The Iran Crisis: Five and a Half Questions
How can it be the policy of the United States to fear both the development of an Iranian nuclear capability and the one surefire way to lance the boil that doesn’t involve a US attack? Isn’t the wisdom of keeping Israel out of NATO that Israel then cannot be stopped from taking on risk in the pursuit of violent ventures which Americans ‘won’t do’ but from which they benefit? Do we or don’t we want to halt Iran’s diabolical scheme? Or is it that only we can ‘get it right’? Does that really sound plausible anymore? Especially when ‘getting it right’ might involve — but wait, I was about to explain why bombing Iran isn’t a very good idea from an American perspective for any reason. Though I really do bet that if Israel struck, the world would reject an Iranian counterattack on US assets. Even Russia would have to suck it up. Think about it.
I guess I just find the idea that either the United States or any international body is going to be able to prevent countries from developing nuclear weapons in perpetuity to be kind of bizarre. We are talking about technology that in its basic form is more than 60 years old. The idea that technological barriers are going to prevent countries from devloping these weapons seems either naive or bigoted, depending. And a consequence of globalism is the fact that if someone or some regime has the money to procure a commodity, they are not going to be prevented from aquiring it by borders or treaties or laws. I just can’t imagine that it isn’t possible to bring fissionable materials into Iran clandestinely. How long do we really think that we can keep these weapons out of rogue regimes hands?
It’s particularly weird that we have no objection to Pakistan having nuclear weapons, when they are a far less stable regime than Iran, and are far more likely to nuke India than Iran is to attack any of its neighbors.
— Freddie · Nov 8, 04:19 PM · #