Iran should be allowed to build the Bomb

perseus

Active member
In the interests of balancing power in the Middle East. So claims Kenneth Waltz Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb


It would certainly give the regions bully boy Israel, something to think about the next time they want to throw some weight around. However, perhaps they are really mad enough to go to war with Iran, unlike the US and USSR, or India and Pakistan?
 
Completely disagree as will most of the world, buddy. Iran obtaining a nuke would not balance power, but cause a greater instability. We WILL see a nuclear arms race, Saudi Arabia is not going to sit by and watch Shia Iran hold the most powerful weapon in the region. Iran have nothing to fear from Israel because a successful Israeli strike is impossible without U.S or another Arab country's direct aide. While U.S leaves "all options open" the chances of an air strike is still pretty low.

The only way for Iran to build one without U.S and others knowing is if they expel the IAEA inspectors completely and start locking their doors to transparency. This would DEFINATELY increase the liklihood of an air strike and probably even a fast raid from U.S. Indeed, trying to obtain a nuke would be counter-productive for Iran. It will only increase their chances of being attacked and increase instability.


I don't see how you see Israel as the region's bully boy. To be a bully boy of the region they would need to be able to influence other Arab nations against their will. This does not happen, Israel have no true influence beyond Israel, Palestine, and U.S.

When was the last time Israel threatened to attack Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and others? When is the last time Israel forced either of these countries in the region to do it's bidding?

Also I don't see what Pakistan and India have to do with a war with Iran, besides oil. No, Israel fully recognize their capabilities and know that a successful strike by themselves is very against them. Listen to too much rhetoric and you will believe the world was going into WW3.
 
Being the only nuclear power in the Middle East is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it`s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don`t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn´t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
 
So Kenneth Waltz is stirring the pot again. He has some good points, though. He is using the old Cold War rhetoric; his perception of balance and stability is based on the neutralization the nuclear weapons have. There is a balance even in an arms race; academically it’s called a security dilemma. There is stability in the deterrence. I agree with if the world (The West) is forcing Iran into a corner and Iran feels threaten, they will acquire the nuclear weapon to avoid any attacks.
 
Iran will not use the "bomb" to attack another country. Iran will use the "bomb" as an umbrella for the terrorist activities of its Qud forces abroad.
It's the same thing that Pakistan did. After the terrorist activities in India were traced to a terrorist group supported by the ISIS India wanted to invade Pakistan to destroy that group. Pakistan threatened with a nuclear retaliation and the Indians backed off.
So Iran's Qud forces can launch a terrorist attack against Saudi Arabia's rulers and when the Saudis want to retaliate Iran threatens to use its "bomb".
That's why Iran is not allowed to get the "bomb".

Israel is only a bully when they try to or do hit him. From day one Israel's neighbours tried to destroy it and up until today there are some who are still trying and they are surprised that they end up with a black eye.
 
Being the only nuclear power in the Middle East is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it`s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don`t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn´t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.


What are you talking about? Most sane people already realize Iran would not use the nuke if it obtained one, that is not the concern the west has about it. U.S politicians even know this despite their stupid rhetoric. Are you forgetting if U.S feels like Iran will attempt to get it, they will attack them? The only thing holding U.S back is the fact that we are not sure if they are trying to obtain it. It will be 100% obvious if they did try to obtain it in the near future even if they throw out all IAEA inspectors.



So Kenneth Waltz is stirring the pot again. He has some good points, though. He is using the old Cold War rhetoric; his perception of balance and stability is based on the neutralization the nuclear weapons have. There is a balance even in an arms race; academically it’s called a security dilemma. There is stability in the deterrence. I agree with if the world (The West) is forcing Iran into a corner and Iran feels threaten, they will acquire the nuclear weapon to avoid any attacks.



U.S won't make a slip like another North Korea, not in the Middle-East region. U.S surely will attack if it felt Iran was going to. Iran wouldn't be able to get one.

