Why Iran Cannot Have The Bomb
by Forgiven, Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:02:26 AM EST
As the Iranian nuclear nightmare diplomacy continues to spin out of control and the Neo-Con attack dogs persists in fanning the flames of war, it is painfully obvious that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The reason Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with the Bush WMD argument or the Israeli Armageddon scenario. While the wing-nuts would have us to believe that Iran's behavior precludes them from possessing nuclear technology. They parade out charts and graphs displaying Iran's support for terrorists, its unstable leader, and its theocratic government as reasons to launch a pre-emptive strike. Remember, we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
The real reason Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon is not about Iranians at all, it is about the bankrupt Neo-Con agenda. The first question we must ask is why would Iran want nuclear weapons, if in fact they are pursuing the technology. The wing-nuts would have you to believe that number one they want it to take a preemptive shot at America or Israel. Let's examine this on the surface, they would have you to believe that Iran would risk the complete annihilation of its people to shoot one nuclear bomb at the US or Israel. This is ludicrous to any sane individual, but to most Americans this will be the deal maker. After all, they hate us for our freedoms and would like nothing better than to destroy the "Great Satan".
Another popular scenario is the Iranians giving the nuclear device to a terrorist organization to escape the retribution on its own people. The terrorist group would then detonate the device and diffuse any culpability from Iran. This of course ignores the available technology that would be used to track the detonation of the device as well as the designer and manufacturer. Thus, bringing us back to the original point of annihilation for Iran and any client group they used to deliver the device. Another and more plausible scenario is that the Iranians would use the device to extract concessions from the West and embolden it to become more aggressive in its foreign policy towards Israel and its neighbors. Does having a nuclear weapon change a nation? Not usually, what good is a gun in a room full of guns? It does not improve your bargaining position as if you were the only one with one.
The truth of the matter is that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb because then it would be able to resist regime change. The real reason the Neo-Cons do not want Iran or any other nation in the Middle-East to have a bomb is to make it easier to institute regime change when the time comes. Think about what the nations have just witnessed in the last 5 years, there is a terrorist attack against the US on US soil. You have a retaliation invasion against Afghanistan and the Taliban that helped to harbor the perpetrators of the attack. Then out of nowhere you have an invasion of a sovereign country on the pretence that at some point they could have the weapons to threaten the US.
While Tehran didn't lose any sleep over the deposing of Saddam, what they did lose sleep over was the fact that a line had been crossed in international relations. Deliberate and unconcealed regime change was now on the table with little or no evidence of threat or menace. Naked aggression against regimes that were considered hostile to "American Interests" was now if not condoned at least overlooked by the international community. When you include the fact that North Korea, one of the "axis of evil" members, who supposedly has nuclear capabilities, was never attacked, it's not hard to understand Tehran's desire for a deterrent against attack.
I realize with all the hype surrounding the Middle-East and Iran in particular this will be an unpopular position, but it is the only logical one. Of course there will be the Islamo-facist not being logical argument, but this is put forth only as a smoke screen to attack, just as the WMD's were used for Iraq. If they are able to demonize and attach lunacy to the target, it gives it more legitimacy when taking it out. We have to get them before they get us. The thing that kills me is that with the results being in on Iraq, how anyone could seriously entertain the thought of attacking Iran and not be considered a lunatic themselves. But yet we have "experts" on the television daily offering up just such scenarios.
Despite the hype, there are still voices in the Middle-East that recognize the exaggeration being used to justify an attack on Iran. While no one wants to see nuclear proliferation in the region, they recognize that should Iran eventually get the bomb it will not automatically lead to WWIII as some have predicted.
"Would I like Iran to have a nuclear bomb? No," said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics who has written widely on nuclear deterrence. But, "the fears (voiced) by the administration and a fair number of sensible people as well, just are exaggerated. The idea that this will really make a big difference, I think is foolish."
Even some commentators in Israel, whose leaders see themselves in Iran's crosshairs, present a more nuanced view of the potential threat than the White House does.
An Iranian nuclear bomb could present Israel "with the real potential for an existential threat," Ephraim Kam of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv wrote in February.
Despite Iran's "messianic religious motivations," he wrote, "it is highly doubtful that Tehran would want to risk an Israeli nuclear response" by attempting a first strike. McClatchy
And this is why Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other nation in the Middle-East other than Israel cannot have nuclear capabilities. It's really rather simple when you think about it.
False history gets made all day, any day,
the truth of the new is never on the news - Adrienne Rich