Thoughts on Iran's nuclear program
In Iran's case going nuclear may be the best option or only viable option we have left them.
The Bush Administration has declared Iran, Iraq and North Korea the ‘axis of evil’. At roughly the same time the Administration declared a new preemptive strike policy (New in that it did not require imminent threat, the possibility or perception of future threat was enough.) Then the Administration exercised this policy, some would say radical policy, by invading Iraq without United Nations support and in violation of international law. North Korea’s reaction was to challenge the United States by re-starting its nuclear program and demanding guarantees the United States would not invade it. The United States reacts by veering from its hard line policy of preemptive invasion and chooses to pursue multilateral negotiations to resolve the problem, in effect conceding nuclear weapons to North Korea. This may have been seen by some as backing down. At the same time, and this is ironic, we are left holding out the promise of incentives for North Korea's cooperation. Thus, it would appear, the result of challenging the administration’s aggressive preemptive strike policy is a win-win for the challenger, if you possess nuclear weapons. In this case, North Korea can go nuclear and can also hope for economic and other incentives yet to come.
It seems to me Iran has little choice but to go nuclear or threaten to go nuclear. Think about it. We have threatened Iraq, then invaded; we have threatened North Korea and when challenged backed down. Why shouldn’t Iran hold out for the same sort of deal as North Korea?
Advertisement
Comments (14)
They could always seek, or threaten to seek, security guarantees from the Chinese. Imagine Chinese bases in the Middle East. If that doesn't move the republicans to impeach their own president I can't think what else could.
January 24, 2006 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those unfamiliar with it, here is Iran's side of the story, supplied by the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, available here: http://www.iran-un.org/announcements.php?ID=2
See if any of this agrees with the spin you're getting from Bush, Rice, and most of the academics on this site. (Josh Marshall's admiration for Hilliary Clinton, who is a frothing at the mouth Israeli supporter who wants immediate action on Iran, clearly shows the bias here.)
There IS NO Iranian nuclear "crisis". It is a scam perpetrated by the neocons in the EXACT SAME manner as that perpetrated over Iraq.
The only difference is that this time Bush is allowing the Europeans to be the stalking horse, instead of angrily confronting the Europeans as he did over Iraq. This has enabled Bush to suck in most of the so-called "progressives", convincing everyone that there is some sort of "crisis" here. El Baradei of the IAEA hasn't helped by taking positions sounding more like a neocon that he has at any time since before the Iraq war.
This article here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff62.html - by Michael Rozeff clearly lays out the FACTS about this so-called "crisis". Unlike the academics on this site, his article is clear and specific and covers both sides of the issue as well as the consequences of precipitate action by the US.
January 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poppycock: A chronicle of the stupidest things ever said
January 24, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Accessing that website isn't going to to set off the NSA again is it?
lol!
Hey joking about it is better than going nuts over the potential.
(I hope)
lol
sd
January 24, 2006 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mohammed el Baradei, Hillary Clinton, Josh Marshall.... Wow! these neocons know how to recruit.
January 24, 2006 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have always been befuddled by the limitations of lingo of international relations, as the stakeholders seems have shown some flourish for combining or permutating about 50 or key terms.
And for 30 (+ or -) years, I have waffled with the notion that really the key to some of these issues is to be able to think about them in multiple ways and dimensions, under conditions of constant self-examination & a little humility. I suppose I found the approach necessitated by the epiphany that many too much ego & its defenses were entailed in decision-making.
January 24, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good morning, Mr. Blue.
January 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, the enemy is not Iran and the problem is not primarily Iran's nuclear weapon capability (some 5 to 10 years out assuming that that is in fact their intention). This crisis however IS serious. The right wing has identified since their takeover in 2000 the basic problem of neutering the Dems and the left. 9/11 gave them the opening they needed to use all extraordinary means. their goal is tomaintain and keep power at all costs so that they can loot the nation/world. To do so, they invade Iraq and manufacture new security threats as needed. It is just not crediblethat BushCo really believed Iraq's WMDs were a threat and NOBODY except flathead Friedman believed in democratic dominos. So Iraq was the confluence of a number of desires: placate the fundamentalist Christian base, pander to the far-right Netanyahu-Abramoff Jews, demonstrate as in Hiroshima American power; advance a radical domestic political agenda under the nationalist/militarist aegis. Rove has outlined yet again a campaign based on America-under-threat to maintain this power. Iran is a response to falling polls coming from the Iraq fiasco. Despite the debacle, yelling "threat" is still an effective political tool. Remember that even after the crushing defeat of Nazi Germany, a good 30 percent of the German people were still loyal to the Fuhrer.
January 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha - so you think Bush & Co. are conspiring Masonic oil-mongers and believe that Iran's regime represents the facts as they are.
Wow - have you guys considered spending your time in ways that comport more with reality and productivity? What is the special pleasure you get out of something you are obviously so goddamn bad at?
January 24, 2006 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Didn't the President of Iran just call for the destruction of Israel? Was he recruited by the neocons to say that?
January 24, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one like's what he said but he has no army or navy threatening Israel; Israel has the strongest military in the region by far including a serious nuclear arsenal. Presumably the fundamentalists got a tremendous electoral boost from the actions of Bush in Iraq and in brandishing Iran as part of the axis of evil. Each action (on either side brings serious reactions.) It might make better sense to stop namecalling and to do more constructive talking (and I don't mean simply trying to demonize Iran and get sanctions imposed).
January 24, 2006 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran's president's comment about Israel was, counter to the universal reportage in the Western press, for the destruction of the Israeli state--the government--not the extermination of the Jewish population. The comment was not helpful but it wasn't criminal or apocalyptic in the way it has been presented in the press. It is standard Mid-East denial of the legitimacy of the zionist Israeli legal state entity.
January 24, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 86327
FOREIGNPARENTID: 86323
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 10870
AUTHOR: sdanielles
DATE: 01/24/2006 07:16:04 PM
January 24, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about Chinese bases - though it present a wry thought - but an Iran/China oil connection sounds possible. In a different part of the world but reacting to the same US dynamic, there could be a Venezuela/China oil connection too.
January 26, 2006 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink