Don’t want an Iran with nuclear weapons? Stop giving them reason to want them.

[rockerrockstar]

I started thinking about all the wars near Iran and the neighboring countries that have nukes. Can you really be surprised they want nukes. I did a search and found a pretty good article on the subject. It is bad policy not the evil of Iran that is causing them to want nuclear weapons. I would say this is blowback.

Here is the article

"Don’t want an Iran with nuclear weapons? Well then, let’s stop giving them reason to pursue them

BY NICHOLAS PENTNEY

In the wake of the IAEA’s conclusions about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a lot of attention has been given to the subject of potential military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Little comment has been made on the reasons why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place. Maybe if more attention had been devoted to this then we would not be in the situation we face today.

There was a time where Iran was claiming to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful ends. Western politicians loved to dismiss this, often on the basis that Iran is an oil rich country and therefore in no need of nuclear energy. This was a strange position to take seeing that many in the West were in favour of Iran’s nuclear program prior to 1979. But I digress. Today, there can be little doubt: the IAEA’s report shows Iranian scientists have indeed worked on computer models which can only relate to nuclear payloads for missiles. In other words, Iran is now closer than ever to having “the bomb.”

Can anyone be surprised by this development? Whilst no one can have much time for the repressive regime, can any of us really blame Iran for developing weapons? Just look what’s been going on these recent years, right on Iran’s doorstep.

First and foremost: the full-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The latter was a unilateral war without any proper basis. As Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has remarked “the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.”

The invasion of Iraq would probably be enough for Iran to justify attainment of nuclear status on the grounds of ‘anticipatory self-defence’, but there is more.

For instance, only last month NATO wrapped up its mission in Libya, an invention that was ostensibly multilateral but in reality unilateral. Limited US intervention continues elsewhere in the Middle East in the form of US Predator drone strikes.

And of course there’s Israel’s commitment to violence and provocation. Barely a year after Iran said it was discontinuing its nuclear programme Israel received advanced Jets more than capable of striking targets in Iran. But what would be of more concern to Iran is the way in which Israel has shown a propensity to launching brutal attacks such as the ones against Lebanon and Gaza.

Oh, and let’s not forget, Israel has these things called nuclear weapons.



There are other threats too. At present, the US is considering the sale of large amounts of precision guided bombs to the UAE. If this goes ahead it will be adding to the list of such transactions to the Gulf ally.

Iran is virtually surrounded by enemies, enemies who have shown themselves capable of launching full-scale and bloody wars without reason, regard for law or regard for civilian life.

It then pursues nuclear weapons.

Shock.

Clearly the principal of anticipatory self-defence (you know, the principal on which Britain justifies its nuclear arsenal) applies to Iran. In fact, this principal is more applicable to Iran than it is to Britain for reasons that are so obvious they’re not even worth mentioning.

Of course, some will say such a comparison with Britain is unfair because they believe Iran is seeking a weapon to use as first-strike weapon rather than a deterrent. Such individuals listen to the belligerent comments of Ahmadinejad and come to the conclusion that he intends to “wipe Israel off the map” with a nuclear bomb. The media loves to splash the rantings of Ahmadinejad over its pages but do not devote much attention to the actual leader of Iran. If they did then perhaps more people would be aware of the Ayatollah’s reconciliatory tone towards the West.

Besides, Iran is not foolhardy enough to believe that launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon would be anything other than suicide. I do not believe Iran wishes to see an end to its own existence.

So when it emerges that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons do we devote any time to understanding the reasons for their pursuit? No. Instead we discuss military action forgetting that it’s largely military action that has led us to this situation in the first place. Many have brought up the bombing of the Osirak plant in 1981 as if it is some sort of successful example of putting to an end a state’s nuclear ambitions and therefore should be emulated in Iran. This is crazy for the fact that there is much evidence to suggest that the bombing actually initiated Iraq’s nuclear programme!

No one wants to see more nuclear weapons in the world, whether they are in Iran, Israel or the United States. However, the prevention of proliferation cannot be achieved when we’re giving states such as Iran every reason to develop nuclear weapons."

Here is the link. There is some pretty good comment on the article too.

http://politicsontoast.com/2011/11/1...o-pursue-them/