I see nothing wrong in backing "freedom fighters" against enemy governments; pound for pound it’s more cost effective than war, causes barely a
fraction of the deaths, or (as a very general rule) the international economic-political turbulence associated with war itself.
So if we are serious about spreading the Stability of Freedom, then taking the fight to the leaders of our enemies, rather than people of our
is clearly the best way forward (especially with our current status being one of declining world influence).
Includes obvious countries such as Zimbabwe, Darfur, and yes Iran.
1. Iran knows it has chosen to build a heavy water reactor, when it could easily have chosen a light water reactor which is incapable of producing a
nuclear bomb. If it had done so other countries (including the U.S, would be willing to fit the bulk of the bill).
2. Iran knows it has chosen to pursue uranium enrichment when in place of this it has been offered Russian nuclear fuel for free. It also knows it can
run a reactor for 5 years without new fuel, and therefore the fuel security argument doesn't really wash.
3. Iran knows its pursuing a nuclear program "for electricity" in a desert which is surrounded by sun. They know that if you really want a 100%
dependable source of energy you should turn to the sun, the parabolic trough is a seriously cheap example:
4. Iran knows it is pursuing a lethal game, but that it is one where it may withdraw or suspend its position at any time
The Iranian Perspective…
I can understand Iran wanting to defend itself against U.S-Israeli attack (it would after all be extremely arrogant not to look at the world from
But I don’t understand why they need to focus so much on a nuclear bomb, when all they really need is biological weapons.
Biological weapons are not so good from an invading, first strike perspective
because they can’t destroy military things like tanks. But from
a Mutually Assured Destruction perspective they’re more than adequate (death toll wise biological weapons can kill more than a nuclear bomb).
And best of all it’s not the sort of thing that’s beyond the capability of any state; (especially when we are worried about terrorists making them
in their kitchens).
Following the war in Iraq, and the very public assertion by the CIA that Iran is probably not developing nuclear arms
It’s extremely tempting to dismiss the whole Iranian issue as nothing more than Washington hawks squawking for war. Alternately its nice to believe
that the issue is simply Iran seeking to do nothing more
than defend itself.
Yet reality made the existence of biological weapons a possibility.
So we know Iran could seek to defend itself with these, and once more there is frankly nothing we (or anyone could do) about it. Their short
construction time means this applies even if we gathered much evidence beyond the mouths of a few clearly hostile-or treacherous defectors).
World intelligence could well be right to say that Iran is not constructing nuclear weapons; or that if it was, it has suspended this work (for now).
But this is because the easiest path towards an Iranian nuclear bomb is to become a standby nuclear power first, then a real one (following the
example of other countries).
But the fact that Iran’s leadership is prepared to risk, or actually put their country through so much to obtain a standby nuclear status (in
spite of its other options)
does much to question if this standby nuclear status is really intended for self defence, or some other, more long
term destabilizing plan.
What do you think?
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]