Actually, Iran isn't even close to the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the ME, that distinction goes to the good friend of the US saudi Arabia, which provides more money to terrorist organisations, both above and below board, than every other state in the middle East COMBINED.

Oh, and what do you know, THEY have an active uclear program as well, though nowhere near as advanced as Iran.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/20...afx2629000.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GG07Df05.html

Yes, Iran did use WMD against Iraq... after it had WMD used against it. Can you say they acted wrongly? Would the US hesitate to use nuclear weapons if nuclear weapons were targeted against by a hostile state? Would any nation?


Your rhetoric aside, I still am uneasy with Iran developing the bomb as I said earlier, largely due to the religious nature of the government and the apocalyptic pronouncements of some of its leaders. I also happily accept, and have stated myself, that Israel is no angel in the ME and has a lot to answer for. I for one am certainly not trying to paint Israel as saint and Iran as demon, that is absurd.


HOWEVER, to pretend there is moral equivalency between the military and foreign policies of Israel and Iran is equally absurd. One a democratic secular state, the other a repressive theocracy led by men who openly speak of annihilation of their neighbour, and who refuse to officially even recognise its existence.

BD,

I'm not surprised you didn't respond to the first part of my post, or mention the U.S. asking Iraq to invade Iran for a little payback, or Iraq using WMD, or how they got it, etc., and apparently you don't know that a majority of the foreign insurgency comes from Saudi Arabia and we reward them with a $20 billion dollar arms sale. But fingering the IRI as the biggest terrorist threat "makes sense" because our government doesn't place blame where blame is due. I wonder if that's because unlike Egypt and other ME states, S.A. wasn't so bad when it came to nationalizing the West's foreign direct investments.

You care about assassinations if they're directed by IRI. You care about what an oppressive state Iran is, but the U.S. dealing with oppressive regimes like Equatorial Guinea is beside the point. I care about the U.S. treating all bad actors as bad actors, instead of making exceptions for despots represented by D.C. lobbying firms. Hamas supports S.A. too, the state through which they get most of their funding. Hezbollah isn't going to poof if Syria withdraws support (to the Arab mindset, negotiating is a sucker's game), but they'll be more isolated.

Yeah, this thread is about Iran. I'll care more about the threat Iran poses to the U.S. once we get our priorities straight, starting with S.A. Until then as long as we're willing to accommodate oppressive regimes we can negotiate with Iran. You? Well, you're welcome to take exception to Iran because our government tells you to.


We suspended whatever issues the ME hadn't finished resolving since the Ottoman Empire fell by carving up the region for imperialistic ends. We're certainly not responsible for all of it, but our intervention frustrates whatever natural course the region would have without us. This could be somewhat excused during the Cold War. Right now, we're the sole superpower. The invasion of Iraq will be another feather in our cap with repercussions that will outlast our presence there.

Strictly defensive purposes, hmmmm. Well defensive is one of those silly putty terms that you can shape lots of ways to your particular liking. I am not blaming them but the record of Israel appears to be that they will use the nuclear option in whatever manner that they feel will advance their interests including lying and going to extreme lengths to keep their operations secret, employ the threat of nuclear use to blackmail America, sell it to others, employ it to secure illegal territorial gains. And as I have shown before they have operational plans in place to preemptively use tactical nuclear bombs against Iran.

Yes this is a highly partisan piece but by a highly respected journalist - John Pilger.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200105140019

We're not responsible for starting the problem, we are responsible for continuing the same behavior that created the problem. The problems of the past have three similar characteristics as the problems of today, Christian, Western, and Foreign. The solution during the Ottoman Empire was Tolerance and Compromise. You must admit that the US is part of the problem and not the solution. We must be removed from the region in order for there to be any hope of peace.

No, I don't have to admit that at all. Again, these problems have gone on for millenia. So, what reason is there to think that if we left things would suddenly be resolved? None whatsoever. Also, how exactly are we responsible for continuing the same behaviour? What do we do, for instance, to held responsible for the Sunni's and Shiite's hatred of each other? Or, for that matter, for the Arabs and the Jews? The hate was there long before we arrived, and it would continue long afterwards if we were to leave. There are no facts at all to support any other conclusion. None of which has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Not entirely true. The solution under the Ottoman Empire was the millet system, which was fairly "free" but was under constant pressure starting in the 19th century as Jews began drifting towards Palestine. The turkish response (and others) demonstrate that the Millet system was based entirely on the mutual benefit of the minority group and the Sultan, and the stability of a large and pluralistic empire. It was pragmatism first and tolerance second.

The real simple answer to the question is Israel is our ally and Iran is not. An Israeli nuke is quite unlikely to ever explode in New York City.

I underestimate nothing in that regard - I believe the US government underestimates that cost, but I don't.

Vladimir, this is someone underestimating the cost to this country of a nuclear exchange anywhere on this planet:





I accept Israel's current restraint... I make no guarantees for Israel's future restraint or Pakistan's or India's. I simply stated that I am less worried about Israel posessing nukes than the possibility of Iran posessing the technology.

Fair enough.

