And then what, Webby, the enemy brings in the massive cavalry of A-10s, F-15s, F/A-18s, etc? 
I am not talking about a US intervention, but for example an Israeli one similar to the one against Iraq's Osirak reactor. That's why Iran is keeping up its air force, not to stop a US invasion, for that they rely on their people. Plus for propaganda reasons.
Hopefully the US isn't stupid enough to repeat what they did to Iraq, as it will be similar: easy military victory and then an aftermath 10 times worse than Iraq.
Well, it isn't just that we don't want Iran to have nuclear power because some accident might happen of course. It's complicated. Iran signed the non-proliferation treaty which says you don't use it for nuclear weapons, in return you can use it for peaceful purposes, e.g. nuclear power. I think it actually says something about tech transfer between members of the treaty to use it for such purposes. So Iran says look we're building it for nuclear power, we can do that and you can't say we aren't allowed nuclear power. If Iran would have a nuclear reactor, it can export more oil. So keeping to this deal also has it benefits to Iran, even though they can't have nuclear weapons and need to allow access to UN inspectors.
But UN inspectors found traces of weapons grade plutonium (and/or technology to create it) and weren't allowed access everywhere. So the US says you can't have a nuclear reactor, because clearly you want a nuclear weapon. US and UN embargo Iran for non-cooperation. Iran kicks out the inspectors and gets embargoed some more.
With no UN inspections and these embargos, what do you think Iran will now focus on? nuclear power, or a nuclear weapon? Even if Iran would open its reactor, and it is bombed, it's pretty too late already then, because they are probably working on a weapon at another site. So you need to invade, Iraq in ruins, Afghanistan unstable and add then the aftermath in Iran. You'll have a Jihad then? Oil prices shoot up, people die on all sides, tax payer suffers, military suffers. All because we didn't trust a regime with nuclear power, and couldn't properly control that development?
Look this regime is clearly not intimidated by embargos, and doesn't like to be told by nations that do have nuclear power and weapons that it can't have the same, just because Bush put them on his Axis of Evil list. I have some respect for this, but they aren't making it any easier on their own part.
Most difficult thing is to come to terms. Most stupid thing to do is to invade it with full force. Easiest thing to do is just to drop a few bombs on the suspicous installations... which only buys time and makes the political situation worse, but to block this easy route, Iran needs a capable air force... (and the US stealth planes to unblock it).
(PS: I think the US is producing enough power as it is, but the network is in need of a serious upgrade. I don't think safety is a big concern, otherwise more plants (not just old ones) would have been closed by now... but leaving nuclear waste for future generations is a concern. Unfortunately everything has it downsides. Wind/sun energy takes a lot of money/resources to collect, oil/gas is a limited resource, coal has its emissions and risk to miners, hydroplants alter entire landscapes, bio-energy changes agriculture needs, and nuclear leaves dangerous waste... and wood burning is not an option, but I just want to mention it here, because I think some Westeners really should shut the f*** up complaining about all those poor people that rely on it, that they should use solar power instead, let's not do that till we are completely eco-friendly)
Back to Index
Move to Top 
