Iran's Supreme Leader has declared nukes to be anti-Islamic

I expect, like North Korea, they would seek a nuclear weapon to scare off the obviously hostile foreign powers that have been antagonizing them. The best thing the United States could do to reduce that effect would be to stop antagonizing them.

Under the "Samson option," Israel would likely nuke anybody with any likelihood of responsibility before the US (or India) could even react. It's already their policy.

 

The USSR collapsed because empire is unsustainable and that empire in particular was unsustainable because it had the craziest economy in the history of the world. It just would have collapsed much faster had it tried to conquer the Middle East. The "Cold War" was just another needless war that caused many more problems at home and abroad.

 

What do you think the US government would do if Iran had conquered Canada and Mexico? This is all the more reason for the United States to come home and stop meddling over there.

Give me evidence that he or any Shiite think they can speed up the end times by human agency.

 

Right. So what difference does Montazeri's criticism make if Khamenei won't acknowledge it?

Good. Support non-interventionism them. Anything else you do would just encourage Iran to seek a nuke, even assuming it WAS seeking a nuke.

"People" don't control the government. He does. And I don't know that "people" consider him less legitimate than Montazeri.

And, oh look, Montazeri ALSO issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. So even if you assume that people who view him as a superior authority to Khamenei control the government, that's just another argument AGAINST them seeking nukes.

So what's the next argument to try to make this sound plausible

Taqiyya: "a practice emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion."

So far as I know, they're not concealing their religion. They are quite open that they are Shiites.

I'll spell it out once more: either he's a true believer in his religion or he isn't. If he is, he'd follow his own fatwa. If he isn't, he wouldn't commit the self-destructive act of nuking Iran for religious purpose. Take your pick.

The IAEA says that they don't know whether Iran in pursuing a nuclear weapon, as this interview shows. Quote, "We don't know if there are other activities outside their declaration. We are not sure if they are hiding something."

 

America is coming home alright. There is very serious business here and now.

 

Nah..if the US didnt have its alleged "interventatist policy" as you prescribed then the USSR wouldn't have had to spend all its money on trying to keep up with US defense spending - thats what broke the USSR. The MidEast would have earnt money for the Soviets through occupation. Their use of force and authoritarism was well practised and much more capable then the US/NATO liberal democracy model. The MidEast should be thankful for the US actions during the Cold War and indeed intelligent educated people in the MidEast probably are, its just the criminals take advantage of the poor education fed to the children in large parts of the Middle East to attack anything 'different' and 'better off'.

 

Egypt is a one bomb country. It goes first.

What happens in the Middle East is none of America's business.

 

No way, it might close the Suez Canal and noone would want that. It would be a shame for all those artifacts such as the Pyramids etc. I'm sure Israel could conduct surveillance and response over the territory between each other for conventional threats if Egypt tried to invade. That should be enough, as Israel has no reason to bother with invasion of Cairo. If the nuke came from Cairo they'd probably nuke Tehran and bomb the Egyptian military into the ground using conventional ordnance.... if still able to operate.

 

I don't think Israel cares about the Suez Canal or Egyptian artifacts. American influence with Israel is dwindling.

 

Ok. By your logic America should also give up all rights to WMD because of all the terrorists and undesirables supported, financed and encouraged by Washington over the decades. Agreed? It's also worth reminding others that America remains the only nation to have employed nuclear weapons in anger.

 

Right, so according to you the only nations who ought to have nuclear weapons are those whose ideology you agree with, whilst those who are threatened by this ideology by way of potential annihalation, must remain defenceless?

I'm in favour of multinational reductions in nuclear arms whilst you appear to be in favour of the strong maintaining their levels while their weak "enemies" like Iran not be allowed them, thus perpetuating the uneven balance in relative power relations.

You do realize that the only reason a nation like Iraq was invaded is precisely because they didn't have the WMDs the West falsely claimed they had as their justification for attacking that country?

 

No need to get too philosofical about this, international law/nation right/historical crap etc' etc', a big country that clearly states it will destroy another country then presses its best efforts to gain a nuke - is not going to be accepted

 

Gilos.. Israel bombed both Iraq and Syria in the past.. and Israel has been threatening Iran since 2002.

While I am NO fan of the Iranian government, they have needed nuclear power since the mid 1960s to expand their electrical grid..

They DIDN'T need nuclear weapons except in response to Israeli threats and Israel's past actions against Iraq and Syria.

 

What I prey, are you talking about? Iran perhaps?

