I don't know, if Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons is to be trusted, I can identify somewhat with the argument for Iran gaining a deterrent, even though I'd _much_ prefer total nuclear disarmament in the region (effectively meaning just Israeli disarmament).
Iran has no other agenda other than producing nuclear bombs and I say this as an Iranian.
Iran has spent tens of billions of dollars in the past decade on what the regime's claims "peaceful nuclear power", ie to produce electricity.
meanwhile after spending tens of billions and four decades what we have is a 1000 MW nuclear power plant, and i assure you that's only a shop front so they can argue enriching uranium and making centrifuges are necessary to fuel the plant.
Iran has 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world, because of sanctions Iran has lost lots foreign investments it needed to sell it and/or use it to generate electricity. Natural gas costs peanuts in Iran.
just in case you don't know, fuel for nuclear power plant is the cheapest item in the bill when you are building one. There is no economic benefit (and lots of disadvantage) to start from scratch and enrich your own fuel.
I don't want a regime who shuts down an airliner and deny it for 3 days have access to nuclear weapons.
> because of sanctions Iran has lost lots foreign investments
> could've made a deal with a foreign company
Pick one.
Look at what happens to middle eastern countries -- actually, ANY country -- that doesn't have a nuclear deterrent and doesn't support the Western mode of governing/economics. Hint: it's what happened in Iran in 1953.
I don’t support the Iranian government, but I also think it was shocking that one of their Generals was assassinated by the US while visiting a friendly nation, Iraq. And Iran’s state terrorism in Iraq, Syria, etc., is to me hard to distinguish meaningfully from that of the US in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Somewhat similarly for Israel.
While visiting a militia in that "friendly" nation. Said militia was attacking US troops with Iranian assistance. So I don't find it all that shocking. You want to help people kill our troops? Don't be surprised if we have something kinetic to say about that.
The Iraq War can be reasonably argued to be the worst “destabilization” in the region in the new century. Anything Iran has done _in its own region_ pales in comparison, and Iraq is indeed a “friendly” nation to Iran in the sense of being an ally. Two days after the assassination, the Iraqi parliament voted for a resolution that urges the government to work on expelling US troops from Iraq. That’s not massively concrete but AFAIK is representative of the Iraqi govt’s feelings on who is a greater offender in “destabilizing the region”.
I don't. He is not a General. He was the head of the IRGC, which is a proscribed terrorist organization. The IRGC is the biggest terrorist organization in the world, which arguably makes Solameini the biggest terrorist in the world.
So, on the one side we have Iran killing it's own civilians, Iraqi civilians, Syrian civilians, Yemeni civilians etc on a large scale. The annihilation of the entire Israeli state is also on their wish list. Men, women and children. Driven into the sea.
On the other side, we have the United States, taking out a terrorist chief, and a handful of terrorist bodyguards with an airstrike.
It is hard for me to draw any sort of meaningful comparison between Iran's terrorism in the Middle East and the response of the United States to their threats. Somewhat similarly for Israel.
>8000 km away from USA, how is Iran a thread to the United States exactly?
I'm confused. He is quantifiably one of the most evil people on the planet, with a long list of human right abuses. Yet, what business is it of the United States to kill him?
He's responsible for the death of thousands but you want America to turn the other way. And then America kills one person, suddenly you are calling them
out?
(yes, i am making a moral argument. No it's not the strongest answer. But it's a) the most compelling b) i'm not a general, but i'm sure there are plenty of strategic reasons too).
The “he was a bad guy” argument is one of the weakest. There are objectively “badder” guys that are current or recent US allies.
The Biden administration refused to even sanction MbS after signing off on a report that he is responsible for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. I suggest you have a look at the last hundred years or so of Central and South American history for a wealth of awful examples, but you can look at I think any continent except Antarctica.
In case this was interpreted as “what about-ism”, my point is rather that “he was a bad guy” is rarely a significant factor in foreign military intervention in the west. It is usually just a rationalization.
