Origins of irans nuclear power

[lider_r]

"The Iranian Nuclear programme was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the government temporarily disbanded the programme, and then revived it with less Western assistance than during the pre-revolution era"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran


Yet another example of today's problems being the fruit of a previous (bad) policy decision. I wonder when we westerners will learn how to stop making life hard for ourselves.

[Brzezinski]

"The Iranian Nuclear programme was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States. After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the government temporarily disbanded the programme, and then revived it with less Western assistance than during the pre-revolution era"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran


Yet another example of today's problems being the fruit of a previous (bad) policy decision. I wonder when we westerners will learn how to stop making life hard for ourselves.

hmmm the year 1979 sure comes up alot....hmmm what happened that year? it was after the cold war ended and we had no boogieman.....sooner or later it will come to me.

[k98_man]

I was saying to myself before entering the thread, "I'm sure we helped them."

How many times do we have to make the same mistakes. Iraqi, Iran, Afghanistan. My generation needs to learn now!:bash:

[Brzezinski]

I was saying to myself before entering the thread, "I'm sure we helped them."

How many times do we have to make the same mistakes. Iraqi, Iran, Afghanistan. My generation needs to learn now!:bash:

i take it you have never heard of rummies job in the private sector?....

""Rumsfeld Sat On Board Of Company That Sold Nuclear Reactors To North Korea""

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/rumsfeld-abb/

[k98_man]

i take it you have never heard of rummies job in the private sector?....

""Rumsfeld Sat On Board Of Company That Sold Nuclear Reactors To North Korea""

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/rumsfeld-abb/

An other oversight. This is getting annoying. We have to stop meddling.

[lider_r]

i guess once we all switch to electric cars and renewable energy sources we'll suddenly lose interest in 'spreading democracy' in the middle east.

[Maktab]

This is severely misleading though. Iran during the 1950s was a completely different country, ruled by a moderate and stable Western-friendly government which looked set to bring Persia calmly into the modern era. This was even true throughout most of the '60s and '70s.

Considering this, there was nothing wrong with the decision to help Iran produce civilian nuclear power plants at the time. Nobody could forsee the 1979 revolution, nor the sheer lunacy and ferocity of the Islamist regime it would create. In effect, it's like helping Japan develop nuclear power: Sure, at some point in the next fifty years, Japan *might* experience economic collapse and revert to a totalitarian regime, thus handing US-supplied technology to extremists; but this is unlikely, impossible to predict and certainly no reason to stop technological co-operation with Japan.

To be honest, the incessant desire to look back and link everything bad in the world today to past US policies really bugs me. I see the same trend in terms of Iraq, with claims being made of how the US's former support of Saddam somehow invalidates its subsequent turn on him. It's utter nonsense.

Fact is, all those decisions were made by different presidents and governments, dealing with countries vastly different to what they are today, in circumstances (such as the Cold War) which no longer exist. Selling a nuclear reactor to Iran today would be seen as folly, but selling a nuclear reactor to 1950s Persia would've been seen, rightly so, as an okay move.

Besides, it's not like the US actually helped the present Iranian regime develop nuclear weapons. Blame that on the Russians and Chinese, who helped build the uranium enrichment and heavy-water facilities at Natanz and Arak that are driving Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, since virtually all of Iran's enrichment infrastructure was built after 1979, I think it's fair to say that Natanz and Arak would've been built even if the US had not supplied pre-1979 Iran with anything. We'd still be in the same position as we're in today.

Remember, not everything that happens in the world today is the US's fault. International Relations is a complex and inexact science, in which no single policy strategist can see far into the future and where even small, supposedly safe actions can have serious consequences a few decades later. What that boils down to, essentially, is that **** happens.

[k98_man]

This is severely misleading though. Iran during the 1950s was a completely different country, ruled by a moderate and stable Western-friendly government which looked set to bring Persia calmly into the modern era. This was even true throughout most of the '60s and '70s.

Considering this, there was nothing wrong with the decision to help Iran produce civilian nuclear power plants at the time. Nobody could forsee the 1979 revolution, nor the sheer lunacy and ferocity of the Islamist regime it would create. In effect, it's like helping Japan develop nuclear power: Sure, at some point in the next fifty years, Japan *might* experience economic collapse and revert to a totalitarian regime, thus handing US-supplied technology to extremists; but this is unlikely, impossible to predict and certainly no reason to stop technological co-operation with Japan.

