|
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
So its the USA's fault that Iran and North Korea are developign WMD? |
Well, in a way, yes.
In 2002 Bush named Iran as a member of the "axis of evil". In the years since then, Iran has had the benefit of being able to sit back and observe how the US has treated the other two nations that it considered to be part of this "axis". Iraq, which didn't have WMDs, got the ever-loving shit kicked out of it. North Korea, which does have WMDs (supposedly, at least) has got to sit around a table for the past two years with the biggest nations in the world and dictate terms to them. Based on the Bush administration's duplicity in dealing with "axis of evil" states in these cases, can you really blame Iran for thinking that building a nuclear bomb is the best way to protect itself from a fate like Iraq's and to gain itself a strong international bargaining chip in the process?
And I think that this is what's most important to understand about Iran's rationale: they aren't aiming to develop nuclear weapons for aggressive purposes, but rather for defensive ones. I've seen no evidence - current or historical - to suggest that Iran is a militarily aggressive state, with regards to either the expansion of its territories or ideology (after all, the US has done enough to ensure the rise of Shia Islam in the region as it is). In this case, much of the hyperbole in this thread about the dangers of Iran developing nuclear bombs is largely unfounded. None of the current nuclear states developed nuclear weapons for aggressive purposes and I'm not sure why we should immediately suspect that Iran's aims would be any more malevolent, or any more of a threat to global security.
Having said that, I do disagree strongly with any state - let alone an unstable, theocratic one like Iran - being allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program. There are enough of them in the world today as it is. So my solution to prevent Iran from "getting the bomb" would be firstly, yes, to write a very angry letter, with exclamation points and angry looking emoticons and everything. If that doesn't work (it won't) then - short of a long, drawn-out, multilateral negotiation process (a la North Korea) - sanctions really are the only option. To prevent the sort of horrors that occurred under Iraqi sanctions, however, they should be specifically targetted - say a complete ban on military trade. To drive the point home, the UN should also threaten sanctions upon any nation that provides Iran with the equipment it needs to produce the weapons - after all, Iran won't be able to get there without outside help.
And if none of that works? Targetted military strikes perhaps, although that could end up causing more problems than it solves. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it...
___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/
|
Anti-Purple Alliance.
.
