CoalHeart wrote:
They will always have that "Zionist Infidels!" ace up their sleeves.
I don't want to sound like a condescending *******, but you should really read up on the History between the US (and the UK, for that matter) and Iran. It's long and dirty. The Irananians have all the reasons in the world to be suspsicious about the US. I know it's so much simpler to have the "We're good, they're evil" mentality, but historically, our behavious towards this nation has been absolutely abysmal.
Having said that, I don't think the future is that bleak. The worst possible outcome is that Iran will end up with a nuke, which I don't think is
that scary. Israel has some. Pakistan has some. Most countries in the world could have some if they really wanted to. I'm not saying this is a positive development, but it's a pretty natural course of action in a world that lacks any real centralised authority, or an enforceable collective framework for dealing with this issue.
I do think, however, that Iran will eventually calm down its rethoric. Most of its population is under 25, and they are pretty pro-US, in their actions if not their words. They watch US shows, buy US goods, aspire to a Western lifestyle (adapted to local customs, ofc), and most of all, they are almost as unaware about the US's actions towards Iran in the XXth Century as young Americans are today. Fundamentally, a majority of Iranians want to be accepted in the international community. In time, if we don't antagonise them too much, it'll calm down. There's no reason why Iran couldn't be like, say, Turkey. In time. And that's what Obama is trying to do. Get on teh good side of the Iranians that want dialogue and good relations.
The nuclear issue is thorny. I'll be brutally honest, I can understand the Iranian leadership. Their next door-neighbour was taken out in 3 weeks flat, because it kinda pissed off a US President. They are next to a nuclear armed country that they don't like, and that doesn't like them. They have been placed on the axis of evil. They pretty much know that their long-term survival depends on them getting a nuke. It's their only guarantee of long-term survival and independence. Regardless of the issue of civil energy, if I was an Iranian Ayatollah, I would be trying to get hold of the bomb.
And once again, I'm not sure we can do all that much about it. Yes, we can build international pressure, put forward SC Resolutions, impose sanctions, threaten invasion, let Israel attack the place, we can offer goodies and money and technology... But the knowledge is already there. The infrastructure is in place. The technology is widely available. If they really want to, they will get the bomb. If Lybia almost managed it, pretty much anyone can.
Today the problem is Iran, but tomorrow it'll be Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen. As time goes by it gets easire and easier to build a bomb. I don't think the "fireman" approach is the right one, fundamentally. There needs to be some serious rethinking with regards to how we deal with the issue of nukes in general, and on the long-term. We can't rely on the "Don't build nukes or we attack", since if anything it'll mean people will simply build the one thing that guarantees they won't be attacked. The EU, the US, China, all of us need to work on some proper framework. The NPT is a joke, disregarded by everyone. We desperately need something new. But it's super-hard in practice. So much so that we probably won't think about the issues of nukes on the long-term until someone finally shoots one off.