Neil MacFarquhar writes about Iran and the bomb:
Not only do Iranians take pride in their scientific accomplishments, but they are keenly aware of the fineprint in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
“Western countries are not recognizing Iran’s legitimate right to use nuclear energy because of this government’s hostile attitude toward the United States and its lack of legitimacy,” said Mehdi Aminzadeh, one of the leaders of the student protest movement.
:::flip:::
Young Mr. Aminzadeh is correct. His government is hostile to the United States. The American government is hostile toward the Mullahs. Both countries are ostensibly democracies. But both countries have serious flaws with their electoral system. We can’t count votes; they don’t let everyone run for office.
The biggest flaw in the Iranian system involves the Council of Guardians. The Iranian constitution “provides the Council of Guardians the power to screen and disqualify candidates for elective offices based on an ill-defined set of requirements, including candidates’ ideological beliefs.”
The Guardians have been disqualifying an increasing number of candidates in recent years. Imagine Sam Brownback and eleven other wingnuts having the power to tell Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton that they are not Christian enough to run for elective office. That is where the lack of legitimacy comes into play.
Now it’s come to this:
AP: ABC News
It’s a good bet that the six approved candidates are not friends of BushCo. or the United States Congress. And it’s a good bet that they are not friends of the Iranian student movement, or of decent Iranians, more generally. We have legitimate concerns about such a government gaining nuclear weapon capability while we have over 100,000 troops next door.
We also have good reason to distrust the Mullahs’ professions of innocence. They claim they only want nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.
This is a big topic. There are many facets to Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear energy and nuclear explosives. I can’t discuss them all here.
But one thing I will say:
Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and they ought to be bound by it. The world does not need more nuclear weapons. And the world really doesn’t need such weapons in the hands of non-reality based wingnuts of the Islamic/Santorum variety.
But if we are going to successfully prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons we have to have legitimacy and we have to have allies. We cannot invade other countries on the basis of forged documents and the delusions of drunk nephews. We cannot develop a line of mini-nuke bunker buster weapons. We cannot nominate men like John Bolton to be the ambassador to the United Nations.
It would be nice if everyone agreed to either destroy or cease developing their nuclear weapons. But it won’t happen unless the United Nations is more successful at preventing illegal wars and providing real collective security. We cannot pursue unilateralism and non-proliferation at the same time. The following should help explain why:
On his new PBS show last night, Fareed Zakaria said something so astonishlingly simple about our North Korea policy, and I wonder if the same could be applied, just as simply, to Iran.
Zakaria said the Bush administration has two concurrent and inherently contradictory policies towards North Korea:
Zakaria said it’s impossible to work for #2 with the current regime if that regime knows that Bush wants #1. He said that the current regime will be gone in time, but that in the meantime, it is essential to the safety of the world that we deter North Korea’s nuclear threat. So, he suggested, cut out the #1 regime change crap. For now.
(He said it much better than this. His transcript and video of last night’s new show aren’t up yet on his show’s site.
Err.. How far are we from that!?
If we can accept a nuclear Pakistan, (I find it hard) then we can accept a nuclear Iran. We have accepted an Israel armed with thermonuclear (H-bombs) weapons for decades. Did we think her enemies would never get their share?
The Islamic Bomb is a fact! I would pay much more attention to the country that has it than one which may get it sometime deep in the future and which will not make much of a difference anyhow.
If we can accept a nuclear Pakistan, (I find it hard) then we can accept a nuclear Iran
If ‘we’ here means the collective ‘we’, and not just the United States, I still have a problem with this logic.
India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons is a serious problem. Perhaps the most serious problem facing the world today. The biggest threat is that they will use them against each other. But another problem is that Pakistan is not stable, and it is highly radicalized.
It also may not be that adept at securing their facilities. And during a revolution, which is always possible, who knows what might happen to the materials.
Had Bill Clinton launched a preemptive attack on Pakistan to prevent their successful creation of a nuclear capability, he would have had far more justification that Bush had with Iraq.
Saddam was good at staying in power and securing his facilities.
So, my response is that ‘we’ the world, cannot really live with Pakistan having the bomb. It’s a terrible thing that they have it. They are one of the last countries on Earth that I trust with such technology.
Iran would not be so dangerous. But it would only compound a serious problem.
Now, what right does the world have to tell countries they cannot have nuclear weapons? Not much. That is why they must be offered legitimate collective security in return for their willing consenting to not develop them.
I may live in Athens but I do consider myself an American, especially when discussing strategic matters.
Nuclear Pakistan, especially a Pakistan as unstable as ours is, is indeed the most scary thing in international politics today. It is only slightly less scary than the 12 monkeys scenario.
Of course we need to do everything we can to stop Iran from also going nuclear but Pakistan is the country we need to focus on.
We agree.
The really important bit is that only states get to play with these toys. When non-state actors get to play, we may not get blown up but our system will be.
The country that is most likely to implode and give access to these weapons is Pakistan. Ergo, I worry much more about Pakistan than I do about any other nuclear or prospective nuclear power.
with this.
