|
>Iran, North Korea and Syria are examples of countries that are a significant threat without having any Western arms in their arsenal, and operate outside of Western soft powers. The West is far from being the only arms supplier in town, and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make up for it (as done by all three) and use assymeteic warfare instead of standing military (as done by Iran and Syria). Really? They're the "threats?" How much Korean, Iranian, and Syrian blood is on the hands of Western arms dealers? Any "threat" they pose is a direct reaction to hostility from Western powers. If we want to stop the threat, we should stop threatening them. >Israel was under a US arms export embargo up until the late 60s, for all intents and purposes. Israel was never shielded by the West - there has never been direct military intervention in Israel’s favor. This, combined with the trauma left by the holocaust only couple of decades prior, and the calls to the destruction of Israel - unprecedented that a country had its legitimacy disputed like this in world politics - have made it pursue nuclear weapons. What? US started importing to Israel in 1960, and both France and the UK aided Israel in the Suez Crisis, followed by heavy US support in the Yom Kippur war as you mentioned. And if millions of your people getting killed followed by a continued call for your destruction are legitimate reasons for a nuclear program then nobody can object to North Korea's. >Today, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia behave in line with Western interests because they feel embraced and protected. In the face of an imminent threat from Iran, they rely on Western arms and support. Or because the US is a far greater threat than Iran, given what they've done in the region. |