Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Iran's Nuclear Ambitions

First, a caveat:

Although I've been a student of history for many, many years, particularly the Middle-East/Persian/South Asian regions; I do NOT consider myself to be an expert. But, like so many others, I do have an opinion.

All of this sabre-rattling and war-drum beating that has been escalating against Iran has me worried. I can envision it precipitating the end of the world as we now know it. I don't literally mean the end of the world per se, although that could end up being a better option than what we will be forced to endure.

Is Iran enriching weapons-grade uranium? I don't know. Do the Iranians have nuclear weapons ambitions? I don't know that either.

What I DO know however, is that if they're not, they are fools. Nuclear weapons are used for two purposes: Weapons of Intimidation, and Weapons of Deterence. With at least nine nuclear-armed states on this planet, it would be virtual suicide to use them offensively. The United States was one of the original signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), yet is the most egregious violator of the pact. Iran sits surrounded by nuclear powers. Pakistan, India, Israel, and the Iraqi States of America. Three of those four have refused to sign the treaty. If Iran had nuclear weapons, we would not be hearing those war-drums being pounded, or the sabres rattling. If anyone doubts that, take a look at how a little country like North Korea could keep us at bay. I am of the opinion that no one should have nuclear armaments. But a more level playing field would be created if everyone had nuclear arsenals. We could call it another Cold War, or we could term it as Peace.

What right does the U.S. have in deciding who has the weapons and who is un-armed? Some may say that Ahmadinejad is a delusional lunatic, but the same can be said about Bush. Metaphorically speaking, if all your neighbors are aggressive and have guns, and all you have is a stash of knives, it's a logical decision to want to go out and get a gun for yourself. It's a basic survival instinct. Everyone realises that using nuclear weapons in an offensive aggression will in all probability lead to their own demise as well. The United States would do well to remember that. They talk about limited nuclear strikes against Iran; but Tehran sits on the 35th parallel, where the prevailing winds blow from west to east. Does anyone honestly believe that Pakistan; India; China; and Russia, are going to just sit back and say, "Y'all go ahead and send that radio-active fall-out our way, we understand"? Russia still has the fresh memory of Chernobyl.

As I write this, the United States is developing bigger and more destructive nuclear weapons, in clear violation of the NPT. They turn a blind eye towards Israels development programs, and give aid to Pakistan and India; all of which refuse to sign the NPT. Am I the only one who sees this as highly hypocritical? Will saner minds prevail? We can only hope and pray. Ahmadinejad is dumb like a fox. He's a chess master, while Bush has yet to master checkers (he just can't get past that 'King me' thing).

That's my opinion, what say Y'all?

With a Prayer for Peace,
Brother Tim


Servant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Servant said...

Nevermind. I didn't like how my previous comment sounded. I'm supposed to be the humorous one.

Good work, Brother Tim. I agree with you in principle on almost everything you said. Except for the part where you consider the repercussions of a conventional nuclear strike. I don't think anyone is thinking that in the U.S. Everyone I have talked to says it wouldn't work anyway, and it would certainly guarantee the collapse of the world's economy for many many years. We may have nukes, but Iran has oil and they have the ability to disrupt the oil supply on which the whole world's economy depends.

As long as we're just throwing out opinions and not facts, I don't mind saying wouldn't mind if Iran had as many nuclear weapons as Israel. If mutual assured destruction worked for superpowers, why shouldn't Israel believe there might be real consequences for the invasion of Palestine?

Of course Palestine doesn't even enter into Iran's real calculations, but I'm sure Israel does. If Iran isn't thinking about how to retaliate against Israel if they decide on a unilateral attack, then they really are nuts.

But therein lies the hubris of the West, which always thinks in terms of conventional military responses. Everyone put on their red coats and stand in long lines; we're going to have a conventional war. We never think about human creativity as a real factor. We never think about things little things like box cutters. It's impossible to think of everything.

If I were a non-aligned country I'd start thinking about how to further devalue the dollar. I'd offer big discounts to people who pay with other currencies. There are plenty of ways to mess with the U.S. that are a lot smarter than conventional war far. And there are plenty of people who don't like the U.S. so it shouldn't be hard to coordinate an unconventional response.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Brother Tim,

Well definetly Iran needs Nuclear weapons? However Iran is a totally irresponsible fanatic nation.

Do you know that the oil rich ahwas province on the eastern side of thegulf where the Iranian " shiite" Arab minrity lives is calling for independednce from the Perian occupaton, peole there are forbidden from using their mother tonge-Arabic, they are deported , their, community leaders and actvists are excecuted.

A nuclear Iran will carry out industralised mass murders wih unchecked

A few days ago the councellor of the Iranian SUPREME priest , claimed that the kingdom of Bahrain is Iranian territory!!!!

Iran has threatened to bomb the gulf oil fields. Iran wants to impose itself on Arabs who don't want it.

Can you imagione how it would with a nuclear Iran? I don't want to even think about it, becaue it will be hell. Already we have Iran trying to control and tear aprt Iraq despite of the American presence. A nuclear Iran will be a nightmare to the region.

By the way have you noticed your own prejudice? You mentioned Persia but you refrained from using the word- Arab world

Servant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Servant said...

Amre -

What has Egypt done for Arabs recently?

Oh yeah - accepted almost as much payola from the U.S. as Israel and Jordan.

You might want to address your country's conflict of interest vis-a-vis Arabs, being on the payroll and all.

Servant said...

Come to think of it, isn't Egypt the destination for most of the American renditions of Arabs? The U.S. farms out Arab torture to Eqypt. Square that, then maybe you'll have some credibility when you talk about how evil Iran is.

Brother Tim said...

Thanks for the kind words. I was worried that I might get my usual, verbal body-slamming for that opinion. Maybe I should have elaborated a bit more on the nuclear strike. I wasn't refering to an all-out conventional nuclear strike. The plan being foistered is a limited surgical nuclear strike. There are many who talk of that, such as Bolton, Kristol, Pearle, et al. Even Dem Presidential candidates such as Clinton, Obama, Biden, Edwards, and Richardson refuse to take it off the table.

I like your opinion about nuclear equalization between Israel and Iran. As I've said many times, Iran does not hate Jews, or the State of Israel; they hate the Zionist Regime. What is the difference between Iran wanting a regime change in Israel, to the U.S. wanting a regime change in Iran...or Iraq....or Afghhanistan ... or any other regime du jour?

Thanks for your input.

Firstly, I would like to address your remark about my prejudice. If you were to go to my site, The Blog of Revelation, you would see that I am very pro-Arab. I am a staunch defender of Palestinians. I used the term, 'Middle-East', meaning the Arab world. I also said South Asia instead of the Hindu world. I have no prejudice or hatred against ANY group of ethnic peoples, just some of their ruling classes. And this includes those presently ruling the United States.

You say, "However Iran is a totally irresponsible fanatic nation". To that I say, "There are many in the Nuclear Club that fit that description, including the U.S.

You also say, "Iran has threatened to bomb the gulf oil fields. Iran wants to impose itself on Arabs who don't want it." By changing just a few words, it could say, 'The U.S. has threatened to bomb Iran. The U.S. wants to impose itself on Arabs (Iraqis) who don't want it'.

As for your assertion of Iran trying to control and tear apart Iraq, I think that is misguided judgement. Like it or not, Iran has a vested interest in the region. Iraq sits on their border. It would be akin to the Chinese or Russians, or anybody else, invading and occupying Canada or Mexico. Do you believe the U.S. would just sit back, and remain neutral?????

It is my firm belief, that a nuclear Iran could well lead to peace in the region. My understanding of the history of the Persian people, is that they are not an invading, conquering nation. And this dates back over 2,500 years ago when Nebuchadnezzar (an Arab) destroyed Jerusalem, and the Persians gave the Jews refuge in their land, which they still peacefully dwell in.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Thanx Brother Tim for taking the time to reply to me. I have checked your blog, and I was seriously impressed by the work you are doing. Than you for your fairness.

However allow me to continue regarding Iran:

The persians liberated the Jews, but they occupied and destroyed the beautiful Arab civilisation of Babylon and they did the same to the Arab Pharoanic civilisation in Egypt:)

Also the example you gave regarding U.S and Canada, is not applicable on Iran and Arabs. Simply because it is the other way round. It is the Arabs who are like the U.S in the region while Iran is Mexico. check the history of the Arab countries in the 20th century and that of Iran and you will find out the tremendous difference in modernisation industralisation between countries like Iraq , Egypt,Lebanon, Tunise or Syria and that of Iran:)

Also Iran and the U.S were allies in the begining of war against Iraq.

I think that should make you more sympathetic with that beautiful victimised nation-Iraq.

you know, you might as well call for freeing Iraq from both THE U.S AND IRAN. Fair and square. Huh?

Brother Tim said...

Dialogue, my friend, is what truly advances civilization. I agree with much of what you say, and understand where you're coming from on much more, 'tho I may disagree.

I don't think it possible, that I could feel more sympathy for the Arabs of Iraq. My heart grieves for them. I include them in my daily prayers.

As for the example of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico; you're thoughts are skewed. No foreign army has invaded and occupied Iran, thereby needing Arab help. However, the U.S. HAS invaded and occupied Iraq, making it a necessity for neighborly intervention. What truly amazes me, is : Why aren't Iraq's Arab brothers helping to intervine and drive out the invaders?

Peoples are different. Mexicans and Americans are different, as are Canadians and Americans; yet we, as Americans, would help all we could, to help fight off an foreign invasion of their sovereign land.

And yes, it's true that Iran and the U.S. were allies at the time of the Iran/Iraq War, the U.S. was playing both sides of the fence. Where do you think Saddam got his first Chemical and Biological Weapons????? He got them from the U.S., to use AGAINST the Iranians. If you don't remember the news clips and videos of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein cozying up and schmoozing in Baghdad, I'll dig them up for you.

As for freeing Iraq from both Iran AND the U.S., I say, "Amen". Water seeks it's own level.