In general I think there is here, not necessarily in you, a great deal of more or less blind acceptance of the official choice of U.S. "friends" and "enemies," and of U.S. Middle Eastern policy in general. I think the topic of debate really calls upon one to defend, or to criticise, these choices and the assuptions that underly them. For example, no one has seen fit to respond to my assertion that it is this policy and no natural U.S. interest, that we are defending in our so-called war with radical Islam. After all, it was Ron Paul, hardly a ravening leftist, who observed recently that 9/11 was a consequence of our policy in the Middle East, especially that toward Israel and Palestine.

It is hardly useful to come here and say as some have, "Well, Israel is our friend, Iran is not." A critical question is, should Israel be our friend, or at least, should it enjoy the entire degree of support that we currently bestow upon it? Also, surely it is in terms of their likely Middle Eastern application, not their possible use against Manhattan, that Israeli (or even Iranian) nuclear weapons are to be weighed against.

Good questions – if a bit off topic. The fact that a non signatory of the NPT has nukes (Israel) has little to do with Iran moving to violate their agreement.

That said I agree that a large part of the hatred felt toward the US by the ME revolves around our unqualified support for Israel. But this is so much of a political reality here is is not worth talking about changing it. It will not change and this is nothing to do with the current administration.

But let’s remember that the main “war cry” event for Bin Laden was our troops in Saudi Arabia precipitated by and perpetuated by Iraq.

We have vital interests in the area (protecting the oil supply) and this will not change soon either. So we cannot just pick up and leave, abandon Israel, solve the Palestinian problem, or do all the things many would like us to do. Thus the conflict (war if you will) is bound to continue.

Because we are “there” and support Israel many feel it is ok to commit acts like 9/11 – obviously most of us disagree and will do whatever it takes to frustrate their plans.

This entire debate is a straw man. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and has stated repeatedly that it has no intention of developing a nuclear weapons program. Iran does not now have, nor has it ever had, the capacity to develop a nuclear weapons program and there is not one shred of evidence to indicate that they are pursuing or will ever pursue a nuclear weapons program. One might as well ask Why Can Israel Have Nukes But Not the Vatican City? This is not just a wild hypothetical, it is based on a LIE perpetrated by the Bush administration solely as a pretext for their next "preemptive war". It's no wonder so many people here fell for the Iraqi WMD fiction. Will we never learn?


And which quest would that be? Sources, please.


And your evidence of "Iran's trying to acquire nuclear weapons"? Sources, please.


And which attempts would those be? Sources, please.


And what ability would that be? Sources, please.


Who said they did need nuclear weapons? Sources, please.


And where do you see this movement? In Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 's toilet bowl? You needn't bother providing a source for that one. :ermm:


Ah - at last! An admitted opinion - a bit of idle speculation. I have no idea what this fantasy is based on, but at least you seem to be acknowledging that there is no empirical evidence to support it. If there is, I'd really appreciate - you guessed it - a source.

So far as I have been able to determine, there is but one factoid in the known universe that would support the fanciful notion that Iran is even contemplating one day thinking about starting to speculate about how they could theoretically harbor the delusion of considering talking about the possibility of preparing to think about a nuclear weapons program at some point in the distant future - despite their conviction that nuclear weapons are strictly forbidden by Islam. And that "evidence" is a diagram of how to make uranium into a sphere (which could be used in weapons production) which was possibly sold to someone in Iran by A.Q. Khan. This document, however, did not include the technical details to actually manufacture a bomb and, in fact, as much information is available online. Google "uranium" and "sphere" and you'll know as much as the Iranians know. As the NPT forbids member states from receiving weapons "technology", this has been construed by some as a technical violation of the treaty - though no one, not even the US, has taken this scrap of paper seriously enough to suggest vacating Iran's participation in the treaty.

Oh yeah - there was also the anonymous report that traces of enriched uranium were found on equipment imported from Pakistan - equipment imported to enrich uranium for civilian energy production. Mind you, the IAEA has stated that these traces were not of weapons-grade quality and admitted that it was most likely from enrichment done in Pakistan, but that hasn't stopped the Bush administration from claiming that this is evidence of an Iranian weapons program. There are traces of cocaine found on up to 50% of $100 bills in the US. By the Bush administration's logic, this means that half of all people who have ever handled a $100 bill are cocaine dealers.

And that's it. That is the sum total of the evidence that "Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program". Everything else - everything else - is nothing more than lying propaganda published by the Bush administration and its hapless allies. There was more "evidence" of Saddam Hussein's "WMD programs" than there has ever been of Iran's "nuclear weapons program". How naive, how gullible, how stupid are we, as a people, going to be this time around? Threads like this demonstrate that we are, indeed, a nation of dupes - and that we have learned nothing from our misguided faith in the lies of the lying liars that make up our "leadership".



And how does the relative stability of the Middle East threaten you? Don't bother: as a matter of unfortunate fact, the only real threat to the stability of the Middle East is the existence of the state of Israel - especially since the United States destroyed the only secular government in the entire area: Saddam Hussein's Iraq - and you don't care if the only serious threat to regional stability has nukes. :blink:



No. First, Ahmadinejad is not the "leader" of Iran. He is a virtually meaningless figurehead, not unlike the Queen of England - except he's even more useless. The Chief of State - the real "leader" of Iran - is actually Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamenei (yep, "leader" is right there in his title - and his leadership "supreme"). And it would behoove you to listen to him - he's the guy that issued a fatwa stating that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are all forbidden under Islam and that Iran will never - ever - acquire such weapons. If you're going to point out the religious influences of the country - and their "dangers" - you're going to have to accept the fact that that the religion of the supreme authority of the state has absolutely forbidden nuclear weapons. George W Bush's religion has not. Now there's a clash of civilizations for you.

