Reading about the Iranian nuclear “crisis”, one gets the impression of two entirely separate and completely different “Iran crises” being described as if they were one and the same thing.
The first ”Iran crisis” exists (only) in the rhetoric of political leaders. You’ve got President Bush declaring that “Iran’s nuclear ambitions are not in the world’s interests”, describing an Iranian nuclear weapon as “unacceptable” and warning that, in the event of continued Iranian enrichment of uranium, “all options are on the table”.
Then you’ve got Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu branding Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions as “much more dangerous” than Hitler, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert predicting that Iran would supply Hizbullah with a nuclear weapon should it acquire one, proclaiming that Israel “will not tolerate” a nuclear-armed Iran and calling on the “whole world” to prevent such a situation from arising.Lastly, of course, we have Iran’s President Ahmadinejad who provides a lunatic statement (an ‘Ahmadinejadism’) once or twice a month to get all the Western journalists typing like crazy and to squeeze as much political popularity as he can from insulting Israel and the U.S.
A world view based on the rhetoric reported, usually uncritically, by the mainstream media would hold that Iran is a defiant, rogue state possessed by a fanatical desire to destroy Israel, kill all the Jews and launch a campaign of world domination starting with a nuclear attack on Washington and Jerusalem.
Then we have the second “Iran crisis”. This is the version based on facts. This version points out that Iran has not attacked anyone outside its borders for 250 years. It recognises that, unlike Israel, Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has granted weapons inspectors access to its declared enrichment facilities (like those at Natanz). Iran has, in fact, undergone more extensive nuclear weapons inspections than any other Member state. The factual version suffers not from the amnesia of the rhetorical ”Iran crisis” and recalls that in the 1970s Washington actually encouraged an Iranian nuclear programme, to the extent that in 1976 President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle.
The factual version recalls International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports on Iran’s nuclear programme, like the one published in February 2006 which states (.pdf),
“all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran”,
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jay
one fact that you forgot to mention in your "factual" report is the 1979 Iranian revolution that has overthrown the Shah.
therefore, any US encouragement prior to 1979 was in regards to a whole different regime, and if taking the US embassy employees as hostages just because they were Americans is not considered an act of war -- then I don't know what is.
also, even though Iran has not attacked another country outside its borders, there is plenty of evidence that it has been involved in such attacks by proxy, and they are known to be support terror and provide terrorist organizations with funds and weapons.
2 - Bliffle
When Bush says something is "unacceptable", like Iran or NoKo nukes, that implies, to me anyway, that he will take whatever steps necessary to stop or reverse it, including extreme measures like invasion with HBombs. I'm not sure I'm willing to make that commitment at this early point. Are you?
3 - Daniel
This 'rhetorical view' is a result of the 'factual view'.
I believe Israels reasonings do not lie in 'power and influence' rather 'fear and safety'. Iran has said they would destroy Israel and are now undergoing 'Uranium Enrichment'. Is that not understandable?
Israel does not desire to control the entire middle east, rather: they want to be safe within their own territory (a 'territory' which has caused much conflict and debate). I am yet to see one incident where Israel has attacked a nation which wasnt a defensive response to ACTS of war, can you provide me with one?
(With that question being asked, I guess one may say: Israel inflicting innocent fatalities in gaza and west bank is an example. For the sake of my argument, it's important to recognise these attacks are Israels best efforts in taking out persons responsible for terror on Israel through missile fire. I cannot see how killing an innocent civilian helps a cause, sadly, it is clear how much this can inflame it.)
One other 'fact' left out is that Iran is persuing uranium enrichment and at the same time 'rejecting nuclear inspections defined in the non proliferation treaty' causing reasonable suspicion for other nations to question Iran's intention. This is the REASON there is a rhetorical view on Iran.
Iran is making it difficult for 'rhetorical viewers' to see these above-mentioned facts.
All which the citizens of the USA, Israel & the rest of outside nations would want to know is that Iran is not a threat to them. That they ARE enriching Uranium for peaceful reasons. And Nothing More. These harsh deadly statements being made by the Iranian leader are causing fear. The rejection of insepectors are causing a lack of clarity. This is why there is a rhetorical view.
