Iran's Nuclear Program

[SevenSeasJim]

Here we go - List of Countries with NuclearNucular Weapons

That map kind of puts it into perspective. There are not too many coutries that are "Grey".

[Birdy]

you know i never, EVER knew it wasn't "NUCLEAR".

[StaggerLee]

That map kind of puts it into perspective. There are not too many countries that are "Grey".

I'm not sure what you mean...

States that have tested a nuclear weapon: 7

Suspected nuclear states: 2

States suspected of having clandestine nuclear programs: 1

States formerly possessing nuclear weapons: 4

States formerly possessing nuclear programs: 15

Other nuclear-capable states: 7 (some of these are counted as having former programs as well)

Number of recognized states in the world: 192

It still seems to me to be a handful of states that perpetuate our fear of thermo-nuclear armageddon. If anything you might make a correlation between a state's nuclear capability and it's landmass.

[SmoothedShredder]

precisely why i'm not in favour of imposing our culture on anyone else as well. we tend to judge people/nations/etc. as if they knew what we know and forget that they don't know what we know (and vice versa). the freedoms that we consider to be "fundamental" wouldn't even be considered by other cultures... unless of course they are dropped in, pamphlet form, by low flying bombers, mass mailing middle-east style. a kind of "see what we have? jealous yet? well you're only a regime change away from your super walmart!!"

I dunno. It's hard because i do appreciate my life, our culture, opportunity in general and in that alone, would want to share it with the world. But there are definately very big evils associated with the way things go around here that i think could be borderline on overiding "opportunity". i picture a weigh scale in my head and it teeters back and forth.

This is so well phrased it's beautiful. FACT: Iran will have Nukes... as no one really has the capacity to stop them. Therefore: We better start making friends fast. I'm totally for a peaceful withdrawl from the region... so much as we can leave Afganistan with an element of Free Speech and Rights for Women... as far as Iran is concerned... there is a pretty well educated and scrappy student demographic which I hope will be a nugget of freedom on which to build peaceful ties with Iran. As far as Iraq... WTF did we do to her?

[Birdy]

i think perhaps the level of involvement that's been committed is too much.. to the point where any type of withdrawal will snowball all of the 'progress' (and i really use this term loosely and unknowingly) down the toilet. nation building isn't a cheap endeavour and unfortunately you can't just walk away from a project you start.

it's a situation and a half over there, and i really don't know what the answer should be. for Canadians to completely turn a blind eye and show absolutely no sign of support is wrong. and i'm happy we now have a Prime Minister who isn't afraid to admit this and who doesn't cower under the liberal veil of indecisiveness. really and truly there are countries out there who are threatening the use of nuclear devices and if of sane mind, must know the catastrophic damage and sheer loss of human life that they have the power to inflict. this is WRONG and they MUST be stopped. if you are anti-bush, anti-israeli, anti-shellco, anti-harper, anti-whatever, it's come time to get friggin' over it. there are good and decent people who are fighting for you and losing their lives for you. RESPECT that.

imperialism has been around for centuries. and although i struggle with the concept of power and whose hands it should fall into, i am thankful it has fallen into the hands of the Americans. While I may not agree with every foreign policy step they may take, I am thankful to them for holding a strong economy, for ridding the world of psychos, and for their general kindness to us as Canadians. they don't have to be like that. they could very well have a nuke pointed at ottawa just as Iran does at Jerusalem. i'm thankful that they have the capabilities and funding to deal with Iran should they have to. and so should all anti-americans. cause really, they might have to. then where will we all be standing?

i know war changes societies and their structures or hierarchies and nothing comes out looking like it did before, but i just wish there was a way to keep ourselves from imposing culture... but now that i sit down and write all this, it's wishful thinking. i know.

[Biggest Fan]

-n- birdy goes out on a limb and ...

[Guest Low Roller]

they don't have to be like that. they could very well have a nuke pointed at ottawa just as Iran does at Jerusalem.

To be fair Israel probably has nukes pointed at Tehran, Damascas, Beirut, and Mecca.

And it wouldn't be Jerusalem that Iran will point their nuke at, but rather Tel Aviv. Muslims consider Jerusalem theirs, so they wouldn't bomb it.

I don't trust Israel no more than I trust Iran. And that's not very much.

[Biggest Fan]

What do you mean when you sat 'I don't trust ... anymore than ...'.

[hamilton]

What do you mean when you sat 'I don't trust ... anymore than ...'.

It looks pretty self-explanatory to me...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm guessing that what he's suggesting, and I'd hate to put words in anyone's mouth, is that your average wingnut settler is no less distressing than your average wingnut Islamic radical, and each has a bead on parliamentary power which can affect decisions of all sorts.

[Biggest Fan]

Dr. you posted the topic on the 'right' in France... I was going on about this and that but what's up with the right, the right, and the right.. -n- I do agree with (maybe one of) the scariest right of all the 'wingnut' hawk in Israel. Thanks for spelling the issue out a little.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I do agree with (maybe one of) the scariest right of all the 'wingnut' hawk in Israel.

? - please explain?

[Lazlo]

? - please explain?

Don't encourage him. Poor bastard's just going to think himself into a coma. Then his family will end up suing you for malpractice.

[Biggest Fan]

If you put it in terms of... self preservation to the point of ignoring the basic human dignity of those around you, I believe the 'far right' in Israel is pretty damn 'hawkish'. I understand perfectly well why they are the way they are... but I would say they are a pretty extreme crew.

P.S. -n- I love you to Lazlo.

[Biggest Fan]

To put it in terms even LAZLO could understand (I'm sorry I just had to say it), I think the far right in Israel is pretty GWBish.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This just in today's NYT - I had to smile at the headline: Iranian Letter: Using Religion to Lecture Bush

CAIRO, May 9 — With the tone of a teacher and the certainty of a believer, the president of Iran wrote to President Bush that Western democracy had failed and that the invasion of Iraq, American treatment of prisoners and support for Israel could not be reconciled with Christian values.

Locked in a conflict with the West over its nuclear program, the Iranian, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made the observations in a letter on Monday that the Iranian government said "raised new ways of solving problems."

The 18-page letter, whose text was made available to The New York Times by United Nations diplomats on Tuesday, did not offer any concrete proposals for dealing with the crisis, but suggested that the United States give up its liberal, democratic, secular system and turn more toward religion.

"Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems," Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote.

State Department officials said there was nothing in the letter relevant to current talks with Iran about its nuclear programs.

Though the letter was dismissed by American officials, some said it provided an interesting window into the mindset in Tehran, especially with its emphasis on grievances.

"There was not a single substantive proposal in the letter, but it was a revealing insight into their mentality," a senior State Department official said.

While the letter laid out a litany of policy disputes with the United States, it was also personal, urging President Bush, who is candid about his religious conviction, to examine his actions in the light of Christian values. As he has done in the past, the Iranian struck a prophetic tone, which is certain to be well received by his core supporters and mocked by his opponents.

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point that is the Almighty God," he wrote. "Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teaching of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question to you is: 'Do you want to join them?' "

The letter was framed entirely in religious terms but also laid out a populist manifesto of anti-Americanism, offering illustrations of what has won the Iranian a following among many ordinary people throughout the Middle East. He presented himself as the defender not only of Muslims but of all oppressed people, including those in Africa and Latin America.

But his primary focus was on religious principles central to Shiite Islam, specifically the concept of a just ruler and the fight against oppression. With a respectful, if superior, tone, he used a question and answer style to present a case for American hypocrisy.

He seemed to try to shame President Bush when he asked: "Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?"

The letter marked a significant gesture, the first direct contact between an Iranian head of state and an American president since the revolution of 1979. Mr. Ahmadinejad also left himself open to criticism that this would aggravate a nuclear showdown, and from those who see his contact with Mr. Bush as a betrayal.

The letter focused repeatedly on the notion that America is a sinner.

"My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims, and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses. All divine religions share and respect one word, and that is monotheism, or belief in a single God and no other in the world."

While sticking to a script of grievances against the United States, the tone also marked a shift from Mr. Ahmadinejad's past discussions. He did not use the terms "Great Satan" or "World Oppressor." And the letter did seek to identify a common ground for starting discussions.

"It would be a big mistake if the United States dismissed it or if they only consider it as a philosophical, religious, historical letter," Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University, said by telephone. "It would be a good idea if President Bush responds to it. It can open up some space."

The letter also included many standard views of conservatives in Iran, including the comment that those responsible for planning the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were never charged or tried, hinting darkly of conspiracy.

"Sept. 11 was not a simple operation," he wrote. "Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligences and security services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?"

Since he was elected last June, the Iranian has promised to return to the principles of the revolution, and his letter echoed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who wrote to Mikhail S. Gorbachev in September 1989 that Communism was dead, and then invited him to study Islam.

Citing the war in Iraq and reports of secret prisons around Europe, Mr. Ahmadinejad argued that the United States had failed to live up to its own stated values, an argument that resonates in the streets of the Middle East.

While the notion that a head of state might write such a document may be perceived as naïve, it is another effort by Mr. Ahmadinejad to demonstrate his Everyman style.

"His letter was addressed more to young people in the Islamic world than to the American president," said Wahid Abdel Maguid, deputy director of the government-financed Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Egypt. "He wants to play the hero, mobilizing and inciting the enthusiasm of the young people. This is not a kind of letter that a head of state sends to another."

[guigsy]

i read the transcript of the letter last nite.

anyone else? thoughts?

[SmoothedShredder]

I've only read commentary on it... do you have the link for the original?

[guigsy]

not handy... where's bradm when you need him?

[SmoothedShredder]

Yeah, I've taken a look on google... I'm surprised that commentary on the issue is so prevalant/easy to find, but the actual letter is burried in there some where... I tried like 5 different meta seaches dude!

[guigsy]

here ya go.

[SmoothedShredder]

Thanks! I'll read it over and post some comments.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Yes, thanks, guigsy - pretty interesting reading. As the NYT bit suggested, it's really more of a preaching to the choir, i.e. his own audience back home; I doubt Bush has the reading capacity to get through the whole thing.

[SmoothedShredder]

I thought it was very Worldly... he definately was above the head of the US president... but was very elloquent, and had some solid arguments/questions raised to boot. It's sad that the press have already stated that the US has dismissed this article. I thought it was very human, and very rational.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

From today's news -

US government told Iran strikes wouldn't work

(CBC News) Senior United States military commanders have told the Bush administration that military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities would probably fail to destroy them, the New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday.

The senior commanders also warned that any attack could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article says, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

"The target array in Iran is huge, but it's amorphous," the magazine quotes one unidentified general as saying.

The article is by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who was the first U.S. journalist to report on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Hersh writes that senior military planners at the U.S. Defense Department have also questioned whether military strikes could do sufficient damage to Iranian nuclear facilities to justify the political and diplomatic cost of such an action.

"If you're a military planner, you try to weigh options," a senior military official is quoted as saying. "What is the capability of the Iranian response, the likelihood of a punitive response like cutting off oil shipments? What would that cost us?"

The official also says U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides "really think they can do this on the cheap, and they underestimate the capability of the adversary."

There has been no response from the U.S. government.