It's Okay for Iran to Have Nukes Because Israel Does, Right?

Locked
Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

It's Okay for Iran to Have Nukes Because Israel Does, Right?

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:51 am

And of course you aren't allowed to look at states' national histories, their governments, their pathologies because then you might have to conclude that all states are not equal, that merely having enough guns to snuff out opposition might not be a legitimate basis for constituting a government with sufficient credentials for admission to the UN. You might actually have to discriminate. No, we have to uphold the fiction that Iran is no different from Israel, or the US, or England, and therefore it's entitled to have nuclear weapons too. Why that's kinda like saying there's really no difference between Klinghoffer and his killers, or that the Achille Lauro incident could have been perpetrated by Israeli IDF just as easily as it was by Palestinian puppets. This kind of "logic" is crazy-making.

Here we go again!
**********************************************************
These 4,000 centrifuge machines have not been declared to the IAEA, and the regime has kept the production of these machines hidden from the inspectors while the negotiations with the European Union have been going on over the past 21 months."

Alireza Jafarzadeh The exiled Iranian dissident who helped uncover nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity in 2002 said Tuesday that Iran has manufactured about 4,000 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons grade.


***********************************************************

Nuclear face-off
By Tom Engelhardt

We have now reached another of those recurring tinderbox moments relating to Iran. On Tuesday, the Iranians officially relaunched their nuclear program, beginning a suspended process of uranium conversion at a facility near Isfahan. In this, Iran's emboldened clerical regime defies the European troika - France, Germany and Britain - with which it has been in negotiations, and perhaps creates a moment for which Bush administration officials have longed, but whose challenging arrival they may now regret.

The board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) met Tuesday essentially on an emergency basis and perhaps in the near future the matter of the Iranian nuclear program may even go to the UN Security Council with possible sanctions on the table. (The passage of any sanctions measure there is unlikely indeed, given Russian and Chinese backing for the Iranians, not to speak of "the sympathy of other non-nuclear states on the 35-nation IAEA board"). And then ...? Well, that's the $64 dollar (a barrel) question, isn't it?

The geopolitical fundamentalists of the Bush administration have been itching for a down-and-dirty "regime change" fight with the clerical fundamentalists of Iran at least since President George W Bush, in his 2002 state of the union address, linked Iran, Saddam Hussein's hated neighboring regime with which it had fought an eight-year war of the utmost brutality, and the completely unrelated regime in North Korea into an infamous "axis of evil". (Perhaps what the president meant was "excess of evil".)

As we now know, Saddam's Iraq, with its non-existent nuclear program, was chosen as the administration's first target on its shock-and-awe "cakewalk" through the Middle East (and then, assumedly, the rest of the world) exactly because it was a military shell of its former self, a third-rate pushover compared to either Iran or North Korea. As it happened, the second-cousin-twice-removed of all battles turned into - as Saddam predicted - the mother of all battles and war against the rest of the "axis" fell into abeyance.

Now we're back to a potential face-off with a country that at least has an actual nuclear program, if not (unlike the North Koreans) a weapon to go with it. The nuclear world as imagined by the Bush administration is, in fact, a jaggedly uneven place. On the one hand, you have Iran, considered (like Saddam's Iraq) an imminent proliferation threat (even while that proliferator-in-chief of a nation Pakistan remains our bosom buddy); and yet Iran has, for at least 17 years, had a secret nuclear program (as well as an above-board one) aimed (possibly) at creating the means to create nuclear weapons.

A new US National Intelligence Estimate (the first on Iran since 2001) was just leaked to the press. This is one of those documents brokered every now and then among the 15 agencies that make up the official US intelligence "community" - there are more than 15 actually, but the others are fittingly "in the shadows". It evidently claims that Iran may need another 10 years or so to create the means to make nuclear weapons (not even to have the weapons in hand). If that's accurate, then we have a 27-year-plus-long effort to create one bomb. That - to my untutored mind - is not exactly an overwhelming stat when it comes to threat deployment.

Just at this moment (shades of Iraq), Iranian exiles are releasing new information on supposedly secret and illegal nuclear work being done by the Iranians, while Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld is claiming that US forces have found new weaponry in the hands of the Iraqi insurgency that came "clearly, unambiguously" from Iran and that these will "ultimately [be] a problem for Iran". (Forget that it's quite illogical for the Iranians to be supporting the largely Sunni Iraqi insurgency against an allied, mainly Shi'ite government.)

Exiled Iranian dissident Alireza Jafarzadeh, who runs Strategic Policy Consulting, a Washington-based think-tank, on Tuesday told The Associated Press that Iran had manufactured about 4,000 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons grade. He said that the centrifuges - which he said are unknown to the IAEA - are ready to be installed at Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz. In 2002, Jafarzadeh helped uncover nearly two decades of covert nuclear activity in Iran. Jafarzadeh said the information - which he described as "very recent" - came from sources within the Tehran regime who had proven accurate in the past.

In the meantime, there's an 800-pound nuclear gorilla sitting starkly at the center of the Middle Eastern proliferation living room. That's Israel, of course, with its extra-legal, super-secret arsenal of nuclear weapons, an estimated 200-300 of them, ranging from city-busters to battlefield-sized tactical nukes, and yet no news piece on the Iranian nuclear danger would be complete without the absence of the Israeli arsenal. Go look yourself. A thousand articles are appearing right now in the US press on the Iranian nuclear crisis and you would be hard-pressed to find a mention of the Israeli nuclear arsenal in any of them.

Israel and India, two nuclear weapons powers that have never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are treated by the Bush administration with kid gloves - in the Indian case, Bush actually wants to turn over "peaceful" nuclear technology to its government (despite a prohibition against doing so in the NPT).

Meanwhile, in Washington, the Bush administration has just gotten a new energy bill passed that does everything but dig the foundations for new nuclear plants in your backyard (and, should a Chernobyl or two happen, also lifts from the nuclear industry just about all responsibility for covering the costs of catastrophe). And of course, the administration in its shock-and-awe version of a non-proliferation policy simply forges ahead with its own plans to create new, more usable generations of US nuclear weapons and to implant in its global-strike planning various nuclear options, including the option of taking out some of the Iranian nuclear program with nuclear weapons.

Don't even try to make sense of it.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak02.html

**********************************************************
IAEA Board of Governors cancels emergency meeting on Iran

Vienna, Aug 10, IRNA
Iran-IAEA-Meeting

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors has cancelled its emergency meeting on Wednesday due to continuing rows among member states.

An IAEA security source told IRNA that they had been informed that the meeting would not be held.

The meeting was to be held in Vienna at 15:00 hours local time Wednesday.

The source declined to give more information on the reason behind cancellation of the meeting.

An IAEA spokesman also confirmed the report but declined to give further details.

Diplomats say the meeting has likely been postponed due to continuing differences between the group of NAM states and European members of the IAEA Board of Governors.

The IAEA Board of Governors emergency meeting regarding Iran was adjourned Tuesday due to differences among members and it was reportedly postponed to Wednesday.

The NAM group of states and the EU representatives are now talking behind closed doors.

A NAM diplomat told IRNA that the talks aimed to make EU give up the decision to pass a resolution against Iran in the afternoon emergency meeting.

The source who wanted not to be named said the NAM representatives in meetings with the EU counterparts would inform them they would not accept any such resolution if they presented it to the Board.

1420/1412
::IRNA No.033 10/08/2005 16:11
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24 ... 161134.htm
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10228
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:53 am

Agree with you on the Israel-Iran comparison.

But what to do about Iran? We read the same exercise anticipating such a situation. And from what I remember, there were no good answers. I think they concluded that it's an even tougher situation for a preemptive strike than North Korea. And we don't even have enough soldiers in the region to secure Iraq, let alone start another major operation.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by karlhenning » Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:58 am

Oh, Barry, you pessimistic nay-sayer, you!

Haven't you seen the balloons? Freedom's On The March!™

:-)
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:13 am

A ground operation of any size or duration is simply beyond our capacity now. That's why the Pentagon planners are now proposing scrapping the Two-War strategic doctrine that has been the basis of our defense policy for decades.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:43 am

Barry Z wrote:Agree with you on the Israel-Iran comparison.

But what to do about Iran? We read the same exercise anticipating such a situation. And from what I remember, there were no good answers. I think they concluded that it's an even tougher situation for a preemptive strike than North Korea. And we don't even have enough soldiers in the region to secure Iraq, let alone start another major operation.
Well, we and the Europeans can do what has to be done without firing a shot and without the sanction of the UN or the EU per se: blockade. I heard several weeks ago that a large number of US warships were headed for "maneuvers" in the Indian Ocean, I believe with India. All it takes is for the Europeans to stop selling goods to Iran and for the US Navy to blockade the export lanes for Iranian oil. I like this solution. I won't believe the Europeans have the stones for it until I see it with my own two eyes. Alireza Jafarzahde reported that the Europeans are talking all that happy-talk diplobabble, "happy and relieved to see the Iranians agreeing to return to the table blah blah blah" and not telling them what he says the Iranians need to hear:"We're haulin' your ass up to the UN!" The Iranians can keep playing this game till that dirty bomb explodes in the Vatican and the Shahab missiles take out Tel Aviv. At least the Russians are supporting us temporarily. But every time they open their mouths to talk tough, I think it's an invitation to "let's make a deal!"
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Saulsmusic

Post by Saulsmusic » Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:35 pm

I didnt read any of what was posted about this,but I assume that you want to say that Just becouse Israel has nukes so whos says that iran shouldnt have?

If thats your argument my answer is :

Israel is a democratic country that has a government that is accountable to the people.Should the government and elected people wont listen to the demand of the people who elected them,they will be voted out of office.Iran on the other hand is ruled by Extreme fanatic cultsman that do not listen to the will of the people but rule as they see fit.Surely people like these are not trustworthy to posses WMD.

This is the clear and pure abselute major difference between the two countries.Ofcourse there are many more differences,but this should be enough for now,to get the ball rolling on those who cant see the facts.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:38 pm

Saulsmusic wrote:I didnt read any of what was posted about this,but I assume that you want to say that Just becouse Israel has nukes so whos says that iran shouldnt have?

If thats your argument my answer is :

Israel is a democratic country that has a government that is accountable to the people.Should the government and elected people wont listen to the demand of the people who elected them,they will be voted out of office.Iran on the other hand is ruled by Extreme fanatic cultsman that do not listen to the will of the people but rule as they see fit.Surely people like these are not trustworthy to posses WMD.

This is the clear and pure abselute major difference between the two countries.Ofcourse there are many more differences,but this should be enough for now,to get the ball rolling on those who cant see the facts.
Good answer, Saul. I'm 100% with you on this. :D If you hang here more, you'll get used to my penchant for irony. :wink:
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests