Comments on: Military Attack on Iran Will Set Reform Back 50 Years

By: Shirin

Shirin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:45:17 +0000

The best way to make certain that Iran does at some point find it necessary to develop nuclear weapons is to continue to threaten it with military action. And Iran would not be wrong to react to threats in that way. Iran has as much right to self-defense as anyone else, and that includes developing a deterrent in the form of a nuclear threat.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:41:18 +0000

“The best course of action for President Obama, I suggest, is to allow Iranian people to settle their own internal political conflicts.”

That is not only the best course of action, it is the only rational course. It is not the job of the United States government to determine how Iran is governed, or the shape of Iranian society. It is the job of the Iranian people to determine those things, and the responsibility of the United States government to stay the hell out of the way and allow natural evolution to take place. It is not Obama’s business to try to force his will on Iran, and doing so will never have a desirable result for the Iranians, or for the U.S.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:30:05 +0000

Rafi, in regards to the intention of the regime, what part of “there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or intends to produce one in the foreseeable future” is not clear to you? And how does the fact that Iran has not waged an aggressive war in nearly 300 years, and the present regime has been in power for decades without changing that behaviour indicate to you that the Iranian regime intends to initiate an aggressive war against Israel or anyone else?

By: paniz

paniz — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:58:05 +0000

you are absolutely right

By: Lustick: Attack on Iran would end any prayer of Israel being accepted in region

Lustick: Attack on Iran would end any prayer of Israel being accepted in region — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:30:31 +0000

[...] Richard Silverstein held a conference on Iran sanctions. It produced an unusually reasoned editorial, this from the Seattle Times, in which Prof. Ian [...]

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:38:34 +0000

I would say that for a country with only a 61 year history, Israel can’t be compared to “merry ol’ England” whose history goes back about 1,000 years or so.

I myself would rather see Iran with a nuke keeping Israel in check, than to see an Israeli attack on Iran which would cause the entire region to explode into World War III.

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:36:18 +0000

That wasn’t an attack in the true sense. Iran has done the same thing in the past. There was an incident in 2006 involving Iraqi Kurds. Cross-border skirmishes are not the same as air strikes or ground invasions.

I’m not “excusing it,” just clarifying.

By: Rafi

Rafi — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:11:49 +0000

The point is not the stability of the regime that have nukes, it is their intention, that is why if the reformers take over and turn Iran internally to a beacon of democracy and human rights but continue the same foreign policy it won’t change my view.

You really can’t see the difference between Iran and Pakistan? Iran and NK? i need to spell it for you? ridiculous but here goes, a nuclear Iran changes the balance of power in the middle east, i don’t support the status quo but it will be too much to the other side, a slim chance of nukes on Tel Aviv and a bigger chance of nuclearisation of all the region and in the long term the disolution of Israel.

NK is SK’s problem, not mine, and if a Pakistani coupe happened then it really depends who are the new bosses, if it’s U.S. allies (like today) that it is Iran’s problem, if it is the Taliban it is both Iran’s and Israel’s, and America’s.