19 comments

• Comment Link Wednesday, 13 February 2013 13:13 posted by Broheim

  3 out of the 4 "debators" are Jewish -- why is their no Persian/Iranian commentators considering this is a question regarding Iran ? Nice debate.
  
  Iran hasn't attacked or invaded another nation in over 500 years. People complained they are responsible for Hezbollah and Hamas -- but this is wrong; ISRAEL's POLICIES are the reason why Hezbollah and Hamas exist. Hezbollah was created ONLY after Israel illegally invaded and illegally occupied Southern Lebanon. Iran had NOTHING to do with Hezbollah's creation. They give them money and support, but so what ? This isn't a crime. America gives all of Iran's enemies money and support (Israel, Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and Saudi Arabia). Hamas was created in the same effect, Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories (as defined by International Law and the UN).
  
  Israel is responsible for their own actions.
  
  There is also no proof Iran is working to create a nuclear bomb. Absolutely none.

• Comment Link Monday, 11 February 2013 06:08 posted by Orrin Schwab

  I listened the debate tonight on NPR. I was shocked at the
  argument made by Jeffrey Goldberg. Does Mr. Goldberg
  really believe that Israel will survive for only a few years
  after Iran becomes a declared nuclear state? This is an
  utterly hysterical argument. It is premised on the idea
  that the Iranian clerics would find the nuclear martyrdom
  of Iran to be an acceptable outcome of a nuclear confrontation
  with Israel. I know the Iranians are messianic but the potential
  incineration of the homeland strikes me as just a bit bizarre.

• Comment Link Thursday, 31 January 2013 23:24 posted by Adam T Burklow

  Is anyone else noticing how closely the global nuclear capability argument mirrors the domestic gun ownership debate seen in America today? The sociological precept is the same – they have their guns, so I need mine!
  Despite all of our wonderful attributes, human beings have shown - for 10’s of thousands of years - that they have a propensity for violence towards one-another. Three hundred and fifty years ago Thomas Hobbes wrote a seminal critique of political theory in Leviathan – where he argued that human beings are, by nature, ruled by pride and by fear. You see evidence of this every single day in the inter-action amongst people world-wide. This may be a misanthropic view of humanity, but we have no need to fear it, or be shameful of it, because as soon as we admit that this is a part of our nature we can work together as the loving, intelligent beings whom we are and subdue this common enemy! Reason & understanding will take us further then military power or diplomatic efficacy ever will.
  More weapons will lead to more violence and more death – period.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 22 January 2013 17:11 posted by Elicia Beharry

  There should be a balance of power especially when forced to make a stand against aggressors/bullies such as Israel and America; without nuclear power anyone of the two can either start bombing your country and/or invade for their benefit. It's either they agree to play/fight fair allowing Iran nuclear power or, agree to a total disarmament worldwide.

• Comment Link Friday, 18 January 2013 19:36 posted by m martin

  I have never heard of Israeli suicide bombers willing to sacrifice their lives for the will of their God...
  Put a nuclear weapon in the hands of a state that sanctions this primal sacrifice, and...

• Comment Link Friday, 18 January 2013 11:08 posted by Andy D.

  The side arguing against the motion relied heavily on playing on everybody's fear by feeding everybody rhetoric by Iranian officials as testaments to their resolve. If Iran was truly and utterly bent on destroying Israel, then why don't they mount a full military strike against Israel, instead of relying on loose terrorist organizations flinging home-made bombs across the border? The exaggeration is astounding. The point made by the side for the motion is completely valid. The U.S. faced against powerful superpowers such as Russia with great nuclear capabilities and the threat went beyond mere words on both sides and yet there was no eminent war.

• Comment Link Friday, 18 January 2013 04:55 posted by Oliver

  The best we can hope for is a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. Iran is currently surrounded by nuclear powers (Israel, Pakistan, Russia) and US nuclear weapons on submarines. It may be that if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons, that will trigger the nuclear disarmament in the region that is so badly needed. It does not look like it will happen without such a change in the balance of nuclear / military power.

• Comment Link Thursday, 17 January 2013 18:23 posted by Neil Schipper

  I'd also like to point out that the win for the side against the motion was possibly contrived; that is, some of the audience (folks from my tribe!) may have voted 'undecided' at the outset with incomplete sincerity. It's my impression that the side for the motion actually carried more audience approval.
  
  Also, in my second bullet below, I should have said the negative (against the motion) side!

• Comment Link Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:56 posted by Richard Huber

  It has always seemed very strange that we have no problem if Israel, with a very trigger-happy government, keeps a large, undeclared nuclear arsenal, refuses to sign any non-proliferation pacts & doesn't belong to the IAEA; but go ballistic when any other sovereign nation in the region wants to equalize the balance of power. Could the unusual largess of the IAPAC with our politicians on both sides of the aisle have anything to do with it?

• Comment Link Wednesday, 16 January 2013 21:28 posted by Neil Schipper

  I would have liked to hear more about these:
  
  - what's really known about the internal workings of the Iranian regime? Is it at core a one- or two- or three-man junta? Or is it more like 20 or 100 families? What is the degree of foreign education of people at high level, esp. rising leaders?
  
  - the affirmative side relied a lot on (ghastly) statements by the regime, and somewhat on ghastly behaviors by the regime: war with Iraq, horrific treatment of dissidents and violators of religious purity, support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Fair enough. But what about borderline irrational behaviours by the regime?
  
  - are there solid projections about resources in the region -- oil supply, perhaps minerals, water, etc. including in regard to anticipated changes in climate -- which might alter the probability that Iran becomes desperate and more likely to act recklessly?
  
  - If today's (secular) power elites in Israel had reason to think that Israel herself (based on demographics and cultural shifts) might turn more rabbinical (theocratic), does that impact thinking about the timing of possibly dealing with Iran?