The Iranian threat

[bub]

I didn't suggest that there is "proof."

Then let's not talk as if Iran had or was likely to have the atomic bomb in the coming 10 or 15 years. Let's avoid the demonization and the paranoia that led to the invasion of Iraq under false pretexts.

But Iran needs to address the IAEA's concerns.

I agree, but so does Israel.

To date, it has not. The states with interests in the matter cannot reasonably be expected to assume Iranian good faith. Having said that, I am not advocating military strikes at this time, though I do note Israel's margin for error is much smaller than the United States' for obvious reasons. Personally, I still think a deterrence regime is feasible if it is necessary and I described the outlines of one such regime.

Contrary to the way some of our newspaper try to depict the Iranian regime (just have a look at my previous argument with MSgt), they are not monsters (but yes, they are a dictatorship) and they are not irrationals. As I have said before, if nuclear detterence has worked with people like Mao or Stalin, it will work with the Iranians too.

Furthermore, a change in the Iranian-US relations is possible. In fact, as I have already said too, they have tried to make a deal back in 2003, and again in 2008 and 2009. The 2003 deal was about allowing IAEA inspections everywhere in exchange of full access (which is a right) to civilian nuclear energy (which is needed by Iranians if they want to export their oil). Iran is not a crazy country that wants to impose the Shariah everywhere, it may be a dictatorship, but it has proven that it could also be an ally, for example when it cooperated with the USA in Afghanistan.

The Fog of Containment - By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett | Foreign Policy

 

[donsutherland1]

Then let's not talk as if Iran had or was likely to have the atomic bomb in the coming 10 or 15 years.

That's one possible scenario. I've made no predictions. Whether that happens or not is a separate issue from considering the ramifications to the region's balance of power if Iran were to gain such a capability.

Let's avoid the demonization and the paranoia that led to the invasion of Iraq under false pretexts...

Contrary to the way some of our newspaper try to depict the Iranian regime (just have a look at my previous argument with MSgt), they are not monsters (but yes, they are a dictatorship) and they are not irrationals. As I have said before, if nuclear detterence has worked with people like Mao or Stalin, it will work with the Iranians too.

I don't believe I have demonized Iran. On the contrary, I have argued on numerous occasions against U.S. military action against Iran, as I believe the overall costs would exceed the likely benefits. Moreover, I still believe that sufficiently strong sanctions coupled with aggressive diplomacy leaves opportunities for a diplomatic outcome, though the present sanctions regime does not approach what I believe would be needed to change Iran's possible nuclear trajectory. Finally, should sanctions + diplomacy fail, I believe an effective deterrence regime could be constructed. If I believed Iran's authoritarian regime were irrational, then I could not argue for the possibility of deterrence. Deterrence would fail against an irrational actor. I don't believe that is the case with Iran.

Nevertheless, it is a reality that Israel by virtue of its being a tiny state and in far closer proximity to Iran than the U.S., has a different risk threshold than the U.S. Even if Iran were to develop a modest nuclear arsenal, the U.S. would be relatively invulnerable (that limited arsenal would not pose an existential threat even if it were somehow used against the U.S.). Israel, on the other hand, could effectively be destroyed by perhaps as few as two sufficiently powerful nuclear weapons. Moreover, an Iranian nuclear umbrella could given Iran's non-state proxies/allies cover to act more aggressively against Israel. For Israel, the likelihood of threat (be it via limited warfare through proxies or a nuclear first strike) is greater than that posed against the U.S. and its margin of error is far smaller than it is for the U.S. Hence, while it might be rational for the U.S. to refrain from preemptive military action, it might be rational for Israel to do so. If, in fact, that's the case, then the emphasis needs to be focused on providing Israel with sufficient assurances so as to find it unnecessary to launch a preemptive attack. Severe sanctions coupled with aggressive diplomacy that generates concrete results would be helpful. Failing that, a commitment to a robust deterrence regime might suffice.