Iran will not use the "bomb" to attack another country. Iran will use the "bomb" as an umbrella for the terrorist activities of its Qud forces abroad.
It's the same thing that Pakistan did. After the terrorist activities in India were traced to a terrorist group supported by the ISIS India wanted to invade Pakistan to destroy that group. Pakistan threatened with a nuclear retaliation and the Indians backed off.
So Iran's Qud forces can launch a terrorist attack against Saudi Arabia's rulers and when the Saudis want to retaliate Iran threatens to use its "bomb".
That's why Iran is not allowed to get the "bomb".

Don't forget Russia and U.S did this as well.
 
In the interests of balancing power in the Middle East. So claims Kenneth Waltz Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb


It would certainly give the regions bully boy Israel, something to think about the next time they want to throw some weight around. However, perhaps they are really mad enough to go to war with Iran, unlike the US and USSR, or India and Pakistan?

The problem with this is that it is still only an assumption that they want to build a bomb, now personally I don't really care whether they do or the don't want one if we are not going to bother about India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel joining the nuclear club then we should not worry about Iran and I agree it would quieten US and Israeli aspirations in the region down a bit which wouldn't be a bad thing.
 
What are you talking about? Most sane people already realize Iran would not use the nuke if it obtained one, that is not the concern the west has about it. U.S politicians even know this despite their stupid rhetoric. Are you forgetting if U.S feels like Iran will attempt to get it, they will attack them? The only thing holding U.S back is the fact that we are not sure if they are trying to obtain it. It will be 100% obvious if they did try to obtain it in the near future even if they throw out all IAEA inspectors.



[/FONT][/COLOR]


U.S won't make a slip like another North Korea, not in the Middle-East region. U.S surely will attack if it felt Iran was going to. Iran wouldn't be able to get one.



Don't forget Russia and U.S did this as well.
The United States will not attack Iran to prevent her from acquiring nuclear weapons. Geo-political realities discourage American military action. A bombing raid would have to be intensive and prolonged, lasting 2 to 3 weeks, and even then, may not work. The lesson of Iraq, the last preventive war launched by the United States, is that Washington should not choose war when there are still other options, and it should not base its decision to attack on best-case analyses of how it hopes the conflict will turn out. Iran is no Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In all of these examples, the U.S. military defeated an adversary incapable of competing with superior American land, naval, and air forces. The Iranian military is far more competent and capable, and after watching the war in Iraq for a decade has a good understanding of U.S. tactics and strategy.

Add to all of this America’s economic difficulties and the war-weariness of the American people, and any American government will prefer economic sanctions against Iran to the uncertainties of a military strike. And what is true for the Obama administration will be true for a Republican administration. For the United States, determining what a nuclear weapons-free Iran is worth is critical. Had the American people understood the costs of Iraq before the war began, it’s unlikely they would have given their consent. Given the current economic woes of the country, that cannot happen again.

In the unlikely event that we attack, I would probably be among the first to go - would you?
 
Don't forget Russia and U.S did this as well.

But not with terrorist activity. I think you point to the Cuba crisis. Both Russia and the US didn't want to use nukes, the problem was how to avoid it without either losing face. A US reporter and a Russian spy were paramount in solving this.

The problem with this is that it is still only an assumption that they want to build a bomb, now personally I don't really care whether they do or the don't want one if we are not going to bother about India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel joining the nuclear club then we should not worry about Iran and I agree it would quieten US and Israeli aspirations in the region down a bit which wouldn't be a bad thing.

The first thing we must do is to prevent new members to the club and then we can (try) to tackle the others. How in the world are you going to decrease nukes when you allow new members in?

The United States will not attack Iran to prevent her from acquiring nuclear weapons. Geo-political realities discourage American military action. A bombing raid would have to be intensive and prolonged, lasting 2 to 3 weeks, and even then, may not work. The lesson of Iraq, the last preventive war launched by the United States, is that Washington should not choose war when there are still other options, and it should not base its decision to attack on best-case analyses of how it hopes the conflict will turn out. Iran is no Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In all of these examples, the U.S. military defeated an adversary incapable of competing with superior American land, naval, and air forces. The Iranian military is far more competent and capable, and after watching the war in Iraq for a decade has a good understanding of U.S. tactics and strategy.