I wasn't aware that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam. Saddam did have an advanced nuclear weapons' program (pre-Gulf war), which had been built right under the nose of the IAEA, while under NPT and subject to inspections. They discovered it after the war, when they went in to remove weapons per the ceasefire agreement. We have Pakistan, also an Islamic and nuclear packing country. I find it hard to believe that nuclear weapons violate Islam. Even if so, there is plenty of precedent for concern. AIEA inspection access to nuclear sites, has been denied on certain occasions, a violation of the NPT. Begs the question, why?

If you are refering to the issued fatwa as a "violation of Islam to develop nuclear weapons", those can be overturned any time...and there is no (religious) need to notify the west in such a case. It could have been overturned the minute the head mullah returned home as the sudden ostensible "will of Allah". He has certainly overturned them before. Iran holds short-term religious marriages (one-hour long) that are subsequently "dissolved". Simultaneously adhers to the Islamic principles against fornication and allows people to fornicate. It's incredibly easy. Take the Mormon community. For years caffeine was forbidden because it violated their religious principles. Caffeine was not even served in many restaurants around Utah. One of their leaders became a board member of Pepsi and now every waitress in Salt Lake city asks you if you wish to have a pepsi product with your meal. Pepsi is ubiquitous and consummed enmasse. No problem, no longer a sin. I have more confidence in a pinky-promise made between two five year olds than the "Supreme Leader's" issued fatwa.

What is your source for this opinion? You disagree with most of the world by making this statement.

Why, pray tell, if Iran has no nuclear weapons program did they bar nuclear inspectors?

TEHRAN, Feb. 5 -- Iran ended voluntary cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Sunday, saying it would start uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities after being reported to the U.N. Security Council over fears it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6020500877.html


They now are saying they may let the UN inspectors back in but – we will see if they actually do this. My bet is they do it temporarily to avoid further sanctions and then boot them as they move the enrichment process passed making nuclear fuel for the plant they don’t have yet (and don't need) to making bomb grade U235 – witch they could not hide from inspectors.

Not being an Ulama��, I can't tell you what the Qu'ran might have to say about weapons of mass destruction, I can only go by what religious leaders have said. And it is the position of the political and religious leader of Iran that nukes are forbidden by Islam. I should also point out that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a secular nation, not a theocracy (this is one of the reasons that al-Qaeda hated Hussein, remember?). The position of Islam would not figure in the least. The same goes for Pakistan, a federal republic headed by a military leader. Regardless, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei may not speak for the whole of the Islamic world, but he certainly speaks for Iran - and its government. Why is everyone - even the most informed and intelligent among us - so desperate to manufacture arguments that support the Bush administrations lies? I am confounded.


That's "plenty", is it? In fact, the denial which you cite was not a violation of the NPT - except to the US, which sees the sun rising over Iran as a violation of natural law. It showed a lack of cooperation, sure, but frankly who can blame the Iranians? They have received nothing but political persecution ever since the neocons seized power in the US over six years ago. The sanctions imposed on Iran - for no good reason apart from the fact that the Bush administration wanted to be as antagonistic as humanly possible - were groundless. Iran responded by deciding to do the least possible in order to comply with their agreements. Anyway, I'm using the past tense here because your article is out of date. While Iran had originally stated that they would allow inspections of Arak and other sites six months before nuclear material was introduced to such sites (scheduled for 2009) in compliance with the NPT, they have since agreed to allow IAEA agents to investigate the site - as well as allowing them to monitor the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and to clear up all its questions about the country's alleged plutonium experiments. You will no doubt see this as further evidence of just how terribly wicked those Iranians really are. I know the Bush administration will - somehow.


The question has been answered. Sanctions were imposed on Iran simply for not bowing to the will of the Bush administration, not for any violation of the NPT. They responded - politically - by adhering to the strict letter of the agreement rather than being as openly cooperative as they had been before the White House started making unreasonable demands. Were I in their position, I would do exactly the same thing - as would any sovereign nation with any dignity whatsoever. In fact, I doubt I would have caved to economic pressure and would still not be allowing inspections until nuclear facilities were actually nuclear. I guess Iran doesn't have quite as much dignity as I might have hoped.


Thanks, Mrs. P, for demonstrating that Iran is even less of a threat than the United States. You are quite right that fatwas can be lifted or overruled - just as laws in the US can be amended, repealed, or even - by more criminal administrations - ignored and broken with impunity. Supreme Leader Khameini's lifting of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie is evidence of Iran moderating or even liberalizing its positions. The fatwa against nuclear weapons is further evidence of this shift in their policy. If anything, we should be rewarding Iran for becoming a less confrontational nation and a less fundamentalist theocracy. Instead, we - or rather, you and the Bush administraion - are seeking to punish Iran for moving closer to Western ideals. Again, I am confounded. I guess you guys really, really want a war with Iran and will do anything to get one. I would expect this from Richard Perle or Bill Kristol or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney, but I am frankly shocked at this coming from you, Mrs. P.