As an Iranian, what do you think about the current political regime. Would a return of the Shah be a positive thing, in your opinion? Do you have any fears of Israeli aggression, or would you support a peace deal? I would honestly like to hear what you think about it.
Current political regime the most dishonest, corrupt and dysfunctional regime you can imagine.
First thing you need to know is the government itself in Iran is nobody, Ali Khamenei has been enjoying full power and control for the past 30 years or so. Iran's president and minsters can only be appointed by Khamenei's approval.
With him being in power he needed a royal force to follow his ideology and shut down any voice of criticism, that's IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).
IRGC and Khamenei control as much as 50% of Iran's economy, from telecom to oil. needless to say they don't answer to anyone, they don't pay any taxes and Khameni itself doesn't even do any interviews with the press.
I think majority of Iranians hate the current regime as much as i do, for one, It's not possible to change it democratically. One person has all the power in country and he made a powerful force to back him up.
every time Iranians want to change the country, Khameni unleash his dogs (IRGC) and they either kill all the protestors or arrest them and sentence them to long term prison. I've been shot and spent time in Iran's political prison (Evin), my crime? participation in peaceful protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Green_Movement)
> Would a return of the Shah be a positive thing?
Return of the Shah, reminds of me Russians who are envy of the soviet union time, because things were better at the time. I personally think democracy is the best way to go and no one person should have majority of the power.
> Do you have any fears of Israeli aggression, or would you support a peace deal
Enemy of my enemy is my friend, that's how I (and honestly majority of the people that i know) think of Israel. I think at the moment, Israel is the only country in the world stopping the regime from developing nuclear weapons and that's a good thing.
Iranians and Israelis historically have been friendly, Its only since this regime got the power that has changed, and i do understand why, because Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map almost everyday.
> This is a complete fabrication and lie. As bad as it gets. Iran never said it is going to wipe another country. What they said is explained clearly in detail here [1].
There are more then a million Israeli Arabs who enjoy full citizenship rights. I fact, they enjoy more rights then the average Israeli, being able to enter West Bank freely.
> I fact, they enjoy more rights then the average Israeli, being able to enter West Bank freely.
I wouldn't go that far. Yes, Israeli Arabs technically have full rights. Yes, technically speaking they might be able to go to places non-Arabs "can't".
But that's being really "technically correct". I think for day-to-day living, Israeli Arabs effectively have a worse time living in Israeli than Israeli Jews (e.g. there is at least some racism, unfortunately, there are certainly differences in funding in e.g. Arab schools vs Jewish schools from what I know, etc).
I usually hear this what-aboutism argument from the people who benefit from current undemocratic regime.
If another country did/do something wrong, that doesn't justify Iran's actions. everyone is responsible for their own action and the reality is current Iranian regime has killed many thousands of it's own citizens.
Iran shutting the plane down and denying for 3 days is not justifiable by any means.
The going theory is that these proclamations when attributed to religious proclamations (Fatwa) versus policy statements are examples of Taqiya. This view is not without controversy as some claim it's just dog-whistling Islamophobia.
However I think a more nuanced view is that Iran is both a nation state as well as a religious state, so (like all nation states) it will protect it's interests however it needs to which will include deception. Whether anyone thinks that the deception is primarily stemming from religious or secular instinct is an exercise for the reader.
> nuclear disarmament in the region (effectively meaning just Israeli disarmament)
Iran shares a border with Pakistan, which shares borders with India, which shares borders with China, which shares borders with Russia and NK (all nuclear powers). Why don't you want to disarm them too ?
As the artificial abstract borders are usually drawn, no, thet are in South Asia not Southwest Asia or MENA; and this isn’t purely abstract, India really is not in any meaningful sense part of the region, and Pakistan, which borders rhe conventionally-defined region, is only tangentially, being more focussed on India, China, and Central Asia than the Middle East (except Iran because borders.)
Nukes means a conventional strike by Israel with the option for further nuclear preemptive strikes.
If the US could somehow talk them down, the US ally (Saudi Arabia) would be disadvantaged against the Russian one. This necessitates either removing the nukes or arranging for the Saudis to get some.
