Why Egypt and Saudi Arabia get away with it is because they are US allies, or at least their governments are. The Egyptians are, I think, the second leading beneficiaries of US aid, and Saudi Arabia has been a US ally for a very very long time.
Iran? You know that hostage thing might not matter to you, but 400 days and the loss of one government in the US is a painful reminder. It's all fine and well that Iranians don't forgive easily, but neither do Americans. Americans are usually easy going people, but piss us off and we destroy Afghanistan and nuke Hiroshima.
Peace might work if both sides were trying to resolve this. But when neither side is trying, things get bad.
Ashley, you can call me biased to the US, and you're right. But at least admit that your bias plays a big roll here. You shouldn't expect me to be harsh on the US when you're being gentle on Iran. That makes this argument a bit silly doesn't it. Let's be a little fair.
For instance-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070323/ap_on_re_eu/british_seized_iran
Who is provoking who? I agree that its a lot more murky than we'd predict.
There is another problem with this argument. It becomes reductionist to a battle of morality, which has been your argument thus far- it is immoral for the US or Israel to attack Iran because it is building nuclear weapons.
But its also immoral for Iran to build nuclear weapons to threaten its neighbors or to destabilize a rather tense region?
Where is the morality here? I And if we wash out morality from all of this, then what? Well wash out morality and you get realism- and the
Melian dialogue or as Imperialistic Athens tells Melos "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
That's not good for Iran.
You speak of compassion for the Persians, and I too feel sympathetic for them. But unfortunately, they are governed by a state that doesn't show them much sympathy.
I am also sympathetic to the Saudi's the Israelis, the Omanis, the Palestinians, and everyone else that will have to deal with the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. The Israeli's have suffered one holocaust when the rest of the world didn't care. I would be very hesistant to predict that they would risk another- not from a government as reckless as Irans.
Yes, its a lot of second guessing. But second guessing or the business of prediction is the nature of diplomacy, business and economics. We establish institutions or take policies to create a desired outcome. For example, Iran is trying to stall or divide the West in order to buy more time so it can continue its nuclear project. Once the nuclear project is accomplished it seeks to achieve a fait accompli- an accomplished fact. Then the costs of war would increase and Iran will feel more secure.
The Iranians have learned something valuable from North Korea- getting nukes works. This was the failure of the Bush administration which, I have posted elsewhere, should have been much more harsh with North Korea.
I doubt the US, Israelis or Brits will be more tolerant of an Iran. North Korea can get the bomb and be bellicose, but it can also be safely ignored.
Iran cannot be- it sits atop much of the world's oil and within striking range of much more.
So yes, its about oil. There is no morality about that. The world depends on the oil from the Gulf. If Iran wants to threaten that oil for its own nationalistic interests, than Iran needs to pay the consequences for its policy.
Reduce your argument to a simple calculation and that way you can see the consequences of this and why the West is likely to treat Iran to a lot of pain.
Don't get me wrong. I like Iranians and Persians. But much of the world has been worried about the bellicose rhetoric coming out of Iran for a long time.
At present Iran is a mosquito on the ass of the elephant that is the global economy. Iran's mistake is to sting that economy and get a reaction. North Korea has already shown the danger of that happening. What Iran needs is to be swatted and crushed before it can do more damage.
Ok back to second guessing.
Iran probably does not have the means to create a credible second strike. It's just too expensive. So far only the US and the USSR, and maybe China, have a second strike ability.
France and Britian rely on nuclear submarines because those are safer, but its nuclear forces are still small.
Why does this matter?
Because failure to have a second strike means that if your opponent can destroy your first strike in the first shot, than there is greater likelihood that he'll take that shot.
Here's a scenario-
For example, lets say Iran and Israel get tense. Iran continues to support hezbollah, along with Syria, to attack Israel's border areas. Israel warns Iran that this is not acceptable and then attacks Hezbollah and Syria. Iran, an ally with Syria, says that Israel better leave Syrian and Lebanon alone or it will have to escalate the war.
What does escalation mean? Iran has taken a gamble that the Israelis will back down and it will win a diplomatic success, which might help maintain its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people and regionally. Iran has deterred Israeli imperialism!
For Israel this means war and holocaust, based on its own history. The Israeli's decide that it cannot risk that.
Unfortunately, Iran- which can't develop a second strike capacity has elected to hide its nuclear in any one of a dozen locations. The Israelis feel 90% sure that the weapons are in one of the those locations.
Expecting a first launch from Iran, Israel shoots first (this is the 1967 war all over again). A dozen bases are vaporized in a surprise strike. Perhaps the Iranians vow for peace. Perhaps not. If not the Israelis hit again, and again, and again, until Iran caves or until Iran is able to launch a strike against Israel- if that's even possible.
How many Persians have died in this exchange? How many Israelis?
If the Arab/Israeli problem is basically one over ethnicity, land and religion, then the stakes are high. History shows that neither side is likely to give.
If I would wager, I would think that the average Israeli thinks that 1 Israeli is worth 1000 Persians.
Why does this matter?
Could this happen?
What do you think?
Frankly, I would much rather the US take what action is necessary now to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians than to see a holocaust of Persians that would go far beyond what the Jews experienced.
And based on past practices, I would not discount the ability of the Israelis to find the complete destruction of Iran to be perfectly acceptable not only because it preserves the State of Israel, but also because it sends a lesson to every other country of the lengths that Israel would go to in order to protect itself.
