Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com

Wealth of Nations

SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 9:00 AM

Iranians Say No to Nukes

Newsweek

By Maziar Bahari
The most important opposition to Iran's nuclear program in 2010 could come from inside the country. Before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed reelection in June, there was widespread consensus among Iranians that Iran had a right to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes--and if you scratched the surface, many also favored a nuclear deterrent. After all, they reasoned, Pakistan and Israel both have nuclear arsenals; why shouldn't Tehran be able to defend itself?

But now many Iranians associate the nuclear program with the group that oversees it, the hated Revolutionary Guards. Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi, both of whom have supported a peaceful nuclear program in the past, have kept silent on the topic since June. A Mousavi aide, asking not to be named for fear of reprisal, says: "The unreasonable brutality of the security forces has made people rethink everything this government stands for." If the West imposes broad sanctions, including on gasoline imports, Iranians might rally around their government again. But more likely Ahmadinejad, not the West, would get much of the blame for Iran's hard times. And sanctions targeted at the bank accounts, front companies, and travel visas of Revolutionary Guard commanders could encourage this simmering resentment rather than quash it.

Advertisement
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Yaseen P V (December 27, 2009 at 12:24 AM)

Even when a considerable percentage of the citizens may be against the best for the nation, the primary duty of leaders is ensure it.

All things considered, it appears that acquiring nuclear weapons is a survival need of Iran.

Arab nations too should go for the nukes without wasting time.

The extremists of the West will always want to keep those nations toothless arguing that nukes in the Middle East will create chaos there.

The moderates in the region should think of their national interest and should take the same action already taken by many of the "wise" nations of the world : acquire the nuke!

Brushing aside the arguments of the extremists, it appears that the Arab nations and Iran could live with their nukes in peace.

Well, have a look at China, India, and Pakistan.

And, when all the nuclear powers become convinced that they no longer need the nukes, well let them dump them on a deserted island--under UN supervision!


Posted By: burbank (December 25, 2009 at 2:06 AM)

Iranians may not  want nukes. But then, it has never been about the will of the people, but the will of the government when one looks at Iran. They have recently tested a two point implosion device, and are close to developing the technology that will enabel them to build nuclear triggers. This puts them on a nuclear fast track that western intelligence agencies have underestimated for the last twenty years. The two point implosion device mentioned above allows the Iranians to "miniaturize" their warheads, the same technology that we use to build the W88, the warhead  that sits atop the Trident D5 SLBM. Now, you might ask, where did they get this technology? Why not ask the Chinese. The point I'm trying to make is simply this. The Iranians would not be so bellicose in their negotiating stance if they did not have, or were close to developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. And when will the world know when the Iranians have such a device? When you get a launch detect. The Iranians will not overplay their hand. They know that even the admission of the possession of such a device will invite a swift and sure military response.

In his acceptance speech for recieving the Nobel Prize, President Obama referenced the folly of negotiation in defending military action in Afghanistan as part of an oveall stragedy to win the war on terror. He would do well to revisit those words when dealing with the Iranians. Just as negotiation did not work with Hitler, neither will negotiation work with the Iranians. If Mr. Obama thinks his intellectual acumen will seize the day, then all he will be left with are the words of Neville Chamberlain, who in 1939 said, "Everything I have hoped for, everything I have dreamed of, everything I have worked towards, has crashed in flames".


Posted By: Jim1348 (December 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM)

I think the first victims of a nuclear Iran would be the other Gulf states, as Iran tries to raise the price of oil through intimidation.  After that, the Europeans are in line since the Iranian nuclear missiles are able to reach there, and they don't want European interference in their designs.  The U.S. and Israel, though not entirely out of danger, are last in line since we have a good deterrent ourselves, and a good defense.  The Iranians will pick on the weak ones first.