Israel & The USA do not want 'world domination'. They want 'world veneration'.
4 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Jay: "one fact that you forgot to mention in your "factual" report is the 1979 Iranian revolution that has overthrown the Shah."
I brought up the U.S.' nuclear assistance to Iran for precisely that point. The U.S. is not interested in preventing proliferation, it is interested in keeping states within its control. Obviously, before the Revolution, there was no danger of the Shah disobeying the U.S. So, America was all too happy to aid the Shah in going nuclear. After the revolution, Iran was (understandable) hostile to the U.S. as opposed to servile to it. All of a sudden, no nuclear power for Iran.
Now, if you think that the U.S. does have the authority to arbitrarily declare who does and who does not have a right to nuclear power based on who it likes at that particular moment in time, you probably will not have a problem with this. But to hold such a view (that the U.S. has some God-given right and authority to be the world's dictator) is not sensible.
"also, even though Iran has not attacked another country outside its borders, there is plenty of evidence that it has been involved in such attacks by proxy"
Right, they support their allies. Much like the U.S. funds Israel, the Saudi regime and the rest of its allies. Funding allies is not the same as invading another country.
Daniel: " believe Israels reasonings do not lie in 'power and influence' rather 'fear and safety'."
To conclude that, you'd have to show that Iran presents a real threat to Israel's security.
Furthermore, if you wanted to use this conclusion to justify taking measures against Iran's nuclear programme, you'd have to show that Israel presents no threat to the 'safety' of Iran. You won't be able to, because its not the reality.
"Israel does not desire to control the entire middle east, rather: they want to be safe within their own territory (a 'territory' which has caused much conflict and debate)"
Israel definitely wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East. It, together with the U.S., want to have strong influence over the Middle Eastern states. They don't want the influence of states hostile to them to expand.
"I am yet to see one incident where Israel has attacked a nation which wasnt a defensive response to ACTS of war, can you provide me with one?"
Not only can I provide you with one, but I can provide you with one this year, namely the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
Also, as you say, the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinians (and the violence to crush the resistance that accompanies it) is in the same vein, although it is not against "another nation" for obvious reasons.
"One other 'fact' left out is that Iran is persuing uranium enrichment and at the same time 'rejecting nuclear inspections defined in the non proliferation treaty' causing reasonable suspicion for other nations to question Iran's intention."
It is true that Iran has not been completely transparent ith the IAEA. Many countries with nuclear programmes are not - for example, Brazil (who's nuclear programme was deemed "acceptable" by the U.S.) built entire walls to prevent IAEA inspectors from looking at certain, 'secure' parts of their facilities. But let's look at the IAEA reports. After Iran's years of concealing its programme, the IAEA reported in August 2003 that:
The IAEA report of November 2003 said much the same thing:
Here's what the report of March 2004 had to say:
The reports continue in much the same vein, praising Iranian cooperation with the IAEA (occasionally noting that Iran has been slow to provide some information). For example, the report of September 2005 noted that, "Since October 2003, good progress has been made in Iran’s correction of the breaches" (the 'breaches' being Iran's concealment of its nuclear programme for years).
Let's fast forward to February 2006, when the IAEA reported that:
That report also noted that, "Since October 2003, Iran has taken corrective actions with respect to those breaches."
You'll notice that it said "until Febraury 2006". That is because from February Iran ddeicded it would no longer follow the Additional Protocal it had thus far imposed voluntarily on itself and furthermore would resume "R&D" on its nuclear programme. It asked the IAEA to remove the seals on its facilities. However, Iran continued to cooperate with the IAEA in accordance with the basic NPT. This was because, despite voluntary suspension of enrichment and implementation of the Additional Protocol granting full transparency to IAEA inspectors (who conducted no less than "2000 man-day inspections"), the international community continued to demonise Iran and insist that it was being 'defiant'. Thus, in April 2006, Iran published a letter to the effect that Iran, "is fully prepared to continue granting the Agency’s inspection in accordance with the Comprehensive Safeguards provided that the Iran’s nuclear dossier will remain, in full, in the framework of the IAEA and under its safeguards"
Of course, the matter was not confined to the jurisdiction of the IAEA and was, at the U.S.' insistence, referred to the UNSC. Despite this, Iran has continued to allow a permanent IAEA presence at nuclear facilities such as Natanz. All IAEA reports since April 2006 have said pretty much the same thing:
BUT that, because Iran is not implementing the Additional Protocol and keasures beyond it (for reasons detailed above) the Agency cannot conclusively affirm that there exists no undeclared nuclear material.
