I am a fan of political realism and that is the framework for this simple question…
Does Iran “act” guilty?
Iran futzes with the IAEA inspections and is now threatening it will “counter strike” any military action taken against it and its nuclear enrichment program. ILLEGAL enrichment program, btw.
And oh yeah, Iran is pursuing a nuclear enrichment program because it is a peaceful, rational Islamic nation.
I find Iran’s actions indefensible and would fully support military strikes against this nation if they do not fully comply with IAEA inspections and transparency.
I predict they will continue to bluff, and I predict they will pay dearly for it.
Iran is a sovereign country. International Atomic Energy Agency has jurisdiction neither over Iran nor over atomic energy, hence they have no legal rights over Iran, nor on any other country for that matter. Legally, they can only ask nicely. Alegaly, they could overpower anyone weaker than them, and appease the large liberal crowds by stating the invasioin was either moral or legally or both.
If the US decides to bomb Iran, it won’t be because Iran is guilty - because Iran is not under American jurisdiction, therefore cannot be said to have breached any rights it willingly or unwillingly gave up, nor any punishment it agreed to receive - it will be because America will stand to gain something from it and because it can - i.e. it is more powerful than Iran. If Iran does turn out to have a couple dozen Nukes, the US won’t do shit. Power rules.
Off course Iran will, and should. Like I said, no other country, nor organization, has any jurisdiction over Iran. It is a sovereign country. If we’re going to invade it, as Impenitent correctly said, we should at least be honest about it; instead of sugar coating it with such words as “illegal” or “guilt.” I for one would not object to a systematic invasion of the middle east.
What exactly is the IAEA doing about countries that already have nukes? The US for example; it has used and continued to use, and perhaps it’s still using nuclear energy for military purposes - i.e. making nukes. How about the other 8? Their mission is not “to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes,” as they state it to be. It’s to keep those without any nukes without any nukes.
Any country can have nukes so that it can defend itself by avoiding war. All countries should have a equal playing field. Nobody wants to attack a country with nukes.
Who is anyone to say ‘We can have nukes, but you, you, and you can’t have any.’ Sounds unfair to me.
as usual, it seems you people like to ignore the fact that Iran has already agreed to NOT pursue nukes.
It had to do that to have it student’s educated in The Great Satan and obtain engineered materials from other nations [like Germany and France] that could be used for nuclear energy.
If some of you wish to trust a lying, cheating, deceptive nation that just recently had an Islamic Revolution… well then I think there just may be something amiss with your reasoning abilities.
Yes Iran acts guilty. Indeed I don’t think they even care to hide the act anymore.
This indicates to me they’ve got an upper hand. I suspect the USA is really worried about the weapon, but not for its use. Much better to know the state behind and that it intentionally gave the weapon. Iran is not that suicidal. If they were they could just as well march into Israel today which doesn’t appear they will.
But what could happen is Iran might get this natural ‘right’ and maybe read some philosophy, you know to pass some time, and pretty soon discover how to will-to-power against the power master.
I like following Iran because you can apply lots of theories. The US and Iran are both absolutely full of shit… but both are and will be 110% rational in action.
This post said it all(minus the invasion part), I am very pleased with it…However, look at the response that it got, just a bunch of rhetoric and catch phrases. Really is a shame, tihs post deserved better than that.
I ignored it because it is both full of false information and is a straw man.
I never said anything about “jurisdiction” and Iran signed the NPT and so the IAEA has the job of making sure the treaty is upheld. Your opinions on this matter are worthless, that’s just how it works.
Unless you guys can tell me why Iran is allowed a free pass when it comes to the treaties it signs with regards to nuclear materials?
In nuclear negotiations with the rest of the world, Iran’s strategy has been “heads you lose, tails we win”. It claims it is willing to negotiate on all issues, including suspension of enrichment activities, but won’t accept any preconditions for such negotiations. Its strategy is delay to buy time and race ahead with technical efforts to master uranium enrichment. And by appearing flexible, they give Russia and China excuses to feed and impede the West from pursuing any serious coercive action endorsed by the UN.
The Western leaders are in a difficult situation. If they do nothing, Iranj becomes a nuclear power in 10 or less years. If they try to impose UN sanctions, Iran may convince Russia and China to veto the sanctions. A preemptive strike would be costly and uncertain. Air Strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, of which there are estimated to be 18, with many buried deep underground.
As long as you don’t have proof Iran is looking to build nuclear weapons to bomb Israel (which again doesnt sqaure with the “balance of terror” fact), this is just a… conspiracy theory.
Murex
Exactomundo. Counter-intuitively, the Middle East would be a safer place.
mossad will make certain that the relevant information about iranian nuclear capacity/facilities is plastered all over the media before, during and after their strikes on the iranian facilities…
Look, I don’t feel like giving you a lesson in international relations, or more specifically the anarchic nature of the relationship of current nation-states. There’s a current running through your posts that suggest you hold a tacit assumption about some sort of international law, which is why what’s his face talked about jurisdiction. Anyway, states are free to sign and break treaties at will without being “guilty” of anything or acting “illegally”. And the country that it breaks a treaty with is free to respond how it likes.
Anyway, the international watchdogs that have been sited in this thread are all western creations that promote western values and interests. The only reason Iran would abide by them is because the coercive force of the west is so strong that it feels it is in it’s best interest to do so. There is no legitimacy of these organizations above and beyond how the independent nations view it. The west only promotes the image of legitimacy because in doing so it makes it easier to extend western values into non western states, and when a nation violates the watchdog(western interests) it is easier to sell the war to the people back home. Now, the diligent observer will see that the U.S. ect. walk all over the very institutions that it hopes non-western nations will see as legitimate, and will scoff when those exact people call other nations “guilty” or “acting illegally” when they do the same thing.
Not to forget Iran gets or got aid from the ‘western values’ organizations.
The crowd in this forum seems to lean towards morally ambiguous philosophies. In that respect, they may see Iran as legitmate and within it’s rights to nuclear weapons. Let us be thankful the minds that built the ‘system’ did not agree…
But the fact remains most nations (WESTERN AND ISLAMIC AND EASTERN)in that region and throughout the world do not want Iran to get the bomb.
Fox news basically states that war with Iran is inevitible. Suprising how much influance a propagandist news station can sway the minds of an entire party toward such things. Fear sells ideas.
Iran screwed with Israel, or even if it didn’t, it is near Israel.
Jews in the US have allot of control.
These factors alone are enough for war, and the terrorism/nuclear threat issue is just a front.
