Perhaps the most important question confronting the civilized world today is whether it is possible to stop belligerent, totalitarian regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
As technology advances it becomes more accessible and affordable. A few decades ago, only large corporations and government agencies had computers. Now just about everyone has them.
I don’t think it’s possible to stop Iran’s Islamic supremacist leaders from acquiring nuclear weapons. But it may be possible to delay them long enough to bring down the regime.
The urgent question is: what is Iran’s strategy? The regime has been leading chants of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” at mass rallies for 30 years. Iran has displayed missiles carrying banners threatening Israel’s destruction at military parades. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has conducted a long and public campaign of Holocaust denial coupled with predictions that Israel will soon disappear. And it is no coincidence that Iran tested a missile capable of reaching Israel on Yom Kippur.
I believe Iran’s current strategy is to provoke an Israeli attack. This would accomplish two things for Iran. It would give credence to the claim that Israel is the aggressor. And it would provide Iran the pretext for developing nuclear weapons and using them. In coordination with this strategy, Iran may only be developing the technology they need for nuclear weapons but not yet the actual weapons.
Some Israelis take comfort in the knowledge that most of the Arab world is equally afraid of a nuclear-armed Iran. I’m not sure about that. A few Arab states may privately welcome a preemptive Israeli strike, but publicly they will all use it against Israel.
So what is to be done? It’s very unlikely that sanctions will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It’s even less likely that Iran’s leaders can be dissuaded through “engagement.”
That leaves three major options: (1) buy time by knocking out Iran’s nuclear and missile programs; (2) arm, train, and support pro-Western Iranians for the purpose of overthrowing the current Iranian regime; or (3) establish a credible deterrence.
The best option would be to assist Iranians in overthrowing the regime. There is clearly broad support within Iran for regime change. However, President Obama has apologized for the U.S.’s role in overthrowing a previous Iranian government, so it’s unlikely he would turn around and support overthrowing the current government. And it’s even less likely that President Obama would start a military conflict.
A preemptive military strike by Israel is problematic. There would have to be a good chance of setting back both Iran’s missile and nuclear programs for several years. And Israel would need, at a minimum, a public declaration by leading Western powers (the U.S., Germany, France, and the UK) that the threat posed by Iran is unacceptable, that further sanctions are unlikely to succeed, and that the situation calls for urgent action.
In dealing with these types of problems it’s important to consider all of the possibilities. In order to justify its invasion of Poland, Nazi Germany staged a fake attack by Poland on itself. What if Iran staged a fake attack by Israel on itself in order to justify launching a nuclear attack?
Israel’s current policy of “nuclear ambiguity” is apparently not working. Therefore, Israel needs to take further steps to establish a credible deterrence. One approach would be for Israel to take its nuclear capability public and indicate that if attacked with WMDs she will retaliate against all of her enemies (to remain nameless). Or it may only be necessary for Israel to convince her enemies that they cannot merely absorb a counterattack as they fantasize.
The counterargument is that mutually-assured destruction doesn’t intimidate Islamic supremacists because they are willing and perhaps even eager to die for their cause. Don’t believe it. Though they exhort others to carry out suicide attacks, the leaders want to stick around to enjoy their palaces and concubines.
You say you are against nuclear weapons. That's a reasonable and humane position.
You say you are against nuclear energy. That's a reasonable and humane position.
You criticize the US for what you consider its hypocritical position. That's a reasonable and humane position.
But then you turn around and totally contradict yourself by expressing support for the brutal and genocidal Iranian regime's right to develop technology for nuclear weapons.
It's obvious that they are developing nuclear weapon technology and that "nuclear energy" is just an excuse. Countries that are developing nuclear energy don't hide facilities, develop missiles, and talk incessantly about another country being wiped out.