It has been announced that there will be both P5+1 and “Vienna Group” discussions with Iran during November 15-18. Any policymaker working on Iranian nuclear issues, as well as all of us who study them, would benefit enormously from reading the following original article, “Needed: An Iran Policy Adjusted to the Threat”, by Peter Jenkins.
The article develops, in an exceptionally thoughtful way, an argument that we have made for some time—namely that, at this point, there is no plausible diplomatic outcome whereby the Islamic Republic would agree to “surrender” its uranium enrichment program in exchange for some package of economic, technological, and/or strategic “goodies”. It also takes, as a point of departure, an assessment that there is no evidence indicating Iran is seeking to fabricate nuclear weapons, and considerable evidence that/reasons why Tehran will not go down that road.
From these premises, Peter—who has published on www.RaceForIran.com before, see here—explores what it would mean, in strategic terms, for the United States and its regional and international partners to accept the principle and reality of internationally-safeguarded enrichment in Iran as part of a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. More specifically, what would it mean if the Islamic Republic came increasingly to be perceived as a “threshold nuclear state”?
Peter’s analysis of this question is sober, persuasive, and deserves careful reading and consideration. Among other points, Jenkins notes that the most significant prospective strategic challenges linked to Iran’s emergence as a threshold nuclear state are not military but political in nature, and would be felt not primarily by the United States directly, but rather by America’s Israeli and Arab allies. We very much agree with his suggestion that this is a situation which calls out for alliance management by the United States, rather than hyping the Iranian nuclear threat and pursuing policies that increase the risk of an eventual and unnecessary military confrontation with the Islamic Republic.
Peter Jenkins is a former member of the British diplomatic service who served as the United Kingdom’s Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 2001 to 2006. He is currently a partner in ADRg Ambassadors, a dispute resolution company, and an associate fellow of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
www.RaceForIran.com recently reproduced five reasons why Gareth Evans, QC, former foreign minister of Australia, has come to the conclusion, see here, that Iran’s Islamic leaders do not intend to acquire nuclear weapons, in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). To those five reasons, all of which are persuasive, could be added the following:
–Brazil and Turkey decided earlier this year to work for a peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear quarrel with the West. It is most unlikely that President Lula and Prime Minister Erdogan would have undertaken such a task if they had had doubts about Iran’s commitment to its NPT obligations. Their involvement can be seen as a sign that these two states—responsible, experienced members of the international community—do not believe that Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
–Iran’s leaders have confided to another state—a state that matters to them—that their aim is to acquire a “threshold” or “break-out” capability. It can be inferred that they intend to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons in the absence of the kind of supreme threat envisaged in article X of the NPT.
–Neither the IAEA nor Western agencies have come across any sign of nuclear weapons intent since 2004. With respect to the agencies, this statement needs qualifying. It is possible they have come across something and not revealed it. The odds are against it, though, since some would have seen it as in their interest to leak any evidence of nuclear weapons intent that the agencies had acquired.
If Iran intends to be content with a threshold capability and to respect its NPT obligations, should its nuclear activities still be seen by other states as threatening their security? In what sense are these activities still a threat to others? Is there a case for revisiting the threat assessment that has underpinned the whole Western approach to “Iran Nuclear” over the last decade?
It is not obvious that a threshold-capable Iran does or would pose a military threat to its neighbours or other states. There are already a number of threshold-capable states in the world; their threshold status is not seen as a security threat by their neighbours or the international community. Conventional wisdom has it that it is the possession of weapons by an adversary that constitutes a threat, not the capacity to produce weapons, since production can take time and it may prove possible for the potential target to disrupt production in the early course of hostilities.
In Iran’s case, even the possession of nuclear weapons would not be an unqualified military threat since their use by Iran would risk cataclysmic retaliation from one of the nuclear-weapon states or from a nuclear-armed state. The Iranian government possesses a relatively sophisticated, bureaucratic decision-making capability, quite capable of understanding the relevant calculus. Incendiary statements by individual Iranians can be misleading.
It seems to follow that, contrary to prevailing belief in the West, the primary threat is not military but political in nature. Some of Iran’s Arab neighbours are loath to see Iran acquire the prestige and status that are conventionally accorded to nuclear weapon states, and, to a lesser extent, to threshold states. Both Arab neighbours and Israel fear that a threshold capability will enhance Iranian self-confidence and encourage Iran to intervene still more in regional politics.
These Arab and Israeli perceptions have security implications for the West. It is logical for Western analysts to fear that rivalry with Iran may resolve some of Iran’s Arab neighbours to acquire matching nuclear capabilities—which could lead eventually to a proliferation of nuclear weapons in South West Asia, jeopardising the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and raising issues for Western energy security. Another risk is that Israel may seek to disrupt Iran’s enrichment and plutonium production programmes by attacking Iran; Iranian reactions could entail prolonged interruption of Gulf oil supplies and terrorist attacks on Western targets.
But for the West these risks are indirect. They can be averted by changing Arab and Israeli perceptions.
This is the problem into which the original Iranian nuclear proliferation threat has mutated. The question is: can Arabs and Israelis, and their Western friends, be brought to look upon Iran’s nuclear capabilities as a development to which responses other than halting enrichment in Iran are available?
Logic suggests that the possession of a nuclear threshold capability ought to be seen as bringing only a modest enhancement of Iran’s status in South West Asia. A threshold capability may be of defensive value to Iran, but it will not strengthen Iran’s ability to impose its will on its neighbours. It certainly will not transform Iran into a regional “hegemon” as some like to claim. North Korea, which has gone at least one step further than Iran, and has cobbled together primitive nuclear devices, has not become a regional hegemon; far from it.
And Iran’s nuclear programme is only one element in a broadly based movement towards recovery of the regional status that Iran has enjoyed for much of the past 2600 years. Iran is treading a similar path to other Asian civilisations that have emerged or are emerging from periods of eclipse. Japan, China, India and Turkey come to mind. There is a historical inevitability about this movement. Neighbours must find ways of adjusting to it that are consistent with international law, as Turkey appears to have understood. Halting uranium enrichment in Iran will not stem the tide.
Easier to accept is the assertion that acquiring a threshold capability will influence Iranian self-confidence. It is indeed likely to do so. Iran’s leaders will see themselves as having taken a step towards restoring Iran to the ranks of Asia’s more powerful civilisations. They will also feel more secure, having made enforced regime change in Iran, or invasion of Iranian territory, more risky for Iran’s adversaries.
What, though, can be the implications of enhanced self-confidence?
Is the Islamic regime likely to embark on the conquest of neighbouring territory? No, they lack the conventional military strength to do so, and have given no sign of entertaining revanchist fantasies about recovering past possessions (though as recently as 1800 Persia occupied large parts of the Caucasus, Central Asia and Afghanistan). In any case, the Arab states of the Gulf, collectively and, in at least one case, individually, are far stronger conventionally than Iran and would have no difficulty in obtaining reinforcements from the West, if one day a conventional Iranian threat to any of their territories or to Iraq were to materialise.
