View Single Post
Old 03-05-2005, 12:00 PM   #2 (permalink)
Willravel
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
If it were up to me (thank God it isn't), I would restrict all flights in and out of Iran and watch all the boarders. As long as mutually assured destruction ap[ples to the Iranian governmental officials, they should refrain from attacking. If they try to leave, simple don't allow it. I realize how contradictory this idea runs to my libertarian beliefs, but bear with me.

I think that Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is scared to death right now. When Iraq and Iran went head to head back in 1980, they were evenly matched with Iraq. How long did it take for America to remove the Iraqi government? A few weeks? There is a clear danger to the government of Iran. IUn order to try and deterr America and our allies, it seems logical to try and gain better footing in the area of military power. They can't get a state of the art military or tons of troops, so they try the powerful weapons route. What's the most powerful weapon, striking fear even to America? The nuclear bomb. Don't forget that the last report from the IAEA said that although Iran had not been fully cooperative, there was no concrete proof that Iran was seeking to develope nuclear arms. Aside from respectable organizations like the IAEA, we have to rely on the same intelligence netowrks that told us that Iraq had WMD programs and ties to 9/11. They have lost what little trust they once had. So, as far as I can tell, there is no proof of Iranian nuclear programs. Because of this lack of proof, a war is completly and 100% out of the question, at least a preemptive war. America would be running the risk of not only alienating the rest of the world further, but possibly seeing our former allies take an opposing stand. I don't want to see a war, espically between super powers.

Our best bet is still the EU, who's negotiator made great progress for a time with Iran. Don't forget that on November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said that his country agreed to suspend the uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Aisde from deterrance, the real threat is that Iran suppoirts terrorist groups. I believe that in 1995, the reason America suspended trade with Iran was both the support of terrorist groups and the development of nuclear weapons. I don't want to see "terrorist" and "nuclear wepons" in the same sentence, unless that sentence says that it doesn't want to see them in the same sentence. Heh. That's the wild card.
Willravel is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360