Envoy: Iran Won't Ever Stop Domestic Enrichment
By Cernig Friday Oct 03, 2008 7:30am
I've some bad news for progressives - Iran isn't going to stop enriching uranium to reactor fuel standards. Both Iran's UN Envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh and Foreign Minister Mottaki have now said earlier reports that Iran would consider a halt to domestic enrichment if a "legally-binding instrument for assurance of supply" was available were based upon a misunderstanding. Talking to Iran's FARS news agency, Soltanieh said he had only talked about how, in the past, other nations broke their promises to supply Iran with enriched uranium. He said he rejects "whatever is reflected otherwise."
That's a blow to progressives who had hoped that exactly such an incentive could be used in diplomatic negotiations by an Obama administration, but isn't at all surprising. As Soltanieh pointed out, America and France both reneged on promises to supply Iran with nuclear fuel in the past. Russia, too, has temporarily suspended then restarted fuel supplies recently, playing the by now familiar game of great power energy politics and reminding Iran of just how dependent it is on Russian largess at the UNSC.
If George W. Bush were president of Iran, he certainly wouldn't suspend enrichment for any reason. Neither would John McCain or Barack Obama. All have backed the concept of domestic energy independence from the whims of other nations, from vagaries of resource availability and from intentional use of energy resources as leverage over America's actions. Why should Iran be any different?
I've set out before the basic reason why Iran wants nuclear power - as a means of turning oil into hard currency instead of electricity and smoke. It is the same reason it always has been - the same reason Rumsfeld used to sell the Shah of Iran's first reactor and one touted at the time by American companies hoping to make money from foreign nuclear projects.
But domestic enrichment has a twofold civilian purpose for Iran. One is energy security - an essential part of any nation's national security as even the most avid "bomb Iran" neocon acknowledges. The second is, again, all about the money.
Iran's closing of the nuclear fuel cycle is a direct threat to the Bush administration's plan for a very lucrative nuclear fuel cartel. Way back when, Mohammed el Baradei and the IAEA suggested setting up an international consortium to manage nuclear fuel, ensuring that every nation with a civilian program could get access to an uninterrupted supply as long as it kept to the NPT and at the same time ensuring the IAEA would have an unprecedented ability to monitor the whereabouts and usage of nuclear fuel worldwide. As soon as Dubya heard about it he suggested an alternative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which would be US-led and US controlled. It would make money for the same energy companies that have always overwhelmingly supported the GOP with donations and let the US indulge in a fair bit of big power energy leverage itself - by primarily selling enriched uranium to nations like Egypt and the Gulf States who have announced wishes for several nuclear power plants.
Uranium is at its highest price ever and is expected to keep rising for the next two decades at least. If Iran can make money from selling enriched uranium outwith any US cartel, then so might others - and sidestep the unfortunate (to them) leverage they'd be granting America.
Nor is it a necessary step that enriching uranium leads to weapons production. Australia has been actively consideringa massive multi-billion investment in enriching and reprocessing facilities so that it can engage in this lucrative fuel trade. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands all have enrichment facilities but no nukes(as do non-weapon nations Belgium, Italy and Spain who hold an investment interest in the French Eurodif enrichment plant). The Bush administration are aggressively pushing their new enrichment and reprocessing ventures even though the U.S. uses plutonium rather than uranium in its weapons. Ditto with France, the UK, Russia and China. Despite what the neocons would say, there is no necessary inference from enrichment to a weapons program.
The way forward, it seems to me, is to resurrect the IAEA's proposal for an international consortium. That way, all nations who are involved in enrichment can sell to the lucrative international market under IAEA supervision, with IAEA access throughout - thus cutting the chances of material being redirected to weapons programs. It's a notion that Iran has already supported but that the Bush administration does not.
