Yet, it is somehow morally acceptable for the USA government to militantly disrupt other country's nuclear research programmes.
Why ascribe morality to it? Iran has interests in the Middle East, counter to those of the United States. Iran will be more capable of acting on its interests, with any sort of nuclear arsenal. Therefore the United States acts to hinder Iran's nuclear program. That's the rational actor model, as applied to foreign policy, not morality.
Good, that's progress. We can now safely state almost every war the USA has ever waged was because they were defending their interests and not because they were being the good guys and fighting for freedom and rights. I wish the USA government admitted that instead of demonizing countries they don't like, like Venezuela. Now, if the USA were to use the far more civilized commercial, political and diplomatic ways of interacting with other countries instead of waging wars, disrupting research and sponsoring coup d'etats, that would be even better.
If you do want to map morality to the situation, then the waters get very muddy indeed. What would Iran do with a nuclear arsenal?
We don't know. No, what the CNN
states Iran would do doesn't counts.
Judging a country's rhetoric now without judging their past and their reasons and motives for acting that way is both unfair and inaccurate.
Of course, nobody wants a nuclear arsenal just to show it to his friends and brag about it, but it's still wrong to automatically assume they would use it at the slightest provocation (and by that way of thinking, every nuclear capable country should be eliminated NOW).
Would the situation in the Middle East be more morally preferable with a nuclear Iran or without a nuclear Iran? Before answering those questions, don't forget to provide your definition of "morally preferable".
I jump the question completely. It's not YOUR job to decide what's morally preferable in the middle east, nor is it mine. There are international organizations whose job is to define that. The difference? I'm not the one advocating unilateral interventionism, you are.
Personally, if I had to cobble together a brief justification for this style of intervention, I would define a morally preferable situation for the Middle East as reducing unnecessary loss of life and increasing the standard of living for the people of the region.
Both being things USA interventions have failed to provide in the long term. In fact, their very interventions have caused a lot more harm that what they have solved, both in Iran and in South America, as evidenced by the fact that this way of reasoning (USA has economic and political interest, so they do whatever they want) is the same that led the USA to partner with Iran to fund the Iranian nuclear program in the first place.
I see a nuclear Iran as being capable of using the threat of its nuclear arsenal to ward off possible attackers, while using its conventional military to further its regional foreign policy goals.
That's precisely what the USA is doing with their own arsenal.
Past precedent and the rhetoric of Iran's leaders
Do you speak Persian? If the answer is no, I would recommend you disregard everything you know about Iran. The government and the media that filter your information have their own agenda. Recently, they blatantly manipulated Hugo Chavez rhetoric to make it look like he was spoiling for a fight, when the truth was quite different (I know. As you may have noticed, I speak both languages fluently enough to notice, and trust me, I don't like Chavez either). I can't find that particular video right now, but it's not the only case by far. I can't even begin to imagine what they say about governments like the Iranian one if they can lie so blatantly about lesser enemies.
indicate that those regional goals include (in no particular order) seizing oil fields along the Iran-Iraq border,
Which by your definition is exactly what the USA wants.
and the installation of Islamic theocracies in the Middle East
As far as I know (and I could be wrong in this), the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people voted to make their country theocratic in a popular referendum. That's democracy at its finest. There's no real reason to jump to the conclusion they would deny the opportunity to decide in the same way to any other country, especially considering how much countries in the middle east like theocracies to begin with. And regarding theocratic governments, it's not the USA job to decide if that's good or bad.
(actually the world, but even with nukes, Iran doesn't have that kind of reach).
Again? You really enjoy constantly making predictions. When and if Iran starts doing something to actually indicate they would pursue this path, I will believe it. Now, there are more urgent things to worry about (like an interventionist superpower running loose).
A nuclear Iran could wage conventional war or overtly disrupt ongoing popular uprisings, in order to further those objectives, with less threat of retaliation, due to the looming spectre of a nuclear arsenal, held in reserve.
And once again, that's precisely what the USA is doing.
As warfare causes unnecessary loss of life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_StatesHardly looks like the USA with its interventionist policies is in a position to worry about the unnecessary losses of war. Again.
and theocratic rule negatively correlates to standard of living
As judged by our Western standards. Then again, we're talking about the USA, a country which has a sizeable portion of their population without health care, and denies their citizens the right of same-sex marriage, so they are hardly in a position to point their fingers at the human rights violations that come associated with a totalitarian theocratic regime.
Meanwhile,
Iran has something interesting to say about social rights:The political system of the Islamic Republic is based on the 1979 Constitution. Accordingly, it is the duty of the Islamic government to furnish all citizens with equal and appropriate opportunities, to provide them with work, and to satisfy their essential needs, so that the course of their progress may be assured.
Finally, consider this: Since USA intervention in South America (sort of) ended, we've been doing astonishing progress. Before, we were pretty much just like the middle east. I'm starting to wonder what would have happened if the USA had not intervened so much in the middle east and in south america in the first place.
I would love a world completely free of nuclear weapons, but along with getting the existing powers to reduce their stockpiles, there's another core tenet of nonproliferation: making sure that no other states start creating their own stockpiles. That's reason enough to fire Trojans at Iran.
No, it's not. The USA is a major responsible for everything Iran has become. Now they want to use their military might and technological cunning to intervene AGAIN, to worsen the problem even more, to continue with a situation of unfairness. Had the USA let the poor guys alone so many years ago, this wouldn't have happened, and neither would have the AMIA bombings. But back then the USA was intervening to balance some other conflict. And this is time and time again the perfect excuse to do questionable things, because it will make things better. No, it will not. It creates resentment, impoverishes nations, and is just plain wrong.
I'm also going to point out that while america has wielded a ton of influence in the past century and a half on the world scale, so did many of the imperial nations, such as Britian, France, Spain, and Germany all at various points. So did the Romans. And the Chinese. and the Japanese. all of these have acted in a "belligerent" manner.
That's why I also mentioned the "Western powers", and not only the USA. But just because others engaged in objectionable acts doesn't means you're justified to act the same way.