Add to all of this America’s economic difficulties and the war-weariness of the American people, and any American government will prefer economic sanctions against Iran to the uncertainties of a military strike. And what is true for the Obama administration will be true for a Republican administration. For the United States, determining what a nuclear weapons-free Iran is worth is critical. Had the American people understood the costs of Iraq before the war began, it’s unlikely they would have given their consent. Given the current economic woes of the country, that cannot happen again.

In the unlikely event that we attack, I would probably be among the first to go - would you?

No one is going to attack Iran unless they are 110% sure they are building the bomb. It's all in the hands of the Iranians and the intelligence agencies (who can make mistakes as in Iraq). When Iran is building the bomb Israel will surely attack, alone if necessary. A western attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities will involve few boots on the ground. They will destrpoy their navy, air defenses and nuclear sites. No need to take on the Iranian army.
BTW, the Iraqi forced also looked strong on paper.
 
Neither the US nor the rest of the world can prevent Iran to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran really wants to have them. Several countries can develop nuclear weapons if they want, but they have decided to not do that. No one forced them, they did that of their own free will, or it benefited them to not develop nuclear weapons. An Iran with nuclear weapons will neutralize Israel's and might trigger an arms race in the region, which might balance and stabilize the region. The major problem if we have Iran and Israel with nuclear weapons is, they don't communicate directly to each other so misunderstandings can have consequences. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were communicating. What could happen during the Cuban missile crisis if they were not communicating?

 
The first thing we must do is to prevent new members to the club and then we can (try) to tackle the others. How in the world are you going to decrease nukes when you allow new members in?

Why?
Why do we want to decrease nukes, they are a worthless weapon at best and if countries want to waste money on them who cares.

There is never going to be a time in the future where nuclear weapons will not be out there and it is completely deluded to think that after 70 years we suddenly ban them from our lives and forget how to make them.
 
Given the political context in which military engagement would rest, even a minor attack would likely become a major test of strength involving not only the United States and Iran but also a host of allies and associates. It is therefore disingenuous to try to frame military action against Iran as a simple "raid" or even a broader "operation." We are talking here about war, with attendant potential high costs to all combatants in terms of military casualties, civilian damage and economic disruption.

The first conclusion we should draw from this is that the U.S. government should be prepared for a long and difficult conflict if it ultimately decides it must attack Iran. An attack might end quickly with few complications if Iran acts "rationally." We may not like what that means, however: One "rational" ending for the Iranians would be to accept their losses, declare "victory" because the regime survived, lick their wounds, prepare for indirect retaliation, and resume nuclear activities on a clandestine basis. But a war might not end cleanly, and the U.S. administration could find itself in a messy and protracted conflict.

The second conclusion we should take from this discussion is that, in attacking Iran, we would be trading one set of risks for another. Any option we choose, even choosing not to choose, will have political as well as military-strategic consequences. As hard as it is to know the consequences of war, it is just as hard to know the consequences of a decision to "learn to live" with a nuclear-armed Iran. Both courses are fraught and logically open-ended. Thus the fear of potentially negative consequences from a war should not necessarily rule one out. Winston Churchill, reflecting on British policy before World War II, wrote:

If the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used. And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favourable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win.

In any case, if the United States decides to attack Iran it should certainly look before it leaps and prepare itself for a hard landing. Above all, U.S. leaders should not underestimate the scope or misread the broad nature of war and should therefore organize the U.S. government in advance to prosecute it coherently. In light of how we have fared with whole-of-government approaches and unity-of-command issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is clearly a requirement we need to take seriously.
 
