Noam Chomsky: Iran pursuing nuclear weapons out of fear

Chomsky may or may not be wrong, but anyone who calls him "clueless" is taking massive liberties with the patience of a rational audience. In fact, anyone who can listen to Chomsky and then call him clueless is not evening trying to communicate sensibly. They're just barking emotional nonsense like an excited animal. Chomsky may very well be a lot of very indecent things, he may even be an evil liar, but he is certainly not clueless.

Trouble with all the comments so far lies in the following;

1- Iran is afraid of developing nuclear weapons in the open so they are doing so covertly.
2- Iran needs to ask for permission to have access to any kind of defensive technology.

Both these premises are false, and are based on the delusional thinking of the prejudiced and bigoted Western audiences, whom are subject to the shadow theatre ran by the Zionists, of the Zionists, for the Zionists, that has been designed to keep these audiences at bay and occupied for the durations of the intervals from munching on their respective hamburgers.

Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons because of the absurdity of the costs of developing such weapon systems and the potentially limited scenarios for their ultimate use. Therefore, if the Iranians say they are not developing these weapons, they are stating the truth, although currently given the paranoia of the political Zionists, whose savagery is; so on display on a daily basis, combined with the arising questions about the dubious stories of their legitimacy, those are rapidly falling apart, make it necessary to continue the story lines, on differing formats, included parading the worn out gate keepers such as Chomsky, whom apparently still enjoys the support of the left wingers!

Fact is this article is “Hasbara” at its worst, but hey the “chosen ones” are not renowned for their originality so this too ought to be expected.

Finally given the failed societies of the West, which are undergoing an extended collapse, brought on by the huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and ever higher spiralling costs of their armies and war budgets, these translating to the lower standards of quality of life all around as well as the increasing hardships faced by the hamburger munching spectators come the audiences of the current shadow theatre, the stories of the dastardly weapons built in the skunk-works (the old comic book story lines) are designed to keep the hamburger munchers all too busy, whilst these get ripped off more.

Simple fact is, Iraq could not defend itself, and was not in a fit state to even stop a bunch of school leavers bent on making trouble on a weekends outing, hence it was attacked, the same goes for Afghanistan, however, given the length of these wars, and the on going operations after some seven years and ten years ought to give anyone with a modicum of sense (a very rare commodity among the hamburger munchers) a clear lesson that Iran will smack down any aggression whilst sending the shaky economies of the aggressors into a nose dive that would make 1929 crash to look a picnic, along with China only sixty minutes flight time from the hub of it all; the mid-east, would cool any rising ire of any would be trouble makers, but hey why would hamburger munchers think along these lines?

These would prefer to get on with the phony debate, forwarded by a worn out gatekeeper and ancient relic, who once in the pre-internet era used to have some kind of value. At these post-internet times, contrary to the wishes of the Rabbi Kahn; internet is not just for buying and selling, it is now de-facto data source for the world, without the usual controls of the bloated, filthy rich trying to cover the cracks with their highly paid editors writing in their exclusive opinion rags and announcing it on their free for them TV, and radio stations.

Enjoy your freedoms, and freedom fries, hamburger munchers, for you truly deserve these blessings!

Although a quick question, how did you use your freedom today? Was it of any use, or could you not even use as a wipe?

I'm not sure what I find more telling, Chomsky's brilliant but simple detection of a sensible Iranian point of view, or the views of simplistic anonymous commentators who are living proof that Chomsky's point of view is needed.

Chomsky is right as usual.

Anonymous Thursday takes issue with Chomsky's suggestion that Iran must be developing nuclear weapons because that would create a host of security problems. True, but there is also the fact that Iran's neighbour Iraq has been obliterated twice by the US in 20 years - assaults that would not have occurred if Iraq had possessed nuclear weapons in 1990. Something to think about.

Anonymous Saturday does not identify any flaw in fact or logic in Chomsky's analysis. That is a flaw in Anonymous Saturday's critique.

They are not developing a nuclear weapon because they are sane.Iran consistently claims nuclear weapons have no place in its defense doctrine. Presumably because every possible scenario involving mere possession of nukes (let alone threats to use or actually using nukes) would spawn a spectrum of calamities ranging from Iran's total isolation as a pariah to its preemptive "obliteration".Iran must be well aware that nuclear weapons did not forestall the Soviet collapse from internal discord. In the absence of economic progress, the USSR's arsenal did not accord it meaningful prestige in world fora. Indeed, at the zenith of Soviet nuclear stockpile (45,000 nukes), only the British, and the American 'workers of the world united' to crown Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan in landslide elections. Plainly, U.S.A's extravagant nuclear arsenal has not enabled it to control the price of oil, nor has it hurried Syria, or Lebanon into signing peace treaties. There does not appear to be any benefits to be stacked against the prohibitive costs of nuclear weapons development, let alone the deployment costs of a credible nuclear arsenal. It is not just in the Iranian context that “the bombs are substantially valueless, a very considerable waste of money and effort, and "absolute" primarily in their irrelevance”. John Mueller contends nuclear weapons are not and have never been of any utility to anyone.Iran's disavowal of nuclear weapons squares with her nearly 300 year unbroken record of non-aggression. Even in a fight for her very survival, it is impossible to imagine a rational defensive scenario where Iran would escalate any conflict to a nuclear war when the likely adversaries and/or their allies are able (and eagerly willing) to "[sic] totally obliterate them" and then some. Absent any rational justification for Iran wanting/needing nuclear weapons, most commentary on Iran's nuclear energy programme is peppered with allegations of evil intent, duplicitous conduct, irrational religious zealotry, etc. Though presented as facts to an uninformed public, the allegations are no more than suspicions -- prejudice masquerading as prudence. Aprioristic conjectures about Iran prey upon uninquisitive minds with the persuasive whisper of a jack hammer. Through repetition, some of the evidentially-challenged charges against Iran have become memes though they defied commonsense to begin with, and remain unproven after years of scrutiny.At best, the alleged Iranian desire for the bomb could be construed as an insurance policy in case of regime change, though with premiums far in excess of the contingent loss, the supposition is absurd and unlikely. Squirreling money in Abu Dhabi bank accounts beats all other insurance schemes for ease, reliability, discreteness, and it earns interest.Feigning sympathy, some commentators point to the existential threats facing Iran. Given the neighborhood, they argue that it would be insanity for the mullahs not to develop the bomb -- mad if you do, mad if you don't. This begs the question: why is anybody threatening anybody else's existence in the 21st century? If it is loose rhetoric that 'understandably' lead to proliferation, then are the threat mongers aware that by threatening one, they are perceived as a threat to all, and are taken seriously by a vanishing few?The much touted danger of Iran sharing nuclear technology and/or actual weapons with a terrorist group does not pass even a cursory test of objectivity. "Would any regime just hand weapons-grade uranium over to extremists over whom it had no control?" There can always be the first time in recorded history that a state actor gives the means for its own extinction to a foreign 'group'. But, are we to accept as a given that the millennially-minded 3000+ year surviving civilization not only aspires to national suicide, but wishes the timing of its guaranteed obliteration to be at the whim of a foreign terrorist group? Is there no likelier candidate other than Iran for setting a new record in staggering shortsightedness? The fear of a regional arms race is proffered often by Western pundits, but ironically, they are usurping Iran's own fantods. Regional proliferation would transform hostile Arab governments from an over-the-horizon security concern, into Iran's proximate security nightmare. Free-for-all proliferation would squander Iran's geographic/population advantage, vitiate Iran's conventional defensive capacity, and render even the tiniest of its neighbors a military equal. No wonder that Iran has been pushing for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.Apparently, unlike Japan, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, ... and Australia, Iran's motives for energy diversification is the source of much ponderous befuddlement. "In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney said, `[Iran is] already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. No one can figure out why they need nuclear, as well, to generate energy'". Much credibility would accrue to...