So, I think you will agree that in fact Iran has been unusually cooperative with the IAEA, especially when compared to countries like Israel who have refused even to sign the NPT.
[All IAEA reports cited above can be found here]
"All which the citizens of the USA, Israel & the rest of outside nations would want to know is that Iran is not a threat to them."
Simple common sense would show that it isn't. Even if Iran got a nuclear weapon tomorrow, it wouldn't use it, for the same reason no other nuclear power in history has used a nuke on another nuclear power: states don't commit suicide. The one threat Iran poses to Israel is through its support of Hizbullah, although that is unconnected to the nuclear issue. The conflict between Hizbullah and Israel will only go away with a negotiated settlement.
"These harsh deadly statements being made by the Iranian leader are causing fear."
As I said, Iran's leader has no authority over these matters. His statements are demonstrably designed simply to gain popularity and nothing more. Israeli and US threats against Iran, which include the use of nuclear weapons against it, are in contrast quite real. The people of Iran have far more justification to feal afraid than the people of Israel and America. If Iran were pursuing a nuclear weapons, this would be the prime reason for doing so.
"The rejection of insepectors are causing a lack of clarity."
As I hope I have demonstrated, even when Iran was voluntarily submitting itself to the most thorough inspections of any state in history, there was a "lack of clarity". This is because, as I said, Israel and the US do not just want to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they want to stop Iran from getting to a point (by developing nuclear power) from which it could, if it chose to at some point in the future, develop nuclear weapons pretty quickly. Obviously, that is not a legitimate aim (Iran has a legal right to nuclear power) and so Israel/U.S. dress it up to make it seem like Iran poses a real threat, much like they did with Iraq. And, like with Iraq, it's a complete fraud.
5 - Mohjho
"neither Israel nor the U.S. is afraid of Iran actually using nuclear weapons to attack anyone. To do so would be suicidal and Iran knows it."
hmmm...I believe suicide is the method of choice for these Islamic "freedom fighters". I would not bet the defense of my country on the rational judgment of any religious fundamentalist group.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
More gefilte fish, Jamie,
You are a sadly deluded fellow. I'd spend more time commenting, but I have to get up at about 05:00 in the morning...
Shavua Tov,
Reuven
7 - Les Slater
The U.S. and Israel depend on people not being able to think.
Argument against their supporter's arguments are useless. You can win the argument, you can make them look like fools. You can lay bare their delusions.
And they still come back with their stupidities.
8 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"hmmm...I believe suicide is the method of choice for these Islamic "freedom fighters"."
What? I think you've fallen for the relentless media demonisation of Iran. Iran is not a nation of terrorists or suicide bombers or whatever you seem to think. The fact that it is ruled by fundamentalists does not make Iran a suicidal nation. It does mean that Iran is a repressive country with an appalling human rights record. But that, of course, is a separate issue.
If you want to make such a bold charge, you'll have to find a lot of evidence to support it. You won't be able to, of course, because Iran's foreign policy history shows precisely the opposite. It hasn't attacked a country outside its borders for 250 years.
9 - Dave Nalle
one fact that you forgot to mention in your "factual" report is the 1979 Iranian revolution that has overthrown the Shah.
He also neglects to mention the fact that Ahmedinejad and other Iranian leaders repeatedly and loudly state their insistence that they have an absolute right to build and use nuclear weapons regardless of treaties signed or opposition from the international community. Whether a program exists or not, the intent is clearly there. And let's be honest, Iran is not Iraq. If they wanted to buy or build a nuke they could have one in a matter of months.
