Originally Posted by
Roo
You seem to be suggesting that being a member of the nuclear club has stabilised and bestowed security on Israel. Without arguing that particular point, how can this aspiration thus represent an irrational aim for Iran?
You also state that Israel isn't supporting international terrorist organisations. I guess that would hinge around how you chose to define the word 'terrorist'. Read Amnesty International's 21 February 2001 report on Israel and the Occupied Territories: State Assassinations and Other Unlawful Killings and most would probably class these extrajudicial murders as state sponsored terrorism.
You state that Iran's "present deterrents have been strong enough to prevent military or significant economic actions against their present policies that the West is trying to oppose" and I would tend to agree but look at the title of this thread. That bombing Iran is even up for discussion seems a strong argument to build a more formidable deterrent to military incursion, especially for a state with such a siege mentality. Not to mention the half million killed when Saddam - armed by the West - decided that Iran's deterrents weren't up to snuff.
Iran's meddlings in regional security and its sponsorship of terrorism are directly attributable to what it perceives as Western threats against its sovereignty. To be honest, given what happened in 1953, it's understandable. Britain, with the help of the CIA, overthrew Iran's democratically elected administration and installed the puppet Shah. Everything it has done since 1979 has, rightly or wrongly, been designed to prevent the nation ever being in a position where that can happen again. [i]Are you seriously telling me that if you were Iranian, you'd be doing anything other than trying to develop a nuclear deterrent? It's the only rational thing to do.[/i] ;)