I offer the following counter point Freeman. One, that I think Iran is NOT wholly committed to a nuclear weapon, but wouldn't mind one if the cost weren't too high....
However I think some of your reasoning doesn't consider the iranian side...
freeman3
1) Does Iran have a legitimate non- military purchase for developing nuclear power?
(a) large oil reserves argues against that interpretation.
Most nations with nuclear power programs have plenty of options for power as well. That doesn't stop them from using the option of nuclear power. Japan or Canada could produce nuclear weapons in 6 months. Germany too.
Furthermore Iran has been cut off from a supply of nuclear isotopes for medical reasons. A nuclear power industry would provide that option. And provide them an exportable product. Plus, oil reserves will serve as an exportable product as well.
Plus, the use of oil is contributing to global warming, which in Iran is leading to excessive drought. The long term view from some Iranians is that global warming is a bad thing... So you have a couple of legitimate reason to produce energy as an alternative to oil....
Freeman3
(b) willingness to incur sanctions and other consequences argues against a non- military purpose where nuclear power is not really needed for energy supplies
washington post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ed-to-ask/The first explanation is that the nuclear program has huge symbolic importance for Iran. You have to understand that Iran's national pride runs deep, and with good reason: It has been an active center of cultural, scientific, religious and political thought for many centuries. It's also still upset, again with reason, about decades of Western interference during the 19th and 20th centuries. The nuclear program is a way in which Iran affirms, to itself and to the world, that it is an advanced and sovereign nation. It's also a way of defying what it sees as continued Western efforts to control, exploit or weaken Iran.
That's what Iranian leaders mean when they talk about the nuclear program as a point of "national dignity," as they often do.
The second explanation is much more straightforward, but it's not one that Iranian leaders acknowledge: defense. If Iran is pursuing some sort of nuclear weapons capability, then logically this would be at least partially for defensive reasons. Most analysts believe that Iran would want a nuclear weapon to deter perceived foreign threats. Consider Tehran's view for a moment: Israeli and American leaders have been talking for years about bombing Iran or invading it outright. The Bush administration named Iran part of its "axis of evil," alongside Iraq, which it invaded months later.
Iranian leaders appear to sincerely believe that the United States is bent on their government's destruction. For example, the United States helped Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in his brutal, years-long war against Iran, in which he killed thousands of Iranians, including with chemical weapons. You hear Iranians frequently mention Iran Air flight 655, a civilian airliner that the U.S. military accidentally shot down in 1988, killing 290 civilians. In Iran, this is still frequently viewed as deliberate. Imagine you're an Iranian leader seeing all this. You might want a nuclear deterrent.
freeman3
( c) if the argument is that they are continuing with the program in spite of international pressure because they want to save face, then why didn't they anticipate the negative reaction to their nuclear program? They are not continuing with the program for a non- military purpose in spite of international pressure which they almost certainly anticipated--they are continuing with the program on spite of sanctions because it serves a vital national interest
from foreign policy
Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge.
Of course, it is easy to understand why Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the region and why it is willing to use force to secure that status. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran. But the very acts that have allowed Israel to maintain its nuclear edge in the short term have prolonged an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term. Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again. In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... t-the-bombSo in part, if Iran wants a nuclear deterrent becasue they feel isolated and threatened, particularly by the Israelis nuclear weapon.... is deterence of Israelis use of a nuke not a legitimate reason to have one? (Try and see it from the Iranians view point).
A strategy that includes bringing Iran back into the International world, ending its isolation is a part of the solution. Further sanctions and isolation will drive it to build nukes by increasing the paranoia that is a part of their experience with the West.
26 Mar 2015, 6:36 pm 
