Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons: Pakistan

[third eye]

"Most interesting..."


DAWN.COM | World | Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons: Pakistan

WASHINGTON: The foreign minister of Pakistan said Monday that Iran had no justification to pursue nuclear weapons and urged the neighboring country to embrace overtures from the United States.

In some of Pakistan's strongest statements on Iran's controversial nuclear program, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that he wanted to avoid “another major crisis in the region. In my view, I don't think they have a justification to go nuclear,” Qureshi said at Harvard University.

“Who's threatening Iran? I don't see any immediate threat to Iran,” he said, while adding that Pakistan accepted Iran's “right to civilian use of technology.”

Qureshi said he has shared his views with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and told him to seize on US President Barack Obama's stated willingness to engage in dialogue to mend decades of fraught US-Iranian ties.

“This administration has been extending the olive branch, make use of it. Engage the world,” Qureshi said.

Pakistan has a mostly friendly but complicated relationship with Iran's Shia clerical regime. Baluchistan province stretching between the two nations is rife with insurgency and sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias.

Pakistan and Iran in June signed a deal that commits Tehran to selling natural gas from a pipeline. The United States has warned against the project as it steps up sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said at the time that Islamabad would implement UN resolutions on Iran but not unilateral US restrictions.

Qureshi said that Pakistan faces a threat from India, making its case different than Iran's. Pakistan became the Islamic world's only nuclear weapons state in 1998, days after its historic rival carried out similar atomic tests.

Qureshi also pointed out that Iran was signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Pakistan and India never signed.

“They have an international obligation. They have signed NPT and they should respect that,” he said.

Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's bomb, confessed on television in February 2004 that he ran a nuclear black market that sent secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. However, Khan later retracted his remarks. -AFP

 

[abdullahk]

from what i see of it is that if iran has no need of nuclear weapons then it should open all of its nuclear facilities to IAE for a good inspection to let the west know that they are in no need for WMD

 

[Chanakyaa]

First give them weapons then to please Uncle SAM.. Tell them why u need the bomb..

Wow..

 

[NWO]

If Israel/US haven't attacked yet, I highly doubt they'll attack anytime soon.

 

[TechLahore]

Pakistan is simply echoing Iran's publicly stated position, that they are not developing nuclear weapons. While saying this, Pakistan has also defended Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy. What is the big deal?

Iran is an NPT signatory and has never indicated that it will willfully violate this agreement while it remains in effect.

 

[third eye]

Pakistan is simply echoing Iran's publicly stated position, that they are not developing nuclear weapons. While saying this, Pakistan has also defended Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy. What is the big deal?

Iran is an NPT signatory and has never indicated that it will willfully violate this agreement while it remains in effect.

The larger issue is how can a FM of Pak comment on the necessity of Nukes for another nation ?

Iran may or may not be developing a nuke ( though it is unlikley that it isnt ) yet discussing threat perceptions of another country are way outside the purview of the FM of Pak.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

i do agree. It wasn't a necessary statement. Depends on the context in which he was speaking. It's definitely stupid to say Iran has no enemies or threats. Suffice to say that in this day and age however, war heads will remain hidden in silo or bunkers because nobody can really afford to use them as the international reaction would be quick, harsh and very strong. Real irony on this side of the world, nuke ensures peace. In some strange, perhaps demented way. Iran wouldn't set off so many alarm bells if they chose a less confrontational approach to things.

 

[TechLahore]

The larger issue is how can a FM of Pak comment on the necessity of Nukes for another nation ?

Iran may or may not be developing a nuke ( though it is unlikley that it isnt ) yet discussing threat perceptions of another country are way outside the purview of the FM of Pak.

Mountain out of a molehill. Please note that the FM was addressing an audience at Harvard University. At academic forums of this nature it is quite common for personal assessments and opinions to be expressed. The FM expressed an opinion and was not speaking on behalf of Iran.

How many times have US officials said publicly that Pakistan should not fear India, or India is not the real threat?

How many times have Western officials said that Iran shouldn't, or doesn't need to develop Nukes?

How many times has India "advised" Pakistan on what the "real" threats are?

The fact is that in all of the instances above, the statements were given far less "properly" and yet much is being made of the FM's views as expressed during a talk to an academic audience. Nit picking, from where I stand.

 

[greatsequence]

Arab nervousness can also be a reason.

 

[third eye]

Mountain out of a molehill. Please note that the FM was addressing an audience at Harvard University. At academic forums of this nature it is quite common for personal assessments and opinions to be expressed. The FM expressed an opinion and was not speaking on behalf of Iran.

How many times have US officials said publicly that Pakistan should not fear India, or India is not the real threat?

How many times have Western officials said that Iran shouldn't, or doesn't need to develop Nukes?

How many times has India "advised" Pakistan on what the "real" threats are?

The fact is that in all of the instances above, the statements were given far less "properly" and yet much is being made of the FM's views as expressed during a talk to an academic audience. Nit picking, from where I stand.

The Pak FM comments on Iran in US..why should I get into a one -on - one with anyone on this or lose my hair.

Evidently while in the US he made such comments that would please the US.

 

[TaimiKhan]

The Pak FM comments on Iran in US..why should I get into a one -on - one with anyone on this or lose my hair.

Evidently while in the US he made such comments that would please the US.

There is nothing in it to please anyone, this has been our point of view from day one, Iran has full rights to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, meaning electricity generation to be more precise, while it should not go for nukes.

This same thing has been said again and again on international forums by Pakistan, with Iran having no issue in that, as Pakistan is trying to get the thing resolved peacefully without any confrontation as any confrontation would affect Pakistan too.

We are not backstabbers when it comes to Iran.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

IRAN should continue developing nuclear weapons. I dont care what Qureshi says. If other countries have the right to develop nukes then why not IRAN.
Israel and U.S have got problem with IRAN because they know that the Muslim Ummah will become stronger. . .
GO IRAN GO. .. PAKISTAN IS WITH YOU. . .

 

[TechLahore]

The Pak FM comments on Iran in US..why should I get into a one -on - one with anyone on this or lose my hair.

Evidently while in the US he made such comments that would please the US.

Not at all. The US has issues with Iran's efforts to generate nuclear energy. Pakistan supports those efforts and the FM said as much during his address at Harvard. If Pakistan wanted to please the US, then it would have voted against Iran at international fora, like India did. Or it would have cancelled the IP(C) pipeline, as the US had asked for numerous times. Or it would not have assisted with the arrest of Rigi, who the Iranians claim the Americans were helping/funding.

Here, a mountain is being made out of a molehill by vested interests who want to misinterpret the FMs statement to try and concoct differences between the two countries that don't really exist.

 

[WAQAS119]

it is very complicated politics ,Iran is just using Israel's name to acquire Nuclear weapons ,just a thought: what if its real target is someone else cuz u know, u cant destroy Israel by Nuclear weapons cuz now what we are seeing Israel is just a fake Image( shadow ) but real Israel is in London and WashingtonDC .
anyways no one can destroy Israel and i dont think Iran's such a fool.

If Iran has nuclear power then it is obvious tht Arab's Sunni/wahabi power can be crushed easily. Iran always says "first Israel", so who is nxt??? i wonder why the Saudis allows israeli war planes to use Saudi skies for attacking IRAN.

 

[Novice09]

How can you question the right of a nation to have nulear bomb?

It really does not matter whether it is said by US, India, Pakistan or any other nation having Nuclear bomb.

Why any country on this earth needs N bomb????

IMO, Nukes have played a vital role in stopping several wars from WWII till today...