'Moment of truth' nears in Iran nuclear talks

[Morch]

ours is not necessarily a fair or perfectly moral world.

Yes I can see where your world would not be

morals & fair play in the world I see is not situational nor is it sectarian.

An immoral act is an immoral act period. Matters not who is committing it nor does it matter

who the media is calling good or bad.

You also completely missed the point of the Sticks vs words analogy & choose to say those

who already use the sticks immorally should stop those with the words.

One act is already in progress & wrong many times historically.

The other is nothing more than interpretations & words.

Lets leave it at agreeing to disagree on this one.

We have our worlds/opinions & neither tends to see the other as a possibility.

No.

With all due respect, we live in the same world.

You may wish it was different, and that's perfectly alright. That I recognize that it does not always work according to

moral standards, ethics, fair play and similar concepts does not mean that I am happy with it. Offering a realistic point

of view of things is not quite the same as supporting something or accepting it as inherently "ok".

I do not recall justifying anything from a moral point of view, so not sure what you're on about.

When you did raise certain issues I attempted to answer with reference to facts, events, and realities. If you somehow

got the impression this was a moral stand, read it again.

Didn't miss anything from your analogy except that this does not stand, and that you are either unfamiliar with certain

related issues or choose to ignore them.

Still not sure how you think any of these issues can be addressed in real world terms, given that hand wringing and

whining do not seem to have much effect on nuclear proliferation.

[mania]

I don't want to dwell on the subject, but IMO, he is not on one side or the other concerning "a certain country". He has a lot of knowledge on the situation and is a lot more concerned with keeping both sides factual. He has corrected me a number of times and every other poster - on both sides - who posts information that he thinks is incorrect or hateful. He is a real bonus to the forum.

He's Thaivisa member of the year whether there is a contest this year or not!

555 with that seal of approval you have also proven my point

As I said before different opinions is all.

[mania]

No.

With all due respect, we live in the same world.

Yes with all due respect we don't then again

we are talking about a perceptions & obviously they differ.

Also the world is what we make it & more wrongs heaped on will never

make it more right.

But again agree to disagree its fine.

Tell you what though..........

Thinking more about this situation in days gone by & as I have said before an

ideal situation would be no nukes.

Perhaps that's the deal at least in the Middle East or should be..??

Not because country X is bad for saying things interpreted etc....

Not because country Y has gotten away with much yet kowtows to none

included those who stood beside them even when they were clearly wrong

But because any nukes going off in the ME would wreak such havoc globally due to what

the ME supplies to the world to keep it moving

So yes lets deny Iran without threat but with reason

Lets say Israel will be forced one way or another to also Nuclear disarm for above reason

It would be a start

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

I don't want to dwell on the subject, but IMO, he is not on one side or the other concerning "a certain country". He has a lot of knowledge on the situation and is a lot more concerned with keeping both sides factual. He has corrected me a number of times and every other poster - on both sides - who posts information that he thinks is incorrect or hateful. He is a real bonus to the forum.

He's Thaivisa member of the year whether there is a contest this year or not!

555 with that seal of approval you have also proven my point

Because we agree that he does not take sides, that "proves your point"? It proves that you are determined to paint him as being something that he clearly is not.

[Ulysses G.]

Lets say Israel will be forced one way or another to also Nuclear disarm for above reason

The problem is, that is just a fantasy. There is no one that can force them to disarm and no way that they would as long as they feel that they would be committing suicide.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

No.

With all due respect, we live in the same world.

Yes with all due respect we don't then again

we are talking about a perceptions & obviously they differ.

Also the world is what we make it & more wrongs heaped on will never

make it more right.

But again agree to disagree its fine.

Tell you what though..........

Thinking more about this situation in days gone by & as I have said before an

ideal situation would be no nukes.

Perhaps that's the deal at least in the Middle East or should be..??

Not because country X is bad for saying things interpreted etc....

Not because country Y has gotten away with much yet kowtows to none

included those who stood beside them even when they were clearly wrong

But because any nukes going off in the ME would wreak such havoc globally due to what

the ME supplies to the world to keep it moving

So yes lets deny Iran without threat but with reason

Lets say Israel will be forced one way or another to also Nuclear disarm for above reason

It would be a start

Saying no nukes is fine. As posted earlier, agreed that a world free of them would be a better one.

Back in our imperfect world... A regional no-nukes deal, even if achievable (which it ain't) is meaningless. With delivery systems being they are distances are less of a factor in regards to these sort of threats. Besides, "region" is quite a vague term, how to decide who is in and who's out? How is this even fair (again, I'm not saying the world IS fair) with regard to countries outside the region?

Other than that - saying no nukes is great, but how is this even remotely possible without general acceptance and regional/ global understanding? Asking everyone to play nice obviously does not work. Forcing countries which already got military nuclear capability to scrap it is very tricky.

In this sense, saying "no nukes" is not a solution so much as wishful thinking. I'm all for "no nukes", just don't see it happening under current condition or even in the foreseeable future.

Edit (a bit dropped off):

Take North Korea for example, rather than Israel. North Korea continuously threats, sometimes carries out attacks. Sanctions in place. The country is in shambles. Still got the nukes. No one dares do more - for the obvious reason its too much of a gamble.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Scott

[Seastallion]

I don't want to dwell on the subject, but IMO, he is not on one side or the other concerning "a certain country". He has a lot of knowledge on the situation and is a lot more concerned with keeping both sides factual. He has corrected me a number of times and every other poster - on both sides - who posts information that he thinks is incorrect or hateful. He is a real bonus to the forum.

He's Thaivisa member of the year whether there is a contest this year or not!

You can't vote for yourself.

[mania]

Saying no nukes is fine. As posted earlier, agreed that a world free of them would be a better one.

Edit (a bit dropped off):

Take North Korea for example, rather than Israel. North Korea continuously threats, sometimes carries out attacks.

Sanctions in place. The country is in shambles. Still got the nukes. No one dares do more - for the obvious reason its too

much of a gamble.

Yes no nukes is great of course & I have said so many times & so have you.

We both know it is not going to happen.....now

My attempt at satire regarding Israel also disarming was just that

Especially so with Israel...Never going to happen

But I am glad you edited in that part that dropped off

because it shows what the most likely reason is for any country to

want a talking stick of their own.

Because no matter how mad a country may seem....no matter what they

say & continuously threaten to do or say.........

As long as they do not attack another they are left alone.

They are physically left alone & it must be nice to know none will come bomb them if they dont

do as others say regarding what they can & cannot do within their own country

So at the end of the day we are two folks with opposing opinions

on an internet forum.

Neither with a say of what any country or even the leaders of

our own countries will do.

Thanks I don't think we need to hammer it any further

(Of course feel free to continue but I have said all I have to say)

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[simple1]

Take North Korea for example, rather than Israel. North Korea continuously threats, sometimes carries out attacks. Sanctions in place. The country is in shambles. Still got the nukes. No one dares do more - for the obvious reason its too much of a gamble.

A few comments...

From what I've read some analysts (e.g. Rand Corp) are of the opinion that if Iran attained deliverable nuclear weapons they would not actually be deployed in an act of aggression. I guess this is possibly wishful thinking, but as far as I'm aware no dictatorship (no matter what they say, even Islamist leaders) wish its own destruction. On the other side of the coin the last sentence in your post above does appear to be a concensus view on the extreme challenges on containing Iranian regional political influence and interference should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

I've also read a few reports that should a foreign power attack Iranian nuclear development facilities, it would only delay the development of nuclear weapons, not actually provide a full stop.

Edited December 1, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

I've also read a few reports that should a foreign power attack Iranian nuclear development facilities, it would only delay the development of nuclear weapons, not actually provide a full stop.

The same thing was said about the nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria, but, after they were destroyed, they never developed nuclear weapons. There are no guarantees, but you prevent rogue regimes as long as possible and hope for the best.

[arjunadawn]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

[Morch]

Take North Korea for example, rather than Israel. North Korea continuously threats, sometimes carries out attacks. Sanctions in place. The country is in shambles. Still got the nukes. No one dares do more - for the obvious reason its too much of a gamble.

A few comments...

From what I've read some analysts (e.g. Rand Corp) are of the opinion that if Iran attained deliverable nuclear weapons they would not actually be deployed in an act of aggression. I guess this is possibly wishful thinking, but as far as I'm aware no dictatorship (no matter what they say, even Islamist leaders) wish its own destruction. On the other side of the coin the last sentence in your post above does appear to be a concensus view on the extreme challenges on containing Iranian regional political influence and interference should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

I've also read a few reports that should a foreign power attack Iranian nuclear development facilities, it would only delay the development of nuclear weapons, not actually provide a full stop.

That Iran's leadership will not launch a nuclear strike a day after it achieves such capability is probably true. Assuming that

at least some elements of this leadership is more concerned with survival rather than fulfilling some apocalyptic doomsday

design, may be true as well. It is far more likely that having achieved such capability, it will be used to augment the political

influence and clout of Iran.

This, by itself, may not be much of an issue - after all, many a country strive for similar goals (increasing influence, not the

development of nuclear military capability). However, when considering the unique destructive nature of nuclear weapons,

the religious nature of the leadership, and the ways in which Iran involves itself in the region - there are obvious reasons to

be apprehensive.

That "probably" is probably much more reassuring when a country is not in range, or not somehow in confrontation with

Iran.

As for your second point - indeed. It came up on previous topics as well. A single (successful) attack might delay Iran's

progress. On the other hand, it might serve as further incentive for the Iranians to get said capability. There are objective

considerations which indicate that carrying out such an attack in a successful manner will be very difficult to pull through.

A somewhat different situation if one assumes a sustained military effort, which is more likely to bear fruit. The only power

currently able to carry such an operation is the USA, so unless something changes dramatically - not very likely to happen.

The same observation (regarding military attack serving as further "proof" for the need of such weapons) stands.

In the long run, either accept a nuclear Iran (with higher stakes in case of conflagration, and a high probability of a regional

nuclear arms race), or cut a deal with the best checks and balances possible.

This is not exactly an optimistic point of view, and there are no great options here as far as Iran's neighbors are concerned.

[Morch]

I've also read a few reports that should a foreign power attack Iranian nuclear development facilities, it would only delay the development of nuclear weapons, not actually provide a full stop.

The same thing was said about the nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria, but, after they were destroyed, they never developed nuclear weapons. There are no guarantees, but you prevent rogue regimes as long as possible and hope for the best.

Well, neither Syria nor Iraq actually developed nuclear weapons. Both had delivery platforms and were researching relevant technology, though.

Syria never had resources approaching Iran's and its proximity to Israel makes such military actions more feasible Iraq is a better example, but your assertion is incorrect - Iraq did not abandon its efforts, just went about it with less fanfare (and no - that does not mean they actually had WMD, just that the program was not dead). As far as I can recall, later testimonies from people involved indicate that the actual effect was to convince Saddam regarding the importance of this effort.

Military strikes may bear fruit in the short (or even medium) term. While delaying potential threats of this magnitude is not to be overlooked, the long term effects might be somewhat more ambiguous.

[Ulysses G.]

Military strikes may bear fruit in the short (or even medium) term. While delaying potential threats of this magnitude is not to be overlooked, the long term effects might be somewhat more ambiguous.

That is why I said that there are no guarantees. I know one thing for sure, if they are not stopped, Iran will develop nuclear weapons and long range missiles. This is not just Israel's problem.

[dexterm]

UN assembly calls on Israel to join nuclear treaty

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved an Arab-backed resolution criticizing Israel for refusing to join an international treaty against nuclear proliferation.

The resolution notes that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

It called on Israel to join the treaty and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.629659

The vote went 165-5 with USA, Canada, and Israel voting against the resolution.

The thing that baffles me is how the American UN rep keeps a straight face next day when he is calling for UN sanctions against Iran.

Edited December 4, 2014 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

UN assembly calls on Israel to join nuclear treaty

Who cares? There is no reason why Israel should join and they won't. There are good reasons NOT to. Tough titty for the hypocritical UN.

[Seastallion]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

[Morch]

UN assembly calls on Israel to join nuclear treaty

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved an Arab-backed resolution criticizing Israel for refusing to join an international treaty against nuclear proliferation.

The resolution notes that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

It called on Israel to join the treaty and put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.629659

The vote went 165-5 with USA, Canada, and Israel voting against the resolution.

The thing that baffles me is how the American UN rep keeps a straight face next day when he is calling for UN sanctions against Iran.

If one bothers to head over to the actual UN publication, things look different.

The vote mentioned in the article linked is but one of many to do with nuclear proliferation and related topics.

Reviewing the list of resolutions, amendments and whatnot voted on - it can actually be observed that the attention is not

focused solely on Israel. Most of the votes were similarly one sided with overwhelming majorities.

