I think that you need to make a distinction between the theological propaganda sold to the grunts and plebs, and what the government leaders actually believe. You don't see the Ayatollah strap a bomb around his waist. Nuclear war would be suicide for Iran. Apart from pissing off its Arab neighbours, Israel would retaliate in kind and the US would follow suit. Russia and China would just sit back and enjoy the show. It isn't going to happen. You can't be a leader to a mass grave in a radioactive dust bowl. Iran wants nukes because it saw what the US did to Iraq. If Saddam Hussain really had WMD he would still be sitting on his throne. Really? Linkie on the hit squads please?
The track record would suggest western interference in Iran to be higher than that of Iranian hit squads in the west, history will tell.
Not in the US though, as you suggested. Also apparently in response to Israeli hit squads killing nuclear scientists in Iran.
really skeptical about those alleged iranian hit squads. Plus source is daily mail. Let's all go back to Iraq dossier, and see what the MOD and media told us. Saddam Hussein could strike Britain in 45 minutes. How they have clear evidence of mobile chemical weapons factories that were driving round and doing experiments to avoid UN investigations. How saddam has access to antrax and a small sugar cube amout of anthrax was able to take out an entire city. Now we're being fed similar stuff about Iran, the lies never stop, and people have the memory of a goldfish it seems.
What lies about Iran, considering that it wont answer all IAEA questons about its supposed civilian nuclear program. Civil nuclear power is not a problem with the west- offers to help with reactors and fuel exchange have been turned down why? If the program was legitimate then Iran would be completly open about it but their not, whys that then?
Because they offered to open their program up, completely, access all areas, twice, and on both occasions it was thrown back in Iran's face. Once after 9/11 when the entire Middle East was bending over backwards to distance itself from terrorism. The government of then president Mohammad Khatami - with the backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - strongly supported US efforts to topple the Taliban government and create a new administration for Afghanistan and to open up its nuclear programme for inspection. Mere weeks after major diplomatic agreements were made, Bush included Iran in his "Axis of Evil" speech along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea. The next offer was just after the Allies invaded Iraq. Iran threw everything on the table: complete openness on their nuclear programme, a peace declaration with Israel and abandonment of Iran's support for Palestinian armed groups. The Swiss diplomat who mediated on Iran's behalf was curtly told by US officials to "stop wasting their time". The US was feeling cocky, see? They were going to take down Iraq with shock and awe within the month, and after that they might just move on to Iran... So US arrogance meant that epic opportunities were missed. Meanwhile Iraq and Afghanistan has taught countries that the best defence against Western intervention is to own nukes as a deterrent.
Yes back then America was very cocky however the wars and subsquent insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan have changed America, alot was done wrong under the Bush Administration. With Obama the threat of invasion against Iran has gone, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and a Nato lead Air campaign in Lybia shows the US does not want to lead into another war. So with the threat of invasion gone why doesnt Iran work with the IAEA, and address the concerns the west and the other arab powers have over its civilian program which all countries are entitled to.
Because it wants nukes. It has learned that it's the only way to keep Western intervention at bay. And seeing as Israel has them, and the West, and even countries like Pakistan and India, it doesn't see why it can't have them too.
Indeed, it may see Nukes as the only option to keep the west at bay, however under Irans current political regime the region nor the world would want a Iran with nukes, Iran has enough domestic problems at currrent, inculding is polictal subjugation of the opposition. Iran's leadership has been quite vocal and active in wanting to assert its power across the region and wipe out Israel, while the Israel's do have nukes their not threating to wipe out Iran or threaten other countires with them. Further Nuclear proliferation is not needed in this world, Iran would likely end up as another North Korea but with no China to watch over it. Many countires have had nuclear weapons but have relinquished them for the better, more nuclear powers only complicates the reduction and disarmament of other powers at the table.
Another reason why it still wants nukes is because of the US political system, the next leaders can be another Bush. Imagine Newt Gingrich as president...
Fail- I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the concept of MAD; Mutually Assured Destruction. You can't use your nukes against another country with nukes as they will nuke you back in retaliation ( or their allies will )- you can only use conventional warfare ( or fight wars by proxy... ). This is why Russia got all upset a little while back because America wants to/is building a missile defence shield in Europe; they say it's to prevent an attack from a rogue middle east state, but ofcourse it handily means any Russian attack on Europe or America could be partially or totally defeated, whilst the American & European counter attack would be largely successful.
As I said before, Iran offered peace with Israel and was rebuffed. Beneath all the rhetoric Iran's leadership is very pragmatic. A dictator's business is to stay in business. It has all interest in gaining nukes, but no interests in actually being the first to use them. The US is just picking on Iran because it sits on a huge oil field. I would worry exponentially more about Pakistan if I were you. It already has nukes, and a very unstable government under threat by fundamentalist factions that -quite literally- taught the Taliban how it's done. If they seize control of the country, you have effectively a Taliban with nukes. And who will be able to offer the only opposing force in that region then? Why, India of course, Israel and... Iran. Iran has already shown itself prepared to work with the West against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We should be embracing that and let it get on with its nuclear programme.
I think as an educated society we ought to be more tolerant of individuals who for one reason or other need to express their frustration through the medium of ranting Just smile and point and move on.
Obama is, in many ways, comparable to Bush. In many ways, Obama is considerably more "hawk"ish than Bush was.
I don't know the full intricacies about that. I honestly don't care. Iran is not a threat to Britain and never will be anyway. Iran has never invaded a foreign country in 400 years! It's only because of Israel that we're getting our knickers in a twist. It's about time we stopped doing Israel's bidding, and maybe look to Israel to change their ways for a lasting peace. Stop the land grabs and illegal settlements. Then we can sympathise with you, but at the moment Israel is flouting UN rules and crying wolf over Iran.
That depends on what the problems are. You're getting into the issue of intervention there, and there are two sides to that coin. Iraq or Yugoslavia, Afghanistan or Sierra Leone?