Is enhanced self-confidence likely to encourage the Islamic regime to maintain support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and to continue supplying arms and explosives to US enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, very likely. But these are threats that are familiar to Israelis, Egyptians, Arabs and the Western powers. They can be countered by conventional means. Coercing Iran to abandon enrichment or crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities for a few years through a military strike would not eliminate these threats. Indeed, though a strike might temporarily deprive Iranian leaders of grounds for enhanced self-confidence, it would supply other motives for the Islamic regime to pursue this kind of low intensity conflict through proxies.
Conversely, Iranian proxy attacks on US forces in Afghanistan might well cease if the US were to come to terms with Iran’s possession of a threshold capability. Iran played a constructive role there until it began to fear that the US was going to use some of Iran’s nuclear activities as a pretext for aggression.
Is enhanced self-confidence likely to encourage the Islamic regime to continue meddling in Lebanese and Iraqi politics and in the Middle East Peace Process? Again, yes. But these interventions are also susceptible to conventional responses. Depriving Iran of a nuclear threshold capability would make no difference.
In short, halting enrichment in Iran by persuasion, coercion or the use of force could lower the risk of a threshold-capable Iran becoming an even more troublesome neighbour (for those who are unwilling to follow Turkey’s example and to pursue rapprochement and détente). But it may not have that effect, and other more practical solutions to the non-nuclear problems posed by Iran are at hand.
To conclude: Events have moved on since IAEA inspectors were first shown the fledgling enrichment plant at Natanz in February 2003, and told of plans for a plutonium-producing research reactor at Arak. The balance of probability has shifted. The assumptions on which Western policy was first based now look unlikely.
It made sense in 2003 to give priority to denying Iran nuclear weapons. Now that most of the evidence points to Iran having opted for self-denial, a new policy is needed, a policy that gives priority to allaying Israeli and Arab fears that a threshold capability will enhance Iran’s regional status and self-confidence.
–Peter Jenkins
fyi,
I think it is clear to most of those who follow US-Iran relations, that the sanctions have everything to do with trying to “protect” Israel (by weakening Hamas, and Hezbollah), and very little to do with an objective belief Iran poses a threat or potential threat to the US, or even to Israel (unless Israel attacks first).
Essentially, the sanctions are a gigantic scam, and a scam enabled and protected by most major news media in the US.
On moral grounds, Iran deserves credit for trying to prevent the invasion of Iraq even though Iran would benefit from the removal of Saddam Hussein (and destruction of the Ba’ath regime). Why the moron in the White House would spend trillions of dollars to destroy a secular government in Iraq, gets little attention in most US newspapers.
James Canning:
I think sanctions are harmful to the Iranian people. But the situation in Iran will never again be as dire as it was 26 years ago due to these sanctions. I also think these sanctions are harming mostly the Northern Tehran type crowd and the people who actually like to work with the Western companies. I heard that there is no longer any Iran Air Flight to Heathrow. I am sure that is causing sleepless nights for the leaders of the Islamic Republic. All of this reminds of 1995 when the might of USG was focused on bankrupting the Iranian State. I expect the same outcome.
But I do not want to negatively criticize the United States Government too much since her polciy of destroying the Ba’ath State in Iraq and the dislodgement of the Taliban in Afghanistan has advanced Iranian interests. And there are some other things that USG is doing that is very very harmful to the United States which I find unfathomable.
fyi,
Regarding measures that can be taken to get around sanctions, the Israelis sure demonstrated how it can be done, during the years of sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa.
Isn’t Iran providing the petrol (gasoline) used in Eastern Turkey? Many foolish politicians and think tank commentators in the US predicted Iran’s economy would grind nearly to a halt, due to lack of gasoline! Possibly, they were not as stupid as they seemed to be, but were in fact trying to conceal the fact they were stooges of the Israel lobby.
fyi,
Mohammed Reza Rahimi, the Iranian vp, has some interesting comments on PressTV’s site today, regarding the benefits sanctions have brought to Iran’s economy, to offset some of the bad effects.
I think German trade with Iran has not declined in dollar volume since the latest round of sanctions.
The TRR deal continues to be seen by the Iranian foreign ministry, as a good object to pursue. Clearly this is the case that obtains.
fyi,
The Saudis have a highly skilled team helping to set levels of oil production, to maintain price stability at the highest possible price point for oil. Frankly, they really are not concerned that many foolish or stupid American politicians would like to see lower prices.
The neocons in the US promoted the fantasy that Iraq would sell its oil at lower prices than obtained in world markets, if the US overthrew Saddam Hussein. This was obvious stupidity, but many foolish American politicians bought it.
James Canning:
The TRR’s significance was as an ice-breaker; with this round of sanctions that game is over.
I do not know how much Saudi Arabia is willing to bend to US demands in this case. I mentioned it as a possibility.
If Saudis do go that route, something very bad could happen to them.
fyi,
I continue to urge Iran to follow a policy of common sense, in the expectation this will avoid any military attack by the US or Israel. For the moment, I see this as proceeding with the IAEA application for the TRR fuel, and I think chances are good Iran can make a deal (on terms I previously have mentioned, and which in fact have effectively been proposed by Iranian officials).
fyi,
The Saudis do their best to keep oil prices as high as possible, on a sustained basis. They will continue to do this, no matter how much pleading, squawking or other noises come from American officials. Oil in the $70 to $ 80 range is regarded as sustainable, by the Saudis.
James Canning:
Iranian leaders, as far as I can tell, have been aware of US’s destructive power.
They are willing to endure a war with US.
Since US is not, US-EU Axis have chosen an economic warfare instead.
The next step in this will be US attempt to get Saudi Arabia to increase her oil production to lower the price of oil.
I suspect that US planners are already working on this and will be trying to get it off the ground next year.
fyi,
I too want the US to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, especially in the greater Middle East.
Sadly, the US has a vastly expensive and highly effective engine of destruction/war machine that easily can destroy valuable economic infrastructure in Iran virtually at will.
Richard Steven Hack:
You had stated that US could incrase her troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq. You do not have that level of troops.
That she could month an aerial attack on Iran; for this you have to gather all your air assets from all over the world. May be you could.
James Canning:
I desire for US to concentrate on her internal problems. She is riven by regional, racial, sexual, and age-related divisions instead of going around the world telling others how to live.
I desire for Iran to stop trying to llive the fantasy of Just Islamic Order and for Iranians, religious or irrelgious, to wake up from their assorted dream worlds.
Is US about to lose Iraq to Iran?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/is-us-about-to-lose-iraq-to-iran/
Fyi: “The power you ascribe to the United States in your last posting does not exist.”
You’re going to be very surprised when it becomes apparent that it does exist.
Clearly you haven’t understood anything I’ve said.
fyi,
The Iranian defence establishment is not “afraid” of an Israeli attack, and certainly there is no current expectation of such an attack.
Regarding Prussian desires to unify Germany under their hegemony, of course this was not “necessary” unless one was a German hoping to see Germany become the strongest military power in Europe. Even many English cheered on the unification of Germany under Prussian domination, though some far-sighted observers saw the potential for conflict if the wrong sort of people got in control of the state. And this is what in fact happened.
