Crisis in the Middle East
The Middle East is once again in the news. After Iran revealed that it has a second nuclear facility, it tested new long-range missiles. News after news report is being made to encourage a negative public reaction against, all while Israel seems ready to strike Iran.
Where is President Obama in this? While, he is opening up dialogues with Iran, it seems that the dialogue seems to be one-way, where the U.S. is giving Iran demands: open up nuclear plants to inspectors, and allow inspectors to have open discussions with those who have developed the plant.
Do these demands sound familiar? They do to me. It’s the demands the U.S. made with Iraq. And like with Iraq, Iran says it will open itself up to such inspectors. I hope Obama will not follow the route which lead to war in Iraq. I fear he is being directed to do just that. Right now we are threatening severe sanctions. But Obama has consistently said all options are possible.
Have we learned our lessons from the Iraq War? Have we learned not to take accusations at face value? I fear not. Without having to look into the moral question of preemptive war, we need to look into the logistics. Can we take on a war on three fronts? Can we afford such a war? To both questions, the answer should be obvious: no.
Interestingly enough, the UN has recently encouraged Israel to open up its own nuclear program for similar inspections. Do we think this will happen? Obviously not. Should the US start threatening sanctions?
Comments are closed.
Peace is not served by sitting on our hands as a brutal dictatorship prepares to develop nuclear weapons. And just because a previous administration turned a legitimate concern of another country’s weapons of mass destruction into an ill-considered war, is no reason to assume this administration is heading the same way. Secretary Gates makes clear that non-violent diplomatic and economic sanctions are the administration’s expected responses, while not foolishly saying any option is off the table.
The Iranian dictatorship presents a threat to the world in addition to the oppression of its own people. An international response is essential.
The administration should also be commended for wisely re-orienting an overly expensive and clunky missile defense shield directed against Russia, who is little threat and was alienated by being targeted, to a defense shield that is nimble, less costly and directed to protect Europe and Israel from Iranian aggression.
Kurt,
I think we need to be careful. While I do not approve of much which goes on in Iran, I also think there is a great amount of demonizing via exaggeration to encourage a war-like stand against Iran, and there has been too much manipulation going on through the media for us to get a full, clear picture. When the President’s speeches are misrepresented (again, I am not saying I agree with them, but rather, the fact that they have to be exaggerated and made to say what they did not say) makes me want to pause and see what is going on first.
Beyond that, the whole “The Iranian dictatorship presents a threat to the world in addition to the oppression of its own people. An international response is essential” was what was said just before our war with Iraq about Iraq. As with “Peace is not served by sitting on our hands as a brutal dictatorship prepares to develop nuclear weapons.” That was again a part of the strategy to convince people to go into war with Iraq. It’s the exact same strategy.
And I encourage the exact same Catholic response. No preemptive wars. And, while I would prefer to say this administration is better, when it continues to encourage false representations of Iran that was begun by the Bush administration, right now I say: it is not.
At first I had significant concerns. It appears however that Iran is going to be cooperative.
Interestingly enough, the UN has recently encouraged Israel to open up its own nuclear program for similar inspections. Do we think this will happen? Obviously not. Should the US start threatening sanctions?
Honest question: is the United States nuclear program open to UN inspections? I don’t know the answer to this question, but I suspect not. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. The reason I suspect not is because I don’t think the US would want US state secrets being looked at by a UN bureacrat.)
I bring this point up because I don’t think it’s useful to imply that Israel and Iran are equivalent in terms of maturity and responsibility. (Just as the United States is not equivalent to Iran in terms of responsibility.) A nuclear device in the hands of Israel (or the United States) is not as big a threat to world security and peace as a nuclear device in the hands of Iran. Iran has stated it would like to wipe another nation off the face of the earth (ie, Israel); Israel (or the US) has not stated that it would like to wipe another nation off the face of the earth.
[I'm not denying that Israel (or the United States) has acted irresponsibly in the past when it comes to foreign policy, acts of war, etc. I'm just saying that it is not correct and not useful to create equivalencies between Israel and Iran. As for the larger question of how the US should respond to Iran, I honestly don't know.]
Thales, I do not find Israel to be a competent, sane nation, when it comes to war. It is an aggressive nation which supports settlers invading the land of others. It uses its WMDs as a buffer to allow itself to continue on with its aggressive policies. So, of course, Israel, the US, and others would not like the world to see our secrets. But I think it is hypocritical and just being used for the sake of power, not truth. The fear of Iran getting nukes is not, imo, that it will use them (Iran shows far more rationality than that, despite the claims of some), but that it will be able to dictate more of its desires on the world scene.
On the other hand, I am not saying Iran should get nukes. But we have to realize why they want them and work on that.
M.Z.
Iraq was going to be cooperative, and we went in anyway. It’s not over yet. There is an attempt to justify war going on. I am not sure who all the parties are who are trying to push it, though I can suspect who some of them are.
So, what would Henry Karlson do about Iran’s apparent determination to acquire nuclear weapons?
Mark
Do I have to come up with a solution to reject proposals? Can I say “don’t nuke the world to create peace” even if I don’t know how to make peace?
Thales – The only country to ever use one of these weapons is the united states. Neither the u.s. nor Israel can be trusted with such weapons.
Henry,
I am not sure I understand you. We have a series of what seem to me to be clear facts (1. Iran is a brutal dictatorship. 2. It opresses its own people. 3. It is developign nuclear weapons in violation of international law).
Are you saying the current administration should not state those facts because a previous administration stated those same facts against another country and then launched an ill-considered war?
Or are you disputing that Iran is a dicatorship or that it oppresses it own people or that it is developing nuclear weapons?
Kurt,
I dispute the claim that it is a dictatorship. While we might not approve of its policies or agree and question whether or not people would accept them (and certainly many in Iran do not, but neither do many in the US support what happens in the US), I do not think it has reached the stage of dictatorship. But even if it were, that would not justify a strike or invasion (would a strike remove a dictator? no?). As for oppressing its people, again, we had similar claims with Iraq. But again, when looking into just war discussions, proportionality would not be met — a strike would do nothing, and an invasion would just bring chaos. As for nuclear weapons, again, while I do not approve of it, I do think it is hypocritical to say “only we can have them.” I do not find them to be a threat if they had nuclear weapons — they are too sane and wanting to survive (as history has shown) to go for a doomsday battle.
I should say a greater threat than any nation which has them already.
I believe that a Western strike against Iran is exactly what the Ayatollah Khameni WANTS right now: it would, for a while–but only for a while–deprive Iran of nuclear weapons capability. However, it would also shore up the legitimacy of his dictatorship and unite the Iranian people around his puppet Ahmadinejad (sp?).
There is only one way to deal with Iran, and that is to attempt to CONTAIN her power-grabs while, at the same time, salving her wounded pride by “widening the canvas” for negotiations, as outlined here, by Roger Cohen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html
In the long run, the only people who can deter the nation of Iran from embarking on a race for nuclearization of her defense forces are the Iraqi people themselves.
Iran will not be dealt with the way Iraq was; it is a larger, richer and better educated society, with many resources, many allies world-wide and great capacity to retaliate against the West. And it has every right to nuclear energy.
I meant “the Iranian people” above, of course–and I think that, eventually, they will be able to do precisely that.
Michael,
I agree, no one country should be trusted with nuclear weapons. (I don’t even trust you – or me – with nuclear weapons.) Nuclear weapons are too dangerous for anyone to hold.
My only point is that how responsible a country is, is something which admits of degree, and it is incorrect and unuseful to consider all countries equivalent to one another. The US is more responsible than Iran (I think that we can all agree on that.)
Henry apparently thinks that Iran is as responsible and trustworthy as Israel. I disagree.
Thales – Sure, different countries are more or less responsible than others. Again, the united states is the only country that has ever used such weapons. The united states routinely engages in unjust wars and covert operations killing innocent human persons. The united states has consistently lied about its reasons for doing so. Israel’s foreign and domestic policies bear obvious similarities to those of the united states. To say that these countries are “more responsible” than Iran does not seem to be based on anything factual.
How “responsible” or “trustworthy” countries are relative to one another is also related to how “responsible” they are for their own behavior. Countries like Israel, steeped as they are in democratic ideals as well as their obvious scriptural traditions, are more responsible for their dehumanizing behavior toward others, and thus obviously less “responsible” in the sense of trustworthiness.
Do I have to come up with a solution to reject proposals? Can I say “don’t nuke the world to create peace” even if I don’t know how to make peace.
Henry, when you reject “proposals” that haven’t even been made (such as nuking “the world to create peace”), then YES. As we’ve heard lately in another context, it really isn’t constructive to simply be the ‘party of NO.’ On the other hand, after rereading your post and comments, it’s clear that you don’t find the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran to be particularly disturbing.
I once observed a situation in which a rather nutty “cult” established itself in a valley. It proved to be a highly irresponsible and criminal organization with some homicidal tendencies in the end. Luckily it imploded after a few scary years. Its critics were, of course, labelled bigots and worse. Had a Benedictine monastery been built there instead I think the concerns would have been somewhat less–based on precedent and actual actions. You CAN draw some valid conclusions with something less than absolute assurance. Particularly when it is a life and death situation.
Anyone who is not scared of nuclear weapons (I’ve been around them more than the average person) does not understand the situation. I willingly admit it–I am VERY afraid of them in the hands of the ayatollahs. You may as well let children play with hand grenades.
Thomas and Mark
Of course I would prefer Iran not to have nuclear weapons. I think no country should have them. I think the arm’s race was wrong from the get go. However, I am looking at this in two directions.
First, in that no one should have them. And in this respect, I think those who have them should work in their elimination. That might be a partial answer for you Mark.
Second, until the elimination happens, I can understand why those who don’t have them, want them. And, as many reports point out, despite what we think of Iran, they really are interested in self-survival. It’s why they want nuclear weapons. They don’t want to be pushed around. In a “real-politics” sense, I understand their position. And I believe they would be as stable as anyone with nuclear weapons. The fact that they have been demonized, and the real story of what is going on is ignored, tells me much. So yes, any place with nuclear weapons is a threat. But Iran is no more a threat than Israel.
