Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why can't Iran have nuclear power?


KeyStone

Recommended Posts

whether iran has nuclear weapons or not it wouldn't make a difference. if they ever used them, they'd be attacked immediately by U.S. ships, submarines and planes that are surrounding them. as fanatical as the mullahs are made to look, i don't think they're going to risk losing power over this by shooting missiles around.

A major problems with your 'analysis'...

While you are assuming that those mullahs are eager to cling to power (not necessarily assured, since there may be some that hold nihilistic attitudes and would be willing to see widespread death if it were religiously inspired), there is no guarantee that they will keep power.

Dictatorships are not necessarily stable... revolutions occur (e.g. Iran has to contend with students who disagree with the government), they get beaten by outside forces, etc. Even if you assume those controlling Iran are interested in their own political power, they may see the use of nuclear weapons as some sort of last defiant act as the leaders loose power. (Not to mention the chance that some within the government may have ulterior motives and may have an interest in supplying arms to others.)

On the other hand, Israel is a democracy (and a relatively stable one at that). The leaders are democratically selected (lessening the chance of a religious nut with nihilistic intentions gaining power). And while an individual political party may loose power, there's little risk of the entire system collapsing.

There also does not seem to be the same issue with Jewish terrorism, so the risk of Israeli nuclear weapons being diverted to fanatical groups is rather lessened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 282
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A major problems with your 'analysis'...

While you are assuming that those mullahs are eager to cling to power (not necessarily assured, since there may be some that hold nihilistic attitudes and would be willing to see widespread death if it were religiously inspired), there is no guarantee that they will keep power.

i am assuming because that's what they've done for over 20 years. majority of the mullahs who have power, hold interests in many of the biggest companies in iran. from oil to construction companies to financial institution. kind of similar to the U.S. government where cheney benefits from the contracts that are given out by the government.

Dictatorships are not necessarily stable... revolutions occur (e.g. Iran has to contend with students who disagree with the government), they get beaten by outside forces, etc. Even if you assume those controlling Iran are interested in their own political power, they may see the use of nuclear weapons as some sort of last defiant act as the leaders loose power. (Not to mention the chance that some within the government may have ulterior motives and may have an interest in supplying arms to others.)

interesting thoughts. it is possible that they may use the nuclear weapons as a "last defiant act". who knows what can happen. but these assumptions can be used in many different scenarios involving many different nations. however, it is best to use current and past actions, instead of assumptions of what may happen in the future in order to draw up a conclusion in this manner.

On the other hand, Israel is a democracy (and a relatively stable one at that). The leaders are democratically selected (lessening the chance of a religious nut with nihilistic intentions gaining power). And while an individual political party may loose power, there's little risk of the entire system collapsing.

this is when we go back to looking at actions that the country has taken. israel is not shy about using its military. they have repeatedly said that all options are on the table.

it is quite possible that israel will attack iran and use self-defense as their reason for attacking. however, israel would think twice before attacking a country that has nuclear weapons. so why can't iran protect itself from militarily aggressive states like the U.S. and israel that have weapons pointing at it?

There also does not seem to be the same issue with Jewish terrorism, so the risk of Israeli nuclear weapons being diverted to fanatical groups is rather lessened.

many accuse israel of state terrorism. just because a group is defined as state military, it does not mean that their actions are immune to be categorized as terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many accuse israel of state terrorism. just because a group is defined as state military, it does not mean that their actions are immune to be categorized as terrorism.

I know the first thing I think about when I hear about some bomb exploding in a cafe.

"Damn Jews are at it again!"

-------------------------

Let's have another cup of coffee.

Let's have another piece of pie.

---Irving Berlin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you are assuming that those mullahs are eager to cling to power (not necessarily assured, since there may be some that hold nihilistic attitudes and would be willing to see widespread death if it were religiously inspired), there is no guarantee that they will keep power.

i am assuming because that's what they've done for over 20 years.

Except for the past 20 years, Iran hasn't had nuclear weapons. If there were people who wanted to cause widespread destruction, they wouldn't have had the ability.

Of course, if you DO want to look at what they've done, consider:

- During the Iran/Iraq war, they were willing to sacrifice thousands of their own people in attacks (cannon fodder) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ramadan

majority of the mullahs who have power, hold interests in many of the biggest companies in iran. from oil to construction companies to financial institution.

Of course, you're assuming that the Mullah's truly are motivated by only personal political/financial interists. Not sure how exactly you'd know that though. Have you met them? Hung out with them? Believe it or not, there are people out there who are "true believers".

kind of similar to the U.S. government where cheney benefits from the contracts that are given out by the government.

This is where you just lost a whole lot of credibility. (I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I think your knowledge and willingness to accept such rampant misinformation is important here.)

You see, Cheney doesn't actually benefit at all from his relationship to Halliburton. It is true that he received pay from them after becoming vice-president, but it was actually deferred salary, and legally the amount cannot change, regardless of how well or poorly Halliburton did.

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_...alliburton.html

Dictatorships are not necessarily stable... revolutions occur (e.g. Iran has to contend with students who disagree with the government), they get beaten by outside forces, etc. Even if you assume those controlling Iran are interested in their own political power, they may see the use of nuclear weapons as some sort of last defiant act as the leaders loose power. (Not to mention the chance that some within the government may have ulterior motives and may have an interest in supplying arms to others.)

interesting thoughts. it is possible that they may use the nuclear weapons as a "last defiant act". who knows what can happen.

Well, given the rather horrific situation that would result if nukes were used, I'd rather keep such weapons far, far away from those who might have even a slight inclination to use them.

but these assumptions can be used in many different scenarios involving many different nations.

Yes... those assumptions could be used in Pakistan (which worries me greatly). They could have been applied to Iraq (had the Nuclear program not been stopped). And keep in mind that Iraq was quite willing to use Poison gas when it was under a significant threat...

At this point, we don't really know what would happen if a country had nuclear weapons and either A: had a fundamentalist, nihilistic leader, or B: a dictator who was about to be overthrown. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

On the other hand, Israel is a democracy (and a relatively stable one at that). The leaders are democratically selected (lessening the chance of a religious nut with nihilistic intentions gaining power). And while an individual political party may loose power, there's little risk of the entire system collapsing.

this is when we go back to looking at actions that the country has taken. israel is not shy about using its military. they have repeatedly said that all options are on the table.

Actually I'm quite sure that Israel WOULD consider the use of Nuclear weapons if attacked by neighbouring states. But we're talking about preemptive nuclear attacks. Given the nature of Israel's democracy, I doubt they would do so.

it is quite possible that israel will attack iran and use self-defense as their reason for attacking. however, israel would think twice before attacking a country that has nuclear weapons. so why can't iran protect itself from militarily aggressive states like the U.S. and israel that have weapons pointing at it?

The only reason Israel would attack Iran is to stop a nuclear program. No nuclear program, no reason for them to attack. You want to consider past actions? Consider Iraq... Yes, Israel bombed one of their reactors (an act that most believe prevented Saddam from getting the bomb). But they never engaged in ground operations, never tried to overthrow Saddam. Heck, they never even bothered retaliating after they were attacked with SCUDs in the first gulf war.

many accuse israel of state terrorism.

Yeah, people who are prone to blind rhetoric and who want to redefine and broaden the definition of 'terrorism' to include whatever pet causes they happen to champion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the first thing I think about when I hear about some bomb exploding in a cafe.

"Damn Jews are at it again!"

Just as I assume when there's another rape or murder in Jane-Finch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam is unique among religions because of its intolerance. It has been described as 'bipolar' because you can find scripture to support any position.

The same reason, Christianity has divided into so many factions. Because they are interpret things differently.

Iran can go ahead with nukes if they want. The west is only ever threatened through the proxy of Israel. Iran threatens them, it threatens the west. If Isreal is wiped off the face of the earth (again) I really don't think my life in Canada will change much at all.

Isreal has attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor. It has also attacked Syria's reactor, and by that track record, they will attack Iran first. It is to keep them in the technological dark? Crazy religious zealots who want to kill Irsael? Keep them from getting weapons or (creating a better standard of living for themselves) other such things? Israel is a pretty rich and powerfull country, but yet so small, and in the middle of the wilderness among the animals. The animals are not friendly at all, but they have their reasons.

The problems go back 50 plus years.

As Bush Cheney said .. history is written by the winners. and the winners history can be whatever they want it to be. That is scary. So the truth behind Iran is not being told to us. Because of who the winners area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Bush Cheney said .. history is written by the winners. and the winners history can be whatever they want it to be. That is scary. So the truth behind Iran is not being told to us. Because of who the winners area.

Well, that works up to a point in this day n' age. Both you and I have the ability to pop over to http://www.irandefence.net/index.php and see what the folks (English speaking at least) over in Iran post re: any conflict. Ditto with any number of groups/nations/events.

----------------------------------------------

Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action.

---Benjamin Disraeli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE

He was not pro-Nazi. He was simply not an enemy of the Nazis, he was neutral. To equate that with being pro-Nazi is a lie.

Sez you. History disagrees.

History doesn't disagree. No where does the historical account say he was pro-Nazi. Iran was invaded to secure the oil fields, and a supply line to the USSR. The invasion was a strategic consideration bereft of any regard for the sovereign rights of Iran.

QUOTE

That's irrelevant, we're discussing Reza Shah and why they invaded. It was only because of oil and the war, and the Shah's insistence on neutrality, not for any other manufactured reason.

I'd suggest you bring that up with the ghost of Stalin and not me. He did it for a reason and Churchill agreed.

I'm simply disagreeing with your explanation of why they invaded.

QUOTE

That's another argument. You probably think Mossadeq was wrong without knowing how the original oil concessions were brought about by a weak Iranian monarchy dominated by the British.

Don't really care, frankly. Either way...Iran small. Russia, America, Britian, France, big. Bend over.

laugh.gif

How is foreign domination funny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History doesn't disagree. No where does the historical account say he was pro-Nazi. Iran was invaded to secure the oil fields, and a supply line to the USSR. The invasion was a strategic consideration bereft of any regard for the sovereign rights of Iran.

I'm simply disagreeing with your explanation of why they invaded.

I do agree oil was the prize in the affair. Tanks/planes/ships need fuel. Circa 1941, it was uncertain if Rommel would break through in Afrika or not...that campaign was far from over. The problem of the senior Shah being pro-German wasn't something Stalin was going to take any chances with Iran while Army Group South's panzer divisions were pushing towards the oil fields, as well.

But some good things came from the Allies eventually in the form of roads and airports and the usual wealth of supplies that followed the Americans when they got involved (see: Persian Corridor). Same thing happened here in Canada with the Alaska Highway (Alcan Highway).

How is foreign domination funny?

Big fish eats little fish and you're shocked?

---------------------------------------

Room service? Send up a larger room.

---Groucho Marx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of the senior Shah being pro-German wasn't something Stalin was going to take any chances with Iran while Army Group South's panzer divisions were pushing towards the oil fields, as well.

The Shah wasn't 'pro-German', as in pro-Nazi during the war. Iran offered no war support to any party in WWII, and it declared itself neutral during the war.

But some good things came from the Allies eventually in the form of roads and airports and the usual wealth of supplies that followed the Americans when they got involved (see: Persian Corridor). Same thing happened here in Canada with the Alaska Highway (Alcan Highway).

I agree with that.

Edited by IranianPride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shah wasn't 'pro-German', as in pro-Nazi during the war. Iran offered no war support to any party in WWII, and it declared itself neutral during the war.

History begs to differ....

The Shah went on to ask the international community to use the native name of "Iran" in 1935[11] to address to his country, which in Persian means 'Land of the Aryans' and refers to Airyanem Vaejah, the Avestan name of the original homeland of the Aryans. Although the country has been known as Iran to the native people themselves for many centuries, Westerners came to know the nation as Persia through Ancient Greek accounts. Iranians were immune to the racial Nuremberg Laws on the grounds that they were pure blooded Aryans. In 1939, Nazi Germany provided Iran with what they called a Germany Scientific Library. The library contained over 7500 books selected "to convince Iranian readers...of the kinship between the National Socialist Reich and the Aryan culture of Iran"(Lenczowski. 1944, p. 161). In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn between the Shah of Iran and Hitler, and praise the charisma and virtue of the Fuhrerprinzip (Rezun. 1982, p. 29).

The idea for the name change was suggested by Iran's ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of Hitler's trusted banker Hjalmar Schacht (Edwin Black, Banking on Baghdad).[citation needed]

From 1939 to 1941 Iran's top foreign trade partner (nearly 50% of its total trade) was Germany, which helped Iran open modern sea and air communications with the rest of the world.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Irania...rst_Pahlavi_era

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's important is that iran declared itself neutral in the conflict.

they also did business with britain and other nations. it's like saying the U.S. supported and were allied with the nazis because they did business with them during their rise to power. yeah, it sounds ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's important is that iran declared itself neutral in the conflict.

they also did business with britain and other nations. it's like saying the U.S. supported and were allied with the nazis because they did business with them during their rise to power. yeah, it sounds ridiculous.

From Wikipedia...

The shelling of Iran's parliament by the Russians, and the signing of the 1919 Treaty, firmly planted the roots of suspicion against Britain and Russia. This was while many people were aware of Wilhelm II's speech in Damascus in 1898 calling on all Muslims to rely on him as a true friend.[7]

By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states[8]. Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9] According to Edwin Black, the Shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Nazis' help in reducing British petro-political domination[10].

The Shah went on to ask the international community to use the native name of "Iran" in 1935[11] to address to his country, which in Persian means 'Land of the Aryans' and refers to Airyanem Vaejah, the Avestan name of the original homeland of the Aryans. Although the country has been known as Iran to the native people themselves for many centuries, Westerners came to know the nation as Persia through Ancient Greek accounts. Iranians were immune to the racial Nuremberg Laws on the grounds that they were pure blooded Aryans. In 1939, Nazi Germany provided Iran with what they called a Germany Scientific Library. The library contained over 7500 books selected "to convince Iranian readers...of the kinship between the National Socialist Reich and the Aryan culture of Iran"(Lenczowski. 1944, p. 161). In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn between the Shah of Iran and Hitler, and praise the charisma and virtue of the Fuhrerprinzip (Rezun. 1982, p. 29).

The idea for the name change was suggested by Iran's ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of Hitler's trusted banker Hjalmar Schacht (Edwin Black, Banking on Baghdad).[citation needed]

From 1939 to 1941 Iran's top foreign trade partner (nearly 50% of its total trade) was Germany, which helped Iran open modern sea and air communications with the rest of the world.[12]

In 1941, the Allies forced Reza Shah to abdicate the throne to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His pro-Nazi followers in the Iranian government such as Fazlollah Zahedi and Mohammad Hosein Airom shared similar fates.

Neutral my azz...

--------------------------------------------

Next up is Omar...(attempts to read name)...something September 11-ishy. I bet you can spell 'boxcutter'.

---Tom Tucker to Omar 'North Tower' @ children's spelling bee: Family Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...