What’s So Wrong With A Nuclear Iran?
April 25th, 2009On the face of it, it may be possible to make a reasonable case for Iran’s right to develop nuclear weapons. After all, Iran is an independent nation, and as such, should have the right to self-determination. If Iran perceives a threat from its enemy, Israel for example, which does possess nuclear weapons; shouldn’t she have the right to counter that threat with a nuclear arsenal of her own? Why should Israel be singled out as the one state in the Middle East that is allowed to have a nuclear weapons capability? Why should Iran be denied the national pride that comes from joining the league of nations which have achieved nuclear capability?
And of course, some of the leaders in Iran may have come to conclusion that the development of a nuclear bomb may bring with it some other benefits as well. A nuclear capability of this sort may be a good defense against outside interference. For example, a lot of people are doing a lot of talking against North Korea, but you don’t see anyone doing anything about it. Why? Perhaps because North Korea has entered the privileged circle of nuclear nations. Saddam Hussein had no such capability and look what happened to him. And a nuclear weapons capability would also be a good insurance policy against internal dissent. If the local population gets a bit too rowdy, the clamp of repression can easily be brought down hard, especially if there is little risk of outside interference. And if Iran wants to spread her influence throughout the region, what better way to be taken seriously than to keep a nuclear arsenal in your back pocket?
So given all these good reasons for allowing a nuclear Iran, why should countries like Israel or the U.S. even bother to try to block it, especially considering the risks implicit in taking Iran’s nuclear facilities out? After all, any attempt to take military action against these nuclear facilities would bring with it a whole host of problems on the perpetrators: a vicious campaign of unbridled terror activity, extreme condemnation in the region and beyond, military reprisals, an upsurge of fanaticism, an oil embargo and/or disruption of the oil supply, etc. And it is precisely the recognition of the price to be paid, that keeps Western countries somewhat paralyzed in their attempts to neutralize the threat of a nuclear Iran. There is a lot of talk, even as we speak, but so far not a whole lot of action.
So given the risks implicit in stopping Iran, why not just call it a day, and let them have what they want? Couldn’t the threat be countered in other ways, other than a military strike? Couldn’t we just point a bunch of nuclear-tipped missiles at Iran and say that if they, or their proxy, ever use a nuclear weapon, then the retaliation against them would be massive. Wouldn’t the prospect of such retaliation be enough to keep a nuclear Iran in check, as was the case between the Soviet Union and the U.S. during the cold war?
So what is so wrong in allowing Iran to go nuclear? In my view, the greatest threat with regard to a nuclear Iran is her ideological posture. The Mullahs in Iran came into power as a result of a relatively recent political and religious revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini decried the secular leanings of the Shah, and ushered in a renewed commitment to the religious traditions of the past. Shiite Islam would now be the law of the land, and a new foreign and domestic policy would take hold, which is more consistent with the religious tenets of those in power.
Religious zeal is precisely what’s wrong with a nuclear Iran. Once you put a heavy dose of religiosity into the mix, then all the restraints of rational thinking go out the window, especially under the right circumstances. Imagine if you will, an extremist group blowing up the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and Israel being blamed for it. Under these circumstances, will any measure of rationality be able to control Iran’s often stated commitment to destroy Israel, and pushing the button to make that happen? If purely rational considerations were on the table, then prudence and restraint would probably win out. But with religious ideological conviction at play, no one could be sure that reason will prevail, and at the end of the day, the existential risk of nuclear war may be a risk that is too great to take.
It is true, as others have often said, that other nuclear nations are ideological as well. It can certainly be said that Israel is ideological about her right to survive. In the war of 1973, for example, when her survival was on the line and in question, there was talk of using the nuclear option, and thank God, that talk did not result in taking such action. But as ideological as Israel is about certain things, like the survival of the Jewish people, she is not ideological religiously. She wants to retain her Jewish character, but she is not particularly interested in spreading Judaism throughout the region. The same cannot be said about Iran, which is very interested in spreading her brand of Islam, and her version of real politick, and is not averse to using terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah to do so.
So bottom line, arguments can certainly be made, based on the equities of the moment, for allowing Iran to fulfill her national aspiration of becoming a nuclear power. And a great risk of reprisal will be taken by any nation, be it Israel or the U.S., which undertakes military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, given the religious ideological conviction that motivates at least some of Iran’s leadership, the risk of a nuclear Iran may be a risk too great to take, by any and all of the actors in the region: by Israel, by the U.S., by the other nations of the region, and even by the Iranian people themselves. Sometimes, the unimaginable becomes possible, and the possible becomes real. It takes only a little imagination to imagine a nuclear Iran making the impossible real.
Loading ...
Loading...
and what about your country israel, doesnt it have a lot of religious zeal?! while i am no fan of this islamic regime, but that doesnt mean israel is an angel or it has any more right to possess nuclear weapons—you just want israel to have the right to bear nuclear arms in the region but nobody else—and no, we iranians are not interested in spreading our brand of islam around the region—we could care less if the whole region around us became atheists or exhibitionists—all we care about is our survival and day to day life—-regarding those mullahs ruling us, they dont present us people at all—they were put in power thanks to CIA and Mossad against the iranian peoples’s wishes and now only because its not in your interest anymore, you want to topple the mullah regime —- sorry but you cant have it both ways—we iranians were doing OK more or less with the shah, that you toppled him and put hell in our iranians lives. Thats the real reason of hatred and resentment against americans and israelis at least from an iranian-specific perspective. And now on top of it, your new government said a few days ago that iran is not the main threat anymore, its the militant-infested tribal areas of pakistan with its weak central govt. and vulnerable nuclear weapons—-i guess when your own government has let the genie out of the bottle, i dont have to say anymore!
@faroosha,
CIA and Mossad didn’t topple the Shah. The US and Brits at least supported him. Maybe the CIA and MI6 toppled the Iranian pro-Soviet government in the 50’s but it didn’t topple the Shah.
How can you blame the US for how the mullah regime is treating Iranians? The US has nothing to do with that regime, as evident by the lack of a US embassy in Tehran.
I think everything you said is backwards.
nuclear weapons are the most dengeriouse kind of weapons ,that is why civil movments all over america and euorp fought during the 80s to limit it us, we need to fight to force The nuclear powers find ulternative sources of energy that doesnot end with all of us dead in few minuts , but today we had more members, iran nuclear system had encourage arabs to want a nuclear system ,eygipt looks for one ,iraq ,yes iraq will discuss with france next week to think about return to build the old iraqi reactor the one which was destroyed by isreal in the 70s , imagin if iraq had nuclear power ,then someone like the miltia or the isurgents get their hands on it ,or worse we had a nother man like saddam ? or ,,or,,,or
what will happen to the world ?
less weapons please more enregy ulternatives
Not really, Faroosha. Most Israelis are pretty secular, much to the dismay of those more religiously inclined. We do have our share of right-wingers, and ultra-religious elements, but they are still the minority, and the balance of power in the government is still with the vast majority of citizens who are secular, and who don’t believe in imposing religion on others. In fact, even the religious community does not believe in converting others. It’s actually quite difficult to convert to Judaism, and requires several years of insturction.
Israel developed nuclear weapons because she perceived, quite resonably in my opinion, an existential threat to her existence. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will probably be for other reasons. No one is threatening Iran’s existence, so she is probably motivated by a desire to dominate the region and to spread her influence. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, other countries in the region will also feel threatened, and will probably follow suite in developing a nuclear capability. Thus are sown the seeds of nuclear proliferation, and ultimate catastrophe.
You personally, and your fellow citizens, may not be interested in this, but your leaders are giving the indication that they are very much interested in spreading their interpretation of Islam, and their interpretations of political realities.
From what I understand, the shah was moving the country toward a more moderate and secular position. The lives of most people were improving under his rule. He was repressive with regard to those he regarded as religious extremists, and ultimately, his rule was undermined by U.S. decision not to back him up, and by the Ayatolla’s ability to rally support of a revolution, a revolution which did not live up to the promises made. And now there is a very difficult situation at hand, in which most of the people want greater freedom and economic opportunities, and yet it is very dangerous to challenge the rule of the mullahs, who are out of step with the will of the vast majority of people.
But let me ask you this, Faroosha: As much as you resent Israel, and America, is it just possible that these two countries, more than any others in the region, are in the best position to bring a good measure of security to the countries of the Middle East, and to bring about economic prosperity in the region. In reaction to the threat of a nuclear Iran, isn’t it possible that countries like Egypt, and Jordan, etc. will actually partner with Israel as a way of countering the Iranian threat, and using Israel to help revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East. I know it’s a stretch, but is it possible that it is happening as we speak?
I agree with you Wamith. This is decision time. Where do we go from here, you and I? History seems to be reaching a conclusion of sorts. There are too many big problems on the table. It’s as if our destiny as a species is playing itself out as we speak.
If we play our cards right, we can pick up the broken pieces and remake ourselves in a new light, one that shines as a beacon of hope. If we don’t, we’re going down. It’s as simple as that. And everything we know and love hangs in the balance.
@michael w.
sir, with most due respect, i had couple of uncles who served during shah times in the secret police SAVAK. even though the average american or iranian may not fully understand this, but while the Shah was initially supported by US,UK and israel, he later realized that he was being used more as a puppet for advancing america’s interests in the region—he wanted america to treat him as an equal friend, not a puppet and for that america decided to undermine his regime—they wanted to bring another puppet who would blindly follow them but they didnt forcast the popularity of khomeini who was sitting in france and quietly formenting a revolution and when khomeini came in power, america decide to behind the scenes make a deal with the devil but khomeini for his own reasons ultimately refused and america ordered its favorite arab slave saddam to attack iran. but that still doesnt change the fact that when it suited america, it interfered in iran’s internal affairs messing up our country and society and swinging it like a pendulum from secular dictatorship to religious repression.
@Nissim Dahan
sir, please whose intelligence are you trying to insult—-you are telling me to close my eyes and believe that religious fundamentalism is pretty much marganalized in israeli society while in fact it is pretty much widespread in your country and not to mention in your government where no government can stand without religious support from some religious party like shaas. Do you honestly think that Binyamin Netanyahu or Lieberman or the secular Barack can form a govt. without appeasing the religious front?! True, and i know this already, that judaism does not believe in converting others, but israel does have an imperialist agenda to weaken and rule surrounding countries to form their religious dream of “greater israel” from the banks of the river nile to the eupharates.
second sir, you make a point that israel quite reasonably in your opinion faces some sort of existential threat and thus it is justified in developing and possessing nuclear weapons. However, till this day, neither your govt. nor any israeli i have met has ever explained what existential threat israel supposedly faces, from whom which it uses as a justification to possess such arms. It seems that its more like a phantom threat because even if, suppose israel didnot possess nuclear weapons, even on a conventional basis, its military is so strong that it can beat most of the arab armies (assuming that those arab countries are the existential threat you say which exists) combined as evidenced by the yom kippur/ramadan war and another war. israel gets so much military aid from the west especially america(and with the most latest and advanced technology) that no surrounding country would dare ever attack it otherwise it would be hari kari for them. so by deductive logic, that leaves only one reason why israel would want to possess nuclear weapons while denying others surrounding countries the same weapons: that it wants to dominate the region militarily without any resistance. And of course that would reasonably scare many of the surrounding countries forcing at least some of them to at least go nuclear. So whats wrong if iran and even some of the surrounding arab countries developed nuclear weapons as an insurance against israel attacking them? of course there should be no problem, because if lets say both A and B have such weapons and are enemies, then A will not use it against B or vice versa because whichever party uses it first knows that while the opponent will be destroyed, so will they themselves be. Objectively, that should be fine for both parties to have nuclear weapons as a deterrence and both should be happy unless one of them has bad intentions to dominate the other and that is exactly how israel feels i and many others personally believe. Because if iran or the arab countries attain such technology, then israel knows its game for dominance is over and they will be forced to play on an equal level unless they possess some new military technology which is advanced and superior than nuclear weapons. The point sir, i am trying to make is, while i am no fan of the mullah regime, the israeli regime is no less hawkish and militant in nature either and does indeed have strong imperialistic designs over the region.
