Comments on: Iran Alert – A Real Threat to the Mullahs?

By: byrd

byrd — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:19:51 +0000

I tend to agree with Ric. Stable democracies with nukes don’t disturb me. It’s other kinds of governments with nukes that do.

Which points the way to a larger issue–nuclear nonproliferation is ultimately doomed. Always was. Sooner or later, every country that wants nukes will have them and there’s nothing we can do about it.

What the treaty does do is buy us time, slow down the process, so that we can come up with a different, better plan.

Personally, I can think of no better plan than democracy promotion. Democracies don’t go to war with each other and they won’t fire nuclear weapons at each other.

By: Steve M

Steve M — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:37:53 +0000

Thanks for that, rosignol. I’m sure that’s a big weight off all our minds.

By: rosignol

rosignol — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:16:24 +0000

Well, here’s the thing- Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and unlike France, they were not a nuclear power prior to signing. That basically means that Iran has given up it’s right to develop nuclear weapons.

By: Ric Locke

Ric Locke — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:40:20 +0000

A secular, democratic Iran — a “Persia” — with nuclear weapons wouldn’t bother me any more than France does. My anecdotal experience of expatriate Iranis says they’re no worse (and no better) than anyone else. It’s just the mullahs who worry me.

Regards,

Ric

By: alan

alan — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:41:43 +0000

A free Iran with nukes certainly would make things interesting. I think the biggest problem with that is it would encourage more proliferation as arab countries would believe they should have them too.

By: FriarsTale

FriarsTale — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:18:41 +0000

Sleep, Mr. Carter

the nightmare you wouldn’t face

may soon blow away

By: John Moore ( Useful Fools )

John Moore ( Useful Fools ) — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:02:33 +0000

Although I have my doubts about the ability of the people to overthrow the ayatollahs, it might happen.

Then we would be left with the following interesting situation:

1) A democratic (we hope) government of free people

2) An Iranian nuclear program and related IRBM program

My sources and reading tell me that the Persian people want to keep the nukes, even after they ditch the Ayatollahs.

Then what do we do?

Do sanctions work better against a free people? Can they remain free under those circumstances?

How about threats or actual attacks – what would their impact be.

We live “in interesting times.”

By: Ron Wrght

Ron Wrght — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:26:39 +0000

Sorry dropped a word “NOT”:

Dr. Zin doesn’t think this is NOT “the event” but is a precursor of bigger things to come.

By: Ron Wrght

Ron Wrght — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:10:16 +0000

UPDATE ON IRANIAN DEMONSTRATIONS:

From Regime Change Iran:

. . . Update on Protests

Reports are coming in of demonstrations taking place all over Iran (Tehran, Esfhan, Tabriz, Abadan, and others) against the regime, using the soccer victory over Japan as an excuse to go into the streets. The victory is an excuse for people to go into the streets. The people can claim the are celebrating their victory while those in their midst demonstrate against the regime.

Dr. Zin doesn’t think this is “the event” but is a precursor of bigger things to come.

I don’t think Dr. Zin went to bed last night and is probably running short on fuel. I’m sure he could use some support from the “Titans of the Blogos.”

Others may want to help him out and mirror his posts so his site doesn’t go down.