Why are there different rules for Iran?

I remember watching Question Time on the BBC a few years ago, when Iran first started to make headlines in western press on a regular basis regarding its nuclear programme. I remember a gentleman asked the panel something I would have asked: why is Iran not allowed to have nuclear weapons when the west does? I remember one of the panellists responding: because western countries don’t threaten to use them against another nation’. And the audience applauded.

Well, we now know that Ahmedinijad never threatened to use the weapons against Israel. That was media manipulation at best. For those who still don’t know about this revelation, please have look at this post: ‘more revelations about the media’.But not so long ago, when asked what her response would be if Iran was to attack Israel, Hillary Clinton said “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran… In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

We have it on record. She would annihilate Iranians to protect Israel. And I get the feeling many Americans would support this decision. And since most of them don’t have a clue about the history of the Palestinian land and the illegal occupation, they’ll probably buy any lies that the media and the government feed them. And just in case people think that this is different becuase this would be America’s ‘retaliation’ as she didnt’ suggest to strike first, please note, neither has Iran. Furthermore, Israel does attack Palestinians regularly and the American government supports Israel in these acts.

Why is Iran not allowed to have nuclear weapons whilst the west does and Israel does? Why are Iranians not allowed to access weapons in the face of constant threats? Are they not allowed to seek to defend themselves? Are they not allowed to put their people’s interests first? Why is Israel not criticised for having nuclear weapons? Why is Israel supported by the US whilst Iran falls under the axis of evil?

Advertisements

14 responses to “Why are there different rules for Iran?”

  1. IRANIAN says :

    The Iranians say they don’t want nuclear weapons anyway since it would NOT protect them. They say they’re willing to impose additional restrictions on their nuclear program — beyond the legal requirements of the NPT — to further ensure that it cannot even hypothetically be used to make bombs, as long as their right to have a domestic enrichment program is recognized. However, the US has dismissed these offers and instead insists that Iranians should not have even the knowledge to have an independent nuclear fuel source. The issue of nuclear weapons is really a smokescreen and pretext for another policy, of preventing other developing countries from having an independent nuclear fuel source. In the case of Iran, there’s the additional motive of keeping it subservient to Israel.

  2. honestdebate says :

    hi iranian,

    thanks for the comment. it’s quite disturbing that most people don’t realise that Iran is actually acting well within its rights.

    but even for those people who fear Iran may develop nuclear weapons in the future – why not? if one nation has the right, why can’t others?

  3. MarkCh says :

    Do you think that the use of nuclear weapons against civilians anywhere would become more or less likely if Iran acquired nuclear weapons?

  4. istlota says :

    We Americans have been slow to accept that _we_, John Q. Public, bear the blame for our outrageous, criminal, government. It is important to remember that somewhere around half of Americans who voted in 2004 chose Bush even after it was a matter of public record that he lied about WMDs to wage war against Iraq. Even worse, in both 2000 and 2004, the majority of white Americans voted for Bush. Also, polls are beginning to reveal that most white men plan to vote in 2008 for Bush’s Mini Me — McCain.

    This illuminates the real problem with America which empowers all of our government’s worldwide atrocities against humanity. It is not so much racism as it is godless, cowboy mentality, selfishness.

    There will always be scoundrels like W. and Cheney and Rumsfield. But, such beasts can only come to power when we, we American citizens, vote based on self interest rather than love for all humanity as One.

    America has immense potential for unprecedented good within our world. But, so far, our abuses of power far outweigh our godliness.

  5. jaimz cash says :

    it is ridiculous to think [even if Iran made a nuclear bomb] that they would use it on Israel – they know the US would drop hundreds on Iran. As for Iran being a threat to others besides Israel, why would Iran want to destroy business countries?

  6. hass says :

    Like Iranian says, this has nothing to do with hypothetical Iranian “nuclear weapons” and so the discussion is irrelevant. The Iranian government has been pressing for a nuclear-weapons free zone in the Mideast since the 1970s. What’s important is this: We are witnessing an effort by some countries to essentially deprive other countries of independent access to the future’s sole source of energy.

    As the Los Angeles Times reported:

    “Developing nations are skeptical of the intentions of the five original nuclear states and are reluctant to give up the option of enriching uranium… Developing nations say they don’t want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don’t trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants.”
    (See New Global Nuclear Order, Alissa J. Rubin, Los Angeles Times, October 20th, 2006 at http://www.geocities.com/thelasian/)
    THAT is really what is behind this nonsense about “nuclear weapons” — a battle between the rich and the poor nations.

  7. honestdebate says :

    Thanks for the comments folks.

    Mark Ch, you’re missing the point. The question isn’t whether an attack is more likely or less likely, as said by many others it’s not even close to a realily.

    But even if we were to consider this hypothetical scenario – why can’t they? If iraq had nuclear weapons they wouldn’t be such an easy target. Every nation has a right to defend themselves. why not iran?

  8. MarkCh says :

    No, I am not missing the point, I am nailing it exactly. Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons exactly because it makes their use much more likely. Sure, if nuclear weapons could be taken away from Pakistan, Israel, Russia, and the US, magically and without nuclear war, that would be great. But they can’t be. Better to close the barn door after 9 horses have escaped than after they all have.

    Or should _every_ country have nuclear weapons? Would the world be safer then?

    This is separate from the question of whether Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons: honestdebate’s post discusses the case where we assume that they are.

  9. honestdebate says :

    why is iran more likely to use them mark?

  10. MarkCh says :

    Iran with nuclear weapons is more likely to use (or release, accidentally or on purpose) nuclear weapons than Iran without nuclear weapons.

    The choices available are a) Iran with nukes, or b) Iran without nukes. Which choice is safer?

  11. honestdebate says :

    I don’t think any country with nukes wants to or intends to use them. but you can’t ignore the fact that they deter other nations from attacking yours.

    pakistan without nukes would be a different story right now. If it failed to deliver in America’s war on terror, the US may well have thought to attack it. With the nukes it puts pakistan in a stronger position.

    i don’t think your analogy of horses in a barn applies here. It’s more like a bully armed to the teeth telling others not to arm, as more guns on the streets are dangerous. (i don’t mean you as the bully, i mean the western governments).

    you’re not looking at it from the perspective of the non-nuclear nations. not having nuclear weapons makes them vulnerable, especially in the current political climate.

  12. wasapninworld says :

    For me its simple. Iran like any other nation should be allowed to posses Nuclear technology if it sees an interest for its country. No other country in the world has the right to decide what another country can and cannot do.

  13. honestdebate says :

    Hi Mark Ch,

    just uploaded a documentary about Islamic civilisations of the past. i remember you asking about it some time ago. although a bit long and possibly boring, it may be of interest to you.

    thanks,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: