tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post115655691004339800..comments2023-10-25T09:26:08.362-05:00Comments on raze the ladder: The coming war with IranWalkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06912406198051338502noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157990949675845292006-09-11T11:09:00.000-05:002006-09-11T11:09:00.000-05:00It should be recalled, in the context of this disc...It should be recalled, in the context of this discussion, that the obvious impetus for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is Israel's (apparently pretty extensive) arsenal of nukes.<BR/><BR/>It's difficult to see in the media around here, but there's every indication that Iran is seeking (or at least sought) to follow a path similar to N. Korea's. Jake, you and I talked years ago about N. Korea's possible goal of becoming, at least minimally, a US client rather than just an antagonist...and it's a fact, acknowledged not just by vicious furrin agitators like Robert Fisk but also by domestic voices like Hersh, that Iran has on multiple occasions sought genuine engagement with the US (only to be repeatedly rebuffed). The prospect of a real Iranian nuclear weapons program is so distant that I have to think Iran is much more earnest about the *threat* of developing nukes, with an eye to rebalancing power in the region, than about the actual project of developing them.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, our Iraq misadventures (and massacres) have created such potential for regional destabilization that at this point Iran is probably no more able to pursue a single unitary long-term goal than we are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157580351146545472006-09-06T17:05:00.000-05:002006-09-06T17:05:00.000-05:00i don't think nuclear weapons are inherently bad. ...i don't think nuclear weapons are inherently bad. like any other tool, it depends on what they're used for. the USA uses theirs to intimidate rivals and preserve an unequal world. i think there's a lot of evidence that iran would use nuclear weapons to prevent american aggression and level the global inequality of power a bit.<BR/><BR/>as in all conflicts, i think the burden should be on the side with greater power to make concessions, especially when that side is threatening violence. i agree that the ultimate goal is clearly a non-nuclear world, but the impetus for that <I>must</I> come from the handful of countries that have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, especially the united states.Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06912406198051338502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157578163069117552006-09-06T16:29:00.000-05:002006-09-06T16:29:00.000-05:00that's a good point. seems like countries need to ...that's a good point. seems like countries need to have nukes in order to not be destroyed by the US. but i still can't agree that the world could use more nukes. while it may make sense pragmatically, it's just fundamentally a bad thing--for everyone--to have more nuclear weapons lying around. who's going to keep them all safe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157575773106001982006-09-06T15:49:00.000-05:002006-09-06T15:49:00.000-05:00really, jen? what do you think about north korea? ...really, jen? what do you think about north korea? ever since they proved they have nuclear-armed missiles capable of hitting major US allies (and possibly the west coast) the tenor of the administration's comments has cooled. the US envoy is back in the region at the moment asking for negotiations. meanwhile iran gets the hitler treatment. isn't that 21st century deterrence?meshugahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09981003683124146638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157571743993200082006-09-06T14:42:00.000-05:002006-09-06T14:42:00.000-05:00jake i completely disagree with your last point (c...jake i completely disagree with your last point (comment). the hyprocrisy of the US's nuclear policy MAY be used as a rationale to build a nuclear weapons program in defense. but that doesn't make it right. deterrence doesn't work post-cold war. there is no justification for adding more nuclear weapons to the world's cache, given their potential impacts.<BR/><BR/>in a related point, i actually believe that ahmadinejad is trying to get nuclear energy, not weapons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157472888856308752006-09-05T11:14:00.000-05:002006-09-05T11:14:00.000-05:00it's definitely true that iran is probably not nea...it's definitely true that iran is probably not nearly as close to having a nuclear weapon as the american media take for granted, but i think it's clear that iran is aiming to develop weapons. when we talk with people about this we should certainly point out how ridiculous the "iran threat" is and try to give people a more realistic understanding of iran. e.g., iran (unlike the united states) does not currently occupy the two countries on either side of its enemy, it does not currently threaten to use nuclear weapons against its enemy, and it has not invaded any other countries in the last 25 years.<BR/><BR/>but i think it's also important to make the point that as long as the USA continues to break <I>its</I> commitments under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to move toward nuclear disarmament, any country it threatens is 100 percent justified in developing nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent.Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06912406198051338502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1157465195193024412006-09-05T09:06:00.000-05:002006-09-05T09:06:00.000-05:00one thing: in the second-to-last paragraf, you ref...one thing: in the second-to-last paragraf, you refer to Iran's "nuclear weapons" program. Outside of neocon faith-based reasoning, I think it's more accurately described as a nuclear technology program that has the potential in perhaps a decade to produce enough material for a single bomb, provided they are able to spend years importing and linking the necessary thousands of centrifuges under the IAEA's nose.meshugahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09981003683124146638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7307350.post-1156861973466993342006-08-29T09:32:00.000-05:002006-08-29T09:32:00.000-05:00I can't recall if Sy Hersh included this in his ar...I can't recall if Sy Hersh included this in his article, but he mentioned on "Democracy Now!" that his sources tell stories of Bush's increasing focus on Churchill - a statesman who was rejected by his own electorate right after fighting a great evil, only to be lionized by historians and even popular culture decades later. Bush seems to view this as his destiny.<BR/><BR/>As for the antiwar movement, its stance on Lebanon was disastrous. Most of the anti-Iraq-war activists suddenly muzzled themselves when it came to Lebanon, for some reasons which are obviously complex and others totally beyond my comprehension. The national networks mostly (not entirely) fell silent *even* on the purely humanitarian questions. I understand that the U.S. wasn't seen to be directly involved in Lebanon and "American boys" weren't "over there", but it's still impossible for me to not think that, if Lebanon was a trial, it wasn't only the Bush Administration that failed; the U.S. antiwar movement failed as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com