Third sir, as i said also in my last post, that most of us iranians (although i cant speak for every single iranian) dont have any love lost for the mullah regime which i already explained was brought into power by CIA and Mossad undermining of Shah’s regime for their own vested interests. True the mullah regime and its current face in the form of ahmedinejad does have a very bad habit of acting more arab than the arabs themselves even though he supposedly is persian. I say supposedly because me and many iranians are convinced that he and the other figures in the mullah regime should have their DNA checked because we are strongly suspicious of their persian ancestry. Most of us dont care if israel remains israel ( as long as it doesnt interfere in our personal affairs), or it becomes palestine or even if it becomes a hybrid state called isratine. Its strictly, between arabs and israelis whether they kill each other or embrace each other as brothers and sisters.
Fourth sir, while the shah was indeed modern and secular but he was a dictator at the end of the day and more ironically, a dictator supported by america and israel—true, in some ways iran was modernizing but he was in some ways no different than the mullahs in the sense that freedom of speech and assembly were not allowed and unless you had anything to say good about him or his regime you better shut up or his secret police would pick you up. However, the good thing about him was that he truly was against gender apartheid and believed in the separation of religion and state. He believed that religion was a private matter and religion should not be forced upon people by the state. These are the only few plus points why most iranians prefer him than the mullah regime otherwise he was no less repressive if someone criticized him or his policies. there was no real democracy and the only people whose lives were really getting better were those who blindly followed him and his policies. Basically it was: I will keep religion and state separated, your women will be free to dress as they like, you may drink or dance without fear from the state but in turn, you will not ask for democracy and will blindly follow my policies without criticism. In fact, later many secular people got disillusioned with the shah because of lack of democracy and human rights, no freedom of assembly or speech etc. When the mullah regime came into power, yes your right, they reneged on their promise of freedom of assembley and speech, democracy and human rights and now the iranian people are still suffering and suffocating till this day.
In the end sir, you ask me a rhetorical question. However you must understand that most of us dont resent america or israel, its just their blind selfish policies which effect us negatively which in turn, makes us resentful. You say that israel and america are the two countries that are in a best position to give security to the countries of the region as well economic prosperity—but i ask what kind of security??? The security america gave to iraq and afghanistan when it bombed it to the stone ages?? or the security it gave in the form of wahabi suicide bombings in saudi, egypt, turkey and pakistan??? and what kind of security israel can contribute to??? bombing and starving gaza and lebnon???(i must add that i and most iranians dont give s–t o hamas or hezbullah since they are arab groups who have their own f–ked up agenda and supported by saudi,syria and yes unfortunately to a certain extent by the mullah regime when its suits them). regarding ecomonic prosperity, egypt and jordan get billions in economic aid for peace with israel but how does that help the common egytian and jordanian citizen? At least egypt i know, many people even in cairo are beggars and many women are selling their bodies to gain a few riyals or dirhams to feed and clothe their family—i dont see any of that aid helping the average citizens of that country. Even if half the population in these countries were living a decent life, i would admit that OK something good is happening but in reality there is nothing—i know many young arabs especially egyptians would want to immigrate to europe or america and when asked by curious outsiders if they cant find jobs in their own country many of them say no they cant. even though a lot of foreign aid comes every year, but year after year their standard of living further erodes. Most of it is embezzled by the corrupt government leaderships in those countries and i am sure sir, you are also aware of this as it shouldnt be news to you. Then you ask me a very naive question even though i am sure you urself are aware of it that egypt and jordan are teaming up with israel—well if the regimes of those two countries want to collect their annual paycheck from washington, of course they will have to do what israel tells them to do whether they like it or not!! Thats pretty much an open secret even among the common citizens of those two countries. I personally think though if america and israel were indeed sincere with these countries, more than just financial aid based on peace with israel it should award financial aid based on these regimes honoring democratic values such as free and fair elections, freedom of assembly, speech, freedom of the media and and a strong and indepedent judiciary. But of course america and israel cant have that since a true democratic assembly or parliament in say egypt or jordan or saudi would not blindly follow america or israeli dictates and would openly debate controversial issues regarding their foreign policy, defense policy etc which could possibly be in conflict with american and israeli interests in the region. And of course sir, you more than anybody else knows that america and israel cannot accept or digest such a scenario and will always keep these corrupt and corroded regimes in power at any cost!
This is my take on the question of whether Iran should get nuclear weapon capability:
One of the more extremist splinter groups of militants that get support from the Iranian military (take your pick) and known for being particularly pious and rather dumb, is approached by an influential member of the clergy and informed that they have a holy mission to take a “cleansing bomb” to Jerusalem. The cleric assures them that said bomb will completely destroy the Israeli sections of the city but, since it has been blessed by Allah, will leave the Palestinian side untouched. All they have to do is to drive it down to the city and, once they are a block away, call to say it is in place….
Deterrant, my ass. The only thing that the Iranian military and government is finessing at this point is how not to be too directly culpable after the bomb goes off. They know exactly what they want, and what they are going to do with it. Jerusalem would be a better target because Tel Aviv would be much harder to reach. And the collateral damage would be Palestinians; “martyrs of convienence”.
After all, just how harshly would the Muslim world judge the destroyers of Israel, especially if there wasn’t a direct link like a missle strike?
It’s not a nice opinion and it’s not kind, but then again neither is the Iranian government at this point.
..and thereby destroying one of the holiest sites in Islam? Fat chance.
Iran is not an immature, ideological state that cannot think of its national interests.
Iran wants his status accepted as a major power in the Middle-East. It’s very rational. They are not going to bomb the Arabs/Israelis with a bomb, but use it for concessions and strengthening the status of Iran. Iran is just using Palestinians as a bargaining chip and to transfer attention to Israel instead of inside problems, Israel is also doing the same: threat Iran (instead of internal problems).
The thing is clear…..ISRAEL wants to stay the regional power….they dont want others (Arabs/Muslims) to be succesful….Israel has one why should Iran not?
And dear author if you want to talk about religious idelogies then we can talk about extremist JEWISH zionists ,why do you not fear extremist JEWISH zionists?(Lieberman is one of those radical JEWISH zionist extremists a real JUDAEO-NAZI) If they took the bomb they would blow up all all Arabs and all mosques there….
GO IRAN !GO IRAN! WE SUPPORT THE BOMB!
@goiran,
Lieberman is uber secular.
Faroosha, you make some compelling points.
Yes, some Israelis believe in a Greater Israel, but not too many, and certainly not those in power.
