Obama and Iran
President-elect Barack Obama said Friday that "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe is unacceptable. . . Iran's support of terrorist organizations, I think is something that has to cease."
What I cannot understand is why American politicians who speak publicly on this issue do not at least acknowledge that to the best information of the American intelligence community, Iran has no nuclear weapons research program,as opposed to a civilian enrichment research program. A pdf of the National Intelligence Estimate on this issue is here. The Bushies and "anonymous senior officials" vowed that the NIE would not be allowed to enter the national debate on this issue and that they would ignore it and go on insisting that Iran has a weapons program. Since they lost, can't we lose the alarmist rhetoric on all this? Some of the information in the NIE was based on information brought out of Iran by defectors.
It is legitimate to maintain suspicions of Iranian intentions and activities in this regard. I'm not saying we should be patsies. But let's just talk straight about the issue, based on what real evidence is available.
Also, if the only real reason Iran is accused of supporting international terrorism is its arming of Hizbullah in south Lebanon, that is a pretty problematic charge. The recent agreement among political parties in Lebanon recognized Hizbullah as a kind of Lebanese national guard charged with defending the Lebanese south against Israeli aggression.The cabinet statement refered to "the right of Lebanon's people, army, and resistance to liberate the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, Kafar Shuba Hills, and the Lebanese section of Ghajar village, and defend the country using all legal and possible means." The word "resistance" refers to Hizbullah. The European Union has declined to designate Hizbuallah a terrorist group.
Usually the phrase "supporter of terrorism" conjures up the image of shadowy groups plotting to blow things up in Vienna or something, not a militia defending national territory against foreign incursions. Hizbullah did commit terrorist acts in the 1980s and 1990s, but I'm not sure what it has done that would technically deserve the name in the past 10 years.
It would be nice if Washington would itself foreswear all deployment of terrorist groups to obtain its goals.
Anyway, can't a new administration speak in a more nuanced way about all this?
Obama also said he would respond "appropriately" to the letter recently sent to him by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad (the first such missive sent by an Iranian president to an American one on the occasion of the latter's election since the 1979 revolution).
Ahmadinejad wrote to Obama,
' "As you know the opportunities provided by the Almighty God, which can be used for elevation of nations, or God forbid, for their collapse, are transient. I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem.
On the other hand, the Americans who have spiritual tendencies expect the government to spend all its power in line with serving the people, rectify the critical situation facing the US, restore lost reputation as well as their hope and spirit, fully respect human rights and strengthen family foundations.
Other nations also expect war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, contempt of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them to be replaced by the ones advocating justice, respect for human rights, friendship and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.
They also want US intervention to be limited to its borders, especially in the Middle East. It is highly expected to reverse the unfair attitude towards restoring the rights of the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans.
The great nation of Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts, especially in the region.'
Reuters shows scenes of Iran and interviews Iranians on the street about their hopes for an Obama administration.
Despite its religious conservatism, Iran has announced a $2.5 bn. stem cell research program that resembles Obama's aspirations far more than it reflects the politics of George W. Bush.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/08/2008 01:17:00 AM
|
Facebook
33 Comments:
Dr Cole you asked:
What I cannot understand is why American politicians who speak publicly on this issue do not at least acknowledge that to the best information of the American intelligence community, Iran has no nuclear weapons research program,as opposed to a civilian enrichment research program.
The answer is very simple AIPAC. What I can't understand, is how much longer will Americans and Israelis allow such interest groups to hijack their policies.
Obama made his position on Iran pretty clear during the primary campaign. He will work to build a relationship with Iran (but he has not said what kind of a relationship), he will use "diplomacy" to coerce Iran into compliance with the will of the United States, he will use any means necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring those nuclear weapons that they are not, according to all evidence, attempting to acquire, and he will use any means necessary - did you hear him? - ANY means necessary - was that clear? - he said ANY MEANS NECESSARY to stop ANY Iranian threat to Israel.
Either Obama is lying when he implies that he believes Israel has a nuclear weapons program, which is very, very bad, or else he is not lying, which is even worse.
I agree with many of the points you raise, but it is worth pointing out the critical elephant in the room (pun noted). It isn't an Obama administration yet. It would be spectacularly stupid politically to not hew to the line he did, until after Jan. 20, 2009 at the earliest.
