Iran, Atomic Bomb development and Ineffective U.S. Foreign Policy

The Clinton administration notably failed to prevent North Korea from developing atomic weapons, the world has survived these years since, though perhaps,, just barely. It is not certain that if Iran develops nuclear weapons that it will use them liberally as soon as possible. One might hope that the U.S. political conversation with Iran could take more positive turns even as it has its belligerant and even bellicose interactive posture (it may be necessary I cannot say).

If or when Iran develops an atomic bomb what difference will it make to regional security and diplomacy? Does the United States typically have a correct or effective, just or logical policy approach to Iran vis security and bilateral relations?

Most politically minded Americans are a little aware of the U.S. history with Iran. Until we appeared to have reinforced a coup by a nearly deposed Shah to rid the increasingly democratic majlis (congress) and Prime Minister Mosadeq we were on fairly good terms. In fact the Iranian government had previously hired an American economist to be their advisor on budgetary matters (possibly not a good idea these days).

Evidently President Eisenhower was advised that the dangers of communist takeover of Parliament in Iran were too much to tolerate and so we developed an antipathetic policy toward the Iranian democratic evolution, and have been on the wrong side since through the last Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty. Paradoxically it was leftist sympathy for the Ayatollah Khomeini that helped the fundamentalist Shi'a clergy take power.

If Iran develops atomic bombs it will change the Sunni-Shia nuclear balance presently in favor of Pakistan and the Sunni. It would mean that the Northern Alliance Shia would have a kind of proxy Shia co-religionist nuclear power next door to offset the Pakistani nuclear coreligionists that have supported the Taliban and other national terrorist groups.

The United States should develop more into9lligent rather than inertially driven Iranian policy in order to help move toward better relations rather than perennially toward war. The Iranian Prime Minister may be voted out or run into term limits, and changes can occur. The Indian, Shi, Sunni atomic power balance along with China and Russia make for fairly interesting international relations scenarios.

Iran has for more than 500 years been a center for the development of civilization. Early artful carvings of Shahdad circa 2400 B.C. provide some examples of ancient hetero relationships as a social topic. Travel through Iran in ancient times was a natural course in the journey of mankind. With a better U.S. policy of progressive diplomacy-at the least a different tone, it should be possible to find a better way of exiting the interminable bilateral monologues of political speech flowing toward the public and past the U.S.A. and Iran.

The fact that the United States seems to have an amateurish and/or churlish attitude toward Iran is not to say that Iranian domestic or international policies are either good or bad. It simply is a criticism of the low level of competence in U.S. diplomacy as well as in domestic economic management that has continued several decades.

Will Iran be a threat to Israel with atomic weapons? They would know that Israel would survive a nuclear attack to launch a devastating retaliation upon all Iranian cities were vaporizing. Iran would have a nuclear deterrent that would limit its options in turn in engaging in conventional wars with its neighbors, yet it hasn't started a war with anyone since the late wars with the Tsar of Russia I( believe, and that did not go well.

The United States may or may not man up to destroying Iranian atomic weapons capability, but it can at least smile and have a good and fuller attitude even so. Iran may believe that the United States has no possibility of launching a pre-emptory anti-atomic bomb construction nuclear strike, yet it certainly won't be bluffed into stopping its development program in the meantime. Many of the world’s nations are rather undisturbed about the possibility that commands so much attention in the U.S.A.

If the United States had its oars in the water on domestic budget, energy and ecospheric management, if the U*.S.A. wasn't in the long run process of concentrating wealth and impoverishing most Americans, or at least stagnating a balanced distribution of wealth., if the government wasn't something of a yippee tool for the rich the perpetual concern with Iran might be taken more seriously as if the government of the United States was competent and not just deficit spenders with lots of big standoff weapons of immense power. One wishes the U.S. government would at least offer a continues open door to Iran to develop better relations from a menu of realistic trade and education avenues should they decide to do so, instead of presenting an all or nothing approach to what is for Washington an appropriately small belligerent power worthy of decades of ineffective discourse by politicians.