Do you think the USA would have more credibility if it called from a nuclear-free Middle East?

At the moment, the published position is to call for Iran not to develop a nuclear capability, yet makes no mention of other countries. However, UK newspapers say that Israel has over three hundred nuclear warheads, and Pakistan has recently developed a nuclear bomb. Would a call for nuclear-free Middle East gain the US greater international support than its present position?

Asked by spikejones 37 months ago Similar questions: USA credibility called nuclear free Middle East Politics & Law > War.

Similar questions: USA credibility called nuclear free Middle East.

Don't think so No matter what we do, who we help or the purpose behind our works, we are always going to be the bad guys especially to the middle east. Middle eastern countries hate us as a whole. Yes many of the citizens appreciate our war efforts in helping to free them but most see us as arrogant, inconsiderate filthy americans.

Every country would love for other countries to be nuculear free except for the country in which they are a citizen. That only makes sense because you don't want your potential enemy to have bigger guns then you do.

2 Israel has no reason to disarm first from a historical perspective, India and Pakistan live at each others throats and are NOT in the middle east -that is Eurasia, Iran has a leader that prays for Armageddon within the next three years and may get his wish , I am not taking sides just painting the picture as the principles ( you mention) see it . And many would say the US should not interfere with other nations.

Israel has no reason to disarm first from a historical perspective, India and Pakistan live at each others throats and are NOT in the middle east -that is Eurasia, Iran has a leader that prays for Armageddon within the next three years and may get his wish , I am not taking sides just painting the picture as the principles ( you mention) see it . And many would say the US should not interfere with other nations.

3 Israel isn't disarming, not least because it doesn't even admit to having nukes, even though everybody knows it does. It doesn't exactly increase America's authority to call for a thing that doesn't happen. Besides, the problem with Iran has always been that they say one thing and then do another on nukes, so nobody particularly trusts them to disarm even if they swore they have.

Israel isn't disarming, not least because it doesn't even admit to having nukes, even though everybody knows it does. It doesn't exactly increase America's authority to call for a thing that doesn't happen. Besides, the problem with Iran has always been that they say one thing and then do another on nukes, so nobody particularly trusts them to disarm even if they swore they have.

Spikejones replied to post #3: 4 I think the President of Iran's regional policy statements are more about acquiring cheap popularity in the Middle East than anything else. It's their bid to become defenders of the Palestinians and, thus, gain the moral and political high ground in the region. I am not sure about this whole nuclear issue.

I'll research it and try to sound intelligent later on, perhaps. I am not especially enthusiastic about the mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons, really.

I think the President of Iran's regional policy statements are more about acquiring cheap popularity in the Middle East than anything else. It's their bid to become defenders of the Palestinians and, thus, gain the moral and political high ground in the region. I am not sure about this whole nuclear issue.

I'll research it and try to sound intelligent later on, perhaps. I am not especially enthusiastic about the mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons, really.

PamPerdue replied to post #4: 5 > I think the President of Iran's regional policy statements are more about acquiring cheap popularity in the Middle East than anything else. Islamic societies have long memories, and they're deeply unhappy about having once been a world power. Many are desperate to get it back, and while it's unimaginable to us that they could see their "asymmetrical warfare" as anything to be proud of, they see that their enemies are suffering and they'll take whatever win they can get.

They really aren't ready to be nuclear nations, but they're desperate to join the club. They think it will make them important again: they'll have the same power as us, combined with the inherent "we're better than you" notion that affects ALL societies. (Including, perhaps especially, ours.)I don't believe they want to use nukes; the idea that they'll drop their first nuke on Tel Aviv before getting to work on the second is an example of that American chauvinism which sees them as simple warmongers while we're faithful custodians.

HOWEVER, I concur with that chauvinism as far as seeing that many Iranians are so intent on a "win" of any sort that there are some ugly scenarios. " we can spare enough uranium to slip through Hamas and into America, causing them pain." Followed by us reducing Tehran to a glass parking lot.

Terrorism is extremely short-sighted, small victories with little actual strategic value, and Iran is too close to terrorism to be trusted with a nuke. Prying it out of them, however, is difficult.It's a matter of national pride, which is even harder to overcome than national interest. The latter can be bought.

The former usually ends up being resolved by force. I am not optimistic about Iran, even with somebody they like in the Oval Office. They were not afraid of our "cowboy" President, but that doesn't mean they're really willing to negotiate with a reasonable one.

They strung Clinton along and will do the same to Obama. If he calls them out on it, they're simply going to say, "So what are you going to do about it? " .

I think the President of Iran's regional policy statements are more about acquiring cheap popularity in the Middle East than anything else. Islamic societies have long memories, and they're deeply unhappy about having once been a world power. Many are desperate to get it back, and while it's unimaginable to us that they could see their "asymmetrical warfare" as anything to be proud of, they see that their enemies are suffering and they'll take whatever win they can get.

They really aren't ready to be nuclear nations, but they're desperate to join the club. They think it will make them important again: they'll have the same power as us, combined with the inherent "we're better than you" notion that affects ALL societies. (Including, perhaps especially, ours.)I don't believe they want to use nukes; the idea that they'll drop their first nuke on Tel Aviv before getting to work on the second is an example of that American chauvinism which sees them as simple warmongers while we're faithful custodians.

HOWEVER, I concur with that chauvinism as far as seeing that many Iranians are so intent on a "win" of any sort that there are some ugly scenarios. " we can spare enough uranium to slip through Hamas and into America, causing them pain." Followed by us reducing Tehran to a glass parking lot.

Terrorism is extremely short-sighted, small victories with little actual strategic value, and Iran is too close to terrorism to be trusted with a nuke. Prying it out of them, however, is difficult.It's a matter of national pride, which is even harder to overcome than national interest. The latter can be bought.

The former usually ends up being resolved by force. I am not optimistic about Iran, even with somebody they like in the Oval Office. They were not afraid of our "cowboy" President, but that doesn't mean they're really willing to negotiate with a reasonable one.

They strung Clinton along and will do the same to Obama. If he calls them out on it, they're simply going to say, "So what are you going to do about it?

" "King Abdullah says peace with Israel now or Middle East war in two years. US set to make peace deal. Good idea?

" "What is that book called about a girl that moves to the US after a bombing in the middle east? She studies astronomy" "Is Santorum totally oblivious on foreign affairs or does he want to start a war in the middle east? He noted that " "al-Qaida has called for an attack on Pres.

Bush during his visit to the Middle East next week. Bush bashers: what" "Let me try this again. Does Arco get its gas from the middle east or is it from the U.S.?" "best job site in middle east?

" "When did the Near East become the Middle East? " "In a nutshell, what is the Israeli / Middle East war about?" "Are the USA and Israel shaping a new North Africa and Middle East?

King Abdullah says peace with Israel now or Middle East war in two years. US set to make peace deal. Good idea?

Al-Qaida has called for an attack on Pres. Bush during his visit to the Middle East next week. Bush bashers: what.

Let me try this again. Does Arco get its gas from the middle east or is it from the U.S.?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.