Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[Aemilius Paulus]

The problem with Ahmadinejad getting nukes is that if he does indeed get them, the Saudis will also begin a nuclear weapons program. After them, Egypt will most likely follow. Nukes will spread like plague in the most volatile region of the planet, and that is not good news. It's not about the U.S. or Israel, it's about that whole region getting armed to the teeth with nukes, ready to slug it out at a moment's notice.

This is all fine and dandy - you are correct if we restrict our scope just to these recent years. However, with history in mind, it is Israel and United States who are responsible for the current situation. Unfortunately, Israel sometime ago decided it would be splendid if they had their own atomics. US found out about it, but kept quiet. Nuclear Iran will not provoke as many in the Middle East today than Nuclear Israel provoked when it started its own program. The (perhaps) unintentional hypocrisy of your post is simply comical, rvg. Change “Ahmadinejad” to “Israel”, remove the later reference to Israel, and voila!

US was shockingly hypocritical yet unsurprisingly predictable in its response to the Israeli nuclear program. Now the time of payback began, and to deny Iran their right to atomics is merely piling up on America’s burden of hypocrisy. Sure, I hate to see them get their paws on atomics. But this is the cruel justice, the anticipated retribution for the past actions. Once Israel, the sole adversary of the Muslim Middle East obtain something, someone is sure to want that “something” for themselves as well.

I am not personally condemning Iran, Israel or America. I could care less. They all have their own interests, and international politics is a cruel, hypocritical and unjust place. What I am however doing, is pointing out that US and Israel should not be feign astonishment, for they brought this on themselves. The weak response to DPRK fission programme was hardly helpful either.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This is all fine and dandy - you are correct if we restrict our scope just to these recent years. However, with history in mind, it is Israel and United States who are responsible for the current situation. Unfortunately, Israel sometime ago decided it would be splendid if they had their own atomics. US found out about it, but kept quiet. Nuclear Iran will not provoke as many in the Middle East today than Nuclear Israel provoked when it started its own program. The (perhaps) unintentional hypocrisy of your post is simply comical, rvg. Change “Ahmadinejad” to “Israel”, remove the later reference to Israel, and voila!

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

[rvg]

I am not personally condemning Iran, Israel or America. I could care less.

Perhaps you should care more. Nuclear armed Iran is just as dangerous to Russia as it is to Israel. Today, they are on good terms with Russia, but who knows what happens tomorrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad backed by nukes will decide to resurrect Greater Persia and make a move against Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Russia stands as much to lose from nuclear armed Iran as Israel does.

[LittleGrizzly]

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

One wonders the relative military strength between the nations and one also wonders how many nations in the middle east threaten Israel militarily.

[Hooahguy]

well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

One wonders the relative military strength between the nations and one also wonders how many nations in the middle east threaten Israel militarily.

That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to them all up at once, then it itself is .

[Azathoth]

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

But Israel had nukes since the mid-60s, and Iran under the Shah was an ally of Israel.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But Israel had nukes since the mid-60s, and Iran under the Shah was an ally of Israel.

That doesn't change the fact that every other Arab nation was quite willing to drive Israel into the sea.

[Beskar]

That doesn't change the fact that every other Arab nation was quite willing to drive Israel into the sea.

All the communists are going to invade Germany and found the nation of "Marxland" due to the historical roots, displace all your native people by bringing in all the communists in the world to live in our new homeland. If you don't like it, Peoples Republic of China will nuke you, and provide us with constant support.

Then all the Capitalist nations of Europe are quite willing to drive Marxland into the sea.

[LittleGrizzly]

That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to them all up at once, then it itself is .

Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!

On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...

If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...

well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.

My point is more along the lines of...

If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)

The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Let's think why though.

Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

Good thing you put "simplistic", because if you did not...

For one, Iran is not merely a hound going after a hare. Israel is by no means a weak power, and it is not exactly a peaceful country that minds its own business while the bad guys keep attacking it. There should be no justification for further nuclear proliferation. None. Because when you begin acknowledging "exceptions", things happen. Not positive "things" either. The more nations have atomics, the more factors are created. The more factors, the higher probability of a nuclear combat.

First Israel obtained a fission device. Then goes Iran, not to be overpowered by its mortal enemy. Then goes Saudi Arabia, because it is wary of both and has the funds. Then goes Syria, because they too hate Israel, because they have long yearned for nuclear capabilities, because DPRK is aiding them. Then goes Egypt because they simply cannot stand the thought of being the only strong power without atomics, driven by their nationalism. And if Saddam was still in power, Iraq would already have an arsenal of atomics. There goes rvg's logic, which is very much correct and probable.

Now what?

Perhaps you should care more. Nuclear armed

Iran is just as dangerous to Russia as it is to Israel. Today, they are on good terms with Russia, but who knows what happens tomorrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad backed by nukes will decide to resurrect Greater Persia and make a move against Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Russia stands as much to lose from nuclear armed Iran as Israel does.

I did not mean that I do not care in absolute terms. No, I simply do not care who is right or wrong, and who wins or loses. I have no passionate stance on this. As Regan remarked on Iran-Iraq War - “Can’t they all just lose?!?”. True, Iran is certainly more unstable, but they also are slower to Russia than US or Israel. I do not see much in it for my nation if US gains yet more influence in the Middle East.

That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to them all up at once, then it itself is ed.

Uh-huh. So the only justification needed to obtain some fission munitions is to be an underdog? For one, Israel is not an underdog and it does not live under a probable threat of a united Arab attack. Otherwise, it can take any of the nations one-by-one, albeit at a heavy economic cost.
But if Israel was to publicly surrender its atomics, it may have well defused some tensions, and once possessing the infrastructure to produce fission or even fusion weapons, Israel could restart the production should tension escalate or an Arab nation decides to grab hold of nuclear weapons anyways. Creating the Piles and waiting for the enriched product may take some time, but it is highly unlikely an Arab nation with no or little previous experience could outpace Israel, which is already adept at atomics production.

[Hax]

Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests .

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

[Hooahguy]

For one, Israel is not an underdog and it does not live under a probable threat of a united Arab attack.

it was at the time.