As the countries which either voted against or abstained are listed, it is quite easy to see that the presentation in your post

is misleading - countries voted according to their own interests and/or diplomatic alliances . Iran, for example, abstained or

voted against clauses which did not favor its goals and policies. So did Israel. And so did Pakistan, India and other countries.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11593.doc.htm

For those not interested to read the whole summary of votes (or indeed, the full text of each clause in every resolution) a

simple search of relevant country names on the webpage would make the point clear.

[Morch]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

[dexterm]

I was simply pointing out US hypocrisy in hounding Iran with sanctions and "all options on the table" military threats, when it turns a complete blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons.

Both decisions most likely at the behest of the Israeli tail that wags the dog.

[Ulysses G.]

Simple. Israel's nuclear weapons are perfectly legal. Iran's nuclear program is NOT. The only "hypocrisy" is trying to equate the two VERY different situations.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

Better ask Bibi that one.

Google images .....Netanyahu cartoon bomb iran.

You'll find some wonderful illustrations of my point...quite a hoot too.

Try https://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/netanyahu-speaks-at-un-about-iranian-bomb.gif too big to download here

Edited December 4, 2014 by dexterm

[Morch]

I was simply pointing out US hypocrisy in hounding Iran with sanctions and "all options on the table" military threats, when it turns a complete blind eye to Israel's nuclear weapons.

Both decisions most likely at the behest of the Israeli tail that wags the dog.

You obviously did not bother to read the actual UN output...

Hypocrisy it may be, but not very different than exhibited by other countries voting on some of the other clauses and resolutions.

[Seastallion]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

It would be easier to clarify had not Israel kept it's nuclear achievements hidden for so long.

Anyway, what has "prior" got to do with it? Israel IS a threat now, and so now Iran is justified in having a deterrent. We are talking about now, aren't we?

[Morch]

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

Better ask Bibi that one.

Google images .....Netanyahu cartoon bomb iran.

You'll find some wonderful illustrations of my point...quite a hoot too.

Try https://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/netanyahu-speaks-at-un-about-iranian-bomb.gif too big to download here

Read my post again, please.

How was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's taking on development of ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability? Was there threats made against Iran, by Israel, prior to this? Furthermore, did Israel threat Iran with total

annihilation or anything of the sort?

And to make things a wee bit more interesting - how was it that Pakistan, Sunni, nuclear capable and next door - is

not a threat to Iran's safety?

[Morch]

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

It would be easier to clarify had not Israel kept it's nuclear achievements hidden for so long.

Anyway, what has "prior" got to do with it? Israel IS a threat now, and so now Iran is justified in having a deterrent. We are talking about now, aren't we?

Lets see....Israel did keep its nuclear program secret. True enough. In fact, it does not even officially acknowledge the issue

much. On the other hand, Israel also did not threat its neighbors (or Iran, for that matter) with use of these weapons. So, not

quite getting what the issue with keeping it secret got to do with things.

The "prior" got everything to do with it. Israel was never a threat to Iran, and never made threats toward Iran previously.

The well publicized Israeli debate regarding Iran came about after years of direct Iranian threats, and relevant military

build up (which was openly connected with threats toward Israel). Basically, Iran threatened Israel, Israel threatened back,

and now the claim is Iran needs a deterrent. There was no Israeli threat on Iran to merit any of this.

And to repeat another issue - Pakistan is much closer, had nuclear weapons, and is Sunni. Was it ever considered as a

threat by Iran? Were there fiery words and speeches advocating its destruction and making threats?

[Seastallion]

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

It would be easier to clarify had not Israel kept it's nuclear achievements hidden for so long.

Anyway, what has "prior" got to do with it? Israel IS a threat now, and so now Iran is justified in having a deterrent. We are talking about now, aren't we?

Lets see....Israel did keep its nuclear program secret. True enough. In fact, it does not even officially acknowledge the issue

much. On the other hand, Israel also did not threat its neighbors (or Iran, for that matter) with use of these weapons. So, not

quite getting what the issue with keeping it secret got to do with things.

The "prior" got everything to do with it. Israel was never a threat to Iran, and never made threats toward Iran previously.

The well publicized Israeli debate regarding Iran came about after years of direct Iranian threats, and relevant military

build up (which was openly connected with threats toward Israel). Basically, Iran threatened Israel, Israel threatened back,

and now the claim is Iran needs a deterrent. There was no Israeli threat on Iran to merit any of this.

And to repeat another issue - Pakistan is much closer, had nuclear weapons, and is Sunni. Was it ever considered as a

threat by Iran? Were there fiery words and speeches advocating its destruction and making threats?

No, I'm sorry Morch, I will have to disagree with you here; "prior" has nothing to do with "now". The why's and wherefores do not change the current situation.

As you have said, Israel has made threats. Israel is nuclear armed. Iran is not. Iran needs a deterrent. MAD is the only way to ensure trigger-happy crackpots don't lose their cool. And there are crackpots on both sides.

I really see no reason to consider Pakistan. Did Pakistan make threats? Not that I'm aware of.

The borders of the countries may be closer but Israel is closer to Tehran than Islamabad, Lahore, or Karachi.

Edit: clumsy grammar. The major cities of Pakistan are further away from Tehran than Israel is from Tehran.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Seastallion

[arjunadawn]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Hello SS; yes, it was sarcasm, I know. Also, by all accepted international standards that the US loves to trumpet, and my darling Israel hides behind, Israel is rogue in this regard. I would not say my position is changing but it is evolving from our talks here. While I could get behind the mandate that Israel abide by international demands and declare both its arsenal and use policy I disagree that Israel poses an existential threat to Iran. Indeed, Israel is hardly able to project its military that far, though of course Intel ops can be projected but these hardly necessitate and nuclear deterrence. With only topical observation we would see legions of Iranian operatives all over Israeli borders, inside, and actual proxy armies of Iran's bidding. So, while I can concede Israel is not open and should be, the previous observations about Iran's intention with regard to Israel suggest why Israel is doing this, not that Iran needs to itself go nuclear. The logic is inverted.

[arjunadawn]

Iran is a sovereign state and has the right to defend itself against the rogue element in the region.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries, Turkey, nor Pakistan could really be called rogue, not really. These are the players in that "region." No other agents in extended space present a significant threat to Iran to require a nuclear deterrent. Having said that sure, they have a right to defend themselves.

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

SS was right in that I was being sarcastic. But it could hardly be argued that Israel's non disclosure requires a nuclear arms race. Had the desire or imperative to destroy every jew not been so deeply ingrained into the Persian psyche, religious exegesis, and political spectrum, Israel would never perceive Iran as an existential threat. Indeed, this "threat" be Iran is so great, so broad, that it threatens the sunni regimes in the neighborhood as well. My sarcasm was based on the self evident notion that Iran is a threat to everyone, projects that threat, and only the modern refuge or declaring "victim" status allows Iran to argue "self defense;" they are hardly a victim to any.

[Seastallion]

I think you know very well what rogue element he's referring to; That nuclear armed country that refuses to sign up to nuclear treaties and is indeed a threat to Iran's safety.

Care to clarify how was Israel a threat to Iran's safety prior to Iran's going forward with ballistic missile and nuclear weapon

capability program? Was Pakistan, Sunni and nuclear capable, much nearer to Iran considered a threat?

Or, for that matter - how do other countries in the region view Iran achieving military nuclear capability?

SS was right in that I was being sarcastic. But it could hardly be argued that Israel's non disclosure requires a nuclear arms race. Had the desire or imperative to destroy every jew not been so deeply ingrained into the Persian psyche, religious exegesis, and political spectrum, Israel would never perceive Iran as an existential threat. Indeed, this "threat" be Iran is so great, so broad, that it threatens the sunni regimes in the neighborhood as well. My sarcasm was based on the self evident notion that Iran is a threat to everyone, projects that threat, and only the modern refuge or declaring "victim" status allows Iran to argue "self defense;" they are hardly a victim to any.

I can think of a much more notorious example of a state crying victim status to argue "self defence". In the past few months they've used that "self defence" to kill thousands of civilians. They use that "self defence" to collectively punish a people.

I don't think Iran is crying victim to anything other than unfair sanctions. It's outside commentators who are saying Iran needs a deterrent against a state that is nuclear armed and threatening.

As for non-disclosure...how do you feel about any country who has in it's possession such a devastating weapon, yet will not participate in the treaties that the international community require for safeguards? What would motivate a state to NOT want the IAEA to step foot in it's lands? (And one honest answer to that about the miserable Palestinians in Dimona afflicted with radiation sickness would be off topic, so don't go there.).