There are elements of the British press who are more irresponsible and unreliable than anything we get here in the United States. But, assuming it is true that Saudi Arabia is ready to green-light an Israeli air-attack on Iran, I have a suggestion. Let’s insist that the Saudis do it. We sold the Saudis their Air Force. We train their pilots and mechanics. Why should Israel have to do it? Everyone will be very angry with Israel if they bomb Iran. Even the Saudis will pretend to be mad. I don’t see that as good for anyone.
If the Saudis are so worried about Iran getting a nuclear bomb that they are willing to let the Israelis use their air space to attack Iran, then I think they should just man-up and do the attacking themselves. We could just end this charade right now. The truth is, the Saudis might be quite content to see the USA and Israel remove a concern while simultaneously infuriating the whole Islamic world. They’d be the first ones howling about US-Zionist aggression.
But the story is bullshit, so never mind.
Pure BS.
The source is:
DAILY EXPRESS – Crusading for a Fairer Britain
How much more bigoted can a motto be?
.
Saud Kabli, an international relations researcher and a columnist at Al Watan, said the story in the Sunday Times is just another “balloon test” that Israel makes regularly to gauge the reactions of Saudi Arabia to any military strike against Iran.
“News like this aims at deepening the Arab-Iranian conflict by conveying
a false message that there is an Arab conspiracy against Iran.”
Mr Kabli said the news is directed towards the Israeli public as much as it is directed towards the international community because Israel is trying to tell its citizens that it is not standing “idle” when it comes to Iran.
5 Million hits on Google
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."are we to suppose that one of the following is true:
a) the assertions that the Saudis have given their explicit or tacit assent to the Israeli military’s use of Arabian airspace in an eventual air-strike on Iran are false?
OR,
b) if, true, and this report is merely another ‘ “balloon test” that Israel makes regularly to gauge the reactions of Saudi Arabia to any military strike against Iran’, then John Bolton and the Saudi rulers are now taking an active role in these “balloon tests” ?
Notice that the report in the Daily Express is ultimately sourced to John Bolton, viz:
‘Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace.’
If the Saudis really are willing to enable the Israelis, I suspect it has more to do with giving them rope than anything else. And if they set back a potential rival in the process, well so much the better.
When it is all said and done, what is the bottom line?
Taking Iranian oil off the market boosts Saudi profits. That’s the bottom line.
THAT is the point I was hoping someone would make.
I’ve suspected for some time that the real pressure against Iran has much less to do with their so-called “nuclear ambitions” and much more to do with the danger that a non-sanctioned and economically connected Iran would pose to the Saudi petroleum economic empire.
The Saudi fields are past peak. Iran’s fields are huge, and have barely been tapped. Plus, Iran is a proud, dynamic culture with a strong national identity, which could be a very strong player in the region if not restrained by economic sanctions, and with capable leadership. And they’re Shi’ites, so you’ve got the sectarian rivalry going there too.
Iraq was a significant rival too, but not anymore — and it wouldn’t surprise me if the Saudis were encouraging to Bush ambitions there, too.
Iran’s POTENTIAL as an economic rival to the Saudi states is only held in check by Iran’s current batshit-insane leadership, and the fears of what that leadership might do IF they had nuclear weapons (which the Iranians have consistently said they have no intention to develop).
Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia are regional rivals for power in the Middle East. Why would it be ok for one of them to bomb Iran and not the other. Why should it be ok for anyone to bomb Iran? Are you not accepting the premise of the story that “something has to be done” about Iran?
It may have a head case for a President (they are not unique in this) and some limited military (but not nuclear) capacity. Are you buying into the myth that they represent an existential threat to Israel? Israel has a military capability orders of magnitude greater than Iran (or Saudi). This isn’t about an immediate military threat to Israel. It is about two local powers trying to maintain their duopoly.
Those are excellent points.
To buy the theory apparently being so successfully peddled, one would have to suppose, it seems to me, that either the Iranian people or Ahmadinejad or both of them at once, are what can hardly be described as other than suicidally insane and would bring upon themselves the very probable retaliatory use of nuclear weapons–in the supposed event that Iran used nuclear weapons of its own against Israel or, for that matter, any other nation.
Why should anyone believe such stuff about either Ahmadinejad or the people of Iran?— or even those who are the real holders of political power in Iran, the “Supreme spiritual guide” and his clique?
your snark detector is set on ‘literal.’
Your defence to any challenge continues to be that you don’t really mean what you say.. As an Irishman I think I can tell the difference between irony and obfuscation! You may be looking for a line of least resistance, but to me it reads like the Clintonian triangulation you so decry.
Why don’t you just say you don’t support anyone bombing Iran, that the US should pull out of Afghanistan, and that it should dismantle most of its hundreds of military bases around the world – and particularly those encircling Russia which are currently propping up totalitarian regimes?
Are you afraid you won’t be taken seriously as a commentator if you say it plain? Will it end any prospect of going mainstream? Or do you not agree with those propositions?
If you search the archives you’ll see that I’ve said most of those things quite plainly. I haven’t said that we should just pull out of Afghanistan, but I have said that I am definitely leaning that way and want to see a strategy that I can understand. I haven’t called for abandoning all military bases, but I have called for a massive rollback. I haven’t said that Iran should be inviolate, but I have consistently said that attacking them would be a terrible idea.
Steven has consistently questioned the intelligence on Iran for five years now. For my part, I don’t doubt that they are pursuing a nuclear bomb, but I support Obama’s strategy for dissuading them.
If you thought I was seriously advising us to authorize a Saudi attack on Iran then you haven’t absorbed much of what I write and what it tells you about my beliefs.
Booman Tribune ~ Let the Saudis Do it
No I don’t think you are advocating a Saudi attack, but I do think that your story can be read as accepting the premise that somebody should and that it would be better if it wasn’t Israel. I have always evidenced my critiques of your foreign policy statements with actual quotes of what you have written and you generally respond not by addressing the point I have made, but by suggesting I am mistaking your description of reality with advocacy or that my snarkometer is non-functional.
My point is simply that you have a habit of taking a shot at some particularly absurd statement from a “mainstream” US foreign policy position without challenging the assumptions of that mainstream position. My further point is that (from a non-US) perspective, there is currently very little difference between Mainstream Republican and Democratic foreign policy positions other than the fact that Obama is an awful lot smarter, presents himself much better, and has so far been given the benefit of the doubt because of his embrace of multilateralism.
Of course its great that the US doesn’t officially torture people any more – outside of contractor, partner country and black sites) – and the decision not to go ahead with the militarily non-nonsensical missile bases in Poland is welcome. But on the key issues – Afghanistan, Palestine, the arms race, Climate Change – there has been no substantive progress from the Bush era to date.
There are lots of easy ways to ridicule and mock the wilder Republican foreign policy fantacists. But what we really need is some solid, substantial critique of the assumptions underlying Obama’s foreign policy to date.
That is unless you want to become another Obama cheer leading site – a DKOS lite – so to speak. And I think you have the potential to be so much more.
just because something can be read in a certain way doesn’t mean that it should be.
my point is simple. if the Saudis are concerned enough about Iran to enable airstrikes against them, then let them carry out the airstrikes. I think everyone can see that that is an absurd suggestion since a) they would never do it, b) they would require us to protect them from retaliation, and c) I have consistently said that airstrikes won’t work and will create a giant mess.
Yes, the willful obfuscation and hidden agendas are becoming a big problem . . . and president Obama is a huge purveyor of this tactic.
I’ve seen Obama fanboys ‘hint’ that Obama may not believe in the Israel and neocon charges that Iran is evil and an existential threat and is merely piling on Iran as a negotiating tactic–that he will stop short of supporting illegal war and that his warmongering is being done for good reasons (you know, wishful hopey thinking, kind of like those that argued Bush was liberating Muslim women or something).
We also see these 11th dimensional chess arguments with Honduras . . . that Obama is really against the coup but he has to look fair and balanced and give the coup leaders some respect and give their false arguments credence so that he is better able to negotiate a settlement. Yeah, right. Obama is helpless . . . just like in the health care debate.
And of course this also mimics Obama’s grand strategy for secretly being a “trans-formative and progressive” president . . . he just has to act like a right-winger to convince people to be more liberal . .. . or something.
It’s all bullshit. I’m not Irish but I’m pretty sick of being lied to. It’s like living in a dysfunctional family.
I would even be prepared to give Obama some benefit of the doubt – as yet – on the principle that “I agree with you, now make me do it”. The problem, as I see it, is that there is almost no “serious” progressive pressure on Obama and huge pressure from the MI complex and the Right. Obama may be more progressive than most of the Dem party, but that’s not saying an awful lot at the moment.
For instance – I think he took a hard line on Afghanistan so he could look strong whilst exiting Iraq. Now he may be taking a hard line on Iran to facilitate an exit from Afghanistan. The problem is that this is precisely what Israel needs to facilitate an pre-emptive strike on Iran – and then all hell will break loose. Obama’s wimp like response to Netanyahu’s expansion of settlements somewhat gave the game away.
Progressive blogs could be doing Obama a big favour by generating more pressure from the left – but where is the distinctive progressive analysis and policy platform?
At this point I have no idea what Obama thinks. I’m done trying to read the tea leaves.
The fact of the matter is that liberals have been stymied because they put so much hope in building up the cult of Obama and then hoping Obama would work on liberals’ behalf if they built him up. Deciphering Obama’s intentions has been a huge roadblock to liberal policy success. Look at how many progressives are upset Obama isn’t taking the liberal approach but PRETEND that Obama is really on their side he’s just engaging in an obscure and clever strategy.
As to “making him do it” I think this is right. Whatever one thinks of Obama’s intentions, liberals must fight for their beliefs regardless of what Obama thinks. This is really not about Obama.
Unfortunately, I have very dark view of the future. I need to keep my sanity and accept the fact that my country will probably yet again launch or approve of another unjust and immoral war.
I will try to convince as many people as I can that this is wrong but it’s going to be hopeless. War is coming.
After eight years of Bush and Cheney, my capacity to dismiss things as “too absurd to be credible” has been left in tatters. Yes: absent any direct indication in your piece that you were being facetious I’m rather inclined to take such an item at “face value”.
Now, in your case, “I know better,” huh?
So, when you comment that you “haven’t called for abandoning all military bases, but […] have called for a massive rollback,” I can safely suppose that, there again, you’re probably just “snarking” us— because otherwise I might be inclined to classify you as being “only a moderate proponent” of the perpetuation of the American (Evil) Empire.
If there’s even a meager roll-back, let alone a massive roll-back, of U.S. foreign military bases by President Obama this side of “Kingdom Come”, I’ll be very, very surprised. As far as I can tell, he’s a thoroughly conventional advocate of the projection of U.S. military force by threat or use of violence.
Though it’s almost certainly true that McCain would have been much worse than Obama, that still doesn’t, for me, excuse what we have in Obama.
I wonder if you recognized the authors of the news story you so cavalierly dismiss as “bullshit”.
You’re familiar with the work of Gordon Thomas and Camilla Tominey? Then you’d be aware that Mr. Thomas has to his credit being among the world’s most-respected and best-informed journalists and students of the world of intelligence agencies— both those of the “West” and of the former Soviet bloc. He recently (March 2009) published Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence Inside MI5 and MI6
[ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Wars-Hundred-British-Intelligence/dp/0312603525/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&am
p;s=books&qid=1254225860&sr=1-2 ]
As for Camilla Tominey, her experience as a journalist who specializes in the goings on among the British royal family’s members would also seem to put her in a position to have the sort of contacts which would lend a certain credibility to the report.
Together, then, you have, as authors, two people who, by their experience and place, would seem to merit better than an off-hand dismissal as purveyors of what’s called “bullshit”.
On the other hand, I see nothing to dispute about your view here, “The truth is, the Saudis might be quite content to see the USA and Israel remove a concern while simultaneously infuriating the whole Islamic world.” Nor does it seem unreasonable to me that the Saudis would find it, for that reason among others, advantageous to see the IDF conduct air strikes on sites in Iran supposed to be part of that nation’s nuclear-power development program–whatever ends one wants to ascribe to it.
I doubt that President Obama is in any position to “insist that the Saudis do it” even if he were inclined that way—and I doubt that he is. Your post here appears to be prompted by a sentiment of annoyance and frustration.
