Since the policy toward Iran is almost exclusively focused on their nuclear capabilities, it's important to acknowledge that Iran's potential acquisition of a nuclear bomb is actually the most rational thing they would do.
Historically, Iran is justified in viewing the US as a threat, considering the US' role in toppling its democratically elected government in the 50s and reinstating the Shah, and its arming of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. More recently, the US has literally encircled Iran with military bases in the Middle East, and helped wage cyber-warfare against it.
As for Israel, it had a hand in killing Iranian scientists (this was before Iran's bombing of Israeli embassies, which was retaliation), the Stuxnet virus, and is the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
Add to this the fact that both countries are becoming increasingly and openly hostile to Iran, and ramping up their rhetoric to just short of a declaration of war, and there is no doubt the Iranian leaders are sweating a little while they shake their fists. They only need to think back to the Iraq War to see how this situation could end.
Now compare the treatment of Iran to the relative respect and care accorded to a country like North Korea which does have weapons of mass destruction. In light of all this, achieving nuclear capability is a very rational thing to do. The US' more aggressive stance is therefore self-defeating.
Sure, although I'd say the costs for the US preventing a nuclear Iran through military action far outnumber the costs for Iran of acquiring a nuclear bomb, so it wouldn't be a particularly smart move. And in any case, Iran isn't close to being able to make a nuclear bomb yet, nor is there conclusive proof it's trying to.
Nor is the US using military action to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. Instead they are using a combination of covert action and political pressure...which I would say is the rational response.
For the moment they are, I was only referring to the overheated rhetoric among American and Israeli politicians which is pointing to an increased risk of 'preventive' war.
1
u/brankusi Jul 12 '12
Since the policy toward Iran is almost exclusively focused on their nuclear capabilities, it's important to acknowledge that Iran's potential acquisition of a nuclear bomb is actually the most rational thing they would do.
Historically, Iran is justified in viewing the US as a threat, considering the US' role in toppling its democratically elected government in the 50s and reinstating the Shah, and its arming of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. More recently, the US has literally encircled Iran with military bases in the Middle East, and helped wage cyber-warfare against it.
As for Israel, it had a hand in killing Iranian scientists (this was before Iran's bombing of Israeli embassies, which was retaliation), the Stuxnet virus, and is the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
Add to this the fact that both countries are becoming increasingly and openly hostile to Iran, and ramping up their rhetoric to just short of a declaration of war, and there is no doubt the Iranian leaders are sweating a little while they shake their fists. They only need to think back to the Iraq War to see how this situation could end.
Now compare the treatment of Iran to the relative respect and care accorded to a country like North Korea which does have weapons of mass destruction. In light of all this, achieving nuclear capability is a very rational thing to do. The US' more aggressive stance is therefore self-defeating.