Report: Iran's scientific progress fastest in the world

Don't you think this is somewhat ironic since Iran is (allegedly) under scrutiny because it refuses to be part of the greater proxy war going on?

Do you think that Iran, again, somehow shows above average involvement in those kinds of activities?

It all comes down to having a sound argument which shows that the Iranian government will commit suicide by ever actually using a nuclear weapon. The real concern for me is when Iran has enough developed raw material for a few hundred warheads, in possession of chemical/biological weapons, and has shown a pattern if irresponsibility in using them against others.

Ahmedinejjad, his masters, and his minions can toast to champagne while sitting on the nuclear weapon for all I care. There is absolutely no way that they can use it OR smuggle it out of the country to someone else. They will do what they've always done - talk and talk and talk. That is, unless someone corners them and chokes them and makes them so desperate that they become irrational. Obviously, there are a handful of countries which can do this.... Care to speculate who these countries are?

Want to solve the problem of a psychotic government? Support the protestors. Don't starve the protestors by placing more sanctions on them, none of which affects the pockets of the government. The government will take its cut of any income, but the people will be the ones who suffer.

 

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. I am more or less ambivalent to the argument. There is some merit. I mean, it can't be denied, for instance, that Iran plays a big role in Lebanon, but at the same time, that country is so f***ed, that if it wasn't Hizballah, it would probably be something else.

But in some cases, as with the recent Houthis/Yemeni conflict, Iranian support plays a pretty important role.

That having been said, I don't really understand. Which "greater proxy war" do you refer to?

 

No denying Iran has played a major part in those conflicts. However, they are minor and absolutely no different than the strategy of several US allies in the region. Nevermind that the goal of that conflict was, very succinctly put, to end an invasion of Lebanon. Without a doubt, Iran loved that this would piss off the US and Israel, but nevertheless it is an act of self-defense which they supported. It is a needle in the haystack that is the United States support for Israel to be the most armed country in the Middle East (at least by 100x). If proxy wars are an indication of potential irrational millitary action, it should be argued that the US should not own a single nuclear weapon.

To answer your last question, it centers around oil. Ensuring control over the oil, technology, and competition has spawned several proxy wars, case in point the Iran-Iraq war where 500x more people were murdered versus the Hizbollah war. The support of South Korea. The unconditional support of Israel.

This is the nature of the game. I find it highly convenient that talk and any insignificant proxy war is a strong indication of millitary instability whereas we ignore actual millitary actions as an indication.

When was the last time Iran made the first move and attacked someone? Here are the last 3 significant Iranian millitary decisions:

- AGAINST the invasion of Lebanon by supporting Hizbollah
- AGAINST the Iraqi government's torture of kurds by supporting the kurds
- AGAINST the Taliban by supporting the Northern Alliance

2 out of these 3 are positions that the US would take as well. There will always be an agenda, but it can be safely argues that Iran has been one of the most fair, logical, rational and stable countries when it comes to millitary decisions, especially considering the state of the nation and the region.

 

I guess here's the problem, with your logic in my mind. Your point is that we shouldn't take Iran seriously when they threaten, as Iran only engages in proxy wars, while the USA is much more actively and directly violent. That argument kind of necessitates that threats by the USA are taken at the same level or much less seriously than verbal threats by Iran. But I think if the USA started threatening anyone, they should take it very seriously indeed.

 

The US doesn't make threats? or engage in proxy wars?

I'm not comparing. I'm saying the US, among other countries, does everything Iran does, does a lot more of it, and also engages from time to time in direct and millitarily unnecessary warfare.

Just to give one example... The US threatened Iraq, engaged in proxy war with them through Saudi Arabia, were wrong (intentionally or unintentionally) about the existence of WMD's, and attacked the country (effectively turning it into a colony).

For a country to act on the size and quality of the information that the US received before attacking Iraq is no different than Iran baselessly threatning the zionist Israeli government. Please note the difference between the people of Israel, the government of Israel, and the zionist government of Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong, the people he's talking about are the same people Israelis have been angry with for the last few years.

Ahmedinejjad has never declared that Israelis should be wiped off the face of the map. In 2003, Iran offered to make peace with and recognize Israel as a state. The Iranian government has explicitly stated that it does not wish to harm the citizens of Israel. It even said that they would cut funding to the "fighters of the occupied territories", in effect saying we will stop the proxy war. At what price? An end to US hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region (basically, please recognise these FACTS).

It is an inconsistent approach. It is no surprise though as me and you both know that having a quasi-panel of countries WITH nuclear weapons enforcing the NPT is a situation which could not be any less independent or any more ridden with conflicts of interest. It is in the best interest of this panel to quash anyone with the potential to genuinely threaten the economic order currently in place. For some countries, they are happy to give this thing up and rely on the US for millitary support. For others, they feel that they don't need the support and would like to gradually develop the ability to defend themselves. I don't have a problem with either scenario. My problem is with the fact that it is being pushed down people's throats. Not very democratic of them.

 

i.e. I am part of the 'fringe' lunatics who believe this

 

What I'm wondering about is if that scientific progress will end up improving the lives and economy of most Iranians. At the moment most of this seems to be going to develop the militry industrial complex of the regime.