Concerning the nature of nuclear weapons, in my opinion, it is more than merely a deterrent. The delivery of a nuclear device can be physicaly done through the actions of a proxy group, who's movements can be obscure and inscrutable. And in a chaotic region where Iran sponsor many proxy groups, Hezbollah being the most noticable, the possibility for Iran to deliver a device in such a manner will allow them to resort to an extremly dangerous form of indirect negociation: blackmail.
This summer's Israel-Hezbollah war demonstrated that a non-State actor, armed with rockets, popular support and bunkers, could make a stand against one of the world's most efficient and hightech military. The possibility of such a group being armed with a nuclear device is unthinkable. It just can't be allowed.
And finally, the 1991 Gulf war proved one thing to the world: that if Irak would have been armed with a nuclear device, the americans would have left them alone. Meaning that a purely defensive deterrent can encourage convential wars.
Quote:
|
It is undeniable that Iran has the right to peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy.
|
How so? Is it possible for a coalition of States to legitimately feel threatened by a nuclear Iran and as such
deny them this right, if they have the leverage to do so? How is their "right" to nuclear energy undeniable then?