It's very hopeful to see the major change taking place in minds about Iran. We often hear the screams from USA and Israel about Iran's bomb, that it will be used by terrorists or bla bla bla. But why always to keep our minds with what CNN or Fox news say why not to reject the Israeli or US point of view and see the ground realities ourselves.
The reason is because the Israeli authority in the region or it's occupation of Palestine or the routine holocaust of Palestinian women and children by IDF will be put to an end once Israeli archrival Iran will acquire a Bomb. Furthermore the multiple threats Isreal gives time to time to neighbouring nations will loose their weight, and last but not the least that Israel's aggression to Lebanon or any other weak neighbour will not be possible as Irani bomb will keep striking israeli minds. These are the facts behind why Israeli lobby in USA is putting it's full efforts to stop Iran from acquiring bomb.
As far as this propaganda "Terrorist Acquisition of Iranian Bomb" is concerned, we don't see Iran's past record like this, they have always proved unlike Israelis as a responsible nation and have always worked for the stability in the region.
USA has no policy of itself against Iran neither it has any concerns but the Israeli lobby in USA is using American power as a tool to get their work done.
If Israel can have a Bomb why not Iran why not any other nation. As far as any Air strike on Iran is concerned, it may prove more then a Nuclear bomb to Israel.
No disrespect intended to Israel or any other Nation,it's just a point of view
 
What if Iran gets the bomb? Bernd Debusmann

Reuters) - The West worries too much about the prospect of Iran going nuclear. If it did get the bomb, the Middle East would probably become a more stable region. So says Kenneth Waltz, a veteran scholar, in an essay in one of America's most influential magazines.

"Why Iran Should get the Bomb," says the headline in Foreign Affairs, the house organ of the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York think tank. "Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability."

The author is a senior research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. His contrarian essay coincides with yet another unsuccessful round of negotiations between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of countries who insist the government in Tehran must do more to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful, as it claims, rather than intended to build weapons.

The talks this week in Moscow brought Iranian negotiators together with officials from the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany. The negotiations produced no breakthrough and no sign of compromise. New U.S. and European sanctions, including a ban on Iranian oil imports, are coming into force next month. Whether they will be more likely to make Iran bow to Western demands than previous turns of the sanctions screw is open to doubt. What next?

"Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff," Waltz writes. "In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability in the Middle East."

He dismisses U.S. and Israeli warnings that a nuclear Iran would be a uniquely terrifying prospect. "Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members...decided to live with it."

What's more, "by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less." Cases in point: China, which became less bellicose after becoming a nuclear power in 1964; Pakistan and India, which signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other's nuclear facilities and have kept the peace since then.

In the Middle East, according to this view, Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal has produced an imbalance in power that is "unsustainable in the long term What is surprising in the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge."

If Iran eventually went nuclear, the argument goes, Israel and Iran would deter each other the same way nuclear powers elsewhere have deterred each other - viz the United States and the Soviet Union or India and Pakistan.

Since 1945, when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, no country with nuclear weapons has used them.

NUCLEAR IRAN INEVITABLE?

It's not difficult to find officials in Washington who think that a nuclear Iran is inevitable but decline to say so on the record because President Barack Obama has declared, repeatedly, that an Iranian bomb would be unacceptable and that containment of a nuclear Iran was not an option for his administration.

While views such as Waltz's are not often aired in public in the U.S., experts both inside and outside the government have long pondered what would happen "the day after." That could mean the day after Iran reached nuclear "breakout" - the ability to make a bomb at short notice - or the day after it tested a bomb.

All this is based on an unproven assumption: that Iran's theocratic rulers have decided to build nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence agencies admit they don't know.

Think tanks both in the United States and Israel have run "day after" simulations that assumed what both countries have pledged to prevent - Iran succeeding in making a bomb despite ever tighter sanctions, sabotage of nuclear installations and assassinations of scientists. One of the questions addressed in such war games is the extent to which nuclear weapons would shield Iran from attack.

A recent simulation run by Israel's Institute for National Security Studies had the following scenario: Iran conducts an underground nuclear test in January 2013, after expelling inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and after a series of provocative maneouvres by Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval vessels and aircraft against forces of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

"In our assessment," wrote the authors of the report on the exercise, Yoel Guzanski and Yonathan Lerner, " the actual likelihood of an attack on Iran once Iran is in possession of proven nuclear capability decreases dramatically, although (it is) not entirely eliminated."

That sounds in synch with Waltz's thesis that Israel and Iran would deter each other. Whether that would bring stability to the perpetually unstable Middle East is another matter.

(Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com)
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/22/column-debusmann-idINDEE85L0FT20120622
 
Iran will not use the "bomb" to attack another country. Iran will use the "bomb" as an umbrella for the terrorist activities of its Qud forces abroad.
.
The groups who are supported by Iran are not terrorist but are the groups who are fighting for their homeland or are against the external big powers illegitimate interests, such as Hamas or Hezbollah.
33 years ago Israel occupied Lebanon till Beirut without shooting even one bullet but now they dont dare to put one of their foots on Lebanon's land and it is the result of Iran helps. it is why they called these groups terrorist.
 
Last edited:
The groups who are supported by Iran are not terrorist but are the groups who are fighting for their homeland or are against the external big powers illegitimate interests, such as Hamas or Hezbollah.
33 years ago Israel occupied Lebanon till Beirut without shooting even one bullet but now they cant dare to put one of their foots on Lebanon's land and it is the result of Iran helps. it is why they called these groups terrorist.

What about the terrorist attacks of Quds supportet forces in India, Thailand and Georgia. What about the tons of illegal weapons found in containers in Nigeria?

Do you really know why Israel occupied southern Lebanon? Do you also know that Hezbollah violates a binding UN Counsel resolution to disarm, a resolution that saved them from its destruction by Israel? And what about the two prevented assasination atemps on a Saudi minister? The multiple attacks on American forces in Iraq, forces who BTW were responsible for the reinstalment of a Shiite dominated government. What about the accusations of Kuwait, Bahrein and Yemen that Iran is supporting anti government protests while Iran themselves brutally mowed down a peaceful demand for new elections.

@2nd Lieutenant : If Israel had so much influence in the USA as you claim there wouldn't be a Palestine. They would have annexed the land in retaliation of the multiple attacks by their neighbours.
Israel does not want to destroy Iran, they only want to prevent Iran having the bomb, just like they did in Iraq and Syria.
Israel never attacked a neigbouring country without any reason.

@Justice : Pakistan (ISI) launched a terrorist attack on India through a proxy force, India wanted to retaliate conventionally and Pakistan threatened with nuclear warfare. Don't think that nuclear weapons prevent war, the more countries get them the higher the chance of a nuclear conflict. It's not about if but when.
 
Why do we want to decrease nukes, they are a worthless weapon at best and if countries want to waste money on them who cares.

Directly yes, but the fear of its potential use is a potent weapon. Would anyone dare to invade Iran if they had a nuclear weapon? Would Iraq have been invaded if they had one?
 
The very fact that this discussion is happening is an indication that the world is gradually waking up to the propaganda and scare tactics of Israel and it's supporters.

It seems that common sense is slowly breaking out around the world.

Do I support Iran in all they say, definitely not,... I distrust them because of the fact that they are effectively a religious State, but never the less, I think that even they realise that to use their nuclear weapon(s) would be suicide.
 
If Iran eventually went nuclear, the argument goes, Israel and Iran would deter each other the same way nuclear powers elsewhere have deterred each other - viz the United States and the Soviet Union or India and Pakistan.


The stupidity of using the Cold War as an example for letting nations get nukes really annoy me. It is like people still don't realize how close the Soviets and U.S were to nuking one another. They act like U.S and Soviets still didn't have their conflicts, they had many conflicts often through proxies. This is indeniable and it will place Iran and all others who obtain a nuke in the same position. War wouldn't stop, just become more dangerous as hands on the button shifts through stable and radical nations and regimes, not to mention higher amounts of proxies.


