NationStates Jolt Archive

What, if anything, should be done about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

A few references:
Iran's nuclear weapons program (http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm)
possible Iranian reactions to an attack (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/policywatch/policywatch2003/762.htm)
A discussion of the US capacity to invade Iran from anothe board (http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/34-687.asp)

What, if anything, should be done about Iran's nuclear ambitions?

A few references:
Iran's nuclear weapons program (http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm)
possible Iranian reactions to an attack (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/policywatch/policywatch2003/762.htm)
A discussion of the US capacity to invade Iraq from anothe board (http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/34-687.asp)
Something will be done about Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq were just strategic moves. Look at a map.

How about removing Israel's, then the 'threat' to Iran will be heavily reduced and we won't go back into a nuclear arms race?

How about removing Israel's, then the 'threat' to Iran will be heavily reduced and we won't go back into a nuclear arms race?

Israel has real no ambition's of using their weapons, it's more of a propaganda move to scare the Palistinians to not attacking, but it's proved not to work. But if it would result in the disarment of Iran, it should be done.

Iran will cause problems eventually. But as for now, the just remain fanatical and pretty much anti-American. Despite the fact that we are one of their largest clients for oil. Right now, the U.S. does not have enough man power to wage a third war. We are streatched too thin as it is. A draft would be the only way to provide enough man power, but that would prove to cause an uproar.

I think that Iran should be the target of U.S./UN sanctions. Threaten to cut off all aid and stop purchasing from their nations, allow full inspections, keep constant surveilance. Basically take every step possible to make sure they do not develope nuclear weapons.

I think that Iran should be the target of U.S./UN sanctions. Threaten to cut off all aid and stop purchasing from their nations, allow full inspections, keep constant surveilance. Basically take every step possible to make sure they do not develope nuclear weapons.

No sanctions, please. Those who will suffer from sanctions are always the people and not the government. And I don't think the Iranian government care THAT much. Sanctioned nations usually don't, I think.

Inspections are imo etc are imo the best idea. And also set preassure on them so they get a new fair and democratic election. Last one was kinda dodgy, I heard.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, while still staying mostly on topic, why should ANY country have demand over another country's nuclear weapons? Or conversely, why shouldn't those without stop those who do?

I mean, obviously North Korea shouldn't have them because it's ruled by a paranoid nutter. Pre-war Iraq ditto. Iran probably isn't a good idea. But George Dubya isn't the most switched on of US Presidents either and Ariel Sharon couldn't care less what happens outside Israel's borders. Russia might accidentally let loose if a mouse chewed through the wrong cable at their ageing missile silos, and anyone who understands the game of cricket wouldn't want India and Pakistan sizing each other up.

Point is, is it, or should it be, acceptable for non-nuclear countries to demand a non-nuclear world?

I say proactively support Iran's dissidents in a revolution. America destroyed Iranian democracy in 1953. Its restoration is long overdue, and the Americans should help the democratic movement.

As for an invasion, I think that would be impossible without introducing a draft. If Bush gets re-elected, I can see it happening. But I don't think Kerry would do it; it would be political suicide for him.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, while still staying mostly on topic, why should ANY country have demand over another country's nuclear weapons? Or conversely, why shouldn't those without stop those who do?

I mean, obviously North Korea shouldn't have them because it's ruled by a paranoid nutter. Pre-war Iraq ditto. Iran probably isn't a good idea. But George Dubya isn't the most switched on of US Presidents either and Ariel Sharon couldn't care less what happens outside Israel's borders. Russia might accidentally let loose if a mouse chewed through the wrong cable at their ageing missile silos, and anyone who understands the game of cricket wouldn't want India and Pakistan sizing each other up.

Point is, is it, or should it be, acceptable for non-nuclear countries to demand a non-nuclear world?


That's why I left the first two options open. ;)
And Sharon appears to have plans underway for an attack a la Osiraq in 1981. I really see this as the best option in the long term, as it prevents a regional nuclear arms race and keeps the US out of another mess.

As far as a US invasion, we could possibly raise the capacity to successfully invade, but not to occupy, Iran. It would mean stripping all our forces out of ROK and Europe (including KFOR) and prossibly a complete mobilization of reserves, but we could do it. I can't see as how the diplomatic and domestric fallout would be worth it.