Once negotiators have the right "carrot", negotiations become possible. In a guest post at Washington Monthly, Faith Smith from the New America Foundation writes:
An agreement to meet, formally--no more backroom meetings--would be a great show of respect to the country and its citizens. Sanctions and rhetoric have done exactly the opposite of their intended goal. The more we try to push Iran into a corner, the stronger their resolve and regional support. The moderates in Iran are weakened by a stubborn US administration and Ahmadinejad is proven correct.
If a policy does not work, it must be revisited or scrapped entirely. There is no glory in sticking with a failing policy especially when failure is likely to lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
We must talk to Iran. The international community has been doing so since 1979, but not the US. Let's be clear, this does not necessarily mean talking to Ahmadinejad. There are alternative high level channels that are more moderate and approachable. In fact, Ahmadinejad might be out of a job soon. There may well be pragmatic presidents in both Iran and the United States before the end of the year.
If you ask about their intransigence to the IAEA's consortium idea, State has a difficulty trying to come up with a reason for saying "no" that doesn't transparently translate to "but...the money!" The neocons in the Fourth Branch and McCain camp have difficulty trying to come up with reasons to say "no" that don't transparently translate us "but...the war!" Biden and Obama make noises about Iran's gaining of a nuclear weapon being "unacceptable" because saying otherwise is political suicide in America's climate of militaristic fetishism. Biden at least seems to really believe it, and to believe against all the evidence that Iran is about to develop just such a weapon any moment now. Obama may well believe it too - but there should be better reasons than "the money" and "the war" for not trying to talk, and there just aren't.
Login or Register to post comments.
Do as we say not as we do.
Peter G. said:
"While Israel has produced it's share of religious nutbars to put it on a par with a theocracy like Iran is patently ridiculous. Think of Meir or Rabin and tell me they were religious nuts. Nonsense."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having read many of your posts on C&L over the last few months, I am now convinced that the 'playing dumb' tactic is second nature for you.
Let me clue you in on what I know that you know. You KNOW that you are full of bull. You KNOW, that Israel's actions, foreign policy and overall history is criminal at best, yet you choose to defend it, obfuscate facts, play silly semantic games, parse words and pretend it's some friggin beacon of morality in the Middle East. THAT is the mark of a true and real ideologue. Daniel Pipes would be proud.
In one of your posts in this thread, you referred to yourself as "we" when talking about the United States, yet what emerges from your obsessive apologetic posts concerning Israel is that your loyalties are highly questionable, at best. If it weren't for the hacks in Congress and the money from AIPAC, people like you would have been stripped of their citizenship.
For the record, Israel has and continues to have enough religious fanatics to dwarf those of any neighboring Arab state. I don't think there's a fanatics database or some statistical data to argue either way. But, God knows [snark] these nutjobs flock to Israel from all over the world, including Brooklyn. The fact apologists like you along with the Anderson Coopers and Wolf Blitzers out there help distort facts in favor of Israel, sure makes it easier for the unfamiliar to believe otherwise.
Now, not counting the Yigal Amirs and the Baruch Goldsteins, Kahana and his cult, and the entire Gush Emunim group, Jewish settlements in the West Bank alone house about 400,000 settlers who believe the West Bank was given to them by God. They will often refer to the Old Testament to "prove" their argument.
Now, you can sit here, and sell that dishonest bullshit propaganda to these good Americans on this board, but THIS Israeli guy knows you're full of it.
In conclusion, סתום ת'פה
Sarah Palin is going to crawl out of her spider hole over this one. I kept looking for a red spot on her belly at the debates. In that dress she looked like a Black Widow.
Ruthless People @ 2:
..only potentially more deadly and dangerous.
Why should Iran be any different?
Because they hate our freedoms and everything we stand for, dontcha know!
theocracy + nukulars = helluva dilemma
this is a head scratcher
What's the problem. Now that we have Ok'd India and there weapon program we basically made any nuclear agreements for countries not under the proliferation act void.
theocracy + nukulars = helluva dilemma
this is a head scratcher
Just as we would never abrogate our nuclear development rights, which by the way includes weaponry, do we want a theocrat like Palin controlling out nukular arsenal?
