I am often amazed at what the British press produces, and this article from Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London is no exception. I don’t really put much stock in the substance of the article, which explains that the Saudis have conducted tests to assure that Israeli bombers can pass through their airspace on their way to Iran without being molested. I see these types of articles less as real reporting than as a form of psychological warfare against Iran. It’s not that I can’t believe the Saudis would countenance such an attack, and even help plan for it. The problem is with the very idea of having Israel be the bad guy. If you want to get near universal condemnation for an attack on Iran, by all means have the Israelis carry out the mission. Then everyone can deny their complicity and rail against the rogue Zionist entity that respects no one’s sovereignty. In the scenario discussed in The Times, Israel would use the air space of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and possibly Kuwait. Since America controls Iraqi airspace, we would be complicit, too. Yet, it can be safely assumed that such an attack would be portrayed as Israel’s decision and responsibility alone (particularly by the Arab governments). That kind of obvious deceit won’t convince a single soul.
If such an attack were actually merited and had some reasonable prospect for success (which doesn’t seem to be the case) then the Israelis should be the last people assigned to carry out the attack. That would just boost Iran’s image in the world and give them further reason to pursue nuclear weapons and to discourage any peace in Israel and the occupied territories.
I understand that the goal here is to get Iran to make a decision that having nuclear weapons is actually not in their national security interests. But someone really ought to think through these propaganda pieces before they’re published. The whole Israel-attacks-Iran thing just doesn’t seem very credible. It’s certainly a profoundly bad idea.
Israel started the nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Iran is only acting rationally demanding knowledge of nuclear enrichment. it would be even more sensible of them to develop nuclear weapons. The article is slimy. One way or the other it makes Saudi Arabia look like asses: they’re either colluding with Israel or the Times makes fools of them. You have to the love the characterization of the relation between Saudi and Israel: ‘some tension’.
Any and all countries that have tried pursuing nuclear weaponry ambitions have been penalized by the world in general after instituting NPT. This goes for Pakistan, India and N. Korea. If Iran needs sanctions, so does Israel and vice-versa given the nuclear ambitions.
This wasn’t a “go ahead and bomb them, Israel!” It was more of a tangent.
Israel didn’t sign the NPT. Neither did Pakistan or India. North Korea did and Iran did. North Korea renounced their commitment. Iran has not.
What commitment has Iran failed to renounce?
It’s still operating within the frame of the NPT—has not renounced it. That makes it all the more mysterious why some powerful countries are dead set on punishing them. For what? Not obeying the ‘international community’ (read USA and toadies). Ms Clinton loves that misnomer. Turkey and Brzail are apparently not part of the ‘internatinal community’ any more. Booh hooh for them!
“That makes it all the more mysterious why some powerful countries are dead set on punishing them. For what? Not obeying the ‘international community’ (read USA and toadies).“
It seems to me the U.S. and Israel are hell bent on using whatever ploy they can to convince the world that Iran is the “threat du jour” just as they did Iraq before that. After all, Iran DOES have a nuclear program, and it is so easy to simply insert the word “weapons” in there while pretending that the long-tongued Ahmadinajad is the one making foreign policy and military decisions, and never mentioning Iran’s 300 year history free of aggression. Ah yes, and then there is the utter falsehood that Hezballah and Hamas exist only to do Iran’s bidding, which bolsters the silly notion that Iran is somehow an existential threat to Israel…
As usual, it is a package filled with lies and distortions, and misrepresentations in order to justify what? It frightens me to contemplate what this is intended to lead up to, but it looks more and more similar to the Iraq business as time goes on.
TEHRAN, June 4, 2008 — Iran’s supreme religious leader vowed Tuesday that his country would pursue a peaceful atomic energy program and had no interest in nuclear weapons, calling them expensive and useless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?_r=1
SPIEGEL, Apr 10, 2009 — Ahmadinejad: Where did we use trickery? That’s a huge lie! We cooperated with the Atomic Energy Agency. And besides, wasn’t the IAEA founded so that the nuclear powers would disarm? Where are the reports that document who has disarmed, and to what extent? It simply has not happened. We are concerned, and we are deeply mistrustful. . .We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon. We have sent the IAEA thousands of pages of reports and made thousands of hours of inspections possible. The IAEA cameras monitor our activities. Who is dangerous, and whom should the inspectors distrust? Those who secretly built the bomb, or us, who are cooperating with the IAEA?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,618559-3,00.html
But the US is not listening
Washington, May 21, 2009 — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday she intends to explain to Iran it is not in its interest to acquire a nuclear weapon because it would spark a Middle East arms race. “Our goal is to persuade the Iranian regime that they will actually be less secure if they proceed with their nuclear-weapons program,” Clinton told a Senate subcommittee overseeing State Department funding.
http://www.defencetalk.com/nuclear-weapons-are-not-in-irans-interests-clinton-19105/
. . .shall not hear.
I don’t take the word of Ahmedinejad. When our own intelligence agencies came out and said that the Iranians reacted to the invasion of Iraq by putting their nuclear program on ice, I believed them because they would never say that if they didn’t believe it. However, the goal is to get them to stop taking preliminary steps and they have done so in the last few years. It should be part of a much larger, global effort to reinvigorate the non-proliferation effort. Obama needs START ratified. That’s a beginning. He needed to show that the Security Council could take enforcement measures. He’s done that.
Look, if you want the US to just give up on non-proliferation, come out and say it. I don’t. I’m tired of hypocrisy, too, but it is what it is.
to see that you don’t believe Iran’s announced policy. That’s not the US position, which is that they do have a nuke weapons policy. They don’t have a program but they have a policy, is the nonsensical US position. Nonsense because there is no evidence of such a policy; just the opposite is the case.
Not believing a politician (not a bad idea in itself) requires some modicum of proof, which is lacking in this case.
Regarding nonproliferation, Iran has consistently taken a position that the NPT goal of nuke arms reduction has not been taken seriously by the major powers.
Iran has also consistently take a position that it is fully authorized by the NPT “to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination” which in itself has nothing to do with proliferation. The IAEA has consistently reported, based on comprehensive inspections, that Iran does not divert nuclear fuel to a nuclear weapons program.
This treaty compliance of Iran is now being jeopardized by the illegal UN contra-treaty actions fomented by Israel and carried out by the US.
So where’s the hypocrisy?
Resolution adopted by the Board of Governors (IAEA) on 27 November 2009:
The IAEA has been politicized, ‘way beyond what it was under Dr. ElBaradei. He’s the guy, if you remember, that opposed Bush on Iraq WMD’s. Those days are over.
Again, the IAEA’s only treaty authority is to ensure the non-diversion of nuclear fuel to weapons programs, which they have continually done in Iran. The IAEA is not some super-agency with any authority to dump on Iran and not the real transgressors like Israel, Pakistan and India.
In other words, this “report” was written in Washington, DC — that’s obvious and it ain’t worth diddly.
“the Director General has repeatedly declared that he is unable to verify that Iran’s programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes” — in Iraq it was WMD’s and in Iran its “programme”.
Any excuse for war is good enough for Booman — the so-called progressive.
now you accuse me of wanting war when what I want is the opposite.
The IAEA is following its charter. You seem to have some vested interest in not believing what the IAEA says. I don’t. While I recognize the pressure they are under, they are basically trying to do their job and Iran is not in compliance. They’re not making that up. Sanctions are an alternative to war, and these aren’t sanctions like Iraq faced. China made sure of that.
“Noting that the Director General has repeatedly declared that he is unable to verify that Iran’s programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes,”
Booman, I hope you are aware that the IAEA does not verify that for *any* country that has not signed the additional protocol. Meaning the IAEA report for Egypt, Brazil, Argentina among others is exactly the same. It is only pointed out with regards to Iran.
Look, I have no problem believing that Iran could be seeking a nuclear capability…just like Brazil, Argentina and Japan. But as of now, they are as much in compliance with Brazil, Argentina or Japan.
Statute of the IAEA
http://www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html
In carrying out its functions, the Agency shall:
The IAEA has continually determined that Iran’s fissionable materials have not been diverted to nuclear weapons programs. The IAEA has nothing about actual treaty violations nor about treaty non-signers-compliers.
“The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”
Iran IS in compliance with the NPT, but it rightfully HASN’T complied with the Israel-fomented demands that it quit its legal civilian nuclear program, a program actually encouraged by thge NPT treaty that it signed.
The IAEA conjectures about smoking laptops, heavy water plants and missile programs are COMPLETELY outside its legal purview as spelled out in the IAEA Statute.
Also, the UN Resolution. Even Lebanon merely abstained. Lebanon!
This is the alternative to war. Warmongering looks different.
Brazil and Turkey, two significant countries, voted “no” because Obama stiffed them. No country defied Bush, three times, as Lysander pointed out earlier.
The UN resolution makes no claim that Iran is in violation of the NPT treaty. The US however, has violated the NPT in providing nuclear assistance to India. Israel hasn’t even signed the treaty, nor has Pakistan and India, band all three have nuke weapons.
Why pick on a treaty-observer when the treaty is trashed by others?
Brazil and Turkey are working a different track.
You should set aside strict logic in this case because it won’t work, won’t have predictive value, and it beside the point.
Why do countries that didn’t sign the treaty get to develop weapons? Mainly because no one was willing or able to stop them. That’s the same reason that North Korea developed weapons, and they did sign the treaty. The fact that N. Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel all currently stand outside the regime cannot be used as an excuse for giving up on non-proliferation. In every one of those cases, it’s a horrible threat to humanity that those countries have nukes. In no way can we say, oh gee, Pakistan has nukes so we can’t do anything to prevent someone else from having them. Same for Israel, India, North Korea.
But, what we have to do is to work at our own disarmament, and the disarmament of the other Security Council members. The right policy is get back to being serious about the whole spectrum. But part of that is making damn sure there are no new members to the nuclear club.
encourages proliferation.
The long ongoing US/Israel attacks on Iran, and the sanctions, will take their toll. Iran canceled the Additional Protocol when Bush applied his Axis of Evil slander, and now Iran will apparently curtail UN inspections because of the illegal restrictions and sanctions placed upon them.
Who can blame Iran now for going toward nuclear weapons when they can plainly see that only nukes will forestall an outright military attack, as has already been threatened by the US and Israel?
The position you’ve taken encourages proliferation whereas a diplomatic approach, as recently implemented fruitlessly by Brazil and Turkey with Obama’s encouragement, is the smart, progressive, peaceful way to go.
You’ve got it backwards. As long as it is only the US and Israel making tough talk to Iran, then they are indeed incentivized to build the weapons you seem to think they have no interest in building (until you argue that they’d be crazy not to). By getting Russia and China and the Security Council to agree to get tough, Iran now has a harder decision.
Of course China did not “get tough.” The reason that it took Obama six months to get China’s (and Russia’s) approval is that the language had to be not-tough. Reason? China’s economy is expanding at ten percent and they need petroleum. Iran ships China a lot of petroleum — why would they jeopardize that? Iran ships even more petroleum to Japan — why would China want to fall back further behind an historic Asian rival in oil receipts?
The UN sanctions aren’t binding, that’s another thing. There’s no international enforcement. Each country has to enact its own enabling legislation and take its own actions. Each country is encouraged to inspect shipments, etc but there is no enforcement. China made sure of that.
So the West will cut back on commercial intercourse with Iran, and who will take up the slack? Iran is in Asia, has a lot of trade with Asian countries, and so it is China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other Asian countries — where the world economic growth is the highest — who will benefit big time.
Eastern Europe, even, wants an alternative gas source to Russia, who has stiffed them in the past. So they’re looking forward to the option of receiving Iran gas (they have plenty of that) via a pipeline transiting — guess where — Turkey. Turkey was one important nation (Brazil was the other) who voted NO on sanctions.
So Iran has no hard decisions. Thanks to the US, Iran is in the cat-bird seat not only on Iraq but on world trade and world political support. They have more support for their nuclear position by far than there seems to be from the US-dominated UN Security Council. Actually, in the world, there are six countries opposed to Iran’s nuclear program, three per cent of the world.
Uncle Sam shoots himself in the foot, again.
I guess you can’t count, since Austria, Japan, Mexico, Gabon, Uganda, Bosnia, and Nigeria all voted for the sanctions. You’re right. Everyone is just thrilled at the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. The Arabs are psyched, the Europeans love the idea, and I’m sure India is excited.
You’re not even responsive to criticisms of your argument. You tell me that Iran isn’t doing anything but that they are of course only protecting themselves.
What it comes down to is that you don’t see any legitimacy in the UN system or the need for the powers on the SC to prevent proliferation. If it involves hypocrisy or is unfair in any way, it’s not worth doing. I see that as simply giving up on the only collective security we have.
You want it both ways — voting for sanctions counts big but voting against them doesn’t count (Turkey & Brazil).
The point is that these “sanctions” have no force and so they won’t accomplish anything. If you disagree with that, then please tell us what they will accomplish. How will they affect Iran, except to make them less likely to cooperate with the UN?
The Muslim world and the non-aligned nations support Iran.
May 20, 2010 The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has backed an Iranian declaration which aims to end a standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program. A statement at the end of the 37th OIC ministerial meeting in the Tajik capital of Dushanbe voiced support for the declaration under which Iran agreed to send 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for 120 kg of higher-enriched uranium.
NAM renews support for Iran, 08 Jun 2010
118 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), have once again voiced support for Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. NAM has sent a letter to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, underscoring its support for Iran’s nuclear energy program.
Some countries have gone along with sanctions, while keeping ties with Iran. They need Iran’s petroleum (#3 in world reserves) and gas (#2). They’re not worried any about Iran’s fanciful nukes.
Austria has resisted some American pressure to reduce bilateral trade ties and freeze assets of the Islamic Republic beyond UN and EU sanction requirements. Particularly in the energy sector, Austria and some Austrian corporations have continued to cooperate with Iran. Austria’s large oil company, OMV, signed an agreement in April 2007 to produce liquefied natural gas from Iran’s South Pars oil fields, while Austria’s third-largest bank, Raiffeisen Zentralbank, is active in Iran.
Japan is the largest recipient of exported Iran petroleum. They need it and Japan needs another nuclear plant.
TEHRAN (Kyodo), June 13, 2010: — Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi said Saturday that Iran expects Japan to fulfill its promise of helping it build nuclear power plants, now that a nuclear swap deal has been signed beteen Iran, Turkey and Brazil, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. The Japanese ambassador, prior to the signing of the deal, voiced his country’s readiness to cooperate with Iran in building new nuclear power plants in Iran, Salehi, also head of Iran’s National Atomic Energy Organization, was quoted as telling IRNA reporters and chief editors during his visit to the news agency.
Jun 14 2010: Iranian and Pakistani officials have signed a final agreement covering Iran’s supply of natural gas to its eastern neighbour by 2014. “Official papers were exchanged between the countries on Sunday and the contract of export of Iranian gas to Pakistan was perfected,” Hojatollah Ghanimifard, vice-president for investment affairs at the National Iranian Oil Co., said in a phone interview from Tehran. Under the agreement, Iran will provide some 21.5 million cu. m a day of gas to Pakistan for 25 years, Ghanimifard said. The deal can be extended by five years and the volume may be increased to 30 million cu. m following a request from Pakistan, he said. The line may be extended to India.
NEW DELHI, June 8, 2010: The prospect may not have sounded feasible initially, but India is now coming round to the idea of having an underwater gas pipeline with Iran which would allow it to bypass Pakistan. As India’s participation in IPI pipeline remains bogged down by concerns over security and pricing, official sources said New Delhi has already discussed building a pipeline under Arabian Sea with Tehran.
“Even Lebanon merely abstained. Lebanon!“
Not sure why you find that so astonishing. Do you really believe that Lebanon’s government is somehow beholden to Iran?! Did you forget about the Lebanese military commanders serving tea to the Israeli military while the Israelis were busy bombing Lebanon back 30 years (as promised by one Israeli leader)? Lebanon’s government is far more beholden to the U.S. and Israel than to anyone else.
“Look, if you want the US to just give up on non-proliferation, come out and say it. I don’t. I’m tired of hypocrisy, too, but it is what it is.”
Look, if you want the US (and Israel) to be the final arbiters on which nations may posses certain technology and which not, then come out and say it.
The US cannot insist on having the “option” to attack another country and then insist that said country not take the only available step to deter a US attack. And that’s assuming Iran actually is building a bomb, a totally unproven assertion.
Furthermore, the US demands far more of Iran than simply not building a nuclear weapon. It demands that Iran have no access to the nuclear fuel cycle at all. That is a right each nation has that is codified in the NPT. The US could, of course, offer to recognize Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for Iran’s ratification of the Additional Protocols. That would make it absolutely impossible for Iran to develop a weapon in secret, while at the same time protecting Iran’s right to technology. Iran would jump at such a deal. The US will never offer it.
Not the US, the Security Council, of which the US is obviously an important part.
Nuclear non-proliferation is extraordinarily important. The only way to prevent it is to have the superpowers enforce the NPT. If the superpowers don’t take disarmament seriously, it harms the cause of the NPT. That’s precisely what Obama is trying to change with the START treaty. He knows the credibility of non-proliferation is harmed if it isn’t coupled with disarmament. But he also knows the NPT isn’t worth shit if no one is willing and able to enforce it, and that includes when a nation clearly has nuclear ambitions and is clearly moving towards having a nuclear capability, and is not in full compliance with IAEA.
I absolutely do not want any new nations going nuclear, and Iran is certainly not an exception.
I don’t want to go to war with Iran. I want to see the NPT system work.
