Is Iran a danger to the world or a danger to the developed world but not to the developing world?
439692
Well as upto this time Iran is a danger mainly to the developed world . After that it may go for the developing world. By fighting all these wars america has messed up its economy , meanwhile china zooming past it.So as of right now mainly for developed world.
471832
Interesting question.\n\nAt the moment the truth is that Iran is stating absolutely that it doesn't want 'Nukes', instead it is claiming a right to develop a nuclear capacity for peaceful power generation. With the price of oil rising globally this seems a sensible strategy.\n\nOf course the problem is that this could be masking a drive for the development of nuclear weaponry.  \n\nIs this justified?  Well there are two schools of thought.  \nThe first is that for defence purposes it is.  Iran is a developed nation in the Middle East and one of its neighbours, Israel has a nuclear capability.  Iran could justifiably argue that it requires a nuclear deterrent to counter that of Israelis.\n\nThe second is that no, it's not.  Iran has been explicitly threatening to the West and Israel (whom it said it intended to 'wipe off the map') and whilst the rest of the world are looking to dismantle nuclear stock piles, it is incongruous for a nation to be building a nuclear capability.\n\nNot sure of the answer, but hope this helps.
236762
The problem is not between Iran and the US.  It is between Iran and most of the civilized world (and part of the uncivilized world too).  Ultimately the problem is between Iran and itself.  Iran is sleepwalking toward a war that they will lose.  They think that the issue is whether they "deserve" to have nuclear weapons.  This is not the issue.  The real issue is whether the US, Israel, and others will allow them to have nuclear weapons.  And the answer to this is "no".  If Iran does not stop pushing this, they will get lit up.
566773
Yes they are and they are a huge supplier of oil worldwide. In addition they are on the brink of being a nuclear powerhouse as well which is a bit scary as the current president of Iran is a nut who has basically said his goal is to blow Isreal off the face of the planet. \n\nIF the international community does not step up and do something there is a real possibility that we are looking at a serious nuclear problem in the Middle East very soon.
650869
Somebody will as the world's existance could easily be at stake. If Iran develops nukes it almost assures WW III will come about inside a decade of them aquiring Nukes. If somebody dosen't all that stood by signs a death warrent for the world.
342284
Iran is a member of the United Nations and a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and is not suppose to be developing nuclear weapons.  Although Iran has been stating that they only want peace use of atomic energy, their position is highly suspect, if for no other reason than the fact that Russia offered to provide the atomic fuel they needed for such peaceful use and Iran turned that offer down.  \n\nBeyond that reality, no nation with nuclear weapons wants such weapons to spread to other countries.  This is particularly true of countries that have unstable and radical governments.  It isn’t a matter of a country’s right to tell them they can’t have such weapons, but a matter of realistic defense.
138749
The rest of the world is willing to let Iran have nuclear power; that's not the problem.  The problem is that Iran has proven itself to be a rogue nation that produces and harbors terrorists.  The blatant hatred that Iran has for anything Western is reason enough to doubt its motives when it comes to the development of nuclear energy.  As I said, the rest of the world is willing to allow Iran to have nuclear power, provided that it is willing to allow UN inspectors access to verify that Iran's motives and capabilities are peaceful.  Iran is unwilling to allow this. That's why the rest of the world is skeptical of Iran.
133364
Please clarify.  I really don't think you mean Iran is going to invade Iran.
91551
There isn't any danger. Because IAEA is observing all nuclear activities in these two countries. So, Will there be any danger? But there are some countries that are making nuclear weapons but no one prohibit them of countinuing their destructive plans. Honest!
37791
The answer to that question is both yes and no. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, understands that the world is still suffering oil shock from the recent natural disasters, in addition to the fact that the majority of the US Army and Marines are stabilizing Iraq. This entire plot to stare down the world is merely a tactic of “shock and awe”. \nThe bottom line is no other Middle Eastern country other than Syria has shown support for their actions. Also, no European or North American countries are supportive of their actions. \nIf embargos were enacted and Iran began withholding its oil, the world would not come to an end. Sure prices would rise, but often the will of the people is stronger than any economy or dictator. \nIf all trade was ceased between the majority of the world and Iran, the economic repercussions for Iran would be disastrous. As it is, the government is terribly unstable, faces daily democracy marches, and only gains support through Islamic extremism and terror. \nFinally, if war were to break out, Iran is positioned right between two US allies, Afghanistan and Iraq. This would provide ample staging areas for any type of offensive. Also, as demonstrated during the first gulf war and to some extent during the second, the American and European militaries are designed for short term hit and run tactics which allows modern technology to be used most efficiently. If Iran was to stop selling its oil, it would hurt many countries that might have had a neutral stance at the beginning. With this being true, any military action could easily see the most global coalition that modern warfare has ever seen.\nacansco@yahoo.com
595842
AA my good friend, I think we may AGREE on this one. Iran's primary motivation is to construct nuclear weapons, nuclear power would be a secondary benefit and of course like any good sociopath, Iran is playing the "energy end up" while minimizing (to the outside world) the thought of developing nuclear weapons.
355628
it would be a total disaster if so.  it would require an occupation, since only bombing iran would allow them to retaliate against the iraq, israel, and afghanistan as well as automatically providing al-qaida with its strongest ally ever.  iran would be able to launch terrorist attacks around the world if it was bombed. an occupation would also be a disaster.  iraq is tough enough, and there most of the population supports the US.  Any occupation of a country where the people like their gov. (as in iran) is much more difficult than an occupation where the people were oppressed by their gov. (like iraq)
425698
I agree with Dr. Dee (hey, that rhymes)! Iran is a country in the Middle East. And I think we ought to leave them alone and let the rest of the world worry about them. We do enough worrying about other countries as it is.
62839
I'm not going to turn this into an anti or pro Bush diatribe (personally, I'm indifferent to him), but the Iran situation is indeed very serious, and it is not just Bush that thinks so.  France, Germany and Britain have been working on this for many years.  China and Russia are stake holders.  Even the Australia Group has issued an opinion.  What you're observing is simply more attention being paid to the matter by the media (don't forget the European Union has been working on this seriously since at least 2000, even before September 11).  Iran clearly wants nuclear weapons and has made overt threats to use them, which escalates the situation above a mere arms race.  Further, Iran has not been transparent with the program, which is a direct violation of an international treaty which the country signed on its own accord.  However, when the EU-3 first noticed that Iran had broken the treaty and bought the issue to international attention, the Iranians suddenly became indignant -- essentially casting asside an agreeement they had made with civilized society.   However, now the attention of the world's citizens is on Iran, I hope that the same level heads that have been working 'behind the scenes' continue to prevail.
525283
lol no there is iran and thats it
1168694
Your question assumes that Iran has military ambitions with respect to the development of nuclear energy technology.  Either way (peaceful or military use), Iran is about 7 to 10 years away from even developing the capability to enrich enough material to develop a single nuclear weapon.\n\nIt seems much more critical to reign in the activities of nations the world over that have thousands of nuclear weapons (like the U.S., Europe, India, Pakistan, etc.), or nations wherein nuclear stockpiles are poorly secured (in Russia and former USSR states).  The latter is a far more dangerous threat with respect to potential terrorism.\n\nIn addition, all of this is predicated upon accepting "nuclear" as a reliable energy source.  The dangers of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the like, as well as the intractable problems of nuclear waste disposal and vulnerability of nuclear plants to terrorist threats make it crucial that the entire planet move away from "nuclear activities."
489297
iran is a developing country.fighting to survive and bring better life for it's people.\ndo not belive the media.\n\ndo not!