Start a domestic political firestorm before he even takes office and for what?
There is zero upside to say anything than what he did in this presser for the U.S., for Iran, or for the region.
"The Bushies" HA HA the Obamees are turning out to be just the same. Some anti war rhetoric to knock Clinton out of the primary, and get $250 from me, then basically same Bush stuff. Basically as long as there is any money left in anyone's IRA, the wars can go on and on. With the unemployement rate rising, war is now down right Keynsian.
The key Iran issue is whether the US wants to force "regime change" there. If Obama, or any one else, wants they can solve the Iran-US hostility by dropping this illegal and unachievable dream.
If good faith is restored, Iran can easily be persuaded to drop its own nuclear development, which it has the right to BTW. The Iranian neo-cons would also be weakened and moderate leaders will opt for economic cooperation with Iran's nieghbors rather than US-style hegemony fantasies.
Obama talks about Iran nuclear weapons because, like most politicians,he has to pretend he does not see the (nuclear) elephant: Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Since they lost, can't we lose the alarmist rhetoric on all this?
They lost? Rahm Emanuel is the Obamanible Snowjob's Chief of Staff!
It would be nice if Washington would itself foreswear all deployment of terrorist groups to obtain its goals.
Anyway, can't a new administration speak in a more nuanced way about all this?
It sounds as though you are resigned to the Triumph of the Zionist Will and its plans to send the US Wehrmacht into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. You just want them to talk out of the other side of their mouths while they do so.
Can you really believe that its perception and not reality that matters?
I gave up any hope of seeing a different Middle East policy with his first appointment. Rahm Emmanuel is a well known AIPAC backer. AIPAC represents pretty much the Israeli right. Not surprising given his father had been a part of the Menachim Begin's Irgun.
Not that I back Ahmedinajad's stances, but why is it that no one is talking about the fact that he has little to no power in his system. That we are not seeing a weapons program, ect... This more than anything says to me that Walt and Meirsheimer had something in that paper that people tried to hush with claims of anti-Semitism. Perhaps it was the wrong actors, by why the disinformation?
Cole asks -
"Anyway, can't a new administration speak in a more nuanced way about all this?"
With an Israel fanatic as White House Chief of Staff? You've got to be joking.
Has Juan's teen-like crush on Obama caused him to overlook that Rahm Emanuel chose to serve not with U.S. forces but with the Israeli Defense Force? Sane democracies don't offer top posts to people with highly dubious loyalties.
I guess we can overlook that Rahm's father was an Irgun terrorist - it was a long time ago and you can't blame the sins of the father on the son. But how about his most recent comments, of the vile racist kind that Juan normally condemns. JPost report -
"In an interview with Ma'ariv, Rahm Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
Thanks very much for this post. I had hoped that Obama's statements that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons had been a careful statement of what everyone agrees on.
But it is disappointing to see him state or suggest that Iran has a weapons programme. Obama's promising not to be reactive was a good sign. If he takes his time and the Iranians continue to use the back-channels to try and start dialogue, as they have been doing, then there is a chance of a more rational course. Once he gets a chance to talk to the people pushing back so hard against Cheney and friends (i.e. Gates and co.) we may see some more nuance. For the moment he has to tread carefully I guess, which means not departing too radically from his election rhetoric. Also, if he wants ultimately to negotiate some blowhard rhetoric may be useful by way of preparation, right?
Perhaps Obama's comments were the result of his first national security briefing that took place the day before? Would you explore this possibilty and effect to the new administration.
Here we are... dealing with a constructed reality that does not go away.
What, in fact, are the goals of Bush-Obama(U.S.-Zionist?) Is Obama's "road map" already designed for him by other powers of the U.S. government? Is there more about what's going on in Iran {etc} than we know about...and that Obama soon will find out in his briefings? Obama's rhetoric is no less bellicose than Bush's, and on Pakistan, Bush is already carrying out his objectives---i.e., those of the Pentagon, et al.
It also infuriates me that Washington continues the lie that Ahmadinejad said that they want to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". He didn't say that!
What's the motive for lying about Iran like this, when anyone who does just a little research finds out the truth. The documents are out there disproving everything Washington claims about Iran. It's all lies!
Why?
Hamas and PIJ. I mean, just a cursory search on the subject would tell you this.
Hezbollah's agreement shouldn't have bearing on whether or not we isolate them as a terrorist organization. The Quds uae the same model in Iran, and they absolutely ARE a terrorist organization.
You're being misleading on the stem cells story, and I'm really repeatedly shocked and surprised Prof. Cole by your very apparent dearth in knowledge on Iran. The state also offers to pay for sex changes in order to deal with their allegedly non-existent gay issue.
Iran is a wonderful country, and it shouldn't be such a surprise that devout muslims would embrace scientific exploration. The longer history of the region in fact validates that tradition, and to suggest that it's somehow ironic or oxymoronic is sort of odd.
Such research--be it "progressive" or not in your view, professor--still needs to pass the muster of clerical oversight. Thus, if these reactionaries decide that a fetus becomes 'life' at a certain point, they can justify doing whatever they want as long as it meets 'Islamic' paramters. But this isn't about unexpected Islamic tolerance (and the Bush comparisons are just moot and silly), it's more about decent and very typical Shi'a muslims confronting a decaying and reactionary Khomeinist regime.
Dr Cole: I'm afraid you are off the reservation here.
The Iranian program is all about developing an indigenous nuclear technology, which gives some national presige and the capability to quickly convert to nuclear weapons.
There are two routes to build a viable nuclear weapon: The first is HEU, where the bomb mechanics are simple but you need a centrifuge cacscade to produce the HEU. The second is plutonium production. Recently, with the success of the AQ Kahn smuggling ring, HEU enrichment has proven more popular, proving its success in both Pakistan and North Korea.
Iran's continued development of an indigenous uranium enrichment infrastructure only serves to provide the capability to transition to a nuclear weapons program.
Because if the program was not about nuclear weapons and national prestige, Iran would have accepted the many offers to purchase LEU (fuel grade) uranium, and what amount to fantastic deals.
"Hizbullah did commit terrorist acts in the 1980s and 1990s, but I'm not sure what it has done that would technically deserve the name in the past 10 years."
How about firing unguided rockets randomly in the direction of Israeli cities during the 2006 war? Going across the Israeli border to kill and kidnap soldiers hardly seems to fit into the "National Guard" model either. (BTW "National Guard" troops typically wear uniforms so they can be distinguished from non-combatants.)
You've been properly critical of Israeli military activities that unnecessarily endangered Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Sauce for the goose.
Obama is no different than previous presidents who used the previously manufactured threats created to maintain fear and thereby the need for the Military Industrial Complex. So no Change there, just business as usual.
But business as usual is coming to a rapid halt with the wholesale failure of the US automotive industry. It will be the bankrupting of American big business that finally bankrupts the Empire, as those in power will do everything to prop up the latter at the expense of the former, a policy verified throughout BushCo. The only place in the budget with enough funds to finance the escape from the oncoming depression resides in Empire support--"Defense," "Homeland Security," and other related areas located throughout the executive branch--roughly $1.2 Trillion during the last fiscal year, with more budgeted for next year. But all will note how it's this entitlement program that is the true Sacred Cow within the US government, as it is almost never criticized, and its budget almost never shrinks, all the while much rhetoric is used to justify its existence, as Obama has just done.
Here's a prediction: Like every other post-FDR president before him, Obama will ignore public opinion and follow a policy path inimical to the Public Interest, which he proved quite capable of doing during his brief time as a senator. He will maintain most Imperial policies, which means we will have to fight his administration just as hard as BushCo's. As with every new British Prime Minister during its 19th century heyday, every new US government tries to add another jewel to the crown of Empire, and Obama will be no different.
Thanks to Juan Cole for posting Ahmadinejad's letter. It is not the sort of letter an informed and aware statesman would send to begin a respectful diplomatic relationship—larded as it is with backhanded compliments and veiled animosities. The reference to "never-ending demands of a selfish minority" is clearly to Jews, which, to say the very least, puts Obama in a bad spot. The letter is like a low-ball bid: if Obama were to react positively, it would communicate weakness.
It seems to me Obama is playing it right by purporting to be considering a response while simultaneously reciting unmodified Bush-era language about nuclear weapons. The accuracy of the claims is hardly the point. This is a diplomatic dance, and Obama cannot give anything away. He can only trade. Ahmadinejad has offered nothing, and Obama offers nothing in return.
Obama pledged to return diplomacy to the center of US foreign policy. It's been a long time, so we have to try to remember what that means. While diplomatic goals must be rooted in reality, diplomats, like all bargainers, play a game of perception, and so must be facile at every shade of deception.
It is way, way too early to judge Obama.
One man can't do everything. Unless Obama includes some 'new' people instead of the Rahms how is his approach on foreign policy issues going to be any different. You can expect new tricks from old interest groups... At the same time I think it will become clear very soon that we are expecting too much from one man.
Dear Juan,
I entirely concur with your viewpoints. Just to see how our media muddy the situation, I refer you to the following article by Mr Ian Black in today's The Guardian:
Mail bonding
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/08/iran-usa
In the second paragraph of this article, Mr Black, reporting from Tehran, writes:
"Ahmadinejad's letter was a characteristic jumble of political and moral hectoring - though ..."
On seeing this, I immediately consulted President Ahmadinejad's official website, where the original of the letter at issue (in Persian) is to be seen:
http://www.president.ir/fa/?ArtID=13107
To my surprise, I discovered that there is no "hectoring"* in the letter. This fact is also evident from the English translation that you present on this page. (Is this your translation, or the official translation by State Department?)
For those who are unfamiliar with Persian, the language, in particular that employed by the political class since 1979, tends to be colourful and replete with quotations from religious texts, in particular Qoran (this is not specifically an Iranian thing; take a traditionally Calvinist country such as the Netherlands, and talk with the people in their sixties or seventies, and you will feel as though you were listening to people reading from the Bible - the language is replete with biblical quotations, specifically with those from The Psalms, The Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). The language is very similar to that employed during the Qajar era, a linguistic and literary style that was distanced from during and after the Constitutional Revolution of Iran (1904-1911). The modern pre-1979 trend was pioneered by such revolutionaries as Mirza Jahangir Khan Sur-e Esrafil (editor of the celebrated weekly newspaper Sur-e Esrafil) and Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda (mostly known for his Persian Dictionary, which consists of 15 volumes, extending over some 26,000 pages); Dehkhoda's style of writing in Charand o Parand (Balderdash and Piffle), which were published in the Sur-e Esrafil newspaper (collected and published in book form since) completely revolutionized the style of prose writing in Persian. In fact, the Sur-e Esrafil newspaper was the first newspaper that was read by all sections of the society (unusual for its time, it was sold on street corners - even illiterate manual labourers bought it and asked a literate person to read it for them in large groups). Earlier, such people as Mirza Fath-ali Akhundov even advocated change of the Persian script from Arabic into Latin (a policy that was adopted by Republic of Turkey in 1928 under President Kemal Atatürk).
For illustration, before the revolution of 1979, people meeting at work in the morning would greet each other by saying:
Sobh bekayr! (Good morning!),
or simply
Salam!
After the 1979 revolution, many people started to greet each other as follows:
Sabbah-komo'llah-o bel-kheiyr! (translated roughly, May God bless your morning!).
This may have been the way in which very devout people greeted each other before 1979, but after 1979 this became somehow the norm. I understand that this way of greeting is no longer in vogue in Iran (specifically amongst the younger people), but nonetheless it is in this light that one has to see the style in which Mr Ahmadinejad writes or speaks.
To my best judgement, in his letter to President-elect Obama, President Ahmadinejad is not hectoring,* as Mr Ian black so carelessly and unprofessionally writes in his today's article.
Lastly, those who know the Persian literature and are familiar with Qoran, will realise that many of the statements by President Ahmadinejad that by our media are portrayed as being heated or hostile, are in fact direct quotations from either Qoran or the heraldic part of the classical Persian literature. The ignorance (either genuine or contrived) displayed by so many of our journalists is simply dumbfounding.
BF.
_______
* According to The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 5th edition (note that The Guardian is published in London, UK), the verb "hector" means:
1. verb intrans. Play the bully; brag, bluster, domineer. M17.
