On why Iran wants nuclear weapons
There’s only two ways now the U.S. government can resort to detour Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nukes: a comprehensive deal with NATO and Israel, with a nuclear weapons-free zone and the demilitarization of the frontier, or a prehemptive attack on the molds proposed by the Israeli government.
The iranian government will not aggree with less than this compromise of non-aggression. Beyond all the judgement we can make about Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, that seems to me to be a simple fact. Hence, what’s the reason for the preacher tone from the talking heads about the human rights violations of the Ayatollah’s regime, that daily overwhelms the criticism of Saudi Arabia, Colombia and other allies on the same matter? Could it be a strategy to justify invasion?
The weapons free zone would be very hard to obtain, though. There’s Pakistan, India and, of course, Israel to deal with. The Israeli government is reasoning correctly (in their own malevolent way), to talk publicly about a prehemptive attack on the iranian nuclear facilities that would avoid it from gaining the capacity to build a bomb: there’s no way to detour Iran otherwise, except giving up on their own nuclear weapons and guaranteeing a large aggreement between Iran and NATO.
Erdogan, from Turkey, and Silva, from Brazil, succeeded on closing a deal with Ahmadinejad in 2010 about the enrichment of uranium on the exact proposition sketched by the U.S. at the U.N. and stamped by the IAEA. For this reason, Erdogan was listed second on the now infamous 2010 “Person of the Year” election by People magazine (despite winning the reader’s choice, Wikileak’s Julian Assange was substituted by Zuckemberg, who placed tenth). The deal was later rejected by Clinton, who pressed the international community for sanctions.
But what’s the moral benefit on attacking a country that, before the evidence of its necessity of closing a peace treaty, is eager to close it? Or are we supposing that Iran wants confrontation with the U.S.?
Thereupon, no position seems to be rational to defend in the West but the one that demands from the U.S. government to a compromise with iranian demands of demilitarization of the frontier. The other option can lead to the creation of another inward government in the world in the possession a nuclear weapon, something like a giant North Korea; or what would be unpredictably worse, the Middle East nuclear conflict.
Este artigo saiu direto em inglês, não me perguntem como.