Pouring Gas On The Fire
Nothing new in this report, of course, but a timely reminder of why we must do everything possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Can you imagine the current situation with a nuke-wielding Iran in the equation? Israel armed to the teeth with nukes is bad enough; it's an impediment to our efforts via-a-vis Iran and a destabilizing factor in the region. But our efforts on Iran must be methodical, honest, and in concert with the international community. Since I haven't had to post a PIA Alert recently (you didn't think I hadn't been maintaining vigil, did you?) it appears we're doing it the right way, at least for now. But we know that in this administration, duplicity never sleeps---it just takes breaks to clear brush and go bird hunting. Vigilance....
posted by The Cunning Realist at Friday, August 04, 2006
18 Comments:
Nothing new in this report, of course, but a timely reminder of why we must do everything possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
If doing "everything possible" includes going to war, I disagree. Our troops' supply lines are dangerously exposed, and any conflict would almost certainly cause the death of tens of thousands of people, possibly more.
And what would we have achieved? At the end of the conflict the Iranians would be radicalized and just as intent on getting nuclear weapons.
Since Ahmedinejad doesn't control the armed forces, and can't order an attack, his words are outrageous but not dangerous.
Cal
"Since Ahmedinejad doesn't control the armed forces, and can't order an attack, his words are outrageous but not dangerous."
I agree entirely. The Fox News crowd's claim that Iran is seeking nukes in order, among other reasons, to carry out its dream to destroy Israel is utter nonsense. A nuclear armed Iran is undesirable, of course, but conventional deterrance would work, just as it worked with other regimes whose leaders used equally radical and inflamatory rhetoric:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_04_10/cover.html
http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/archives/2006/02/we_can_live_wit.php
"Just plain silly"
No...not really. Wars are started by our political leaders. If our own political leaders lives are in danger...wars become less likely.
"We know Iran's president is nuts."
Why not? Our own executive (and vice) leads by example.
To quote an older movie: I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.
Iran with Nukes is bad, and bad mostly because if they figure it out, they're gonna share. And whom they choose to share with WILL strap one around his or her waist, and walk into the middle of a crowd in downtown Bethlehem / Baghdad / New York.
Iran's financial, military and logistical support for terrorist organizations is too great to risk them acquiring nuclear weapons. This requires negotiation, albeit with a despicable regime, but it is the only option.
Those (favorably) comparing Iran to Israel show a complete lack of understanding about the fundamental realities of both countries. One is an extremist country using nationalist rhetoric to disguise their fragile economic policies (despite $76 per barrel oil) and the other is a vibrant democracy and diverse economy making lasting contributions to science and the arts.
Not a Jew or Israeli, quite far from it, but facts are the facts.
I would say that contributing arms and cash to paramilitary groups that ordinarily defy their national governments would demonstrate at some level a willingness to engage in violence. Add to that Iran's support in the bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia as well attacks on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires is a pretty good indication that we're not dealing with normal nation-states.
this guy (revolutionary marxist)attempts to put it all together...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAS20060802&articleId=2886
think a lot depends on whether the establishment 'realists' like kissy or brzy prevail over the bunch ready to 'party'...whatever anyone says, iran is a nice chunk of property...
"But our efforts on Iran must be methodical, honest, and in concert with the international community."
You really believe that this idiotic government that we have is working methodical and honestly?
What were you smoking when you wrote that sentence?
We have the misfortune to have people in position of power that are borderline "insane".
They think you only talk and deal with your friends and shunt aside and ignore your enemies and shock and awe them, childish!
Government that are democraticly elected are legit only if we agree with the outcome.
And getting the Israelis to attack Syria and /or Iran is so totally insane that words fail me.
We are addicted to middle eastern oil supply. If they think that that oil line will continue as normal if that happens, you demonstrate that you have lost your mind.
I would not be surprised in that case that oil will shoot up to 100 or 200 dollars a barrel.
That will destroy utterly our economy and probably that of the rest of the worlds also.
What then will follow will make the French Revolution of 1789 seem like a tea party.
It will then really be the end of the world as we know it.
At this rate, I wonder if I will live to see New Years Day 2007.
I hate to say it but I think we have less than a 50/50 chance of that.
Suggest you read Billmon's "The War Party".
And, for whomever said Iran's preznit was nuts .... have you looked @ your own lately??
judyo
'It's a big mistake for us to grant any validation to international law, even when it may seem in our short-term interests to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States.' [John Bolten, 1999]
has he been confirmed by the senate yet?
Clearly Bolten doesn't comprehend the role of Treaties as understood by the Founders and written into the Constitution.
This seems to be a common problem throughout the administration.
Did you catch Nightline. I think it was Thursday night. "Evangelical Christians are taking sides in the Mideast conflict and lobbying Washington -- because, they say, the Bible tells them to." They are quite giddy for the return of Jesus and 1000 years (what is the radioactivity half life) of peace because what they pick and chose to believe in their bible tells them so. It was scary to see these folks walking around Washingon with so many connections. Bill Maher has a point: The disease is religion. Fundamentalism crazies of all brands.
Actually it's possible that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons could lead to a balance of power and greater stability.
Israel is completely out of control because it is unmatched in regional military power. A little nuclear deterrence from Iran might go a long way towards reining in the expansionist wing of Israeli politics.
On a related note, I am beginning to believe that the solution to the problem of Israel is to go back to the drawing board, scrap the 1947 partition and create fresh states based on certain ground principles.
The ground principles should be that the Jews and the Palestinians deserve a state; furthermore, financial incentives should be given towards the end of creating a strong majority Jewish state.
Compensation to the Arabs who were forced out of Israel in 1948 should be on the table as well.
Possibly the issue of compensation for Jews who were forced out of Arab countries should also be considered.
"Everything possible" done "honest[ly]" would start with public recognition of Israel's nuclear arsenal, and steps towards dismantling it.
If the Iranians are developing nukes (still not proven) they are doing so to strategically counter Israel.
Responding (late) to the logic of nonproliferation, from my hazy memory of the end of "Dark Sun" (an excellet history of the atomic bomb project), "proliferation" was the preferred strategy of the pointy-heads actually making the bomb and philosophising about how it would change the world. They proposed an international collaboration to avoid an arms race, and it breaks the heart to read how the USA vs. USSR positioning for the post-war period made this idea die in the political ranks.
Where did you find it? Interesting read Free internet answering machine software. faucet
The chap is completely fair, and there's no suspicion.
Post a Comment
<< Home