Slashdot Mirror
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
selven wrote in with something a bit offtopic for Slashdot, but I figured it's worth a discussion today. He writes "Following Iran's revelation regarding its secret nuclear enrichment plant, western leaders are banding together against it, saying that it violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suggesting serious sanctions against the country if it refuses to back down on its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
If I saw both my neighbors being invaded, I would rush to get the nukes as fast as I could, too.
I'm not an expert, but the news reports seem to indicate that this new facility (at a military base) doesn't have the capacity to produce a useful quantity of enriched fuel for a power plant, but could potentially produce enough for 1-2 bombs per year.
Combine that with the fact that Iran flares enough natural gas daily to more than meet its internal energy generation requirements, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about their motives.
America to Iran:
"If you do not begin considering the possibility of maybe one day relatively soon pondering the beginning of the dismantlement of your nuclear program - NOW - you might possibly maybe perhaps one day face SEVERE SANCTIONS ZOMG.
I mean, if that's ok with you."
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
It seems as if every country speaking out against Iran already has nuclear capabilities. In what way is this not a double standard?
and the sad part we will bicker about this until they use one on Israel or force Israel to do it first.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The difference is that in the last 50+ years, the U.S. has used it's nuclear arsenal exactly twice, and those during a time of war.
Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination. Absent IAEA verification of the peaceful nature of their nuclear program, Iran has no justification to be pointing fingers. Iran with nuclear power is scary. Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
Gee,
Look the other way, for Israel.
Look the other way, for India.
Maybe proliferation is not the real issue, and they will find the excuse to demolish Persia - by hook or by crook.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
So they want nukes? Who can blame them? Given the "western leader"'s previous behavior in the region, they would be fools not to get a strong deterrent.
And if you're Israel, apparently we pretend that we don't know that you're packing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Ahmadinejad: "Israel must be wiped off the map"
but they say they will not build nukes?......I thought something must be shifting to Bizarro world....
The United States cannot afford, nor provide the soldiers for, another war.
Our troops are spread rather thin as it is.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
But A) Iran signed the treaty too, B) if they don't want to abide by its terms they can always withdraw from it (that would be honest -- then they can hide whatever they want rather than break agreements saying they wouldn't), and C) although the U.S. and Russia (not to mention the other nuclear-armed countries) have dragged their feet for years, they have just negotiated a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
I've never understood Iran's real direction on this. For example, why have a heavy-water plant when the only nuclear power reactor they have planned doesn't use it (it's a pressurized water design that therefore needs the enrichment that people are so worried can be diverted to weapons production)? One possible reason for a heavy water plant: properly built, heavy water reactors are really useful for generating weapons-grade plutonium. For example, this is exactly how India made their first weapons -- not by enriching uranium, but by running uranium through a heavy water "research" reactor. Uncoincidentally, Iran is also building a 40MW research reactor, apparently to come on line this year or next.
It sure as heck looks like they are pursuing the two well-known weapons paths: enriching uranium and generating weapons-grade plutonium (a different isotope mix from the usual plutonium generated in regular power plant reactors). If the enriched uranium is purely for power production, why the heavy water route too?
"Defeat" isn't the point of nuclear deterrence. The point is that they know we could level every moderately large city in their respective countries if they were to launch nukes at us.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a conventional war the US would require allies.
In a trade war, China can ruin the US economy - but they'd severely hurt themselves in the process. In a trade war, Russia influence is limited to cutting off gas supplies to Eastern Europe.
If you prove to the world that you are an idiot and want to eliminate other countries, you don't get nukes. Iran has proven this. Israel just wants to exist as it is and has proven this. A portion of the Muslim world is just too radical!
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
about iran and nukes:
"israel and usa has it (and used it), so why can't iran? typical western hypocrisy"
ok, if you are a westerner, a chinese, an indian, a russian, a resident of bora bora or lower botswana, wherever... in other words, no matter WHERE you are from, you are probably interested in nuclear nonproliferation. with that in mind, you would be interested in those states with current nuclear arsenals giving them up, correct? you would also be interested in NO OTHER STATES GETTING THEM. right? nuclear nonproliferation is something important to you? or is it not important you as your overriding conceptual and moral concern? is it not the most important issue to you?
