards Commander Seyed Masood Jazayeri was quoted as saying by the Iranian student news agency, ISNA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What is Mr. Kerry's position on this? :confused:
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
What is Mr. Kerry's position on this?

Surround yourself with competent people and experts in the area, Not hawks hell bent on war without input from experts. Just my guess though.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
"National security adviser Condoleezza Rice also said the Bush administration sees a new international willingness to act against Iran's nuclear program. She credited the changed attitude to the Americans' insistence that Iran's effort put the world in peril"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just replace the word Iran with Iraq.

Doesn't this sound all so familiar.

What is it that makes Iran such a big threat? Probably just more lies, lies, lies.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Germans Worried About Iran Nukes

August 5, 2004

Listen to Rush?
(...ask the Germans just what they're going to DO about Iranian nukes)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Looky here at this headline. I'm not sure where this is from. (Deutsche Welle) It's from a German newspaper, DW.world. Wherever, yeah. I think it's a German newspaper. "Germany Worried By Iran's Nuclear Activity." Now, what is your first thought, folks? Seriously now, when you hear this headline, "Germany Worried By Iran's Nuclear Activity"? What's your first thought? Brian, what's your first thought? Never mind, I can see you don't have one. Mr. Snerdley, what's your first thought? It's now. It's now. Come on, what's your first thought? Oh, come on. This is Iran, not Iraq. "Germany Worried By Iran's Nuclear Activity." You know, this is another sterling example of why I'm here. I see this, and I see a 20-minute riff. You see it, and you say, "So what? Idiot Germans. Screw them."

Okay, there you go! There you go! The thing about this headline is, he said, "Well, they're not going to do anything about it." "Germany Worried By Iran's Nuclear Activity." Period. That's all they have to do is worry about it. They don't have to do diddly-squat about it. They won't do diddly-squat about it. They can't do diddly-squat about it. All they can do is "worry" about it, and then after they get sufficiently worried, guess what they're going to do? They're going to call us, and they're going to say, "Why aren't you doing something about it? Why did you let this happen?" They will say that to us. The same people who wouldn't lift a finger to help in Iraq, along with the French, now have the audacity and the lack of courage. This statement was made by their big, fat foreign minister Joschka Fischer, himself a former war protester, a former pacifist in this country. ( 1 | 2)

He's part of the whole Kerry cabal in the way they think. This guy was sympathetic to the Baader-Meinhof gang in his youth. This guy was a hellraiser. Now he's the foreign minister of Germany. He's one of these guys that was preaching against us along with the de Villepin character at the United Nations. All of a sudden they come up and say they're worried about Iran's nukes! And that's all they have to do is be worried about it. And actually, uh, ladies and gentlemen, it may be a more frustrating position, because there's nothing they can do. There's nothing they would do, so all they can do is worry. We might be worried, too, but we have a responsibility, and we have the ability, and that's why we are who we are.

That's why we're the lone superpower and that's why the United Nations is worthless, because they could go to the UN. Germany could go to the UN and say, "We are worried about Iran's nuclear activity," and Kofi Annan will say, "Okay, well, we'll convene the Security Council. We'll do a resolution," and then somebody will veto it like the Chinese or somebody and they'll have no teeth in it. Two-thirds of the membership of the UN is a bunch of dictators in the same mold as Iran anyway. Just, just classic. So the Germans, they're worried about nukes in Iran! My heart bleeds! I really feel sorry for the Germans. They're worried about nukes in Iran. Just once I'd like to see an official U.S. government response that says, "You are? What are you going to do about it? We're tied up right now. We'll get to it eventually, but if you can't deal with your fear and your worry, why don't you take some steps to deal with it? We've got a bog down in Iraq right now in Afghanistan and the rest of the world." Never happen.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
"World cannot accept nuclear armed Iran"

They (Iran) are probably thinking the same about the US. Why is it acceptable for us and Russia and China and Israel and England and France and who knows who else its OK for, but because Bush has a hard on for the middle east, nuclear capibility is a no no? Parity in nucear arms is what brings stability.


BTW, the parity I would support is NO NUKES FOR ANYONE!!

Mutual assured destruction is the lamest damn homphobic policy this planet has ever had foisted upon its citizens.

Ask the survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or view the doucumented aftermath of that time in history. Unless you think survivability of such a world is acceptable, then what reason would you deny any country the right to protect themselves?We use this very reason to have stockpiles of nuclear weapons armed and trageted to places on this globe that would utterly shock you if you knew where we would send this kind of death and destruction.

Lose the nukes globely or arm every nation equally, You can't have it both ways and have any credibility.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
"World cannot accept nuclear armed Iran"

They (Iran) are probably thinking the same about the US. Why is it acceptable for us and Russia and China and Israel and England and France and who knows who else its OK for, but because Bush has a hard on for the middle east, nuclear capibility is a no no? Parity in nucear arms is what brings stability.


BTW, the parity I would support is NO NUKES FOR ANYONE!!

Mutual assured destruction is the lamest damn homphobic policy this planet has ever had foisted upon its citizens.

Ask the survivors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or view the doucumented aftermath of that time in history. Unless you think survivability of such a world is acceptable, then what reason would you deny any country the right to protect themselves?We use this very reason to have stockpiles of nuclear weapons armed and trageted to places on this globe that would utterly shock you if you knew where we would send this kind of death and destruction.

Lose the nukes globely or arm every nation equally, You can't have it both ways and have any credibility.


Ayup, let the possibility of MAD rest in the hands of a handfull of Islamic clerics. Gotcha. ;)
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
The reason Iran can't have nukes is not because of what the state would do with it. They know that if they tried anything, that Israel and the US would bomb them into the ground. They also (likely) sell any to terrorists, because that would invite Israel to do the same thing. Any rational state fears the idea of non-state actors having nuclear capability, because it opens them all up to vulnerability. And despite the fundamentalist nature of their government, I beleive that Iran generally acts rationally. Their pursuit of Nukes of late is an incredibly rational action considering the US's actions towards Iraq, and their being named in the Axis speech.

The true reason we have to fear Iran getting nukes, is that it is a weak state. It has terrorist issues and a considerable movement within for reform. Revolution is possible. And nuclear weapons in a situation without a state, is scary. Terrifying. Who knows who can get their hands on them?

Edit: As for Germany acting alone in Iran, their constitution specifically prohibits them from having an offensive army. This was decided post-war with the encouragement of the US. Tacitly, there was an agreement that the US (and the rest of NATO) would protect Germany's interests militarily in return. Limbaugh is an ass. I, for one, would not advocate a massive German military buildup. Maybe I'm too scared of history, but I'd rather the US protect them.
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The reason Iran can't have nukes is not because of what the state would do with it. They know that if they tried anything, that Israel and the US would bomb them into the ground. They also (likely) sell any to terrorists, because that would invite Israel to do the same thing. Any rational state fears the idea of non-state actors having nuclear capability, because it opens them all up to vulnerability. And despite the fundamentalist nature of their government, I beleive that Iran generally acts rationally. Their pursuit of Nukes of late is an incredibly rational action considering the US's actions towards Iraq, and their being named in the Axis speech.

The true reason we have to fear Iran getting nukes, is that it is a weak state. It has terrorist issues and a considerable movement within for reform. Revolution is possible. And nuclear weapons in a situation without a state, is scary. Terrifying. Who knows who can get their hands on them?

Edit: As for Germany acting alone in Iran, their constitution specifically prohibits them from having an offensive army. This was decided post-war with the encouragement of the US. Tacitly, there was an agreement that the US (and the rest of NATO) would protect Germany's interests militarily in return. Limbaugh is an ass. I, for one, would not advocate a massive German military buildup. Maybe I'm too scared of history, but I'd rather the US protect them.

So I guess we should be disarming Pakistan because that state's government seems much less stable than Iran's. Bush's hardline Axis classification as well as some social moderation appeasement by the Iranian clerics has increased the Iranian publics support for said clerics.

We don't want additional nations to arm with nukes because that means we can't invade them at a whim. When national survival is at stake those nations may resort to using nukes.

Zephyr
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Ozoned



What is Mr. Kerry's position on this? :confused:


Glad you asked. ;)



Kerry Will Abandon War on Terrorism
By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President George W. Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word. In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers - at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before. "I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaeda operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaeda operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades. "Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime. "By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No wonder them foreign leaders want Kerry to win the Usa presidential election. Go figure....

:)
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
OK, this subject is continually brought up and people seem to have a short memory span about it.

For those asking why is it ok for some to have nukes and other not to, it is simple.

Iran signed the NPT stating that they would never have a military nuclear program

We have also signed the NPT and are acknowledged as a nuclear power, as are most of the other nuclear powers.(Israel, Pakistan and India have not signed the NPT)
 

OffTopic1

Golden Member
Feb 12, 2004
1,764
0
0
Originally posted by: Strk
OK, this subject is continually brought up and people seem to have a short memory span about it.

For those asking why is it ok for some to have nukes and other not to, it is simple.

Iran signed the NPT stating that they would never have a military nuclear program

We have also signed the NPT and are acknowledged as a nuclear power, as are most of the other nuclear powers.(Israel, Pakistan and India have not signed the NPT)
The US is the only contry that have nuke another nation, and the US is developing tactical nuke while have signed the NPT.

The NPT is useless because the nation that crying fouls the loudest is breaking the rule.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,453
2
81
How long before the world decides it cannot accept a nuclear armed US, especially one led by a man who every day grows more to resemble the fundamentalist cleric, speaking to God but ignoring his generals?
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
34
91
Originally posted by: daveshel
How long before the world decides it cannot accept a nuclear armed US, especially one led by a man who every day grows more to resemble the fundamentalist cleric, speaking to God but ignoring his generals?

Probably a long time. BTW, was that really a question?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I trust iran with nukes no more than pakistan, india, china, NK...

Why does the US feel the need to pick on this one nation?...is it because they are too afraid of the other countries to do anything?

Or maybe it is because they have too much to lose by making bad with the other nations.

Fact of the matter is, arms races aren't good and something has to be done about nuclear development, sanctions are shown not to work, invading is not a viable option: other solutions should be discussed. This is not an iran thing, it is a global issue affecting many countries.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Zephyr106

So I guess we should be disarming Pakistan because that state's government seems much less stable than Iran's. Bush's hardline Axis classification as well as some social moderation appeasement by the Iranian clerics has increased the Iranian publics support for said clerics.

We don't want additional nations to arm with nukes because that means we can't invade them at a whim. When national survival is at stake those nations may resort to using nukes.

Zephyr

Umm... I wasn't advocating invasion, just justifying concern.

And you're right, I should've been more clear. The weakness of the Iranian state is the major concern with them having nukes w/r/t terrrorism.

The fact that they would have an effective deterrent regarding US invasion is another security concern altogether. But that is one which allows for negotiations to be effective. It's what kept the US safe from the USSR, and is keeping the US safe from N. Korea. Basically, once a nation has nukes, then they have enough power to negotiate, and the US has to listen. So, the US can negotiate all sorts of non-agression pacts, and they will both keep them due to the threat of MAD.

Edit: Problem is, if the country decends into chaos, whoever gets ahold of the nukes might not care about MAD. And who says that Pakistan has a greater chance of losing internal security? I'm not doubting you, I would just like a link in order to inform myself.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
I trust iran with nukes no more than pakistan, india, china, NK...

Why does the US feel the need to pick on this one nation?...is it because they are too afraid of the other countries to do anything?

Or maybe it is because they have too much to lose by making bad with the other nations.

Fact of the matter is, arms races aren't good and something has to be done about nuclear development, sanctions are shown not to work, invading is not a viable option: other solutions should be discussed. This is not an iran thing, it is a global issue affecting many countries.

At this point in mankind's evolutionary development, the only solution is Total and overwhelming strength and force. That is what people respond to, regardless of how civilized they think they are.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Well lets face it, you might be able to take iran...but brute force with india, pakistan, china, NK is a little easier said than done ;)
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: Zephyr106

So I guess we should be disarming Pakistan because that state's government seems much less stable than Iran's. Bush's hardline Axis classification as well as some social moderation appeasement by the Iranian clerics has increased the Iranian publics support for said clerics.

We don't want additional nations to arm with nukes because that means we can't invade them at a whim. When national survival is at stake those nations may resort to using nukes.

Zephyr

Umm... I wasn't advocating invasion, just justifying concern.

And you're right, I should've been more clear. The weakness of the Iranian state is the major concern with them having nukes w/r/t terrrorism.

The fact that they would have an effective deterrent regarding US invasion is another security concern altogether. But that is one which allows for negotiations to be effective. It's what kept the US safe from the USSR, and is keeping the US safe from N. Korea. Basically, once a nation has nukes, then they have enough power to negotiate, and the US has to listen. So, the US can negotiate all sorts of non-agression pacts, and they will both keep them due to the threat of MAD.

Edit: Problem is, if the country decends into chaos, whoever gets ahold of the nukes might not care about MAD. And who says that Pakistan has a greater chance of losing internal security? I'm not doubting you, I would just like a link in order to inform myself.

I don't keep links on Pakistan handy, but support for Musharraf isn't that great among certain Pakistani elements after he cut off ties with the Pakistani Internal Security Service's Client State, aka the Taliban, and sided with America. Islamists, the ISI, and some of the tribal leaders are not fans of him, witness the multiple assassination attempts a year or so ago, some believed to be inside jobs. It is confirmed that India and the US have contingency plans to grab the Pakistani nukes should some coup occur, and large numbers of US agents were reportedly in Pakistan soon after Pakistan pledged support after 9/11 to help secure nuclear sites.

After years of declining popular support for Iran's ruling cleric council, culminating in massive protests a few years ago, the clerics moderated some social/morality laws while clamping down on dissention in the press, and apparently public support has climbed slightly. Bush's demonization of Iran also increased Iranian solidarity.

Zephyr
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Well lets face it, you might be able to take iran...but brute force with india, pakistan, china, NK is a little easier said than done ;)

Why the hell would the US want to take out India or China?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
"Why the hell would the US want to take out India or China?"

Just examples of countries in iran's region who have nuclear warheads and are not condemned...Iran on the other hand is...tell me why this is...
Who should and shouldnt have nukes?

How about speaking out against pakistan wrt the selling of nuclear information...
I'm interested in this selective criticism. How can you condemn one nation but not another for the same actions?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
"Why the hell would the US want to take out India or China?"

Just examples of countries in iran's region who have nuclear warheads and are not condemned...Iran on the other hand is...tell me why this is...
Who should and shouldnt have nukes?

Are you serious? Maybe because people feel that Iran is less stable. They probably also feel that it is more of a threat.

How about speaking out against pakistan wrt the selling of nuclear information...
I'm interested in this selective criticism. How can you condemn one nation but not another for the same actions?

I don't know, but I'm sure that every country in the world does it. It's how the real world works.