While I may not agree with his reasoning and emotional content, I agree somewhat with Pilger's assessment that Iran has justification for establishing a nuclear deterrent.
Try looking at this objectively.
Iran's neighbors India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Israel is a nuclear power outside of the NPT, and Israel has been making loud noises in re Iran of late. (Iran does not have clean hands here.) Given the raids on Syria and Iraq, on record, Israel making noise is no idle threat. Should Iran, from their point of view, have to stand bullying or threats from Israel?
No.
If one stands in the shoes of a policy maker in Teheran, whether you like him or not -- I don't much care for any of them myself -- and see out into the world through the Iranian lens, trusting the international community to be an effective curb to nuclear ambitions in everyone else (besides Iran) is an obviously failed policy.
Iran cannot trust the international community and international agreements. Thanks Dr Q of Pakistan for confirming that, as well as Israel's continued under the table nuclear power status. I don't doubt Iran was a bit paranoid about Saddam's actual status, until we broke the egg on that one.
Iran must act in its own interests. Iran chooses to establish a nuclear deterrent. Iran must, since it has no ally in mid to large size with whom to huddle under a nuclear umbrella, as our NATO allies have been able to do.
Of all the criticisms on Iran about nukes, their dishonesty is a perfect mirror to Israeli dishonesty of the 1960's. Out of a perceived strategic necessity as seen from the PoV in Tel Aviv, Israel established a nuclear deterrent capability. A good idea at the time. It is ludicrous to object to Iran's similar moves. Reflect on the years of Pakistani sleight of hand with nukes, and the recent US endorsement of the Indian programs, and one can see that Iran is right to call the entire international community liars and hypocrites. (That Iran is also guilty of the same is not in question).
If Mahmoud the Mouth stands up, and says, "Thanks very much, you people are just picking on us, you ask us to do what you wil not, and cannot, do" he is pretty much right.
Point of interest: Iran is not in Israel-of-the-1960's strategic situation, in terms of the scale of threat to their existence as a nation, so that bit of the parallel breaks down somewhat in the small details.
Iran is a regional power, in a tough region. From a practical matter Iran is justified in establishing a deterrent since, as of this writing, the geni still isn't back in the bottle regarding nuclear weapons. Trusting the international community is a farcical course of action for a nation state to base its security policy on.
Note: A few days back it was the 61st anniversary of Chamberlin's "Peace in our time" game in 1938. What had gone on in Europe up to the sell out of the Czechs and Poles is instructive to any mid-sized Power. Two not-quite-Powers trusted the Powers (international community) for their security. They discovered the utter futility of that trust when their own security was put to the test by other people's interests rising to the fore. An excellent treatment of that series of events of the late 1930's can be found in Leonard Mosley's On Borrowed Time.
You or I or we may find the government of Iran distasteful, evil, or unreliable as a group of oligarchs, theocrats, and tyrants. They aren't stupid, and they are putting their interests first. Since part of their interest is staying in power internally, go figure, the longer view of the risk they are putting their population into seems not to matter enough, yet, to get them to alter their course of action.
I read in the paper today the talks of a strict sanctions regime on Iran. Kagan, may his fat arse boil in oil for all eternity, suggests that sanctions and supporting internal dissent is how to get regime change in Iran. Sure, Robert the Buffoon, see how well trade sanctions and supporting internal dissent did in Iraq? Twelve years of sanctions and Saddam was still in power, still a problem. If someone could please get Kagan to stop calling himself a strategist, I'd be much obliged.
I don't like Iran going nuclear, but I don't blame them. The eternally bickering morons of the international community, which from the Iranian PoV must include the US, do not instill confidence.
DR