The Security Council/United Nations was supposed to provide a justification for the big 5 to remain the only nuclear powers.
The Security Council did not, however, have any representatives from the Islamic world. It also failed to prevent Israel from going nuclear.
Once that happened the logic broke down. I suspect that Brazil has nukes now. India and Pakistan and North Korea too. It’s a mess.
But North Korea and Pakistan are the greatest threats when it comes to proliferation (intentional or not) to non-state actors.
Iran would probably not be any more of a threat than India in that regard.
What worries the neo-cons is that it will check-mate their plans. And Israel obviously thinks this may upset their ability to broker TOW missile deals between the mullahs and the national security council.
How was the SC meant to keep Israel from going nuclear?
Brazil is probably not a member of the nuclear club, though like many countries it could be if it wanted to.
It is a mess and was predicted to be.
Why is NC considered such a threat? Leave them to the Chinese.
Only India could possibly control Pakistan and with nukes that is, sadly, impossible.
Iran would be less of a proliferation threat than the Pakistanis.
I wonder how many people realize how easy it is for a modern technological state to build a bomb? Bulgaria could build a couple before we all said “Happy New Year!”
was that the countries that prevailed in World War Two were going to agree to set aside their ideological and cultural differences and to take responsibility for making sure that smaller less powerful nations had their sovereignty protected.
This assurance and protection would take away the need for smaller nations to want or feel the need for atomic weapons.
Israel presented a problem. Their sovereignty was disputed from the outset of their creation.
Suffice to say, that Israel didn’t feel protected by the SC. And they developed nuclear weapons in response. This opened the door for other nations to do the same, using the same or similar logic.
The other hot-topic sovereignty dispute involved Kashmir and also resulted in a breakdown in non-proliferation.
It also didn’t help that the USA and USSR violated other nation’s sovereignty on an almost routine basis for 50 years.
But that is how it was supposed to work, anyway.
but the thing you haven’t mentioned is that it was the US that permitted/enabled the Israelis to go not merely nuclear but thermonuclear. Israel currently has the capacity to wreck the world.
It is a select club.
I know you are careful on this subject. I would be too.
Remind me to tell you about my god-mother.
Heard on NPR’s “The World” – not sourced beyond. Whereas we have our warheads “locked and loaded”, India and Pakistan store their warheads separate from their missiles, and further separate the nuclear material from the warheads. Quite a bit more “cool down” time than our system.
but in Pakistan’s case they have to keep their missiles deassembled and their components spaced out, because otherwise we would go destroy them tomorrow.
It’s not a safety issue that makes them prudent.
we would go destroy them tomorrow.
We have obviously issued the threat to both sides as they periodically draw to the brink. But I believe their leaders understand the difference between nuclear sabre-rattling and actual launch, and use the tactic to engage the U.S. Allows them to save face with their respective populations.
internal politics are going on in any given minute, Iran considers itself a sovereign nation, and regardless of political persuasion, with the exception of the usual cadre of slobbering Shahistas and Chalaboids, Iranians are not enthusiastic, one might say even interested, in becoming a US colony, client state, military base or other possession.
History buffs will note that the nation is itself not without some knowledge on the subject of empire,
Effecting a Gaza-style occupation of a nation the size of Iran, both geographically and population-wise, will be quite the challenge for the US. Even if they are able to make the same deal with Iranian military leadership as was so successful in Iraq, the likelihood that the Iranian people will agree to submit graciously to the initial bombing raids on Teheran is small.
There are even some who whisper that Iran may not be without Resolve.
guessing with you DF. Where is Ductape from? Little clues dropped here and there. Something you wrote the other day made me suspect you of a shi’a upbringing. But other days I’m not so sure.
Are you one of those pesky Persian types?
I’m just the opposite and kinda like the fact I don’t know where Ductape is from..if I knew that might color my thinking about his posts…
I think of him to myself as a citizen of the mind and leave it at that.
Whatever the ramifications of Iran having the bomb I have always wondered why our government thought they had the right to decided for other governments whether they can or can not have nuclear weapons or why we think we can pick and choose countries and tell them what they should or should not do…we certainly don’t want anyone telling us what to do.
This really should be seen within the context of the failed conference in New York on the nuclear proliferation treaty. It failed because the Bushites want nobody else to have nukes while they have the right to abrogate all international treaties and make new and better ones.
The likelihood that all these nations see nukes as the latest thing in national prestige is indeed tragic. There is no strategic reason for these countries to have them, with one certain exception, and one not well thought out reason. The not well thought out reason is deterence against nations with bigger populations and armies, because nukes provides you with defense on the cheap. However, there are not any actual ways to use them on neigbhors without suffering horrendous damage yourself.
The fairly sound strategic reason is that they will keep the U.S. from invading you. How do you argue against this logic?—the U.S. never threatens North Korea, which probably has nukes, but they do threaten Iran, Syria, etc. who don’t have nukes.
As long as the U.S. remains the bully of the world, nuclear proliferation is likely to continue. There are other reasons for it, other issues that need to be addressed, but this one is at the top of the list right now.