Required Reading/Mea Culpa/Nukes R Us
Niall Ferguson argues in the LA Times that Iran’s mullahs aren’t going away. That’s the Required Reading portion of this post.
The Mea Culpa portion is, he’s probably right – loathe as I am to admit it.
But what about the nukes? Iran is going to get nukes, period.
Iran’s eastern neighbor, Pakistan, has nukes. So does India, two doors down. As does China. Iran no longer shares a border with Russia, but the “Little Satan” and all her nukes are still uncomfortably close. Two other neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq, are crawling with Americans – and you know we’ve got nukes.
From Iran’s perspective then, getting their own nukes makes a whole lot of sense. And it really doesn’t matter who is in charge of the place.
UPDATE: Say what you will about Iran building nukes, but you gotta admit they make a handsome sedan.
Russia no longer shares a border with Russia…
I’m sure you mean Iran.
jp
Oops! Yes, we commit typos. Lemme get that one fixed…
I wonder if the Samand comes with a built in car bomb . . . just in case there are some Americans nearby when it breaks down.
The problem isn’t Iran having nukes, the problem is the mullahs having nukes. Noone would seriously worry about a nuclear Iran if it were a consensual, liberal, transparent democracy. As loathsome as France is, no one is contemplating war with them because they have the bomb.
Heh, I had the same thought as Tibor. Followed quickly by $10,000? When can we start importing them?
The irony is that the resumption of the Iranian nuclear program comes just weeks after presidential elections that were interpreted in the West as a victory for populism. Indeed, the reopening of the Isfahan plant has been practically the first act of the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Huh? Only if you were reading the LA Times! What planet is this guy reporting from? I think the only two people “in the West” who thought this was “a victory for populism” were Clinton and Carter.
Steven, I agree with you 100% on this. There are very few options for us regarding Iran right now other than covert actions we can take to help the students/opposition organize in mass. However, do you think that our current President could be a little more vocal towards publically encouraging these people? Not like his father did for the Shiites in Iraq, but like Reagan did versus the Soviets.
There is a lot of power in what the American President says, and the last thing we need is a widespread crackdown on the Iranian democracy movement. The mullahs would most likely love an excuse to crack some skulls, while at the same time putting the blame on us.
I know I tend to repeat myself, so let me do it again. Israel did *not* purchase 500 bunker buster bombs to use as chic interior decoration pieces. Once they are sure Iran is irrevocably going for it, they will use them. What does this mean to us? Well, Israel hits Iran, shitstorm ensues. The United States likely will have no *choice* but to interven in some way.
The mullahs may still get the nukes, but I am fairly sure it will not be without a large amount of mayhem in the mean time.
doug
I have to agree with nemesisenforcer on this. Iran is not the problem. The radical islamofascist regime controlling Iran is.
I have read, here and elsewhere, that the Islamofascist war against the west did not start on 9/11. Well the present regime in Iran has been waging a continual low-level struggle against us for quite some time now.
Unlike Pakistan, Iran’s present regime in possession of nuclear weapons must not be tolerated. Why, becuase (IMHO), if they have the weapons, they will use them. Possibly in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, and very likely against Israel.
They are the major backers of Hizbollah(sp?), they are providing the terrorists in Iraq with increasingly sophisticated IED’s, their first act as a government was to invade our embassy in Tehran, they finance and harbor numerous terrorist groups like Ansar al Islam, and let’s not forget the ‘fatwa’. More than Iraq under Saddam, Iran has been the main backer of terrorism not only in the middle east, but world wide.
No allowing Iran to have nukes at this stage, is to set the precedent for any outlaw regime to legitimize itself by going nuclear and will be a green light for accelerating proliferation. It would be a decision many of us may not live to regret.
Excuse me, but I don’t understand (Politics aside) why Iran can’t be kept in check with enough bombing. How robust can their infrastructure actually be?
Whether dropping rifles, radios, and four-man teams is the better way is another story.