Nuclear Weapons are NOT Tools of Peace - Nuclear Iran Does NOT Offer Peace

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jul 9, 2012 at 11:52

It is evident that the variant opinions of whether a nuclear equipped Iranian Islamic Revolutionary military is globally viable or not is dependent upon one's observation of the obvious facts and statements of those who do have a vested interest in the proximal cause and effect of just exactly what the Iranian leadership will do when armed with fissionable/fusion weaponry. The real question is: are the Iranian military leaders under orders and are willing to use the weaponry at their disposal to act upon the declared threat against Israel made by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary leadership? After all, this may be the beginning of the next Middle Eastern open conflict; or will it?

But Mr. Waltz's contention of stability with Iranian 'nukes' in the region seems to be willing to overlook the obvious; the developing of nuclear weaponry in these modern times does not bode well for the agency that mistakenly thinks this will solve their issues of regional parity. Iran will never achieve parity; even if nuclear equipped. But the Iranian leadership seems willing to turn a blind eye and place their people in a predicament from which too many of their own will never survive. One wonders: does the leadership really care?

Now you mention an Iraq with nuclear capabilities and this was merely speculation for quite a long time; the problem in that exploration of futility was that if Saddam Hussein were able to obtain nuclear weapons, then Iran may have had cause for being nuclear capable: but not now.

Iran is not, repeat, not in danger of any nuclear threats except that which in the mind of the leadership that is being used to justify acquiring those weapons. After all, they have the backing of the Russian CIS and if that is not protection enough, frankly, this reader could only speculate what is in the global environment.

And yet that is the ancillary point; that Russia has expressed its backing of the Iranian leadership and THAT should raise more eyebrows than whether the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary leadership would expend nuclear power to press its declared agenda of world caliphate domination.

But that world caliphate domination does not appear to bother some as it does others, now would you not agree? So many in the Muslim world are of the considered and expressed opinion that Christianity as it is practiced by many interferes with the Islamic Revolutionary goal of implementing shari'a and that is at the crux of the matter, now isn't it?

So if one wants to know how this going to be resolved, this reader has already given the key to determining the means of how it is all going according to a plan; and a nuclear weapon is not going to solve Iran's problem of not having parity-it will only exacerbate the situation to Iran's everlasting detriment. Unfortunately, before they recognize their real problem, it will be too late and the Iranian people will have to pay the price for the perception of their leadership not having a real vision of a peaceful future.

So if you do want peace and I want peace: how is it then that you would say we differ? But you have already made that distinction, now haven't you?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".