I think some of the questions which Americans and their allies ought to be asking are:
What evidence is there specifically in support of the view, again advanced just yesterday on the opinion page of the Financial Times by Paul Wolfowitz
[ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/59ec7a00-abc7-11de-9be4-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 ] where he writes, in part,
It seems to me interesting and odd that no one seems to pose the question of the peaceful or belligirent intentions on the parts of the U.S., of Israel or that of any of what are commonly regarded as their allies. Why not? Is the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal or that of any other nuclear-armed state held and maintained “for peaceful purposes”? Then why, I would like to know, is it demanded that Iran have nothing other than peaceful intentions in its pursuit of nuclear technology?
and, going on with questions Americans ought to be asking,
Could the U.S. effectively prevent Netanyahu from ordering one or more strikes against Iran?
If such an attack were carried out,
…what would likely nbe the short and mid term consequences for the policies and ambitions of the U.S. (Obama administration) in the Near East and elsewhere?
…what could and should be the response of the U.S. government toward Israel’s government?
you should familiarize yourself with the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty.
Well, then you would be fine with Iran giving 90 days notice and leaving the treaty and pursuing nuclear weapons legally (the Japanese approach–and this is not to say Iran is pursuing them illegally now–there is zero proof of this claim)?
Then how would you answer the question?
Would you treat Iran the same way as Israel?
Iran can leave the NPT if they want. Since they haven’t, they are supposed to live up to its requirements.
.
See my recent diary – The Obama Show on Iran’s Secret Facility
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."But Iran is living up to its requirements. It was required by the treaty to notify the agency 180 days before nuclear material is introduced. They have notified the agency and say they will not introduce material for well past the 180 day limit. The U.N. agency already monitors nuclear material and all of this is easily verifiable–and Iran has promised access as they have done with their other facilities.
Despite years of false claims and a drumbeat for war you warmongers have proved nothing.
In fact, the CIA had to push back hard against Cheney and the neocons to share with Americans THE FACT that their intelligence services disagreed with President Bush and now President Obama’s allegations and claimed Iran WAS NOT pursuing weapons when you guys were swearing up and down that they were.
YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE. Yet you and Obama and Cheney strut around like it’s an uncontested fact.
The only thing that is uncontested is that American warmongers have been caught lying many times. Iranians have been caught lying zero times.
So again, what is the big violation of law you assume so vehemently?
Please read the IAEA director’s most recent statement before you spout off with uninformed bullshit.
You are mistaken about what this says. For e.g.: “I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith.”
That portion is in response to American and Israeli lies about what the IAEA. I don’t have a lot of time today, but one of your readers posted the relevant facts and this last week. How that statement is a reaction to the American and Israeli warmongering and how they are trying to influence the work of the agency. That statement is a rebuke of the U.S. and Israel, not Iran, like you claim.
Secondly, if you would read this closely instead of claiming that it IS ME THAT FAILS TO UNDERSTAND THIS LANGUAGE you would see that it supports MY POINT. The Iranians have not adopted the protocol so they are not legally required to tell the agency ahead of time. The U.S. (and many other member states) would like Iran to agree to more strict requirements than are currently required under the law but they are not legally required to. This is why the statemetn you link to expresses the Board’s “view” that Iran should agree to such. But they are NOT required to.
Unlike American liberals, other people fight for their rights and demand to be treated as equals. That’s why Zelaya in Honduras is going back to his country against the wishes of Obama. He has the right and he will fight for his rights. Likewise, Iran is not going to just give up its rights because the U.S. is thumping its chest. You and Obama may think that this extra-legal encouragement and piling-on Iran is good strategy–but it does not change the legal facts on the ground.
Iran has not violated the law. Even if it did violate this protocol, which I don’t see proof of, that is very minor. It’s not like they got caught building a bomb. If anything, American threats to use force (oin violation of the U.N. Charter) and interfering with the U.N. agency are more direct violations of law.
And here is ask’s diary about the AP story that falsely stated that the IAEA agreed with the American and Israeli position:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/9/17/16487/5839
It’s a shame that an American has to come to a blog to discover this information (I’m not aware of this being widely reported elsewhere–besides this 3 sentence report–please inform me if I’m correct).
