Retired Army General John Abizaid echoed similar statements made by now former French President Jacques Chirac by remarking that the world could live with a nuclear-armed Iranian regime. Abizaid said that Iran is not suicidal, and could be successfully deterred by the superior military capability of the United States rather than run the risk of being victim to a retaliatory strike.

At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Abizaid said, “There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran. Let’s face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with (other) nuclear powers as well.”

Contradicting the warmongering of the administration and even front-running Democratic presidential candidates, the General said that a preemptive action against Iran would not be wise. “War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can,” he said. “On the other hand, we can’t allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests.”

He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the “axis of evil” nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.

He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.

Abizaid’s comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran’s alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.

It is important to note that not only have several respectable peace proposals from Iran been rejected by the Bush administration, but that there is absolutely no solid evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Our officials and supposed experts on Iran are speaking in hypotheticals yet again.

What Americans also fail to understand is that Iran has a history of morally opposing not just nuclear weapons, but biological and chemical weapons as well. They have had the full capacity to develop the latter two forms of weapons of mass destruction for some time now, but have not. Even during the Iran-Iraq War, when Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians with the chemical weapons we supplied to him, Iran refused to retaliate in kind even though it was legally entitled to do so. The country has long been outspoken against the disgusting weapons we assume everyone else must be developing too. We can’t even imagine that Iran isn’t seeking nuclear weapons. Fortunately, not everyone is like us.

source