Obviously it is in the best interests of Iran to avoid becoming the victim of an idiotic attack, if this requires nothing more than vigilance and clear thinking.
fyi,
You appear to desire that the Iranian government develop nuclear weapons even though the government has stated time and time again that Iran does not want nukes and wishes to achieve abolition of nukes from the Middle East.
Of course the US can not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only warmongering idiots in the US (and elsewhere) believe this.
James Canning:
Only if Germany had to exist.
In regards to TRR and the future, we will have to wait to see who is correct.
At the moment, I do not see any difference between US and EU on Iran.
And I do not think that Iranian leaders are afraid of Israel attacking Iran.
It is a threat but they are not, like so many others, in awe of IDF.
fyi,
The reunification of Germany under Prussian domination required three wars (1864, 1866 and 1870). In that sense, they most certainly were “necessary” wars.
I do not think the US will attack Iran, and I think the odds are good that Israel can be prevented from attacking Iran.
I think the nuclear exchange/TRR deal has a good chance of going through.
The US is not a world dictator. The current UK government recognises the extent current politics in the US are almost insane, and the UK does not want its national security interests damaged by more American stupidity.
James Canning:
Almost all modern wars – say since 1860 – have been needless.
All the reasons and all their passions are now lost and the dead, the wounded, and the aggrived are just ink on paper or monuments here and there.
US planners, in my opinion, have not grasped yet that Iran has come through strategically enhanced over the last 20 years. That US has very little influence on the course of events in the Middle East. And finally, that short of occupying Iran, there is no way to guarantee that she will not atomic weapons.
Neogiations are possible if these salients facts are absorbed by US planners.
Regrettably they are not and the indications are that at least at the level of principals it is so.
Since Iran will not surrender (and other states are going to implicitly facilitate this thorn in the side of US)a needless war, as you say, may be in the cards.
But that war will not change the strategic situation nor will it resolve the religious war in Palestine, the political structure of Lebanon, or the Iranian nuclear program.
In regards to TRR – that is a dead horse.
The 2009 deal had something in it for everyone.
The 2010 incarnation served the Iranians and Turks and Brazilians well as a propaganda tool.
US Planners have created a mini Cold War in the Middle East being comfortable with the Cold War against USSR and her allies – fully expecting to win (however winning is defined).
Here are the wars currently going on in that part of the world:
1-Palestine
2-Lebanon
3-Eastern Turkey
4-Western Iran
5-Eastern Iran
6-Southern Russia
7-Afghanistan
8-Iraq
9-Sudan
10-Pakistan
11-Yemen
12-Somalia
13-Kashmir
14-Nagarono-Qarabaq (Frozen)
15-Tadjikistan (Frozen)
16-Qirqizistan (fluid)
I think US-EU Axis policies is worse than inefficient – it is foolish. But then I am a minority of one who thinks that way.
fyi,
Have you been to the Italian Tyrol in recent years? It is the most prosperous region in Italy, due in part to the lavish subsidies poured in by Rome. I doubt a secession vote would succeed.
fyi,
You seem not to be considering the possibility that if the TRR nuclear exchange goes through, and Iran suspends enriching to 20%, there will be no need to proceed with anything further in the shorter term.
Your apparently casual acceptance of a needless war really is rather astonishing. The duty of a country’s leaders is to advance the interests of the people of the ccountry, surely. Needless war hardly seems to fit that description.
James Canning:
When would Italy give up Tyrol? Or Spain Catalonia nd the Basque country?
About Yugoslavia: we have to agree again to disagree. May be she was wobbly but it took EU to push it down the abyss.
In regards to war: I had stated earlier that I do not expect a war. But, should it come, I had also stated my expectations of its eventual parameters. I expect the Iranian leaders have made performed analysis analogous to mine and decided that they could live with teh consequences of war with US.
I have tried to explain many times why the Iran nuclear case has become intractable: it was taken to UNSC where different states have different interests; the aims of the UNSC Resolutions are no longer achievable since no inspection regime could be constructed that could guarantee those goals; war will not realize the aims of a “nuclear-free” Iran; Iran, US, EU, China, India, Russia, and assorted other states on either side of this divide have all spent too much political and diplomatic capital to backdown in any substantial manner; the status of the Shia Fortress is now tied to the status of Jewish Fortress.
These are those that I see.
Alan & fyi,
The Iranian foreign minister, Mottaki, called for the meeting, and he continues to support going forward with one. China has renewed its call for a diplomatic resolution of the matter.
Dan Cooper,
Bravo, Jimmy Carter! And did you notice how little coverage Carter’s visit to Damascus received in US newspapers? By contrast, the warmongeering bombast of John Bolton is before American readers time and time again. Even today, in the Wall Street Journal. (Bolton predicted a possible 14-0 vote in the UN Security Council, in favor of a resolution on recognition of Palestine, with US abstaining.)
fyi,
You argued that the secession of Slovenia from Yugoslavia was an act accepted by the EU in a hypocritical manner. If the Flemings and Walloons decide to split Belgium, the EU is unlikely to block it. Norway seceded from its union with Sweden in 1905, and this was accomplished peacefully. Ireland seceded from the UK during the first decades of the last century.
fyi,
Warmongering neocons in the US do not want a meeting in Vienna, by the P5+1 and Iran, where the nuclear exchange can be agreed (with suspension of enrichment to 20%). The UK wants the impasse resloved through negotiations. I’m a bit surprised you are so willing to facilitate warmongering by the neocons. The effort should be to expose the murderous scheming of neocons, whose real object is to enable continuing oppression of the Palestinians, thefts of Palestinian land, water, civil rights etc, in the cause of a “Greater Israel”. And they are conspiring to subvert the national security of the American people to accomplish their object.
Peter Jenkins argues that a policy was needed to allay Israel’s fears that Iran’s status would be raised by continuing to enrich LEU. Maybe Israel should be just be told that higher status for Iran is not in itself a problem for Israel. I remember that Kissinger worried that the status of the Soviet Union would be raised, if the US forced Israel to get out of the Sinai in 1973. Brezhnev pleaded with Nixon and Kissinger, saying that if Israel did not get out of the Sinai, another war would be certain. So, the US got another war in the Middle East, and the Arab Oil Embargo!
Alan,
You seem to be suggesting the Obama administration may repeat its previous blunder, and fail to facilitate the refueling of the TRR (with suspension of enrichment to 20%). Given the desire to interfere that militarist segments of the Israel lobby have demonstrated previously, perhaps not having an announced agenda is the best way forward.
Richard Steven Hack:
The power you ascribe to the United States in your last posting does not exist.
Off topic,
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter:
“The blockade is one of the most serious human rights violations on Earth and it must be lifted fully”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26629.htm
James – Darren Ennis is Lady Ashton’s spokeman, and he is the one who indicated the meeting would be in Vienna Nov. 15-18. And see fyi’s comment.
I know this, but a meeting has not been confirmed by any major newswire, and nor has there been, as far as I know, any confirmation of what will be talked about (i.e. TRR or nuclear programme or both). It’s important, because each side want to talk about different things and it suggests no agenda has been agreed yet.
Hayden: “And that’s really bad. That’s as bad as a detonation. In fact, in some ways that’s worse than a detonation.”
You see? No matter what Iran does, it’s crucified. This idiot is comparing the mere knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon and some random tons of low-enriched uranium as the same as possessing actual nuclear weapons – regardless of the fact that Japan, South Korea, Brazil and other countries already have that capability. The fact is those countries are not Iran. Iran can not be allowed to have what everyone else has. That’s the bottom line for the US and Israel.
And yet Iran has it and will continue to have it.
So now what?
Once again, HOW is this impasse going to resolve itself without a war? With what mechanism is this going to end peacefully?
It’s ridiculous to think there will be no war. No other outcome is possible. This is not Russia vs the US with both loaded with nukes, so that war would have meant destruction for both. This is the US vs Iran where Iran has only an ability to cause “problems” for the US – not seriously threaten the US militarily.
Whatever “problems” Iran causes the US in Iraq or Afghanistan are irrelevant. The US can simply leave Iraq and leave Afghanistan and concentrate on Iran – or simply reinforce both Iraq and Afghanistan and still concentrate on Iran. While the war will be a wholesale disaster for the US economy and the US taxpayer, the elites will profit just as they are profiting now from Iraq and Afghanistan.
So where is the motivation to resolve the issue? Where are the MEANS to resolve the issue short of the US AND Israel simply backing down? Is this what everyone is predicting – that the US AND Israel will just say “OK, whatever, Iran can keep enriching?”
Or is everyone saying that the present situation will just go on forever? Fifty years from now the US and Israel will STILL be complaining about Iran’s nuclear program, but there will be no war? That’s your prediction?
Hayden Says Iran Won’t Build Nuke Bomb
“Addressing a broad range of issues including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the current threat of terrorist attacks, former CIA Director Michael Hayden spoke for 90 minutes Tuesday offering praise and criticism to the intelligence community and the Obama Administration.
While careful to remind his audience that he is no longer in government, having left the CIA in 2009, Hayden remains plugged-in to the intelligence community and is a respected voice on matters covering the globe.
The retired Air Force general thinks Iranian officials have developed their nuclear program to be fully capable of building a nuclear weapon but not actually complete the task. “That gives them all the effects of having a weapon,” Hayden said. “I judge that’s their end game. That’s where they want to be. And that’s really bad. That’s as bad as a detonation. In fact, in some ways that’s worse than a detonation.”
Hayden expressed concern that whether Iran actually develops a weapon or is simply capable of doing so presents security challenges to the country’s regional neighbors. Saudi Arabia, Hayden suggested, might be forced to seek a military alliance with Pakistan to counter the Iranian threat. That alliance and others could rapidly escalate tensions leading to significant problems.”
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/19/hayden-says-iran-wont-build-nuke-bomb/
You’re confused. Yes, the Canadian and American military are more than joined at the hip, they are, at many important levels (but not all) integrated.
Your point proves mine.
Castellio:
Rhetoric.
US shared in military and intelligence sphere more than any other state. Not even UK comes close.
Canada is not protected by the US. Canada is without protection to the US, and hence does what the US asks.
Right away. Without hesitation.
Rehmat:
Israel is s sovereign state. She cannot be required by other states to give up her sovereign rights.
If Arabs or any one else is desirous for Israel to join NPT they should try to change her calculus.
Furthermore, IAEA is not a disarmament agency; she cannot be entrusted with the supervision or safe-keeping of nuclear weapons or materials.
Nor does IAEA have any legal jurisdiction or mandate to investigate Israel or any other state.
All these require new international instruments.
Regrettably, the international instruments are atrophying under the accumulated weight of the abuses they have received over the last 50 years. In my opinion, US and UK have been the 2 states who have done the most to harm these instruments.
If I were an Israeli leader, I would put zero trust or confidence in any international instrument, including disarmament conventions and peace treaties.
Canada is protected by the Big Bad Bad United States.
Will the MSM learn from their mistakes in the run up to the invasion of Iraq and ask more serious questions and challenge who have been pushing for a military confrontation or supporting Israel in attacking Iran.
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/15/5297482-defense-report-a-grim-reminder-of-iraq-war-push#comments
Over at Chris Matthews Hardball he mentioned a report released from the U.S. Dept of Defense about Iraqi dead.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101014/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_death_toll
BAGHDAD – A new U.S. military tally puts the death toll of Iraqi civilians and security forces in the bloodiest years of the war thousands below Iraqi government figures.
The little-noticed body count is the most extensive data on Iraqi war casualties ever released by the American military. It tallied deaths of almost 77,000 Iraqis between January 2004 and August 2008 — the darkest chapter of Iraq’s sectarian warfare and the U.S. troop surge to quell it.”
Also tonight on Hardball Chris said we all should have done more. My comment over at Hardblogger in response below. Will see if it makes it up
My comment
Chris I watched you nightly before the invasion. You were one of the only MSMer’s to rake Bill Kristol, Frum, Gaffney and a few other warmongers over the coals. I also listened to the Diane Rehm show and Talk of the nation almost every day before the invasion. Heard former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, former CIA middle east analyst Ray McGovern, Former President Jimmy Carter and many others question the validity of the Bush administrations pre war intelligence. When thehead of the IAEA Mr. El Baradei came out in early March of 2003 and reported that the Niger Documents were forgeries and bad ones at that. I some how still foolishly thought that the push to invade would come to a screeching halt. But no one in the U.S. paid his announcement any mind. Watching all of the MSM news coverage echoing what Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc were repeating about Iraq was like watching a slow train about to go over a cliff. Seeing it from far away and not being able to do much about it
You mentioned that we should have done more. Well millions nation wide did. I was one of those millions. We marched, we rallied, we petitioned, we called, we were arressted, we went to our Reps offices in D.C. and begged them not to support the invasion. Millions of working class Americans marched against the invasion in D.C. and across the nation in the fall of 2002 and in New York City in Feb of 2003. You said that we should have done more. Well millions of us did. Teachers, truck drivers, students, families pushing babies in strollers and seniors in wheel chairs. WWII ( pushed a ninety two year old Vet in the New York City march), Korean, Vietnam, Desert Storm Vets marched against that illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. Some of us did lie down and get arrested. But guess what the MSM did not interview the Vets they did not show who was really at those rallies before the invasion. They showed the 10 people with black hoods over their heads at the protest and marches and played the same loop over and over again for those sitting at home. Where sir were your cameras? Your interviews of those old Vets marching against that invasion? Sir you were better than most journalist before the invasion but not good enough.
Chris millions of us did do every thing we could to stop the Bush administrations immoral invasion of Iraq. We did that hoping, praying and marching to stop the needless killing of people who had done absolutely nothing to us. And now we get a report from the U.S. Dept of Defense about the dead. Don’t trust their numbers. Would really like to hear more reporting about the Lancet Report about the dead in Iraq. This report was swept under the rug. And more about the injured and displaced in Iraq. You can still cover the truth of how we have really left Iraq. Iraq before the invasion (B.I) and Iraq after the invasion (A.I.) The sad thing is that most Americans do not want to know what we have really done. And you know that this is the terrible truth.
