A replay in a discussion about Iran

I usually try to refrain from entering these discussions in the first place, but your naive approach to Iran (no offense) just burned a few of my fuses.. I have dug and verified most of this stuff so I wouldn't have to trust my memory alone. Do you really believe Iran has been following everything the UN has asked for? It has been systematically avoiding giving any real answers, playing hide-and-seek with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA's) inspectors for almost a decade (since late 2002/beginning of 2003. time goes by quickly, doesn't it?). It has repeatedly announced that it accepts inspection, then denied entry to some nuclear facilities for various reasons. And for what reasons, may we ask? Iran claims it didn't specifically agree for "surprise inspections" and that every visit has to be arranged with them (26.08.03), or Iran "didn't have time to prepare itself" for the inspection (and delayed the inspectors' visit by a week. 26.09.03), or for no reason at all! (May 2007). These are not all the incidents reported, but only an example. Furthermore, Iran chooses to accept an agreement for uranium-swap (23.10.09), then denies ever agreeing, and disapproves France from being in any part of an agreement (25.11.09). The next day (26.11.09) the Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, says that Iran is uncooperative and inflexible in its stands, noting that the talks have reached a dead-end. It's interesting to note that Mohamed ElBaradei (Egypt nationality) was actually one of Iran's biggest supporters in the IAEA, and prevented sanctions being used earlier. "Surprisingly" enough, when a new deal of sanctions is on the verge of emerging, Iran agrees again to a similar deal of uranium-swap (17.05.10). The main difference between the Nov'09 deal and this one is that the uranium-swap is supposed to take place in Turkish soil, and not on French one. This agreement is inconsistent with Ahmadinejad's recent statement from 05.04.10, saying that uranium-swap deals will only take place on Iranian soil. Some sources at the US and other western countries expressed concern about that particular change in the swap deal. These sources have expressed concern letting Turkey have its hands on high quantities of high-quality uranium, seeing Turkey's strengthened relations to eastern countries, the distance it takes from the west and the movement towards more radical Muslim stances. (There are other political reasons for Turkey's moves, but more on this if you're interested. It's out of the scope of this message).

Despite the fact that Iran's economy is deteriorating (i.e. unemployment has raised 3.5% in the last 15 months) mainly due to sanctions, Ahmadinejad has chosen these troubled times to declare the establishment of two more nuclear facilities (03.04.10). Undoubtedly, the huge amounts of money involved could be spent elsewhere, considering the fact that the Islamic state already has 17 such facilities, and that no announcement of new facilities can bring it any economic relief. Iran keeps insisting that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. Its decisions point otherwise: it still shufflers and takes every chance it has to deny full access to its facilities and delay more sanctions. Moreover, the IAEA itself recently declared that Iran has enough nuclear fuel to build 2 bombs (31.05.10). Do I need to remind you what kind of regime you're dealing with here? It's the same regime that every now and then threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It's the same regime that arrests homosexuals for "crimes against the holy Koran". It's the same regime that closes newspapers for publishing stories which "incite the people against the government". It's the same regime that crushed protests concerning fraud in the elections of 2009: there were a 150 casualties (by some reports), the media was censored, no one was allowed to speak to the people wounded, families of the killed ones were forced to sign documents saying they did not have any complaints against the government, burial locations were restricted and opposition leaders were incarcerated, tortured and some even raped. If Ahmadinejad had any brains in his skull, he would have kept quiet about the whole nuclear program, and then one day come out with a statement that Iran already has a bomb. But instead he does the opposite. His statements only bring more and more sanctions to his country, and isolate it from the rest of the world. Do you think that a logical argument such as "the US and the soviet union didn't blow up the world, and so wouldn't he" is something you want to bet you world on? And even if the answer is yes (because whatever reason), this is not the question put on the table. We've all seen how the west almost had a heart attack about a year ago when the Pakistanian government was on the verge of collapsing, and Al-Qaeda almost put its hands on pakistanian nuclear weapons. The same radical Islamic organization admitted already that it would have used such weapons against the US if it had the opportunity to do so. According to various sources (sparse ones, as real news from inside of Iran are quite rare), the Iranian regime does have a lot of opponents from within. If a secular revolution takes place (which is not an unimagined scenario), the radical Islamic groups which the current regime is supporting can take over such weapons.

A totally different reason for this (WMD in Iran) being a disaster is the fact that Iran has changed its war plans. Following the aftermath of the second Lebanese war, Iran inquired Hizbullah why it has wasted the entire Iranian arsenal it was given to on such a stupid conflict. The same goes here for Hamas in the Gaza strip and radical Islam groups in the Sinai peninsula (Egyptian border with Israel): Iran is supporting them with money and weapons so they could act according to its interest upon request. Activation of a nuclear weapon from one of these groups, although unlikely in the near future, will hold less devastating results for Iran. The third reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is the fact that currently there's a relative balance in the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, United Arab Emirates and all the other nonradical Muslim countries are feeling safe (Egypt also goes in this list, although not in the Persian Gulf). With an Iranian bomb they will not (and they have expressed this opinion on various occasions). This will lead to some of these countries to go in a nuclear race themselves, and the whole middle-east into chaos. One last thing (as I'm a bit out of steam and a little tired, seeing it's 04:52am) - We've seen the exact same game from Iran with the Shihab 3 missile: While it was being developed (and monitored by western countries), in the years 1998-2002, Iran consistently claimed that these missiles were for civilian uses (launching satellites). Suddenly in 2002, after many Israeli statements that this is indeed a high quality military weapon, chairman of Iran's space industry (Ahmed Wahid) declares that the target of Shihab 3 missiles is actually Israel (03.10.02). Hey, it worked once, why shouldn't this method work again? p.s. If Israel really is the opponent of Iran and the only target of its military weapons (and\or nukes), why is it developing Shihab 4 and Shihab 5 missiles which can reach central and western Europe?