|
Some interesting counter commentary from that which is generally to be found in the mainstream. Of particular note I cite the following: The threat of attack gives Tehran reason to forge ahead with its nuclear program. As in North Korea, Iran's regime is focused on survival. That interest would be advanced by recognition as a nuclear power. The first is correct... the second.. dependent upon whether one believes that the Iranian's theocratic leadership will refrain from nuclear weapons production and consequently enlarge the possibility of a new arms race within the region by those currently non-players. And whether their vocalized rhetoric and stated agendas can change. Not likely, given the theocrats dogmatic convictions. And whether one believes in the same's ability to realize MADD is only effective as long as all players realize that significant losses suffered, as a consequence of action, remain a real possibility. The aforementioned dogmatic convictions leaves room for question as to whether the Mullahs are concerned for the general Iranian populace or not. Doesn't appear so.. given their ongoing repression and rejection of anything remotely viewed as a threat to their control....and their ongoing perpetration of state sponsored terrorism versus their theological-cultural, regional and international opponents. Whether continued negotiations will ensure this is problematical..history has generally said no and that the intervening time was used to continue their rearmament in the conventional arena and their continued development in long range missile tech-testing-development and production that gains them a first strike nuc potential. For those in question, let your doubts be rested. For the use and purpose of developing such has never been seriously considered for anything less then a nuclear capability....in either a tactical or strategic sense. Otoh, the idea that ongoing sanctions are producing effect has merit and the question then becomes one of furthering them to gain cooperation. Before the IGs security concerns take those out of the equation. Or seriously compound the issue. Their right to a safe and secure state remains non-negotiable..no question. The Mullahs reject this and hence the argument espoused by the authors remains seriously questionable. The answer lies in Tehran not Jerusalem. Always has. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/learning-north-korea - http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/learning-north-korea
-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|