Oh God, and what're they gonna do next, build their own microprocessors? Let's be real, they're going to become the next North Korea if this and their other isolationism plans succeed...
If I had to come up with tactics for preventing any further problems like that, "let's look at the example from China" would certainly be on the table.
It is hard to see how a war with Iran can be avoided.
EDIT: Anyone who is downvoting, please post an actual reasoned response on what exactly you disagree with.
The world isn't fair mostly because people can't stop fucking with each other.
There's no doubt that actually launching a nuclear first strike would be the end of the regime, and they know it. But they still quite rationally want a nuclear deterrent so they can achieve a balance of power with Israel and insurance against an American invasion.
So war is not a foregone conclusion, even if they really manage to build a nuclear weapon, and if they could credibly threaten to deliver it, which is much harder and not at all certain.
Consider that a nation like China values stability and plays for the long term, and yet they've been willing to continue backing Iran. Clearly China has evaluated the Iranian regime and decided it's stable enough to rely on. My money is on China knowing what they're doing.
The push for war has everything to do with the US and Israel wanting to maintain overwhelming military dominance. Iran is not a realistic threat to the existence of Israel or US security. But it's a threat to American regional hegemony.
Israel is no threat to Iran. The worst they could do is make limited air raids, and the only interest they'd have in that would be to destroy their nuclear program. So the Iranian nuclear program only increases the risk of Israeli action.
As for the US, there's no rational risk of US action if they don't develop nuclear weapons. Iraq is no precedent, if only because Iraq was already in an untenable situation with the economic and military sanctions, and the last thing you do if you want to become Iraq is give the rest of the world a reason to impose sanctions. Developing nuclear weapons and violating human rights are both fantastic ways to get sanctions imposed.
Of course, these arguments are a bit wounding to the national pride, but you're saying Iran is acting rationally, not pridefully.
> Consider that a nation like China values stability and plays for the long term, and yet they've been willing to continue backing Iran. Clearly China has evaluated the Iranian regime and decided it's stable enough to rely on. My money is on China knowing what they're doing.
By that logic, North Korea is a stable and reliable regime. There's something more going on here. Charitably speaking, maybe China thinks they can keep some control over Iran, the same way they have some control over North Korea, by fostering dependence.
It's got nothing to do with Iran, N.Korea or even Israel ultimately. It's certainly got nothing to do with human rights (if so, why hasn't NATO invaded Darfur?) I'm going to stop now because this is becoming too political.
But who gets to decide that Iran is not allowed to do whatever the heck they want with their oil supply? Is Iran indebted to the world to give them oil? Maybe the world should just find an alternative if they don't like it. That's not a reason to start a war. And if people really understood that this is the real reason and not some imminent nuclear threat, they'd probably be against the war, too, and learn to deal with the situation, and adapt.
The reason they will probably never use them is that if they do, they're pretty much screwed - the US and NATO will finally have a clear reason to start a war with them and they'll go the way of Iraq for sure. They don't have the military power to oppose any serious attack from NATO, at least from what I can see.
Russia and China stepping in would be the only possible game changers, but I don't see a reason for them to side with Iran as it is now, either...
P.S. Is it me or downvoting seems flawed here - one downvote and the comment is out of sight?
A middle eastern country with weapons of mass destruction... where have I heard that before?
Until then I'm just down-voting you for baldly stating something that contradicts most reasoned analyses that I've read.