I say Iraq, you say Iran, can we please call the whole thing off?

Igor Writes-

Ok, so to this point, the argument I hear for considering an invasion of Iran is that such an unstable government shouldn't be permitted to have nuclear weapons.

I consider this to be fundamentally incorrect.

First of all, Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that they are pursuing nuclear technology to more easily provide energy for their citizens. But let's assume they are lying. Let's assume that they want an a-bomb and want one badly.

Can you blame them?

The United States has repeatedly threatened Iran, stating that "every option is on the table". What, precisely, is Iran expected to do about that?

By building a nuclear arsenal, they are in fact insuring that the United States WON'T invade Iran.

Consequently, since the United States is the largest offender of nuclear proliferation, Iran is unable to attack America or any of its allies (I'm looking at you, Israel) for fear of being completely flattened.

What, then, gives us the right to say which nations deserve nuclear arms and which ones don't? Who died and made us king of the world?

As I see it, either everyone has nukes, which is dangerous but not insanely so because everyone would be too afraid to attack, or no one gets any, which is significantly safer, but involves more ground invasions.

This situation, in which America holds the world hostage while Iran scrambles for an insurance policy, is unhealthy and can only lead to the deaths of many more innocent people.

The next argument, and understandably so, is that if Iran gets nukes, then the terrorists will get some too. There are a number of reasons why that won't happen.

First, there is a lot of political upheaval in Iran right now. The current administation is unpopular and there is rioting (not about america, surprisingly enough). Therefore the government would never hand over a nuke to any terrorist group for fear that they themselves would end up being the ones terrorized.

Second, nukes are, for lack of a better word, power. The Iranian government, if it were to hand a nuke to a terrorist group, would be handing power to a group that isn't the Iranian Government, which will never happen.

Third, until someone actually proves that Iran supports anti-american terror groups, I'm going to take this a simple pre-war Iraq-style propoganda. In fact, I've yet to see any hard evidence that Iran is developing the technology for a bomb. I've heard people say it, and papers report it, but no evidence quite yet. Remember that this same government conviced us all that Iraq had massive hidden stockpiles of WMD.

Am I completely nuts?

I'd love to hear what you all think, so leave some comments, which I will definitely respond to.