As one who has always been an ardent supporter of NATO, I must say I'm horrified at this kind of development.

Iran poses no threat to any nation of the North Atlantic group.  Ergo, NATO has no business being involved.

Using NATO as a figleaf for an expansive US militarist policy will be the end of NATO.

If this is what people what to use NATO for, I move we should disband it.  Western states must not be warmongers or foster organizations devoted to exporting war.

There is absolutely no proof that Iran is a threat to any NATO member let alone even if they are accused of acquiring a nuclear bomb in a near future. IMO this is all just a hogwash and I believe that certain media outlets are capitalising on this to make a case for war with Iran.
 
 

Do you have any rational argument to back this up or is this a product of your crystal ball?

If one actually considers actual historical facts regarding events similar to the issue of Iran and nukes, it becomes pretty damn obvious that the acquistion of nuclear weapons tends to politically stablize a country, tends to reduce outward tensions with enemy states and tends to induce a peaceful political engagement with enemy states.

To illustrate this, one only has to look to the Indian sub-continent.  India and Pakistan have fought several wars and have a long list of grievances with each other - all in the last 60 years.  Once the two powers had a 'nuclear balance' against each other, they stopped going to war at the drop of a hat and started meaningful political engagement with each other. 

This is the doctrine of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.  It is to be noted that the only time a nuclear weapon has ever actually been used in war, it was when one power held a nuclear monopoly.  The instant that (US) nuclear monopoly was broken by the USSR, the probability of nuclear war diminished substantially and the probability of peaceful engagement between USSR and USA was increased.

So now, looking at the Middle East, we are faced with a situation where one state holds a regional nuclear monopoly - Israel.  This causes political instability and an increased likelihood of war.  On this basis, it is entirely reasonable, based on past historical patterns to expect that if/when Iran achieves nuclear weapon power, that will generally act to reduce overall political instability in the Middle East as it has in other previous 'power-rivalries' of our nuclear era.

Iranian nukes would act as a balance of power and reduce the military tension in the Middle East and western governments apparently don't like that one little bit. 

This is totally and completely wrong.  The USA has always pushed to make NATO nuclear - it was not meant to be that way.

France officially departed the military arm of NATO in 1967 formally over objections to the US unilateral decision to make 'flexible response' nuclear doctrine substitute for a comprehensive ground defence of all NATO territory.

That is to say, the French objected to the US making nuclear weapons a first line in NATO defence.  NATO was meant to be a multinational conventional armed force, not a nuclear umbrella under US whim.

in post-Soviet areas there were, and still are, hordes of spectacular yet underpaid, or even unpaid, scientists in all military areas. They haven't done any damage, to my knowledge.


i think it was the previous Ayatollah, and he is dead. Soviet leaders also talked about global proletarian revolution. Judge actions, not words. There is nothing suicidal in Iran's behaviour, so far as we don't confuse courage to resist US pressure with suicidal tendencies.

Those soviet scientist are controlled by their own gov't...an assumption of mine of course.

and while their no blatant suicidal behavior of Iran there has been some suicidal or at least provoking actions such as their Rev. Guard who piloted speed boats around US warships...while dropping unidentified objects into the water...and

I would like to believe that actions speak louder to words and they generally do, but that doesn't mean that you should discount what said. A statement like that genuinely makes me cast doubt on his rational and sanity.  I really wish I could find that speech some where...I'm going to look deeper.  I was under the impression that it was the current Ayatollah. 

the MAD thing has been discussed; I tend to think USSR would have been nuked in the 50s had it not tested a hydrogen in 1949. The seduction of a final solution to the commie problem would have been floating over the patriotic heads all the time. The argument that believers arу not quite rational as atheists has merits; but i deny anyone the right to deny nuclear access to any nation on the pretext of "i don't trust you".



I said "post-Soviet". Difference there is, trust me. Post-Soviet scientists were neither controlled nor paid. And they were decades ahead of anything that Iran has up to now.



that's the aberration of your political sight. American actions in the last decade alone were more "provocative" than anything Iran did since the Xerxes thrust into Hellada. How provocative would you find an unwarranted take-over of Mexico by Iran? See how different a standard of "provocativeness" u're applying to the two actors?


aha

I said this months ago:
If anyone here can name one country that acquired nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of using them, other than the US during the WWII, please speak up. Nuclear arms represent deterrent only. Otherwise you keep your mouth shut about creating them....whole point about a deterrent is to make a lot of brewhaha about it and public tests and so forth.

If not I have no reason to see Iran as simply pursuing their inherent right as a nation (as much right as any nation) to have a nuclear deterrent.

Hell, I've been arguing for a Canadian nuclear deterrent for years.





Ahk