Iranian ayatollah: Use of nuclear arms sometimes permissible

[ECH1969]

A religious leader in Iran has said that in certain situations it is permissible by Muslim law to use nuclear weapons. This is the fist time the Iranian government has not censored such statements from a religious leader, according to Meir Javedanfar.

Until now, said Javedanfar, the Iranianian government had given clear instructions against saying anything that could be interpreted to mean that Iran is planning to use its nuclear technology for military purposes.

Ayatollah Jarbian is considered a close associate of the conservative Ayatollah Masbah Izri, who recently attempted to rank himself as candidate for the replacement of the ruling Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini upon the latter's resignation.

Javedanfar said that Jarbian's words testify to the difference of opinion within the Iranian elite, both governmental and religious.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/684232.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. I believe that's also the interpretation of most US Christians

as well as the United States government, no?

:shrug:

In fact, I believe that would probably be the position of any country that has nuclear weapons. If they are not sometimes permissible (existential quantifier), then why have them at all?

[Senator Obama]

3. The difference would be...

that we actually have tight control over the use of nuclear weapons. Pat Robertson does not have one of the keys necessary to launch our weapons. The Ayatollahs do. Their is no conceivable scenario under which the US would need to use nukes on a first strike basis against any second rate nuclear power without ICBM capability.

There are a couple of problems with allowing Iran to develop nukes. First, they are without a doubt a purveyor and supporter of terrorism against the US and its interests in the region. They have perpetrated by far the most terrorism and killed more Americans that Saddam ever had prior to our Iraqi invasion. With the election of the moderate Khatami (sp) in the mid 90's they backed away from active support of terrorism against the US for fear that we would respond militarily. With weapon in hand, I believe they would begin to reassert themselves. Secondly, I think that other countries in the region would be inspired to acquire nukes, most notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I do believe their development and desires to develop nuclear technology go way past what is needed for the production of nuclear energy. They have not been transparent in their development process, stopping only a couple of years ago after being caught red handed. I think nuclear proliferation in the area should be discouraged. I believe the time to stop it is before it happens. How that can be accomplished is not at all clear. The Iranians have demonstrated no interest in abandoning enrichment and recycling efforts in favor of receiving light water technology and promise of removal of sanctions and capital injection from the West. I believe that any country interested in obtaining nuclear capability for peaceful purposes would readily embrace this offer. The fact they have not, coupled with incendiary statements such as the one above, is further evidence of their insincerity.

Obama

[Nihil]

7. ... negligible.

> First, they are without a doubt a purveyor and supporter of terrorism
> against the US and its interests in the region.

Whereas the US is without a doubt a purveyor and supporter of terrorism
everywhere in the region where such action helps its interests.

> They have perpetrated by far the most terrorism and killed more Americans
> that Saddam ever had prior to our Iraqi invasion.

Not as many as George Bush has managed (before & after the Iraqi invasion).

> Secondly, I think that other countries in the region would be inspired
> to acquire nukes, most notably Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

And why not?
Is that not the idea behind the "guns for all" arguments?
A weapon provides defence against 'bad' people with weapons?
Or are you another who believes in "do what we say, not what we do"?

> I believe that any country interested in obtaining nuclear capability
> for peaceful purposes would readily embrace this offer.

Under the same terms & conditions? I think you would have a hard job
to find anyone in the same situation who would be sufficiently submissive.

> The fact they have not, coupled with incendiary statements such as the
> one above, is further evidence of their insincerity.

That is superb. Someone pretending to be an American politician babbling on
about "insincerity"! Look up the word "irony" in the dictionary.

[anotherdrew]

9. "proliferation in the area" - India and Pakistan got away with it 100%

What did we expect other countries to take away from that learning experience? We've let North Korea go with no serious repurcusions... If we're going to do something serious about nuke proliferation, it's going to take a willingness to use force, at any cost (look out S. Korea), because a world full of loose cannon nukes isn't one worth living in right? So let's stop monkeying around and bomb the hell out of North Korea, India's nuke sites, Pakistan's nuke sites, Iran's nuke sites, Israel's nuke sites, I'm sure I'm forgetting some. We've got a lot of bombing ahead of us... I don't know, maybe that's not going to cut it. Maybe we should take control militarily of all known and suspected uranium mines?

I just don't see that the US has any real diplomatic lever that will dissuade nuke hungry countries from doing the development. What are we going to do, threaten an embargo? Oh wait, we don't make anything in America anymore. We are rapidly becoming an irrelevant country.

[VirginiaDem]

10. You're right. Good luck in here, though.

So what should the US do? Israel is chomping at the bit for confrontation (and I don't blame them given what we know and don't know about Ahdaminejad, the mullahs, the behind-the-scenes politics in Tehran, etc.) but confrontation would be difficult to contain and the US is stretched thin were anything other than airstrikes be needed. Iran knows this, thus their ability to push on with it.

[ldf]

13. we actually have tight control over the use of nuclear weapons

uh, has anyone told commander pissy pants that?

it is obvious that he is itching to use them... afterall, he is the president, and he will do any damn thing he wants. didn't he say that?

:shrug:

[Pavulon]

14. That is incorrect

The president alone can not effect a nuclear strike. SIOP has clear criteria for the release of nuclear weapons to the field.

[jahyarain]

15. correct

everyone can say "well, look at dubya, he's ready to nuke blah blah" but this amounts to the same as "well, Bill Clinton blah blah blah" from the rightwingers. read ANY statement from Ahmadinejad. HE SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO POSSESS NUKES. PERIOD. flame away...

[Zorro]

2. Whoops

Wrong thing to say, considering that the US has about 100000X more nuclear capability than Iran could ever achieve.

If this kind of talk keeps coming from Iran, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" is going to be replayed on a lot of US radio stations -- just as it was during the hostage crisis.

And you know Bush is just itching to pay back Iran for that humiliation. And a lot of Americans would support him.

[appleannie1]

6. The problem with us bombing

Iran is that Russia and China are very likely to defend them.

[PsychoDad]

4. It's hard to jibe that opinion...

With what the Quran states about what is permitted in warfare....

Unless the atomic weapon somehow selectively...
Doesn't kill non-combatants.
Doesn't harm people taking refuge in places of worship.
Doesn't kill animals.
Doesn't distroy crops.

Both atomic weapons and biological/chemical weapons violate both the Quranic and Sharia rules on warfare.

Of course, "Love thy neighbor" didn't stop the west from creating and using an atomic weapon... So I imagine the same types of philosophy won't stop the Iranians either.

Peace.

[george_hurley]

5. ***SIGN MY PETITION: NO WAR WITH IRAN!****

Hello,

For the past year, the growing tensions mounting between the US, Israel, and Iran are reaching a point where military action against Iran is w/in months of becoming reality. The repercussions are terrifying as such military action could involve countries such as China and Russia as they share massive energy/economic interests w/ Iran. The most likely scenario we would face would be the collapse of the US economy as the combination of a massive rise in oil prices and a run on the US dollar would surely be the weapon many countries would use to fight back against a preemptive US or Israeli strike.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn/


Thanks for your time

[lagavulin]

12. Wooo-Hoooo! A Petition! Shake that tiny fist in defiance!

Sorry--I sincerely mean no offence, but that is soooo Old American Century....

As if politics mattered anymore.

[daleo]

8. American radical Christian clerics agree with using nuclear bombs too

In fact, many of them actually include it as a central tenet of their faith. Bush has publicly stated on many occasions that he shares the beliefs of these radical Christian clerics.

[WhiteTara]

11. oh great a muslim Pat Robertson

just what the world needs is some more religious political nuts screaming to end the world.