Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Why deny nuclear weapons to Iran?

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Jomas Gibson

Published July 20, 2008 at 6 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

So Iran has test fired more missiles, as was reported Thursday, July 10, and the United States has vowed to defend its allies, namely Israel, in the event of failed diplomatic confrontations and imposed sanctions, of which Israel cites—as well as military action—in its sworn oath to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and thus a threat to the international community.

The U.S. has accused Iran of producing nuclear arms, while Israel has staged an air force exercise for possible assault on Iranian facilities. Iran maintains that their program is solely for electricity. But regardless of whether it is or not, there are issues here, and faults in our government.

For starters, several countries have nuclear weapons—the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China— while others have conducted tests—India, Pakistan, North Korea, and now Iran. Regardless of previous “nuclear club” pacts and treaties, Iran, like any country, should reserve the right to exercise their nuclear progress. Since when are certain countries like Iran not allowed nuclear weapons, and unpredictable countries like the U.S. are? No matter who tests or uses such a catastrophic device, the result will be the same destructive one, and we’ll all be in trouble.

Secondly, our position in the matter seems obvious, and this same game has been played before. Being in no favorable position due to the unjustified occupation of Iraq and a failed Afghanistan operation, we are actually considering an invasion of the country in between, coincidentally the 4th largest producer of oil, and telling them what they can or cannot do when our foreign policy has gone beyond irresponsible.

Last but not least, there is Iraq, a testimony, not only to a pack of lies about so-called weapons stocks, but also to the hidden ambitions of our administration, under the justification of a suspicious 9/11, to seize complete control of major oil reservoirs and expand military control. With that said, how does Iran figure into this, and how to we propose to cope with a new operation with resources in all phases already drained?

Jomas Gibson is a resident of Grand Junction.

Comments

  • July 20, 2008

    7:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    woodwose writes:

    Gosh, what an incisive and eye-opening commentary on Iran's quest to obtain nuclear weapons! We should all sleep easier at night knowing that in Mr. Jomas Gibson's opinion, it doesn't matter if a country with a president who has said, "“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," obtains nuclear weapons. Afterall, a nuclear fire burns hotter and is a better means of expressing fury than any other kind of fire.

    Maybe Mr. Gibson thinks we should just throw Israel to the wolves and let them be rounded up and marched into the sea at gunpoint by a nuclear equipped Islamic army. Possibly Mr. Gibson thinks that the ability of a suicidal Iranian sponsored terrorist being able to pilot a motorboat containing an Iranian nuclear weapon into New York harbor would be a reasonable check on US imperial ambitions.

    I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not naive enough to think that nuclear weapons in the hands of a fundamentalist theocratic oligarchy with visions of a world dominated by Islam dancing in their heads is something to be casually shrugged off. We should do our best to prevent it.

  • July 20, 2008

    7:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Oh_Wise_One writes:

    woodwose put it much more politely than I could. I would only posit that Jomas has his head up his @$$.

  • July 20, 2008

    7:43 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    taoistblockhead writes:

    It all comes down to the idea of American and Judeo-Christian Exceptionalism, exemplified by Richard Cheney's "The American way of life is not negotiable" quote. After the dissolution of the old Soviet Union the PNAC folks such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al thought they could rule the world and create a blueprint to do so. 9/11 was the answer to their much needed “New Pearl Harbor”… how convenient. Secret Energy Task Forces and lies to take the nation to an illegal war and occupation of a sovereign nation. Disaster Capitalism at its finest.

    America’s ideology of empire rests on oil addiction, racism and exceptionalism. It’s why we have no qualms about trashing other peoples and the planet itself in the name of “progress” and “creation of wealth.” Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc…. George Bush and Richard Cheney are pathological liars and could care less about the peoples of these nations – the name of the endgame is natural resource extraction at any and all costs.

    Iran can’t have nuclear weapons because it sits on top of vast oil reserves and its people pray to the wrong deity in the Abrahamic Monotheistic tradition. The ongoing tragedy of the last 2,000 years is that people have been infected by the virus of religious bigotry, brainwashed by a set of hypocritical and violent stories predicated on the exclusivity of the one, true, wrathful and all powerful off-planet deity and his chosen faithful.

