On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:21:49 -0700, Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 2005-02-20 20:36, d.brin wrote: ... > I am not certain that Iran is planning to test a nuclear device. If I were > Iranian, I would definitely want the option to get a bomb quick. I would > want fissionable material on hand with lots of bomb components. I would even > want prototypes ready to fuel, arm, and test. Even if Iran had a liberal > regime and good relations with Washington, any sane flag-rank Iranian officer > would STILL insist that Washington provide nuclear guarantees AND would want > to have the failsafe of weapons grade fissionable material stored in > quantity. > > Pakistan has the bomb and could become insanely anti-Shia any day. > > The Russian sphere of control borders Iran. Russia has the bomb. Russia has > previously occupied parts of Iran. > > The Arab Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, are irrationally anti-Shia. > They are a military threat, though no match for Iran's conventional forces. > Note, however, that Wahhabi zeal has sometimes resulted in the defeat of > superior military forces. If relations with Washington were to change, Saudi > Arabia or a consortium of Gulf States might be forced to develop a nuclear > capability. > > Iraq is currently occupied by a hostile superpower's forces. Though it looks > like a friendly regime will soon come to power, powers corresponding to what > is today called Iraq have often fought wars with Iran. > > Turkey is a close ally of a hostile superpower. Turkey is not favorably > disposed to Shias, minorities, or theocracies. Over the centuries Iran and > Turkey have fought wars. At present, however, relations are stable. > > The United States, an economic and military superpower is actively hostile > toward Iran. Iran and the USA have effectively been in a coldwar since the > 1979 revolution. Worse, the current administration is looking to further > isolate Iran, ramping up coldwar style pressure, and has shown a real > willingness to use full military options even when they strike external > observers as both expensive and less than completely necessary. Furthermore, > the American administration invaded Iraq that had no credible nuclear > deterrent and no ability to bombard a major allied city. On the other hand, > North Korea had both moderately credible access to atom bombs AND the ability > to easily bombard Seoul with weapons of North Korea's choosing. ...
If you are a politician or military leader in Iran you would have to be a pacifist to not rush development of nuclear weapons. In addition to all the nuclear armed threats you mention Israel has the bomb and is a regime hostile to Iran which has shown a pattern of preemptive military strikes. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