Furthermore, a change in the Iranian-US relations is possible. In fact, as I have already said too, they have tried to make a deal back in 2003, and again in 2008 and 2009. The 2003 deal was about allowing IAEA inspections everywhere in exchange of full access (which is a right) to civilian nuclear energy (which is needed by Iranians if they want to export their oil).

IMO, a diplomatic arrangement that allows Iran a civilian nuclear energy program in exchange for a robust verification regime/safeguards is viable. While some Iranian diplomatic moves have been made, I believe they have fallen far short of addressing verification/safeguards e.g., Iran would be able to possess a sufficient stock of enriched material that could, if Iran desired, be weaponized. A smaller store of such material and strong verification would address that issue. That's why the Turkish-Brazilian proposal, even as terms were not dissimilar from an earlier international proposal no longer sufficed. By the later date that the Turkish-Brazilian instrument had been accepted by Iran, Iran had increased its stockpile of enriched material albeit not enriched to a weaponized extent.

Iran is not a crazy country that wants to impose the Shariah everywhere, it may be a dictatorship, but it has proven that it could also be an ally, for example when it cooperated with the USA in Afghanistan.

Iran, like any other sovereign state, has interests it seeks to pursue. On Afghanistan, Iranian and U.S. interests are not too dissimilar, at least with respect to Al Qaeda. But there are vast and basic differences in interests, too, and those differences create genuine tensions. Furthermore, that Iran may well desire to become a great regional power (and I believe it does) is not "crazy," but that development, too, conflicts with U.S. interests (unfettered access to Persian Gulf oil) and those of U.S. allies in the region (security of Israel + moderate Arab states).

 

[justabubba]

That's a bogus claim. Israeli nuclear restraint is well-established (at least when one looks at the matter objectively). After all, even when it was attacked in 1973 and was losing significant ground early into the Yom Kippur War, a time when it possessed a small nuclear arsenal, it never threatened to use nuclear weapons, much less resorted to doing so.

let's look at actual restraint
IRAN has not invaded another nation since the early 1800's
only wish that could be said of your "restrained" israel

 

[bub]

Nevertheless, it is a reality that Israel by virtue of its being a tiny state and in far closer proximity to Iran than the U.S., has a different risk threshold than the U.S. Even if Iran were to develop a modest nuclear arsenal, the U.S. would be relatively invulnerable (that limited arsenal would not pose an existential threat even if it were somehow used against the U.S.). Israel, on the other hand, could effectively be destroyed by perhaps as few as two sufficiently powerful nuclear weapons

MAD theory

IMO, a diplomatic arrangement that allows Iran a civilian nuclear energy program in exchange for a robust verification regime/safeguards is viable.

that's the main point, and we agree

While some Iranian diplomatic moves have been made, I believe they have fallen far short of addressing verification/safeguards e.g., Iran would be able to possess a sufficient stock of enriched material that could, if Iran desired, be weaponized.

you need uranium enriched to 85 or 90% to make nukes. It's very unlikely that Iran could do that. But yes, they must be controlled.

Iran, like any other sovereign state, has interests it seeks to pursue. On Afghanistan, Iranian and U.S. interests are not too dissimilar, at least with respect to Al Qaeda. But there are vast and basic differences in interests, too, and those differences create genuine tensions. Furthermore, that Iran may well desire to become a great regional power (and I believe it does) is not "crazy," but that development, too, conflicts with U.S. interests (unfettered access to Persian Gulf oil) and those of U.S. allies in the region (security of Israel + moderate Arab states).

You're right, there are different interests, but both countries can live at peace. And I don't see why you talk about Israel's security here, its influence would probably diminish if Iran and the USA become allies, but I don't see how it could be a threat to Israel.

 

[Mika-El]

let's look at actual restraint
IRAN has not invaded another nation since the early 1800's
only wish that could be said of your "restrained" israel

Really. You might want to find out what war went on between Iran and Iraq. You might also want to read up on its hot pursuit of Kurds across its borders into Iraq.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g4MHcamshVeWNH3i6qFPt3vtU_Fw

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi.../fortified_border_iraq_on_guard_against_iran/

 

[donsutherland1]

Just an FYI, the Iraq-Iran war broke out when Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. Needless to say, Iran has bullied smaller regional states, used proxies to destabilize regional governments, etc. That those means are short of direct warfare does not, of course, change the nature of Iran's aggressive actions.

 

[Degreez]

Just an FYI, the Iraq-Iran war broke out when Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. Needless to say, Iran has bullied smaller regional states, used proxies to destabilize regional governments, etc. That those means are short of direct warfare does not, of course, change the nature of Iran's aggressive actions.

There are certain things that give cassus belli for war, such as attempting to assassinate Iraq's Foreign Minister.

I am sure if an Iranian funded group attempted to assassinate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then you would agree it is just cause for war.

 

[donsutherland1]

There are certain things that give cassus belli for war, such as attempting to assassinate Iraq's Foreign Minister.

I am sure if an Iranian funded group attempted to assassinate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then you would agree it is just cause for war.

It could. The only problem is that the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group attempted its assassination in Spring 1980. Iraq took measures to punish leaders of the terrorist group afterward. The war broke out after Iraq attempted to assert control over the disputed Shatt al Arab waterway. Iran rejected Iraq's claim and shortly thereafter Iraq launched its invasion. Had the assassination been the proximate cause, the war would have been launched earlier and there would have been no territorial connection tied to the use of force.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Just an FYI, the Iraq-Iran war broke out when Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. Needless to say, Iran has bullied smaller regional states, used proxies to destabilize regional governments, etc. That those means are short of direct warfare does not, of course, change the nature of Iran's aggressive actions.

Thart has been the history of the region though for decades.
Most of the countries in the region have at some time or the other supported varioius rebel groups in the other countries as a means to destabilize the other, to reduce the threat levels posed by it on a direct basis. Even the US has been involved in similar actions accross the world at various times. Iran I doubt is at the top of the list when it comes to aggressive actions

 

[washunut]

Thart has been the history of the region though for decades.
Most of the countries in the region have at some time or the other supported varioius rebel groups in the other countries as a means to destabilize the other, to reduce the threat levels posed by it on a direct basis. Even the US has been involved in similar actions accross the world at various times. Iran I doubt is at the top of the list when it comes to aggressive actions

Can you back up this assertion with facts, or are you just guessing. If the later based on what?

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Imo MAD won't work with Iran. In order to be effective, MAD requires a policy of containment as with the former Soviet Union. A policy of containment will require the US to fight a series of foreseeable proxy wars with Iran over the course of decades. I don't think the American people are up to it.

Similarly, the American people are completely unprepared to attack Iran pre-emptively.

There is only one course of action available to a deeply divided American people. Get out of the middle east, and let events take their own direction.

 

[Orion]

I am not saying that the leadership of Iran isn't whacko, but they are no less whacko than Pakistan and the U.S. supported its nuclear program. Iran is in a good position right now economically. It has been developing steadily for decades. It has a good white collar economy for professionals (which are sent worldwide). It is in a position to benefit from oil interests. There is no practical reason for why Iran would want to seek mutual annihilation through nuclear standoff. Even the extremist mullahs value their own existence and their attachment to power. Why would their obliterate their own throne?

Iran wants nuclear weapons for its own security, and that is all. It's the classic security dilemma where the western powers are investing in Israel, and Iran is going to try balancing that power. The countries in the Middle East that have been embroiled in tribal warfare and religious fanaticism for centuries have always been on the radar of the super powers like Russia and the U.S. They have even been our pawns from time to time. Never before has Islam been seen as a threat until it suited the interests of the western powers, and that includes the perception that Iran is dangerous. Iran has always been dangerous as a regional power, but no more dangerous than the USSR was, or Pakistan is now with its political body coming unraveled while the security of nukes remains uncertain.

The basic fact is that: Iran is something we want. If it gains nuclear weapons, we won't be able to have it. That is the threat. :shrug:

 

[donsutherland1]

There is only one course of action available to a deeply divided American people. Get out of the middle east, and let events take their own direction.

Abdication of vital U.S. interests and strategic allies is not a viable option.

 

[MSgt]

read the speech

First, the man's speech was ignorant and appealed to the most religiously savage of Middle Eastern civilization. And second, you are absolutely rediculous. You are in a deep hole with this and quickly turning into as much of a radical as those who insist that WMD is just around the corner in Baghdad. You actually pretend that his phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem) is supposed to be any country other than Israel? That without actually stating the name, he could mean anything?

"The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world."

"The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime."

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine."

"I warn all leaders of the Islamic world that they should be aware of this trick. Anyone who recognizes this regime because of the pressure of the World oppressor, or because of naiveté or selfishness, will be eternally disgraced and will burn in the fury of the Islamic nations.

Those who are sitting in closed rooms cannot decide for the Islamic nation and cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...r-efforts-lebanon-should-follow-suit-1.319072

Now, this is all from the speech I linked to and you linked to. It's the same words. The man is rallying the "troops" for his idiot crusade. You see, denying parts of the speech for favor of other parts to defend the piece of **** is dishonest. It's actually disgusting. I'm sure the religious freak doesn't need bub donning a shield for him. Or maybe he does. The more support he can get the better.

1) Of course, the truth is that the Soviet Union and Britain had far more to do with establishing Israel than the U.S. It wasn't even the U.S. that came to Israel's rescue when all of the Arab Middle East attacked it and denied Palestinians to declare independence. In fact, it wasn't until 1967 that the French stopped being chief weapons import and supporter and America took over. And since Muslims have been the chief oppressor of other Muslims for centuries, scapegoating America is just pathetic. It's not the U.S. that denies the Iranian people their MTV.

2) But back to the subject. Just who do you think the occupying regime is? You actually pretend that without stating Israel that he could mean anything? And he is speaking of all western nations, to include Arab nations, that recognize Israel's right to exist when he speaks of this "disgrace" and "Islamic fury." This is actually very easy if you deny your impulse to criticize Israel at all costs. The fact is that what he stated and very much meant is not refuted by the majority of all translators. Only the few have chosen to pat him on the head and defend him as if some how he is simply misunderstood. Only the few choose to dumb the man down and deny him his responsibility. The man won't even allow the holocaust to be the event it was because it paints Jews, not Palestinians, as victims. But he has no problem with Jews, right?

Just stop. It's embarrassing.

The only problem is that Ahmadinejad doesn't speak Arab, he speaks Farsi.

Two different subjects. My major has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad's speech for which, apparently, all anti- Israeli minions wish to re-interpret at all costs.

 

[MSgt]

Any proof that they are actually seeking to get nukes?

Still looking for the powers of the world to roll the dice on nuclear weapons? His words.....

The president made his remarks in a well-received speech at the Lebanese University in Beirut, which awarded him an honorary doctorate degree from its school of political science.

"What did they do with their scientific information? They mustered resources to produce nuclear weaponry. They won't let us develop our nuclear science program," Admadinejad told the cheering crowd on the second day of a controversial two-day visit to Lebanon.

"The West wants us to stop our nuclear research, but Iran is determined to continue with it," he said, urging Lebanon to build their own nuclear power plants as well.

He said enemies had the illusion that Lebanon was the weakest country in the Middle East region while the firm resistance of the Lebanese nation, government and groups proved them wrong.

