Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb The American media has turned the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA) report on Iran into a debate on whether force should be used against Iran to stop their nuclear program Whether Iran has a weapon or not is certainely an issue! but the more important issue seems to be the conse"uences of attac#ing Iran such missile attac#s on Israel or the closing of the straights of $ormu% What is se&erely lac#ing in the discussion is what is the threat to the 'nites States if Iran achie&es a nuclear weapon (or e)ample! *orth +orea has nuclear weapons and deli&ery systems! but no one debates attac#ing *orth +orea Seoul (pop ,-!.--!---) is significantly more popultated than the state of Israel (pop /!0--!--) and its leader Kim Jong-il has to be
considered eccentric and dangerous. Why isnt bombing North Korea a major topic of debate in the media? Simply because it is not a threat to the United States. So hy is !ran nuclear capapablity such a threat? "ame #heory$ !srael % !ran !srael has any here bet een one hundred and three hundred nuclear eapons according to a &'(' report of the same !)*) as ell as hostile relations ith almost all its neighboors including +ebanon$ ,alestine$ *gpyt$ #ur-ey and Syria. #he !sraeli nuclear strategy$ described by Seymour .ersh in his booith the same title$ is called Samson Strategy. Said strategy ould call for a massi/e nuclear stri-e in the case the the integrity of the country as at the point of being compromised militarily. #he nuclear !srael and its stragegy create a /ery clear possiblity for orld ide nuclear armeggedon hich is !srael be defeated military and its borders and national integrity being compromised. 0eing the only nuclear po er in the 1iddle *ast$ this creates a /ery dangerous scenario for !sreals nieghbors. )ny agressions carried out by the Je ish state can only be met ith partial rebuttal. #hey are unable to carry out con/entional military attac-s against !srael$ for if they ere successful$ they could face total annilhation. .o e/er$ the danger in/ol/ed is ho decides e2actly hen the !sraelis are being o/erun and need to 3go nuclear. )ny micalcuation on the part of its enemies could lead to globla nuclear armegedon. !n the case that !srael struc- pre/enti/ely ith a nuclear attac-$ say$ on !ran$ there is no garueentte that they ould be annilhated in a nuclear counterstri-e. #he 4uestion ould arrise$ ho ould carry out the counter stri-e? #he United States has a /ery po erful Je ish influence$ and its doubful the US ould do the logical thing$ and elimate the Je ish state ith a nuclear attac- after !sreal had attac-ed !ran. !f the US ouldnt do it$ ho ould? Would the 5ussians or the 6hinese ris- annhilation and orld ide armegeddon o/er !ran? 1aybe not. .ence$ from a strategic perspecti/e$ !srael is an e2tremely dangeorus nuclear po er. 7n the other hand$ a nuclear !ran could only use their eapon as a last$ suicidal gesture. #heir is absolutely no doubt that if they used it$ they ould be completly anhiliated$ so and !ranian bomb could only ser/e as a deterent.