    In choosing George Bush the American people have been blessed with the flowering of fascism here in the homeland for the last eight years. We’ve allowed a corporate crusade to wrap itself in the flag and wage war against all those who might stand in the way of our one true religion – corporate globalism.

  • July 20, 2008

    7:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    tunaman65 writes:

    I can't beleive that I am going to say this but Michael Savage is right. Liberalism is a mental disorder!

  • July 20, 2008

    9:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    - Ronald Reagan

  • July 20, 2008

    10:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    Gary, "our conservative friends" suffer the same disorder.
    And we do seem a lot less upset that Pakistan is nuclear armed, was/is a brutal dictatorship, fails to go after Al Qaeda types in the Northwest Provinces. but, hey, they're right next to Afghanistan, we need their bases, so Pakistan's our pal.
    I was glad to see President Bush send a diplomatic envoy to talk to Iran, but I'm suspicious that the envoy was just a pretext, an excuse. The envoy goes, makes demands Iran can't/won't meet, Bush declares diplomacy failed, and uses that as an excuse to do something militarily.
    All you conservatives who think I'm being paranoid should look back at Iraq.

  • July 20, 2008

    11:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Coco writes:

    I consider myself slightly left of center on many issues, but not this one. "...unpredictable countries like the U.S." - what a slap in the face to Americans. I agree the war in Iraq was the worst judgement call of the last 100 years, but allowing a rogue nation headed by a madman, Iran, to have nuclear weapons is a disaster waiting to happen. Yes, the U.S. has nuclear weapons, but frankly, we are better than most other nations. We have an inclusive culture, not one that demands one way of thinking. We honor & protect the rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, browns, and women; something Iran notoriously does not. I'm not of the "love it or leave it" philosophy - my family has a long, proud military history - but Mr. Gibson, don't you realize there is a reason people around the world are begging, borrowing, and stealing to come to America?

  • July 20, 2008

    12:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Romulus writes:

    I'm sure that all of you who are frothing at the mouth about Iran getting nuclear weapons can rest easy knowing that they are in the hands of such stable friends of America as China, Russia, Pakistan and North Korea. It's inevitable that Iran will get them someday. But Iran would have to be suicidal to use them against Israel, so the same mutual assured destruction that worked during the cold war will work again. All the namecalling by rightwingers can't change that. It's why we need a push for verified nuclear disarmament, but of course, that's not on the neocon agenda, is it? Even though Reagan and Gorbachev came this close to such an agreement in Reykjavik.

  • July 20, 2008

    1:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    Romulus wrote, "But Iran would have to be suicidal to use them against Israel, so the same mutual assured destruction that worked during the cold war will work again."

    Except that the USSR had the same drive for self preservation that we did. Iran's government doesn't. They've already been promoting and recruiting suicide bombers in the middle east, so their committing suicide by an attack on Israel would be the logical extension of that.

  • July 20, 2008

    3:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Romulus writes:

    Farmboy, there's a difference between urging others to commit suicide and doing it yourself. Totalitarian leaders didn't get to their positions by looking out for anyone but number one. They may be evil but they are not stupid and they are not going to invite the vaporization of themselves and their families by a nuclear attack on Israel.

  • July 20, 2008

    4:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    Romulus,
    I hope you're right. But Ahmadinejad said, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." That tells me he's willing to cause a nuclear conflagration, and the suicide of Iran is of no concern to him.

  • July 20, 2008

    4:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    They may be evil but they are not stupid and they are not going to invite the vaporization of themselves and their families by a nuclear attack on Israel

    How about a nuclear or dirty bomb from Iran in the USA?

    Yes, they are suicidal!

    Nuff Said!

  • July 20, 2008

    7:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    Ummm
    While I don't think the crazy Irani's should have nuclear bombs.
    May I point out that nuclear weapons have only been used once,
    By the good guys??? Are we any longer? Sometimes I wonder.