The answer to this is quite simple - FIND A WAY TO BEFRIEND THEM?
We have many common interests:
They have a porgressive youth movement we have a progressive youth movement
We need lots of oil and natural gas they have lots of oil and natural gas
They are a prideful people we are the ultimate prideful people
We have a foot-in-the mouth bufoon for president and they have a foot-in-mouth bufoon for president
I'm sure there are many others if we took thew time to undwerstand their culture, needs and motives. The Lobby won't let it happen though as the VP debate demonstrated both parties are not down with a make nice plan. Too bad because they'd like make a better ally than many of the other Autocracies that we call friends.
A nuclear free world starts with a nuclear free Middle East. Contact your congress people ask where and why they stand.
wich are the only countrys israel dont fug with, ummmm the ones who have nukes too!
why should the iranians stop enriching uranium? under international law they have every right to do so.
to insist that iranians should and/or must decease is absurd.
when was the last time you heard anyone demand that israel stop its nuclear program?
never.
that's right.
you can't even get anyone to openly discuss israel's nuclear weapons.
if i were the iranians, i would be righteously saying "screw you" to anyone who suggests they should stop.
and what does this have to do with "progressives"?
This is so true. The way to keep Iran struggling (for there is no way to keep nuclear from them, it is just a matter of time) is to come up with an alternative way to make our cars go down the road. Then, we will be rid of the hostage situation we have with oil. American oil companies are doing the world a disservice by neglecting research into alternative energy sources.
Why should they? I can't remember anybody trying to stop Israel from acquiring "nuculear" strengh. In fact they have close to 200 nuclear war heads. If Pakistan falls in fundamentalist Muslim hands, adios amigos! The President of Iran can talk all the bullshit he wants. Truth is. He himself, has to ask permission just to fart. Some people are making money in all this negotiating bullshit with Iran.
The depths of the disaster of the Bush/Cheney presidency will be felt for a very, very long time. By invading a sovereign country, w/ no cassus belli, and for the specific purpose of changing the government, ignoring treaties & international law that goes back for centuries, he has given every country in the world a very concrete need to own nuclear weapons. If all America has to do is accuse a country of having nuclear & biological weapons to invade, then for the security of every nation, (especially Iran & North Korea), they better well have them.
Because they hate our freedoms and everything we stand for, dontcha know!
______________________________________________________________________
Is this Bush himself posting? Oh brother!
any fool knows that if you make friends--or at least engage--the guys you think of as your enemies, the less likely it is that they'll do anything nasty to you.
How can it be so hard for "professional diplomats" to understand this?
oh--silly me--that's not who this administration hires.
Somalian pirates capture Iranian ship which might have chemical weapons on board:
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/31375
"Somali authorities say they believe an Iranian ship being held by pirates could be carrying illegal chemical weapons. Since its capture a number of pirates have apparently died due to a mysterious illness. Local authorities have been unable to inspect the vessel as it is anchored offshore and still under the control of the hijackers."
Iran has every right to nuclear power technology under the law. The same law the US has been flagrantly violating since 1972.
The US has NO place to complain about Iran's compliance with the law, and Iran IS within their legal right, while the US has not been in compliance for over 30 years!
If any nation deserves to be punished for breaking the law, it's the USA.
Israel never signed the NPT, so their nuclear weapons exist outside that framework of law. India also did not sign. Their nuclear weapons are a legal grey area, as if they don't exist anyway. BTW, the white rulers in South Africa developed nuclear weapons with Israel back in the 1970s, but handed it all over to the Israelis when they lost power to the people that should have had the power all along.
I am far more concerned about Sarah Pay-Line. If she is installed into the White House through (obvious) GOP rigging of the election, then the first thing she'll do is hand the launch codes to her pastor so he can get Jesus her faster.
My wife is related to people that actually do think that way: that God gave the US nuclear weapons to deliberately nuke the world so Jesus can return, since he's taking way too long to come back on his own time...
anyone who cares to look can see the president of Iran is a fool. And if we know it, heaven knows the real leadership in Iran does.
I am progressive, and it isn't a blow to me that Iran intends to continue its nuclear energy development, whatever purpose they have in mind.
karen marie is right -- the US didn't demand that Israel or Pakistan or other nations that developed nuclear weaponry cease and desist, and furthermore, the US continues to add to its own nuclear weapons stockpile in violation of the NPT. The US insists only that those sovereign countries they want to intimidate for various reasons must cease and desist, like Korea and Iran.
A government can't demand that other governments do what it is unwilling to do.
Look if they want to enrich for use in reactors to produce energy then lets help them do that and assist them in building it. the international community can at least monitor the use and encourage them to develop alternative fuels like solar.
DannyEastVillage @ 17:
of course the same can be said for the president of the united states. a fool of the first order. actually believes he can be president. but like everything else in nit-brain bush's resume, his "presidency" proves he's not fit even to open his mouth publicly. Kinda like the repub VP nominee.
anney @ 18:
You can if you carry a big enough stick.
We have elevated the power and influence of Iran in the ME by attacking Iraq and allowing a Shiite Iran influenced government to come to power. We encouraged Israel to attack Lebanon and the Iran sponsored Hezbolla stopped the IDF in it's tracks. We encouraged an election in the Palestinian territories and our choice, the PLO, was routed and thrown out by the revolutionary Hamas. Our dependence on oil has allowed Iran to amass vast sums of wealth from selling oil at $100+ a barrel. Theocratic Iran offered us cooperation against the secular el Quida after 9/11 and we rebuffed them. We overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954 and installed our own brutal dictator the Shah. The Iranian problem is largely our creation and our responsibility, now we must learn to deal with Iran as more of an equal, whether we see it that way or not ... they do.
Incidentally, until Iran refines uranium to the 90% pure level she cannot make her own nuclear weapons. I believe energy grade refinement is less than 10%percentage. When Iran announces 90% uranium refinement levels our creation will no longer be in our control. It is quite possible Iran is not interested in going the weaponized 90% route .... or maybe they are. It seems we have a habit of not attacking nuclear-armed nations.
This is one of the best articles to come from C&L in some time.
Excellent, Cernig.
However, I am not sure that it is a blow to progressives. Especially since the American leaders you listed aren't progressive, at all.
Obama, a Dem, is not progressive by any real progressive standard. Of course, the others are worse.
It's strictly business for the Russians and I think they're smart to disabuse Iran of any notion of nuclear independence. I hope our policymakers will remember to distinguish the Bushehr power plant from the installations that might be processing weapons-grade material, because there is a very plain difference.
Every nation does have a right to nuclear research and power generation, but the rest of the nuclear club doesn't talk about destroying other sovereign states. If Ahmadinejad was serious when he told Amy Goodman that Iran might be prepared to recognize a two-state solution then maybe we could all stop worrying. It's really up to Khamanei to decide which scenario the regime really wants.
Steve @ 11:
A very good point in your block quoting. But i have to wonder why we in the US are even discussing "The way to keep Iran struggling". The very existence of "American" (privately owned for profit) energy companies is not only a disservice, but a massive road-block to any farther improvements in world productive capabilities and living conditions.
If some one chanting bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran and that person could be commander in chief of a country with the bomb.Then I would demand to have one for detriment reasons alone
This is a good topic Cernig. Thank You for bringing it up.
The way I see it. Is everyone (country) should make this decision for themselves.If they want Nuclear power,it's their right.
I myself don't like or agree with nuclear energy. It's too unstable and one accident is all it would take. Yes, progress has been made, and there seems to be far less accidents now.But the issue of used fuel rods, recycling and storage haven't been worked out yet to my satisfaction.
As far as nuclear weapons, Well, When Oppenheimer and his buddies came up with that one , I think they regretted it.
But this is the 21st century. And if any country wants them(as much as I hate to say this) they should be entitled to them.
With the understanding that if they use them,in any way shape or form, they will be treated in kind.
I would much rather see countries choose to avoid Nuclear weapons.
But for me it goes back to the choice issue. It's their choice.
We, the US, are no longer the "Superpower" they told us we were. That's gone. And I'm glad of it. We no longer are the
"Leaders of the Free World". And I'm glad of it. Those are such arrogant and self righteous mentalities ,we simply don't need .
If Iran wants them, they should be entitled to them. The current President Ahmadinajad (yeah, I know. I missed) will be short lived as President of Iran. They have an election coming up in Feb I believe . And he's not the one in charge anyway.
The religious leaders are the ones who control that country. And as crazy as they seem, their not entirely stupid.
One of the problems I have with Iran getting Nuclear energy is it's prone to seismic activity. We've all seen the results of their lack of sound building practice. That can only come back to bite them.
Somebody will sell them all they need to know to develop both energy and weapons.
I only hope they do it safely and without weapons.
Hell, with Iraq out of the picture now, They may opt not to get them.
DannyEastVillage @ 21:
Not if you borrowed the money to buy the stick....and of course, your stick store is almost bankrupt.
ConcernedCanuck @ 28:
And.....you need to borrow the money from the bank for your stick store, but the bank says you have to pay off their bad loans before they can loan you the money.
Part of the reason why Iran is pursuing nuclear power is because it is a good political issue for the mullahs. It is an easy way to paint america as an undiplomatic and totally unreasonable, because their position on iranian nuclear energy is just that, totally unreasonable. The mullahs will continue to score political points on this issue until the average american is able to put themselves in the shoes of the average iranian (i.e. indefinitely).
1. Acknowledge (as Biden pointed out in the debates - and I really wished Obama had done the same) that Ahmadinejad is not the real leader of Iran and doesn't have nuclear release authority even if they had nukes. Supreme command of the military is in the hand of the Ayatollah Khamenei.
2. Any face-to-face diplomacy must start with a formal apology for Operation Ajax in 1956 that toppled the Mossadegh government and put the Shah back in power. It's the one great sticking point, and would be a profitable foundation to start on.
3. Be tough, but fair (we allow Israel to do what it pleases, and we could rally use Iran's oil). Besides, if we make a deal we can keep the oil out of China's hands, which can sweeten the deal with the conservatives.
Diplomacy, just as much as politics, is the Art of the Possible.
Anything else new?
I can't see how it is a surprise that Iran wants its energy needs solved in house, rather than being dependent on the benevolent neoclowns.
When someone shows me concrete proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, I will support diplomatic intervention. But no one has furnished anything but neoclown propaganda so far.
L.A. Confidential @ 32:
LMAO!!! Another day, another bunch of reruns in the media! It's nonstop stoopidity. LOL.
Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!...Drill! Baby! Drill!
FEARMONGERING AT IT'S BEST!
I presume it well-ntentioned because this IS a progressive.
I can't wait for howie kurtz to bring on Joe LIEberman and cite this thread that "even progressives think we should bomb Iran".
Here we are living under the boosh doctrine of preemptive bullshit and we're supposed to believe that Iran is a threat.
Cte the Kissinger Proposals to use food as a weapon against poorer countries
Cite Zbigniew Brezinski's proposals to surround Russia with military bases while putting a stranglehold on OIL by colonizing the oil-producers of the middle east.
Instead, we get the neocon meme of enemies emerging everywhere- the second time this week.
I thought better of C&L than this kind of hackery.
Has Sy Hersh disappeared, along with any semblance of sensible analysis of the truth?
The Wanderer @ 31:
I hope you're not looking for a sensible response!
second post of fearmongering Iranian bullshit this week.
we don't have any intel that is not outsourced, so where are the 'facts' coming from?
