There's more and more attention to the happenings in Iran recently.
My personal opinion is that the President of Iran is off-kilter and is undeniably a bigot with violent tendencies.
Based on this, and this alone - would you want to give a nucleur weapon to a madman?
This is the US position in a nutshell.
What our media doesn't shed light on is differentiating the need for energy and weaponry in Iran.
First let me summarize Iran's position on nucleur energy and why it won't be leading to a bomb (referencing Al Khaleej on April 25th). These are from an interview that Fahmy Huwaidi had with Ali Larijani, Secretary General of Iran's Supreme National Security Council:
° There was a fatwa (an edict) by the Imam (religious lead) which said that nucleur and chemical weapons were banned in Islam.
° There was another fatwa issued against poisonous gas.
° Iran has wanted to create nucleur power for 40 years (plus or minus a little). There is little water in Iran, so these as an alternative power isn't necessarily feasible. Oil and gas is drying up.
° The Shah had an agreement with the US 40 years ago for the creation of a nucleur institute and nucleur reactor in Tehran. There would be training for Iranians in these fields.
° There was a similar agreement with France in the city of Khuzeistan, and one with Germany in Bu Shahar.
° None of these were fully put in place - even when the revolution ended.
Iran's population is 70 million people - with heavy expected growth. 100 million people by 2020.
Large nations in the world have significant power supplied by nucleur sources: US (20%), France (71%), Japan (27%), Germany (28%), South Korea (40%), UK (23%).
° Iran had stopped the nucleur program for two years in a deal with European Nations - with an understanding that it would receive its quota of nucleur energy. They have yet to receive any.
° Iran has offered to allow cameras, to have military site visits.
° As such, they need to create their own nucleur energy.
° Iran also doesn't take the military expedition threat from the US seriously. They saw what happened in Iraq.
° Iran has a few things that differ from Iraq. Iranians have two priorities (from what I understand and have come to learn). They love their religion. They love their country. If you try and take either of these away, they will try to stop you at all lengths. Unlike Saddam who was hated by many of his people, Iranians love Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They back him wholeheartedly.
° There are lots of US/UK military bases in the region since the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. Ahmadinejad made tours to all of these countries and said that if there is a military strike which originates from the country, he will not only strike back against the base, but to the entire country. He will launch weapons on military and civilian alike. The guy is a loon. He would.
With this pressure, it places smaller countries like Qatar in a bind. Q has one of the largest military bases outside of the US. Obviously, if something happened in Iran, we would want to use this base to launch a strike. But the Emir could never allow it because that would place his people at major risk.
With this, Iran doesn't have any in-your-face reason for stopping the process. It doesn't feel any danger.
I see the arguement that Iran needs energy and has been promised nucleur energy, tried some compromise and is now creating its own. I've heard that the EU is planning to propose giving away nucleur energy at insanely cheap rates to entice Iran to come to a halt with its enrichment and solve the issue. However, the EU knows that this will never be accepted by Iran - and would then be a purely strategic move to show the world that Iran has more destructive ulterior motives.
The US is taking a different strategy - this time, instead of barging into Iran, like with Iraq - there is an attempt to make friends and prove there is a reason to fight instead of making up a reason in the background.
In my opinion, there won't be an amicable solution and there'll be a squabble by next summer.
Owner login
