Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[lord of the mark]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel.

[Datajack Franit]

I sense France will help them somehow

[SlowwHand]

The voices of reason prevail.
Iran, second only to Syria, and in a tight race with North Korea for least stable.

[Dinner]

Not much we can do to prevent that now. Bush elected to go on his personal crusade to get "the guy who tried to kill my dad" instead of dealing with the real threats, Iran & North Korea. Both are more of a threat then Iraq ever was and both either have or will soon have nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly said that the US will not attack them because they are tied down in Iraq. Because they don't fear attack they are brave enough to defy everyone in order to build nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt the world would be dramatically less safe if Itan gets nuclear weapons. They are a terrorist sponsoring state which has sworn to destroy Israel and the US.

[Sprayber]

I miss the Cold War.

[DinoDoc]

Do you seriously believe that an attack on either the DPRK or Iran was ever in the realm of possibility even without Iraq?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Not much we can do to prevent that now. .

if theres really nothing we can do, then may I suggest that El Baradei, Putin, Annan, Rice, etc all drop their activities and meetings relative to inspections, IAEA resolutions, UNSC resolutions, etc. The money saved could be used for the earthquake victims in Pakistan.

In fact i think theres plenty that can be done (NOT an invasion, necessarily) But doing it requires the nations of the world recognizing exactly what theyre dealing with.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you seriously believe that an attack on either the DPRK or Iran was ever in the realm of possibility even without Iraq?

I believe that a genuine threat of an attack likely would have detered Iran and possibly, though unlikely, North Korea as well. That we can not creditably threaten them most certainly has emboldened them.

[GePap]

And yet no one has ever said **** about why deterrence somehow magically has failed.

Hell, even the Nazi's were deterred from using WMD's vs. ohters they thought might have WMD's, or might use them...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet no one has ever said **** about why deterrence somehow magically has failed.

Hell, even the Nazi's were deterred from using WMD's vs. ohters they thought might have WMD's, or might use them...

GePap is referring to chemical weapons, which Germany did not use.

Chemical weapons would not have wiped UK off the map. Im not even sure they would have been much more effective than conventional bombs.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


GePap is referring to chemical weapons, which Germany did not use.

Chemical weapons would not have wiped UK off the map. Im not even sure they would have been much more effective than conventional bombs.

And Khrushchev, who had thermonuclear bombs, pounded his shoes in the UN and said they would burry the west.

You still have not said anything worthwhile about why deterrence would fail. You never have. I await the day you are able to show any evidence for the theory of deterrence not being applicable.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


And yet no one has ever said **** about why deterrence somehow magically has failed.

Even ignoring that MAD relies on two rational agents who believe they will be destroyed, deterrence doesn't have to fail for it to be an issue. How would we have responded to 9/11 if Afghanistan was a nuclear power?

Hell, even the Nazi's were deterred from using WMD's vs. ohters they thought might have WMD's, or might use them...

Deterrence didn't seem to prevent WMDs being used in the Iran/Iraq war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




And Khrushchev, who had thermonuclear bombs, pounded his shoes in the UN and said they would burry the west.

You still have not said anything worthwhile about why deterrence would fail. You never have. I await the day you are able to show any evidence for the theory of deterrence not being applicable.

I cant say for sure that Iran will use a nuke the second they have it. Good straw man.

I dont trust deterrence to be failsafe though. I dont think it was during the cold war - I think we were lucky.

Khruschev of course did not say he would wipe us off the map. Even at the time "we will bury you" was interpreted in the west, IIUC to mean beat us by economic growth, subversion, and conventional warfare.

I would point out that at the time the USSR had a representative in Washington. Iran has never recognized Israel.

[Japher]

Religious Zealousness + Nuclear Weapons + Nationalism = Psycho!

Thank god we (the US) aren't like that

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
Even ignoring that MAD relies on two rational agents,

And no one has shown how the Iranian regime is not a rational agent.

deterrence doesn't have to fail for it to be an issue. How would we have responded to 9/11 if Afghanistan was a nuclear power?

The United States would not have invaded with regime change in mind, if it had invaded at all. Of course, the real response would be based on the capability of an Afghani second strike. Without Afghanistan having the capability of striking the US or critical US interests, the US would have a monopoly on nuclear action in this scenerio, and therefore would be able to act freely, probabvly threatening a nuclear first strike against Afghan facilities if AQ was not turned over.

Deterrence didn't seem to prevent WMDs being used in the Iran/Iraq war.

As LotM has stated, chemical weapons aren't in the same league. The point being that when Saddam first used them, there was no deterrence factor, as Iran had no such capability to counter, Ditto for Saddam using them against the Kurds. The war went on longer than Saddam intended, and eventually the Iranians were able to develop a capability, but at the start there was no deterrence in play.

None of this applies to an Iranian nuclear scenerio since Israel has the ability to strike at Iran with nukes in the case of any Iranian nuclear strike.