I think we all know Iran is (and has been for years) trying to destroy Isreal and America, people have been saying "Two more years," for years! My question is, will they really get to nuclear power? Or are they already there? Are they going to continue since they are pretty much imploding after they're new election?
Don't they already have some ties with the UK, trading or something like that?
I think that now don't have or at lest much, cause Iran is making huge investments in South America in countries like Venezuela.
If protesters are there, terrorists often arise.
I personally think and hope that are people tired by the situation which exists there: their government spends a lot of resources in weapons, expensive things and don't invest nothing in there. Iran petrol isn't processed there they send it outside, cause they don't want to built industry which brings progress. So we can hope that some day they will overthrown the dictators and Iran will be a democratic country not controlled by priests and ambitious persons.
We should not fear the Iranian government, they are very smart compared to their neighbors.
What we should fear is the instability of the region. All it takes is one group to plot out a heist of ballistic missiles. Plus the corruption of the government (shown by their "fair" elections) doesn't exactly help the situation.
We should not fear the Iranian government, they are very smart compared to their neighbors.
True. The Iranians do not intend on attacking the US. Though there have been fears that they could sell nukes to terrorists. I am not sure about that.
I only hope that terrorists don't get their hands on nukes.
What we should fear is the instability of the region. All it takes is one group to plot out a heist of ballistic missiles. Plus the corruption of the government (shown by their "fair" elections) doesn't exactly help the situation.
Iran will probably not try to nuke anyone if it obtains nuclear weapons. I say probably, because there is a very good chance its leadership would not view the retaliatory strike on Iran as an acceptable loss. Nuclear weapons are of benefit to Iran for two reasons: the first is because it strengthens its prestige or status, and the second is that it secures its future.
Firstly, there is the status and prestige that comes with being a member of the 'nuclear club.' To Western observers this seems sickening, but for Iranians, and particularly Iranian Islamists, who have lived their lives in the knowledge that Western countries are their technological, military and economic superiors, the idea is not so irrational. In the ideological sense, an Iranian-Islamist 'bomb' would boost the morale of the regime and its supporters. It would be 'roof' that the Islamists are not backwards and that they are capable of competing with and defeating the West both ideologically, militarily and technologically. This in turn would strengthen Islamist movements generally in so far as they would therefore perceive themselves to be on the 'winning side.'
A qualifier should be added: there is some sectarian rivalry and suspicion between Shia and Sunni Islamists, despite their very similar goals, and this could have another effect, also not entirely beneficial for the West: namely, a nuclear arms race. Saudi Arabia, a country that does not have a very capable army, may want to obtain nuclear weapons to secure its position against Iran, not just for "security" purposes, but also because it is a Sunni fundamentalist state that views Iran with a great deal of hatred and suspicion. That feeling is mutual. Obtaining nuclear weapons would be a means of showing that the Sunni religious sect is as capable of 'fighting' the West as the the Iranian Shia Islamists are. Egypt in turn may feel vulnerable because it is a secular state with a very large Sunni Islamist opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Because the brothehood is in an open political alliance with the Iranian Shia Islamists, an Iranian bomb is a 'victory' for the Brotherhood and a blow to the prestige of the Egyptian government--which is already perceived as incredibly corrupt.
Secondly, nuclear weapons grant the Iranian establishment a measure of security from foreign invasion. By obtaining nuclear weapons, the Iranian establishment guarantees its future survival by threatening to lay waste to foreign forces that threaten its rule.
I. They are part of the UN, and so are we. II. The UN has nucular bans. III. We are allies (I am almost sure)
I went through some of this in the NK thread. The UN is a forum for ambassadors from different countries to meet, exchange views, and express them to the media. The fact that they are members of the the UN, or that the UN has a ban on nuclear weapon use (if such a ban exists, which I highly doubt), is irrelevant.
If there is a ban on the use of nuclear weapons, I would be interested to know the details of that ban: where and when was it entered into? More importantly, if this supposed ban exists, how is it at all relevant to how countries use (or fail to use) nuclear weapons? Keep in mind that countries regard treaties and bans as little more than useless pieces of paper unless it is in their interest to implement them. If a country wanted to use a nuclear weapon, no other country could stop them from doing so. They could deter them from doing so--that is, make them so afraid of the consequences that they wouldn't do it--but they couldn't stop them from doing so if that country was determined to go ahead with the strike.
Lastly, Iran and the U.S. are not allies. In Iraq, both of them cooperated to a very limited extent against common threats (Sunni groups). But at the same time Iran funded anti-American Shia Islamist militias, that regularly attack US forces.