2. verb trans. Intimidate by bluster or threats; domineer over; bully out of, into, etc. M17.
I think/hope Obama's comment is deliberately ambiguous. He doesn't say that Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program, he says such a program is not acceptable. He may just be being extremely careful not to p1ss off some powerful hawks somewhere...
Dr. Cole--What is your opininion of Ahmadinejad's assertion that American policy is determined and controlled by a "selfish minority"?
Your analysis is some of the best on the web. This is one place I can get real news instead of the fake gooblygook served up at sites like my own!
My first online poll:
Why did God abandon Palin and the Republicans in 2008?
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=242
Enjoy.
I'm not seeing anything from Obama to indicate that he plans to move away from Bush's warmongering foriegn policy. Obama's statements about Iran and Russia are especially reckless and reprehensible. One constantly hears that such bellicosity is necessary in the current US political climate. Well, if that's true, we as a country are really headed straight into hell. But I don't think it's true. When I hear Obama talk about Iran and Israel and Russia, the impression I get is that he's talking for the ears of the hawks in the US foreign policy and military establishment. He's pandering to the hawks. Well, it doesn't mean much to talk about "change" while continuing to pander to the same old same old Old Guard, and while continuing to elevate younger members of the Old Guard, such as Emanuel. Obama seems set on keeping the old vicious circle of US foreign policy rolling on.
Ok. Since Obama doesn't seem to be willing to take any political risks, it's up to us to push for a change in the US' approach to foreign policy. When it comes to Iran, for example, there is simply no foundation that I can see for all the alarmist rhetoric. Even if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapon, which we have little reason to suppose it is doing, such a weapon would be worse than useless against Israel. It's quite possible to be not a patsy without being an alarmist. And alarmist rhetoric can't just be a diplomatic ploy, because it establishes a momentum of its own. If US leaders continue to throw alarmist rhetoric into the maelstrom of public opinion and international affairs, the result sooner or later will be that we back ourselves into more and worse wars.
What the hell happened to "walk softly and carry a big stick"? Undoubtedly the US has the biggest stick the world has ever seen, but we seem to have no clue about walking softly.
If Obama is at all sincere about bringing change to US foreign policy, he'll show it by appointing people who can balance the hard liners that he currently seems to prefer. It's impossible to give peace a chance when the only people who are promoted up through the political ranks are the hawks.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/11/in-interview-with-maariv-emanuels.html
November 6, 2008
"In an interview with Ma'ariv, * Emanuel's ** father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. 'Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,' he was quoted as saying. 'Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House.' The Ma'ariv article also quoted Dr. Emanuel as saying that his son spends most summers visiting in Tel Aviv, and that he speaks Hebrew, but not fluently." ***
* Israeli newspaper
** Emanuel Rahm
*** http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
For a reality check on Iran, please see
http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
For Kevin.
You are being unreasonable, inconsistent and insolent. Addressing Professor Cole, you state that:
"You're being misleading on the stem cells story, and I'm really repeatedly shocked and surprised Prof. Cole by your very apparent dearth in knowledge on Iran. The state also offers to pay for sex changes in order to deal with their allegedly non-existent gay issue."
Mr Ahmadinejad did say that
"We in Iran do not have gays like in your countries."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
where "like in your countries" is significant; he simply never denied existence of gays in Iran. He qualified the statement at issue in the interview that he gave last September to Ms Amy Goodman and Mr Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now! (the issue is discussed in Part II of the interview):
Part I (broadcast on September 25, 2008):
http://tinyurl.com/3r8n39
Part II (broadcast on September 26, 2008):
http://tinyurl.com/46wx3s
The transcripts of both programs are also available at the above-presented addresses.
Concerning gay communities in Iran, there is a documentary, in three parts (by CBC, Canada's National Public Broadcaster), on YouTube which I recommend the interested to watch:
Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAzMuHyg8Eg
Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMcfSuJkMo&feature=related
Part III:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUZiMCsNNcQ&feature=related
On watching this documentary, one should be deluded to believe that Iran's President were unaware of gay communities in Iran (one expects that as President he gets briefed by country's intelligence chiefs on daily basis - if a Canadian television crew has made a documentary in Tehran, one can be absolutely certain that the Iranian intelligence officials must have known far more about the subject matter of their documentary than some would wish to admit; it is just silly to think otherwise).