In any event, Iran under Khamenei seems to be liberalizing its policies, having more regard for human rights, and being more cooperative than they've been since America's puppet was ousted by the Iranians and their last democratic leader was ousted by the US. On the other hand, the US under Bush has been violating the Constitutionally secured rights of its citizens and has been practicing international war crimes without cease. As you're using kindergarten metaphors, here's another one for you: every time the Bush administration points a finger at Iran, three of their fingers are pointing back at them. We are the bad guys here, Mrs. P, not Iran.


Then it's probably a good thing you're not a world leader. It's fine to mistrust people for no good reason, I suppose, but a government simply cannot function - at least not effectively - if its entire foreign policy is based on groundless paranoia. Of course, the Bush administration is not basing its policy on paranoia, but on aggression - and they will do anything to achieve their ends, including lying - yet again - to the American people and our allies. I was hoping that, this time around, fewer people would be taken in. I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time - and that, apparently, is enough to get away with murder. Literally.



Well, no, I'm disagreeing with the Bush administration's propaganda - which, I guess, to some, is the entire world. Despite the fact that you are asking me to prove a negative ("Where's your evidence that George W Bush is not a Satanist?"), the rest of the real world agrees that there is NO PROOF that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Who do you trust? The IAEA, maybe? After all, you are quick to cite them when Iran is being less than fully and voluntarily cooperative. Okay... how's this: No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program. Or this: IAEA Finds No Proof of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program. Or this: No Concrete Proof Iran Nuclear Program Is Military. Of course, I expect you only trust the IAEA when their reports can be construed to agree with the Bush administration's propaganda. How about the UN? They've not only found no proof of Iran having or planning a nuclear weapons program, they've ridiculed our attempts to manufacture such a program: U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran's nuclear aims unreliable. Further, all 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran's nuclear program for civilian purposes. This represents a majority of the member nations of the UN - comprising 55% of the world's population. My statement, it would appear, accurately reflects the opinion of "most of the world".

If that's still not enough for you, the International Institute for Strategic Studies - the world's leading authority on political-military conflict - also casts considerable doubt on the existence Iran's alleged weapons program and suggests that, even if Tehran were aggressively pursuing such a program (while admitting that there's no evidence to suggest that they are), it would still be many years in the future. Still not good enough? Maybe you'll take the word of our own intelligence agencies: CIA Analysis Finds Iran Not Developing Nuclear Weapons. Those are a couple of my sources, all of which demonstrate that the "Iranian nuclear weapons program" does not exist - and never has. Do you have any foundation for the opposite claim, which we are seeing asserted here by several participants? Does anyone??

If you are questioning the fact that Iran has repeatedly stated that they are solely interested in nuclear power for domestic, civilian purposes, might I recommend that you actually look into this issue? You might start with the Wikipedia entry, Iran and weapons of mass destruction. The section entitled The Iranian stance includes over thirty footnotes citing statements made by many prominent Iranian leaders. Former president and Islamic scholar Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, for example:There are numerous statements in a similar vein by Khamenei and the dreaded Ahmadinejad.


See my response to Mrs. P above. But if you were really interested in an answer, you could have read the article you cited. Your question is also answered there.


Your propensity toward gambling on international affairs aside, do you have any foundation for such a wager? You are welcome to bet on anything you desire, but the odds - based on all available evidence - are not in your favor. But what do you mean by the plant that they "don't need"? Who the hell are you to assess Iran's economic future and civilian energy needs? I won't even bother asking for foundation for that assertion. Such a question could only possibly produce more spurious talking points - and we've seen more than enough of those in this debate already.



If this is going to be a pile-on, I'm afraid I won't have the time (or the internet speed) to address all responses. If anyone has a source that demonstrates that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program (and I'm talking about evidence here, not government propaganda or wingnut speculation), by all means share it with us. But I'm afraid I won't be able to address everyone's paranoid fantasies or gambling habits.

In any event, the question for debate has been pretty soundly answered. It's "okay" for Israel to have nuclear weapons because they have refused to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (for which they should be ostracized by the rest of the civilized world). It's not okay for Iran because they have not only agreed to the treaty, but have also voluntarily agreed to additional protocols that no other signatory has been obliged to even consider. In other words, Iran has gone above and beyond what has been required of any other state on the planet. And for that, we - some of us - attack them. Madness, hysterical madness.

Wertz,

While I am broadly sympathetic to your point of view, and while I agree that it is worth doubting whether Iran indeed is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, I don't need to supply sources on these points because I am assuming them for the sake of argument. I don't agree that the entire debate is about a straw man, since the administration and very influential people outside it have rattled swords over Iran's hypothetical nuclear intentions while saying precisely nothing about Israel's large nuclear arsenal. This notable disparity is worth discussing.




I don't think it's possible to say that the one is more important than the other. in his rhetoric, he constantly emphasizes the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. In any case, irrespective of Bin Laden's personal ranking of U.S. evils, it is widely understood that U.S. support for Israel is the principal cause -- or was before the invasion of Iraq -- of Arab and wider Islamic detestation of our country.



I am not a large shareholder in Chevron, Shell or BP, are you? There is no "we" that has interests in the Middle East, there are only major elements among the very wealthy owners of our country -- "ruling class" in my parlance, that have have an interest in dominating the Middle East and controlling its oil supply. Granted that some level of Middle Eastern stability is necessary for a well-functioning world oil market, the notion that U.S. forces in the Middle East contribute anything to that stability is quite droll. The have, indeed, precisely the opposite effect.

If the world oil market is simply permitted to function, as it did for decades before the U.S. ever had a ship based in the Persian Gulf or a battalion in Kuwait, Qatar or Saudi Arabia, these U.S. interests will not have to give up dreams of profits, but only dreams of super-profits arising from outright domination of major Middle Eastern oil fields. You are quite mistaken if you think the triumph of these forces will do anything to reduce oil prices in the U.S., relative to the other outcome. The more control they have of the world oil market, the more their decisions will determine the price paid, not only here, for oil. Those decisions won't be made in your interest or mine, but in theirs.

Your assertion that our support of Israel and our military presence in the Middle East are policies set in stone effectively attempts to silence debate on precisely the most important questions facing the United States. Given the complicity of the U.S. press in all of this, it is hardly surprising that these concerns occur to very few ordinary citizens, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real or indeed, critically important.

There has been nothing offtopic in any of my posts to this thread, by the way. This topic clearly invites consideration of what could explain the disparity in U.S. policy between Israel and Iran. I think indeed that my explanation makes a great deal more sense that that Iran somehow represents the forces of Hell, which is the line promoted by the administration.

This statement is incorrect, factually, but I also feel it tries to portray conditions of instability that are also incorrect. A nation does not have to be non-secular in order to be instable. As we saw with Iraq and as we see with Syria, the other secular nation of the region you neglected to consider, secularism in the Middle East is not only a bit of a misnomer, Saddam certainly did appeal, befriend and exploit the religious divides and religious politics when it best suited him, as does Assad, but secularism is hardly a condition of stability. Syria is often cited as Iran's greatest ally in the region, regardless of their incompatibility when it comes to religion and the state, in fact each have very distinct and opposite domestic policies on religion and government. What of Lebanon and her long lasting state of instability? Does not a secular state play a major role in it ? And this is hardly the only grievance our current govt and other's has with this same secular state's pension for destabilization.


Where the religious becomes the political the political can too become religious and the idea that we can then define each as being distinct and secular seems a bit simplistic because all in the end becomes ideology. In this regard I think your statement is in fact a third time faulty. I think the definition of secular when applied to this region is also flawed. Is a Baathist state really a secular state? Certainly no government of the Middle East truly deserves this classification as "secular" in any sense of how we as Westerners not only apply but practice this concept.

You may have your view, but their is wide agreement that the Ba'athist movement is a secularist, if not entirely secular, one. It obfuscates to say that "religious becomes the political the political can too become religious and the idea that we can then define each as being distinct and secular seems a bit simplistic." This statement could be made of political conditions at any time or any place. Naturally religion will mix with politics; the question is, will religious authorities per se be governing authorities?

Wertz's point, an entirely valid one, is that the former Iraq was both secularist and stable -- however "evil" it may have been. Personally I think its principal "evil" was that it dared to attack Kuwait, and that it would have continue to have been regarded as a close U.S. friend and an ally versus Iran, had it not done that (thus scaring the bejeesus out of the Saudis). Also Syria, another Ba'athis t regime, is clearly both secularist and stable -- though George Bush has declared that it also is evil.

Fair enough, but such assumptions, even for the sake of argument, feed into - and tacitly support - the propaganda. I broadly agree with your arguments, as well, but feel your point would be even stronger (and more accurate) by substituting "hypothetical" for "mere".


Sorry, I was probably not clear. I didn't mean this debate - this thread at this site - was a straw man, I meant the national debate, the whole chimera of Iran's nuclear weapons program, was a straw man. Or, perhaps more to the point, a red herring. The Bush administration's ambitions regarding Iran have nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear weapons - that's just how they're trying to sell their next war of aggression to their constituents and allies. And we should not be buying it. The disparity between our leadership's attitude toward Israel's nuclear arsenal and their attitude toward the specter of Iran's nonexistent nuclear ambitions may be worth discussing, but it must be noted that the premise is wholly hypothetical. And that is the point I was trying to make - and the criticism I was leveling at those who seemed to be accepting the premise without question, as though it had anything to do with reality. I should probably have said "This entire debate is based on a straw man".

As it is, I'm not quite sure which question TruthMarch was really asking: "Why aren't we more critical of Israel's non-participation in the NPT?" (in which case, I'd have to ask why Israel was singled rather than, say, India and Pakistan) or "Why shouldn't more nations be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" (in which case, I'd have to ask why Iran was singled out rather than, say, any other country that is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program).