Americans should hang their head in shame about this travesty.
—————————————————————————-
We also know that our MSM can do far far more to cover the “who and why” about those still pushing for a military strike on Iraq. Chris Matthews and other MSMer’s need to have Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on his program (have brought this up in person with Matthews) along with Prof Cole and others who support diplomacy with Iran based on facts not false claims. I begged these MSM outlets to have former weapons Scott Ritter and head of the IAEA El Baradei on before the invasion of Iraq
James Canning:
All indications are that there are no meetings to discuss TRR in Vienna or any where else.
The Iranians have publicly stated that “.. a repeat of previous [US/EU] positions will not be conducive …” to any potential agreement.
These meetings in Vienna or elsewhere are no going to produce anything.
While I appreciate your interest in solving problems; in international relations, sometimes you have to let the situation to decline further.
US-EU Axis have nothing to show for their policies over the last 30 years in the Middle East. And free flow of oil did not require, in my opinion, the costs that they have borne and will continue to bear.
No Euro-American man or woman can any longer show his or her face East of Suez unless accompanied by body guards; an splendid example of the success of US-EU Axis’s policies in the Middle East.
But may be I am just being too emotional to grasp the reality of the situation.
Canada lost its bid to the UN Security Council due to its blind support of Israel.
While Ottawa considers Iran’s nuclear energy program a major threat, Israel’s atomic bombs have not provoked similar condemnation. The Harper government abstained on a number of near unanimous votes asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls and in September Bloomberg cited Canada as one of three countries that opposed an IAEA probe of Israel’s nuclear facilities as part of an Arab led effort to create a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/canada-got-slap-at-united-nations/
Sakineh,
Thanks. It seems the decision on the “surge” in Afghanistan was totally driven by domestic American politics. Bob Woodward’s new book indicates Nato scarcely figured into the decision.
James Canning,
I agree.
I am reminded of an interview with a Harvard professor (I think Rory Stewart) who wrote a book on walking through Afghanistan. The Obama administration had asked him if the surge was a good idea. He said something to the effect that, they asked me they wanted to drive a car off a cliff. Is it better to fasten the seat belts or leave them off?
I think this is a good analogy for the situation/policy in Afghanistan today.
fyi,
I think the Cold War kept Yugoslavia together; it had come unstuck previously too.
It is most unlikely the Arab League will change course. At least for now. If Israel continues to be incredibly stupid, as encouraged by foolish “supporters” in the US, maybe a unitary state will come about. Much more likely would be an increasingly repressive Jewish-controlled military dictatorship. I do not think there is any chance the Jews would put Muslims into control of military, police, etc etc.
fyi,
I agree with you Israel blundered badly in savaging Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-09. The Gaza rampage was purely a matter of domestic Israeli politics.
And what a total idiot was Condoleezza Rice!
Alan,
Darren Ennis is Lady Ashton’s spokeman, and he is the one who indicated the meeting would be in Vienna Nov. 15-18. And see fyi’s comment.
fyi,
Did Jalili confirm the dates and place for the meeting? Or ask for confirmation from Lady Ashton?
fyi,
You seem to be saying in effect that the Afghans in Iran are playing the same role in a way as Mexicans and other “Latinos” in the US, where most construction activities depend upon them.
I really doubt very many Europeans want trouble with Iran, and of course the presence of Nato in Afghanistan was achieved only by stretching the meaning of the crucial provision for mutual defence that is in the treaty. Most Europeans want Nato forces out of Afghanistan.
James Canning:
Mr. Jalili has written to Baroness Ashton and has not yet (as of 10/20/2010) received a reply.
James Canning:
You cannot be serious.
Iranians cannot build anything in Iran without the Afghan labor.
Refugees will never go back – there is nothing to go back to.
Iranians should grant them Iranian citizenship instead.
Yes, stability for Afghanistan is relevant to Iran but it is not worth that much.
[In fact, from a military point of view, it is better to have US and NATO forces in Afghanistan - they will be bleeding there and you know where they are in case you have to fight them.]
At any rate, this is not a US-Iran game; the main actors are US and Pakistan and they are reaching a setllement.
You are correct about drug trafficking.
I often wondered if one could make a deal with the smugglers – do not sell your stuff in Iran and we will let you pass un-molested. Let US & EU deal with drug problem.
Alan,
Given that the Iranian foreign minister said a date in early November would suit Iran, and that these meetings typically take place in Vienna, I have to assume the date and place are implicity confirmed. But I haven’t seen a statement from Iran saying this.
fyi,
Iran wants Nato forces out of Afghanistan, and stability so the millions of Afghan refugees in Iran can go home. Iran thus has a significant stake in stability, provided all US troops leave Afghanistan. Iran also has a large stake in stopping the trafficking in illegal drugs.
Sakineh,
I did not mean to suggest a “grand bargain” was on the table or anywhere near the table. For that matter, I do not see the need for one. To my mind, the primary benefit was to educate those Americans who bother to read the newspapers, that Iran has a constructive role in achieving stability in Afghanistan. Most American want US troops out. In other words, this latest business in Rome helps to counteract at least some of the Iranophobic propaganda put out by the necons (and other foolish “supporters” of Israel).
House of Latin America (HOLA), an Iranian NGO in Iran, dedicated to solidarity and defense of the peoples of Latin America and the people of Iran, has initiated the following appeal to individuals and organizations world-wide to join with them in a campaign of solidarity with Iran, in light of U.S. escalating threats and continuing sanctions.
American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), working closely with HOLA, calls on social justice organizations and individuals to join with them to support and strengthen this campaign. Hola’s Full Statement: (website, under construction, is ,http://www.SI-SolidaridadIran.org,).
Whereas, the escalating sanctions and threats of military intervention against Iran are intended to deprive the Iranian people of their internationally recognized right to live as an independent and free nation;
Whereas, the sanctions and threats are clear violations of Article 2 of the UN Charter, according to which member states must “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”;
Whereas, the United States is unequivocally obligated under the bilateral 1981 Algiers Treaty to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Iran;
Whereas. sanctions often pave the way to war;
Whereas, Iran, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has an “inalienable right” to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes;
Whereas, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is no evidence to back up the charge that Iran is “planning to produce nuclear weapons”;
Whereas, the hegemonic lobbies that portray Iran as a threat to peace today also lied about imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to convince the public that war was necessary;
The people of the world cannot allow such a crime against humanity.
Therefore, I (We) join with all who stand for justice, peace, sovereignty and self determination in raising my (our) voice to demand:
- Lift economic sanctions against Iran.
- Recognize the right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
- Stop military threats against Iran.
SI – Solidarity with Iran!
We urge all organizations to place this Statement and Link on their websites: ,www.SI-SolidaridadIran.org,
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/solidaritycampaignwithiran/
The Petition
SI – Solidarity with Iran! Appeal
A project of House of Latin America – Iran
Sakineh Bagoom
Not so much because of duplicity of Americans; they stayed away before because they did not want to help. And they still are not going to help US-EU Axis.