so please, by all means, talk about western hypocrisy. the west is indeed hypocritical. but if western hypocrisy is more important to you than nuclear nonproliferation, then i call bullshit on your morality and your sense of priorities. hey: how about grudges against the west being LESS important than your interest in seeing nuclear weapons curtailed? say this instead of "why can't iran have them if the west has them": "i think iran shouldn't have nukes. oh, and btw, while we're on the subject, israel and usa should give up theres"
now you are being morally coherent in my book. now you are talking from a point of view of logic and morality and a set of guiding principles as the foremost concern in your mind. rather than "the usa has them so iran should have them, fairs fair". when you say that, i don't see morality or a human conscience, i see typical tribal backbiting
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
he didn't say "defeat" - to defeat you must have a victor.
he says "assure ... destruction" which means nothing of us. even if the US is wiped off the map so they would be too - there for destruction would be assured.
we do have enough warheads to carpet bomb them with nukes - while it doesn't seem like a good idea, for either side, it is the game of MAD.. which kept the cold war cold.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Ironically, the best way to destabilize a ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying (or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth, pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions also reduce positive effect of the global community's political feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
That's not to say that sanctions are never appropriate. It's just an observation on their effect.
You've got a pretty disingenuous way of explaining it there...
The *point* of nuclear weaponry *is* MAD. If we consider you a threat, and you don't have them--then you're by definition pretty much powerless to stop us. We do have the largest, best equipped and funded military in the world.
Telling Iran we don't want them to have nuclear weaponry is pretty much proof positive of our intent to attack them if we don't get our way at some point. Otherwise--it presumably doesn't matter, since there is such absolutely massive pressure *not* to fire a nuke once you have one. The entire point of a nuke is it makes it basically impossible to engage in a war of aggression against your homeland.
When we tell Iran we don't want them to have them--we're really telling them we intend to invade them. Fairness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Do you seriously think Iran would launch at us? Even if they believe in 72 virgins, it would literally be the end of their world within 15 minutes.
CAPTCHA: deterred.
Don't underestimate how sanctions and exclusion from international talks/trade can ruin countries.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I don't think settlements can be considered as "just exist".
Dilbert RSS feed
Who's "us"*, and why should Iran or Syria give a damn what we think? Try not to forget here that Iran is at the end of the day a sovereign nation of over 70 million people, and owes the west little and less. Saying that the Iranians are somehow not entitled to nuclear weapons by default, or have to be "allowed" to develop them, is as baseless as applying the concept of "fairness" to nuclear arsenals.
They have the money, means and motivation to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions, condemnations and diplomatic pressure can all be railed against them, but the reality is that short of using military force, the only people who can stop the Iranians developing the bomb are the Iranians. As someone who lives in a country without nuclear weapons, I for one do not see any moral justification in using such force as a means to such an end.
Frankly, given their usage history, it's clear that nuclear weapons are little more than an international dick waving competition. If the Iranians want to pull their yokes out and dangle them about with the rest of the boys, I really don't care. If that makes all the rest of the boys feel a bit smaller, well, I really couldn't care less.
*Oh the pun-age
May the Maths Be with you!
Say what you will, but Israel is not a country I'd mess with.
Consider their history....there have been countless efforts to wipe them off the face of the planet, from back in Biblical times to the Nazi regime. Yet not only are they still around, but they've managed to get their country re-established, in the same location, after not existing for hundreds of years.
That's one country I want to keep on our side, packing or not...
"Iran maintains that it nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
Not FAIR? FAIR? A country who's stated political objective, time and time again is "Death to Israel"?
I don't care if you're pro-Israel or not, its sheer madness to believe that Iran is really a peaceful country out to defend itself. Their leaders have stated again and again that the West (meaning Israel, the US, and capitalism) are sick and on the way out, that Jihad is the duty of every Muslim, and martyrdom is the highest calling. These people glorify death and war, and are looking to put every one on earth under the yoke of their twisted Islamic law. Its ridiculous to compare the US, faults and all, with Iran as a pair of equals with apposing viewpoints. These people are twisted, evil, and not worth such recognition, and I really don't understand your idiotic viewpoint. It always amazes me when people want to point fingers at past US injustices yet turn some strange, myopic eye to plain murderers and give them a pass.
Whatever your view point, I ask this; lets see how your view looks to you as soon as Iran has a nuclear weapon, and they will, unless Israel takes care of the situation.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran was NOT in the best interests of any nation. It WAS in the best interests of British Petroleum. Let us be honest here: a democratic government was thrown under the bus for the sake of money, nothing more, and nothing less.
