Fareed Zakaria on CNN had an interesting round table about Iran. Two people were for reform and the other person was for attacking Iran. I found all of them intelligent and they gave their case equally well. What really intrigued me was what Zakaria recommended: maybe we should get used to a nuclear Iran, but with extreme caution. It surprised me, but his argument makes a lot of sense: if we attack Iran, most of the Arab world would support Iran, and because the War on Terror is already costly and unpopular, we can’t do Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan all at the same time. The only solution would be to be there for a long time, which won’t work, or to bring in a draft. Yikes! At the same time, this will only delay Iran from getting the nuclear weapon by only a few years; it won’t stop them from getting it. Thus, allowing them to get the nuclear weapon might be a better option, but with caution. You can check it here and here.
Join 707 other subscribers
Or get the RSS Feed
The Problems of Love from Sartre and Beauvoir to Irigaray
Need to find something?
I’ll try and find the link, but I read the CIA’s intelligence shows that Iran is slowing down and nearly halting it’s nuclear program. All the reporters/pundits forget about a huge part about having nuclear weapons… it’s a status symbol. If you can say that your country has proven that you KNOW how to make nuclear weapons, there isn’t even a necessity to make actual weapons. Just that knowledge takes your world standing to a whole new level. Take the present situation. We have know proof whatsoever that Iran is even making nuclear weapons. All we have is people saying, “from what little we’ve seen, it looks like they COULD make nuclear weapons”, yet we treat them like they have their finger on the button ready to bomb us. We’ve given them the acknowledgment on the world stage that they’re on the same technological level as a country like France, and that we’ll treat them with the same respect. We should just take the stance that Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, and that’s fine, but make them aware that if they ever attack us, they will definitely not be capable of an attack large enough to destroy us, and we can easily destroy their entire existence and keep it dead for decades to come.
My opinion, Iran will never even start building a nuclear bomb. They just want to be on the same stage with America.
In these two videos, political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita has made some good predictions about what will happen with Iran. Simply put, Iran will eventually get nuclear capabilities, but they’ll stop short of actually testing one. You can see it here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-28-2009/bruce-bueno-de-mesquita
In the other video, he gets into the gritty details about this prediction: http://blog.ted.com/2009/10/irans_nuclear_p.php They’re both very good, but if you have less time, watch the first one.
The real worry concerning a military strike is not whether or not the U.S. will strike, but if Israel will.
The real worry is not whether Israel or the U.S. strikes, it’s if that midget leader uses nuclear power to wipe Israel off the map as he promised to do.
The real worry is if Zakaria and Bueno de Mesquita are wrong.
Israel has a nuclear arsenal of over 200 warheads, Iran has zero. And that goofy midget is not the “decider”, Khamenei is. Iran’s military does not compare at all to Israel’s. Throw the US in the mix and Iran wouldn’t stand a chance. Oh and Ahmadenijad never said “wipe Israel off the map,” it’s a mistranslation, look it up.
Holy crap do you love Fareed!
Pingback: What I’ve Learned this Past Year — 2009 Edition « Shaun Miller’s Weblog