  • July 20, 2008

    9:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    Ahmadinejad said, "I imagine a world without America and Israel." It may come about some day, but I would rather it be later than sooner. I also would rather imagine a world without Iran and a number of other mid-eastern countries which may just happen if they mess with Israel.

    You are right arby, the U.S. has been the only country to use nuclear bombs, authorized by a Democrat no less. I am pleased that it was a Democrat that had the kahonies to do so. His decision saved 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands American soldiers lives who were preparing to invade Japan. Would have been worth it even if it had saved only one American life. BTW, stopped the war and noone messed with Harry.

  • July 20, 2008

    10:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    Darwin and others,

    I have no problem with the USA having the big guns. I'm all for being able to defend ourselves against any invader. If they come after us. Blow them off the planet is my idea.

    However that doesn't justify our being invaders ourselves. That means we aren't the good guys anymore.

  • July 20, 2008

    11:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    arby,
    If we aren't the good guys anymore, then who is?

    And if nobody is, then why should we care about it?

  • July 20, 2008

    11:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    longpasttime writes:

    I have no great love for Bush/Cheney or the current crop of Congressional Representatives and Senators we have today. But it is in our best interests as Americans that we prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability. Their president is committed to the destruction of the USA, and will stop at nothing until he achieves this end. It is vital, crucial, and imperative that we not allow the Iranians to develop nukes... they WILL use them, and they ARE suicidal! They would like nothing better to see a mushroom cloud over LA or NYC or Chicago. In this endeavor, I wholeheartedly support congress and the President!

  • July 21, 2008

    12:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    infidel91 writes:

    Froward, lay off the koolaid. It makes you say silly things like "We have Given Saudi Arabia nukes." Did you even care if that was true when you wrote it?

  • July 21, 2008

    12:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    clyde writes:

    Backward has also posted that Yucca Mountain, which has not even opened and will not for quite a while, will be full next year. He's no longer on Kool Aid, but more likely LSD.

  • July 21, 2008

    5:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    We are out own worst enemy at this stage of the game. We want Soldiers to fight and then cut benefits, ignore the fact you can't go into a war zone for 15 months and come out the same, Injured Soldiers not getting the help they need. We obviously didn't learn anything from VietNam. The illegals bleeding the economy, and Congress sets idly by and watches it all.

  • July 21, 2008

    7:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Acemon writes:

    If Iran uses nuclear weapons to attack Israel, then it stands to reason Israel will use its own nuclear weapons to retaliate. Both countries will be destroyed and the resulting radioactive plume will hurt everyone else on the planet. If we're going to deny Iran nuclear technology, we should do the same to Israel.

  • July 21, 2008

    8:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    P_Denver writes:

    To all of the morons who feel this isn't a legitimate issue:

    This is not the same thing as the US, Russia, and China having nukes. Each of those countries value their citizens and do not want their countries destroyed. And although we spy on each other and each feel we have the best system of government, there have been no documented terrorist attacks among us. We each have stable, and (more or less) rational governments.

    Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea are different -- in a BAD way.

    THEY SUPPORT TERRORISM. They have unstable governments, lead by idiots as dictators. If you can't see the difference, stop reading now. As flawed as we are, if you can't admit the US has a superior system to any third-world dictatorship you're hopeless.

    They won't be stupid enough to launch an attack directly from their homelands -- as someone pointed out, the politicians value their own lives. But they will have NO HESITATION about providing suitcase weapons to suicide bombers for detonation in other countries. And they will -- there's absolutely no reason they won't.

    They believe they will be able to get away with it.

    And, sadly, they may be right.

  • July 21, 2008

    8:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    Some where, some time, someone in America is going to realize the middle east is their own problem and not ours. Just buy their oil and let them kill each other. If they all succeed then the world can start over with new people who aren't as dumb as the last bunch.

  • July 21, 2008

    12:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    P_Denver writes:

    hajk

    No agrument with your analysis.

    My two points are: (a) our system is absoultely flawed, but it's better than the alternatives, and (b) countries such as Iran are not to be trusted with sharp objects.