So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.
back
2 comments
Every country has a right to forbid business relations with another country due to its government's policy. As an Israeli I think the boycott on Israel is a legitimate way to try influencing our policies even though the boycott hurts me as a citizen that oppose the occupation. You pay a price for having a dumb government.
Just to clarify: I'm all for the deal with Iran, hoping for a better future for the Iranians.
True, you're right. But I guess if you have a way of achieving the same goals without doing that it should be favored?
Of course, though I think economical sanctions are already much better than starting another preventive war.
That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace.
Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.
Please list all wars initiated by Iran during the last 50 years. As that will probably not take too long, maybe you can also tell us with which neighbours Iran has been at war during the last 50 years.
In the past year, Iraq and Syria. Possibly Palestine/Israel, Yemen, and Afghanistan, depending on your definitions. Beyond that, I know they did do the Iraq-Iran war several years back, and I think they were involved in the Lebanese civil war as well.
I don't actually consider myself a particularly knowledgeable individual when it comes to Middle Eastern history. But when people say things like this, they usually include all the marginal entries the US is involved in while ignoring all of the marginal entries other countries, presumably mostly out of ignorance. Particularly if you include "little" conflicts, you'll find that most countries spend most of their time in armed conflict with somebody, and the US isn't particularly abnormal in this regard.
Better yet, try listing wars between nuclear armed nations.
When everyone can hurt everyone regardless of size you get a "mexican standoff" which is good for stability
While at it, make the same list for the US.
Iran has been at war with Israel for at least 30 years via its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas.
So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then.
It seems to fit all of your criteria.
Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP?
I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).
> I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county?
Stupidly naive answer: because Israel didn't sign the NPT and is voluntarily evasive about the subject, while Iran did.
show me a high ranking Israeli that says that the entire Iranian nation should be wiped off the map. I can find many quotes of people like shimon Peres that call the Iranian people friends and that Israel wishes no hostility with Iran. on the other side the highest ranking Iranian officials repeatedly call for the total annihilation of the 'Zionist entity' which is Israel.
Your claim that the situation symmetric in this respect is just false.
further more there is a huge geographical difference between Israel and iran. the entire area of Israel can be conquered in a day. its tiny compared to Iran, checkout the maps. Combine that with the extremely aggressive rhetorics of israels neighbours that don't even consider Israel as enemy but as an evil entity that should be "wiped off the map" and you might understand Israel's need for a strategic weapon.
on the contrary Iran doesn't have any viable enemies that seek to literally destroy it. The only people who need a nuclear weapon in Iran are the leaders of the theocratic regime inorder to cement their rule. this is more similiar to the nuclear ambitions of north Korean leaders.
in short, the situation of the two countries is far from being symmetric due to huge geopolitical differences.
funny that your response was exactly what i cautioned against.
Japan actually invaded half the world, they have nuclear technology and capability to produce weapons. Same as Germany, Russia, and of course the US. You have countries like Pakistan that is a known host to "terrorists", and India that have them. Why is there a special club?
Iran have violent "rhetoric". What violence against israel has Iran actually perpetrated? The israel situation is a controversial one, and there have been threats, and wars. But Israel has generally been the more aggressive one, and always because they are facing "total annihilation" (for fifty+ years, in which their borders have increased rather than decreased)...
Didn't downvote, but since someone asked : Israel is the target of said terrorists group and hostility, not the initiator or sponsor (like Iran). That's why it's an ally and not an opponent.
I really didn't think i'd ever have to make such obvious statements.
And similar accusations can be made of the US/EU from the other side.
Scaling down the political violence is the only way to get out of that mess.
I don't think that Iran has ever invaded another country in modern history, right?
I must admit some bias here: I am a U.S. Citizen and I firmly believe that better relations with Iran are in my country's best interest. I am biased in my country's best interest!
I really wonder what advantage you think iran will bring to the US. Unless you think that radical islamism is a good ideology to spread around the world, and that the shariah may be a good basis for civil laws, because that's certainly where all the oil dollars earned by iran are going in the coming years ( just like saudi arabia spread its vision of islam in the past 30 years).
Good question, thanks.
Right now, there are many young Iranians who are neutral or slightly pro-USA (they are too young to remember that we helped overthrown their democratically elected premier in the 1950s and installed the Shaw of Iran - we rememebr how that turned out for the Iranian people).
So, yes some risk, but for the USA I think the risk is very worthwhile.