Threat begets threat which then begets more threats. This is the story of international history, things do not change. We are seeing the same process today. American attacks Iraq which makes Iran pursue nuclear weapons all the more quickly. Iran succeeds in enrichment of uranium and American threatens again. The cycle will continue until one side is defeated, yet it is the people who will suffer the most.
Mr. John Bolton is at it again, rattling the sabers.
"Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Think of it this way... If we bomb the shit out of Iran we will get the support of 90%+ of the Middle Eastern nations.
Anyways, the situation might change after Abajaminada (wtf ?) is replaced. Their new president might focus on domestic issues and stay away from the international scene (Iraq). However, you still have a country run by a aristocratic regieme and the people there don't seem to have a problem with funding Hezbollah and Hamas.
No freedoms to speak of there. Obviously, talking about it will not make them change. Just refer to the North Korean situation. People said NK was not capable of developing nuclear arms. Arguments were being made that their nuclear ambitions were for sheer energy development. People were also saying how we should approach things via inaction... which we did. Now NK has nuclear weapons. What is going to stop them from openly giving aid to terrorist organizations or setting up al-Qaeda training camps (in terms of Iran having those weapons). This is what that would look like:
US: "Stop training and funding terrorsits, North Korea!"
NK: "fuck you, we have a nuke."
US: "come on, diplomacy damn it - why are you not cooperating?!"
NK: "uh.... because we have a nuke, dumbass."
Iranian development of those weapons is a threat to the world.
I don't think bombing or invading Iran is a viable option on the U.S. table, even though everyone proclaims so. I doubt it will ever be unless Hizballah bombs U.S. interests on the scale of the 1980s attack. Also, the 90% support you mention is probably overinflated. After all, we overestimated the gratitude for catching Hussein.
What to do about Iran? Sadly, if we had Russian and Chinese cooperation at the Security Council we could actually give diplomacy some balls with which to slam Ahmadi-Nejad into cooperation, but as things look right now, we are so looking at a nuclear Iran in the next 5-8 years.
Better get that shield up and running.
Post a Comment