Now, irrespective of what Mr Ahmadinejad may or may not have said regarding gays in Iran, I fail to comprehend the logical relationship between this issue and Professor Cole being supposedly misleading about the stem-cell research in Iran and the possible logical relationship between this issue and that of sex change in Iran. You have crammed all these issues into one paragraph and then declare that you are being "repeatedly shocked" by supposedly "misleading" statements by Professor Cole. Aside from this, could you please enlighten us as to where Professor Cole may have made remarks concerning sex change in Iran? I visit Informed Comment on daily basis and am not aware of any such remarks by Professor Cole.
As for transsexuals in Iran, there is an award-winning documentary by the Iranian-American filmmaker Ms Tannaz Eshaghian, with the title Be Like Others, a short part of which can be viewed on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w4usDHP-Y0
I recommend the viewers to peruse the information in the Information Box of this YouTube video.
Regarding the question of abortion, and such issues as nuclear weapons, etc., the interested may watch the following informative documentary produced by Al Jazeera:
Online Ayatollah
Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BoP8aOamyY&feature=PlayList&p=6698BA1F3CDC7323&index=186
Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-RsxW-7QmE&NR=1
BF.
For Nicholas Weaver.
I am not privy to the plans that the Iranian leadership have in mind in pursuing to develop an "indigenous nuclear technology", however there are some issues that I do know on the basis of common-sense considerations. One does not need to think long or hard to realise that no sane state worthy of the name makes itself vitally dependent of a means of energy production without the ability to access the required fuel at a moment's notice. Just imagine that Iran becomes dependent, say, for 50% of her energy needs on nuclear energy. Imagine that for some political reason the foreign suppliers decline to deliver fuel on time. There is nothing that Iran can do in such eventuality. Yes, Iran can take the matter to an international legal tribune, but this takes time and a country collapses when 50% of its energy needs cannot be met for a considerable length of time.
Evidently, the inability to manufacture nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors inside Iran makes Iran susceptible to blackmail. Would you want that your government exposes your security and the security of your fellow citizen to such risk? As is well-known, at present many international banks and financial institutions are banned from having financial dealings with Iran. By the same token, it is theoretically possible that at some point in future companies delivering nuclear fuel to Iran will be banned from doing this delivery. Of course, we have very nice international institutions to prevent this and similar things from happening, but it is no secret that when American Administrations put their minds to achieving some goal, they prove to have all the means for doing so. When France was deemed likely to veto the invasion of Iraq at the UN Security Council, the Bush Administration invaded Iraq any way. From this perspective, I believe (and this must be the belief of any person who is not insane) that Iran deciding to become seriously dependent on nuclear energy, without the capability to produce nuclear fuel inside the borders of Iran, amounts to a national suicide. My advice to Iranian leadership would be that if they fail to get the international community to recognise Iran's right to produce nuclear fuel inside Iran, they have to scrap the project of nuclear power generation altogether. In such event, they have to go after other means of energy production.
The urgency for Iran to be able to manufacture nuclear fuel inside Iran becomes the more evident when one considers the history of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The construction of this plant started in 1975, and 33 years later the plant is as yet not in service! For clarity, 33 years is longer than the life-time of a generation. The Russians have been working on this plant for the past 12 years and as of today it is unclear when they are eventually going to deliver it (at present "2009" is being floated around, which could conceivably mean 31 December 2009); they are using the delivery of this plant as an instrument of power in their political dealings with the USA. Further, Iran has as yet to receive a single penny from the companies (e.g. Siemens) that declined to complete the Bushehr power plant, in contravention of the terms of the contract that they had signed with Iran.
Aside from the national security considerations, so long as Iran has not the technical capability for producing nuclear fuels inside the borders of Iran, Iran will be in no position to negotiate a fair price for nuclear fuel; the foreign suppliers can demand whether price that may believe that they can get. This should be evident from the fact that there is little diversity in the supply market for nuclear fuel, with only a handful of international consortiums operating on the market.
