Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kuros]

An editorial from the WashPost.

Iran's Nuclear Program

[The Bobster]

I voted "Not sure."

There are several reasons a hard-line Islamic regime in Tehran might have for turning down the Europeans' offer. One is the history of colonialism in the region, and the appearance that accepting any offer from that direction could be seen by some among their number as a step backward in that direction. The Shah was bought and paid for by Washington for decades to the detriment of the Iranian people, many of whom are still alive and a few of whom are in power now. How many, do you suppose, among the higher-placed in the govt there felt the hand of CIA-trained SAVAK torture, or saw the effects of it on those close to them?

Yes, I know, these same people have blood on their hands now, but that doesn't change what their likely attitudes would be right now.

Another point is that N Korea made a similar deal with the Clinton adminstration, and point fingers anywhere you like, it didn't pay off for them.

No sanctions were ever even proposed against India and Pakistan, who still remain the most likely candidates to drop the next A-bomb on a city, and now that has Pyonyang has announced it possesses a bomb (credibly or not, sure, let's talk about that) it's odd how the level of rhetoric frrom Washington toward the current Pres Kim has notched down a bit ...

I don't know if they have a bomb or want one. Saddam played a fence-straddling game of trying to let people suspect he had one, and it precipitated his downfall - and a quagmire war the US never wanted, of course, that too. Making people think you might have a bomb is as effective as actually having one, which is why Israel has never confirmed nor denied ... and if Jerusalem and Baghdad can play those games, why not Tehran? At the moment, Washington is far more likely to treat Tehran as they are treating Pyongyang rather than as Baghdad was treated.

Part of what is implicit in the questions Kuros is asking, is "Should Iran be able to possess nuclear weapons?" I say "No, but neither should the rest of us."

Taking a risk that will divert the topic, but as indicated, I think this is really what the OP is all about here anyway ...

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

It is worse for Iran to have nuclear weapons than other nations because of the government that is in power there.

As for nuclear weapons the US would be the biggest winner if every nation gave up nuclear weapons since the US (and only the US ) can or is close to being able to being able to making a big bang without them, but this is impossible cause such a treaty would never be verifiable. Since even a few weapons could tip the balance of power almost no country that has them will ever agree to such a treaty.

[The Bobster]

Iran hasn't invaded any of its neighbors recently, nor dropped bombs on countries far away. In fact, the only country that ever did drop aan atomic bomb ... Well, let's not go there. I'm thinkin g you don't want to, right?

Hint : Last Saturday was the 60th anniversary of the first time. In a few days we'll have the 60th anniversary of the last time.

Once more, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I agree that the US will come out on top if everyone gave up their nukes, packed them into Soviet-strength boosters and tossed them into the far side of the sun. I am completely in favor of this plan because I am an American and I want my country to be on top. Since this is true, I wonder why my country has never offered to do this.

We hold the "trump" card of being the only nation to not only possess nuclear weapons but having displayed the cojones to use them against a country that could not retaliate in kind. The world already knows we are badasses. We have shown it. (Save all your arguments and links about how there was not other choice - obviously, there were other choices - the point is, the facts of history show that this is what we did. And there were other options.)

This historical fact shows what we are capable of, and the deterrent value is most of the reason for such WMDs to exist ... and this is why we won't give them up.

I do not defend the Iranian govt, but it is ridiculous to claim they are worse - we have displayed we can be just as bad.

I believe the values that America holds dear are the best values the world has to offer, but those values are great and wonderful enough to stand or fall on their merits and don't need the threat of annihilating cities thousands of miles away in orderr to protect them.

The world wants what we have, what we are. That is enough.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[deessell]

No, but I believe they have the right to protect themselves against the biggest threat to the world...the USA. India has them, Israel is now number five, Pakistan has them, even North Korea has them.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Teufelswacht]

I am more interested in the "Israeli factor" in all of this. I read something last night that the IDF has submitted a report saying it would only take 2 medium sized nukes to cripple the country. There is a real fear in Israel of openly hostile Arab/Islamic states going nuclear. I have no doubt this is weighing heavily on the minds of IDF planners.

Wasn't the recent AIPAC - Pentagon spy scandal about Israeli attempts to get information from the Pentagon re. Iranian capabilities?

The problem for the U.S. in all of this is if the Israelis conduct a strike in Iran, the U.S. will be seen as approving it - regardless of whether the Administration did or not.

[Kuros]

[Hank Scorpio]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[deessell]

by Mike Whitney

08/08/05 "ICH" -- -- The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.

Sound familiar?

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack.

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace.

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.

No way.

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts.

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt.

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.

Isn't that so?

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain.

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists.

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence.

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: [email protected]
(from information clearning house)

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Counterpunch and information clearing house support the mullahs the insurgents and anyone else around the world that is against the US.

By the way the IAEC was sucked badly by Saddam Hussein in the late 80's.



anyway :

Mullah apologist Mike Whitney wrote:

[Kuros]