Kudos to you for raising a contentious issue that needs to be thought about and discussed.
I think one of the main concerns is that Iran will pass on nuclear weapons/components/expertise to terrorists (though not necessarily people THEY consider terrorists). Iran's threatening rhetoric, the actions of Islamic extremists in the wider world and claims that Iran has funded militant fundamentalist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Africa and the Middle East have contributed to that fear. At the same time, you can understand why Iran itself might feel threatened given the so-called "preemptive war" in Iraq and the recent democracy movements in the Middle East.
It does come across as paternalistic and, in certain cases, ironic for nuclear powers to claim that Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons while they themselves can be. With its history of foreign political interference, its attempts to destabilize states it considered opposed to its own world view, and its record of being the only nuclear power to use weapons of mass destruction against another country, the United States in particular can hardly claim the moral high ground here.
I agree that we should be talking about disarmament, not rearmament or even defensive-weapon systems, both of which would continue to divert money from more worthy projects. I also agree that diplomacy holds out the best hope. By "best" I mean the most desirable, though not necessarily, I'm afraid, the likeliest.
Dugal: I did feel that i was putting my head above the parapet to a degree in making this video. But, what the hell, you sometimes have to say what you think don't you? I do understand the various arguments against countries like Iran having "the bomb". But, governments in the western world have funded Iran, Iraq, North Africa etc in the past too. But, we always seem to coveniently forget that when they turn against us. Diplomacy is certainly the best answer & is a lot cheaper than going to war with them too :)
Kudos to you for raising a contentious issue that needs to be thought about and discussed.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the main concerns is that Iran will pass on nuclear weapons/components/expertise to terrorists (though not necessarily people THEY consider terrorists). Iran's threatening rhetoric, the actions of Islamic extremists in the wider world and claims that Iran has funded militant fundamentalist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Africa and the Middle East have contributed to that fear. At the same time, you can understand why Iran itself might feel threatened given the so-called "preemptive war" in Iraq and the recent democracy movements in the Middle East.
It does come across as paternalistic and, in certain cases, ironic for nuclear powers to claim that Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons while they themselves can be. With its history of foreign political interference, its attempts to destabilize states it considered opposed to its own world view, and its record of being the only nuclear power to use weapons of mass destruction against another country, the United States in particular can hardly claim the moral high ground here.
I agree that we should be talking about disarmament, not rearmament or even defensive-weapon systems, both of which would continue to divert money from more worthy projects. I also agree that diplomacy holds out the best hope. By "best" I mean the most desirable, though not necessarily, I'm afraid, the likeliest.
Dugal: I did feel that i was putting my head above the parapet to a degree in making this video. But, what the hell, you sometimes have to say what you think don't you?
ReplyDeleteI do understand the various arguments against countries like Iran having "the bomb". But, governments in the western world have funded Iran, Iraq, North Africa etc in the past too. But, we always seem to coveniently forget that when they turn against us.
Diplomacy is certainly the best answer & is a lot cheaper than going to war with them too :)