I stand corrected - technically - on Syria. I would be open to similar correction - technically - on Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian territories, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the current Iraqi state - as well as Turkey, Sudan, and Somalia, depending on what you consider the "the region" to include. And, of course, Israel. Similarly, I was only technically correct to describe Pakistan as a secular state in another response. This misses the point, though. Syria, nominally another Ba'athist state, is probably the most secular of the Middle Eastern states (it's a bit too soon to tell how things might eventually turn out in the former winner of the "Miss Secularity" award, the new Iraqi state), but, unlike Iraq under Ba'athist rule, Syria still aligns itaself with fundamentalist Islamic factions. Saddam Hussein's foreign policy in the region was always motivated by political concerns, rather than religious ones - and I mentioned his Iraq as a state that would also have been a threat to the stability of the region.

In any event, this has nothing to do with what I saw as a contradiction in moif's notion that Israel's nuclear capability didn't affect him, but another nuclear state in the same region would (presumably because of their concern about a nuclear Israel). Perhaps it would have been more to the point to suggest that, if Israel didn't have nukes, no one else "in the region" would need them.


Until that sentence, no one had been talking about unstable nations, but about an unstable region. The rest of your response, while interesting, is an exegesis on an issue no one raised. But to answer one of your questions:
It can be - and, in the case of Iraq under Hussein, it was. Syria is a slightly different matter. Like the Iraqi Ba'athist party, the Syrian Ba'athist party was originally socialist, secular, and pan-Arabic. Following Salah Jadid's seizure of power in 1966, there was a bit of a spilt between the more Marxist faction led by Atassi and the faction led by Asad, which sought to ally itself with some of the more conservative regimes in the area, notably Saudi Arabia. Until Asad ousted Atassi in 1970, Syria was also "really a secular state".

You do seem to have a penchant (or maybe even a "pension") for leaping on side issues when I post on any topic even vaguely related to the Middle East. As my original post was more a comment on the question for debate than a direct answer to it, perhaps we should return to the topic.


EDITED TO ADD:
Sorry, Vladimir, I had this response open for quite a while and missed your follow-up. You are quite right that Iraq was both secular and stable. I was arguing, though, that aside from Israel, Iraq had been one of the only other threats to regional stability.

Well my main view or argument was with the fact that Iraq was not the only "secular" nation in the Middle East, so obviously I concede, for the sake of argument, with the premise that the Ba`athist ideology is secular.

Personally I don't believe it is, and I felt I should say so up front. It was not a main concern of my argument tho, just an admission of my preheld beliefs. I felt instead the fact that Syria, the other ba`athist regime in the region and the place of origin of this radical Arab nationalistic ideology was a more important exclusion as it seems to show to me a world view that is more interested in the generation of fear, whether it be of Zionists or Muslims, than it is of the actual political and historical realities.

To claim the only stable secular nation of the region was destroyed at our hands is to try and play into the fears and the anti-Muslim attitudes of the West. As I stated earlier I don't feel secularism as defined in this debate is a prerequisite for stability. I feel that to argue this is to present this region of the world (or any other) absent of it's long standing and brutal history of occult like leaders and radical ideologues who led massacres all in the name of secularism. Saddam was nothing more than a secular, progressive poseur who also played on the fear of the Islamists and whose rule apologists distort in order to portray some kind of fallen age of progression at the hands of the great oppressors. When in reality it is Saddam's rule in and of itself that showed our failure and misplaced comfort in attaching words like secular to the lost lives of millions.




On Lebanon? You feel I need to also add them into my correction, a state that mandates a both Christian and Islamic rule? I don't think I will, Lebanon is decidedly non-secular. I just think that when I highlight the less you are aware or are willing to recognize of the basics of the region the less your argument can be taken as knowledgeable. Syria matters when discussing the ME and what does or does not fuel the very real arms race of the region.

Syria has a long history of not aligning itself with Islamic factions. Look up Hama Rules. This makes my point for me, Syria is more than willing to placate and exploit and encourage Islamic fundamentalists, even when it goes against their internal policies, as long as they are in another country, aka meaning the ME region, which lends to the argument of it being one of the most destabilizing forces in the region. Again supporting my theory that domestic secularism means nothing when it comes to regional stability. It is hardly the guarantee so many of you like to pretend it is and we should be more than aware of this based on even our own history.



I have not posted here in months, so it seems a bit unfair to claim you have knowledge of my usual behavior. Regardless, Syria is an important consideration to make when discussing the ME and it's stability and you were the one to introduce the idea that Syria was irrelevant and that secularism, or more likely more accurately non-Islamic-ism was less fearful.
You like to offer Israel as the True enemy and well.... I have an alternate view of who the enemy is, not off topic just not your topic.

I have never in my life considered Israel to be an enemy of the United States and there is nothing in the post to which you are "responding" to remotely indicate that that is the case. I simply stated what I perceive to be a matter of pure fact: that the existence of the state of Israel in the Middle East is the primary source of the region's instability. I have never stated, implied, or believed that the state of Israel should not exist or is an enemy of anyone that they don't consider enemies themselves. I will thank you, yet again, to stop mischaracterizing my positions. Further, I've done my homework on Middle Eastern politics, thanks, and my opinion, while it may differ from yours, is informed.