They will make noises about cooperation and all that but they are there to get what they can out of the misery of Afghanistan for themselves and for their allies there.
fyi,
I realize that Iran has its interests and allies in Afghanistan. I was pointing out that they were they had stayed away because of the duplicity of the American side. Who is to say that this round is going to be any different and they (Iran) will be dealt with fairly (and yes, US is aching to get out of that mess/”graveyard of the empires”).
Voice of Tehran:
The 2006 war of Israel against Lebanon was a strategic escalation to nowhere as well.
Strategically, it was a mistake for them as they entrenched themselves as the enemy of Lebanon and ushered in Iran as the steadfast friend of Lebanon (and not just the Shia) in her hour of need [recall “..birth pangs of the new Middle East”).
Their 2009 war against Hamas-rule Palestine resulted in Mr. Khamenei’s statement to the effect that aiding the Gazans was a religious duty of all Muslims everywhere.
We are only 2 or 3 fatwas away from the State of Israel being characterized as the enemy of Islam; with all its ramifications.
This has been the net result of Israel’s gains – in my opinion – over the last 10 years. They have, in my opinion, paid a heavy price for their fantasy life.
Sakineh Bagoom:
Iranians went to that meeting to be present during the final disposition of Afghanistan. They have their interests and they also have obligations to their allies there.
Alan:
I am stating my impression of what US planners hope to (some day) achieve in Iraq.
I agree that it is another trip to nowhere but as long as US policy is predicated on pursuing the tried and tested and largely wrong policy of balance of power (as opposed to creating and cultivating Peace Interest), this will be on the agenda of US planners.
James Canning,
Yes, I am aware of the participation of Iran in the Rome talks over Afghanistan. However most US officials were of mind that it is only related to the Afghan issue, which as we know and the Leveretts have confirmed Iran helped out initially. Grand bargain is not on the table. Maybe the American side will be duplicitous in this round as well (“axis of evil” anyone).
Jill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbak9KOINgo&feature=player_embedded
fyi – I can state this with metaphysical certainity that a project that once again aims at making Iraq a militarized state against Iran or any other state in the region will not and cannot be supported by the people of Iraq.
I don’t recognise this project, and nor can I imagine how they think they could bring it about. Currently it seems the US is supporting some kind of national unity government that basically includes everybody, but with no power to bring it about. I cannot see any impetus toward militarising Iraq against Iran. I agree that the people will not accept it, and nor will they accept any excessive Iranian interference either.
Voice of Tehran:
Israelis have no final aim except surviving.
In regards to the shape of the wars to come, I do not know.
But those wars will not be confined to Palestine.
There are wars now in Eastern Turkey, in Eastern Iran, in Paksitan, in Southern Russia, in Palestine, in Sudan, in Iraq, in Kashmir, and in Afghanistan.
Each is different and all indicate a failure of statesmanship – both regionally and internationally.
James – I think a spokesman for Lady Ashton announced the Nov. 15-18 date, and suggested the meeting would likely be in Vienna (P5+1 and Iran).
“Suggested” and “likely” being the operative words. No confirmation yet?
fyi
“”More violence and more wars are to be expected, in my opinion.”"
Although logically I have to agree with your above assessment , still I fail ( may be subliminally ) to imagine how the next war practically would look like . If we assume that Israel will attack Lebanon again ( which we have to ) , a similar outcome to the 2006 war is hardly imaginable .
The only trump the Israelis have is the war machine option ( as always ) , how do they want to use it this time , knowing that the Hezbollah as well as the Lebanese army are much stronger than 4 years ago ?
Whay would be their main and probably final aim ?
James Canning:
I characterized Israelis as pursuing a fantasy project. They are more interested in the pursuit of this fantasy project than peace.
They are also supreme realists: they know that their project can only be pursued and maintained by violence. They will never ever go back to 1967 cease-fire lines.
OIC should change its deal and state that they will recognize Israel if all Palestinians are granted Israeli citizen ship and if the Temple Mount (or the Old City) is organized as an independent state – like the Vatican.
There might then be peace.
And please remember that you heard this from me first here.
James Canning
Meant to say: “the country was an unofficial member…”
James Canning:
The European Union did her best to destabilize Yugoslavia. They did so with their eyes wide open because US had told them to support the break up of Yugoslavia.
That country was an official member of NATO during the Cold War, her military doctrine was to defend herself against USSR and not NATO.
And please spare me the details of the internal issues of Yugoslavia – they were real but not the proximate cause of the wars in the Balkans.
And I do not want to debate this either on the merits of self-determination etc. which seems only to apply to no US-EU states. [Why does not Italy grant independence to Tyrol, France to Corsica, Spain to Basque or to Catalonia?]
The West – US-EU Axis – treated this ally of decades shamefully and created, over the years, the state-lets of Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Croatia. I wonder if they look at that mess in Balkans and think it preferable to a unified Yugoslavia? [At the time, it sounded like a good idea.]
There is a saying in Persian: “The man who rapes his own mother, God knows what he will do to others.”
We are asked to trust US-EU Axis.
Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia, Chile all militate against such trust.
Sakineh,
As you probably already know, the Iranian foreign ministry was represented at the Rome conference regarding the way forward in Afghanistan. Mohammed Ali Qanezadeh (dir. of Asian Affairs) spoke at the conference, on the civil issue of how to achieve stability. Nato wants out. And Iran’s help is now openly recognised by the US as necessary to achieve stability in that country. Most Americans want to get out of Afghanistan (meaning withdrawal of US military).
fyi,
57 Muslim countries accept the Saudi peace plan and its recognition of Israel within its June 1, 1967 borders. So, Israel can have peace, and can keep the 78% of Palestine within those borders. An independent Palestine will comprise the remaining 22%.
Sakineh,
I think the focus for the time being should be on putting through the nuclear fuel exchange (TRR reactor).
There is no need for Iran to be the “vassal” of any country. And it is not going to happen in any event.
Much of the solution lies in better communications, and this has been made much easier by the coming to power of the Conservative/Lib Dem government in the UK. Cameron and Hague see that the US ran down a rabbit hole in 2003 and took the UK with it. They do not want a repeat of this idiocy.
James Canning:
I do not know what you mean by 57 Muslim states recognizing “reality”.
Out of 57 muslim countries, the following countries recognize Israel:
1. Turkey (1949)
2. Egypt (1979)
3. Albania (1991)
4. Azerbaijan (1992)
5. Kazakhstan (1992)
6. Kyrgyzistan (1992)
7. Uzbekistan (1992)
8. Tajikistan (1992)
9. Turkmenistan (1992)
10. Jordan (1994)
None of these states recognizes Israel’s sovereignity over Al Haram Al Sharif.
Israelis have to leave much, if not all, of Jerusalem under any peace deal that could result in all OIC states to recognize them.
That will not happen – you can ask any Israeli or even Jews outside of Israel.
More violence and more wars are to be expected, in my opinion.
fyi,
To clarify your comment regarding Yugoslavia, are you suggesting the EU should have tried to prevent the secession of Slovenia from the federation? Or are you referring to the splitting of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
fyi,
Jews in Israel’s 78% of what was Palestine, is a current reality accepted by 57 Muslim countries (and by Hamas and Fatah). The real issue is whether that current reality will come in future into question, largely due to foolish “support” for Israel- – primarily coming from the US.
I would expect most of the countries in the world to recognise an indpendent Palestine.
Sakineh Bagoom:
“West” – US-EU Axis – does not have the power to crush Iran.
If they had, they already would have done it.
Look no further than poor Yugoslavia and the wretched Iraq.
I have reluctantly come to agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad that we are not dealing here with Power politics informed with Realism but rather with Power Politics informed with Arrogance.
The world has changed around US-EU Axis and yet they do not seem to grasp it.
James Canning:
Future will show if the possibility that you described will come to pass.
I do not beleive it will.
EU and US will never ever oppose the fantasy project of Jews in Palestine.
We will see more wars in and around Palestine for the foresseable future.
Untyil and unless a Concert of the Middle East is organized and various issues are disposed of, war and confrontation will be the order of the day.
As I see it now, this has become a zero-sum game.
Peter Jenkins,
A concise article! But we, especially on this site, already knew that. The questions remains:
How do you dial down the rhetoric?
How do you stop the breathless reports?
How do you climb down from the dizzying heights?
Who in the policymaking circles do we contact to bring about the change? (“change that we can believe in”)
Must the west crush Iran in order to crush this “self confidence” with it?
Can all the options be taken off the table?
Can the liars stop lying and not get us into yet another devastating war with their lies?
Can Iran have its own calculus and national security interest?
Does Iran have to be a vassal state for all of this to go away?
…
I can go on, but this is just a sampling. I am just looking for solutions. We already know what the problems/grievances are.
fyi,
The early years of the Eisenhower administration favored Arab nationalism, and in fact John Foster Dulles tried to come up with a way to force Israel to give up some of the land taken during the 1948-49 war. Then Nasser decided to forge close relations with the USSR. And he also tried to cause major problems for Saudi Arabia, especially in Yemen.
fyi,
The Palestinians will almost certainly seek recognition from individual countries. I would not be surprised to see many Arab League countries recognise Palestine.
The UK has refused to attend the OECD conference in Jerusalem this month. So have Turkey and Spain. This was the right choice, clearly.
British recognition that the US body politic suffers from an Israel lobby brain tumour helps open the way for intelligent policy formation regarding the Middle East and especially Israel/Palestine.
James Canning:
You are quite right in pointing out the “Hudna”.
Regrettably, “Hudna”, a cease fire, is now all that can be achieved between teh World of Islam and Israel.
James Canning:
Yes, US will thwart the Arab League.
The member states of the Arab League are powerless to do anything about the war in Palestine. For 60 years they were hoping that US would do something for them. [And she never did - even Camp David Accords were a consequence of Sadat's decision to initiate a limited war with Israel to get US's attention.] Now the Arab states are running to EU and UN – they are pathetic.
Look at Egypt: she is powerless to do anthing about the plans of the upstream Nile River states.
Neither the war in and for Palestine nor the strategic confrontation of US-EU Axis and Iran are going to be resolved in the near term (<5 years) or intermdediate term (<10 years).
Ahmadinejad needs unbiased media coverage
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/ahmadinejad-needs-unbiased-media-coverage/
James Canning – Hizbullah is no threat to Israel’s existence, legal or illegal. However, Hizbullah has proved itself to be an unbreakable wall between Zionist leaders’ old dream the “Eretz Israel’.
Poll: Israel vs Hizb’Allah
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/poll-israel-vs-hizballah/
paul,
Is Hezbollah a threat to Israel? Not if Israel refrains from another insane attempt to smash it (and Lebanon), and refrains from an idiotic attack on Iran.
I think Hamas would not be a “threat” to Israel, if Israel got out of the West Bank and ended the blockade of Gaza. Hamas has offered Israel a 50-year truce.
fyi,
Are the US and Iran “at opposite ends” regarding Palestine? As the Financial Times stated in a leader yesterday: “The Obama administration appears powerless” to stop Israel from building more housing for illegal Jewish colonists in the West Bank. The Arab League very likely will proceed with an effort to obtain UN recognition for Palestine’s independence based on the June 1, 1967 borders. Will the US try to thwart the Arab League? The effort is strongly backed by Egypt’s foreign minister.
Alan,
I think a spokesman for Lady Ashton announced the Nov. 15-18 date, and suggested the meeting would likely be in Vienna (P5+1 and Iran).
Arnold,
The UAE is planning to build a number of nuclear power plants. However, as with Turkey, there is no intention of enriching LEU.
Jill:
Israel is irrelevant.
And Iran does not need permission to enrich uranium.
That game is over – the dies is cast and sanctions, confrontation, and soft war are the order of the day.
Alan:
The strategic community in US seems to day-dream about an strategic alliance with Iraq; something like what US has with such semi-sovereign states as Korea, Japan, and Germany.
Their timeline calls for realizing that within the next 7 to 10 years.
This will not be successful for 2 reasons:
1 – Iranians will do all they can to wreck that – Iraq will never ever again be in a position Tehran or any one else (Kuwait, SA) for that matter.
2 – The people of Iraq – Sunni & Shia Arabs and Sunni Kurds – have had it with revolution, war, occupation, power politics and all. I can state this with metaphysical certainity that a project that once again aims at making Iraq a militarized state against Iran or any other state in the region will not and cannot be supported by the people of Iraq. There is nothing in it for them. They want to sell their oil peacefully and rebuild their lives. In this, once again, we come back to the point that I have raised several times; “There is nothing positive in the vision of a strategic alliance with US for the people of Iraq – just more wars and more instability.”
I think the US strategic community is once again making deductions based on the models of Germany, Japan, and Korea. Those lessons, for many reasons, do not apply to Iraq. Chief among them is that the state was defeated in Iraq but not the people of Iraq.
Flynt & Hillary – is there official confirmation from either side that these talks are definitely happening, and that they involve both the Vienna Group and the P5+1?
The million dollar question: Will Israel allow craven Western politicians to reach a deal with Iran whereby Iran is allowed to maintain enrichment capability on its soil? The answer is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
fyi – which strategic alliance does the US want in Iraq, and what’s the new government there?
I don’t think either point is particularly clear at the moment is it?
Cyrus:
Only 2 Arab states have any depth in nuclear sciences: Egypt and Algeria.
That is it.
All:
“Iran’s leaders have confided to another state—a state that matters to them—that their aim is to acquire a “threshold” or “break-out” capability. It can be inferred that they intend to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons in the absence of the kind of supreme threat envisaged in article X of the NPT.”
This was well-known at least in 2004.
But the fact is that Iran and US are in strategic competition. Consider:
- US is making noises about creating a strategic alliance with Iraq (sub-text – “against Iran”).
- US and Iran are at opposite ends in regards to war in Palestine.
- And Iran wants US out of Persian Gulf.
The recent sanctions and the new government in Iraq are indicators of each sides’ strength and weaknesses.
I expect the current competition to continue with moves and counter moves.
And as I have said before, the winner will be Islamic Republic of Iran because the US/EU Axis has no positive vision of future for the people of the Middle East.
Other Arab states are already working on their own nuclear programs, and so trying to characterize their actions as “competition with Iran” is rubbish (In fact there are still unexplained traces of highly-enriched uranium in Egypt, which unlike Iran flatly refuses to sign the Additional Protocol, with nary a whisper from the US btw, which raises the question — once again — about how much this US conflict with Iran actually has to do with nuclear anything.) ANY country with ANY nuclear program could be characterized as a “threshold” nuclear weapons state. According Greenpeace and the IAEA, there are currently about 40 that can quickly make a bomb, and another 100 that could do so in the longer term. So, this is a nonsense charge. If Iran wanted a nuclear weapons option, would it have offered to place additional limts on its enrichment program that would have made it all but impossible for it to quickly make a bomb?
Sorry everyone, but I think you should see this footage. This is today in Qom:
http://www.farsnews.com/media.php?nn=8907271033
This is in response to the dishonest propaganda that tries to portray the Islamic Republic and its leadership as unpopular. The US should learn to deal with reality.
US: China is cheating on sanctions against Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/china-is-cheating-on-sanctions-against-iran/
JohnH – “Increased Iranian confidence” simply means that the Iranian model, however successful or unsuccessful at home, would become increasingly attractive to the region’s oppressed in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and the rest of the Gulf. Iranian success undercuts the threadbare legitimacy of corrupt Arab elites, exactly the type of bed fellows the US chooses to consort with.
I agree with this in part, although I don’t think the populace supporting Islamic parties in these countries aspire to the Iranian model. I think what is evident in the way Islamic politics has evolved is that they realise it is necessary to move to the middle ground in order to attract mainstream support, and that is how Islamic politics will become the force of the future. The best example is the AKP, but Hamas, Hizballah, the Brothers, the FIS, and most of the Iraqi parties are all on the same path.
That I think is the real issue the US needs to grasp, and self-evidently it needn’t be anywhere near as painful as people think. Iran is not central to the process, yet I think an accord with Iran could have the significance of ending the clash of civilisations discourse and legitimising Islamic politics in general.
RSH: “It’s nice to be correct, but if that doesn’t change your position vis-a-vis your enemies, one should look at other options.”
What are the other options ?
At least, we hear lots of people arguing against military intervention. That was not the case before Iraq’s war.
“Third, even if it did have such control, the US electorate is so unconcerned about the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current economic conditions, that US threats to start another war in Iran – and perhaps even Pakistan – seem to be completely off their radar”
If the economic conditions are that much bad, then it is another argument for the anti-war movement, not only to stop the current wars but to avoid a new one.
“Increased Iranian confidence” simply means that the Iranian model, however successful or unsuccessful at home, would become increasingly attractive to the region’s oppressed in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon and the rest of the Gulf. Iranian success undercuts the threadbare legitimacy of corrupt Arab elites, exactly the type of bed fellows the US chooses to consort with.
And for threatening those illegitimate regimes, Iran must be dealt with. The nuclear issue is the best “threat” that the US can come up with.
A concise and well-expressed article. Unfortunately, nothing we didn’t already know.
Which means it changes nothing. The US and Israel are hardly going to be persuaded by these concepts and no one else has any significant influence on those two countries’ governments.
More importantly, it continues the false notion that the Iranian nuclear issue is in fact an issue of any real significance. For the reasons stated that Iran is unlikely to ever actually deploy nuclear weapons or benefit greatly from a breakout capability, it makes it clear once again that there is no more legitimacy to the Iran “crisis” than there was to the Iraqi “WMD crisis”.
The problem is how to expose the real agenda of the United States and Israel. This, too, is almost a dead issue, like the two state solution, and for the same reason: the facts on the ground have destroyed any ability to turn back the clock.
First. the bulk of the US and Israeli population have been brainwashed into believing Iran is a threat just like they were brainwashed – and still believe according to most polls – that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
Second, regardless of what the civilian population of the US believes, it has absolutely no control over what its government actually does. An election every couple of years which removes a handful of Congressional members and replaces them with new ones totally subservient to the same campaign contributors provides no means to actually enforce “democratic control” of the state.
Third, even if it did have such control, the US electorate is so unconcerned about the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current economic conditions, that US threats to start another war in Iran – and perhaps even Pakistan – seem to be completely off their radar. I can assure you that the average American really has NO accurate idea what is going on in terms of Iran. Given the total control of the mainstream media by the Israel Lobby and the military-industrial complex, there is absolutely no way the US electorate is going to be persuaded to take the kind of massive action it would require to force the US government to not pursue the course it is pursuing.
It’s nice to be correct, but if that doesn’t change your position vis-a-vis your enemies, one should look at other options.
…that Hamas and Hezbollah are threats to Israel…
Jenkins needs to take this a step further. He concludes…
“halting enrichment in Iran by persuasion, coercion or the use of force could lower the risk of a threshold-capable Iran becoming an even more troublesome neighbour (for those who are unwilling to follow Turkey’s example and to pursue rapprochement and détente). But it may not have that effect, and other more practical solutions to the non-nuclear problems posed by Iran are at hand.”
But Peter, what problems are posed by Iran and for whom, and in what context? It’s easy enough to say that Hamas and Hezbollah are threats to Iran, because it’s taken for granted in the US elite that that is true, but isn’t Israel a far greater threat to the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and Lebanon? Or course it is. Many of the most sacred assumptions of the US political establishment must be challenged if we are to have any hope at all for a more sane and decent foreign policy. Challenging those assumptions will be hard, because those who are brave enough to do so will be attacked and marginalized. But it must be done.
And when we talk about RUMORED Iranian involvement against US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq (and how likely is it, really, that Iran wants to help give the US an excuse to keep more forces in those countries longer, by offering any significant support to attacks on the US there?), isn’t there a log being ignored in America’s eye there? Who is the bigger threat to who in the region? Iran to the US or the US to Iran? It’s ludicrous to even consider that question seriously for more than a heartbeat, right?
As hard as it may be, we need to work harder at and dig deeper to challenge the many increasingly absurd assumptions on which much US foreign policy seems to be based.
I do want to point out that if the colonies: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait were accountable to their people and not the US embassies in their countries, they would probably be at least nuclear threshold states already.
If Iran achieving nuclear capability makes it more difficult for the US to manage the string of authoritarian dictatorships it keeps under control in the region for Israel’s sake, I don’t think that is a bad thing. Not for the US which would be relieved of a huge burden, certainly not for the people of these dictatorships, and even – as the Whites of South Africa learned post-Apartheid – not for the Jewish people of Israel.
Very good and perceptive. I’m guessing the state to which Iran confided that it aims to be a threshold state is Turkey, but an Iranian official has publicly said, in Japan, that it seeks a status similar to Japan’s, which is about the same thing.
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1260.html
Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani has stated that Iran will follow the Japanese model in its nuclear program. Japan has nuclear technology but does not possess any nuclear weapons and Iran will follow the same path in its nuclear program, Larijani said in a meeting with Japanese House of Councilors President Satsuki Eda in Tokyo on Wednesday.
(The Wednesday in question may have been Feb 24, 2010)