Dave
10 - troll
Dave - isn't that evidence for the idea that if they in fact wanted to buy or build a nuke they already would have done so - ?
11 - Dave Nalle
Not necessarily, troll. I certainly would believe that they already have a nuke, but the problem with Iran is not really whether they have or don't have nukes, it's that they repeatedly declare that they will use nukes if they feel like it with no hesitation. They could have one and just be waiting for the right moment, or they could just be holding out to build or buy one when needed. But the point is that they have enemies and they have the intent to use any means to destroy them, even if it's at their convenience.
dave
12 - troll
has China obligated herself by entering into a formal defense pact with Iran - ?
13 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Dave: All the experts seem to agree that it will be a matter of years (some say 3, some say 10, some say more) before Iran is capable of building nuclear weapons. What information are you basing your assertion of "a matter of months" on?
Again - if Iran were to use a nuke on anyone, it would immediately be destroyed. Incidentally, can you cite a few of these "repeated" declaration that they will "use nukes if they feel like it with no hesitation"?
But again - regardless of predictions of Iran's intent, our justice system is based on evidence. As far as the evidence shows, Iran's nuclear programme is solely civilian.
But as I said, even if it can be proven that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a preventative strike against it would be illegal. Because, I'm sure we all agree, the posession of nuclear weapons is not "incontrovertible" evidence of an "imminent" attack. If it were, Iran would be justified in bombing Washington, Jerusalem, London etc. tomorrow.
14 - Dave Nalle
Iran has more than enough competent engineers to build a nuke, and the design plans for simple nukes are widely available. They certainly have the manufacturing capacity for the needed materials. The only reason 'experts' set a timescale in years is that they assume that Iran would have to produce its own plutonium from raw fissionables. But the reality is that they could easily buy plutonium from a number of sources - hence the shorter timescale.
As for your skepticism about Ahmedinijad's nuclear ambitions, don't try to play me for a simpleton. The facts are out there and if you pretend ignorance no one is going to take you seriously. Check out this link to PBS.
Dave
15 - Franco
#8 " Jamie Stern-Weiner
Iran is not a nation of terrorists or suicide bombers or whatever you seem to think. If you want to make such a bold charge, you'll have to find a lot of evidence to support it.
Jamie Limp-Dick,
First I would like to say that it is actuarially hard for me to believe that someone can suffer from such extreme fallacy which sustains you to think the way you do. Secondly, I am extremely pleased that you hold no position of power or authority in western decision making policy circles for Iran and the current and future security activities underway to protect not only the western world from Iran but the greater Middle East as well.
This is a nation that relishes the role of underdog and cultivates the image of martyrdom at its very heart. It is also a rouge state that’s leaders truly seek to speed the coming of the 12th Imam, who in Shi‘ite belief will return to lead the triumph of Islam throughout the world. One of the most controversial of their beliefs is that creating instability and crisis may help to bring about the chaos which in turn will speed the coming of the 12th Imam. At a time when many Iranian clerics had argued that nuclear weapons are against Islamic teaching and therefore Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, a follower of Mesbah-Yazdi, Mohsen Ghorurian, was reported in early 2006 as saying that nuclear weapons were religiously permitted. Iran must force this to take place and it is doing so with all its ability.
In public squares where young men and women can sign up for suicide training under public banners stating; "Martyrdom Seekers Registration. In 'Iran,' Ted Koppel Explores the Nation Behind the Label
Iran's Suicide Brigades
Google "Iran suicide bombers" or “Iran terrorests” and see the many articles substantiating that Iran is training terrorests, financing them, supplying them with advanced military hardware and training and suicide bombers for work in other countries to expand terrorism.
Jamie, how can one person be so extremely obtuse?
16 - RedTard
"The U.S. and Israel depend on people not being able to think." - Les Slater
The sign of being right in a debate is whining and calling your opponent stupid. Your rabid anti-US and anti-capitalist rants are quaint and entertaining though.
Not thinking, that's how the US became and economic and military superpower. Teach me more you wise sage of socialism.
