Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- A Presidential Decision That Could Change the World: The Strategic Importance of Keystone XL
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Despite War Drums, Experts Insist Iran Nuclear Deal Possible
Amid the persistent beating of war drums, an influential international conflict prevention group is insisting that a deal between Western countries and Iran on Tehran's controversial nuclear programme can still be reached.
In a new report released Thursday, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) said such a deal would include Tehran's acceptance of full-scope international safeguards to ensure the programme could not be diverted to military use.
It would also entail Iran's full co-operation in clearing up outstanding questions regarding alleged pre- 2003 nuclear weaponisation research and experimentation, and an exchange of its current stockpile of twenty percent enriched uranium for fuel rods from abroad.
In exchange, the so-called P5+1 countries (the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – plus Germany) would freeze implementation of tough new U.S. and European Union (EU) sanctions, recognise Iran's "right to enrich" uranium up to five percent and lift existing sanctions in stages.
The 45-page report, "In Heavy Waters: Iran's Nuclear Program, the Risk of War and Lessons from Turkey", called on the United States and the EU to take their cue from Ankara's approach of full engagement with Iran, instead of isolation, sanctions, sabotage and threats of war on which they have mainly relied to date.
"(A) world community in desperate need of fresh thinking could do worse than learn from Turkey's experience and test its assumptions," the report noted, suggesting that Iran be engaged at all levels and "that those engaging it… include a larger variety of countries, including emerging powers with which it feels greater affinity".
"Economic pressure is at best futile, at worse counter-productive," it added, and "Tehran ought to be presented with a realistic proposal."
"If it is either sanctions, whose success is hard to imagine, or military action, whose consequences are terrifying to contemplate, that is not a choice," it said. "It is an abject failure."
The report comes amid continuing speculation about a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The administration of President Barack Obama is also under growing pressure by pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress to impose new sanctions against Iran and take concrete steps, including dispatching more naval forces to the Gulf, to enhance the threat of U.S. military action against Tehran if it does not agree to abandon its nuclear programme.
It also comes in the wake of two visits to Tehran by high-level delegations from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) whose requests to visit a facility on a military base suspected of having been used to test triggering devices for nuclear weapons were reportedly rebuffed.
The delegation and its hosts also failed to agree on an agenda for clearing up outstanding questions regarding Tehran's past research that Western nations believe may have been part of a weaponisation programme.
Reviving negotiations
Despite the IAEA's apparent lack of progress, Iran's acceptance last week of a long-standing request from EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on behalf of the P5+1 to resume negotiations, stalled for over a year, makes it likely that a new round of talks will take place in late March or April, probably in Istanbul, according to analysts here.
Anticipation of those talks, as well as the rapid escalation of tensions over the last two months, particularly between Israel and Iran, has provoked a flurry of proposals to revive the dormant diplomatic track, if only to calm a situation threatening to spin out of control.
Those proposals contain the same or similar recommendations to those included in the ICG report.
Early this month, for example, two former top-ranking U.S. diplomats, ICG Chair Thomas Pickering and William Luers, called in a "New York Times" op-ed for the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council to accept a Iranian nuclear programme with certain conditions attached.
The programme would include uranium enrichment to no more than five percent "in return for Iran's agreeing to grant inspectors full access to that programme to assure that Iran did not build a nuclear weapons".
Such a bargain – part of a broader initiative to build confidence and co-operation between the U.S. and Iran on a range of issues of common interest, including Afghanistan and Iraq – would result in the progressive reduction of U.N. sanctions against Iran once the inspection regime was in place.
That proposal was strongly endorsed by the president emeritus of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb.
"For sure, neither I nor anyone else knows whether Iran will accept this time. But I do know this: if we don't at least try the negotiating track, a war of untold uncertainties and dangers can come upon us," he wrote in the Daily Beast.
The same basic bargain was also endorsed by Seyed Hossein Mousavian, an Iranian diplomat currently at Princeton University, who served as spokesman for Iran's nuclear negotiating team, in a column for Bloomberg News in mid- February.
Iran should accept the maximum level of transparency with the IAEA, limit enrichment activities to less than five percent, and clear up its nuclear file with the IAEA, he argued, while the West should recognise Tehran's right to enrich and ease sections as part of a "step-by-step plan" proposed by Russia last year.
Perhaps the most intriguing contribution was from Dennis Ross, formerly Obama's chief Iran aide and long considered a hawk on the nuclear issue.
In a Times op-ed, he suggested that the administration was ready to accept a deal that combined intrusive inspections with limits on uranium enrichment and he cited Moscow's step-by-step approach favourably, although he did not address when and how existing sanctions could be eased.
Turkish lessons
The new ICG report notes that Turkey, which has ruled out military action against Iran, has "useful experience" in dealing with Iran's nuclear issue, primarily through its efforts with Brazil in 2010 to work out a confidence-building deal - much of which incorporated the basic elements of the Crisis Group proposal - acceptable to both the P5+1 and Iran.
While the deal was summarily rejected by the U.S. and the EU at the time, Ankara has since worked closely with the Obama administration on a range of major issues during the so-called Arab Spring.
Indeed, Obama has come to consider Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan one of his favourite foreign leaders.
Adding to Ankara's credibility has been its opposition to broad sanctions and its support for dialogue with Iran – positions similar to the views of Russia and China, the report noted.
"This is not to say that Turkey is amenable to a nuclear-armed Iran," the report said.
"But it is far more sympathetic to the view that the West cannot dictate who can have a nuclear capacity and who cannot; is less alarmist when it comes to the status of Iran's program; and believes that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is both distant and unsure."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
29 Comments so far
Show AllOf course engagement and dialog are still possible.
War is not inevitable even without dialog, but is sure is less likely with dialog. The best way to not have a war is to start listening then talking.
Countries go to war when they are not secure. Make all sides heard and promise to put off violence and things become much more easy to deal with.
Answer me this Shady? Who is not listening? It seems like you and the West....not Iran.
Well I think primarily the west is not listening. However there is room on both sides to talk and listen. The West is insecure about Iranian plans for nuclear weapons. (Yes. Regardless of what you say, they are worried about Iranian nuclear weapons. Not now specifically, but in the future and frankly that is a valid concern.) If Iran wanted to make it clear that they were not pursuing weapons, they could and that would make the West more secure.
From the standpoint of the West, they could stop the war talk which they appear to be trying to do to an extent. They could provide specific steps that would make them lift the sanctions which are starting to do somewhat of a number on the Iranian economy. The US can pass through the Straits any time it likes, maybe it would be good faith at this point having transited the Straits a few times since the latest problems started to refrain from it. In truth, all the targets of interest in Iran are as accessible from out of the gulf as from inside it. There are a lot of things that we can do that wouldn't weaken our position in event of a war, but that would provide some peace of mind to Iran.
No matter how much YOU don't like it Ahro, peace has to come from both sides not just proposing talks, but by listening to the actual concerns of the other side.
"If Iran wanted to make it clear that they were not pursuing weapons, they could and that would make the West more secure."
See der's 10:47 comment below.
Job done, then?
Iran has made many overtures, regarding their nuclear program, and all have been quashed by those in our government, who are bent on war with Iran.
You spread this "centrist" narrative, completely in line, with those who are cheering for war. Yes, you are a war propagandist, for an attack on Persian people.
To assert, that the US, with its military might, including a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, actually thinks that any Iranian government, would launch a nuclear attack against the West, is absurd.
"Countries go to war when they are not secure."
How quaint.
Who was it that said, "It is far easier and far less costly to go "Jaw...jaw" than go "War...war".............This not bloody rocket science!!!
A war with Iran would have nothing to do with Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Our Mid East policy is driven by Israel and the Jewish lobby right here in the homeland. We have no problem providing aid and supporting three countries (India, Israel and Pakistan), all of whom have nuclear weapons and do not allow any outside interference/inspection of their nuclear facilities.