To be honest, the incessant desire to look back and link everything bad in the world today to past US policies really bugs me. I see the same trend in terms of Iraq, with claims being made of how the US's former support of Saddam somehow invalidates its subsequent turn on him. It's utter nonsense.

Fact is, all those decisions were made by different presidents and governments, dealing with countries vastly different to what they are today, in circumstances (such as the Cold War) which no longer exist. Selling a nuclear reactor to Iran today would be seen as folly, but selling a nuclear reactor to 1950s Persia would've been seen, rightly so, as an okay move.

Besides, it's not like the US actually helped the present Iranian regime develop nuclear weapons. Blame that on the Russians and Chinese, who helped build the uranium enrichment and heavy-water facilities at Natanz and Arak that are driving Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, since virtually all of Iran's enrichment infrastructure was built after 1979, I think it's fair to say that Natanz and Arak would've been built even if the US had not supplied pre-1979 Iran with anything. We'd still be in the same position as we're in today.

Remember, not everything that happens in the world today is the US's fault. International Relations is a complex and inexact science, in which no single policy strategist can see far into the future and where even small, supposedly safe actions can have serious consequences a few decades later. What that boils down to, essentially, is that **** happens.

Right and after they started to feel "western ideas" weren't the best for them, they decided to quit that sort of rule. But we can't have that now can we? So we help Iraq invade Iran...:cantbeli:

[lider_r]

This is severely misleading though. Iran during the 1950s was a completely different country, ruled by a moderate and stable Western-friendly government which looked set to bring Persia calmly into the modern era. This was even true throughout most of the '60s and '70s.

Iran was far from stable under the Shah, and there were many accusations of brutality and corruption.


Considering this, there was nothing wrong with the decision to help Iran produce civilian nuclear power plants at the time. Nobody could forsee the 1979 revolution, nor the sheer lunacy and ferocity of the Islamist regime it would create.

Thats why it was a bad idea. Long term developments were never taken into consideration before helping them produce nuclear power which could inevitably lead to nuclear arms. It was a short term money making exercise. The policy was made by people who clearly had no understanding of how middle east works.



In effect, it's like helping Japan develop nuclear power: Sure, at some point in the next fifty years, Japan *might* experience economic collapse and revert to a totalitarian regime, thus handing US-supplied technology to extremists; but this is unlikely, impossible to predict and certainly no reason to stop technological co-operation with Japan.


If Japan was islamic then i would agree with you, but they don't live their lives by a vengeful, intolerant philosophy. The japanese don't view westerners as infidels that encroach on their holy land and can be considered as legitimate targets.


To be honest, the incessant desire to look back and link everything bad in the world today to past US policies really bugs me. I see the same trend in terms of Iraq, with claims being made of how the US's former support of Saddam somehow invalidates its subsequent turn on him. It's utter nonsense.

If we are unwilling to admit to the mistakes of the past and learn from then, then how are we are ever going to make a decent future?


Fact is, all those decisions were made by different presidents and governments, dealing with countries vastly different to what they are today, in circumstances (such as the Cold War) which no longer exist. Selling a nuclear reactor to Iran today would be seen as folly, but selling a nuclear reactor to 1950s Persia would've been seen, rightly so, as an okay move.

It was seen as OK by the short sighted who neither understood the dynamics of Islam or the middle east. It was all about the dollars.


Besides, it's not like the US actually helped the present Iranian regime develop nuclear weapons.

Yes they did, albeit indirectly. If they had never helped the Shah then the present day regime wouldnt have had the building blocks to the potential development of WMD's.


Blame that on the Russians and Chinese, who helped build the uranium enrichment and heavy-water facilities at Natanz and Arak that are driving Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, since virtually all of Iran's enrichment infrastructure was built after 1979, I think it's fair to say that Natanz and Arak would've been built even if the US had not supplied pre-1979 Iran with anything. We'd still be in the same position as we're in today.

Iran built those facilities to help defends itself against Americas then allie iraq, and its long term nuclear allie Israel.


Remember, not everything that happens in the world today is the US's fault.

Nobody said it did. But most of the problems in the middle east today, as well as the problems in Latin America are a direct result of disastrous US foreign policy.


International Relations is a complex and inexact science, in which no single policy strategist can see far into the future and where even small, supposedly safe actions can have serious consequences a few decades later. What that boils down to, essentially, is that **** happens.

If say, Russia, helped venezuala build a reactor and Chavez started threatening the US you wouldn't be saying 'sh*t happens'.

Sh*t doesnt always happen just by itself. People help create it, and those people need to be held to account and kept away from policy making decisions.

Future policies should be adjusted accordingly, taking the mistakes of the past into account to avoid more situations like the unholy mess that is the middle east today.

[BloodyTalon]

I was saying to myself before entering the thread, "I'm sure we helped them."

How many times do we have to make the same mistakes. Iraqi, Iran, Afghanistan. My generation needs to learn now!:bash:
Well forgive our world leaders for not owning a good crystal ball :roll:

[lider_r]

you don't need to a crystal ball to work out that someone like saddam hussein or bin laden is not going to be worth trusting in the long run. All you need is a decent education and understanding of middle east history and Islam.

Who is to say that iraq is not going to cause the world more problems once the US pulls out? A country awash with weapons and good training, courtesy of the coalition, which has a population whose majority dont mind if the locals shoot at or bomb the foreign troops.

Sometimes i think Mr Bean could probably do a better job in the state department than the fools that frequent its ranks.

[BloodyTalon]

you don't need to a crystal ball to work out that someone like saddam hussein or bin laden is not going to be worth trusting in the long run. All you need is a decent education and understanding of middle east history and Islam.
For someone who made a big fit over how the Russians are intolerant over gays, you certainly like the idea of us being the same towards certain Arabs.

[lider_r]

err when did i say we should be intolerant of arabs?


Are you suggesting we should be tolerant and welcoming of people who hold views similar to those of Saddam and Osama?

[BloodyTalon]

err when did i say we should be intolerant of arabs?


Are you suggesting we should be tolerant and welcoming of people who hold views similar to those of Saddam and Osama?
First of all, backing Saddam was a bad idea in the long.

Second, since when did we back Osama? MAK (the organization he was part of during the Afghan war) was quite distant from the CIA during its operation. The closest it had to US involvement was that they had some offices in the US (which were closed down). Claiming that the US is responsible for the formation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is like saying England was responsible for the formation of the KKK.

[k98_man]

Well forgive our world leaders for not owning a good crystal ball :roll:

You don't need a crystal ball. If we meddle in other countries affairs long enough it'll bite us in the ass. It's already happend on several occations and as a teenager I find it important we not let it happen again in my age of voting.

[Maktab]

Iran was far from stable under the Shah, and there were many accusations of brutality and corruption.
For most of his rule the country was decidedly stable, while brutality and corruption are hardly unusual in most countries. Point being, it was a thousand times better than Iran under the Ayatollahs, which makes it silly to criticise the policy based on the Iran we know now.



Thats why it was a bad idea. Long term developments were never taken into consideration before helping them produce nuclear power which could inevitably lead to nuclear arms. It was a short term money making exercise. The policy was made by people who clearly had no understanding of how middle east works.This was the '50s and '60s, I don't think anybody was even remotely expecting the rise of Islamist movements that would result in the 1979 revolution and groups like the Taliban. At the time, the most dangerous Arab groups were political, not religious. The expectation at the time was that Persia would be a fairly pro-Western and moderate country for a very long time. What's more, that expectation was pretty damn reasonable.



If Japan was islamic then i would agree with you, but they don't live their lives by a vengeful, intolerant philosophy. The japanese don't view westerners as infidels that encroach on their holy land and can be considered as legitimate targets.Just over fifty years ago, Japan was in the grip of a fanatical death cult and ruled by an autocratic emperor. All Japanese, including civilians, were expected to fight to the death against foreign troops, since to be a martyr and die in battle was the height of honour. They even used suicide bombers in the form of Kamikaze pilots. Not all that different from current Islamic views, eh? Yet now, knowing the pacifist Japan of today, it seems almost bizarre that the US could have fought such a bitter war against it just five decades ago. Point being, in fifty years the country has changed so much that it's almost unrecognisable, which just proves that a whole lot can happen in fifty years.


If we are unwilling to admit to the mistakes of the past and learn from then, then how are we are ever going to make a decent future?I agree completely, but only in the case of genuine mistakes. Most of the 'mistakes' you have mentioned were actually perfectly reasonable decisions considering the circumstances of the time. Sure, if US presidents in the '50s and '60s had known precisely what was going to happen in 1979, they might've done things differently, but the point is that they didn't know.



It was seen as OK by the short sighted who neither understood the dynamics of Islam or the middle east. It was all about the dollars.Islamism was barely emerging as a force back then (Osama was just a kid, for eg), whilst the dynamics of the Middle East were completely different and shaped mostly by the ongoing Cold War. This was not about the dollars, it was about strengthening a US ally in a region filled with Soviet client states.



Yes they did, albeit indirectly. If they had never helped the Shah then the present day regime wouldnt have had the building blocks to the potential development of WMD's.Nonsense. The building blocks are Natanz, Arak and a dozen different sites that have all been built since 1979. So far as I know, not a single piece of pre-1979 US-provided equipment is used anywhere in the Iranian enrichment process, and I severely doubt many of the pre-1979 scientists and engineers remained after the regime's purges. After all, it's taken them nearly 30 years just to get started on enrichment.



Iran built those facilities to help defends itself against Americas then allie iraq, and its long term nuclear allie Israel.Yeah, because Israel's always threatening to nuke Iran and wipe it off the map, right? Oh, wait...

Besides, Ayatollah Khomeini announced his intention to try enrich uranium mere months after the 1979 revolution, before Saddam attacked (and before the US backed Saddam against Iran) and before Saddam had even considered a nuclear weapons program.


Nobody said it did. But most of the problems in the middle east today, as well as the problems in Latin America are a direct result of disastrous US foreign policy.Right, as opposed to the intentionally destabilising Soviet foreign policy? Or the awful international borders drawn up by European colonial countries like France and Britain, pitting ethnic and religious groups against each other in a way almost guaranteed to cause conflict? And how about the ridiculous populist political ideas so beloved of Arabs and Latin Americans, such as Pan-Arabism, state socialism and opposition to the West? While the US has had its fair share of foreign policy screw-ups, it bears the responsibility for only a small part of the troubles going on today.


If say, Russia, helped venezuala build a reactor and Chavez started threatening the US you wouldn't be saying 'sh*t happens'.This is a strawman argument, since the Shah in the 1960s was nothing like the Chavez of today. Though that said, if Russia built a nuclear reactor in Venezuela and the latter agreed to a full range of IAEA inspections and safeguards and didn't enrich uranium, I'd be just about ok with it.


Sh*t doesnt always happen just by itself. People help create it, and those people need to be held to account and kept away from policy making decisions.That may be true in the short to medium term, but in the long term there are often so many unforseeable variables that even reasonable policies may have unintended negative consequences thirty, forty or fifty years down the line. I don't care how smart you are, nobody can reliably predict the future that far in advance.


Future policies should be adjusted accordingly, taking the mistakes of the past into account to avoid more situations like the unholy mess that is the middle east today.Again, only of those past 'mistakes' truly were mistakes and not just the unintended consequences of reasonable decisions.

Look, ultimately this boils down to one simple fact: If you're going to judge the actions of people throughout history, you *must* be able to see the world as it was through their eyes. It's unfair and, ultimately, unproductive to try judge their decisions based on the information we possess now, because they just didn't have that info back then.

[WarriorMonk]

gee, it's not like we went into these decisions being omniscient or all-knowing, hindsight is after all 20-20.

[lider_r]

gee, it's not like we went into these decisions being omniscient or all-knowing.

All the more reason not to make these decisions, which were of course decisions of choice not neccessity.

[lider_r]

First of all, backing Saddam was a bad idea in the long.

Finally, an admission of truth :)



Second, since when did we back Osama? MAK (the organization he was part of during the Afghan war) was quite distant from the CIA during its operation. The closest it had to US involvement was that they had some offices in the US (which were closed down). Claiming that the US is responsible for the formation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is like saying England was responsible for the formation of the KKK.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbuddin_Hekmatyar) , armed by the CIA, was a known close associate of Bin Laden.

Ali Mohammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohamed)(former CIA agent with green beret training) was known to have trained people who operated either with or for Bin Laden. Those trainees were recruited from here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/Al Kifah Refugee Center) in the US.

[C·OCTAVIVS·C·F]

Ummm, guys, the program was started before the islamic revolution in Iran.

How the hell was the US going to know, in the 1950's, that this country they were helping was going to have an islamic revolution and oppose them in half a century?

Are you suggesting that we just don't help anybody, lock up the borders, and pretend the outside world doesn't exist? I second the hindsight arguments.

Get a grip on reality.

[Mu-Meson]

Hey Lider r, why are you more interested in something that the US did 50 years ago, than with what Russia is doing today? US helped a pro-Western, pro-peace regime (admittedly not exactly a democratic one) with a civilian nuke program 50 years ago. Russia is building a nuke program for a anti-Western, pro-genocide regime (self-declared not a democratic one) today! Which do you truly think is more relevant? If you say we should avoid making mistakes that will bite us in the ass in the future, surely you should be talking about Russian involvement, right??