17 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Dave: "The only reason 'experts' set a timescale in years is that they assume that Iran would have to produce its own plutonium from raw fissionables. But the reality is that they could easily buy plutonium from a number of sources - hence the shorter timescale."
If it was that simple, then why all the fuss about uranium enrichment? In fact, if that was true and Iran did want nukes, why would it not simply buy the material required, as you say, instead of spending years and risking invasion producing it?
"As for your skepticism about Ahmedinijad's nuclear ambitions, don't try to play me for a simpleton. The facts are out there and if you pretend ignorance no one is going to take you seriously. Check out this link to PBS."
Dave, I'm not trying to "play" you and I'm sure you're not a simpleton. But let's get back to the discussion. Firstly, Ahmadinejad's ambitions are not the issue here; the issue is Iran's ambitions. The President has no authority of these matters.
Secondly, I, unlike you it seems, value a justice system based on evidence as opposed to conjecture. Until there is evidence that Iran is developing nukes, it isn't developing nukes. Now, I personally think Iran would have to be crazy not to be trying for nuclear weapons. It's interesting, isn't it? The only reason why we so readily make the assumption that Iran is aiming for nuclear weapons is because, considering the threats they face from Israel and the U.S., they'd have to be crazy not to.
But, as I say, our justice system works on evidence, not conjecture. And in any event, as I point out in this diary, even if it could be proven that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it would still be illegal to launch preventative military action.
The link you gave led to a page with lots of different links about the Iranian nuclear situation. I don't have time to check each one - I looked at the page you linked to and I saw nothing about Ahmadinejad admitting to wanting nuclear weapons or stating that he would have no "hesitation" using one. So, unless I'm missing something, you have yet to cite those quotes.
Jay: I think you need to read slower, or perhaps take time to read things twice before working yourself up into hyperventilating keyboard-fury.
I never said Iran has not funded organisations like Hizbullah. But to extrapolate from this that Iran is some crazed suicidal state hell-bent on the destruction even at the cost of its existence is equivalent to me pointing to the Nakhba and describing Israel as a nation of ethnic cleansers. It's ludicrous. So calm down. Read. Think. Read again. Respond. At least, if you have anything of more substance to say.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Les,
Redtard writes,
"The sign of being right in a debate is whining and calling your opponent stupid. Your rabid anti-US and anti-capitalist rants are quaint and entertaining though.
Not thinking, that's how the US became and economic and military superpower. Teach me more you wise sage of socialism."
Les. I'm at least as much of a leftist as you are. You're familiar with the line - "from according to his ability, to each according to his need." But Redtard's comments are what you get for hanging your ideological hat on Lenin's corpse.
Jamie,
You wrote,
"But, as I say, our justice system works on evidence, not conjecture. And in any event, as I point out in this diary, even if it could be proven that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it would still be illegal to launch preventative military action."
Our justice system, kimosabe? Where's this "our" shit from? There you go, again, assuming that there is a system of enforcement of the joke that passes for "international law." International politics is a bully's playground, not a law court. We're not at your "new world order" yet. There is no bobby on the street corner within hail if some country breaks your version of "law," Jamie. Nobody is represented by a barrister in front of some bewigged putz of a judge who is called, "your worship," or "your lordship."
That is not how the world works.
When and if we do get to that point, your writings will no longer sound like pedantic lectures on the Geneva Convention and other useless legalisms.
19 - RedTard
If the underlying anti-Americanism prevalent in the modern left causes you to ignore the ranting of Ahmed and suppose Iran wants to be responsible and ignore US leaders and suppose they're secretly hellbent on the destruction of Iran as the article does then I suppose you could see the situation any way you want.
All the 'logic' in the world on either side means nothing when the underlying assumptions and values are different. Leftists generally despise the US and everything it stands for. If some person anywhere in the world rapes or kills or harasses or threatens or stockpiles nuclear weapons they'll find a way to trace it back to the source of all evil, the US.
In that worldview, Iran is acquiring nukes becaue of evil US imperialism. Sudanese genocide is the result of US oil executives. Starvation and poverty anywhere are the result of US economic exploitation and the reality is you can never 'prove' them wrong.
