Tag Archives: Nuclear Proliferation

Why Iran Began Its Nuclear Program In The First Place.

Posted on by

With all of the talk about the agreement between Iran, the US and 5 other world powers, one key aspect has been largely overlooked. Iran may never have tried to develop nuclear weapons had it not been for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That ill-conceived and unwarranted act placed US troops at the Iranian doorstep and, since George W. Bush labeled Iran as part of the “axis of evil”, it implied that Iran could be invaded next.

So if you’re the leader of Iran, what would you do to prevent such an invasion? The most reliable deterrent is nuclear weapons.

Why else would the US not have invaded western Pakistan when we knew that its madrassas were inciting Muslim extremism? (We knew that because we helped create them to fight the Soviet Union.) Pakistan had nuclear weapons and the missiles to reach Europe…possibly the US. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent – the ultimate equalizer.

The threat of our invasion has led Iran to the brink of becoming a nuclear power. Iran will not give up that deterrent without receiving something in return. That’s why the nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the world powers is the best possible outcome for everyone. The US, Europe and Israel get the assurance that Iran cannot complete their nuclear program. And Iran sees an end to paralyzing economic sanctions.

The agreement has already been approved by the United Nations. It should be approved by Congress.

If not, Iran will become a nuclear power within a matter of months. Moreover, China, Russia and other nations who have their own economic problems will tire of the sanctions against Iran and will resume trading with them.

And what if the US and/or Israel are foolhardy enough to carry out a series of military strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations? That will not only result in international condemnation and make the Iranian people even more anti-US. It will give Iran incentive to quickly rebuild the program and to finance anti-US, anti-Israeli terrorism throughout the region and the world. And the US will likely become embroiled in a war across the entire Middle East.

Considering those alternatives, the negotiated agreement looks a lot better, doesn’t it?

What If We Applied The NRA Philosophy Internationally?

Posted on by

Since the latest mass shooting in the United States comes at a time when Teapublicans are denouncing the Iran Nuclear Agreement, it makes me wonder: “What if we treated all armaments the same way as the National Rifle Association and its Teapublican supporters want us to treat guns?” If their answer to mass shootings is to place guns in the hands of more and more people, why not treat nuclear arms the same way?

According to NRA and Teapublican logic, that should make us all feel safer.

There are nine countries confirmed to have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. If we follow the NRA’s logic, shouldn’t we encourage all nations to obtain them? Do you feel safer knowing that Pakistan has nuclear weapons? North Korea? I suspect not. Then why should Americans feel safer knowing that crazy Uncle Larry has an AR-15 assault rifle? Why should the recently divorced woman feel safer knowing that her ex is armed with a semi-automatic handgun? Why should we feel safer in the knowledge that, without universal background checks, virtually any sociopath can obtain such firepower? Why should we feel safer knowing that domestic terrorists, such as the racist young man in Charleston, the young man in Chattanooga and the angry anti-government “patriot” in Lafayette have easy access to guns?

Of course, we shouldn’t feel safe. Because, thanks to the NRA and our insane gun laws, any American can choose from a wide array of weaponry of ever-increasing lethality.

Teapublicans say that Iran should be denied nuclear weapons at all costs. They say the Obama administration shouldn’t have negotiated any deal with Iran; that we should have increased economic sanctions until Iran buckled; or, following Netanyahu’s advice, we should just attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Yet that stance is completely counter to the Teapublicans’ stance on the ever-increasing proliferation of semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons in the US.

Why the difference?

If we want to make this a safer world, we should not allow Iran and other far less stable nations to obtain nuclear weapons. The new international agreement is the best possible way to ensure that. Likewise, we should not allow the continued proliferation of increasingly lethal guns in the US. A law requiring universal background checks and a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic weapons to civilians will reduce the number of mass shootings.