[Moledet]

The point was making Iran stronger because it was a positive force and at the same time preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons by not supplying them with nuclear knowledge.

Israel also offered help in building a nuclear reactor for electricity in Busher but Iran decided to go with the help of German and French companies.

[k98_man]

Ummm, guys, the program was started before the islamic revolution in Iran.

How the hell was the US going to know, in the 1950's, that this country they were helping was going to have an islamic revolution and oppose them in half a century?

Are you suggesting that we just don't help anybody, lock up the borders, and pretend the outside world doesn't exist? I second the hindsight arguments.

Get a grip on reality.

I agree that there was no way to see into the future, but why do we have to do this in the first place? Why don't we stick to trade as our "foreign affairs"?

[Maktab]

First of all, helping a peaceful pro-Western country build nuclear power stations can hardly be considered 'meddling' in the rest of the world. Would you prefer that the US refuse to sell any potentially dangerous technology (which, btw, includes computers) to anybody, even friendly nations? Because that would be silly.

And both you and lider seem to be forgetting about the Cold War. Faced with an expansionist and destabilising Soviet Union, creating client states left, right and centre, the US really had little choice but to intervene to try halt and prevent the spread of Soviet influence. Had the US not been there to stymie the growth of the Soviet juggernaut, there's little doubt that it would have become much stronger than it actually did. Indeed, the Cold War would probably still be ongoing.

Basically, doing nothing would have produced far worse 'blowback' than what the US actually did. Like it or not, the US will have to get involved in the affairs of other countries in future to some extent; true isolationism has never actually been a serious option.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Don't waste your breath on the blame-America-first crowd. Ultimately everything can and will be blamed upon those who still accept risk in order to promote positive change. This, in a world where people are still selling to regimes like Iran even after they are a known bad-guy.

[lider_r]

Ummm, guys, the program was started before the islamic revolution in Iran.

How the hell was the US going to know, in the 1950's, that this country they were helping was going to have an islamic revolution and oppose them in half a century?


By reading the history books, knowing the basics of islam and the dynamics of the middle east. Quite easy really. Its called an education.


Don't waste your breath on the blame-America-first crowd.

Why shouldn't we blame america when it makes mistakes? we blame other countries when they f*ck up, America should be no exception to the rule.


Ultimately everything can and will be blamed upon those who still accept risk in order to promote positive change

accept risk in order to promote positive change?

more like ignore risk (or even fail to recognise it) in order to promote positive cash flow.



This, in a world where people are still selling to regimes like Iran even after they are a known bad-guy


If countries are foolish and greedy enough to sell to lunatic regimes then that is thier business and they are free to accept the consequences that come with it, the US does not need to follow that example anymore- Americans should be smarter than that.

[little icebear]

Are you suggesting we should be tolerant and welcoming of people who hold views similar to those of Saddam and Osama?


There´s not much similar when to comes to the views of Saddam and Osama.

Saddam was an old-school, euro-style dictator. Pretty much like Hitler, Stalin oder Ceauşescu. No big religious issues in his mind.

[lider_r]

First of all, helping a peaceful pro-Western country build nuclear power stations can hardly be considered 'meddling' in the rest of the world.

It wasn't a pro-western country. It was a pro-western dictator who didnt have the support of the majority of its people who saw westerners as infidels.


Would you prefer that the US refuse to sell any potentially dangerous technology (which, btw, includes computers) to anybody, even friendly nations? Because that would be silly.

People just want them to stop selling to wacko nations.


And both you and lider seem to be forgetting about the Cold War. Faced with an expansionist and destabilising Soviet Union, creating client states left, right and centre, the US really had little choice but to intervene to try halt and prevent the spread of Soviet influence. Had the US not been there to stymie the growth of the Soviet juggernaut, there's little doubt that it would have become much stronger than it actually did. Indeed, the Cold War would probably still be ongoing.

Are you suggesting that the communists would have been able to conquer the middle east if it hadn't been for the americans?


Basically, doing nothing would have produced far worse 'blowback' than what the US actually did. Like it or not, the US will have to get involved in the affairs of other countries in future to some extent; true isolationism has never actually been a serious option.

Most of what the US did to tackle communisim was completly counterproductive and it either cost them or came back to bite it in the arse. You seem to have subscribed to the 'The US bought down the USSR' club.

[Moledet]

lider, it's not just the US, many countries wanted to help them including Israel, Germany and France. Fact is that nobody anticipated the revolution up until a few years before it happened.

P.S. If Israel ever falls what then are you going to say? It looks very unlikely yet everything is possible. Then they will have the most advanced western weapons in Arab hands including nuclear weapons and advanced ballistic and cruise missiles.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Why shouldn't we blame america when it makes mistakes? we blame other countries when they f*ck up, America should be no exception to the rule.

Sure - but you won't be taken seriously if you insist rewriting history, your version being completely devoid of temporal context and unsubstantiated supposition.




more like ignore risk (or even fail to recognise it) in order to promote positive cash flow.

>see above< If all we were interested in was money, we would have sold everything in our arsenal to everybody with the $ for it. I'll put up the vetting process that the US uses on exports against those of any other nation, and we can compare and contrast to see who sucks the least.



If countries are foolish and greedy enough to sell to lunatic regimes then that is thier business and they are free to accept the consequences that come with it, the US does not need to follow that example anymore- Americans should be smarter than that.

Everybody else is free to sell whatever they can to whoever can pay for it - and it's nobody's business, but America alone must be held to a higher standard? Wow. That's obviously because we're better than all that unwashed rabble that can't be expected not to sh*t where they eat, right? Thanks, that's very flattering. But next time just come right out and say that America is #1 with an oversized foam hand defiantly waving it's index finger. :)

[lider_r]

Sure - but you won't be taken seriously if you insist rewriting history, your version being completely devoid of temporal context and unsubstantiated supposition.

Details please.

I'll expect in your next post that you will totally debunk the claims I've made and provide evidence to support your case.


Everybody else is free to sell whatever they can to whoever can pay for it - and it's nobody's business,

Who said it's nobody's business? I said its for the seller of those arms to bear the consequences of it's actions (and every other poor bastard who might be innocent, but in the way)


but America alone must be held to a higher standard? Wow. That's obviously because we're better than all that unwashed rabble that can't be expected not to sh*t where they eat, right?

If America wants to be regarded as the 'defender of democracy' then it must act accordingly- instead of supporting brutal regimes which dont have the support of its people as well as helping to proliferate dangerous weapons around the globe.

[lider_r]

lider, it's not just the US, many countries wanted to help them including Israel, Germany and France. Fact is that nobody anticipated the revolution up until a few years before it happened.

Then all the countries that wanted to help them or actually helped them are just as liable and reckless as the US.



P.S. If Israel ever falls what then are you going to say? It looks very unlikely yet everything is possible. Then they will have the most advanced western weapons in Arab hands including nuclear weapons and advanced ballistic and cruise missiles.


Then i'd blame Israel for not taking adeqaute measures to protect its (secretive) arsenal and ensure evacuation plans for it in the event of an emergency. Why should anybody else be held responsible for something Israel has created by choice? With the 'right' to bear nuclear arms comes the right accept full responsibily for what happens to them.

[Maktab]

Ok, off the bat, nuclear power stations are not the same as nuclear weapons. It takes a ton of money, effort and expertise to go from owning and operating a nuclear reactor to having a nuclear weapons arsenal. The US did NOT sell Iran nuclear weapons, or even the means to make them, since back then Iran didn't even have uranium enrichment facilities. Why do you think it's taken Iran thirty years to *start* enriching uranium?

Every element of Iran's nuclear weapons program, from its uranium enrichment and heavy water facilities to its ICBMs, has come from non-Western countries. Mostly Russia, China and North Korea, in fact. In light of this, the entire argument that the US is somehow to blame for Iran's nuclear weapons program is completely and utterly baseless. We've been arguing back and forth over the semantics of this issue, but in the end it all comes down to that simple fact.

Further, you haven't really countered my points about the Cold War. Fact is, without covert US opposition to the USSR, countries like Angola would've been providing the Soviets with billions in resources and the profits from them, but instead they were economic drains, costing the Soviets billions to defend and diverting valuable transport assets. Do you really think this had nothing to do with the USSR's downfall? Lest we forget, Gorbachev introduced glasnost and perestroika because he was desperately trying to fix the tumbling Soviet economy, not for any other reason.

[C·OCTAVIVS·C·F]

[quote=lider_r;2541776]By reading the history books, knowing the basics of islam and the dynamics of the middle east. Quite easy really. Its called an education.

So you are saying that simply by studying history and knowing Islam the USA should have prescience over how a nation will develop in a quarter century?

Come on, man. By studying the history of the USA and the nature of Christianity, can you tell me specifically what America is going to look like in 30 years from now? It's like trying to predict the weather in 30 years... to many unknown factors.