If you, like some others out there, believe it is a rational decision for Iran to build nuclear weapons given the carnage the US and Israel have unleashed upon its neighbors, then perhaps instead of arguing with us here, you should be writing to your congressmen and President asking them why they won't stop the provocations and threats that have forced Iran to pusrsue this "rational" policy of deterrence via nuclear arms.
If, on the other hand, you think--like I do-- that actually building nuclear weapons is patently idiotic compared to the perfectly legal alternative of developing the know-how to produce defensive technologies in case your enemies actually materialize their aggresive intents by bombing or invading your country, then, you'll find that the assessments of those like the IAEA and the US intelligence who believe there is no sign of military diversion of the Iranian nuclear program actually make perfect sense.
You see, in either case, a far more intriguing question is then: how much ideological zeal and/or lobby money did it take to get virtually everyone on CNN, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post to constantly debate the best way to attack Iran as if it weren't the most criminally insane idea one could think of.
It is indeed a brilliant idea to rely on the benevolence other countries to provide the fuel you hope to build your country's future on. Specially if they've put you under a decades-long embargo and now you can't even steadily pump your own oil out of the ground.
And what better business partner than Russia as you so brightly realized? They certainly have proven they can be trusted by not flip-flopping a dozen times on their paid commitment to build the Bushehr reactor, and by their prompt delivery of the S300 missile system for which they got paid years ago by Iran.
Maybe so. But almost all of them are state perpetrators of major wars of aggression with long and dark histories of ethnic cleansing, colonialism, aggressive interventionism and utter disregard for the human rights of the peoples they subjugated through wars. (Native Americans, East-Indies, Algeria, Vietnam, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, are just a few examples.)
So according to your logic, the most powerful imperial powers hold the moral high ground because they were too mighty to have to resort to terrorism to subjugate those they wished to oppress.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
If you, like some others out there, believe it is a rational decision for Iran to build nuclear weapons given the carnage the US and Israel have unleashed upon its neighbors, then perhaps instead of arguing with us here, you should be writing to your congressmen and President asking them why they won't stop the provocations and threats that have forced Iran to pusrsue this "rational" policy of deterrence via nuclear arms.
If, on the other hand, you think--like I do-- that actually building nuclear weapons is patently idiotic compared to the perfectly legal alternative of developing the know-how to produce defensive technologies in case your enemies actually materialize their aggresive intents by bombing or invading your country, then, you'll find that the assessments of those like the IAEA and the US intelligence who believe there is no sign of military diversion of the Iranian nuclear program actually make perfect sense.
You see, in either case, a far more intriguing question is then: how much ideological zeal and/or lobby money did it take to get virtually everyone on CNN, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post to constantly debate the best way to attack Iran as if it weren't the most criminally insane idea one could think of.
It is indeed a brilliant idea to rely on the benevolence other countries to provide the fuel you hope to build your country's future on. Specially if they've put you under a decades-long embargo and now you can't even steadily pump your own oil out of the ground.
And what better business partner than Russia as you so brightly realized? They certainly have proven they can be trusted by not flip-flopping a dozen times on their paid commitment to build the Bushehr reactor, and by their prompt delivery of the S300 missile system for which they got paid years ago by Iran.
Does that answer your question?
Maybe so. But almost all of them are state perpetrators of major wars of aggression with long and dark histories of ethnic cleansing, colonialism, aggressive interventionism and utter disregard for the human rights of the peoples they subjugated through wars. (Native Americans, East-Indies, Algeria, Vietnam, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, are just a few examples.)
So according to your logic, the most powerful imperial powers hold the moral high ground because they were too mighty to have to resort to terrorism to subjugate those they wished to oppress.