So kudos to you for providing a forum where truth can be discovered–especially when our government gets caught in a lie and then no one notices it.
So that quoted section above is probably a direct reference to this story that probably no American heard.
The 3 sentence report refers to the Reuter’s article that ask links to. It’s 3 sentence long and apparently only a wire story. Did any paper run it?
Sorry for the incomplete posts . . . in too much of a hurry . . .
Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors
In other words:
PS does the USA open up its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections? Can you imagine the outcry from Republicans (and Democrats) and such an outrageous invasion of US Sovereignty?
Excellent job summarizing the report Booman cited. It is very clear who is spreading “uninformed bullshit”. As Scott Ritter said, the law is not on President Obama’s side and unfortunately too many American liberals uncritically believe everything Obama says.
Not that being incorrect on the legal rules will give these warmongers pause. After being proved wrong they will simply shift to the next justification: that mere “legal niceties” are irrelevant and “everyone” knows Iran is guilty of something anyway. No need for actual proof.
If that fails, then the next justification will be the need to liberate and bring freedom to the people of Iran (oh wait, some liberal bloggers have already been laying the groundwork for that one).
If that doesn’t work then will then claim Obama doesn’t even believe all his propaganda but is engaging in such for more noble, yet hidden, purposes, i.e. to get the Iranians to negotiate.
The facts are irrelevant. This is a power struggle and Obama and Israel are fixing the facts around a predetermined strategy to bring Iran to heel for geopolitical and economic reasons. And Obama’s fanboys will make excuses the whole time. We are screwed. Look at the absolute feeding frenzy of hate and misinformation. You’re not in America so I don’t know if you can appreciate how lopsided it is (see Glenn Greenwald on MSBNC with Huffington–and that’s the most fair treatment of the issue in American press!). It’s hopeless.
Obama is going to do to the international community what he is doing to liberals domestically–string them along. Get them to ‘hope’ by giving mixed signals in speeches as meanwhile he does the neoncons’ bidding. He is indeed a master politician. He’s a master at obfuscation. My bet is the international community will not be as deluded as American liberals–they will be able to see the divergence between talk and action much more clearly than American liberals. After all, they aren’t as susceptible to American Exceptionalism that has infested American media.
you know, you have to be able to deal with nuance.
The CIA made the determination that Iran abandoned an active nuclear weapons program after we invaded Iraq and that they have not resumed that project. That’s important.
On the other hand, the discovery of a uranium enrichment complex at a military installation is precisely the kind of thing the additional protocol is meant to prevent. Iran did divulge it, but only after they became aware that their security had been breached. They had reason to believe that they would get called on this installation at the UN meetings this month, and they took preemptive action.
The important point isn’t whether or not they are strictly in violation, but that the existence of a military-run enrichment facility runs counter to their argument that their efforts are for strictly civilian energy purposes.
I said I have no doubt that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. This installation serves as at least partial proof of that. That’s why the additional protocol is aimed at assuring that there is no military component to the enrichment programs,
So, we all should know why Iran is doing this, even if they aren’t actively working on the bomb-making part of this.
How can you have no doubt about something you have no proof of?
Unbelievable.
I guess the warmongering jingoistic conventional wisdom that Iran is evil is all the proof you need. Or is it simply because Obama says this?
I also suspect this is a clever strategy on Obama’s part (and the warmongers in his admin) to de-legitimatize the NIE. You took the bait.
This facility does not prove the NEI was false. I’m sure that’s exactly what will be claimed.
It doesn’t prove that the NIE is false, but I don’t think you understand what the NIE said.
Three components:
The military installation only touches on the third element. But the question is not whether they have halted design and weaponization, but why they are pursuing enrichment in the first place. Covert enrichment at military sites helps clarify that question.
But there was no covert enrichment, was there? There was covert building of a facility, which is perfectly legal. They are notifying of their intention to enrich in compliance with the law which they claim is for peaceful purposes and can be easily verifiable by the U.N.
As far as military installation . . . so what? If America was surrounded by an enemy, say North Korea invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, wouldn’t it be perfectly reasonable to put defensive assets around our peaceful nuclear energy facilities, etc.? If we tried to protect our nuclear power plants from attack would that ipso facto be proof that they were actually weapons facilities?
you really are willing to defend Iran against all comers.