Iran’s pursuit of nukes is easily one of the most destabilizing power projection attempts in the region.
History proves without a doubt that having a nuclear arsenal is by far the most stabilizing event than can happen. No one goes up against someone with nukes without holding back. Israel opened Pandora's box when they got their own nukes. So if Iran's attempt is the most destabilizing event today it's clear what caused it. The correct response would be to force Israel to back down and have their sites monitored and only then is it possible to talk to Iran without talking down to them as if they are children. But I'm sure the US would rather give nukes to one of the worst countries in area than go against Israeli wishes.
Israel had nuclear weapons back in 1966. They could have used them when attacked during the 6-day war (a war they almost lost). They could have used them during the following three year war of attrition. They could have used them when attacked during the Yom-Kippur War. The fact that they did not and have never used them as a negotiation tactic since acquiring them shows that Israeli nukes aren't destabilizing the region.
Israel hasn't started up wars with its neighbors since its creation (we'll set aside terrorists in Palestine for another conversation sufficing to say that's definitely not a war). Iran has gone to war with almost everyone around at some point during that same 75 year period of time with a total body count in the millions.
Finally, nukes only make sense for stability if you take religion off the table. Iranian leaders have called repeatedly, publicly, and recently for the annihilation of Israel. Don't forget that it was prophesied that things on this earth won't wrap up until there's a massive war in which the Jews are exterminated.
This is all before discussing how Iran and Saudi Arabia are carrying on a proxy power struggle between Russia and the United States.
You are missing the point. That Israel have nukes are holding others back, not Israel. I haven't said anything about Israel going to war.
Many countries will think "If our biggest enemy has nukes we better get them ourself" which is one of the reasons that Iran wants nukes: To hold off Israel.
It's pretty clear that you have feelings invested in this and are picking sides which is understandable with the history of Iran and Israel but it doesn't change the facts that having nukes is most often a stabilizing event in a region (while the process up until they acquire them likely isn't) and if Iran trying to get nukes is a destabilizing event then the cause of this instability is not only that Iran wants nukes but also that others already have them and they now want them too which causes extreme tension especially in the country that already have them. This is the pattern we normally see.
>This is all before discussing how Iran and Saudi Arabia are carrying on a proxy power struggle between Russia and the United States.
Yes and again we know from history how this will likely play out. We actually have a very good example of what happens in a very unstable proxy situation when one side decides to add nuclear weapons into the mix: Korea. The armistice clearly stated No Nukes and since one side added nuclear weapons (the US broke the armistice by importing nuclear weapons into South Korea) we have seen the pariah (NK) doing exactly what Iran is doing: doing everything it can to get weapons that can stop the perceived enemy from being able to destroy them and yelling about destruction of the big enemy (which is mainly targeted at their own population).
So if history teaches us anything it is IMO that Iran will either get nuclear weapons and it will cause stability OR it will not and instability will never stop growing until full on war breaks out at which point Iran as we know it will either be destroyed or the cycle will reset.
Your argument is wrong on the merits alone. If Communists in the US hadn’t stolen designs for the USSR, then proliferation could have been slowed or possibly prevented.
Nukes on both sides led to a decades long Cold War that cost real lives and by all rights should have gone hot several times. UK or French nukes didn’t stabilize Europe nor make the USSR (or any other country I’m aware of) less likely to attack them.
Pakistan and India continue to wage a Cold War hoping that the fundamentalists in Pakistan don’t gain too much power. The situation is just as unstable as before.
Nukes in the PRK haven’t made the situation more stable. All peace deals were unrelated. In truth, the real threat has always been the hundreds of guns pointed at Seoul. They’ve actually destabilized relations with countries like Japan which has slowly moved toward arming again.
That leaves just PRC. You could make the case that it stabilized the fighting between India and China to some degree, but fighting and border disputes still continues to cause suffering and death. It certainly hasn’t done a thing to lessen tensions with the rest of the South Pacific or the US where tensions simply continue to climb.
Can you point to any places where the nine nuclear countries have stabilized regions because of nukes?
