3 Responses

  1. Actually, the whole dispute has nothing to do with nukes at all. That’s just a pretext, just as “WMDs in Iraq” was a pretext. In debating Iran’s nuclear program, we’re falling for a misdirection, and ignoring the ACTUAL agenda at work: an attempt to use the nuclear issue as a pretext for imposing regime-change in Iran.

  2. Its a very succinct presentation of facts. Many congrats. Although if I am not mistaken, not just Israel, but also the US, Pakistan, India, France and the UK do not allow their nuclear arsenal to be inspected.

    One more addition to why a nuclear Iran is opposed by others: it could trigger an arms race in the region + the fact that the regime has called for the annihilation of another country (Israel).

    Iran has every right to nuclear energy, there is no doubt. There is a strong economic case for it. My disagreement is with regime policies, which are not subject to dispute, scrutiny or any kind of elections by the people of Iran. Regime officials have basically hijacked the nuclear prog for their own political goals, and I disagree with that, and their policies.

    • thanks, Meir.

      But there is already an arms race, impelled by Israel’s stockpile (Iraq in the 1980s, and maybe aspects of Iran, are in response to that).

      Iran hasn’t threatened to annihilate Israel! It has a no first strike policy.

Comments are closed.