In view of the above, I believe that the only way out of the present dilemma regarding Iran's nuclear program is (one that is acceptable to Iran from the perspective of Iran's national interests and security as well as to those countries that see Iran's nuclear technology as a risk to their national security) is that Iran manufacture nuclear fuel inside Iran as one of several partners of an international consortium. The terms to be agreed upon should be such that no diversion of nuclear fuel for military purposes are feasible.
I sincerely believe that even the suggestion that Iran should give up her right to produce nuclear fuel inside Iran is just silly. Disliking a régime is one thing, demanding that its leaders be stupid is completely another.
BF.
Now on a different subject matter. Regarding Iran's involvement in Lebanon in general, and Iran's support of Hizbullah in particular, the relevant issues are far too complex for being interesting to our sound-bite media. Briefly, Iran's strong ties with Lebanon go back to the Safavid era, when the founder of the Safavid Dynasty (1501-1736), Shah Esmail I, made Shi'a Islam (the Twelver faith of Islam) the state religion of Iran. In this connection, he invited some Shi'a scholars to Iran from South of Lebanon (then the only major centre of Shiism in the world), namely from Jabal Amel (whence the Iranian family name Jabal-Ameli), the ancient home to the Banu Amilah tribe. Consequently, Iran's Shiism has its spiritual roots in the Shiism of Southern Lebanon. The bond of trust between the Iranian Shi'as and the Lebanese Shi'as is therefore not something that came about in 1979 and afterwards; it is a bond which is centuries old. In the 1970s Dr Esmail Nooriala wrote a PhD Thesis on this subject matter at SOAS in London, running into some 700 pages. I have understood that Dr Nooriala translated this Thesis into Persian for publication in Iran, however this event coincided with the revolutionary events in 1978 and the manuscript (of which there was only a single copy) was destroyed when the printing house at which it was being type-set was fire-bombed. Dr Nooriala has recently published a short review of his PhD Thesis in Persian which can be purchased at some bookshops; I am not certain, but perhaps the text of this booklet can be downloaded from the following website:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/NoorialaWorks.htm
The following links serve as a good starting point for the beginners (to be precise, those who happen to know Persian):
The historical connection between Iran and Southern Lebanon (''Ertebat-e Tarikhi-ye Iran ba Jonoub-e Lobnan''):
Part I:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2006/ES.Notes.080406-jabal1.htm
Part II:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2006/ES.Notes.081106-jabal2.htm
Part III:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2006/ES.Notes.081806-jabal3.htm
Part VI:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2006/ES.Notes.082506-jabal4.htm
Part V:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2006/ES.Notes.090106-jabal5.htm
Part VI:
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2006/ES.Notes.092206-jabal6.htm
It is well-known that President G.W. Bush did not know the difference between Shi'as and Sunnis when he ordered invasion of Iraq in 2003 (two days ago we learnt that Governor Sarah Palin had not known until very recently that Africa is a continent and that she had believed that the country South Africa were the southern part of a country called Africa). It is to be hoped that President-elect Barack Obama takes the time and studies the historical facts that underlie the strong bond that exists between Iran's Shi'as and the Shi'as of Southern Lebanon (put is differently, this bond is not due to a conspiracy against Israel, even though the existence of such bond has been politically and strategically expedient to both parties in the course of the past three decades). The same applies for the Alawites in Syria. Those who know the history of Shi'a Islam, will know the significance of e.g. Damascus to Shi'as.
BF.
_____
ps) In my previous Comment, the word bekayr should have been bekhayr (note the missing letter h).
Scott Ritter, our former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, believes that Iran has *never* had a nuclear weapons program:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/3526
Ritter correctly predicted that no WMD would be found in Iraq even before Saddam permitted U. N. inspectors to return prior to the invasion.
If enough folks guess what ThatOne™ will do, somebody is bound to get it right by accident.
My own guesswork starts from noticing that Cook County is a long, long way from salt water. Perhaps BHO does not have any foreign and invasion policy yet and is not going to get one until he feels he has to? When the time comes, he, being as ever the smartest person in the room, will think things over from scratch and decide what is best.
Which will be nice if it works.
If it doesn't work, well, the Homeland survived Jimmy Crater, did we not?