Iran has every right under the NPT to develop nuclear technology for civilian use. There is no evidence that it is responsible or intends to be responsible for any proliferation. If you are really concerned about proliferation, how about going after countries that are known to be proliferating and have not signed the NPT instead of targeting Iran, which has signed, and is, by all the evidence, not engaged in proliferation?
Proliferation includes new members developing weapons for their own use. Don’t think of it as merely the selling of nuclear materials to other nations.
If Iran were to become a nuclear power purely on their own efforts, that would still mean a proliferation of nuclear weapons. I don’t oppose North Korea developing a weapon because they might sell one to someone else, but because I don’t want to see a proliferation of weapons.
You obviously don’t care one way or the other, which is your right.
You have it rather backwards. It is Iran’s responsibility to satisfy the IAEA that they are not using nuclear technology for military purposes. That is what they have consistently failed to do thru their non-compliance.
Let’s look at this rationally, if we can. The National Intelligence Estimate from (I think) 2007 said that we believe Iran has ceased working on a nuclear weapon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That means that they were pursuing a weapon up until that time. So, all this talk about how the weapon us unIslamic is just nonsense. The question isn’t whether they were pursuing one, but whether they’ve restarted their efforts now that they’ve realized that US is not coming for them next after Iraq.
I am amazed at some of these arguments that argue on the one hand that there is no evidence and on the other hand that of course they’re pursuing a weapon because it is the only rational course from them as a matter of self-defense. Which is it?
As for selling weapons, people don’t generally give them away for free.
“ It is Iran’s responsibility to satisfy the IAEA that they are not using nuclear technology for military purposes.“
Just as it was also Saddam’s responsibility to prove a negative, which as we know is not possible.
“Let’s look at this rationally, if we can.“
Yes, lets. Rationally, since when does the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 said that “we” believe Iran has ceased working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 constitute evidence that it actually WAS working on a nuclear weapon?
“The question isn’t whether they were pursuing one, but whether they’ve restarted their efforts now that they’ve realized that US is not coming for them next after Iraq.“
First, IF you accept that statement in the National Intelligence Estimate as proof that Iran was working on a nuclear weapon prior to 2003, then that might be ONE of the questions you could ask, but it is by far not the only, or even the best question. A better question to start with would be on what evidence was the statement in the NIE based, and is that evidence convincing.
You’ve got it bass ackwards in the second part of this statement. Why on earth would the Iranians cease a weapons program when they believed the U.S. was coming after them, and restart it when they felt confident they would not be attacked? That makes no sense at all logically.
“I am amazed at some of these arguments that argue on the one hand that there is no evidence and on the other hand that of course they’re pursuing a weapon because it is the only rational course from them as a matter of self-defense.“
I have never said that “of course they’re pursuing a weapon”, so why are you addressing this to me?
“As for selling weapons, people don’t generally give them away for free.“
Irrelevant. I have never uttered a single syllable, or even a hint of a suggestion about selling weapons or giving them away, so why do you keep acting as if I had? In fact, I think the likelihood that a country with nuclear weapons would help another entity to become nuclear armed is right around zero.
“I am amazed at some of these arguments that argue on the one hand that there is no evidence and on the other hand that of course they’re pursuing a weapon because it is the only rational course from them as a matter of self-defense. Which is it?”
Both. Iran will eventually, if it doesn’t already, have the capability to withdraw from the NPT and build a weapon in short order. EXACTLY like Japan, Brazil, Argentina and Germany can do if they want to. While you may not like that fact, it is entirely permissible under the NPT. If the US/Israeli threats continue, it may be that Iran will deem its national survival to be more important that concepts of non-proliferation. Or maybe not. I don’t know. If non-proliferation is that important, then maybe those countries should refrain from threatening Iran.
Booman, the best way to avoid nuclear proliferation is to address the underlying conflicts. Not threaten countries with war, until they feel backed into a corner.
C’mon Booman, you’re smarter than that. Are you really telling us that the UNSC is some kind of impartial Jury carefully weighing the evidence? You don’t think the US bullied or bribed to get the votes it needed? You don’t think they wheeled and dealed with the Russians and Chinese to get their approval? Aren’t you a lawyer? Do juries behave the same way as the UNSC? WOuld you trustthe justice system if they did?
This is the same UNSC that happily starved Iraq for 13 years. They are not any kind of impartial body or moral authority.
I admire you’re commitment to non-proliferation. But I reject your contention that, for the NPT to work, the US must be the final voice in who possesses nuclear technology and does not. Which is precisely what the US demands of Iran.
Furthermore, IMHO non-proliferation takes a back seat to national survival. So long as the US maintains its “option” to attack Iran, Iran must maintain its “option” of deterrence. To do less would be to invite Iraq’s fate on themselves.
Actually, because China, Russia, and the US agree on so little, it’s a pretty rare event when they actually do anything in the Security Council. They could have come together to prevent North Korea from going nuclear, probably, if they could have agreed on a plan.
Their biases pretty much cancel each other out most of the time. The truth is, Obama reinvigorated the non-proliferation effort thru intensive negotiations on disarmament with Russia. This is precisely what I wanted him to do. They even got China to agree that non-compliance has to be punished or non-proliferation efforts simply won’t work.
He’s trying to save a broken system, not start a war.
In what way is Iran noncompliant?
I keep hearing this, but never get a concise answer.
I`d be better equipped to discuss the issue if I knew the answer to my question.
In this sense and this sense.
The first link, (a PDF, btw, for those who care) is not very definitive in the aspect of non compliance, but does include a “prove the negative” clause, which stood out.
This one; ” (l) Noting that the Director General has repeatedly declared that he is unable to verify that Iran’s programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes,”
I`d like to see proof that it is not exclusively for peaceful purposes.
The second link opens a page telling me that I`m either unauthorized to view it, or I haven`t the right “cookies”
I`m not trying to selectively pick quotes from the first link, but that one I posted sure jumped out at me.
With many progressives chanting the “No more drilling” type of mantra, & some advocating nuclear as an option, Iran, who has not attacked another country in a few centuries, (if I`m historically correct) should be applauded for the development of an alternative energy source, in view of the limited quantity of oil as a natural resource.
I don`t know what more Iran can do to prove it`s peaceful purpose, but at this point, I`m quite sick of those who talk about a weapons program without proof.
It always nice to have a boogeyman to scare others with, but what does one do when others are not scared anymore.
The new sanctions are a complete farce, & will only serve to hurt civilians, as the sanctions on Iraq did. I see the ads on TV about foreign oil subsidizing terrorists.
It seems the ads always seem to mention Iran in them.
Why is that do you think?
Remember Albright, that humanitarian. What did she have to say about the sanctions on Iraq that killed over half a million children.
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
Well done, Knucklehead. BooMan’s argument rests to a great extent on the “prove a negative” requirement, plus he is accepting the equivalent of the “have you stopped beating your wife” question as evidence, if not proof that Iran had a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. I picked up on that little bit in the 2007 NIE right away, and so did a number of weapons and Middle East experts who at the very least strongly question the suggestion that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program. There is, they say, no evidence that convinces them to take the allegation seriously.
And you are correct about the lack of aggressive action in Iran’s history. The last time Persia attacked or invaded another country was nearly 300 years ago, and of course the current regime has been in power for more than 30 years and has yet to exhibit any interest in aggression against other countries. Too bad we can’t say the same for the main instigators of the current fashion of branding Iran as the boogeyman du jour. They happen to be two of the most aggressive countries in history.
Hurria,
I hope you are well.
I try & always find where one`s argument is coming from, to asses a response.
As a concerned “terranist” I always have a good ear for the drums of war. I`m also hesitant to voice an opinion on matters I`m not that well versed in, although I`ve survived quite well with what my heart tells me.
I did spend 15 years with an elder Jewish man, my good friend (Meyer Ryshpan), & another number of years with a Syrian Arab man from Damascus (Ahmed Shribati) both from whom I learned a lot about peace.
Meyer died about 25 years ago & Ahmed is now on his deathbed, & lives around the corner.
Surprisingly to some, they were both of similar mind. Men of Peace.
Although they never met, I believe they would have been good friends.
Exactly right, and that’s the way it used to be.
Don Bacon,
The link was an unexpected surprise.
Is it OK to post it, or is that in your private reserve?
Nothing private about it — go to the Iran page on my website warisaracket.org and have a feast. Enjoy!
This is what the link by Don Bacon shows:
I have no date nor do I know if it`s historically accurate personally, but I most certainly have no doubt that it could be.
Thank you for the link to your site Don.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratic PM of Iran, was overthrown by the US/UK in 1953 primarily because Mossadegh mationalized the Angl-Persian Oil Company (now BP).
Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed by US/UK.
The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran’s nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.
The Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by 2000. In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world’s oil supply would run out, and declared, “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn … We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants.”
Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business in Iran. Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981. — Wiki
Don Bacon,
I wasn`t doubting the link, only that I didn`t know about the nuclear power plants.
My disclaimer in my comment only applied to my personal knowledge.
BTW, I`ve been to your site before.
It is so heavy with info it`s encyclopedic.
For any other readers, I highly recommend Don Bacon`s site.
http://www.warisaracket.org/iran.html
Let us ask the question in another way. What exactly has Iran done that Brazil, Argentina and Japan have not? Iran is only required to inform the IAEA of uranium enrichment. Not construction underground facilities. Especially when they are under threat of bombardment.
In 2007, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) director stated that China appears to be adhering to a 1997 commitment to limit nuclear related cooperation, but, “Chinese entities continue to supply key technologies to countries with WMD and missile programs.” Specifically, missile cooperation from Chinese entities continues to aid Iran in building indigenous weapons capabilities. According to the U.S. director of central intelligence, assistance from Chinese entities has in part “helped Iran move toward self-sufficiency in the production of ballistic missiles.”
Notwithstanding the Chinese government’s official position, Chinese firms continue trading with Iran in technology related to ballistic missile, chemical and nuclear weapon programs. Between 2001 and 2007, the U.S. imposed sanctions in fifty-two instances against Chinese parties under the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA) and the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act (ISNA) – accounting for nearly half of all sanctions activity under the two acts over the same period.
In the summer of 2007, Chinese shipments to Iran containing “sensitive” military technologies, including dual-use items on international control lists, apparently increased. As recently as January 2009, Iran reportedly attempted to acquire missile-related, dual-use resources from China, according to correspondence between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers.
“Not the US, the Security Council, of which the US is obviously an important part.“
Riiiiight! The Security Council is an independent body whose decisions and actions are not largely determined by what the 800 pound gorilla in the room – aka the U.S. – wants it to decide (or, in the case of anything against Israel, NOT to decide). BooMan, you are not that naive – are you?
Well to be fair, the US lobbied hard for Brazil & Turkey to join the pile on. Hah! It`s not a real Security Council if you have to try & make deals with other countries to vote against their own national interests.
Especially when they`re your allies.
I think the 800 pound gorilla lost some weight, or it`s trying to make a monkey out of others.
The whole Israel-attacks-Iran thing just doesn’t seem very credible. It’s certainly a profoundly bad idea.
I think you confuse two things here. Everyone and their brother knows Israel wants to attack Iran. They have one problem. They have no direct way of getting there. And if they got there, other countries would have to be complicit in the raid, either letting them refuel, or letting them fly over airspace. The question really is: why is Murdoch giving propaganda victories to OBL? Because that’s what this is. Mot to mention the lesser things, like Murdoch trying to sow discontent worldwide. It’s like Murdoch really wants to be Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies.
Osama bin Laden tape, reported Nov 2, 2004:
“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”
“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/index.html
Of course. He played Dubya like a drum in that respect. But don’t forget his feelings about Saudi Arabia, too. Israel using Saudi airspace to attack Iran(who hates OBL, BTW) is another OBL wet dream. Since I don’t see the Saudi royal family lasting long if they did that.
“I understand that the goal here is to get Iran to make a decision that having nuclear weapons is actually not in their national security interests.“
There is no real evidence that Iran is attempting to have nuclear weapons, or even that it intends to attempt to have nuclear weapons. This is all a replay of the Iraq WMD/Al Qa`eda connection ruse, and it is appalling to see how Obama, Clinton, et al. so seamlessly transitioned from speaking of Iran’s nuclear program to speaking of its nuclear weapons program as if they knew for a fact that such a program existed. At that point any doubts I may have had about Obama as an agent of change were erased.
I might be wrong but I believe that candidate Obama’s frequent (false) mention of an Iran nuclear weapons program has not been repeated by President Obama. The sanctions bill focuses on (1) Iran’s refusal to follow (illegal) UN nuclear enrichment dictates and (2) Iran’s ballistic missile program.
The worthless UN sanctions bill doesn’t charge Iran with any treaty violations, because there aren’t any. Iran is charged with failure to comply with IAEA directives, but the NPT only gives the IAEA authority to determine that no nuclear fuel has been diverted to weapons programs, which in Iran it has continuously determined. The IAEA is not some super agency that can direct countries to do anything. Only Iran has been so treated.
Secondly, the UN has no authority to tell any state, including Iran, that it ” shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles.”