The IAEA supports the peaceful use of nuclear power and opposes nuclear proliferation. The US already has nuclear weapons, so as long as we’re not giving them to other countries, there’s no concern about proliferation. Realistically, there’s no difference between having 999 and 1000 nuclear weapons, but there’s a big difference between having 0 and 1.
As for the US’s previous use of nuclear weapons, is it fair to count that against us? An earlier article wrote about the potential error in treating corporations as persons; isn’t there a similar weakness in blaming the current US government and military for actions of 64 years ago?
Implicit in this comment thread is a equivalence between Israel building housing and Iran building nuclear weapons. The current Muslim population of Israel is about 20%. Palestinians refuse even 1% of Jews on land they claim as theirs. If there’s any analogy to Iran’s nuclear program to be made, it’s with the Palestinians, since both the anti-settlement movement and the nuclear missile development are designed to make as much of the Middle East as possible free of Jews.
despite what we think of Iran, they really are interested in self-survival. It’s why they want nuclear weapons.
I would respectfully disagree. I believe they want them to have power beyond their own borders, particularly against Israel and the civilized democracies of western Europe.
Those who care about peace should support nuclear non-proliferation and Iran, which is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, should live up to it’s committments.
It would be gravely wrong for the administration (in concert with our allies in France and the UK) to cease consideration of diplomatic and economic means to halt nuclear weapon proliferation by the Iranian regime.
To say that these countries are “more responsible” than Iran does not seem to be based on anything factual.
Michael, I don’t want to wander from the topic of this thread, but I’m very comfortable about saying that the US is more responsible, trustworthy, less prone to harming innocent people whether they be the US’s own citizens or those of other nations, than Iran – and I’m surprised you would think otherwise. I suggest that a factual comparison of the historical record between Iran and the US will bear that out. (That is not to say that the US has been entirely blameless – obviously, the US has harmed people both in and outside its borders over its past history.)
Why is it ok for the USA to have the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, spending half the world’s military budget, but when Iran has some gimpy program it warrants crisis mode and shunning ? What credibility do nuclear powers USA, UK and France have to demand others not do as they do ? Might makes right is the only argument here.
Gerald, if I may ask a rhetorical question, would you rather see the number of countries with nuclear weapons increase or decrease?
Gerald,
look at it this way – for very good reason our home country Germany/Austria was not permitted to develop nuclear weapons – same for Japan – same for Iran IMHO.
Today, it’s the US that’s the mist aggressive. Times change. Today, Japan is technologically superior in countless ways, other than Apple, while being peaceful. The US My point us that Obama ought to feel like a hypocrite, asking others to do what he/the US would never do. Nuclear weapons ought to be banned, it’s just funny for the US to posture when it has nuclear subs cruising the seven seas. By it’s own rationale, the Bush administration would have had to attack the US….
Gerald,
as you know Obama is right now finally making a serious effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons owned by the US and others.
Sure in the ideal world we would have already zero nuclear weapons – history took us however on a different path – 60+ years later here we are – lets be constructive shall we?
But just reflect on your own experience – I remember you boasting in your prior life as the Closed Cafeteria Catholic about owning all kinds of weapons ( (to defend your wife and yourself from the hordes of bay area liberals ?)
Come on why so naive – of course a country of proud gun owners finds a way to spend top dollars for the latest and greatest on weaponry.
To limit and reduce is a realistic goal – to eliminate is not. Besides as Germans/Austrians we are certainly not in position to point fingers.
I’m beginning to think that I may have made a terrible mistake in so strongly supporting Obama. We are being marched to war with Iran, the same as we were marched to war with Iraq:
http://www.takimag.com/article/fool_me_twice1/
Digby
It’s what I wrote this piece; I fear we are getting the same rhetoric.
Henry and Digby,
My reading is positive and hopeful.
On Thursday, it was learned that Iran had agreed to a freeze on its nuclear fuel enrichment work. Iran would send 1200 kilograms of low-enriched fuel to Russia, leaving Iran with 300 kilograms and an addition 80 kilograms per month. This would leave Iran with insufficient uranium to make a nuclear weapon.
Russia would further refine this fuel from 3.5 percent to 19.5 percent enrichment. France would then take the fuel from Russia and enrich it for peaceful purposes, primarily medicine. France would ship this fuel to Iran for such use. The fuel from France could not be repurposed to make atom bombs.
The second phase of talks on nuclear issues will begin around October 20 and will last about six weeks. The purpose is to establish a mechanism of ongoing compliance by Iran on nuclear issues within the framework of the IAEA.
Once the question of nuclear issues has been resolved satisfactorily within the context of the U.N. nonproliferation regime, phase three discussions will begin on a wide range of topics including trade.
In the background, my sense is that the Iranian government is laboring against the question of legitimacy raised by recent domestic unrest.
Personally, I don’t see any parallel with the lead-up to war with Iraq. I do see bad reporting.