The rest of your response isn't exactly what I'd call "on topic" and, in any event, mostly addresses points never raised. I have admitted to and clarified my irrelevant error regarding the relative secularism of Syria. My only point was that Iraq, like Israel, was a threat to the stability of the region. If you disagree with that assessment, fine. The question for debate here used to be "Why is it okay for Israel to have and threaten to use nuclear weapons but Iran and other nations can't develop their own?" Let's move on - or, at least, allow others to do so.

Wertz , would you care to supply us with a plausible motive for Iran to enrich uranium and develop nuclear power? Given that they produce 5% of the oil in the world, and have the second-largest natural gas reserves in the world - literally, a 300-year supply of natural gas. Thanks!

carlitoswhey,

I am one who believes that Iran's secretive and unsupervised nuclear program is not intended for peaceful purposes. But I don't feel that their large oil supply is really a very good indication of this. They could desire nuclear power domestically, what other industry do they have for export? So in that sense economically nuclear power could be to their advantage. Yet facing UN sanctions is obviously NOT to their advantage and the international community has made it more than clear that they too support a nation's right to nuclear power, they just wish to be assured of a nation's word. North Korea is a perfect example. Why would Iran risk achieving nuclear power at the cost of losing their nation's authority and reputation internationally? Something must be gained from going against the conditions of the NPT. If nuclear power was all they desired then they would do so within the conditions of the NPT and continue to receive international praise and support (both politically and financially). So I think that yes their nuclear program expands to conditions outside or more accurately said, against the NPT but...I also think another condition is sought by the IRI, and that is one of confrontation. When you have an entire nation whose government is based on the idea of revolution and political struggle you must always find something to focus the revolt and struggle on.


Also we have discussed this topic many times, and I am always curious why India, which could be considered to be in an even less stable relationship with it's neighbors, is never given as an example of America's not only acceptance but support of nuclear armament and proliferation.

All fair enough; there is not much point in you and me debating. But I think that the point in question is really rather different when it's framed with regard to Israel than Pakistan or India. Israel is really the nexus of Middle Eastern turmoil and of U.S. difficulties in the region. One could argue that realpolitik dictates, or at least supports, U.S. policy toward the two subcontinental powers, but nothing of the kind is true with regard to U.S. Israel policy. It flies in the face of reason, justice, and common sense, and it is costly beyond belief. And all for votes and political contributions from sources transparently racist (though it's tabu to say so).



I'll supply one which, for the sake of argument, concedes that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons:

To defend themselves from U.S. aggression, which is manifest within 10 miles of their border.

No problem. Wikipedia's Nuclear program of Iran article provides numerous footnotes (as, again, does the Iranian stance section of their Iran and weapons of mass destruction item), but the main points:

• they wish to diversify their sources of energy, especially as their oil fields are finite and will eventually be depleted
• their population has more than doubled in twenty years and they regularly import gasoline and electricity
• nuclear power is necessary for their rapidly industrializing economy
• their oil resources are their major source of revenue and should be used for high value products and export rather than[ domestic electricity generation (the argument bucket put forward)
• burning fossil fuel in large amounts damages their environment
• nuclear power makes good economic sense as operating costs are low and stable
• nuclear power is becoming increasingly competitive for domestic energy needs as fossil-fuel prices rise
• developing nuclear power costs a fraction of the cost of developing the excess capacity in their oil industry
• they have abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore

Plus, of course, Iran has the legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the terms of the NPT and it's really no one's business if they do. Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the US all have enrichment facilities, why the hell shouldn't Iran?

Oddly, we once thought that Iran had ample motive for wanting nuclear energy. In 1957, a civil nuclear co-operation program with Iran was established under the US Atoms for Peace program. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center was established in 1959 and was equipped with a US-supplied nuclear research reactor, fueled by highly enriched uranium. It became operational in 1967 and, within three years, the Shah approved plans to construct up to twenty-three nuclear power stations by the year 2000, eight of them, with technical support, from the US.

In 1976, Gerald Ford signed a directive offering Iran a US-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. Ford's strategy paper stated that "the introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Gee - that kinda sounds like what the Iranians are still saying. Makes sense to me. It apparently also made sense to the guy in charge of Ford's nonproliferation issues at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at the time, Paul Wolfowitz - and his Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney. :-

Good scam: create that which you wish to destroy - and make money at both ends. Genius. :mellow:

Wikipedia doesn't really have a convincing answer on Carlito's point about natural gas, though, does it? They cite a British Parliament committee that "harnessing other sources such as natural gas which is usually flared from oil fields cannot be economically used." But they also cite the Iranian government saying "burning fossil fuel in large amounts severely harms Iran's environment." Well, if they're flaring off gas at the oil fields, they're burning it. As long as they're burning it, they could hook it up to a turbine and produce some electricity, couldn't they?

Maybe I'm just another BushCo dupe, but Iran's behavior looks to me like a guy who does a huge business selling manure, and starts using the profits to stock up on ammonium nitrate fertilizer. I'm suspicious...

I don't believe an Iranian desire to have nuclear power plants for energy production and a desire to have nuclear weapons are mutually exclusive. Iran's desire to build nuclear power plants is reasonable and justified. The problem is that nuclear weapons production requires nuclear reactors commonly found in nuclear power plants. I agree with Wertz that Iran has been following the letter of the NPT. However, I also think it's in Iran's best strategic interest to pursue a nuclear weapons program. If Iran isn't pursuing such a program, it would be stupid.

