Thought
Sitting in a country that can more or less end all life on the planet and turn most of the planet's significant surface into glass, am I supposed to be afraid that Iran can launch some non-nuclear medium range missiles?
I mean, yeah, it would be atrocious, tremendously destabilizing, and kill way too many people, but as a deterrent threat, it's a pretty weak argument. The Israelis alone could (and probably would) obliterate Iran on any launch.
I'm just frustrated that the press is buying into Iran's propaganda that it's so powerful heading into this week's dialogue. It's not.
I mean, yeah, it would be atrocious, tremendously destabilizing, and kill way too many people, but as a deterrent threat, it's a pretty weak argument. The Israelis alone could (and probably would) obliterate Iran on any launch.
I'm just frustrated that the press is buying into Iran's propaganda that it's so powerful heading into this week's dialogue. It's not.
6 Comments:
Dude, like there can be no balance of power in the M.E. Israel Israel Uber Alles Ober Ganz Die Welt.
Until you understand that and learn it heart and soul that no one other than Israel can have nukes is the orthodoxy.
You have a nice blog but don't go into anti-semitism. Iran must be destroyed to save Israel.
By Anonymous, at 10:23 PM
The Iranians know how to irritate but I think it's the press that's hyping the threat up.
By Anonymous, at 9:11 AM
That's what I'm seeing. The Iranians are bartering with their nuclear program, and the press is tending to overvalue the chip.
Also, they treat "crazy" Ahmadinejad as if he's theone making the decisions.
I view the Iranians as rational. The trick is to make the nuclear chip worthless which, oddly enough, it probably will be the closer they approach a bomb. I don't think it's really in their interests to get a bomb as that would make them much more of a target, you know?
What they really want is an end to sanctions and a normalizing of relations, and a bomb doesn't get them there.
By mikevotes, at 10:38 AM
They don't have to actually admit to having a bomb. Works for Israel.
By Anonymous, at 11:26 AM
"What they really want is an end to sanctions and a normalizing of relations, and a bomb doesn't get them there."
Really? Are you saying the fact that Pakistan is a "nuclear power" didn't affect US foreign policy decisions?... Same with India?
I'm not disagreeing with you, necessarily. I'm just not sure that having a couple of nukes doesn't actually improve it's leverage in international affairs. And I'm fairly sure it would improve it's position if they'd drop all the official, crazy-assed anti-Semitism.
By -epm, at 12:31 PM
Anon, they won't get the cover Israel gets. And the sanctions and such go on whether a bomb is admitted or not.
...
EPM, Somewhat. But, Pakistan has been a favored child since before they had nukes. That's a complex history that's not really parallel. Pakistan/India were/are part of the larger counterbalance against Russia and China. Iran has no real similar value.
In history, when has a country obtaining nukes turned it from an enemy into a friend?
The main, and practically only, value to having nukes is as a deterrent against attack, but that leverage isn't really all that likely to a change the overall stance between countries.
Middle east policy is roughly a balance between Israel, the Saudis and their allies, and the Iranians, with the not so clear siding Syrians in the mix. With or without nukes, the US-Iranian relationship is not too likely to change.
So, yeah, I'm saying that.
.......
AND A BIG PS
......
Let's not forget that if Iran really gets a bomb, there will be a rush of other countries in the region to nukes with the Saudis and Egyptians quite likely following quickly. And those bombs will be, in part pointed at Iran.
Iran getting a bomb would greatly complicate their situation, and likely create more tensions among their regional rivals.
A bomb as a negotiating item is valuable. A bomb in reality will be much, much messier.
By mikevotes, at 1:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home