Saturday, September 29, 2012

Iran: Israel Has Already Crossed Its Own Nuclear Red Line

 Israel has already breached its own red line set by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by acquiring "dozens of nuclear warheads," Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Saturday, reports AFP.

"If having the atomic bomb is passing the red line, the Zionist regime, that possesses dozens of nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction, has passed the red line years ago, and it has to be stopped," he said, according to the ISNA news agency.

"Is the occupying and aggressor Zionist regime that possesses nuclear weapons more dangerous? Or an Iran that doesn't have nuclear weapons and which insists more than anybody on nuclear disarmament, and seeks only to have peaceful nuclear energy abiding by international rules," Vahidi asked.


  1. All good points. I don't any US interest in continuing to bully Iran.

  2. Iran commits more terrorist acts than any country in the world. Many of its top government officials can't travel outside of Iran because of the many arrest warrants other nations have filed.

    Iran has committed several terrorist acts against the US. It finances Hizb-Allah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, two terrorist organizations which regularly attack Israeli citizens. Iran constantly threatens Israel with annihilation.

    I don't want war with Iran, but there is no equivalency between Israel and Iran. Israel is not a terrorist nation and threatens no one.

    1. I agree about the comparison and that some in the government are complicit in terrorist acts.

      However two mini-rant I want to get off my chest is first: the coining of the term terrorism, which is based on motivations, often prescribed by someone other than the person committing the act i.e. it's relative. I think it should simply be treated as an abhorrent criminal act, as "terrorism" creates another class of things used to justify response beyond the response to criminal acts.

      The second is referencing a country collectively for blame. I understand when people do that, but still there are specific individuals involved in certain acts and the entire country isn't to blame for them. I've known US Persians who have ties back home, and ironically probably more so than other theocratic Muslim countries, most of the Iranian people (there's a huge underground movement indulging in very non-Islamic things, lol) look more favorably towards west. But even just among the regular proletariat, for example:

      "My fellow passengers consisted of several locals, some Japanese tourists, a few Europeans, and a handful of Iranian farmers.

      I crossed the border with my US passport, and upon seeing this, one of the Iranians grabbed my arm and said to me in broken English:

      “In Iran, we like America. [Iranian president] Ahmaenijad is bad man. Very bad man.”"

      That's why the most appropriate response for the gov. to specific acts in many cases, are letters of marque and reprisal, rather than invasion, bombing, war, or preemptive measures. Also, I think private mercenary forces, or just private individuals *at their own risk*, for defense or rescue (of anyone, including Iranians) are also appropriate

      As such, Iran acquiring or developing weapons shouldn't in and of itself be cause of war or invasion (what about Pakistan then?). It's the same with weapons in general, we don't preemptively strike and/or kill someone who obtains a gun just because we think it might be used in some future crime

    2. So when Israel launches an aggressive assault on Palestinians in 2008 and kills over a thousand people and even specifically targets a school, that's good. But when Palestinians respond and kill a comparative handful of people that's terrorism. The underlying philosophy behind this belief is that one Jewish life is worth a hundred dirty Arab/goyim lives. This is the philosophy espoused by the Judaic religion itself and most rabbis. It's not one that any moral person would subscribe to.