They also have a large enough supply of Uranium to supply their nuclear ambitions. It isn't our job to tell other nations how to use their own resources. Maybe if we hadn't threatened them for decades they would not be inclined to pursue nuclear weapons nor hide it from us. If the responsibility of the United States government is to protect its citizens from attacks, doesn’t the Iranian government have the same responsibility? WE have threaten invasion, WE have done it in Iraq, and if you been watching Fox News lately WE are beating the drums again.

I doubt the IRI is worried at all about the environment. Their government certainly has no problem condemning historical sites. Why pull the stops for nature or—let's be honest—its own people?

Iran was stalling, IMO, with the environmental line to squeeze a better deal during talks. A natural gas deal with India and Pakistan has been in the works since 2005 (maybe earlier). They've been working out the kinks (exploitation rights and such) and the logistics of this tri-nation line. I think they're close to signing multinational agreements or the work has already started. Online info on this is sketchier than usual.

I find it telling that the administration has warned foreign companies not to assist Iran with harvesting this alternative energy source. Halliburton sure as hell isn't going to see a contract to the world's second largest natural gas reserves.


And of course, Congress is along for the ride, cutting off its nose to spite its face. Either that or just about any energy infrastructure can be used towards nuclear proliferation. In which case we're already doomed.

While nothing at Wikipedia specifically addresses natural gas, I imagine the Iranians would use several similar arguments in relation to any fossil fuel reserves they might have:

• they wish to diversify their sources of energy
• their population has more than doubled in twenty years and they regularly import gasoline and electricity
• nuclear power is necessary for their rapidly industrializing economy
• burning fossil fuel in large amounts damages their environment
• nuclear power makes good economic sense as operating costs are low and stable
• nuclear power is becoming increasingly competitive for domestic energy needs as fossil-fuel prices rise
• their natural gas resources could be another major source of revenue and should be used for high value products and export rather than domestic electricity generation (see Lesly's info quoted below)

She also raised a few political points in relation to why Iran could well want their own nuclear power industry. There's a fear among many developing nations that the US and other nuclear countries are trying to monopolize nuclear energy - a sort of atomic cartel - and they don't trust the United States and other possible sources to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants.

Plus - again - Iran has the right to do whatever they like with their resources within the bounds of their treaty agreements and international law. It is not up to the United States government - or you or Ted - to determine that for them.

Make no mistake: I do not favor any country building more nuclear power plants or enrichment facilities at this point in the technology's development, but it is not up to me to set policy for other nations. That's what "sovereignty" means.

Wertz, when a nation signs a treaty to abide by certain guidelines in return for some benefit they agree to the restrictions placed in those guidelines. By signing into the NPT, Iran is obligated to full disclosure and monitor of their nuclear facilities in exchange for IAEA technological benefits (which they have received). It's no longer an issue of "sovereignty" when a nation violates its explicit obligations.

I'll add that I don't personally begrudge Iran nuclear technology for energy purposes. They currently import 40 percent of their petrol because their refining capacity is fairly limited. Gas at Iranian pumps is high by comparison to most other places in the ME. My point of contention is with the denial of full inspection access to their facilities. Countries throughout the EU are also unnerved by Iran's behavior, not only "Bush shills".

As an economist familiar with energy issues, the argument that Iran couldn't benefit from nuclear power because it enjoys cheap other forms of energy does not cut much mustard. It is true that the nations most heavily into nuclear power, France and Finland, are there because of a lack of cheap alternatives. But nuclear power has many advantages that would argue for a certain degree of nuclear investment anywhere. That is particularly true in context of global warming, since nuclear power generation creates, directly at least, no greenhouse gasses.

If one thinks one has a good way of disposing of the waste, nuclear power is actually rather cheap. Much of the expense of nuclear power generation in the U.S. arises from its extremely, some would say excessively, strict regulation of it here. Another plausible reason for going into nuclear power is to be ready to expand it in case fossil fuel prices rise dramatically.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and enjoys a bountiful supply of natural gas. Yet we have nuclear power generation -- even in parts of the country where alternative forms of energy are plentiful. If I'm not mistaken, on the order of 5% of U.S. electricity is generated by nuclear means.



These are entirely valid points. But it's worth pointing out that the U.S. invasion of and, many would say, attempted subjugation of neighboring Iraq, including the construction of a huge embassy and seemingly permanent military bases there, presents Iran with a powerful incentive to try to develop nuclear weapons. Indeed it was very nearly explicit in much pre-invasion rhetoric that Iran and Syria "would be next." However we may insist that signatories to treaties live up to the terms of them, we should not be surprised if any nation pursues a course that it perceives to be necessary for its national defense. Particularly when these latest threats to Iranian national security arose well after it signed the treaty in question.

Iran's increased investment in nuclear weapons, and accelerated development of then -- assuming for the sake of argument, pace Wertz, that these things happened -- were an entirely predictable consequence of U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Gee you know you seem to imply this is all in the imagination of Bush or the US etc, Then please explain how Iran has garnered disfavor not just with IAEA but with the UN security council as well. And if you are implying we forced this I strongly disagree.

Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are