I say bomb the hell out of the b@$t@rd$ before they can pose a threat to us.

I say bomb the hell out of the b@$t@rd$ before they can pose a threat to us.

Provided, of course, we ONLY attack militarily strategic targets, and only if we are 100% certain they would prove to be a threat.

Iran is a becon of democracy. The most progressive nation of the region. However, it is dangerous for them to develop nuclear weapon. There should be a world-wide ban on nuclear weapons. The US should dismantle its own, so as to show the world the way to go. Then the arm race will likely slow down and perhaps stop if enough big country follow the lead. As long as there is no threat in the neighborhoud, there is no point in becoming a threat to your neighbors.

If dangerous nations like Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are allowed to build nukes, then why not Iran aswell?




''Iran's Race for Nuclear Weapons''

In March and June of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requested access to a small complex of buildings at the Kalaye Electric Company in a suburb of Tehran. The agency suspected that Tehran was using this site to research and develop nuclear weapons. During two attempts to gain access to this site, the IAEA was refused. Finally, after construction and cleanup had been completed at the site, the IAEA inspectors were allowed entrance. After conducting a thorough search, the IAEA discovered traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium.

This is now the second site in Iran where traces of weapons-grade enriched uranium have been found; the first discovery took place at the Iranian nuclear facility in Natanz, located in central Iran. Tehran's explanation for these two discoveries is that residual weapons-grade uranium was left on second-hand nuclear equipment purchased from Pakistan. While this explanation is possible since Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, it is a dubious one at best. Instead, these two discoveries by the IAEA lend further credence to the accusation that Tehran is on a course to develop nuclear weapons.

For the leadership in Tehran, the quest to acquire nuclear weapons has become a race. With the United States in inextricable situations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington will have a difficult time using military power to prevent Tehran's pursuit of nuclear arms. With troop levels nearly exhausted, a military attack on Iran would have to rely mainly on airpower, which would not produce the desired results of completely eliminating Iran's nuclear program or altering the government structure in Tehran.

Indeed, the Pentagon has been arguing, for the first time in years, that the United States may have to increase the size of its military. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have exhausted the active duty forces, and the U.S. has been continually calling up additional National Guardsmen and Reserves to maintain its current troop levels. With U.S. forces not designed to fulfill extensive peacekeeping roles, the U.S. Army's vice chief of staff, General John Keane, recently admitted, "We do not have enough military police in the active duty force, as well as in the Reserve..." This failure has taxed U.S. troops, with General John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, recently warning the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committee, "We have to address the issue of fatigue." Based upon the preceding statements from U.S. military personnel, Washington has enough to worry about in both Afghanistan and Iraq for it to also consider taking military action in Iran.

Tehran's desire to develop and acquire nuclear weapons is based upon its deteriorating national security situation. Before October of 2001, when the United States began military action against Afghanistan, Iran had less to fear regarding its territorial integrity or the survival of its government. Afghanistan to the east was plagued by inner turmoil and did not pose much of a threat to Iran's eastern border. Iraq, to the west, was more of a concern, yet the U.N. enforced sanctions did much to keep Iraq in a state of perpetual weakness. The United Nations and the United States were intent on keeping the status quo in the Middle East.

Iran's only major threat, Israel, was being kept largely at bay, having to deal with its own internal problems centered on the continuing resistance by its large Palestinian population. Yet the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 would soon alter the geopolitical makeup in the Middle East and Central Asia. The attacks on that morning provided justification for the Bush administration -- which consisted of an abnormally aggressive cabinet -- to become involved in the affairs of Central Asia.

Beginning with its attack on Afghanistan, the Bush administration greatly increased its influence in the affairs of Central Asian states; indeed, before the invasion of Afghanistan, the United States had little to no involvement in the affairs of Central Asia. During the Soviet era, the U.S. did not have the military power to become involved in this region, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. lacked the political power to become involved. It was not until Washington could use the justification of retaliating to the devastating attacks on its homeland that it could establish military bases in former Soviet states and therefore increase its influence with the governments in those states.

After establishing military bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Bush administration had engineered the successful projection of U.S. power and influence into Central Asia that could then be used to achieve U.S. interests in the region. As alarming as this sudden influx of U.S. troops and influence was for Tehran, it was eclipsed by the ability of the Bush administration to gain political support for not only overthrowing the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, but in establishing a military occupation of the country. Plus, by taking this action unilaterally, the Bush administration could not be directly influenced by member states of the United Nations.