Are we to assume as more people get their hands on a weapon that chances of using it will decrease? Will you want to be known in history as the idiots who allowed nuclear proliferation if some idiot does use a nuke because they was allowed to get one?

Lets face it: If Iran gets the nuke, Saudi Arabia will get a nuke, then the next country that want to be strong will get a nuke, then the next that claims they want to balance out power, then the next, then the next, then the next, where do it end? The only ones who will be without nukes are those who cannot afford nukes. How does this exactly ensure the survival of humanity? Isn't this a very risky "solution" to war considering the massive effect today's nukes have? We are not talking about the bombs that were used on Japan, we are talking about bombs much more powerful than it. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.


No one is allowed or should be allowed to obtain a nuke once they signed NPT.


Will nuclear weapons be demolished entirely by the superpowers and other powers that already have them? We don't really know, but lots of people think of it as inevitable. I think that way of thinking dooms humanity to failure. It is a shame and/or fortunate that we will probably not see the results of these decisions.


As globalization occurs, I think things will get a little better when it comes to conflicts. Globalization will definately be a better method than giving everyone nukes thinking that is true peace.


The United States will not attack Iran to prevent her from acquiring nuclear weapons. Geo-political realities discourage American military action. A bombing raid would have to be intensive and prolonged, lasting 2 to 3 weeks, and even then, may not work. The lesson of Iraq, the last preventive war launched by the United States, is that Washington should not choose war when there are still other options, and it should not base its decision to attack on best-case analyses of how it hopes the conflict will turn out.


Of course, U.S will not launch a strike until all options are out. I am saying that if Iran was going to try to obtain it or make it any more difficult to know if they will try to obtain it, U.S would be fully ready and willing to make sure it doesn't. A strike would only be to delay Iran on this. I am pretty sure the U.S military will be fully capable of handling an air strike on Iran. Iran would not be able to retaliate in all honesty except through international means which U.S will just veto. Any other retaliation they do will be counter-productive.

if we are not going to bother about India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel joining the nuclear club

We have been doing that for awhile now. Probably not recently or as strong as we used to, but we have been trying to get them to join NPT.

The very fact that this discussion is happening is an indication that the world is gradually waking up to the propaganda and scare tactics of Israel and it's supporters.

It seems that common sense is slowly breaking out around the world.

Do I support Iran in all they say, definitely not,... I distrust them because of the fact that they are effectively a religious State, but never the less, I think that even they realise that to use their nuclear weapon(s) would be suicide.

This isn't about and has never been about them actually physically using the nuke. Anyone who claims it is, reads too much into political and media rhetoric. This is about them using a nuke as a more bolder defense of their influence, not to mention there status as a terror supporting state. You can not deny they are trying to spread influence, which the Sunni states fear (with reason). Not to mention they are part of NPT.

Panetta already stated Iran is not trying to obtain a nuke at this moment. Now, I do believe the West should use a more fair approach to this. They need to allow Iran it's right to enrich uraniam for civil uses, which the West do not want. The West fears that Iran will have the ability to get nuclear weapons at any time it wants to if we allow them to enrich uranium themselves.

This isn't just about Israeli security and all those who brings it up as if that is the only reason, reads too much propaganda as well (Perseus, Seno, Justice, Hamid, and 2nd Lt.)


Directly yes, but the fear of its potential use is a potent weapon. Would anyone dare to invade Iran if they had a nuclear weapon? Would Iraq have been invaded if they had one?

The chances of a direct attack will decrease, but not completely. The chances of proxies and attempts at regime change by creating higher levels of unrest will probably increase. U.S have nothing to fear of a nuclear armed Iran militarily unless they want to use nukes on their own land or close to another nation's land.
 
Last edited:
You want us to forget our legal nuclear technology rights while you are modernizing your nukes. Why???!!!:?:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top