Will anyone stop the Iranian nuke?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
easier to spell than Kuadaffi, Khaddafi, Kaddafi, Khadaffi, Qadaffi, Qaddafi, etc.

Its almost as bad as Chanukkah, Hanukkah, Hanukah, Chanukah.

how did the 'C' end up in some variations of that spelling anyway? Hanukkah or Hanukah seem like such obvious alternatives.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


how did the 'C' end up in some variations of that spelling anyway? Hanukkah or Hanukah seem like such obvious alternatives.

The consonant is not an English "h", its closer to the Ch in scottish "loch" or in German "ach". Though folks who cant pronounce that sound easily tend to pronounce it as an English "h" which at least is closer than pronouncing "ch" as in "child".

[Last Conformist]

The spellings with "ch" are doubtlessly German- or Slavic-inspired.

I've seen spellings with initial "kh" too.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im presuming what Qaddafi really wanted was to keep his regime secure, and that he did not change his mind about that. What he changed his mind about was how to do that - whether it was better to build nukes, both for deterrence of direct regime change, and to cover expansion of influence in Africa, versus cutting a deal. Similarly presumably the ruling mullahs in Iran want to preserve the regime, and have to weigh a strat of nukes for deterrence and for expansion of influence throughout the ME versus cutting a deal.

Sorry, but nukes would not have helped Lybia extend its influence in Africa. What would nukes do for Lybia in that regard? Money, the ability to spread money, that buys influence in Africa. As for regime security, since the 90's there was no western threat to his regime. The west might have been unfriendly, but after Reagan Quaddafi was hardly this great enemy.

There was really little for Quaddafi to gain from continuing a WMD program, while the sanctions undermined his diplomatic goals in Africa.

Stategically diff position = yes, theyre less vulnerable to conventional attack. But their demography may make them MORE vulnerable to economic sanctions. Diff regime - yes. But thats a problem for them, both ways. If, say, you're Rafsanjani, you have to be concerned BOTH with the antiregime elements on the fringe of the system, who are currently weak, but who could be empowered with sanctions (a threat Muammar didnt have to face) AND you have to deal with someone like Ahmadinajad, who is MORE of a risk to the regime as it pursues nuclear weapons than he would be without a nuclear program(because he tends to provoke outsiders, etc). Another problem Muammar didnt have to face.

Iran has one direct nuclear neighbor(Pakistan) who supports the radical sunni group that Iran almost went to war with (Taliban). It seeks to have the same influence in the Gulf as the Shah's regime did, while having to face US hostility. It faces a much harsher reality than Lybia.

Iran's regime is also a patchwork of forces, so there is really no central decision maker. Even the supreme leader can be removed.