on what basis does Broder believe that "Iran is the greatest threat to the world?" The United States spends over $700 billion on defense each year; Iran spends a mere $10 billion. That amount is less than Greece, the Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, or Taiwan. As I've noted previously, Iran has no meaningful power-projection capabilities, and its main "weapon" is the ability to modest amounts of money and arms to groups like Hezbollah. This behavior is clearly a problem, but Iran is not an existential threat to anyone. And if Iran were to get a few nuclear weapons at some point in the future -- which is by no means a certainty -- it could neither use them nor give them to terrorists without inviting devastating U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
As I've noted previously, Iran has no meaningful power-projection capabilities, and its main "weapon" is the ability to modest amounts of money and arms to groups like Hezbollah. This behavior is clearly a problem, but Iran is not an existential threat to anyone. And if Iran were to get a few nuclear weapons at some point in the future -- which is by no means a certainty -- it could neither use them nor give them to terrorists without inviting devastating U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
Iran didn't change in the last 24 hours, it's still an hostile theocratic entity that tries to achieve nuclear power.
Eh... what?
Iran didn't change in the last 24 hours, it's still an hostile theocratic entity that tries to achieve nuclear power.
Oh no, nuclear independence and an improved energy policy... pheer the IranMan...
Oh no, nuclear independence and an improved energy policy... pheer the IranMan...
And what can Iran do with nuclear power ? hit Israel ? it will destroy the palestinains and Hizbollah in south Lebanon as well before getting hit by Israel and destroyed ..
How about Pakistan ? It's got nuclear power, a Muslim country packed with Taliban and Al Qaeda members. Why isn't anyone afraid of Pakistan ?
Oh no, crazy fundementalist Mullahs holding weapons that can remove whole lands in a shot, is more like it.
It doesn't give a damn, they'd be labeled martyrs for all the Iranian regime cares.
It's not like its relations with the PLO are that good, you do remember the swap of statements from the two sides a few months ago, do you?
And yes, Pakistan is a problem as well, but as long as it would not make crazy hostile statements against other countries I'm afraid that it would not receive the required attention.
Why don't you issue proof they are developing nuclear weapons... last I remembered nobody can.
Oh no, crazy fundementalist Mullahs holding weapons that can remove whole lands in a shot, is more like it.
Ooooooftiiiii, if you take political speeches, statements and declarations as they are without reading between the lines, you might as well believe in mythology. What Iran says or doesn't and what Pakinstan says or doesn't has nothing to do with what they'll do or won't.
I certainly hope that the government in Pakistan won't be toppled.
It is quite hypocritical to condemn Iran but not other countries who illegally possess hundreds of the very same weapons.
What other countries own hundreds of nuclear weapons illegally?
It is quite hypocritical to condemn Iran but not other countries who illegally possess hundreds of the very same weapons.
Ahmadinejhad never said he wanted to destroy Israel. If you look a little bit after this information, you'll see who's right and who's wrong.
India, Pakistan and Israel.
India, Pakistan and Israel.
It's not a matter of condemning one state or another, but recognizing the risk in letting some countries hold such responsibility over others, especially countries that keep making hostile statements towards their neighbors. (And the entire world really)
In his speech this week in New Orleans before the general assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, Netanyahu not only repeated his longstanding view that Iran will curb its nuclear program only in the face of a credible threat of military action
"I promise that if I am elected, Iran will not acquire nuclear arms, and this implies everything necessary to carry this out,"
What was David Broder smoking? | Stephen M. Walt
While Iran may not (and should not, it is a dictatorship, like Saudi Arabia) be a friendly ally, pretending that it is a major threat is nothing more than scapegoating.
How is it illegal?
My only concern with Iran is the support that it provides to Hizbollah. At the end of the day my priority is Lebanon.
But coming back to the subject of this thread, I really don't think that Iran is suicidal. It hits Israel, it will get hit as well. I think Apocalypse is refering to the hostile speeches directed by the Iranian President toward Israel.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Arabs will demand and achieve their own arsenol. In a region full of social and religious failure where extremist groups seek asylum within the radical base, I would call an Islamic Cold War very much a major threat. It starts with Iran's nuclear success. Matters are bad enough with Pakistan.
You still aren't looking at this as a strategic issue. Your people spent decades absolutely petrified of a Soviet/American nuclear give-and-take. Are you actually seeking for a way to dismiss a religious stand off between tribes in the Middle East?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?