Geopolitics--- Israel/ Iran

[TexasLawyer]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA20Ak01.html

Jan 20, 2005

Israel in the Iran fray, too
By Ehsan Ahrari

<snip>

The most important aspect of Israel's perspectives on Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons is what could be called its alleged "cascading effect". The same paper states that if Iran "continues with its weapons development program and acquires or even comes close to acquiring a military nuclear capability, Saudi Arabia will probably feel compelled to seek a nuclear 'umbrella' from Pakistan, through an existing or new cooperation agreement. Others in the region, particularly Egypt and Turkey, will be similarly driven to obtain such a capability." It goes on to claim that even Iraq would be impelled "in the more distant future, to develop a WMD capability."

Thus, the essential aspect of Israel's position on the subject is that no Middle Eastern country, save itself, has the right to possess nuclear weapons. Two realities should be kept in mind regarding Israel's position. First, the US government has absolutely no problem with Israel having a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Second, the Israeli position regarding nuclear non-proliferation is a virtual carbon copy of the long-standing US position on the subject. Washington originally did not want the Soviet Union to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, the capabilities of the former communist superpower to do so radically changed the rules of the game underlying the Cold War. During that period, US foreign policy, along with that of the Soviet Union, was constantly driven by the notion of nuclear deterrence. It was only after the implosion of the Soviet Union that US foreign policy was liberated from any thought regarding how Moscow would respond or react to its own maneuvers worldwide.

<snip>

[Paleocon]

1. Iran can't be allowed to have Nuclear weapons.

It would balance out the ones that Israel has too well.

[kineneb]

2. Israel, Pakistan, India

all have nukes now. So what more "fun" if we add another Middle Eastern country to the mix?

Boooo- you got a nuke, I want one, too!

[bemildred]

3. Sounds like the "Domino Effect" of VietNam fame.

It's annoying how they never infer that maybe if we gave up nukes
it would be easier to get others to do likewise too. Instead,
on the one hand we need nukes to "deter others" from attacking us,
but everybody else should not have nukes because of the "cascading effect" it will have.

Notice the double standard? Notice the inconsistent argument?
Is any other nation going to buy such bullshit?

[Monkie]

4. incredible doublespeak israel has nukes but iran is the problem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2645379.stm
"The Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to open up access to the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies as widely as possible"

"If there are doubts as to whether a country is carrying out its commitments, the IAEA can insist on tighter inspections, including surprise ones, called an Additional Protocol.

Iran is now subject to an Additional Protocol.

Some key states have refused to join the treaty.

Outside the club India, Pakistan and Israel are non-signatories and are all believed to have a nuclear weapons capability"
-snip-
"And Israel is thought to have developed at least 200 nuclear weapons."

israel is the ONLY state in the region to have NOT signed the non-proliferation treaty,already has the weapons and the missiles to deliver them up to 5000 miles! away,iran is voluntarily undergoing additional inspections,and people are talking of regime change and bombing iran!?