Yes, our past sins are haunting us.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The US is too busy destroying the middle class in their own country to worry about supporting the growth of it in another. All this warmongering is just an excuse to start up more intervention in the Middle East. What's surprising is even /. is joining in with the MSM to try to whip up support for more military action. The irony being that all this is occurring under a president that won a significant number of votes by appealing to people that wanted a less interventionist government.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Always instructive to see that that the moderators have such an imperialistic streak. "You can't be serious about foreign policy if you're not willing to blow everything up at some point!"
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Optimus Prime?
Seriously, right now the US is fighting wars in 2 theaters and is limited by the will of the politicians in power. If American soil were occupied or under imminent threat of occupation, I don't think the politicians would 1) worry about popularity of the upcoming war poll numbers 2) need to worry about said poll numbers. Americans would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
--Mike
well what about those settlements?
why do they keep building them, and offer more reason to breed radicals amongst the muslims? I'm not talking about Golan highs, the future of Jerusalem or even the future of the refugees. Israel's continuous building of settlements in w Bank helps crazy radicals in the muslim world recruit more people.
It's seems that we got radicals on both sides.
(Score:-1, Not Politically Correct)
Agreed. The American Military is capable of deploying a terrific volume of horrific violence. A volume and ferocity inconceivable to most. That's their job and they do an excellent job of it.
Frankly, given their usage history, it's clear that nuclear weapons are little more than an international dick waving competition. If the Iranians want to pull their yokes out and dangle them about with the rest of the boys, I really don't care. If that makes all the rest of the boys feel a bit smaller, well, I really couldn't care less."
Trouble is, this is a country run by crazy religious zealots, that quote their religion when they blow stuff up. The powers that be over there, can't be trusted to 'play nice' with their nukes. They would be very likely to start shooting them off unprovoked.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
As long as the US has nuclear weapons, Iran will have a legitimate reason to develop its own nuclear weapons. That is, to protect against American aggression.
The best way to avoid war with Iran is to disarm, pull our forces out of the region, and open trade with them. We need to help develop their middle class, show that we are not a threat, and give them a business interest in becoming more moderate.
You forgot the holding of hands and singing Kumbaya.
I'll say this silently, but I don't even think Israel ever had a nuclear weapon. I think it was and still is, just a big bluff, in order to stay safe. As a mafia-affiliated relative of my father once said: "the loaded gun frightens the one that it's pointed at. The empty gun frightens both the one it's pointed at, and the one holding it."
All the acrimony piled up on Israel because of their alleged nuclear program, is, strangely, playing into their hands, because that way they can be as safe as if they had a nuclear weapon - without having to invest the vast resources needed to acquire it.
Looking at this problem more broadly: to acquire nuclear weapons, a country has to have much more resources at their disposal. Iran, for instance, that has a GDP that dwarves that of Israel many times over. Or USA, Russia (former USSR), China, India and Pakistan. All of them huge countries with lots more money and mineral resources than Israel. North Korea, on the other hand ('cause I know you'd bring that one up), doesn't have the resources for a nuclear program, and hence doesn't have one. Sure, they have a nuclear research facility, but that a nuclear weapons program does not make. Another big bluff. In fact, North Korea has already a weapon equally as devastating as a number of warheads: they have a huge number of long-range (albeit not too accurate) artillery pieces lined up along the border with South Korea. If someone just sneezes at them, Seoul is fucked. I mean properly fucked, as if nuked.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Because it tells the truth, which is contrary to Israeli values. ...be-tachblt ta`aseh lekh milchmh... "Through deception you can wage war, with this advice comes victory."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Trouble is, this is a country run by crazy religious zealots, that quote their religion when they blow stuff up. The powers that be over there, can't be trusted to 'play nice' with their nukes. They would be very likely to start shooting them off unprovoked.
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Football Odds
So, it is your assertion that enriching British Petroleum ultimately won the cold war, thereby justifying the fact that we replaced a democratic government with a spineless puppet of a dictator.
Oddly, a lot of people will buy into that theory.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Then you don't go building a uranium processing plant into a mountain.
There are only two reasons you want to build a uranium processing plant in a mountain:
A. It's bomb proof, in which case why are you worried about it getting bombed if it's purely for peaceful processes?
B. You're Dr. Evil.
I think we can safely say it's likely A, although I wouldn't rule out B with Ahmadinejad.
Maybe. It seems that finding new bodies to send to Afghanistan is already a problem
It's true, especially with Brits and Canadians planning to withdraw soon. However, this has more to do with the recent political failures in the handling of Afghanistan, as more and more people realize that there isn't going to be "proper" democracy there anytime soon, and that Western forces in the region are now essentially backing a corrupt, authoritarian regime with their guns, and at the cost of their lives.
The initial military invasion and occupation was by itself quite a success, however. And we don't have to occupy Iran to fix the nuclear problem - just take out their manufacturing capacity. Heck, just give green light to Israel, and they alone can take care of that, and ensure that it stays that way. This won't fix the underlying problem of Iran being a state that it is, of course, but that's not on the agenda at the moment.
Yes. Either every nation can have nuclear weapons, or no nation can. I'm not saying that "should be the case, I'm saying that over time, these are the only stable alternatives.
Only a cretin would expect an unfair scheme whereby only certain nations -- including historically aggressive nations such as the US, USSR, UK, and Israel -- are allowed to have nukes, to stand for long. The NPT requires us to work for disarmament; we have failed to do so.
And the fact that "we don't want you to have them" means beans. The world is not (and I know this is shocking news to many of my countrymen) run for the convenience and pleasure of the United States.
If we have nukes, we have no persuasive moral authority to tell other countries that they can't have them.
If we use force to prevent other nations from getting the bomb, everyone will notice that we attack only non-nuclear states, and will be more strongly motivated -- for their own protection -- to develop nuclear weapons in secret. Fission bombs are 1940s technology; if North Korea can make them, anybody with a decent industrial base can.
There are only two possible outcomes: everybody gets nukes who wants them (most nations will probably find it easier to ally with nuclear powers), or nobody (except maybe the U.N., with a dozen layers of safeguards) gets them.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Its clear.
After being attacked a few times, Israel conquered the area, and intends to keep it.
At one time or another, most countries have lost lands to conqueroring nations. Most ancient and modern states were constructed this way.
This idea that conquered lands should be "given back" is a relatively new idea. (And one that, oddly, does not apply to Arab states.)
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Because Israel and India are responsible. A country that screams "DEATH TO ISRAEL" and "DEATH TO AMERICA" and "DEATH TO THE WEST" is neither responsible nor rational.
Eh? The US has a GDP 3 times the size of China. It borrows money from China, but if there's a [real] trade war I doubt they'll be sending any of it back. And they're mostly borrowing it to buy crap made in China, which wouldn't be available anymore.
The US would be left to buy their goods from elsewhere (there's no shortage of cheap trade partners if domestic alternatives are not available) and China would sit on their huge pile of IOU's and goods nobody wants to buy. My money's on the US.
Why is that modded as funny?
The logic is simple. Change the internal reward structure for their behaviour with a win-win situation.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That is exactly the strategy we have followed with "Red China." Some would say it has worked out pretty well.
The point, maybe not his, is that one side of the argument has the means to enforce those preferences.
That is always the point.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Eh, there's a very real fear that nuclear weapons, if acquired by Iran, would lead to Nuclear war.
Either the leaders believe their own propaganda and really thing israel should be wiped off the map - or else Israel will believe the threat of Iran with nuclear weapons is too great, and order a pre-emptive strike which will THEN provoke Iran to launch them.
It's very hard to tell how much of what comes out of Iran is just saber-rattling propaganda, and how much is really batshit-crazy religious belief.
Uhhh....ever read up on The Six Day War? Israel has been stirring up shit with its neighbors for DECADES because it knows the USA will always be there to cover its ass if the excrement hits the cooling device.
Allow me to quote the former defense minister Moshe Dayan "After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado."
That BTW wasn't something made up by some Arab, the man bragged about it in his book. So I don't honestly see how you can describe any of the players in the region as "responsible" as BOTH sides have been major asshats, only IMHO Israel has gotten extra assholey thanks to having big daddy USA backing them up and selling them really nice hardware. Oh and you might want to know that even with our economy in the shitter we are sending them ultra fatty checks to the tune of $7,000,000 A DAY! Frankly as long as we are running deficits we shouldn't be sending jack shit to anybody, especially when the country we are sending it to is gonna use it to act like douches. We need to quit propping up these countries and stay the hell out of everybody's business and mind our own, sadly something we haven't done since before WWII.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Oh really ? Don't you wonder what is the only country besides the US to have F-14s ? Iran...
Besides that they have a number of M-60 tanks and such, far from being a small player.
The Iranian civilian airliner DID take off from a military airport and was flying damn close to a conflict area and no-fly zone.
a) There was no no-fly zone for civilian airliners
b) It was clearly a civilian airliner, an Airbus radar signature is every different from a fighter plane, bomber of even a military transport
Finally, Iran can't possibly develop enough nuclear weapons or launch systems to "defend itself" against the U.S. The idea is ludicrous.