You question the existential threat faced by Israel. As an example, Israel came close to losing the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and Golda Meir considered using the nuclear option. Then, a turn around on the battlefield made that decision unnecessary, thenk God. The War of Independence was also an existential threat, to say the least.
You speak of mutual destruction as a deterrance, if Iran and Israel both possessed nuclear weapons. Maybe, for a while, until somebody think he heard the voice of God, even though he may be hard of hearing. Don’t underestimate the power of religious belief to undermine rational thought.
The Shah was not perfect, but as you confirm, the separation of church and stand, empowering women, and allowing religious freedom, are a good start.
Yes, Israel and America do have their security agendas, but we have reached a point where theier agendas may coincide with Middle Eastern interests as well.
Yes, in the past, financial aid was wasted on corruption, but how about creating good paying jobs instead; jobs which grow all our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to curb the hold of extremist thinking.
American supported corrupt regimes in the past, but this is a new day.
Wladimir, you make sense to a point, but the insanity of extremist belief can easily undermine your rational approach.
@Nissim Dahan
sir, i made the points only to show how the average iranian or for that matter arab feels.
you say that most israelis and those in power dont believe in Greater Israel but i respectfully disagree. While some israelis dont believe in it, mostly the secular, but israeli society is rapidly becoming religious and even more than that radically religious. ever since sharon won the 2000 elections, israeli society is becoming radical and choosing radical leaders. Just because most israelis dont openly talk about greater israeli doesnt mean they dont believe in it.
Regarding the first war, israeli airforce bombed egyptian military jets while they were on ground—it was done on totally conventional basis and israel won skyhigh while egypt did not fire a shot and was humiliated.
The second war, which i believe is the yom kippur/ramadhan war, egypt and syria wanted payback and indeed did sneak and attack israel from both sides. while initially, israel was taken by surprise and did suffer a few losses, but quickly gained back ground such that they destroyed once and for all both the egyptian and syrian armies and their air forces and indeed gained much advances; took sinai from egypt and golan heights from syria. whatever pride and potency was left in the arab world was finished once and for all. and mind you, it was again done on superb intelligence and co-ordination and on a total conventional basis, as even you admit.
I never spoke of mutual destruction as a deterrance. i just said it as both countries having insurance and psychological satisfaction that both wont ever attack each other. As of someone supposedly hearing the voice of God, i strongly doubt that. I had lived and still visit iran every now and then, and i have met quite some radical people there but believe me, as much as i detested that regime, i have yet to meet someone who is so crazy that they would contemplate attacking israel—even the most radical person knows, that they cannot risk attacking israel without severe consequences. Please dont think that just because someone is radical in their thoughts, that they are not rational. I had met quite some people who i consider ‘radical’ but they had lots of rationality and intelligence, as much as i strongly disagreed with them.
Yes the shah was a good start but at the end, it was very bad. as i told you, even secular people turned against him but that still doesnt absolve and justify American and Israeli machinations in iran as it caused a lot of social upheavel, distress, and devastation.
More than just security agendas, america and israel have their vested interests in the region and will use their military,financial, psychological and structural powers to dominate the region and control it, and contrary to what you claim,nothing has changed, america still suppots those corrupt regimes and hence it is not a new day. I also believe in creating jobs and boosting economies, but as i said in my earlier posts, that is not america and israel’s main concern. They have puppet rulers in many of the countries in the region, and they want to dominate the region for their geopolitical interests. and of course oil, plays a big role and you know that very well.
As i said before and i will say again even if you still want to ignore it: america and israel dont care about democracy in the region as that will bring true empowerment to the people of the region and those two countries interests in the region will be in danger. America and israel want democracy, human rights, free speech, independent media and judiciary for themselves but they hypocritically deny these rights to the arab countries by supporting dictatorships. this is all what it comes down to. If you disagree with me, then please explain what is america and israel doing new to create jobs and prosperity for these countries?
The truth is, Faroosha, that America and Israel are doing very little now, to create jobs and prosperity in the Middle East. That’s the main problem, in my opinion, and that goes a long way to explain why we are not winning hearts and minds, and why the extremists are.
What we need to do is to learn from the extremists, believe it or not, and to see what they’re doing, and do what they do, only better. In the battle for hearts and minds, which is what this is all about, we need to beat the extremists at their own game. We need to co-opt their strategy and thereby marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. Only then will we be able to neutralize much of the hatred, and gain the upper hand against ideological extremism.
Therefore, if the extremists are ideological about violent Jihad, or a Greater Israel, or what have you, we should be ideological about common sense, by which we speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.
If the extremists invest peanuts in charitable handouts, we should invest some serious dollars in jobs, jobs which grow our economies, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help neutralize the hold of extremist thinking. I’m talking about investing in jobs, not paying off corrupt officials.
And if the extremists sell a vision of hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or virgins, or what have you, we should sell a vision of hope for peace, prosperity. and freedom.
At every turn, we should cut the extremists off at the pass, and beat them at their own game. In the final analysis, the ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
I know that you are a bit skeptical about the possibility of all this coming about. However, I think we have reached a point at which the problems we face on the eocnomy, on the environment, and on extremism, all point in this direction. We will end up doing this not necessarily because of our good intentions, but because this approach, which I call Selling a Vision of Hope, may be the only practical way of moving forward on all these fronts. The nature of the problems we face point to the need for Selling a Vision of Hope.
i have a question !
why israel have nuclear weapon but iran doesn`t have it?
why pakistan , india , china , russia, and many other country have it but iran not?
It’s a good question, Afshin. It doesn’t seem fair that Israel is allowed to keep nuclear weapons, but that Iran may be prevented from acquiring one. So how do we explain that?
There is a natural tendency, especially among young people, to judge things in terms of what is fair, and what is right. And in most instances, the idealism of youth is a good thing, and should be encouraged.
However, as you know, we live in real world, and unfortunately, reality doesn’t always reflect the ideal. So sometimes it helps to ask, “What is realistic?” instead of, “What is ideal?”
Regardless of the fairness of the situation, a nuclear Iran is a dangerous proposition, precisely because Iran’s leadership is heavily influenced by strong religious belief, and because this belief has been interpreted by some of them in such a way so as to pose a threat to neighboring countries and to the world as a whole. Religious extremism and nuclear weapons is simply not a good mix.
Forget about Israel, for the moment. We know why Israel is opposed to a nuclear Iran. Israel is worried because Iran has expressed in many ways, including its support for terror organizations, its willingness to destroy the Jewish state. And Israel takes such talk very seriously, including the talk discounting the Holocaust. But leaving Israel aside, why do you think that countries like Saudi, and Egypt, and Jordan, etc. are so worried about a nuclear Iran? The reason is that the leaders of those countries see a nuclear Iran as posing a much greater threat to them, than even Israel. Iran has made it clear that she is willing to stir up trouble in the Arab world, in pursuit of her desire to grow her sphere of incluence in the region. And that’s why you see the beginnings of cooperation on this issue between Israel and much of the Arab world.
I know it may sound crazy, but let me suggest, for your consideration, the possibility that the threat of a nuclear Iran may cause much of the Arab world to ally itself militarily with Israel. Israel is probably the only force in the region which could help to keep Iran in check. And if such a security arrangement can be linked to the economic development of the Arab world, including job creation, then such an alliance could very well pave the pathway to peace.
So in an ironic twist of fate, it could very well be that the existential threat to Israel of a nuclear Iran, could help to bring about a strategic and economic alliance between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, and thereby condition people for the possibility of peace. That would be a dream come true, even in the face of an impending nightmare scenario.
Israel is worried because Iran has expressed in many ways, including its support for terror organizations, its willingness to destroy the Jewish state. And Israel takes such talk very seriously, including the talk discounting the Holocaust.
–
i see
but ahmadinejad is so so stupid man
islamic republic is very stupid
but
we are talking about iran , iranian
are you think , ahmadinejad president of iranian?
never
he is president of islam
Afshin, I don’t doubt for one minute that the vast majority of the Iranian people are good people, who wish no harm on anyone. In that same light, I have no doubt that the vast majority of Palestinians, and other Arabs as well, are good and decent people, who want peace, and who want a better life for themselves and their children.
I also agree with you that Ahmadinejad may not represent the will of his people, and that in many respects, he is a figurehead, who sometimes doesn’t even represent the will of the Mullahs.
However, words do count, and words do have to be taken seriously, especially when so much is on the line. There was a time when Hitler wasn’t taken seriously either, not by Jews, and not by his own countrymen. And then the right circumstances came along, and under those special circumstances, Hitler came to power, and then his words were no longer just words. His words spelled out the sad destinies of millions of people.
Because Jews, and other groups, became the victims of the Holocaust, that explains in part why they have no choice but to take words seriously, and to take the risks they pose more seriously as well.
This doesn’t mean that there is no hope for peace. On the contrary, I think that the problems we all face create new opportunities for peace. However, in cutting the final deal, Israel’s long term security will play a pivitol role, because history suggests that words must be taken seriously, so that they don’t become more than just words.
ok
thanky you for response to me
i think the time of islamic repoblic in iran is finished
after that
when goverment of iran is changing to the free goverment
do you repeat that “What’s So Wrong With A Nuclear Iran?”
or accept nuclear iran?
waiting to your answer
afshin from iran
if you ask me afshin, from what i gathered from my latest trip to iran in dec of 08, many iranians, and this may be shocking to americans and israelis, especially the secualar and liberal ones do indeed want iran to have a nuclear weapon, as a defensive strategy of course. this is one of the few issues on which even many secular, liberal and western-minded iranians ironically concur with the otherwise much despised mullah regime, since attaining nuclear power and recognition is considered as a nationalist pride.
personally though, i believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and to america and israel’s consternations, many regional countries, especially egypt,turkey, algeria, syria and saudi will very soon aggessively pursue this path of attaining nuclear power(and some of them are already in the process of pursuing i believe) and recognition and if that happens, i believe that the middle east will become a more safe place(ironically by default) since the stakes will become high and countries will think twice and even thrice before attacking another country. All countries including israel will be forced to play on an equal level and will think many times before threatening and attacking another country.
Regarding iranian politics, i do think that ahmedinejad is an idiotic idiot for calling for the wiping off of israel from the map. i can understand israeli anxiety over such a statement which is perceived as dangerous by them, but as an iranian origin person, i know that its all politics and meant for internal consumption. as an ancient persian proverb goes, ” dogs which bark dont bite”. i believe that ahmedinjad is such a dog. He may be quite radical in his thoughts and behavior, but not stupid enough to actually attack israel.
p.s.=BTW afshin, your name sounds persian? are you iranian?
Afshin, I understand where you’re coming from. You are imagining a time when Iran is a true democracy, and when the Mullahs are no longer in power, and you are asking whether a nuclear Iran would be OK at that time.
Of course, a lot has to happen between now and then. You should also keep in mind that Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.
However, all that aside, if Iran becomes less of a threat, and wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity, then of course that would be fine. But suppose Iran wants a nuclear bomb. What then? The question then would be for what purpose. Israel’s purpose is for deterance, because she perceives an existential threat to her security, due to a history of conflict since her inception.
But for Iran, no one is really threatening Iran’s existence. So why would she need a nuclear bomb? For national pride? That’s not good enough of a reason. And if Iran goes ahead and develops nuclear weapons, do the rest of the countries in the area follow suit? And what does that portend for the region.
The more nuclear weapons that are out there, the more chance there will be that someone will push the button, and then all hell will break loose. This is especially the case when people have nothing to lose, and are more devoted to their beliefs then to their people. We’re not talking about just another war. We’re talking about the end of human existence as we know it. Given that risk, I really don’t see any scenario by which Iran should be encouraged to develop nuclear weapons, even if the government becomes more democratic.
Instead of focusing on the right to become a nuclear power, why not focus on other rights, like the right to peace, prosperity, and freedom? Iran has the right, and the duty for that matter, to allow her people to pursue all the blessings which life has to offer. And nuclear weapons is not such a blessing. It is just a sword hanging over all our heads.
And Faroosha, I too have heard this idea that nuclear weapons is a source of national pride. Well, my answer to that would be to do with a little less pride, and a lot more hope. I think we have to find a way out of all this nonsense. We find ourselves trapped in a room that is so full of B.S. that we only have about two inches of air left near the ceiling. We have to get out of that fix, and begin to make a life for ourselves and our children. Nuclear weapons is not the answer. It’s only a diversion, one of many that we use to avoid the hard work of bringing a sense of order to our lives, of bringing a sense of justice to our people, and of bringing a sense of hope for the future.