He further noted that Iran has always stood by Lebanon, stressing that Iran was ready to assist its ally whenever they required assistance.
Ahmadinejad: Iran will continue nuclear efforts, Lebanon should follow suit - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

What do you think this means? The man declares that the West makes nuclear weapons with their scientific technology and then insists that he be allowed to develop nuclear technology too? That Lebanon would cease to be weak if it had nuclear power for it's illumination and television needs? That Iran would always protect it? Of course present day protection means funding Khomeini's terrorist organization, Hezbollah, which is all but over looked and forgiven by the anti-Israeli crowd. Another little fact of history is that until the PLO forced the Shia of Lebanon into fighting for them against Israel during the Lebanese Civil War (where Palestinians were greatly slaughtered by other Muslims - not Israel), Iran wasn't a part of this hate crowd of religious zealots. But now it is, and you wish to gamble away with nuclear capabilities for the sake of criticizing Israel? You have criticized religious nuts throughout this site, especially when it comes to the clowns in your own European backyard, but when it comes to Ahmenidejed you pretend foolishness. Why? There is a reason.

I'm sure you will be honest in your head, but you will be dishonest when you type a response. You'll use the fact that he hasn't stated, "We want a nuclear bomb for which to bully the entire region into our religious mission" to defend him.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Can you back up this assertion with facts, or are you just guessing. If the later based on what?

yes I can


I could, list the various supporters of the Kurds vs the various governments, the various factions in Lebanon supported by various different countries, Hezbollah by Iran, Lebanese Phalangists by Israel, Iraq and various groups, Pakistan with the LeT, India and the Balochis, the US and Saudi's with the Afghani groups during the 80s. Iran and Russia supporting the Northern Alliance in afganistan vs the Taliban, Syria with anti turkish groups, Israel with the Pjak.

Turkey in response to past actions by Iraq and Syrian governments to harbour kurdish groups has threatened and in the case of Iraq actually crossed the boarder in large numbers to engage Kurdish groups.

 

[MSgt]

There are certain things that give cassus belli for war, such as attempting to assassinate Iraq's Foreign Minister.

I am sure if an Iranian funded group attempted to assassinate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then you would agree it is just cause for war.

You anti-Israeli minions always seem to make your own traps. If an Iranian funded group (Hezbollah) was constantly nagging and striking out towards your nation you would insist on defending yourself. Of course, since you aren't a Jew nation, you would probably not be criticized for your defense as if you were the aggressor. When it came to the recent trip into Lebanon to chase down these Iranian funded terrorists, you as well as the rest of the typical crowd, rushed to Lebanon's defense as if Hezbollah wasn't the factor.

You speak of just causes for war while denying how little Israel has reacted over their just causes for war. The U.S., as well as the rest of the Western leeches, jumped into Afghanistan to deal with a regime that protected Al-Queda over 9/11. After decades of being invaded by Arab nations and violently antagonized by an Iranian funded terrorist group, you dare take their side. You honeslty can't see the absolute depravity in your stance?

 

[MSgt]

Thart has been the history of the region though for decades.
Most of the countries in the region have at some time or the other supported varioius rebel groups in the other countries as a means to destabilize the other, to reduce the threat levels posed by it on a direct basis. Even the US has been involved in similar actions accross the world at various times. Iran I doubt is at the top of the list when it comes to aggressive actions

Unfortunately, the Middle East is greatly set aside from other regions. No other region is as religiously corrupt and socially handicapped as the Middle East. No other region is as full of as many terrorist and extremist organizations. No other region is the subject of so much global attention. And no other region is resorting to God to use them as tools to "correct" things on the scale of the Middle East. And despite an example here and there, no other region is so grossly and enthusiastically involved with international terrorism as the Middle East. You are seeking to down play this region. A nuclear Cold War with religious zealots behind the buttons. Sound fun?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Unfortunately, the Middle East is greatly set aside from other regions. No other region is as religiously corrupt and socially handicapped as the Middle East. No other region is as full of as many terrorist and extremist organizations. No other region is the subject of so much global attention. And no other region is resorting to God to use them as tools to "correct" things on the scale of the Middle East. And despite an example here and there, no other region is so grossly and enthusiastically involved with international terrorism as the Middle East. You are seeking to down play this region. A nuclear Cold War with religious zealots behind the buttons. Sound fun?

The power games being played in the ME have not been done by religous zeolots, just the political leaders who for the most part are not particularly religious (exception being Iran) Syria is not lead by religous zeolots, nor Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt. Even Iran's foreign policy while mostly directed towards support of oppressed Shia groups is very pragmatic in most regards. None are suicidal, all want more power for themselvs and their countries. Not their death or destruction. A mad policy will work in the ME just as it has between the US and USSR

 

[MSgt]

let's look at actual restraint
IRAN has not invaded another nation since the early 1800's
only wish that could be said of your "restrained" israel

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Iran has been prohibited from doing anything since the Iran/Iraq war and has satisfied its political rhetoric by funding an internaitonal terrorist organization that has harmed Israelis and even more Muslims alike. But the truths are pretty obvious to the entire world (despite much of it pretending to be too dumb when it comes to Israel)...

Israel has been invaded by 5 Arab nations. Israel is the target of multiple terrorist organizations. Israel had to defend from having it's international trades cut off in the Suez. Israel is also the only other Western democratic nation in the region (Turkey being the other and they are seen as traders to Islam). Israel is the nation where Muslims are the freest, despite being surrounded by Muslim nations where Muslims are persecuted. More Palestinians have been slaughtered by other Muslims in two major events that pitted Muslim against Muslim than Israel has managed to do in over 60 years of warfare. In fact, during Black September, Palestinians actually rushed towards Israel for protection against their fellow Muslim.

Israel has shown considerable restraint in its defense. It was Arabs and now Persians that have thrown out all rules and absolutely proven themselves as the aggressor. There is no Jewish funded terrorist group that sits on Muslim borders antagonizing responses and Muslim defense. There are no threats haphazardly offerred towards other nations. There is no propoganda machine to engineer absolute hate and racism.

Israel has had the means to invade and to conquer, yet chose not to, despite it's enemies willingness to do so. Even Israel's recentinvasion into Lebanon was isolated and restrained to Hezbollah territory. But you like to simply state "invaded Lebanon" because it implies something else, don't you? I can't believe how hard some of you try to insist that everyone else is dumb.

 

[justabubba]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Iran has been prohibited from doing anything since the Iran/Iraq war and has satisfied its political rhetoric by funding an internaitonal terrorist organization that has harmed Israelis and even more Muslims alike. But the truths are pretty obvious to the entire world (despite much of it pretending to be too dumb when it comes to Israel)...

Israel has been invaded by 5 Arab nations. Israel is the target of multiple terrorist organizations. Israel had to defend from having it's international trades cut off in the Suez. Israel is also the only other Western democratic nation in the region (Turkey being the other and they are seen as traders to Islam). Israel is the nation where Muslims are the freest, despite being surrounded by Muslim nations where Muslims are persecuted. More Palestinians have been slaughtered by other Muslims in two major events that pitted Muslim against Muslim than Israel has managed to do in over 60 years of warfare. In fact, during Black September, Palestinians actually rushed towards Israel for protection against their fellow Muslim.

Israel has shown considerable restraint in its defense. It was Arabs and now Persians that have thrown out all rules and absolutely proven themselves as the aggressor. There is no Jewish funded terrorist group that sits on Muslim borders antagonizing responses and Muslim defense. There are no threats haphazardly offerred towards other nations. There is no propoganda machine to engineer absolute hate and racism.

Israel has had the means to invade and to conquer, yet chose not to, despite it's enemies willingness to do so. Even Israel's recentinvasion into Lebanon was isolated and restrained to Hezbollah territory. But you like to simply state "invaded Lebanon" because it implies something else, don't you? I can't believe how hard some of you try to insist that everyone else is dumb.

you hold yourself out as a student of the ME. however, in reading both your question and assertions, it is clear that your command of your major is quite limited, and generally misguided ... or to use your term "dumb"
study iranian history over the past 200 years and learn for yourself that iran has been a peaceful nation, and resorts to war only in self defense
that is the iran which is seeking nuclear deterrence from an aggressive israel

 

[MSgt]

The power games being played in the ME have not been done by religous zeolots, just the political leaders who for the most part are not particularly religious (exception being Iran) Syria is not lead by religous zeolots, nor Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt. Even Iran's foreign policy while mostly directed towards support of oppressed Shia groups is very pragmatic in most regards. None are suicidal, all want more power for themselvs and their countries. Not their death or destruction. A mad policy will work in the ME just as it has between the US and USSR

The joke here is that if any other country was seeking nuclear capabilities outside the Middle East, you would be insisting that nuclear weapons in the hands of one more nation is a bad thing.

The Middle East is very much led by religious zealots. Don't confuse the men in suits that shake hands with Western diplomats for the themes underneath that they have to contend with. Recognized leaders in the Middle East have been assassinated. These leaders must balance their sense of modernization (the zealots call it Westernizing) and the national internal threats to murder and destroy in the name of religious radical expression.

Iran's foriegn policy is also very much directed towards Hezbollah and its violent product. Pakistan is a Muslim nation with nuclear capabilities. It is the religious zealots underneath and their organizations and neighborhoods that threaten its stability. With the Middle East exponentially going further and further into civilizational chaos since the 80s, more nuclear capabilities in what you perceive today as "stable" may bite you in the ass tomorrow. As it is, Pakistan's government has a license to be as corrupt and as brutal as you can imagine with our absolute support, simply because the alternative is to allow radicals to get in charge.

This is not a U.S./Soviet Union MAD situation. And since the MO in the Middle East has been to rely upon terrorist organizations to fight the wars against "infidels" and to use government policies to persecute other Muslims, what is it that makes you so enthused to seek a nuclear Middle East?

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Abdication of vital U.S. interests and strategic allies is not a viable option.

Endless war is not an option for a power in rapid decline. All power is limited. America must husband its remaining strength.

The American people will not continue to permit the middle east to run red with American blood while most of the energy resources the country needs are under our feet.

 

[MSgt]

you hold yourself out as a student of the ME. however, in reading both your question and assertions, it is clear that your command of your major is quite limited, and generally misguided ... or to use your term "dumb"
study iranian history over the past 200 years and learn for yourself that iran has been a peaceful nation, and resorts to war only in self defense
that is the iran which is seeking nuclear deterrence from an aggressive israel

Again, this very simple conclusion is pointless. Who has North Korea invaded? Who did Afghanistan invade? Who has Pakistan invaded? Yet, their threats are/were quite recognizable. Your conclusions are without thought. Your tendency to criticize Israel at all costs has you blind. And its by choice. You call me dumb? Israel has resorted to wars in self defense. Iran has resorted to terrorist organizations to create war. How does Hezbollah defend Iran? Hezbollah is a radical extension of Iran's government. It is a Khomeini creation. If you defend Iran's continued beliefe in Hezbollah's mission, then you may as well defend Khomeini (which I'm sure your would if it meant criticizing Israel).

I see you ignored (very typical by the way) the entirety of my post that doesn't allow you to label Israel as the aggressor. It's crap like this that paints you as the typical basher. I study constantly, mostly out of interest. Education matters. Perhaps you should crack a book or two and get away from the European mold to hate on Jews because that is what is at the heart of your protests.

 

[MSgt]

Endless war is not an option for a power in rapid decline. All power is limited. America must husband its remaining strength.

The "rise of the rest" is hardly a call for America's decline. This is a common misunderstanding. The world has gotten used to one super power and somehow can't fathom a multiple power share even in a world where multiple power shares is exactly what occurred in the past. The difference is that America's influence will create a world environment where these other powers are leaning towards capitalism and democracy. China, Indian, and Brazil are on the rise. However, they will not achieve the global power America has become. It will be a shared positive world. Of course, America has to stop thinking that the "rise of the rest" is a threat. Their rise leans absolutely towards the American model. Thankfully, Europe will continue to be a region of minor power. That is the future.

Read "The Post American World" by Fareed Zakaria.