Civilization is a one way, one time experiment with no control group. You can't prove even the most basic concepts on a societal level because you can never tackle the exact same problem twice. You can never say let's try that again without US military action or with a different economic model, you just get one go at it and let the chips fall as they may.
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Redtard,
I'm not sure who your remarks are aimed at, though I suspect they are supposed to be aimed at me.
Leftists are not davka "anti-American." They are anti-rich-people-exploiting-poor-people. If American business leaders and bankers espouse such policies, and they often do, then the leftists will be agaist those policies.
I'm not talking about the juvenile "new left" that took over the colleges in the US a while ago. Those are just a bunch of stupid shits who think that because they teach in universities, they are smart. The average foodie at Burger King is generally smarter, even if he is half dead...
As for me being against American policies. let's just say that the American government is harmful to Jews and other living things. I always distinguish between the governing elites and Joe six-pack. Given the choice between the two, I'll take Joe six-pack any day of the week.
21 - Les Slater
Ruvy #18
My #7 was in response to your #6 which was in response to Jamie's #4.
Your response was "More gefilte fish, Jamie"
Another ignorant comment from you is "But Redtard's comments are what you get for hanging your ideological hat on Lenin's corpse."
And you claim you have some clue as to what communism is? Lenin was the primary leader in the first revolution that overturned capitalism. Before the Russian revolution Marxism had a simplistic model as how it would be done. Lenin did not know either, and many things happened that could be argued against by orthodox Marxists, and were, but the revolution did happen primarily by Lenin refusing to be limited by orthodoxy. Much has happened since Lenin's time and one would be stupid indeed if one were to insist that the Russian model be followed exactly. This is a problem with some Marxists, even some that call themselves Leninists.
The Russian revolution did not invalidate Marxism, it enriched it. Post Russian, revolutions have not invalidated Leninism but enriched it.
Why Leninism? The principle dividing line between communist revolutionaries and social chauvinists that call themselves socialists, like the ones Dave rants about in the Democratic party, is Lenin.
22 - RedTard
"I'm not sure who your remarks are aimed at"
Those who believe Iranians are poor victims of US exploitation and need nuclear weapons only for defensive purposes because of supposed Israeli or US aggression.
I don't see the world as only a reflection of US policy, other countries have their own interests and self determination. When Ahmed vows death to Israel to cheers in the public square I believe him. When polls show that the majority of Iranians do not think war with the US is imminent but that the destruction of Israel is I believe them also.
Being alot closer to the situation than I am, I'd be interest to know your thoughts on the situation?
23 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Les. let's get it all straight. My short comment about Jamie's article being more gefilte fish was because I had to get up at 05:00 Sunday morning. I completed my comment in comment #18.
You write to me, and you're writing to a syndicalist socialist, not some state socialist, or dumb social democrat. The basic point about syndicalist socialism is that it combines the normal human drive to compete with the social justice aims of socialism. And because it was a voluntary system in pre-state and post-independence Israel, it was a success - UNLIKE LENINISM - until the kibbutzniks and moshavniks allowed themselves to get hooked on money from bank loans.
24 - RedTard
"The Russian revolution did not invalidate Marxism, it enriched it."
Tens of millions dead in political genocides, starvation, poverty, and finally collapse of political structures under the weight of their own failures is now known simply as enrichment. Now that's what I call optimism, I'm always learning from you Les.
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Redtard,
Being close to the siuation teaches me to say the names right. It's Ahmadinejad, not Ahmed.
First off, the Iranians would want nukes even if they had a democracy. It would be a matter of pride. "If the Jews in Tel Aviv can have a bomb, we, the mighty Persians, deserve one, too." The difference is that a democratic Iran would not be feared like the Shiite Mahdi-ocracy is, and would have friendly relations with this country. Unless you have some putz f a mullah poking his pitchfork in your butt, if you're a Persian, you're likely to have good relationships with Jews.
While the world is not solely a reflection of American policy, American culture so dominates the world that it is hard to get away from. And it is Amedrican culture as well as American "foreign policy" tht makes America's real standing in the world.
And I gotta leave it there for now. I'm exhausted...