 

Both were on nuclear sites,
Imagine if Iraq had the bomb when it invaded Kuwate

Every nation has a right to improve its life, this happens to be a way that also provides a nuclear weapon ability (at least) to some very hot headed fundamentalists who by the way wants to lead the destruction of another country- or can simply sell a bomb to someone else to do the job. so there's a bit more than simple rights here.

When did Israel threat Iran it will attack it b4 they declared they will destroy Israel ?

I really dont want to petronise you or rub you the wrong way but considering Israel attacked only a nuclear reactor in Iraq and a hidden nuclear silo/reactor in syria then Iran needs a nuclear bomb to defend against Israel attacks on nuclear bombs in the hands of its enemies?

 

Iran will NEVER attack Israel.. Israel's claim that they will is an old Israeli tactic.

Saddam would NEVER nuke Kuwait.. Kuwait was a province of Iraq and Saddam wanted Kuwaiti oilfields.

All these Middle Eastern countries need nuclear power and desal... because their energy needs are increasing a long with their standard of living.

And, the oil and gas producers will use less domestically and have more for export.

Look.. last year Israel got sideways because Jordan wants to build 2 nuclear power and desal plants.

Its lousy strategy for Israel to think they can dominate the ME by hindering progress and prosperity.

 

Once again, sorry to destroy your erection when Evil Zionists are being discussed but Israelis dont want - and never declared - the destruction of Palestine, i speak for the main stream majority in my country, sure we have fanatics like you do, i only wish yours would be of the same precentage as ours within our society

 

We dont, thats why we are nervous about it, you cant dominate a nation as the past 40 y proved and you cant hold back progress, we only hope progress will bring with it an understading that we are all human and that demons exists only in stories

 

Israel can seek a just peace.. and HAMAS and Hezbollah would be history.

Don't you know by now that the GCC is fed up with both?

 

It's true that you don't want the destruction of Palestine anymore than Hamas seek the destruction of Israel...And please don't quote me an irrelevant 63 year old document. What you do want to destroy though is all those Palestinian's within Palestine who have the termerity to resist their oppression at the hands of your "elected" oppressors. I take it Likud can count on your vote?

 

Top dead center. The other excuses include "he is a tyrant who is mean to his people", "they kill sick babies in hospitals" and "they make their women wear burkhas". There's enough propaganda out there to appeal to just about everybody.

 

If im not mistaken Hamas swore to kick israelis to the sea or something like that? i was serius about what i said - i have no reason to lie to you, most of the ppl here that side with Israel are way more radical then me so why would i lie?

Every Palestinian we gun down pushes us farther away from peace, everyone knows it, not just left wingers, and let me be clear about the meaning of peace for Isrealies, it appears in every national song we have, its the only hope many Israelis have for a decent life in our area, its a huge economic leap and many more,

and last thing, Israelis and Palestinans get along pretty well in some areas in the west bank, alot of Israelis shop, eat at restorants, fix their cars and more at the villages, so i belive peace will happen despite the hatred

Edit: By the way, what 63 y old quete do you mean?

 

At least you appear to be on the same chapter if not the same page. Most Israeli's I come across are not even in the same book. Do you vote for Likud?

 

It makes a difference to Khamenei's audience. Obviously, Khamenei doesn't concern himself with the opinions of his critics.

To what degree Khamenei runs Iran is debatable, but what temporal power he wields won't compensate for the lack of religious legitimacy and authority that is perceived in the minds of his critics (people who don't give his fatwas the time of day).

No doubt, Montazeri has his critics, as well. Whether or not their criticisms are valid is another story.

For the record, I never asserted that Montazeri had superior temporal/government authority over Khamenei - I referred to his clerical/religious status. As you know, the status of a grand ayatollah is superior to that of an ayatollah.

As for Montazeri's opinions on nukes and other issues, I'm not aware that Khamenei ever based his own policy decisions upon them.

There's much more to taqiyya than your truncated definition:

Moving along...

I pick that he's lying about his regime's intent to develop nuclear weapons. Obviously, Islam's scriptural texts do not address nuclear weapons, nor do they prohibit Muslims from possessing weapons. That might explain, as has been pointed out, why other clerics have not declared nukes anti-Islamic.

I'll re-post the Summary of the IAEA's 2011 report on Iran's nuclear program:

In other words, Iran's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA regarding questions concerning the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program has left the agency unable to conclude that is strictly peaceful.

This ultimately leads to the question, why aren't they cooperating with the IAEA? What are they trying to hide?

 

I didnt in the past, dont think i will now, however the Likud will have the majority needed to make peace, i hope they will