You continue to talk about legalities, while I am only talking about intentions. Getting busted building an undeclared enrichment facility at a military facility is not the same as voluntarily disclosing it.
How do you know they were “busted”? Oh right, Obama said so, and he never lies.
As far as the tried and true warmonger threat that I’m on the side of terrorists, or Iranian mullahs, or something . . . it really is beneath contempt for you to go there and is a sign of your total lack of a good faith argument and warmongering. Why do you support the deaths of millions of innocnet Muslims? Why do you think an Aermican and Israeli life is so much prescious than Muslims/Arabs/Persians/Brown people. Why do you hate brown people and advocate their death?
If I could choose I would choose a more secular and more democratic leadership for Iran. But it is not my choice.
And if we’re talking about intentions the intentions that matter the most are those of the U.S. and Israel which are fixing the facts to support their INTENTION to bomb the shit out of Iran. And like a true Obama fanboy you are taking the bait and doing your part to make sure many innocent Iranians die. The blood is on your hands for being so cavalier about this.
I’m the one that is viewing the varied intentions proportionally. You want to throw out all reason and legal rules so that you can focus on a hyped-up and oft discredited series of lies about the Iranians.
But yeah. Go ahead. You will have plenty of support . . .. Rahm, Hillary, et al. will gladly peddle these lies with you.
why don’t you relax. have a chablis or something.
what am I saying? I am saying that Iran wants to build a bomb. That is why they are doing what they are doing. I think there is plenty of evidence for that. I did not say that they should be attacked. I said I support the approach that Obama has been taking.
The facility in question has been under satellite surveillance for years. They recently started moving in heavy equipment that tipped us off to its intent. The Iranians were aware that we knew what they were doing which is what forced their hand in making the disclosure. The facility is not strictly illegal and I never said it was. But in saying that they are not living up to their obligations, I am saying nothing more than what the IAEA says. In their opinion, any effort to enrich uranium at a military base would violate the additional protocol. The fact that Iran refuses to abide by the protocol may make the program technically legal but it doesn’t change my assessment of their intentions.
Booman Tribune ~ Let the Saudis Do it
Firstly, when you are talking UN, NPT, IAEA it is the legalities which are all important.
Secondly, when it comes to inferring intentions, you are entirely reliant on the US media and MI propaganda organs in arrive at your surmise of what the the Iranians want. Those like ET’s Chris Cook who have actually spent time in Iran recently tell a very different story – one of economic and political turmoil within Iran with Ahmadinejad hanging on by dint of making his nonsensical jingoistic statements about eliminating an evil Israeli regime (note: not the people).
Externally, Ahmadinejad is a PR disaster, but it is fully understandable that the Iranians would want to develop a nuclear power industry to prepare for the time when the Oil runs out.
Of course it is entirely possible that a future Iranian regime might try to go on to develop nuclear weapons – any one of c. 50 countries in the world could – but what is clear is at the moment Iran is not even close to having an actual nuclear bomb or a means to deliver it.
If you really want to promote nuclear disarmament then those countries which actually have nuclear weapons – the US and Israel included – will have to take the lead.
Everything else is just stupidity on the part of Ahmadinejad and posturing on the part of Israel, Saudi, and the USA to prevent Shia Iran challenging Sunni Saudi and Jewish Israel as the regional superpower.
right, I am totally reliant on US media and government sources because my international intertubes are blocked by Ted Stevens’s hulk-tie.
What are your Iranian sources?
Of course, Iranian media sources are not reliable. I do follow Iranian groups on Twitter and I read news from the Gulf. I also read other perspectives like Asia Times and english-speaking European sources.
How big is the Israeli Nuclear arsenal which is never subject to verification or inspection. Is Iran not entitled to feel threatened by this? The Non-proliferation treaty is great so long as all comply with it….
you could make the same remark about Pakistan, India, and North Korea. We have to deal with a world where not everyone has signed the NPT or stayed in it if they did. We can either abandon non-proliferation efforts entirely because they have a logical flaw or we can keep at it because it is so very important. What’s your choice?
Treat Israel exactly the same as the Iranians. The credibility of the UN and its agencies would be much enhanced if it was more even handed in its approach. I think its great that the Iranians s are at least partially complying with the Treaty (and the protocol even though they are under no obligation to do so). Why isn’t there a similar pressure on Israel to sign and comply? Why does the US have a virtual monopoly on the world’s arms trade with absolutely no hindrance from the UN?
Iran’s crime is that it has not submitted to the US Empire.
And, I suppose, we should treat India and Pakistan the same way as the North Koreans, right?
When it comes to Nuclear disarmament ALL nuclear powers need to disarm and submit to UN verification of the disarmament process. The way nuclear technology is developing it is becoming easier and easier for a wider range of states and non state actors developing such a capability and thus the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of a rogue regime or group grows exponentially.
North Korea appears extremely unstable (though I have no first hand sources), Pakistan not a whole lot less so, and India needs to spend such resources elsewhere. The addiction to arms of ever greater sophistication is being driven by the US dominated world armaments industry and it is nothing less than criminal to be channelling these arms supplies into the world political fault lines.
Iran is actually a lot more complex, sophisticated and democratic society than many despotic regimes currently supported and kept in place by US armed forces or contractors – though that is not necessarily saying a whole lot. You should try visiting there. Everybody I know who has visited there speaks of the incredible welcome they received – and of a reality which bears almost no resemblance to western sterotypes.
Have you not noticed Obama’s recent moves towards disarmament?
I agree with most of your points. I know Iran is a welcoming society with a great culture. I still think they are pursuing a bomb and that the international community should try to dissuade them and keep a commitment to non-proliferation. I do not believe that the fact the North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel have a bomb should serve as an excuse for abandoning the NPT. And, I believe Obama has taken a necessary step in recommitting to disarmament among the security council members.
I am still an Obamaoptimist and think he is doing what he can, as fast as he can, in a political system dominated by high finance, corporations, and the MI. My complaint here is that the progressive blogosphere isn’t doing a whole lot to apply pressure from the left on foreign policy and thus Obama is very constrained in what he can do.
Obama is only 9 months in Office and has rightly focused on core priorities like the economy and health care. As a result he has as yet done almost nothing substantial on the reduction of US military imperialism, middle east, arms control, global financial regulation or climate change. There have been a lot of good speeches and the world has warmed to him personally.
But let us not confuse goodwill with substantive progress. Neither should we confuse an able man with a dysfunctional political system.
Unlike you I am not convinced Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons but I would understand if they were because of the almost total military dominance of the Israeli regional superpower in imposing its will on all others with no need for accommodation or compromise with the Palestinian people.
However the main reason for Ahmadinejad’s inflammatory rhetoric is the insecurity of his position within the political turmoil of Iran. If this were to continue it is certainly possible that Iran will develop a nuclear capability, and to me this would be a hugely regressive step – even if understandable in the circumstances as an attempt to improve Iran’s power and negotiating position generally.
So for me the priority is to de-escalate and de-militarise the middle east situation generally, and I don’t see Obama or Netanyahu even attempting that. The priorities have to be to settle the Palestinian question, withdraw from Iraq/Afghanistan, and de-escalate the middle east arms race. The barriers to this happening are the US attempt to build a world empire, the US dominated arms industry, the more totalitarian Islamic regimes and the Zionist project to build a greater Israel whilst expelling virtually all Palestinians.
This has the potential to generate a third world war – particularly if the Russians decide to monetise their nuclear capabilities. So I hope it gets up the Obama priority list soon – staring with a withdrawal of all support for Israel until the illegal settlements are dismantled.
I know this places me outside the spectrum of “serious” political debate within the US – something which is less of a concern for me than it may be for you.
“Iran can leave the NPT if they want. Since they haven’t, they are supposed to live up to its requirements.”
Speaking of double-standards, when, by the way, did the United States “leave” the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (abbreviated GCIII or GPW)—of which they were a signatory since 02.08.1955 ?
As I understand it from Bush and Cheney and their defenders, the “U.S.” “left” that solemn treaty’s obligations from the moment that the president saw fit to disregard them and not a moment later.
By what theory of international law may Bush enjoy such a privilege while the President of Iran does not?
Or, excuse me, perhaps you “snark” here, too? i’m so confused!