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

[Sandman]

By all means condemn and isolate them, although their oil will limit the effectiveness of this. But unlike Saddam or Gadaffi, there's actually a chance that this guy will lose an election in a few years time.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sandman
The thing is, Iran is getting less fundamentalist by the year.

You obviously missed the new Prime Minister's recent speeches.

[Colonâ„¢]

I think he meant the population. The remembrance of the revolution is fading.

[Alexander's Horse]

that's why they elected a nutjob fanatic like that

[Colonâ„¢]

No that's because the hardliners disqualified many reformist candidates and effectively bludgeoned the population into apathy. You should know that.

[Dr Strangelove]

The US, Britan, France, Russia and China should send to the Iranian president proposed Iranian target plans for their nuclear missle stocks, requesting his comment upon whether or not any other targets should be added.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I read it alright.
All it has is reporter speculations and rumors.
Factually, the only Iranian body to attempt to retract the message, was the Moscow Iranian Embassy.

What I did follow though, is that the dear president has again stated exactly what he thinks, as if to prove, that this is the acceptable Iranian position.

Actually, it was filled with commentary from political figures within Iran, including high ranking Mullah's with far more connections to the Iranian ruling classes than the president. And what those figures said is that there is growing frustration at how the President is handling his role as head of government (and of course, you have yet to admit that he is NOT HEAD OF STATE AND HENCE NOT IN COMMAND OF THE MILITARY).

What I see from this article is that in fact Iran is a very complex place- not a western liberal dmeocracy, not a totalitarian system, but a complicated attempt at "guided" democracy, and a system that might come down due to its own internal contradictions.

Iran is a terrorist supporting country. It funds the most prominent terrorist organizations and controls some of them. It does all those things, right now, with the intention of hurting the peace process and in the long run - hurting and destroying Israel.

When Iran gets a 'nuclear umbrella' it will feel itself much more protected, and will undoubtedly allow itself 'more'. A nuclear protection would allow it to take much more steps, knowing it will go unpunished, as any threat to its regime or military power, will be deterred by nuclear weapons.

Given the fact the Iranian leaders have established their cause ("destroy Israel") and we know their current policies ("exporting" the revolution; creating, funding and directing terrorist organizations) - we can only imagine the larger risks they will take to accomplish their stated cause.

Except that Israel has its own nuclear deterrence. IF Iran's long term goals were to destroy Israel, then given any tactic it uses, it will face destruction itself, unless you are willing to tell me that the state of Israel will allow itself to be destroyed with conventional weapons, but will do nothing with its nuclear arsenal (making me wonder why the hell you have them in the first place). Terrorism does not destroy states. You can only destroy a state through outright military force. And states can only wage wars by proxy if there are willing proxies. If Israel can co-opt everyone around itself, then third parties have no proxies to use.

Hence while Iran getting nukes does give it a more free hand, that does nothing to stop Israel from excercising its own policy in order to diminish Iranian influence, and given two nuclear states, the probability of outright military confrontation declines to nill.

Lets state the facts clearly- the only reason Persian Iran can use Arab Palestinians to hurt Jews in Israel is because of the annimosity between the Jews and Arabs. Remove that and the Iranians could only hurt Isreal directly, and Israel's nuclear arsenal makes that a non-issue.

Iran in the end can simply provide metarial support to those who reject the peace process, but like Mao said, guerrillas need to be like fish in the sea- remove the sea, ie. popular support for the rejectionist cause, and Iran's material support is meaningless.

On a personal note - I'm somewhat surprised by you. I used to see you as an interesting rival with a different world view. However this discussion (like some discussions on this topic in the past) show an amazingly high rate of non-sequitors, attempts to twist my words or, simply, ignore the discussion of the essense of my claims, in favor of an attempt to attack the form, or claims that I never made. I used to respect you more.

That, and the fact, you somehow fail to acknowledge the improtance of nuclear non-proliferation, and admit to any amount of threat, that Iran poses to western countries and values.

You are entering into an ongoing debate here, and hence I treat your statements as part of that greater debate.

As for the importance of nuclear non-proliferation, as I said to Odin, its a lovely theory that fails on its face given that those that already have nuclear weapons have no intent to give them up, and that means all 190 other players in the system have an incentive to get them at some point. The greatest move towards nuclear non-proliferation would be a global ban and outright disarmament by those that have them (and because the technological knowledge to make them remains, cheaters have little if any advantage in making them). That isn't going to happen. I therefore bow to the reality of the system and discuss how it can be managed safely.

As for "Iran's threat", whatever. We live in a system of many values. If Western values can't win on their own vs. the values of the revolutiuonary Iranian regime, then they simply aren't worth it. BUt unlike you, I see no threat from Iran's regime to western values. Their system has no spread, and proxy wars between states hardly in any way threaten a system of belief held by billions of humans.

Maybe since you live in the state that sees itself in that proxy war you see a threat, but if I go to Mexico, the "Iranian threat" is 0. If I go to South Africa, the "Iranian threat" is 0. Ditto for Brazil, on down the line. So where exactly is this supposed "threat" to western values? I see none.

[DinoDoc]

Ditto for Brazil, on down the line.

Argentina might beg to differ.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sandman
By all means condemn and isolate them, although their oil will limit the effectiveness of this. But unlike Saddam or Gadaffi, there's actually a chance that this guy will lose an election in a few years time.

The theocrats have the real power, and nobody elects them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Ditto for Brazil, on down the line.

Argentina might beg to differ.

Oh, yeah, cause a couple of blast undermine western values

I always knew a few hundred dead would bring down centuries of accumulated culture, philosophy, and civic values. Certainly more then some dictatorial regime killing tens of thousands....

If the Junta didn't "kill western values", I fail to see how those two terrorist attacks would.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
If the Junta didn't "kill western values", I fail to see how those two terrorist attacks would.

Iranian threat not being 0 /= kill western values

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Iranian threat not being 0 /= kill western values

Except that the statement was that Iran is a threat to western values:

That, and the fact, you somehow fail to acknowledge the improtance of nuclear non-proliferation, and admit to any amount of threat, that Iran poses to western countries and values.

I guess I have not bought into the idiocy that common terrorism is a threat to any state.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Except that the statement was that Iran is a threat to western values:

That, and the fact, you somehow fail to acknowledge the improtance of nuclear non-proliferation, and admit to any amount of threat, that Iran poses to western countries and values.

...that Iran poses to western countries...

I guess I have not bought into the idiocy that common terrorism is a threat to any state.

It isn't to the extent Siro seems to be saying (tobacco kills more people worldwide than terrorism) but that doesn't mean it doesn't constitute something that should be ignored by said state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It isn't to the extent Siro seems to be saying (tobacco kills more people worldwide than terrorism) but that doesn't mean it doesn't constitute something that should be ignored by said state.

And the states trully affected do deal with it. I think while the Average argentinian would demand justice be done for the men that carried out attacks in thier Capital, they also know the target wasn't them, but Israeli instrests, just as Kenyans know that while most people who died were Kenyans, in 1998 AQ was attacking US interests.

That is how the politics of it works.

And no, terrorism isn't to be ignored, but the arguement here lies in the future of nuclear proliferation and how nukes affect state behavior. That Iran carries out a low level proxy war vs. Israel is in my opinion hardly evidence that somehow Iran is a less rational state actor than any of the states currently wielding nuclear weapons.

[DinoDoc]

IIRC, the target of the blast in question (or at least the one I'm thinking of there may have been more) was the Jewish community in Argentina not Israeli interests per se.