6 thoughts on “Drezner’s question”

  1. No reason; esepcially as the actions of the Bush admin showed very clearly that if you don’t want to get invaded, the one thing you need to do is have WMD rather than abandon them.

    It is difficult to stop a power acquiring nuclear weapons once they go down that road; states really have to abandon these options themselves without external peressure like Brazil or South Africa did. In practical terms short of an invasion, there is not much that can be done imo.

  2. “why on God’s green earth would Iran ever accede to an agreement whereby it gives up any autonomy in its nuclear program?”

    To avoid the threat of splintering up, aided by outside powers (like Balouchistan part in Iran and the sunni parts in the west), perhaps?

  3. so they don’t get invaded or bombed

    nitin, please delete my previous comment. thanks.

  4. Does Iran actually possess the know-how for a nuclear program or is it, as stated in the link -“the nuclear program is a domestic crowd-pleaser and offers the hope of policy autonomy that a lifting of sanctions does not provide. ” similar to Saddam’s WMD.
    Do the americans not have an alternate to make Iran compensate for the monetary losses they incurred because of the overthrowing of the Shah’s regime by the revolution?

  5. Sud, Trilok

    Those would be the reasons why they want to keep the baby.

    Aam Insaan,

    We’re discussing real questions for real people.

Comments are closed.