Yeah - seems like any real "deal" would involve both iran and israel giving up their nukes. And since only israel actually has nukes, iran doesn't have to do anything, except to keep treating its indigenous jewish population better than israel treats its indigenous arabs.
Israel wants to attack Iran. Why? They say it's to prevent another holocaust.
Is there some other way to prevent another holocaust? One possibility would be for Israel to stop treating non-Jews the way the Eastern European Zionists who founded Israel did.
http://www.whenvictimsrule.blogspot.com/search/label/07.%20Poland%20and%20Eastern%20Europe
Israel today is following the original Zionist strategy of doing whatever it takes to take over all the Palestinian territory, and displace as many non-Jews as required to create a Jewish majority. They're almost 4/5ths of the way there, and they're not going to stop now.
The irrational fears that propaganda and war mongering create in individuals can be countered by developing a greater awareness of the effects of war. Fear gets replaced with empathy.
Here's a link to a video for my song, Refugee: http://youtu.be/-dF7y2T-Amk
In addition to the millions of refugees created in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last ten years, let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died from the results of sanctions imposed by the Clinton admin. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was asked on national TV (60 minutes) if the sanctions were worth the deaths of four to five hundred thousand children in Iraq. She replied that they were. So much for the lesser of two evils.
Awesome Paul... lyrics and music... it’s like Future World Folk.
I’m gonna pass it around... better than anything from the Boss or Dylan lately.
If Phil was alive he’s be telling me about you.
Thanks paperclipper, for that breakthrough article on the Yom Kipper War of 73.
Even without this new information, the Dancing Israeli Spies sent to record 9/11 tells us even more what they think of US citizens.
paperclipper
Thanks so much for the link -- that's one hell of a piece on the back story behind the "glorious" Yom Kippur War and the ways in which the U.S. "saved" Israel with military supplies.
It appear that a template was established between the U.S. and Israel in 1973, because the shipments of military supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War set the stage for the large caches of weapons shipped to Israel during its wanton and vicious bombing attack on Lebanon in 2006 -- including an effort to reoccupy Southern Lebanon with Israeli tanks and ground troups until they were routed back to Israel with their tails between their legs by Hezbollah fighters. The Israeli assault on Lebanon was famously described by Condolezza Rice as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East."
The pattern continued during Israel's barbaric 22-day assault on Gaza in 2008-09 -- ominously named "Operation Cast Lead" -- during which the Israeli Defense Forces committed well-documented war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the disproportionate use of force and the deployment of cluster bombs and white phosphorus, a chemical weaspon that has been banned for use in or near civilian populations.
If Mr. Samir is correct and Anwar Sadat did in fact collude with Henry Kissinger and Golda Meir to begin the 1973 war in order to pave the way for the US comeback to the Middle East, the plan was a spectacular success inasmuch as it helped to establish U.S. hegemony in the Middle East and served to embolden Israel to attack and invade and occupy its Arab neighbors to the North with absolute impunity for decades.
The Sadat, Kissinger, Meir “plan” to launch the 1973 Yom Kippur War appears to have been formulated to build on Israel’s “successes” in the 1967 Six-Day War and to minimize its failures and limitations, and, in particular, to undermine the language and the spirit of UNSCR 242, passed in November 1967, and to avoid compliance with its provisions.
The preamble of 242 refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security" while the body of the text contains a provision calling for the resolution of the Palestinian refugees ‘claims to the right of return to their former homeland in the Palestinian territories.
From the moment of passage, Israel stubbornly rejected the language and the spirit of 242, and has done so ever since with the enthusiastic backing of the United States. Hence, successive Israeli governments have categorically rejected any directive that Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders.
The U.S. and Israeli interpretation of 242 – which employs the fine art of creative ambiguity – insists that the text does not refer to the 1967 borders explicitly and that the territorial boundary lines are therefore “negotiable” and require bilateral negotiations between Israel and the individual Arab nations to haggle over the terms of the any settlement.
The strategy employed by Israel and the U.S. was to divide and conquer for the purpose of procrastination and delay and to permit Israel to retain de facto the spoils of war while expanding those spoils by building “facts on the ground” also known as illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan, and Shebaa Farms.
While in the throes of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the UN Security Council passed UNSCR 338, which demanded an immediate cease fire and was meant to reinforce the binding language of Israeli "withdrawl" expressed in 242. But, Israel, in predictable fashion, insisted upon a similar creative interpretation of 338.
The Israelis parsed the words of 338 and claimed that the withdrawal from the land acquired by war in 1967 demanded in 242 was not binding and that return of the illegally-acquired land was “negotiable." Plus, they rejected any claim by the Palestinians for the right of return to their homeland.
After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel's aggression against its neighbors is a grim part of the historical record. Israel carried out its first invasion of Southern Lebanon in 1978, followed by a vicious aerial bombardment of Beirut in 1981, followed by a full-scale invasion of Southern Lebanon in 1982 and the brutal occupation of that territory until the withdrawal of Israeli forces in 2000.
Again, in 2006, after provoking cross-border skirmishes with Hezbollah fighters, Israel engaged in a massive "shock and awe" bombing attack on Lebanon, including the Beirut airport and civilian neighborhoods in the city thought to be Hezbollah strongholds, as well as villages in Southern Lebanon. The Israeli government (aided and abetted by the Bush Crime Family) refused to adhere to the international calls for a cease fire and didn’t stop the carnage until the IDF ground forces were finally beaten into retreat by Hezbollah fighters near the Israel/Lebanon border.
Israel continues to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, belonging to Syria, and the Shebaa Farms, belonging to Lebanon, and the Israelis have resisted any and all efforts to negotiate the return of those lands acquired illegally by war in 1967 and 1973 to their rightful owners over many decades of recalcitrant procrastination. They have no intention or desire to "negotiate" away one inch of land gained by military conquest -- their doctrine is "winner take all."
The Arabs in the region continue to accept that 242 and 338 demand that Israel return to the 1967 borders, and the Israelis and their U.S. allies continue to say, “No.”
Guess who is winning those well-orchestrated and contrived "disputes" in the American corporate media and at the United Nations? That's right: AIPAC and the Israel Lobby and their toadies in the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and at the UN Security Council under the aegis of Susan Rice, Obama's appointed UN Ambassador and Israel Firster par excellence.
PS -- Israel is itching for a fight with one of its neighbors in the region -- Iran is the current obssession and fetishized target of choice -- but they wouldn't mind a fifth or sixth bite of the Lebanon apple as well. Meanwhite, the the Golan, Shebaa Farms, and Gaza remain under Israeli occupation and the West Bank and East Jerusalem are becoming apartheid colonies of ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews who are eager to push the Palestinians to the margins of humanity by any means necessary, including the use of force.
With friends like these....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The New National Anthem:
Mary had a little lamb
One and one make two
Candles on a birthday cake
Blow them out and your wish comes true
Does she love me does she not
Tell me daisy do
Oh to be a child again
Oaks from acorns grew
One and one make two
I believed it all
Didn't you?
Poet,
Great. Thank you.
Thomas Gilbert-
As long as the price for oil remains high there's no need to risk war with Iran, if that ever was the intent.
Does anyone care to guess why the same US media that is promoting war against Iran, has chosen not to report this:
February 22, 2012
Khamenei Reconfirms Fatwa Against Nuclear Weapons
In a speech to nuclear scientists Ajatollah Ali Kahamenei today reconfirmed his Fatwa against nuclear weapons:
On numerous occasions, the Iranian people and government officials have announced that they do not seek to develop nuclear weapons and that nuclear weapons have no place among the needs of the nation and the military system of the country. We believe that using nuclear weapons is haraam and prohibited and that it is everybody’s duty to make efforts to protect humanity against this great disaster. We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation which is itself a victim of chemical weapons feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats.
Reading the whole speech and understanding the logic of Kahmenei's judgement may be worth your time.
Posted by b on February 22, 2012
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/02/khamenei-reconfirms-fatwa-against-nuclear-weapons.html#comments
The Brazil 2010 agreement basically acheived what the West claims it wants, control of the Iranian fissile material and processing. Oilybomber squashed the Brazil 2010 agreement. Its about USA petrodollars, Iran is going off the USA petrodollar, as did Saddam a few weeks before US invasion. Kaddafy and Chavez spoke of the same relinquishment of USA petrodollars. I understand oil tankers can no longer obtain insurance for most Iranian ports due to sanctions. Israel /(USA?) has blown up three Iranian bases in the past couple years destroying many of Irans\'s misiles. Iran is a sitting duck. Oilybomber also squashed the indictments against Bush and cronies for war crimes brought by the now disbarred heroic Spanish Judge Garcon, with two personal visists to the Spanish PM immediately after the war crime indictments of Bush and cronies. Garcon the only judge in the world brave enough to try Bush and cronies for war crimes.
The ICG and CFR are "experts"?? Please.
Only and uninformed sycophant would consider these as "experts".
These organizations are full of sociopathic elitist (dare I say evil?) individuals.
It is very possible that Iran had no intention of obtaining nuclear weapons but after being so bullied and intimidated by the fanatics in Israel and the United States they may be having second thoughts despite the Fatwa that still stands against having such weapons.
Close but not quite. The US and Britain have resented those pesky Persians for throwing out their hand-pivked sock puppet stooge named Shah Reza Pahlavi. After thirty plus years of conventional meddling and subverion the boyz and girlz at the Pentagon, Langly, and Foggy Bottom feel they are finally ready for a "spontaneous uprising of the people" to throw off the yoke of those "religious fanatics" duly elected by the people.
After Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt they are now ready for wars with Iran and Syria and for its chore- boy yeoman service, Israel will get to plaster Gaza with bombs and bullets to boot! This is what the "Arab Spring" has been all about--the long term extermination of Islamic extremism and the placement of democratically appointed leaders that please Washington (translate: authoritarian despots) regardless of what the "locals" think of them. It's like when all the haute couture houses of fashion in Paris are ready to release thier new styles-everything else is sooo 10 minutes ago.
In "Hopes and Prospects" Noam Chomsky says that Iran must pursue a nuclear weapon or it will have no deterrent against others seeking to ruin it. If planners in the US believe this, which is likely, then a war with Iran will be waged fairly soon for two reasons: to protect Israel and to assure access for the "city on a hill" US to the Mideast oil resources. For the US is ordained to rule the world, so they believe, because of our "special virtues"--we would be the best arbiters of what's best for the world--and we can pursue that without regard to consequences.
Chomsky warns us that since 1945 the US has realized it controlled the world, and, according to the history of empires, began acting and will continue to act as other empires have acted. He quotes the Thucydides maxim that "the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must."
If you read David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge," one also would think that Israel would want to eliminate Iran as a threat, because much of the Arab world has sworn to destroy Israel. This would justify preventive measures brought on by perceived threats, he writes.
Since 1945, the US has acted mostly to achieve empire and the ultimate security--except when JFK initiated real peace talks with Kruschev, always pursuing its own interests because "the principal architects" of state policy always make sure their own interests "are most peculiarly attended to" however "grievous" the effects on others. Chomsky, here was quoting Adam Smith's maxim.
Thus we see the principal architects in the US, put slowly into place since "Saint" Reagan took office in 1980, ignoring the poor in their own country in pursuit of the US's "righteous" place as ruler of the world--whatever the cost. Like the Crusades, people have and are being tortured and killed in the name of a higher order.
With Chomsky going so far as to write that the US is planning to miltarize outer space, it seems unlikely that a negotiated deal can be struck in Iran--unless US interests are guaranteed 100 percent.
Iran, if it actually had nuclear weapons would be now dealing with Israel negotiating politely with that country. That's what happened with North Korea and the USA. So much for "watch out for the Sampson option." Bullies don't like getting a two by four up their booties. That's the real deal. When the Nazis started the Second World War, they didn't attack the USSR after driving into Poland, as Moscow was armed to the teeth and ready for anything Germany could dish out and it would have meant a two front war right away as the Anglo French crowd was already in the fight. Bullies jump on the weak. They know not to take the wrong risk. A booty whipping takes care of that.
But enough of that! Moscow seems to have already planted its flag in Iran. Any war will likely be nuclear and the big mushroom cloud. Think about that as those in Israel surely should.
Iran, if it actually had nuclear weapons would be now dealing with Israel negotiating politely with that country. That's what happened with North Korea and the USA. So much for "watch out for the Sampson option." Bullies don't like getting a two by four up their booties. That's the real deal. When the Nazis started the Second World War, they didn't attack the USSR after driving into Poland, as Moscow was armed to the teeth and ready for anything Germany could dish out and it would have meant a two front war right away as the Anglo French crowd was already in the fight. Bullies jump on the weak. They know not to take the wrong risk. A booty whipping takes care of that.
But enough of that. Moscow seems to have already planted its flag in Iran. Any war will mean a nuclear one and the big mushroom cloud. Think about that as those in Israel surely should.
"The United States has no tradition of subordinating itself to international treaty-based law, and it has no interest in a world order in which military force becomes operational only as a last resort."
(Peter Gowan)
Who knows if a such a deal is possible? Possibly the "experts" who say it is, are merely stooges to help provide an excuse to bring about a war, when the US drop its pretence of trying to make a deal. The current situation is all about warming up the excuses, getting the public on side, weakening the opponent with sanctions, and 'proving' that all other options have been tried, meanwhile building up attacking forces and positions till at maximum strength. Pretty soon, the US President, will bring out another excuse, say enough is enough, and instantly the entire US and Israel strike forces will descend on Iran. The plan has been in the works for decades.
Anything is possible if the parties are dealing in good faith.
Its very sad that the more powerful the nation, the more it tells lies.
The bigger the national economy, the more it must scour the earth to feed insatiable and wasteful economic appetites. The more it is a killer and carnivore, to feed its huge energy consumption.
The US, is the most powerful nation by capacity of killing, and needs be matches it by being biggest liar of any empire in world history so far. Its just one of those things that empires do.
A half century of history US actions towards Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan declares loudly that controlling interests in the Israel and US harbor powerful factions of aggression, conquest and manipulation on behalf of military and oil corporations.
Iran is much better off if it has at least 10 nuclear weapons, compared to the combined arsenal of the Nuclear states of America and Israel, a planet destroying capacity of several thousand.
If Iran were to disarm, it would be overrun by Israel and the US in a heart beat. Its cities flattened and its citizens slaughtered. Western oil corporations would be setting up and taking over by the next day. before even the bodies and rubble can be bulldozed away.
Here is a deal you will not see. The US and Israel, to prevent Iran having a nuclear bomb making industry, offer to sell some of their own nuclear weapons, in good faith, to show that they have no aggressive designs on Iran. May be they should add in some of the same weapons deals given to Saudi Arabia.
This will never happen. US invasive history shows that sanctions are pre-invasion seige , and soon to be followed by invasion. To save itself from pre-emptive obliteration by the Israel and the US, Iran must have nuclear weapons built which are deployable to targets, and very soon. The existance of thousands of such weapons on one already powerful, aggressive, destructive and untrustworthy side, means that every nation now requires them as deterrent.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to stop the US from pushing it around.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons now and the US is not pushing it around.
Prove me wrong: attack Iran now.
No?
Yeah. Now STFU, US.