Why cant we use the Taliban/ Alqeada against Iran?
I know what you will be saying it were the Alqeada that done did the 9-11 and murdered 3000 people but in the grander scheme of things isnt it Iran that poses a bigger threat to the United states and its regional allies? I mean if you delve closely into the crazy world that is the Middle East you will realise that the Taliban (Sunnis) hate, they simply HATE the Iranian who are shia Moslems. Infact that hatred between them is worse then the sectarianism in Northern Ireland. Look at the sectarianism in Iraq the bombings killings etc... So why cant we arm a few Taliban Alqeda dudes and get them to attack Iran and perhaps destroy their nuclear plant for us? Get them to do our dirty for us huh? I bet even the Iranians wouldnt expect that would they? one extremist attacking another extremist. A bit like when irony comes back and bites you in the a55?
A brief understanding of the conflict currently happening in Syria?
If my sources are correct, there is currently a Civil War happening in Syria between it's government, which does not want to step down, and rebels. Why is Russia and other Western countries bombing Syria? Is it because of the ISIS organization? Where does ISIS fall in the conflict between the government and rebels?
Why do people think the iraq war is useless?
Here we go again. I don't think the Iraq "war" is useless. I think it's totally unnecessary. We could have removed Saddam Hussein from power without a full scale invasion of the country. Evidently, ultra conservatives (who support each other NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY OR DO), think that we can turn Iraq into a democracy so that MAYBE other Arab and Middle Eastern nations will see it and MAYBE they will become democracies themselves. Meanwhile, people who support this "war" fail to understand that people in Iraq and the Middle East have had their own way of life for thousands of years. Who are we to come in and say OUR WAY IS RIGHT? One last thing; if you think the Iraq "war" is so noble and justified, why aren't you over there?
Is Israel right that the Iran nuclear deal is a "historic mistake" because Iran can effectively "continue its enrichment of uranium" under the deal?
By and large no.Look, this preliminary deal is by no means enough to stop development of a nuclear weapons program in and of itself. But the reality is that the alternative (i.e. not making a deal) didn't really do that either; a situation in which there was no deal would still allow the Iranians to enrich uranium and advance their nuclear program.It's important to remember that sanctions are not some magical tool that can make Iran's nuclear program vanish of the face of the planet; they're simply a tool that can be used to either compel the country's leadership to negotiate or change the domestic political environment in which decisions are made, forcing change from the bottom up.[1] If you're driven to believe that Iran is just using the negotiations as a ploy to buy time, than you'd also have to believe that, in the absence of any strong domestic pressure from the left, Iranian leadership would just continue the program come hell or high water even in the face of the sanctions.[2]Netanyahu is a smart guy and he's playing the PR game because the best outcome for Israel is for the United States to physically prevent Iran's nuclear program from continuing through a series of military strikes. It's the only way that they can be as sure as one can reasonably be that the program is dismantled.[1] They can also be used proactively to prevent certain materials from reaching undesirable countries, but the cat's pretty much out of the bag on this one.[2] Further complicating the issue is the fact that the current president, Rouhani, is himself much more of a moderate than a lot of the country's political elites and, in the event of even more serious economic difficulties, domestic pressure is just as likely to come from hardliners taking an anti-western stance. Such an outcome would be disastrous as it would almost certainly require military action on the country's nuclear sites and could negatively impact the still-fragile modernization movements.
Why did America let Israel develop nuclear weapons but now opposes Iran developing nuclear weapons?
The main sales pitch of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that, eventually, no countries would possess nuclear weapons, including the original acceders and ratifiers. The 5 states officially recognized as nuke-holders were responsible for mounting that effort, and the U.S was one.So according to the text, the U.S is required to pursue disarmament in the hopes that finally, one day, it can completely destroy its nuclear weapons. So is every other NPT party.Israel never signed the NPT and developed its nuclear program in secret, at times deceiving the U.S to continue. Nixon eventually let them have it if they agreed to keep quiet about it, which Golda Meir happily signed up for. A good bargain because the opposite scenario includes tearing up the NPT and a nuclear arms race. Technically speaking, the U.S would have the same reaction to any country attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and did low-key have it when it learned of the Israeli effort. But Iran is a special case because it doesn’t just tip the balance of power in the region if it has nuclear weapons, it completely dominates it.