Finally, Iran’s major trading partners in Asia will take absolutely no notice of these “sanctions.” Japan, the major recipient of Iran petroleum, and also China and India (where their economies are growing exponentially) need Iran and they aren’t about to hurt themselves over some Israeli pipe-dream. Pakistan wants Iran gas, and Europe would like an alternative to Russia for gas. The 125-nation Non-Aligned Movement has continually supported Iran’s nuclear program. And now we have Brazil and Turkey, two major world factors against this failure of US diplomacy.
The listing of forty companies in the bill will force Iran to form forty new companies. Consider it done.
The bottom line is that Iran has a right to a civilian nuclear program under IAEA safeguards, with which it has complied.
NPT, Article IV — 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
You ARE wrong. Within the first few months after his inauguration Obama, Hillary, et al made a seamless transition from “Iran’s nuclear program” to “Iran’s nuclear weapons program”, thus quietly planting the view that Iran’s nuclear program was in fact a weapons program.
Reviewing my data I see that Obama ratcheted up his Iran weapons BS eighteen months ago, and then toned it down, and I don’t have anything on it (Iran nuke weapons) recently. Do you?
Mar 2, 2007. . .Obama: The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
June 4, 2008 . .Obama: The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists.
July 25, 2008 . .Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, nearing the end of a fast-paced international campaign trip, warned Iran today, “don’t wait for the next president” to take office before yielding to Western demands to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
Nov 7, 2008 … U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in Chicago on Friday that Iran’s development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.
Dec 7, 2008 . . .Obama: “We need to ratchet up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, making very clear to them that their development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable”
Jan 11, 2009 . . .Obama: “[Iran is] pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”
April 5, 2009 . . .Obama: “So let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies.”
Sep 12, 2009, WH spokesman Robert Gibbs: “The Iranians have a responsibility to the international community to walk away from their illicit nuclear weapons program.”
Sep 26, 2009: “My personal opinion is that the Iranians have the intention of having nuclear weapons,” Mr. Gates concluded,
Well, Don, all I know is that within the last year I have heard Obama utter the phrase “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” on more than one occasion, and just last week Hillary Clinton made several references to Iran’s as having a nuclear weapons program, or words to that effect. I took sharp notice of Obama shifting from “nuclear program” to “nuclear weapons program” about a year ago or a little more, and I thought “here we go again”. It’s Iraq all over again.
It’s impossible to believe that the countries mentioned would openly allow Israel to use their airspace for bombers. They would lose all standing in the Muslim/Arab world and gain nothing. If they tacitly decided to give Israel the green light they’d have to then pose as outraged victims of the evil usurper and harden their stands against Israel’s existence. The US would also be forced to distance itself if it didn’t want open war with Iraq. And Israel has to know that.
The only reasonable explanation for the story is that it’s a schoolkid-level attempt to start a fight and watch what happens. At the practical level, it gave Iraq further justification for acquiring nuclear weapons for self-defense from Israel and a conspiracy of ME governments. I think this propaganda WAS thought through. The real question is its intent. My guess is yet more Christianist morons trying to bring on the Apocalypse now. In which case they certainly got to the right venue.
The US has recently lost a lot of Muslim world support by its standing by the Israel raid in the Med. Apparently the appeals for Muslim support were not genuine, which we knew all along. Just words. Pretty speeches. Obama wouldn’t try that again any time soon, speaking in Cairo or Istanbul or anywhere else in the Muslim world.
“Apparently the appeals for Muslim support were not genuine…“
As they say in Israel, “boker tov, Iliahu!”, or in the U.S., “no s***, Sherlock!” ;o}
The only reasonable explanation for the story is that it’s a schoolkid-level attempt to start a fight and watch what happens.
You don’t remember the James Bond film(one of the Pierce Brosnan ones) Tomorrow Never Dies? As I mentioned above.
“The US would also be forced to distance itself if it didn’t want open war with Iraq…
Are you sure you don’t mean Iran? The U.S. has had an open war with Iraq since 1991, and despite what some people would like to believe it is still going on.
with these US enemies — Iraq, Iran — they only differ by one letter, and of course the reason for war: WMD v. programme. That’s the good thing about Afghanistan.
Of course if we get deeper into the -stans we’ve really got a problem. There’s already been one US fatality in Uzbekistan plus 15 in Pakistan.
Oops, I did a Bushie. Good thing I don’t get to order the troops in.
Very good thing indeed!
One person can’t order the troops in, it takes . an …act …of …..Congress. ……ooops.
I forgot, with the War Powers Act Congress gave up that right. That’s why we have a Decider.