Our God-given common sense has kept us going as a species for some two million years. It is time to come back to that, and to stop wasting time on the stupidity that keeps us from realizing our potential.
yes i`m from iran
my dear friends
there is no different between iran, israel , americe and other country
if israel have nuclear weapon iran must have it ,and opposite
if nuclear weapon is wrong ,for all, nations ,countries ,believe ,it is wrong
do you agree with me?
However, all that aside, if Iran becomes less of a threat, and wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity, then of course that would be fine. But suppose Iran wants a nuclear bomb. What then? The question then would be for what purpose. Israel’s purpose is for deterance, because she perceives an existential threat to her security, due to a history of conflict since her inception.
—–
it`s wrong my friend i think
The idea of “fairness” seems to carry a lot of weight in Iran. The thinking goes that if Israel has the bomb, then it’s only fair that Iran have one as well.
But “fairness” may be a bit more complicated than that. Is it fair, for example, for Iran to have a bomb, if it means that other countries will follow suit, thus increasing the chance that someone somewhere will use it? How fair would that be to the innocent people who will be killed, and to future generations who will become sick because of radiation sickness and genetic defects?
Nuclear weapons will not bring fairness or justice to Iran. It will only increase the chance for something very bad to happen. Nuclear weapons are evil because they contain the power to destroy life as we know it. It is a weapon that is so powerful, that it becomes almost impossible to justify its use. The only justification that Israel can give for its aresenal of nuclear weapons is that in light of 2000 years of the persecution of the Jews, and in light of the Holocaust, and in light of the existential threats that Israel faced from her founding, that she was justified in developing the evil of nuclear weapons, in order to avoid the even greater evil of being destroyed once again.
Iran does not face the same circumstances, and therefore does not have the same justification for developing nuclear weapons. If the Iranian people believe in fairness, which is their right, then I believe that true fairness will come when, as you say Afshin, Iran becomes a true democracy, when Iran helps her people to enjoy the blessings of peace, prosperity, and freedom, and when Iran decides to play a constructive role in the region, one that points to he possibility of peace. Only then will justice come, and only then will we see the true measure of fairness in our time.
Iran does not face the same circumstances, and therefore does not have the same justification for developing nuclear weapons
i don`t agree with you
and
if nuclear weapon is true ,it`s true for all nations ,countries , and believe
thats`s all
Afshin, on this point, we can respectfully agree to disagree.
But hopefully, from the discussion we’re having, we can both see that there is much that we can agree on, like the need for a true democracy in Iran.
Even if we don’t agree on some points, we can build on what we do agree on, and in the final analysis, we’ll probably discover that we share much more in common than divides us. To my mind, a lot of the accusations are part of a diversionary tactic, designed to keep from solving the problems that need solving.
If we find enough common ground, and if we work together to realize a vision of hope, then maybe there will come a day when there will be no need for nuclear weaons, and at such time, there will be no need to worry about who should have them and who should not.
@nissim dahan
in your post #23, you ask a rhetorical question if it is fair for iran to have a nuclear weapon if it means other countries will follow suit, thus increasing the chance that someone somewhere will use it?
with all due respect, i find that question a bit too rich as well as nonsensical considering the fact that america first developed nuclear weapons (and is also the only one to ever use such weapons) and after developing it, that was the point in which the genie came out of the bottle—the british and other europeans followed, the israelis followed (in fact stole some nuclear secrets from america), the russians and chinese followed, the indians and pakistanis followed, and the iranians are only following now since the past few years, yet you seem to assume that only iran’s developing nuclear weapons can cause a big risk to world security. As i said before, the genie was out of the bottle, when america acquired nuclear weapons and later even used it in WW2. Even if iran abandoned its nuclear aspirations, do you think that others countries who want it, wont develop such weapons??
and in my former posts, i already explained how israel is already military strong on a total conventional basis but again you ignore that fact. In fact holocaust, as horrible as it was, has always been used as an excuse by israel to justify it aggressions and machinations.
personally i and many of my iranian friends have nothing against any person of any ethnic origin, nationality, religion, custom,creed and culture including jews. i still have jewish friends in iran who i am very much cherish but i personally feel that most israelis feel that it is their divine right to look down on other cultures such as arab, north african, iranian, indian etc.. your last paragraph in #23, clearly shows that arrogance as if only israelis have the divine authority to tell whether some other nation can has the right to live or die, acquire nuclear weapons or not etc–and then you say when iran become a true democracy—well i already explained in couple of lenghty posts that america and israeli will never ever allow democracy to take hold in iran as well as the arab world since a true iranian or arab democracy will most likely take decisions which is in their own peoples’s interests, not america or israel’s interests, and that you know well america and israel can never ever accept or digest. Yet you so conveniently ignore that point and i find that very sad:(
i have a advice for writers this essay
first write a article with topic “What’s So Wrong With A Nuclear israel?”
actually you find very clearly truth !
Faroosha, you make some important points.
There is always the danger of nuclear proliferation, a danger which must be met head on, one instance at a time. The use of nuclear weaons is so catostrophic, that it could easily spell out a dead end for human existence. Take Pakistan, for example. I heard their President speaking on Sunday, and I was not at all convinced that he is capable of keeping his nukes out of the hands of the Taliban, and al Qaeda. Great. Imagine al Qaeda with nuclear weapons. Let’s just take a knife to our throats and be done with it.
The Holocaust is not an excuse. The Holocaust, unfortunately, is a reality that Jews in general, and Israel in particlar, lives with on a daily basis. Much of Israeli policy has to do with averting the possibility of another Holocaust. It is not a matter of history. It is a matter of reality. And it’s a lot more difficult to survive in this crazy world than one may think, and than God intended. The case of Pakistan, and the intentions of some leaders in Iran, and Hamas, and Hizbulla, are specific and real examples of the threats we face in the civilized world, threats which must be met head on, or else.
There are some Israelis who are filled with hate, as there are such people in every country on earth. However, from what I know, and my family has been in that area for several hundred years, I know Israelis to be a good and decent people, who do cherish peace, and who do not want to be involved in the loss of life. The fact is that Israel jumped on every opportunity it had to make peace, with Egypt, and then with Jordan. Israel has never used, or threatened to use nuclear weapons. And, believe it or not, Israel is the one country in the region that is able, and may be willing, to stimulate the economic revitalization of the region. Why not challenge her to do that, instead of constantly challenging her right to exist?