Happy days.
Iran is THE litmus test for the Israeli voting block in America. Iran = you are with us or against us. To this voting block, Israeli interests trumps American interests.
At 10:57 AM, Anonymous said...
"How about firing unguided rockets randomly in the direction of Israeli cities during the 2006 war?"
Israel targeted civilians and civilian objects from the outset of its attack on Lebanon, and violated other targeting law.
This unlawful Israeli targeting legalized Hezbollah's unguided rocket attacks (striking many Israeli military targets), even if they were targeted at civilians and civilian objects.
Hence what would otherwise be unlawful and criminal, by Hezbollah, became instead a lawful law enforcement action, intended to persuade Israel to terminate its unlawful targeting.
If you are ignorant, about this law of belligerent reprisals, then I'm not surprised, as it's an obvious conspiracy, from Reagan to date, among U.S. officials, to conceal this topic from public discourse, to pretend this law does not exist, to separate provocation from reaction, because their entire edifice of terrorism accusations rests on this quicksand foundation, which cannot survive honest analysis.
Some documentation here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/israel-us-war-blockade-reprisals.html#reprisals
...the Iraqi people are showing signs of impatience with the pace of US withdrawal.
Now one may ask why this matters. Obviously the Iraqi people will not be negotiating the agreements about US forces in Iraq. As long as the government wants US troops there, one may believe that it does not matter what the Iraqi public thinks.
However, it does appear that the Iraqi government is paying attention to the Iraqi public...
Dr Krull knows full well who he's talking to. He has to explain to the US Congress why the desires of the Iraqi people might be related to what the Iraqi government does when obviously this is not the case in the United States of America, where the bailout of Wall Street was undertaken against the wishes of a crystal clear majority of its citizens. Where a war of aggression against Iraq was undertaken against the will of most of its citizens. Where a war of aggression against Iran is being planned before our very eyes.
Some have argued that a timetable would weaken the government because it would send a signal to the insurgents that the US is not determined to stay the course. However, WorldPublicOpinion.org has found that only one in four Iraqis appear to agree. Rather, 53 percent have said that a timetable would strengthen the government. Presumably this would be because it would contribute to the perception that the government is, or at least will soon be, the real power in the country.
In closing, it is clear that the Iraqi people are quite eager for the US to lighten its military footprint in Iraq. More importantly it appears that they are eager to regain their sense of sovereignty. As long as they do not have this sense, they are likely to continue to have a fundamentally hostile attitude toward all aspects of the US presence in Iraq.
What strikes me as relevant in the above is the idea that the Iraqi people would support any government that would assert control, and hence the nation's sovereignty.
That's exactly the way I feel about the United States of America.
I would support practically any government that would run the likes of Rahm Emanuel out of the White House rather than give him the keys to it.
All our problems in the Middle East and around the world now with Muslims are the direct result of "our" support for Israel's renegade Occupation of Palestine and its other offenses against the sovereignty of its neighbors. And "our" policy has not been not determined by us, but by a clique of far-right wing Israelis and Americans who have deprived us of soverereignty in our own nation.
Barak Obama is just the latest, seemingly the most abject stooge of the AIPAC here in America. Just as Nouri al Maliki is the latest stooge of the American government there in Iraq.
We are all Iraqis, all of us Americans, living in a nation whose capital is occupied by the agents of foreign power.
What we ought to be doing is giving orders to the Israelis, to stop their bad behavior immediately or face the immediate withdrawal of all aid military and civilian.
But instead it is we who are taking the orders from the Israeli/American far-right wing, who are making us more enemies daily. Making enemies of people who ought to be our friends, as all people ought to be our friends.
We are all Occupied Iraqis in this the New American Century, living under a government collaborating with our Occupiers.
Peace with Iran is just being realistic, America has avenged any grievance over the hostages, by blowing up the Iranian 747, and it was America who insisted that Mossadegh was a Communist - and Mossadegh didnt hardly even nationalize oil very much - Mossadegh nationalized the oil less than the Ayatollah. If you say it isnt patriotic then so be it, it is time for new American leadership, not the same Conservatives who keep insisting on these immoral strategies that backfire.
Post a Comment
<< Home