It's far from being ludicrous, Iran has US soldiers sitting in two of its neighbours, the US has repeatedly threatened regime change in Iran, and a nuke well placed on a US army attacking Iran would have a very very profound effect on US strategy and would prevent any invasion of Iran, something that chemical weapons can't do since the US army has gear to protect somewhat effectively against that.
More importantly, the US is the source of Israels' 400 nukes. The US clearly violated articles 2 and 3 (the nukes can't just be left to sit in their caves - ongoing maintenance - so the violation is continual to this day).
Simpler solution: have some rabbi declare that there's been a cartographic error, and move Israel to a different neighborhood. I hear California and Nevada have lots of cheap houses.
Either that, or have an asteroid obliterate all the players in the region and call it an "act of god."
In the same location ??? Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel. God may have promised them a kingdom, but he never delivered.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money. As usual, Uncle Sam sticks his nose in and fucks an entire political region. You obviously don't know the first thing about the subject, how even the US were pissed when the Israelis declared their state (before the agreement was settled with the people whose lands they were taking away). Read a fucking book.
I was reading an autobiography of one of the Sudanese exiles from the Darfur (What is the What?) region and he'd said something similar: British rule was good for Sudan since it kept the rivalries between north and south in check...plus the Brits built schools.
Seemed a bit better to him than mass human slaughter and exile.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Well... since you welcomed constructive criticism! Actually, I mostly agree. In short, you're point is we wont get sanctions against Iran, and even if we did, it'd make things worse, not better. Very insightful.
Here's my analysis. Iran is clearly building nukes, and will succeed unless stopped. They clearly arm Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. Israel has nukes now. What do you think Israel will do about it?
My guess is Israel will attack Iran. If it were possible to just blow up a plant or two and destroy Iran's nuclear efforts, I think they would, but apparently, that wont work. So, I think there is a very strong possibility Israel will nuke Iran preemptively. My guess is the only reason they haven't already is they're hoping diplomacy might work, and because they really don't want to piss off the whole freaking world worse than they already have. Even if Israel has the self-restraint to hold off on nuking Iran, other countries will having incentives for giving Hezbollah nukes and then blaming Iran, so Iran gets nuked in any case.
If you were an intelligent Iranian, you'd have to be able to figure this out. Nukes == death. Therefore, the Iranian leadership is crazy, and Israel would be crazy to not nuke Iran.
Anyway, I'm no Israel fan-boy. For a culture victimised by genocide, Israelis sure don't mind brutally oppressing whole populations for decades. Go figure. And, I kind of see how crazy people came to power in Iran: look at a map - we have our armies on their two longest borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries we just invaded! They have very reasonable cause to fear the US right now.
In summary.. Be afraid. Be very very afraid.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Probably because someone thinks pointing out the double-standard for Israel is un-american or something
I don't see any double standard because:
1. Ahmadinijad keeps threatening to destroy Israel.
2. No one in Israel said anything like that about Iran.
That makes no sense. And isn't really applicable to much, even if it did. Sure, a lot of prejudice comes from bad experiences, but these experiences probably pale next to what we were raised with. And when it comes to the Middle East, I doubt that this plays any role whatsoever, barring the occasional antisemitic moron and anti-muslim/arab slob.
I, for example, have nothing against Jews or Arabs (or Muslims in general). I no more beef against there groups than I have against Christians, at least. I have met trash from all walks of life, and all cultures in about equal quantities. That said, I have major problems with Israel in general (Israel != Jews), I also have serious problems with many of the Muslim/Arab countries in the region (Iran/Syria/Lebenon/etc... != Muslim/Arabs). This, as obvious from my parentheticals, have nothing to do with ethnic groups or religions, but with the actions of governments. I am also quite fed up with the Government of the US, but most of my friends and family happen to be American (as am I).
Israel is an arrogant, human rights violating, violent bully, just like Iran. Israel might be a wee bit worse, since they are actively repressing and slaughtering their own citizens. This isn't saying Iran is much better, mind. If any country, run by Jews, or not, acted like Israel I would condemn their actions as well. Perhaps not quite as vocally, since Israel as a strangely strong voice in American politics, and has a huge and vocal lobby who is constantly busy trying to brand all dissent with them as racism. The Iranians, at least, don't have this.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
thats strange... I just googled "israel threatens iran" and got 1.8 million results.
I guess you're a liar, or just good at ignoring reality.
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Iran is clearly building nukes
There is zero evidence for that, in fact your own CIA reports say Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons.
Its orders of magnitude more difficult to create weapons grade uranium than what is needed for nuclear power.