Why is a nuclear Iran a threat but a nuclear Pakistan is okay?

[Postman]

Iran is going to get nuclear weapons.

What Bush and Israel fear about a nuclear Iran is the fact that an atomic weapon gives Iran security from an attack and forces Israel and Bush to have to deal with the Iranians seriously without threat and with diplomacy.

An atomic Iran also destroys the neo-con dreams written into the PNAC.

[Pierre.Suave]

1. Iran...

has oil.

[Strelnikov_]

3. And Pakistan . .

does not.

Even with a pipeline corridor credit, the Petro-Democracy^TM quotient is extremely low.

[MisterHowdy]

11. Well said.

[Odin2005]

2. Because Musharriff's our vassal.

[Blackhatjack]

5. Once he is overthrown, welcome to nuclear fanatical government

It is a well documented fact that many attempts have been made on his life, and if he falls the religious fanatics will take over. Try negotiating with that bunch who now have a tested and real nuclear weapon, not just the prospect of making a nuclear bomb.

there is no logic to the question. The world would be safer if none of them had the bomb, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel, China, Russia, or the US.

[Odin2005]

13. That's what scares me.

A Fundie government in Islamabad would almost certainly mean nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which could very easily spiral into a world war.

[Canuckistanian]

4. An excellent question

Considering that the Pakistani Intelligence, the ISI, has previously been overrun by Muslim extremists, now they're off the radar screen?

And what are they doing to find OBL, who is in their country as we speak?

Don't tell me, the Bush admin has closed the group looking at Pakistani intelligence groups, right?

[panader0]

6. A nuclear India, Israel USA, Briton, France, etc, etc

Nukes are bad news period. I don't trust bush at all with the N-option.

[Purveyor]

7. I just wish Russia would sell Iran a half dozen or so of its finest

mobile nukes and end this fucking game of "will they get them or won't they".

[loves_dulcinea]

8. wrt the paki's

the genie's already out of the bottle.
let's just hope that they do not decide to actually start lobbing at india (or vice versa).
let's also hope that the military junta manages to retain power over the radicals that would probably otherwise rise to power.

[scarletwoman]

9. A nuclear armed Iran would provide a much needed balance of power in

the region. It would force serious diplomatic efforts instead of neocon fantasies of "full spectrum dominance" in the ME.

As someone who was born in 1949 and lived most of my life during the Cold War years, I would much prefer a return to a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction than the current Unilateral Rampaging Rogue State/Hegemon model that we have right now.

I'm dead serious. I think the best thing that could happen in the Middle East would be for Iran to have a nuclear deterrent. It would concentrate the minds of the neocon fantasists most wonderfully -- and just might save our country from complete collapse into militarist-fascist police state.

sw

[Odin2005]

14. You LIKE MAD? Are you nts?

We came extremely close to thermonuclear war several times during the cold war.

I don't want ANY country to have the power to distroy the world with a push of a botton. ALL nukes must go.

[scarletwoman]

17. Oh I totally agree: "ALL nukes must go." But they won't go for awhile yet

I'm looking at reality, not what I wish would be. And the reality is that a balance of power is far preferable to the current situation of a rampaging delusional unilateral power.

Let's even the playing field, and then we can get to work on disarmament. There's no getting to a nuke-free world until our military hegemon is brought to heel.

If you can't imagine what an unmitigated disaster to the whole world that a U.S. attack on Iran would be, then you haven't been thinking hard enough.

sw

[The Gunslinger]

10. good question ...

Especially when Packistan already got nukes, and Iran is still a long way off having them.

[spanone]

12. Got me. Musharraf is a MILITARY DICTATOR and he has NUKES

[JVS]

15. Pakistan--scraps with India. Iran-- took us hostages in 1979 and...

popularized the term "The Great Satan" to refer to the US.

[Igel]

16. A nuclear Pakistan was very much not ok

until 9/11. Then realpolitik became more important than the chill in relations that followed their nuclear test in the '90s.

It was a big deal in the '90s, but only among a small section of the population. That portion of the population also found it a big deal again in '01.

[kitty1]

18. Pakistan is the go to guy in Central Asia in return for vast heroin

market in the U.S. International trafficking of drugs and crime syndicates are high on the list of global profits of course.
The CIA made sure that the Golden Crescent stayed active in exchange for some military favours from their ISI buddies.

[evox]

19. Most Importantly

the U.S. has major influence over Pakistan, meanwhile Iran has no U.S. influence at all since their revolution.