This sudden change of the geopolitical map on both Iran's western and eastern borders has led to the conclusion in Tehran that it must make itself militarily powerful in order to continue to secure its interests and, most importantly, its territorial and governmental integrity. This explains why in recent days Iran has continued to focus attention on its Shahab-3 missile, which was fully and successfully tested on July 15, 2000. According to the Federation of American Scientists, these missiles have the ability to strike targets within a 1,350 to 1,500 kilometer range, putting them well within striking capability of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also within striking distance of Israel.

By coupling the development of nuclear weapons with its ability to strike targets in the Middle East and Central Asia, Iran will have transformed itself into a powerful state that would be able to protect its national interests and territorial integrity. If these ends were achieved, rival states such as the United States and Israel would lose massive foreign policy leverage in the Middle East. It is for this reason that Israel and the United States are extremely concerned over Iran's continued development of nuclear technology that could be used to develop nuclear arms.

It is clear that the military card is currently not a desirable option for Washington. The threat of Iranian retaliation in addition to an extremely taxed U.S. military has caused Washington to seek alternative means in dealing with Iran. The Bush administration has been pushing the United Nations and the international community to apply political and economic pressure on Iran. So far, the Bush administration has achieved the establishment of an October 31 deadline for Iran to sign an additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This protocol would allow the IAEA to conduct surprise inspections of suspected Iranian nuclear sites. Unfortunately for the White House, it is not clear if this added pressure will halt or delay Iran's nuclear plans.

As of now, Iran has said that it will not sign the additional protocol. In the meantime, work is continuing on the main Iranian nuclear reactor in the city of Bushehr, which is being built with the technical support of Moscow. President Bush recently met with President Vladimir Putin of Russia in continued attempts to get Moscow to cease assistance to the Iranian government, but Putin refrained from taking a solid stance against Russia's nuclear assistance to Iran. Putin said, "It is our conviction that we shall give a clear but respectful signal to Iran about the necessity to continue and expand its cooperation with the IAEA." Furthermore, the Russian president said that Moscow would continue to assist Iran's nuclear program even if Tehran does not sign the additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that would pave the road to surprise inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities.

Moscow's reason for assisting Iran at the expense of the United States lies in the same distaste that Tehran has over the increasing U.S. presence in Central Asia and the Middle East. By boosting support to Iran, Moscow is ensuring that Washington will be unable to further increase its dominance in the Middle East and Central Asia. One of the main purposes that Washington has in establishing U.S. military bases in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia is to encroach on Russia's borders and limit Moscow's influence in the rich oil and gas region of Central Asia. Therefore, while Russia certainly does not want to damage relations with the United States, it will still make foreign policy decisions -- such as supporting Iran -- that will work to contain U.S. influence in Eurasia.

In light of this, Tehran is racing to develop and acquire nuclear weapons before the United States has the military leverage again to effectively deal with Iran. But once the main Iranian reactor at Bushehr is loaded with nuclear fuel -- possibly in 2004 -- it will become much more costly for Washington to launch an air attack on that reactor as any attack on the reactor would risk nuclear fallout. But Washington may not have the military or political ability to attack Iran before then.

Therefore, the wildcard to this festering conflict is Israel. Like Washington, the Israeli government does not want to lose foreign policy leverage in the Middle East. If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region would end. This result is undesirable to the leadership in Jerusalem. In 1981, Israel was in a similar predicament. At that time, the French were assisting Iraq in Baghdad's pursuit of nuclear energy at the Osirak nuclear reactor. Before the reactor was loaded with nuclear fuel, Israel launched a surprise air attack and partially destroyed it. Leaders in Israel have warned that Israel will take such action again, if necessary, before the Iranian reactor at Bushehr is loaded with fuel.

If in 2004 the Bushehr reactor is ready to be loaded with nuclear fuel, the United States may quietly encourage an Israeli attack on Iran. An Israeli attack would achieve Washington's objectives of weakening the Iranian government, but without putting U.S. military forces in jeopardy from Iranian retaliation. The State of Israel, however, will be at risk from possible Iranian retaliation with its Shahab-3 missiles. It is still unclear whether Israel will risk such retaliation in exchange for its desire to preserve its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.

Report Drafted By:
Erich Marquardt

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=96&language_id=1

A question for whomever voted option 2 (Iran is a peace loving nation and has no nuclear ambitions).
Can you explain Iran's support, both financial and material, of terrorist groups like Hizballah in the context of their being peace loving?
Can you explain the Iran-Iraq war?
And what of the mountains of evidence for Iran's nuclear program?

I don't mean to be antagonistic - I am genuinely curious to know see your answers. Thank you.

A question for whomever voted option 2 (Iran is a peace loving nation and has no nuclear ambitions).
Can you explain Iran's support, both financial and material, of terrorist groups like Hizballah in the context of their being peace loving?
Can you explain the Iran-Iraq war?
And what of the mountains of evidence for Iran's nuclear program?

I don't mean to be antagonistic - I am genuinely curious to know see your answers. Thank you.
Hizbollah is not a terrorist group.
The Iran-Iraq war was initiated by Iraq.
THe rest of the question is correct.

I never thought I'd say this, but gawd I miss the cold war. At least there was another super power to keep up the checks and balances. Now with only one super power they are going to get the whole damn world blown up. Well when it happens I hope I get taken out fast so I don't even know it happened, I don't want to spend any time thinking of how all of this could of been stopped had the US just not provoked every one who disagreed with them in the world!

Let a sovereign nation do what they want until they start attacking others. If the people in that country don't like how things are running, they need to revolt or use that nation's laws to their advantage to change things. It's not our responsibility to monitor/control the world. It's the responsibility of the population of that nation to do so.

If any country starts using nukes to invade or preemtively attack another nation, turn that country to glass. Nobody has the right to invade anyone preemtively--REGARDLESS the rationalization. NOBODY. Defense is a completely different matter, however. Defense is preparatory and reactionary--not proactive strikes before anything has occurred.

Preemptive strikes make whomever implement them as bad as anyone in history.

Hizbollah is not a terrorist group.
The Iran-Iraq war was initiated by Iraq.
THe rest of the question is correct.

Yep, Hizbollah is Iranian funded freedom fighters. Anyone that blows themselves up for thier cause is a hero in my eyes, especially when you are doing it against a brutal occupation and Jewish Extremists who set up shop right next door to you in thier illegal settlements.

Yep, Hizbollah is Iranian funded freedom fighters. Anyone that blows themselves up for thier cause is a hero in my eyes, especially when you are doing it against a brutal occupation and Jewish Extremists who set up shop right next door to you in thier illegal settlements.Note Hizbollah's fighters are not blowing themselves though. They only strike military targets and usually as retaliation. They fight from Liban so they have the mean to actually fight against Tsahal, they don't need to blow up civilian buses.

Hizbollah is not a terrorist group.

Umm... since when? Hizbollah is known to have committed terrorist acts against the US, France, Lebanon, Argentina, the UK, and Israel.


The Iran-Iraq war was initiated by Iraq.
So what? Iran participated.

Note Hizbollah's fighters are not blowing themselves though. They only strike military targets and usually as retaliation. They fight from Liban so they have the mean to actually fight against Tsahal, they don't need to blow up civilian buses.

What about Hizbollah's suicide bombings in Israel, Lebanon, London, and Argentina?
What of the French and US multinational stabilization forces in Lebanon attacked in Beirut? What of the attacks on embassies in London and Buenos Aires?
What of Hizbollah's links to Al Qaida?
Can you explain why the Al Qaida operatives who bombed the Paradise hotel complex north of Mombasa used the same techniques developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s?
Can you explain why the only claim for responsibility for the Mombasa attacks was made on a Hizbollah radio station?
Can you explain Imad Mugniyeh's visits to Khartoum in 1995, 1996 and 1997, where he met bin Laden several times?

Mombasa Bombing

Umm... since when? Hizbollah is known to have committed terrorist acts against the US, France, Lebanon, Argentina, the UK, and Israel.
Since 1992 I'd say.
I think Hezbollah tried terrorism in the 80's.
Now Hezbollah has siets in the lebanese parliement. It is no more a terrorist organisation than Likhud in Israel.

What about Hizbollah's suicide bombings in Israel, Lebanon, London, and Argentina?
What of the French and US multinational stabilization forces in Lebanon attacked in Beirut? What of the attacks on embassies in London and Buenos Aires?
What of Hizbollah's links to Al Qaida?
Can you explain why the Al Qaida operatives who bombed the Paradise hotel complex north of Mombasa used the same techniques developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s?
Can you explain why the only claim for responsibility for the Mombasa attacks was made on a Hizbollah radio station?
Can you explain Imad Mugniyeh's visits to Khartoum in 1995, 1996 and 1997, where he met bin Laden several times?

Mombasa BombingNo they use guerilla tactics, not terrorism (although they've been experimenting terrorism in the 80's)

BTW this link to al-qaeda thing does not mean anything. The CIA has links with al-qaeda.

So what? Iran participated.
Does not mean they're not peace-loving though. They had no choice.

No they use guerilla tactics, not terrorism (although they've been experimenting terrorism in the 80's)

Have you conceded they are suicide bombers? Otherwise please address the suicide bombings listed above.

As for guerilla tactics, as defined by you, these involve attacking military targets.
What were the military targets in Argentina in 1992, where Hizbollah
destroyed an embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building, killing 29, most of whom were Argentine civilians, many children?
Where were the soldiers at the Argentina-Israeli Mutual Association building subject of a suicide bombing carried out by Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a 29-year-old Shiite Muslim who has been honored with a plaque in southern Lebanon for his martyrdom on July 18, 1994, the date of the bombing, and organized by , Imad Mugniyah. That was Argentina's worst terrorist attack and the largest single incident of terrorism against Jews since World War II.
Or how about military targets of the July 26, 1994 car-bombing of the the Israeli embassy in London, injuring 14 people?
And you still haven't answered regarding Hizbollah's links to the Paradise hotel bombing? What was the military target there?

Have you conceded they are suicide bombers? Otherwise please address the suicide bombings listed above.

As for guerilla tactics, as defined by you, these involve attacking military targets.
What were the military targets in Argentina in 1992, where Hizbollah
destroyed an embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building, killing 29, most of whom were Argentine civilians, many children?
Where were the soldiers at the Argentina-Israeli Mutual Association building subject of a suicide bombing carried out by Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a 29-year-old Shiite Muslim who has been honored with a plaque in southern Lebanon for his martyrdom on July 18, 1994, the date of the bombing, and organized by , Imad Mugniyah. That was Argentina's worst terrorist attack and the largest single incident of terrorism against Jews since World War II.
Or how about military targets of the July 26, 1994 car-bombing of the the Israeli embassy in London, injuring 14 people?
And you still haven't answered regarding Hizbollah's links to the Paradise hotel bombing? What was the military target there?Did Hezbollah claim all those terrorist acts? Or was there just a "link" between the actual terrorists and Hezbollah?

In some cases Hizbollah has claimed responsibility, in others not.

As stated above, the only claim for responsibility for the Mombasa attacks was made on a Hizbollah radio station.

Evidence regarding the Argentine attacks:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6817336.htm?1c
http://www.adl.org/Terror/terror_buenos_aries_attack.asp
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/chapt_d.htm
The Argentinian intelligence service (SIDE) recently completed an extensive report on the AMIA bombing. Its main findings: The Iranian government initiated the bomb attack. Ali Fallahian, Iran’s then-Intelligence Minister, was given the responsibility for carrying out the bombing. The Iranian intelligence service assigned the operation to the Hezbollah organization. The bombing was carried out by Hezbollah’s terror apparatus headed by Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah’s second-in-command and leader of its military wing. Syria was, at the least, aware of the goings-on.
http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/kevin_g_hall/6804637.htm
http://www.10452lccc.com/neal/neal9.6.03.htm

I did find 1 denial (out of the first several 100 of 49,000 web pages) by Hizbollah regarding the Argentinian attacks. However, it was a defunct webpage and the claim was from 2003, 9 years after the attack. It doesn't take 9 years to deny involvement unless you are trying to put a bright shiny lie over your crimes...

Let a sovereign nation do what they want until they start attacking others. If the people in that country don't like how things are running, they need to revolt or use that nation's laws to their advantage to change things. It's not our responsibility to monitor/control the world. It's the responsibility of the population of that nation to do so.

If any country starts using nukes to invade or preemtively attack another nation, turn that country to glass. Nobody has the right to invade anyone preemtively--REGARDLESS the rationalization. NOBODY. Defense is a completely different matter, however. Defense is preparatory and reactionary--not proactive strikes before anything has occurred.

Preemptive strikes make whomever implement them as bad as anyone in history.

So you believe that in situations like Sudan, Iraq, Bosnia, Gongo, etc, it would/is better to do nothing?
So the USA should be turned to glass????

Hizbollah is not a terrorist group.
The Iran-Iraq war was initiated by Iraq.
THe rest of the question is correct.

Do Hizbollah not killed civilians to create an atmosphere of terror? if so they are terrorists

Do Hizbollah not killed civilians to create an atmosphere of terror? if so they are terrorists
Well I agree. I thought they did not use terrorist tactics, just guerilla. If they still do use terrorism, it's my bad.

I believe they did but would have to research to be sure

I believe they did but would have to research to be sure
I know for sure they did in the 80's. I thought they did not anymore. But the links Daistallia 2104 provided shows that they still do.

About Iran having nukes....
Personally I don't like it. But then considering the nations that have nukes around them how can you expect them not to want them.

I think the problem is not that they want nuke, but that they are not US-friendly in term of oil interests. They could have nukes for all the US cares, so long as they are US-friendly. However, if they're not, they should not have nuke because the US will not be able to invade and replace the government then.

What's so flippin' stupid about the US's antagonistic policy against Iran is that Iran is one of the few stable countries left in the area. They've attempted reforms in the past decade, and some of those reforms have come through alright... but the more pressure the US puts on Iran, the more political ammunituon Iranian hard-liners have to tighten up control of their nation. Political and social freedoms are the first things to be sacrificed when you're afraid that a huge powerful nation might invade at any minute.

And because of our pressure, we're getting Iran to be exactly what we say it is-- more repressive, more discriminatory. Trying to foster some stability in the Muslim world would be the first step towards promoting freedom.

What's so flippin' stupid about the US's antagonistic policy against Iran is that Iran is one of the few stable countries left in the area. They've attempted reforms in the past decade, and some of those reforms have come through alright... but the more pressure the US puts on Iran, the more political ammunituon Iranian hard-liners have to tighten up control of their nation. Political and social freedoms are the first things to be sacrificed when you're afraid that a huge powerful nation might invade at any minute.

And because of our pressure, we're getting Iran to be exactly what we say it is-- more repressive, more discriminatory. Trying to foster some stability in the Muslim world would be the first step towards promoting freedom.

Good points. What would you think of a carrot and stick approach: more democracy and freedom, dropping nuclear ambitions, and abandoning terrorism means the US will hold back Israel and decrease or drop trade sanctions, while increased repression and terrorism, and following nuclear ambitions means the US turns Israel loose on the reactors and begins sending covert military aid to the Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and other dissident groups?

About Iran having nukes....
Personally I don't like it. But then considering the nations that have nukes around them how can you expect them not to want them.

Only Israel and Pakistan have nukes around them. Israel is only a threat of a defensive nature and Pakistan is not a threat (that I know of). Nukes are generally either a prestige item, a defensive measure, or a threat. the only reason for Iran wanting them is prestige or a threat... more likely as prestige.

I think the problem is not that they want nuke, but that they are not US-friendly in term of oil interests. They could have nukes for all the US cares, so long as they are US-friendly. However, if they're not, they should not have nuke because the US will not be able to invade and replace the government then.

Hmm... Do you think the US would permit, say, Germany, Japan, or Taiwan to develop nukes without interference?

Hmm... Do you think the US would permit, say, Germany, Japan, or Taiwan to develop nukes without interference?Well not on the scale thye could do with Iran. What about India? Pakistan? I didn't hear about an axis of evil then.

Good points. What would you think of a carrot and stick approach: more democracy and freedom, dropping nuclear ambitions, and abandoning terrorism means the US will hold back Israel and decrease or drop trade sanctions, while increased repression and terrorism, and following nuclear ambitions means the US turns Israel loose on the reactors and begins sending covert military aid to the Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and other dissident groups?
This would imply the Us has any kind of credibility. How on hell do you expect Iran to trust the US by their words?