…it should hardly come as a surprise. As Mehdi Hasan points out, their neighbours are all puppet regimes of the United States…
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.
On your eastern border, the United States has 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. On your western border, the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 and plans to retain a small force of military contractors and CIA operatives even after its official withdrawal next month. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, is to the south-east; Turkey, America’s Nato ally, to the north-west; Turkmenistan, which has acted as a refuelling base for US military transport planes since 2002, to the north-east. To the south, across the Persian Gulf, you see a cluster of US client states: Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet; Qatar, host to a forward headquarters of US Central Command; Saudi Arabia, whose king has exhorted America to “attack Iran” and “cut off the head of the snake”.
Then, of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents.
The map makes it clear: Iran is, literally, encircled by the United States and its allies.
In addition to which, as you take another sip of your chai, you might reflect on the fact that if Saddam had actually got the WMD that Blair/Bush so frequently told us he had got, he may well still be around to tell us he had got them. Of course, in common with every national leader who has ever been a barrier to US/UK economic interests, Hussein was clinically mad. It is a real Catch-22. As a leader that cannot appreciate the benign influence of US (and by default UK) foreign policy, you must automatically be clinically mad, and therefore not allowed to remain in office. This analysis can sometimes be confusing. Some national leaders can actually be stark raving mad one moment, and then miraculously recover to become statesmen of the highest order within a couple of years. Muammar Gaddafi was mad, then he fell victim to Tony Blair’s persuasive charms (hey, there’s many more than him been taken in by that one) when he ditched his weapons, and later became mad again when it was realised he could be taken out safely. If he had hung on to his WMD, who knows, he might still ave been mad, but still sitting on his gold sofa in his tented palace.
Pass me another cup of that chai…
Bob,
So, your point is, that it should not be a surprise that when someone is threatened or perceives themselves to be threatened that they might want to have the means to protect themselves? And to clarify your reasoning further, you think that this is an acceptable course of action?
Whether it is ‘acceptable’ or not is a matter of opinion, but it certainly appears to be acceptable to those states that have already armed themselves with nuclear weapons. If we do nothing about other countries in the region possessing nuclear weapons, it is hypocritical to apply sanctions or threaten military action against Iran.
There was a time when there was only one Country in the world which had a Nuclerar ‘deterrent’ and it dropped it on a school(s) at the first chance.
So you can see the logic, albeit twisted, of the US and their ‘destabilising the area’ stance it has on anyone else developing a Nuclear capability.
No, because Israel already has nuclear weapons, so on that logic it would be more stable if the Iranians did too.
But Israelis are not genetically mental.
And people from Stoke aren’t genetically racist, but that doesn’t appear to stop you.
You’re playing the race card.
Therefore you must have lost somewhere down the line.
Not at all. Your clear implication, unless you are being even more incoherent than usual, is that Iranians are ‘genetically mental’. As far as I am concerned that is not only a stupid thing to say, it is demonstrably racist, and if you or anyone else wants to come on here making racist remarks, it will be challenged. And I will not hesitate to do so by idiots suggesting that is playing the race card.
Ahhh, I see.
You construct a sentence that I did not say, you then disagree with it and then blame me for it and call me a racist.
Hmmm. Voices in the head is quite alarming but manageable with the right help. When those voices start to argue with each other, no help is available.
Do you write for Ricky Gervais in your spare time?
Try to cover it up if you wish Gary, but it is plain for anyone to see. I wrote:
No, because Israel already has nuclear weapons, so on that logic it would be more stable if the Iranians did too.
You replied:
But Israelis are not genetically mental.
You can wriggle in your boxer shorts til you are blue in the face, but any sane person can only draw one conclusion from your racist jibe. Do you write for Nick Griffin in your spare time?
It’s becoming more clear to me now.
You don’t actually write these articles and therfore don’t know what is written (on your behalf) within them.
The person writing the above actually calls most Middle East Leaders clinically mental.
I wondered where Martin Borman disappeared to and I think Sandwell is as good a place as any.
Clearly irony is wasted on someone has downright dopey as you. But actually, whilst I write them, perhaps I make the mistake of assuminhg you are intelligent enough to read them too. If you read it, it points out that Saddam (in common with every other leader in the world throughout history) must be clinically mad – not genetically, which implies their genetic pool – because he did not accept the dictats of US-UK foreign policy.
You then use that as an excuse to make racist comments about Iranians.
To witness Labour Councillors writhe in agony as the hole they dig devours them is becoming a meaningful pastime I quite enjoy.
I am neither writhing, nor in agony. I note you have abandoned any attempt at a cogent argument though. Stop making an arse of yourself, it’s embarrassing to see.
Tell me Bob, which political parties will support any attempt by the Conservative Party to replace our Nuclear arsenal with Trident?
It’s a given that the Liberals will not.
No it isn’t. But nice attempt to sidestep your foolish racist comment.