It is true that in the past, countries like America constructed a part of their foreign policy on the basis of keeping corrupt regimes in power. However, I think that since 9/11, we may be coming to a different consensus. We saw on 9/11 that if people get oppressed enough, they take it upon themselves to board onto airplanes and crash into buildings. Therefore, while I can’t guarantee it, it may be that the U.S. foreign policy may actually change, in favor of educating, employing, and empowering the man on the street. She will do that not only out of a sense of justice, but because it will bring about better results for the world community, and particularly for the Western world. The calculus of foreign relations may have changed.
As for Iran, how can you say that democracy would be rejected by America or Israel. It seems to me that the current regime is quite difficult to deal with. Almost any move toward democratic governance would be a step in the right direction, and the leaders elected legitimately would probably be a lot easier for America and Israel to deal with.
Afshin, we both agree on a truly democratic Iran, in which power ultimately resides in the people. Don’t you think that a nuclear Iran would be a way for the Mullahs to consolidate their hold on power? Is that really what you want for your people, including the risk of a nuclear confrontation.
I understand that Israel’s possession of these weapons is like a thorn in your side. I tried to explain why Israel felt compelled to develop these weapons, as a reaction to an existential threat from the day she came into being, and as a consequence of a two thousand history of persecution. I understand why you may reject such an argument. But even though you don’t agree on that, you may still come to conclusion that for many reasons, an Iran with nuclear weaons is not a good idea, not for Israel, not for the U.S., not for the countries of the region, but especially, not for the Iranian people themselves, who should look for their sense of pride in other places.
that sounds like “when you eat a icecream tell your friend icecream is not good thing”
that`s so embracing
amrica that first use nuclear bomb in japan in ww2
and have bigest collection of nuclear bomb in the wold
now become represent of “world without nuclear weapon”
actually , amrica thinks , the world is mine , and so , power is mine , money is mine , every thing is mine … and
but this idea do not accept for me and many freedom people in the world
Dear Afshin, I agree with you on the outstanding double standards of the U.S government. This statement of yours couldn’t be more true:
It’s not hard to see through the U.S government’s hypocracy but thankfully many Americans continue to expose and fight against that. Many Americans want more transparency and less foreign intervention, but the U.S government isn’t yet as truly democratic to respect that.
Afshin, I’m not so sure that the “ice cream” analogy is the right one to use.
Ice cream tastes good, and gives us a sense of comfort and wellbeing. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, give us the opposite, a sense of dread and nervousness. Nuclear weapons are the sword that we’ve put over our head, as if we needed yet another way to become instinct.
I understand your perception of the hypocrisy of nations like America or Israel telling Iran not to pursue a nuclear arsenal. And that’s why you use the ice cream analogy. However, when it comes to a global risk of such grave consequences, don’t you think that it is time to put aside at least some considerations of fairness, in favor of what it’s going to take to insure the survival of the species?
Let’s look at another example. Suppose that America says to China that we all have to take steps to curb climate change. China could naturally say, as they have, that America has been busy spewing forth carbon emissions since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Further, America, whose population is only 4.5% of the world population, is responsible for some 25% of carbon emissions.
This kind or argument seems to be a good and valid one, when considering notions of fairness. However, if nations like China and India end up doing what America did, then what does that portend for the future of man? Wouldn’t it be more fair, and more just, and more sensible to say: Well, what’s done is done, and what’s done is not fair, but we choose to go in a new direction, for the sake of the destiny of man, regardless of the injustices of the past.
Nuclear weapons are not ice cream. They taste more like danger and death. Shouldn’t we choose life instead, even if it means letting go of some notions of fairness?
final thought on this topic:
@nissim dahan
at the end, you seem to put the onus and burden of goodwill on everyone except america and israel. in the example you cited in #31 between america and china, my thought to your question is No, absolutely no, fairness should never be put aside—fairness needs to be the standard by which all countries need to be held according to—yeah, ideally, it would be very good if china and india follow the steps to curb climate change but precisely as you said, just like america which for example, didnt sign up to Kyoto agreement, why should india and china be expected to follow something if they dont believe its beneficial for their national interests??!! You are living in an ideal world and even then you say it would be good for all to say that whats done is done and lets go in a new direction, regardless of the injustices of the past. yes that would be very great except that nobody will really follow that. Its like telling the jews that what is done is done and its not fair but lets forget about the holocaust for the mankind’s destiny sake, regardless what was done in those camps. do you honestly expect jews and israelis would buy that argument?? even till this day, nazi war criminals are pursued and swiss and other foreign banks are investigated to make sure looted assets are returned to the kith and kin of the victims. Its always easy to tell others to forgive and forget but when oppression or unfairness happens to oneself, then one realizes the psychological and mental torture. Of course nuclear weapons are not ice cream. they taste more like danger and death. so why doesnt the israeli or american govts. abandon them?? and perhaps america even more should be quick to abandon them since they used such weapons first—but they will always justify their possession of and usage of such weapons no matter what. I do wish we could live in a world where there were minimal threats and where there would be no nuclear and other dangerous weapons but one must accpet reality and not depend on just wishful thinking and live in an ideal world. I believe at end it boils all down to perspective; what is right for may be considered wrong for another and vice versa.
in general, despite our vast disagreements on this topic i would say it was overall nice engaging in debate and learning one another’s perspective on this topic.
Because no one is there to force them to – they feel as if they are above any law, international or otherwise. They make the rules and break them at their own will. Much of the world is already exposed to this horrid truth and there will be a day when they wake up and mobilize themselves in the millions to request that Israel and the USA act according to how they want others to act – to stop the foreign occupations, shape up, and respect all human rights as opposed to just their own citizens (excluding certain minorities in Israel who face discrimination too.)
Many people are betting that the Obama administration might change this, but so far, things have only gotten worse with the new Israeli government whose PM believes that illegal land shouldn’t be returned to their rightful owners and that Palestine does not deserve its own State as it’s more secure for Israel if they continue the dreadful occupation.
In fact read this chilling article about the Israeli Prime Minister expressing seemingly hateful remarks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8050334.stm
He’s even trying to convince the Pope to fall for his dirty political agenda by publicly attacking Iran!
