The voice of young liberal democrats


Iran: No Evidence of Nuclear Weapons Program by georgeinwashington
November 5, 2007, 2:14 pm
Filed under: defence, Foreign Affairs, iran, nuclear weapons | Tags: , , ,

From the McClatchy group today. An article strongly contradicting the belligerent tone of the West recently. Experts seem to agree that there is no firm evidence of a nuclear program, only cause for suspicion. Read the full article by clicking on the link above. The McClatchy were the only news organisation that raised serious questions about Iraq’s WMDs before the war.

Advertisements

6 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Lack of evidence doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist, only that there isn’t enough evidence to prove that it does exist. There’s a difference.

That being said, I’m with you in thinking that finding WMD and invading because of that wasn’t smart. More evidence pointing to their existence needed to be found before going in.

However, something that I haven’t ever seen is a definition for WMD. In the strictest terms, a gun is a WMD because it can destroy the masses. Maybe not all at once like a nuclear bomb can, but it still fits the definition. I’m surprised that nobody in Bush’s team af advisers has tried to slant things in that direction.

Comment by cheesetype57

WMD means Chemical Biological and Nuclear Weapons.

Comment by georgeinwashington

It’s a mistake to assume that the West’s (U.S) attitude towards Iran is dictated by suspicion of WMD development. This is about power. Iran, since the revolution of ’79’ has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, the biggest thorn in the side of the West seeking to protect and advance its interests in the Middle East.

This is because Iran is the only country that has the potential to unite the Middle East through its power, (oil and military) its authority (most outspoken and successful opponent of western interests, control of key seperatist groups such as Hezbollah, and leader of the Shia Muslim population who make up the majority or sizeable minority of most rival arab states) and its stability (practically immune to Al Qaeda forces and its relatively open political system makes it least likely of all mideast states to suffer and internal uprising)

When you consider how dependent the West is on things going right in the Middle East – Iraq, Afghanistan, energy supplies, Israel etc – and how pretty much all those interest depend on Iran playing ball, the leverage that going nuclear (or at least appearing to) gives the Iranians in such negotiations threatens to render the West almost entirely powerless.

Comment by londonliberal

You are forgetting two things. 1. Given the complete chaos in Iraq that is fueled by Sunni/Shia rivalry, I really think that Iran uniting the Middle East is a long shot. Secondly. Iran has already has already offered to play ball. The US turned them down

Comment by georgeinwashington

Oh, and thirdly Sunnis make up 85% of the population of the Middle East. That’s the lower end of the estimate also.

Comment by georgeinwashington

Whilst you may indeed be correct about the exact proportion of sunni to shiite Muslims, my point remains valid. With the Iraqi administration heavily under the influence of Iran, the demise of the Pan-Arab league that used to hold the balance of power in the Mid-East and crucial players in crucial battlegrounds such as Lebanon and the Palestinian territories also in step with the Iranians, anyone with a vested interest in the Middle East cannot afford to ignore Iran.

Furthermore, with the indigenous population of Iran’s main rival (with the exception of Israel of course) – Saudi Arabia- reviling its own government for allying itself to the Americans at a time when hostility to the West is perhaps at an all time high, Iran stands out as the one state willing and able to take a stand on behalf of the entire Muslim world against the West.

Finally, you are spot on in pointing out that Iran has already offered to ‘play ball’ only to be rebuffed by the U.S. The EU has offered to put everything on the table, but of course the Iranians won’t be interested in any deal that doesn’t include the U.S. The Americans’ refusal to take part in such negotiations is precisely because to do so would (a) legitimate Iran’s claim to be the dominant power in the Middle East and (b) subsequently entail many concessions and promised which the current administration clearly can’t stomach. They are so determined to beat Iran down rather than accept their screw ups in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories is what made them so powerful in the first place, that they may just gamble everything on war even though that would unquestionably make things a hundred times worse.

In conclusion, ‘unite’ probably is the wrong word for it, but what Iran does stand to achieve is domination in a region, in which, thanks to the United States one almighty power vaccum now exists.

Comment by londonliberal




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: