Archive for the ‘Quick Q&A’ Category

Quick Q&A – What is Israel’s problem with a Nuclear Iran?

November 21, 2011

Ever since I started this blog, I’ve never written once about the Iranian issue. It’s one that is very complex and honestly, while Israel is the country most associated with anti-Nuclear Iran news, it is not an issue that is exculsive to Israel. But now, 2 weeks since the IAEA report about Iran, I figured maybe it’s time to lay it out – simple, flat and avoid the complexities. At least attempt it.

The following are a few “brief” answers to the core issues regarding Iran and its’ nuclear program. If you have more questions I haven’t addressed here, I’d be more than happy to answer them in the comments and add them to the post.

Here we go –

Which countries have nuclear weapons today?

United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa. Only the first five listed have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

According to countless reports around the world, Israel also has nuclear bombs.

Iran claims it is no moving towards a nuclear weapon, just nuclear energy, isn’t it?

Iran also claims it has free elections and absolutely no gay people — shall I continue?

The IAEA report heavily relies on many (and various) intelligence agencies that suggest otherwise.

What are the threats a nuclear Iran posses NOT to Israel?

Iran poses many threats to many countries – Israel is certainly not the only (or the first) who is in danger, though it is the one being heard most loudly on this subject.

First and foremost, the Iranian regime seems to hold to a believe that Iran is not limited to its’ current borders, but is entitled to the entire Persian Gulf. Many countries, such as Iraq and Bahrain, fear an attack from Iran. This is also a religious matter – a war between Sunni and Shiite, but goes much further than that. The fear is with nuclear weapons, Iran would not hesitate to attack its’ neighbors in an attempt to seize control over the Gulf area (where still currently many NATO soldiers are deployed), knowing that many countries would fear retaliation due to the possibility of a nuclear war.

Moreover, there’s a growing fear that the fear of a nuclear Iran would in fact ignite a nuclear race in the Middle East, which is the equivelant of lighting a match in a room filled with gas. The number of countries holding nuclear weapons would double, the instability would increase to unimaginable levels and chances for peace and calm in the area could very well be no longer possible. Many countries have already attempted to move towards nuclear energy in the past and were faced with pressure by the Western world recoginizing the instability ahead (close to home, some of these countries  are Jordan, Egypt and Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon. Syria’s nuclear powers were destoryed in 2007, supposedly by Israel).

Even further, there’s is a fear from what more Iran will allow itself to do (past possible attacks and attempts to conquer the Gulf area), such as the threats towards Europe. Iran’s missiles can now reach deep into Eastern Europe and could very well reach past Germany in the not-so-distant future. Iran’s declared contempt towards Western lifestyle and capatalism is no secret. Even without that, having Iran place missile battries that could fire at any second to the heart of Paris, Berlin, Brussels etc is a risk no many care to take, giving the behaviour of the Iranian regime.

And what are the threats to Israel itself?

First of all, the Iranian regime does not miss an opportunity to talk about what the call The need to wipe Israel off the map. They continually call Israel by the name of the zionist regime (and zionist dogs, devils etc) and refuse to call by its’ name, acknowledge its’ existence. Just today, an Iranian official said he hoped for an Israeli attack so Iran could have the chance to finally “throw Israel to the trashcan of history” — would you be comfortable having an ally that talks like that obtaining means of mass destruction?

Today, Iran funds many terror organizations working against Israel and mainly to hurt, harm and kill its’ citizens. Israel is faced with endless barraged of rockets fired upon it for almost 11 years now and it all comes from Iranian money. It was a major funder of Hamas until the uprising in Syria and it still funding over a dozen terror organizations in the Gaza Strip as well as Hezbollah – a terror organization with perhaps more weapons and soldiers than the Labanese army itself, which today almost completely de-facto rules the parliment of Lebanon, turning it in to a dummy state control by puppet master Ahmadinejad.

In 2002, while The Second Intifida was happening and suicide bombers were killing people on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis, Israeli army caught a ship, named Karin A, loaded with weapons on its’ way to the terrorists from Iran at sea. In 2006, Israeli Navy caught a ship, Franco, with large amounts of weapons headed to Hezabollah. The latest capture known was in March of 2011 when the ship Victoria was captured and was found loaded with weapons hidden by humanatarian supplies, meant to be taken by foot to Gaza from the port.

With so much money, effort and time the Iranian regime spends arming terrorists who aim to kill and injure as many Israeli people – soldiers and civilians alike – as possible, Imagine what a nuclear Iran would allow itself to do? With what weapons it might allow itself to arm these terrorists?

If [supposedly] Israel has nuclear weapons, why can’t others?

See above — Iran is openly calling for the destruction of Israel and is constantly arming terrorists with weapons turned against Israel. Many countries fear a nuclear Iran, Wikileaks leaks proved that, but most of the immediate-threat countries cannot speak up because there’s a silence norm (almsot conspiracy) among Muslim and Arab countries. Many countries are afraid but rely on Israel to do the dirty work for them – another reason why they would never speak up.

What measures have been taken against Iran’s nuclear program already?

The Western world has called for talks to find a solution to allow Iran to have nuclear plants for peaceful purporses with the proper measurement taken to promise it won’t be used for a military purposes as well. Iran has rejects most of these talks and have used them to stall. Two years ago, it even ended the talks by signing a deal with Turkey and Brazil that will enrich uranium on Turkey’s soil rather than its’ own — in much larger quantaties that the West was willing to accept in the aforementioned talks.

There have numerous reports of viruses developed by Israel and the United States that have been targeting Iran’s nuclear plants. Iran itself has admitted its’ plants were attacked and its’ program has been slowed down and have blamed Israel and the United States for the attack.

Aren’t sanctions helpful?

Not really. It may be that the sanctions so far have not been hard enough to yield results, but the truth is Iran is still moving fast towards in nuclear plans and not slowing down really. The sanctions have been painful, no doubt, but it mostly took its’ toll on the civilian population, most of which already suffering to begin with by the regime that’s controling them. In one of the most unfree societies in the world (an accomplishment all in its own), and with the amounts of torture and killings inflicted by the regime and its’ authorities, many don’t have the chance and the opportunity to fight for their rights, as well as jobs, the economy and lifting of sanctions.

With its’ economy still deteriorating by the sanctions and more sanctions forced upon it, the Iranian regime still spends so much money on military plans, nuclear programs and funding of terror organizations. I can’t imagine there’s a satisfying amount left for the wellbeing of the Iranian people (though again – their wellbeing never seemed to be an issue for the regime).

So what… a military action is the only option?

Israel has a saying – “Always keep all options on the table.” A military operation is one of them. I cannot speak (because I do not really know) what the consequences and effiency an attack can have, but all options are on the table.

Just as with his speech before the US Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu always says that If you make sure the military option is placed on the table, you’d less likely need to use it. He hoped the deterance of such operation, just like the one Israel took before with Iraq in 1981 (and suppodely again with Syria in 2007), would be enough. Ironically, though, what many leaders around the world are doing is quiet the opposite – they’re revoking the military option time and time again, giving Iran the greener light to proceed in the meantime, and perhaps making the military operation they so oppose much more needed (unlike Israel’s stand that the more real it seems, the less likely it is to be used).

Seriously – Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon?

Honestly, I don’t really believe Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean it shall use it. But it will allow itself so much more, and will acquire psychological deterance… today it only sends “conventional” weapons to terrorists. Who will dare attack it tomorrow when it starts sending chemical weapons (such as mustard gas) to Hezbollah and the other terrorists it funds today and that today shoot blindly and proudly into civilian populations? Moreover, how much deterance will those terror groups get? How much power? That is the true danger of a nuclear armed Iran.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: