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

[DanS]

It does seem like a wildly unnecessary blunder at an inopportune time.

He doesn't seem to have a good feel for the way the wind is blowing.

[Arrian]

From the standpoint of relations with the major Western powers, yeah. Internally, and within the Arab/Muslim world, I'm sure it played quite a bit better.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Post when an Arab state condemns Iran for these statements. That would actually be of note.

Or for that matter large non-white countries like Indonesia, or India, Pakistan, China, Brazil, Nigeria, whatever.

Well, theyre not a state, but ....


From Haaretz:

'Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat on Thursday condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to "wiped off the map."

"This is unacceptable to us," Erekat said. "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable."'

[Arrian]

[Cyclotron]

This is unacceptable to us," Erekat said. "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable."'

I wonder if they accept it.

[GePap]

Good for the PA. Its what they need to say given the peace process.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Good for the PA. Its what they need to say given the peace process.

Its also not surprising, given that Iran supports Islamic Jihad and other terrorists who have commited acts of violence against the PA.

[lightblue]

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4380306.stm (and LoTM, please do include links to your stories, it makes it nicer for us information junkies that like to read the whole articles)

Blair says:

Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue - it isn't acceptable.

If they continue down this path, then people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability

They may believe... the eyes of the world will be elsewhere, but I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks.

Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?

From the reporter:

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Blair's comments carried the "implicit threat of military action".

[Sandman]

Well, he has been pumping the Iran threat recently (probably at Dubya's behest). These comments are a real gift for him.

[Sirotnikov]

I resent the claimt hat given a nuclear arsenal Iran would somehow start behaving in a more rational or civilized manner.

It is based on the assumption that terrorism is a 'weapon of the weak'. That is false. Terrorism is a weapon of choise, of those who have little moral limits. Most state supported terrorism originated from strong and able countries in their time (ussr, iran, syria, egypt).

Yes, terrorism is used usually as a way to avoid the use of standard military might. But it is not only a question of cost (money or politics). It is also a thing of convinience ("outsourcing" war) and levels of deterrance.

Yes, I share the view that Iran will not nuke Israel the next day it has a bomb.

However, currently Iran supports and influences strongly a handful of the meanest terrorist organizations (hezbullah, PIJ, hamas) and given the protection of nuclear deterrance - they would only INCREASE the use of such methods, knowing they can get away unpunished with greater ease.

Iran is not completely insane.

It is just unrational and uncivilized, in the sense that it is warmongering by proxy, and is a major sponsor of organizations that are set out to destroy Israel, whether by declaration or fact (hezbullah, hamas, PIJ and so on).

And once Iran gets nukes, they will have far less inhibitions to use the proxy terrorist weapons.

Infact, we may even start seeing "direct" Iranian action again, like the Iranian commandos who gunned down people in europe during the 80s! They were deterred from that, and they may find it feasible to do that again, knowing that they can't be threatened.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Edan


One of their moderate leaders have stated that Iran would be able to "absorb" any nuclear strike from Israel. That does not suggest rationality and does not show that they believe they would be destroyed in a nuclear war.

Exactly right. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work with this kind of Muslim country because they don't care how many of their own people they have to sacrifice, nor in what kind of painful and humiliating way those people have to die, to accomplish their false god's twisted goals.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To what you think SHOULD be their own interests. I'll ask you what GePap asked, but in a different guise, give me an example of irrational behavior by a state.

What about the German declaration of war towards the US in 1941 without having any means for effective warfare against the US (no, the U Boats do not count, since the don't allow victory over the US). Maybe there could be made some arguments for it, but realistically it seems pretty stupid, esp with the experience of WWI in mind......

And no, I'm not godwinizing. I just fear the example leads to a lengthy WWII discussion

[Sikander]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


If Afganistan was a nuclear power, it would never have been a pawn in US-Soviet relations, and never would have become a breeding ground for terrorists.

This whole notion of

terrorist sponser + nuclear capabilty = nuclear terrorist

is completely false.

Groups resort to terrorism when they have been dismissed by those with power.

When Iran becomes a nuclear power, they will have a seat at the table, and people will listen, and they won't have the time or interest in blowing up buses.

So we just imagined the rather large number of terrorist organizations sponsored by the Soviet Union (Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof etc. ad nauseum) during the Cold War? Terrorism is a tactic that works for nuclear powers as well as the weak. Iran's close relationship over decades with various terror groups makes it even more likely to continue along that path once it builds its own nukes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Except when its not and they go to war. They havent nuked anyone. But then they dont have nukes - yet.

But wasn't it a democratically elected 'rational' non-theocratic government that used nuclear weapons in the past ?

The rationale being that it was better to kill 'x' number of Japanese than endure a protracted invasion of the Japanese home islands with all the consequences for American and Allied forces that that would entail- given what had occurred on Saipan.


I don't think people are distinguishing between rhetoric designed for home consumption- the usual America = Great Satan nonsense, Israel must be deleted- which is the common parlance of the militant Islamic world, and what is intended for the international political marketplace.

It's also a big stretch from there to say that if Iran had a domestic nuclear industry geared towards energy production then it would in a flash acquire nuclear weapons and make a first strike use of them on Israel, ignoring any consequences and the likely political fall-out.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
But wasn't it a democratically elected 'rational' non-theocratic government that used nuclear weapons in the past ?

I don't think you can make any comparison between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the use of nuclear weapons today.