« Why aren't more people following Dani Rodrik? | Kenneth Thomas's Blog | Does Globalization Cause Races to the Bottom? (wonkish, as Krugman would say) »
Methinks the Vice-President Doth Protest Too Much - On Iran
Normally, I try to blog only on political economy topics, but yesterday's comments by former Vice-President Cheney have really set me off:
"We fail to recognize the fact that we're alone out there in terms of trying to achieve the objective of forcing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons. Everybody's in a giant conspiracy to achieve a different objective than the one we want to achieve."
What is wrong with this statement? Let me count the ways...
First, it implies that the Iranians already have nuclear weapons, since you can't "give up" something you don't have. But this claim is completely at odds with the published intelligence on the state of Iran's nuclear program.
Second, a minor point, but it is hard to believe the Israelis don't agree with us on this issue.
Third, and most important, there is an understandable reason that the Europeans (and others) don't share our obsession with the Iranian nuclear program. This is the fact that the Bush Administration, in effect, rewarded the Indian government for its own violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, when it reach a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. So who is Cheney to talk about non-proliferation?
"We fail to recognize the fact that we're alone out there in terms of trying to achieve the objective of forcing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons. Everybody's in a giant conspiracy to achieve a different objective than the one we want to achieve."
What is wrong with this statement? Let me count the ways...
First, it implies that the Iranians already have nuclear weapons, since you can't "give up" something you don't have. But this claim is completely at odds with the published intelligence on the state of Iran's nuclear program.
Second, a minor point, but it is hard to believe the Israelis don't agree with us on this issue.
Third, and most important, there is an understandable reason that the Europeans (and others) don't share our obsession with the Iranian nuclear program. This is the fact that the Bush Administration, in effect, rewarded the Indian government for its own violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, when it reach a nuclear cooperation agreement with India. So who is Cheney to talk about non-proliferation?
Advertisement
I saw that Cheney made that remark and I honestly thought it was a sound byte from the 20th century. I double-checked the date and as you point out, it was just a day or so ago.
Again, as you point out, there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. All the "fake evidence" that Cheney and the neocon war brigade tried to railroad through has been discredited; the last N.I.E., which stated that Iran dropped any "alleged" active program to try and make weapons-grade uranium back in 2002.
That took the wind out of the sails of Cheney and his march to war with Iran at the time.
The fact that he continues to state complete falsehoods to this day is unfortunate, but consistent, and at this point, so transparently conspicuous that the percentage of people gullible enough to rally around him is getting smaller and smaller.
May 14, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he means nuke weapons AMBITIONS, which they may or may not have. Certainly they have every right to run nuclear reactors for power, research, and ordinary commerce (medicine etc).
I don't know if Cheney was always paranoiac (maybe he caught it working for Nixon) but he seems to have become an embarassment to what remains of the reasonable parts of the GOP and the right wing in general.
May 14, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
after that N.I.E report that I talked about above came out, Bush had to temper his language, as you point out. He couldn't outright say Iran had nukes, he had to say he believed they had "AMBITIONS"
At which point, Bush reached the height of absurdity.
He called for tougher sanctions on a country not because there was any specific or credible evidence to call for such sanctions, but because "said country" might have "ambitions".
Cheney represents, I believe, an older 20th century belligerent mentality. The "World Superpower" mentality. "America is the greatest country in the world, end of story" mentality.
It's that "end of story" arrogance that prevents objective analysis to seep in as times change. It prevents historical self-reflection, or any recognition of potential personal fault and subsequent course correction.
No doubt there is evil in this world. The thing is, if you accept that there is evil in this world, you have to accept that the U.S. has been, not entirely, but in part, a participant in that evil.
We have every right to protect our liberty and our freedoms. But the days of playing "king of the hill" are long over. The last decade of "diplomacy by blunt instrument" did more to weaken America than it did to strengthen it.
I think our leaders should aspire:
1) to be a great country.
2) to be a great country among many great countries.
May 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to calls for "greatness"! That was my first ever plea to a President, in the days before Desert Storm I wrote to Bush Sr. Of course my plea fell on effectively deaf ears.
"He called for tougher sanctions on a country not because there was any specific or credible evidence to call for such sanctions, but because "said country" might have "ambitions"."
That is the line for Iraq, of course, as a call for invasion.
re Cheney, the PNAC mythos had them being remembered by history, from Perle:
"This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
The vision of blind arrogance tempered only by paranoia?
Maybe Cheney and others could not embrace a real vision "entirely" but sought to cut corners.
More evidence of "cargo cult" parallels...
May 14, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good solid points here. I like this blog. We must take on one lie at a time.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME CHENEY TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING?
May 14, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know your post is mostly about Cheney's craziness, but as to this:
Europeans (and others) don't share our obsession with the Iranian nuclear program
You sound as if you think they were not concerned and don't take the threat seriously. I don't think that gives a true picture of the situation in the least, perhaps even the opposite.
They didn't agree with Bush/Cheney methods or aims, but all through the Bush years the EU was very much agitating in its own way in trying to keep Iran from getting nukes, in working with the I.A.E.A., the U.N., and their meetings on it in Vienna. They included the U.S. in their activities when they could, in the rare instance when Bush/Cheney/Rice were in a rational mood.
France is a good example; I recall stories like this one:
and here's President Chirac on Iran in Feb. 2007, when he backtracks or tries to explain recent inflammatory remarks about Iran and the bomb.
That was just bluster but it gives you an idea of how strong the bluster has gotten.
I think it's a big mistake to think that, do some more reading on the topic, you'll see. It could easily be argued that they were more obsessed with actually trying to stop it, working hard with the IEA to keep monitoring them while we were obsessed with Iraq. Bush/Cheney were just simply atagonistic and into not communicating at all, labeling them part of the "axis of evil," expecting them to do it as a fait accompli and seeing no use for European negotiations and I.A.E.A. inspections trying to stop them from doing it.
Europe has been trying negotiations, doing the yeoman's work of a cat and mouse game in the service of prevention of development. After all, they are closer geographically, so it's more of a real threat. I think the European governments and the U.N. are welcoming Obama's attempts at opening some sort of dialogue with Iran so that they once again have a partner in trying to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, not because they don't think it's not a threat.
May 15, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe India is a signatory to the NPT.
May 15, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluemeanie, you are correct. But the U.S. is a signatory, and shouldn't be aiding the nuclear program of a non-signatory.
artappraiser, I agree with you that Europeans don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons, but the Bush Administration actions undermined the "West's" credibility in its criticisms of Iran, which forced Europeans to do the heavy lifting on negotiations, as you put it.
May 15, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink