Turkey and its foreign policy are obviously at the top of the news agenda these days because of Turkey’s increasingly central role in international diplomacy surrounding the Iranian nuclear issue. We have written previously about the intellectual framework for Turkey’s foreign policy toward the Middle East and the Islamic Republic of Iran more specifically; see here, here, and here. But today, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu published an authoritative and exceptionally rich piece in ForeignPolicy.com, “Turkey’s Zero-Problems Foreign Policy”, which we want to highlight here.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Fiorangela,
I join with you in deploring the effort apparently deliberately made by the Israeli government to frighten the people. Netanyahu and his foreign minister both want to keep the Golan Heights even if it means a state of permanent hostility with Syria.
Fiorangela,
Thanks for info on Doug Feith and his plans for profit in Iraq post-invasion. Was Feith a name partner in the Jerusalem law firm? I understood another member was a newphew of Ahmad Chalabi, and that the three planned a boutique investment bank in Baghdad after Saddam was deposed. I’ll see if I have anything on this, one place or another.
Reading the various and ever changing arguments with regard to NPT right of the signatory nations, especially considering the case of Iran vs. self appointed US/Western “interputation” of who deserves to have her supposedly given rights and who doesn’t one could only come to one conclusion, that the NPT rights whatever they may be are not given and exercisable, but rather are yours to be taken, and only when you are willing to put up a fierce fight for it. This is just a great way to implement international treaties.
Eric — under a widely-stated formulation, the NPT allows a country to go “a screw-turn” away from making a bomb. That means basically that as long as countries do not divert nuclear material for non-peaceful uses, they’re entirely free to make whatever missiles and weapons components they way. See, the right to make nuclear weapons is the default. Every country has it, as a sovereign right. Signatories to the NPT only suspended their right to do so and agreed to allow inspections to monitor their suspension — but they did not give up that right and can quite legally reassert it under Article X of the same treaty. And yes, in the meantime they can build whatever technology they way. If some people don’t like that, they’re free to try to negotiate a new treaty.
This is an interesting analysis of the US call for Iran Sanctions immediately after the Tripartitie deal – from Rebecca Johnson again at the NPT Review Conference. She has been talking it seems to Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association:
“Finally, Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association has provided more insight into why the UN Security Council was asked last Tuesday to consider a sanctions resolution on Iran so soon after the Brazilian-Turkish nuclear fuel swap agreement with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. In particular, he notes that far from being a hostile reaction to that initiative, which was adopted a day earlier, on May 17, the timing of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s announcement is attributable to the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to forestall US Congressional attempts to impose unilateral US sanctions on Iran in accordance with two versions of legislation that have passed the House and Senate respectively. The US administration is concerned that unilateral sanctions would complicate diplomatic strategies to engage Iran over suspending its uranium enrichment programme until it has been able to satisfy all outstanding questions regarding its nuclear programme and compliance with IAEA safeguards requirements.”
http://acronyminstitute.wordpress.com/
It seems the Congress target date for agreeing the unilateral sanctions was May 28. For more info, scroll down to the Iran Sanctions sub-heading on the above link.
Eric – sorry for the delay in replying; weekend and all that.
I think I understand perfectly where you’re coming from with your questions. According to the NPT, the manufacture of nuclear weapons is prohibited, and if there is evidence of the manufacture of anything that can not be realistically described as “dual use” then it is a violation of the NPT. It is probably a violation for many dual use items as well, but that would not be supportable for obvious reasons.
However, it is not a violation of Safeguards, as Safeguards apply to nuclear material and the facilities where they are manufactured.
El Baradei has made comments in the past that attest to how the manufacture of nuclear weapons themselves falls outside the remit of the IAEA.
Castellio/James – Don’t all the answers lie in the spare bedroom of that chap in La Jolla who was supposed to be accounting for all the oil sales post-invasion? The huge theft of resources in the aftermath makes the so-called “scandal” over “oil-for-food” look just ridiculous (something George Galloway pointed out at his almost legendary appearance before that Senate committee).
On another note — this evening I attended a talk by a representative of Ir Amim, an Israel-based group that seeks to bring together parties n conflict over the status of Jerusalem. The two-hour talk/Q&A was chock full of insights and information.
One of the most interesting items was the comment by a member of the audience who had just spoken with his son, for the past 40 years a resident in Israel and a journalist for Jerusalem Post. He related that his son said Israel feels more hated than ever before by everyone in the world. According to the son, tomorrow, Israel will have a nationwide missile drill — everyone will be expected to seek shelter from a ‘missile attack.’ The son said the Goldstone report is very deeply resented– it’s a lie and a slander. Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe.
In response to another question, the presenter, who grew up in the States, was educated at a midwest university, and has lived in in Jerusalem with her two children for the past 12 years, said that Israel’s government “seems to go out of its way to keep Israelis in a state of fear, heightening threats beyond their basis in reality.”
“Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state’s possession of nuclear weapons.
The “top secret” minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa’s defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them “in three sizes”. The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that “the very existence of this agreement” was to remain secret.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons
How will AIPAC and the White House wiggle out of this one? How will the American media cover it? A non-issue, I suppose. Now, back to the dangers of those medical isotopes in Tehran…
James, Castellio, according to this Salon mag. article, Feith and his Jerusalem-based law partner, Marc Zell, planned with Chalabi that US would topple Saddam; Chalabi would take his place, and once in power, would open Iraq to trade relations with Israel.
Further, Chalabi’s Iraq would build a pipeline from Kirkuk to Eilat in Israel, and pipe Iraqi oil to Israel. (Israel had a great deal invested in Kirkuk, including training Kirkuk defense forces. You may recall that several years ago Peter Galbraith (seconded by Joe Biden) proposed splitting Iraq in three: Sunni, Shia, and Kirkuk, where de oil come from. It was later revealed that Galbraith had a financial stake in some aspect of that arrangement.)
In friendlier days, Iran and Israel formed a partnership (incorporated in Switzerland) to run a tanker-pipeline operation for about twenty years: Iranian oil was shipped in tankers to Eilat, thence to a pipeline (part stolen from Italians, part financed by one of the Rothschilds) to Ashkelon. From Ashkelon, Israel took some oil for domestic use and sold the rest — the greater portion — to Europe.
Israel realized a substantial revenue stream from this arrangement until Khomeini took power and the taps were closed. A lawsuit ensued — and ensued and ensued and ensued; Israel delayed and denied for over 20 years. An arbitrator in Belgium (?) handed down a decision just a few years ago, requiring that Israel pay Iran a rather large sum. Israel has refused to pay on grounds….. well, because Israel has refused to pay.
One can speculate that Feith and Zell sought to replace the revenue stream from Iranian oil that ceased in 1979, with oil from a fantasied Chalabi-led Iraq.
best laid plans…
btw, very interesting talk on C Span this afternoon. www dot booktv dot org/Program/11564/Saving+Iraq+Rebuilding+a+Broken+Nation.aspx Graham Allison of Harvard’s Kennedy School introduced Nemir Kirdar, who discussed his book, “Saving Iraq: Rebuilding a Broken Nation.” Kirdar was born in Kirkuk, left in 1958, returned, left again in 1969 for New York, where he became a successful banker. He said he was in favor of US invasion to overthrow Saddam, but terribly disheartened as the mess US (Bremer) made of the aftermath. His book lays out his hopes/suggestions how young Iraqis can form a middle class and rebuild their country.
Iran renews offer to help on US oil spill:
Mehran Alinejad, the head of special drilling operations at NIDC, pointed to the experience gained by Iranian experts in containing huge oil leaks during the eight-year Iraqi-imposed war in the 1980s, and said, “Iranian technical teams have had major achievements in oil well capping and the Gulf of Mexico oil rig is not a great feat in comparison.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=127487§ionid=351020101
Castellio,
“Where was this search for a universal justice leading her? I’m asking seriously.”
I wish I could give a serious answer, but I have no clue, since I more or less stopped listening after I’d concluded that her search for justice was quite far from universal.
Yes, Bremmer as an anti-terrorism expert? How did that happen? And if an anti-terrorism expert, how was it he was blaming Iraq and Iran? And why would an anti-terrorism expert disband the army? It makes no sense.
I hadn’t heard of Feith’s financial expectations… well, I think it was 8.8 billion of cash that remains unaccounted for during Bremmer’s time. Amazing, is it not, such numbers? But who cares anymore?
There is much that remains unexplained. The change over from Gardner to Bremmer: how did that come about? Is there any historian out there who is going to write the kind of contemporary history we so badly need?
James Canning is making a very good point about Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons.
“Iran and many of the Iranians are quite right to object to the obvious double standard, by which the “west” largely ignores the fact Israel refuses to allow any IAEA inspections, yet Iran is chastised even though its compliance with the NPT is rather good.
Surely, the way forward is for Iran to underline this double-standard by encouraging the effort to achieve a Middle East free of nukes. This means trying to focus attention on Israel, and its failure to sign the NPT.”
Israel has over 200 illegal nuclear warheads, refuses IAEA inspections and is not a signatory to the NPT,……… IRAN on the other hand is a member of IAEA and a signatory to NPT and has no nuclear bomb.
The Iranian government must improve their PR strategy to focus attention on Israel’s illegal nuclear warheads and expose the west policy of double standard.
Israel must also be punished for its brutal treatment of the Palestinians.
The world must expose how the Zionists have also exploited “anti-Semitism” to camouflage the atrocities committed by Israel and how the holocaust tragedy has been exploited and turned into a “lucrative industry”.
Eric A. Brill
“The student speaker’s address that drew the loudest applause was her passionate vow to “fight against injustice wherever it occurs – whether in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or Arizona.”
Can anyone think of any place missing from her list?”
62 years of unspeakable crimes by Israel.
I forgot to mention, did you notice the extreme irony of Jerry Bremer’s appearing on nationwide TV as a “counter-terrorism” expert, not so long before he goes off the Baghdad and, by disbanding the Iraqi army and security services, sets off one of the greatest orgies of terrorist violence seen in decades?
Castellio,
Thanks for the Bremer video link. There is the man, Lewis Paul Bremer III, three days after “9/11″ and proposing Iraq as a likely candidate for villain of the piece.
Do you remember Bremer’s claim that he had to disband the Iraqi army “because all the toilets had been stolen” from Iraqi army bases?
Castellio,
The fiasco caused in part of Jerry Bremer gets too little attention, in my view, and I have to wonder if this reflects some discomfort on the part of those who stood to gain financially from his act of extreme stupidity (if one is kind). My understanding is that Feith had a business relationship with Ahmad Chalabi’s nephew and that Feith did in fact expect to gain great riches if the Sunnis were removed from power in Iraq. Anyone with info, please step forward!
That’s a tough one, Eric. Canada? No. Lichtenstein?
I guess it could start with an I, or a P… but… nah! Nothing wrong there!
However, did this speaker mean to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and send them to Iran, fighting, as they must – since they’re “on our side” – against injustice? Or did she mean to withdraw the troops and keep them out of Iran, fighting, as she must, injustice?
Or was that left ambivalent and the applause was for remarking that injustice takes place in Arizona?
Where was this search for a universal justice leading her? I’m asking seriously.
I attended a graduation ceremony this weekend at an American university on the Eastern Seaboard. The portion of the student speaker’s address that drew the loudest applause was her passionate vow to “fight against injustice wherever it occurs – whether in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or Arizona.”
Can anyone think of any place missing from her list?
James: I agree that the Zionists have done a good job of hiding the degree to which their policies have been bad for the real American economy. I agree that business between Iran and the US could take off if rapprochment was seriously on the agenda. I agree (and stated) that many major American corporate interests are wary of, (and maybe downright against), the bombing of Iran. I agree to your suggestion that Bremmer had, to a certain degree, his own agenda (effectively, dancing with the neo-con partners that brung him).. I don’t think the neo-cons sought personal wealth, actually, though that may have been part of the mix at one time, I think it was the economic and political disintegration of the centralized Iraqi state which was their aim, to create a fiefdom for selected corporate interests, and to neutralize any anti–Israeli sentiment. That didn’t happen.
As to Bremmer, please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2pW6WZhZrQ to remind you of the man’s interests. Within one minute of his interview with NBC on 9/11 he is talking of Iraq and Iran as appropriate enemies.
As to connections between Bremmer and others… a little bit of homework goes a long way.
Arnold,
Iran and many of the Iranians are quite right to object to the obvious double standard, by which the “west” largely ignores the fact Israel refuses to allow any IAEA inspections, yet Iran is chastised even though its compliance with the NPT is rather good.
Surely the way forward is for Iran to underline this double-standard by encouraging the effort to achieve a Middle East free of nukes. This means trying to focus attention on Israel, and its failure to sign the NPT.
Castellio,
US, UK and other oil companies etc could have enjoyed an “open Iraq” after the overthrow of Saddam, even if the Sunni power structure had been kept intact. Iran and Saudi Arabia had warned of civil war if the invasion went forward. Did Feith, Wolfowitz et al. conspire to destroy the Sunni power structure, so their business agreements with the Chalabi familily could make them seriously rich? Was Bremer in effect their stooge?
Castellio,
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia only allowed US use of SA for launching invasion of Iraq, on assurance Sunni power structure would be kept intact. The idiot Jerry Bremer was instrumental in dissolving the Iraqi army and security services, contrary to the agreement with SA. My understanding is that Feit, Wolfowitz, Perle et al wanted to destroy the Sunni power structure because Chalabi was going to make them rich.
Castellio,
Boeing opposes the latest round of sanctions against Iran, and in fact Boeing would be able to sell scores of airplanes to Iran if the sanctions did not exist. US oil companies and related industries would benefit from an opening of Iran to American business.
What is remarkable, to me, is the degree to which the Israel lobby has been able to keep the issue of economic harm to American interests, out of the discussion.
The second posting at http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/ has some interesting feedback from within China to their government’s support of sanctions.
Eric’s last point is worth repeating:
Even if Iran does design a bomb without a pit, and this in violation of the npt, IAEA safeguards have nothing to do with monitoring this activity, they are exclusively aimed at verifying non diversion, and the Iran can only be found in non compliance if it diverts, by virtue of the Iran’s safeguards agreement and the statute of the IAEA. There is no enforcement mechanism in place for any other provisions of the NPT. Therefore, the conversation is a little bit ‘academic’.
With regards to your first scenario, I would say that a fully assembled bomb missing only the pit may reasonably be called a nuclear explosive device. There may be an argument against that, I haven’t thought about it all that much. I suggested that if you could design a ‘conventional yield pit’, then all you would really have is a bit of a ridiculous conventional yield bomb, so assembling that bomb in full, or even assembling that bomb without the pit would not violate the npt, but the be honest I think that’s a stretch.(although i think it meshes well with your car analogy)
You can build the infrastructure needed for the bomb and have components lying around in non-final assembly, because there is no way to block that, and at the same time allow for any research or technological development, which is one of the avowed goals of the npt. See my first paragraph
“By the standard you suggest, Argentina is in violation of the npt, even if we know everything there is to know about that countries program, because the fuel cycle infrastructure they have developed is a tangible step towards nuclear weapons even if the construction of that weapon remains incomplete. So maybe we could come up with some kind of dual use criteria with respect to components and infrastructure, but how is a anyone to establish that such and such a component can never have a peaceful use, and should consequently be banned. Scientist often produce things just for the sake of proving they can produce them, with no intent to use them for any particular purpose.”
So dual use components are in. Even components that today have no obvious practical value outside nuclear weapons design, because it is not clear that exact class components will never have a peaceful purpose, and gaining experience in manufacturing and maintaining those components may be useful, and additionally, it qualifies as basic science. Can a member state be expected keep track of all the different experiments involving radioisotopes, conventional bomb design, metallurgy etc.. so as to make sure no combination of these can make a weapon? No, this would necessitate a bureaucracy with a deep knowledge of nuclear bomb design, which that state is not supposed to have. Can the state rely on experts from the iaea to tell it what combination of research initiatives can potentially be combined to manufacture a weapon? This would constitute receiving assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
So eggheads are free to draw and detail nuclear weapons designs, and engineers are free to try their hands at manufacturing their individual components.
Masoud
Eric:
I’ve never seen any reason to believe Iran wants more of a nuclear capability than Japan has, while Japan’s capability is very thorough and extensive.
I’ve also never seen a basis for any definition of “explosive device” more broad than a device that would explode. If somewhere in Japan, someone has put together a working model of a warhead, but no material has been allocated to that warhead, Japan does not have an explosive device.
I’ve made the point earlier that Japan may well have put together a model of a weapon. Here is a source that to some degree agrees:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html
The safeguards agreement is exclusively aimed at ensuring that fissile material is not taken away from the allowed peaceful uses of the NPT and diverted to an explosive device. The safeguards agreement is silent on working models of weapons that do not have fissile material.
If anyone thinks there should be a prohibition on working models of weapons that do not have fissile material, that’s cool. I think there should be a specific and relatively soon deadline for the weapons state obligation to reach a state of full disarmament. I’ve never seen this kind of prohibition though.
It is really difficult for most Westerners to appreciate to degree to which Iran, for the specific reason that Western policymakers sympathize with Israel’s objective of maintaining a regional nuclear monopoly, holds Iran to a standard that applies nowhere else in the world. Everywhere else in the world, no fissile device committed to a device means no explosive device and thereby no NPT violation.
It is widely suspected that Germany, Japan and many other states have conducted advanced nuclear weapon research but as material has not been committed to that effort, that is not even a subject for IAEA investigation.
Masoud,
Let’s narrow our focus here to what my first scenario presented. That would exclude chalk drawings and college engineering contests, and it would exclude “dual use” devices (thus making my later out-of-gas car example not well-chosen).
My first scenario involved a fully operable single-purpose bomb missing only the fuel. It could not be used for anything else, including as a bomb with a conventional warhead: nuclear bomb devices don’t work with gunpowder, TNT, or any other explosive material besides properly refined and shaped nuclear fuel.
Is that a nuclear explosive device, or not? That seems to me to be the question.
On my second scenario – same as the first except that the single-purpose bomb parts are not yet assembled – you have offered an answer (it’s allowed under the NPT) but I’d appreciate hearing your reasoning:
“ok back to reality. you can at least manufacture all components and let them lay around in non final assembly.”
Masoud, Eric,
“Alternatively, Eric, I don’t know if your car is still a car without any gas, but it sure as heck isn’t a means of transport.”
The purpose of the car is not necessarily to provide transport.
About two years ago a large car dealership in my neighborhood went out of business; the showroom is abandoned, the lot empty, save for one car that is painted to look like a police car and has red and blue lights on top. The car has not moved for the entire time the building has been empty. The purpose of that car is not transport, it’s deterrence: its presence causes would-be evildoers to worry whether or not the car can chase an intruder, fire a weapon, sound an alarm. I don’t know if it has gas in its tank or not (petroleum ambiguity); it doesn’t need gas to fulfill its mission.
Alternatively, Eric, I don’t know if your car is still a car without any gas, but it sure as heck isn’t a means of transport.
Eric,
Thats a slippery slope. By the standard you suggest, Argentina is in violation of the npt, even if we know everything there is to know about that countries program, because the fuel cycle infrastructure they have developed is a tangible step towards nuclear weapons even if the construction of that weapon remains incomplete. So maybe we could come up with some kind of dual use criteria with respect to components and infrastructure, but how is a anyone to establish that such and such a component can never have a peaceful use, and should consequently be banned. Scientist aften produce things just for the sake of proving they can produce them, with no intent to use them for any particular purpose.
Also note that the design of a nuclear bomb is not banned. Neither is the theoretical study of nuclear explosions. University proffesors are fine to make chalk drawings or sophisticated computer models as they see fit. So it seems that your maximal case is that final assembly into a weaapon withouy a pit is banned but everything up to that point is kosher. What ‘final’ as opposed to ‘partial’ assembly could be made to mean, i don’t know.
An artful shortcut would be to design somke kind of a tnt pit meeting the same physical charecteristics of a theoretical nuclear pit and can be triggered in the exact same manner as a nuclear pit, but that only gives a conventional yield if triggered. Proceed to old contests for your engineering undergrads to see who can design a bomb that most reliably triggers the tnt pit, as a test of academic acuity. Make sure to publish the contest anouncement and progress wideley in the national press, you wouldnt want some mouthbreathing safeguards official to get the wrong idea about whats going if he should ever come upon any suspicious looking plans…….
ok back to reality. you can at least manufacture all components and let them lay around in non final assembly.
Masoud
Arnold,
I feel it’s necessary to distinguish between “capability” and the NPT Article II language:
“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not … to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
If a Brazil or an Iran can acquire “capability” on its own but doesn’t manufacture a “nuclear explosive device,” it’s home free under this clause. But in my example, Brazil or Iran has assembled a bomb, missing only the fuel, which can be supplied in minutes. Is that a “nuclear explosive device” or not? It seems to me that’s the question.
If my car runs out of gas, is it still a car?
Elisa, what Castellio said…
Castellio, just started to learn about the plunder of FSU: The Harvard Boys do Russia
That’s a double-whammy. The article tell the primary tale: American zionists plundered Russian wealth. The secondary tale is their use of premier American institution as a platform for their theft. When Italian city-states warred upon each other, among the most valued booty was the university in the conquered city. When Venice conquered Padua, the victory gave Venice control of University of Padua, home of Galileo. Harvard, one of America’s crown jewels, has similarly been conquered, but nobody even realized there was a war being waged on the American people.
If anyone can answer I would greatly appreciate it. I would like to know if Obama is really on board on all of this is or is it Hillary Clinton trying to up-stage Obama?
What do you believe is Obama’s real agenda? And if he was truly capable of doing as he pleased without these hawkish elements within his administration, and the pressure from the Israeli-Lobby (I understand that’s a big if), what do you believe that Obama as president of the U.S. do? Does he want a relationship with Iran? Does he want regime change? Does he agree to Iran having ability to enrich uranium? Or is he like the others – pro-Israel? I have been dwelling on this subject for a while, and though personally I have blamed him – I would like to hear what others have to say.
Thank you.
I think its worthwhile pointing out that Davutoğlu’s mature piece is quite a contrast to American foreign policy documents and actions, and asking why. In this respect, the causes are much broader than the the Israeli/Palestine issue.
Foreign policy in the US remains the seeking of advantage for domestic companies in foreign fields. Period. Imagine telling the CEO’s of Haliburton, General Electric, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas that the intent of foreign policy is a “no bad neighbour policy”. They’d say thanks but what are you doing for me today… The foreign policy is not a servant of some vague generalities called the well-being of the American people, it’s a servant of specific corporate interests which, in American society, are thought to represent the American people. This thinking is explicit within the recent Supreme Court decision to defend unlimited corporate influence on elections under the rights of the individual.
The pursuit, then, of foreign policy after the collapse of the Soviet Union was not about structuring new relations for a more secure and just world shared by many nations with equal national rights, but about taking immediate advantage of the collapse for furthering American corporate interests.
The story of what really happened under Yeltsin, and how a small group of (almost entirely) Israeli-Russians ended up with control of almost all Russian natural resources with targeted IMF assistance, is yet to come out. The Russian response to this theft, led by Putin, was observed and largely understood by the whole world except for within the American-European orbit, which simply dismissed it as a return to totalitarianism.
The devastation of the Russian economy during and post Yeltsin, and how this is being systematically addressed by the Russians, remains a largely unanalysed but vital part of contemporary history. The now overwhelmingly popular refusal in Ukraine of the “orange revolution” is part of that larger story.
The invasion of Iraq, an alliance between big oil represented by Cheney and Greater Israel represented by Wolfowitz et al. may prove a disaster for American international business interests, but who among them had the prescience to object going in? It was supposed to be a cakewalk. It was supposed to secure the oil, and open the economy to the “internationalization” of, predominantly, American and British corporate interests.
That’s the real reason England under Blair went for it; for the zionists, yes, but for the spoils as well. Can anyone forget how the Polish (and other) governments rushed to send soldiers to “win” part of that spoil? It was all quite upfront. Nothing subtle.
It was the civil war fought by Iraqis which changed the sums, and the national cohesiveness of the Iraqis which, against all prognostications, actually baffled the Americans who were quite anxious to parcel the nation in three and call it one (a political trinity for Iraq), in spite of what was publicly proclaimed.
In any case, the foreign policy was a mix of corporate interests and Zionist self-serving, where the Zionist involvement actually preened itself for promoting corporate interests. Remember Bremmer? What is interesting now is that major corporate interests are wary of bombing Iran, realizing that there is another world out there developing alternatives to American products and American ownership, repulsed and frightened by American actions.
Foreign policy determined by principled national interests, as distinct from domestic corporate interests, is no longer possible in the US. It’s hardly even a tension. When Obama spoke in Cairo he spoke of American national interests in the first sense. Nothing he has done since reflects those concerns. Americans will have to work very hard to win their country back, and the democratic tools to do so are ever further away.
I would add to Fiorangela’s comments that the US was already buying more crude oil from Iraq, than any other country, in the years leading up to the idiotic invasion in 2003.
John Earl, I echo James Canning’s comment; you raised very important points.
“However, in an evermore densely connected world arbitrary political and military dispositions and increasingly dysfunctional: for instance, the invasion of Iraq was one of the chief factors (though not the only one) behind the oil price spike at $145/bbl. The threats to Iran and other “enemies” impede any serious planning on how to deal with the real crises that are affecting the world: global warming, peak oil, economic implosion, etc.”
Louisiana and Florida coastlines may be damaged forever, because an insane foreign policy and equally insane congressmen pass legislation constricting Iran’s right and ability to process and sell oil.
David Petraeus said that the US could have purchased ten years worth of oil from Iraq for the cost of one year of US occupation of Iraq.
WHY DIDN’T the US just buy the commodity, in fair and honest trade? It’s cheaper! It’s the right thing to do (as compared to killing people).
John Earls,
Good points. Perhaps one might add that the problem of preserving order in the world is made much more difficult because the US, for reasons of domestic politics, supports terrorists if that is seen as helping Israel carry forward the “Greater Israel” scheme, and encouraging state terrorism by Israel, if that serves the same purpose.
Arnold,
My understanding is that ElBaradei has always made clear he does not think the government of Iran has made the decision to develop nuclear weapons. And that he does not believe Iran is secretly trying to build nukes.
In the presentation at Harvard he said that having a nuclear weapons capability, which Baradei believes is Iran’s aim, is “kosher”. This site links to it further down.
At one site at which no nuclear material has ever been present, Brazil constructs a nuclear bomb. It is missing only bomb-grade nuclear material, which could be dropped into a small chamber in the bomb device to make the bomb usable within minutes. At a second non-nuclear site nearby, Brazil stores missiles that have a 500-mile radius but no payload presently attached. Brazil stores non-nuclear warheads at that site that would fit on the missiles. Its nuclear bomb would also fit. At a third site near the first two, Brazil has for several years being enriching nuclear material to 19.9%. The IAEA has determined that, if Brazil ever chose to do so, within a few days it could further refine this 19.9% fuel to bomb grade fuel sufficient in quantity for its otherwise-complete nuclear bomb.
I changed the word Iran to Brazil and what we’re left with actually is the case for all we know. I could have done the same with Canada, Germany, Argentina or Japan. Or any of a bunch of countries. There is no international agreement, certainly not the NPT that makes having a nuclear weapons capability illegal. There is also no default position that a country does not have a given sovereign right unless it is explicitly granted. We don’t need a law that having a nuclear capability is legal. If there is no law that it is illegal, and there is not, then it is legal.
The most drastic scenario is legal. Make the scenarios less drastic and they remain legal.
Alan and Arnold,
I very vaguely recall some mention that El Baradei once said Iran would be within its NPT rights to build an entire bomb device, sans only the nuclear material — not that he would advise Iran to do this, but I recall hearing he once said it would technically be permissible under the NPT.
Any recollection of this?
Arnold (and Alan and others),
If you know of any detailed analyses relating to the questions I’ve raised, I’d appreciate the links. Thanks.
Arnold,
Thanks, but it would help me considerably if you could address each of my four scenarios specifically.
Davutoglu’s point on the absence of any new concerted international order following the breakup of the USSR is tremendously important; as he stresses it is the lack of consensual rules that is driving the present day disorder in the world. In the Cold War period the US broke nearly every international law and convention with the continuous interventions and overthrows of governments that were perceived as threats to its interests (Iran 1953, Chile 1973, etc.) which were justified as stemming the communist tide. The irrelevance of international law was taken as part and partial of the Cold War international order, and was grudgingly accepted by most countries. The only rule that was adhered to was the veto rights of the p5 of the UNSC.
The problem is that the US continues to govern its behaviour in the world according to that same lawless paradigm, with “terrorism” now substituting for communism. However, in an evermore densely connected world arbitrary political and military dispositions and increasingly dysfunctional: for instance, the invasion of Iraq was one of the chief factors (though not the only one) behind the oil price spike at $145/bbl. The threats to Iran and other “enemies” impede any serious planning on how to deal with the real crises that are affecting the world: global warming, peak oil, economic implosion, etc. Planning requires clear rules and cooperation. It also requires the resolution of blatant injustice, like the Israeli occupation and land grab; cooperation is predicated on the perception of fairness by the parts.
Turkey, Brazil and many others are in the process of constructing a new world order relevant to the great issues confronting today’s world. The uranium swap accord with Iran is just one step in that direction.
I make a pretty straightforward claim that Iran has the right to the same type of program Japan and Brazil have. That includes the right to stockpile material that could be used to make a weapon. It also includes the right to a space program that has the same technology as missiles that could carry nuclear weapons.
This right does not have a formal or explicit legal basis any more than the United States had any kind of formal legal basis to build a nuclear weapon in the 1940s. But there is no legally binding impediment to Iran being technologically nuclear capable.
If I understood you earlier before, you claimed that the United States has leverage over Japan that makes it more comfortable with Japan having nuclear technology than it is for Iran. The US’ comfort level appears nowhere in the NPT. North Korea, Taiwan or China for example could be more comfortable with an Iranian capability than they are with a Japanese capability. But the law is that nations are to be treated without discrimination, meaning we cannot discriminate based on how much leverage the United States feels it can exert over a country’s leadership.
To be clear as to what the NPT requires, it requires that a nation not build an explosive device. It also requires that it not import a device or get help from abroad to build a device, but the NPT is almost silent on the issue of capability. Except implicitly in the article allowing a nation to leave the NPT if its interests are threatened there is the suggestion that afterwards a nation will be free to use its technology to make a weapon.
How the NPT works is that nations put their fissile material under safeguard. Neighboring nations, for example South Korea, know that regardless of the technology level, all of the material that could actually make a bomb is under surveillance, and while it is under surveillance, it is not being put into a weapon.
For your scenario A: This may well be very close to Japan or Brazil’s current situation. It is legal. Unless a nation is introducing uranium, plutonium or thorium to a facility, the IAEA really has no way to know about it.
While both Iran and Turkey are working toward achieving a resolution of the territorial dispute Armenia has with Azerbaijan, the US pays little attention to this problem and to the efforts made by Iran (and Turkey). Hillary Clinton should be praising their efforts. But this of course would not mesh well with her efforts to depict Iran as the “bad boy” of the neighborhood.
Turkey’s effort to achieve a peace agreement between Syria and Israel is commendable. Israel should have made peace with Syria many years ago.
Alan,
I’ve been taking a more systematic look at the various treaties and agreements that govern the nuclear issue. I have a few questions that you may be able to help me with, though I’ll greatly appreciate help from anyone else as well.
It’s been said, in various ways, that Iran would not be in violation of its NPT obligations if it were to develop the capability to make a nuclear bomb but did not actually build a usable bomb. I’m trying to understand more precisely what this claim is, and the bases for it. Answers to a few specific questions would help me to do that.
Under this interpretation of the NPT, can you tell me whether Iran would violate the NPT in one or more of the three hypothetical situations laid out below, and, if so, why. Assume in all cases that all information is true and that the IAEA and UN Security Council believe it is true. Unless otherwise stated, Iran accomplished everything without any assistance or materials from outside Iran.
ONE: At one site at which no nuclear material has ever been present, Iran constructs a nuclear bomb. It is missing only bomb-grade nuclear material, which could be dropped into a small chamber in the bomb device to make the bomb usable within minutes. At a second non-nuclear site nearby, Iran stores missiles that have a 500-mile radius but no payload presently attached. Iran stores non-nuclear warheads at that site that would fit on the missiles. Its nuclear bomb would also fit. At a third site near the first two, Iran has for several years being enriching nuclear material to 19.9%, which it ships to France to form into fuel rods or plates for eventual use in the TRR. The IAEA has determined that, if Iran ever chose to do so, within a few days it could further refine this 19.9% fuel to bomb grade fuel sufficient in quantity for its otherwise-complete nuclear bomb.
TWO: Same as ONE except that the bomb has not yet been manufactured. All the components have been manufactured, but not yet assembled.
THREE: Same as TWO except that no components have ever been manufactured, not even prototypes. Iran nevertheless has specialized single-purpose equipment and detailed drawings with which it could manufacture all bomb components within a few days.
FOUR: Iran has no bomb or bomb components, not even prototypes. Iranian scientists frequently visit North Korea to learn how to make nuclear trigger devices that could be used in a nuclear bomb but have no peaceful use. Except for this activity, Iran knows nothing about how to build a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device and has not sought or planned to learn. Iran has no missiles or other bomb-delivery device (other than trucks and other dual-use ground vehicles). Iran has never refined nuclear material beyond 3.5% and the IAEA is entirely confident that it lacks the capability to do so within the next five years.
No need to indicate whether you agree or disagree with any particular view on this. I am merely trying to find out what the various views are, and what arguments are used to support them.
Thanks in advance.
Mr Davutoglu is a very impressive man.
The article illustrates an entirely different mindset from the State Department, which seems to be rudderless.
Interesting that in Morocco, the function is carried out by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs AND COOPERATION. The State Department should think about it…