Posted on 12/07/2006 12:42:32 PM PST by monkapotamus
The reference to Israel as having "the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal" insinuates that Israel is consequently the real source of instability in the region. In that context it is disingenuous to exclude Iran, for example, or Pakistan (from which nuclear knowhow has been exported to Iran), particularly when many people would consider them part of the region.
I agree. The early signs are that Gates is an Isreal-basher, like Baker, who served with him in the same administration.
Precisely.
And to legitimize Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Israel has them, after all.
Presuming we "talk" to Iran, we have nothing to offer other than a continuation of their nuclear program. By sitting down, we acknowledge they've kicked our *ss in Iraq and Lebanon.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
See post 24.
Israel, of course, has no reason to be piqued. It's not like they're an ally.
Gates is a long-time Washington order-taker. He's doing exactly what he's told to do.
I don't know why yet, but I'm sure the reason will surface soon.................FRegards
Israel has Nukes. Name me a worse kepr secret.
This man is very stupid.
The difference is that Israel's nukes are defensive as is acknowledged in their foreign policy that has never once advocated the extermination of any other nation, contrary to the foreign policies of many of its neighbors.
Iran's nukes are dangerous not so much because it will have them, but because of its professed hatred and belligerance toward others, primarily Israel. For instance if the Sha of Iran was still in power, Iran's nuclear program would not be viewed with the level of concern in the west that it is viewed due to the nature of the current Iranian regime.
India has nukes, as does Pakistan, both ostensibly "defensive" and possibly, like the US vs the Soviets, the nuclear stalement has prevented even less threatening military actions against each other, directly (not counting Kashmir). Yet, not too many nations view either Pakistan's or India'a nukes as a threat to anyone else - because their foreign policy does not present a belligerent stance toward anyone else.
But, while Iran can make the argument that its nukes will serve to be as "defensive" as Israel's, it is already clear that its acquisition of nukes is intended to be used as an umbrella under which it will seek to conduct direct military aggression against Israel through proxies; and for which it has extended the number and strength of such proxies around Israel. That is the difference and the concern presented by Iran's nuke program - it is clearly part of an offensive military program.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.