In any case, the USA has no place preaching to other States about either human rights or a “nuclear free world,” unless they commit to both, which they didn’t, and probably never will.
You make some good points, Faroosha. I do tend to be idealistic, but on the other hand, considering the situation we’re facing, it may well be that the ultimate form of realism is idealism. In other words, because our problems, like the economy, the environment, and the extremism, are global in nature, they will require global solutions, and only a sense of idealism, if it is given substance in reality, can make that happen.
I understand what you’re saying about fairness. Everbody is entitled to his share of the pie. However, given the risk we face, we may all have to forgo some of our notions of fairness, in favor of what is needed to sustain the planet, and to better the lives of all who inhabit it. And to do this, we may need to come up with a new framework for ideological discourse based on common sense principles, what I call An Ideology of Common Sense.
Instead of believing what we want to believe, why not believe in what makes sense? Instead of jumping to false belief and then rationalizing why we’re right, why not use rationality in the first place to arrive at what is worth believing in? If the world is already coming together technologically and economically, doesn’t it make sense to come together ideologically as well? In a more perfect world, common sense, the collective wisdom born of shared experience, will inspire our thinking and inform our speach. In our fractured world, common sense is the common denominator.
But it has been a pleasure to speak with you. We can disagree, but if we do so respectfully and sensibly, we will find common ground.
And Esra’a, I agree with you that the new Israeli government leans heavily to the right. The only silver lining that I see is that right wing governments have the credibility to cut peace deals. Menachem Begin, for example, was very right wing, but he cut the deal with Sadat. Ehud Barak was a highly decorated military man, but he pulled out of Lebanon. Sharon was also very right wing, but he pulled out of Gaza. There are, of course, no guarantees, but it would not surprise me if the current government proceeds to cut a peace deal. Stranger things have happened.
it`s very good topic and i learn very things on it
by the way
—-
Of course nuclear weapons are not ice cream. they taste more like danger and death. so why doesnt the israeli or american govts. abandon them?? and perhaps america even more should be quick to abandon them since they used such weapons first—but they will always justify their possession of and usage of such weapons no matter what.
—
it`s example ” ice cream”
i agree with you my friend
but
whan represent of america spaeks about destroy nuclear weapon and world without nuclear weapon in (un)
i(one iranian) am just laughing
it`s only hyporisy and lie
Well, I consider you a friend as well, Afshin.
There is, like you say, a lot of hypocrisy out there. And no matter what we do, we’re not going to make things perfect.
However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try. If we give everyone on earth a sense of hope, a place at the table, a stake in his or her future, then we will begin to turn the corner on world peace. Nothing more is needed and nothing else will suffice.
We should not get too bogged down in who is right, and who is wrong. Everyone on earth has a case to make, but going that route will get us nowhere fast.
What is needed is to take some action that brings us together, and that is what Selling a Vision of Hope is all about. I hope that one day we may be able to make something happen along these lines, even as others keep arguing about who struck John.
i hope too my friend
we are very good friend in all nation language and believe
i hope we have a better world with or without nuclear weapon
i think we can`t have a world without nuclear weapon or more stronger !
we live in the real world
i wish real world can be better .
An American man was seated next to a little Iranian girl on the airplane,
when the stranger turned to her and said, ‘Let’s talk. I’ve heard that
flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow
passenger’. The little girl, who had just opened her coloring book, closed
it slowly and said to the stranger:
‘What would you like to talk about?’
‘Oh, I don’t know,’ said the American.
‘Since you are Iranian, how about nuclear power?’
And he smiles.
‘OK, ‘ she said. ‘That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a
question first’.
‘A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer
excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse
produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?’
The American, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks
about it and says, Hmmm, I have no idea.’?
To which the little girl replies, ‘Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power… when you don’t know shit?’
take it easy nader
Nader, most times I would agree that I don’t know shit.
But when it comes to nuclear weapons, what is there to know?
Here’s what I think I know: Nuclear weapons are not a joke, they are death. They are a dead end for the destiny of man. They are even more death in the hands of the wrong people, such as people who are hard of hearing, but who think they’ve heard the voice of God.
dear nissim
sure every believe probably hate about nuclear weapon
but
the nuclear weapon is evasion
we are talking about dominance
Afshin, I would have to agree that nuclear weapons are about “dominance,” although in the case of Israel, I would like to believe that it is more about deterrance for the purpose of self-defense, although some would disagree with me.
However, with regard to Iran, I believe that there are leaders there who would not hesitate to use these weapons for the purpose of domination. They would seek to dominate much of the Arab world, as they are gradually trying to do using their proxies Hamas, and Hizbullah. As you may know, a Hizbullah cell was recently discovered in Egypt, much to the surprise and anger of Mubarak.
Much of the Arab world is quickly coming to the realization that a nuclear Iran would be far more dangerous to them than Israel ever was, and believe it or not, this may result in an alliance of sorts between Israel and the Sunni Arab states. I personally would like such an alliance to be based more on economics than on military defense.
Eventually, if the stars become aligned just right, it may be possible to bring Iran into the fold, by transforming her into an economic powerhouse, instead of a threat. If she wants to dominate, let her dominate economically, and transform the Middle East in a positive direction, by which everyone there gets a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. Let Hamas and Hizbullah create jobs for their people, instead of pursuing ideological goals resulting in nightmare scenarios.
Even with Pakistan, things can go either way. If 100 nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the Taliban, we’re all in for trouble. If, on the other hand, we can find ways to realize a vision of hope there, a vision of peace, properity, and freedom, then there will be hope for the people, and for the nations of that region.
A lot is at stake. The game is on, and destiny’s clock is ticking impatiently as we speak. Those of us who believe in hope, must not hesitate to call it as we see it, to try to make sense of it all, and to take action that points to the possibility of peace. Those of us who want to be “right” instead of being sensible would not hesitate to let the whole thing go down in flames, just to prove a point, even though there will be no one left to get the point.
ok
dear nissim
passing the time is clear what`s the truth
but
i hope no country doesn`t attack to my country (with or without islamic republic(i hate this goverment))
cos iran will be very dangerous for attacker (!!)
and i(one iranian)want nuclear weapon till the country like (amrica -israel- pakistan-india-and many other ) have nuclear weapon
that`s all my friend