Why should Iran be any different? Gee I don't know, but it I had enough oil and clean gas under the ground to meet all my energy needs, I don't think I'd bother with nuclear. And in case you don't know Iran is extremely rich in both these hydrocarbons. They also have plenty of sun in case they ever want to go green. They don't need nuclear power plants like other countries do. And even that need is arguable.
mudshark @ 27:
ahmedinejad does not run Iran. his statement was distorted AND recontextualized.
let's keep that in mind.
Restore the Constitution @ 38:
review the following please:
The Wanderer @ 31:
anney @ 18:
Comrade Rutherford @ 16:
Steve @ 11:
BaScOmBe hearts Rachel Maddow hates MSM and Incumbents @ 39:
Agreed, Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Who in their right mind would believe anything this admin would say?
Last night on Real Time, Gary Shandling put it very well,Bin Forgotten succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.Boosh to the bait
and now the country is broke.
I think Ahmadinejad was playing the same game.
Whether or not this is a blow to Progressives is debatable. If Iran is going to continue down this path without negotiation, military force is warranted. That is, if the reports coming out of Iran are true. You don't want them with a bomb.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? Iran is under embargo because they started an enrichment program and that is now their excuse for continuing it. El Baradei's 2006 call for an enrichment bank to assure supplies supplies to any country that had legitimate needs and was treaty compliant is looking fairly prophetic. I suspect that the reluctance of the Bushies may be ideological. They wouldn't want to be part of a consortium that controlled a critical supply like OPEC does. There. I made myself laugh. I guess it's something a little more obvious. If there is an acceptable political solution they might lose their bogeyman. Pretty difficult for a right winger to demonize anyone who would talk to the Iranians and then go and talk to them.And, of course, they really don't like El Baradei. He is insufficiently malleable. You might ,however, have pointed out that there is a worldwide shortage of enrichment capacity outside of Russia and the countries you identified are the only ones with export capacity. No one wants to build any more because the Russians have huge excess capacity (Tenex) that they can use to kill any competition. Those boys may have come late to capitalism but they sure learned market manipulation fast. In conclusion, some idle questions for Cernig: why do you suppose that Iranians never explored the possibility of using CANDU reactors that don't require enriched uranium? If Iranian domestic supplies of uranium are sufficient to power exactly one power reactor where does this idea of energy security through domestic enrichment come from? Sure they can buy yellow cake now. Right up to the moment that it gets embargoed too. I am not being snarky. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27019486/
I think this story came out an hour ago. It is buried on MSNBC but very important.
Bush has decided not to open contacts with Iran. He had previously planned to send delegations and foster some communication, but he decided not to.
Why?
Because the administration says the Iranian issue has injected itself into the presidential campaign. They feel if they talk with Admidinejad on any level, it would be seen as an endorsement of Obama and undermine John McCain's policy of no talks.
So when we had a chance to prevent war as a nation, we did not do it because it was in the middle of an election.
Idiocracy.
ranch111 @ 43:
Pakistan has a bomb and they are dominated by religious zealots. Why haven't we bombed them yet?
Also for those of you who are ready for a pre-emptive strike because America has such a big stick and so many of them, what makes you think Russia will do nothing?
Or that Pakistan will sit by and not sell more of their technology to people who we do not want having nukes?
Its funny that we are so worried about religious zealots having nukes and justifying their use with religious purpose, when the country that first used nukes and is really really thinking about using them again is dominated by religious zealots.
So far, the christians are the most dangerous.
Weapons development is not allowed under the NPT, which Iran is a signatory to. Israel was never a signatory (nor was India) so there's a difference. However, Iran hasn't enriched uranium beyond 5% in any of it's facilities, which are all monitored by the IAEA (which is facing budget troubles. If the international community cared about this issue, the IAEA wouldn't face funding crises). If they start making a move to something beyond 15% (90 is what is needed for a bomb of U-235), then it won't be ambiguous. However, all they have to do to make it legal is to just notify the IAEA that they are pulling out of the treaty 6 months from the day they announce it.
Anyway, the whole situation is a non issue for Europe or the U.S. Regional actors have a different calculus, but the nation most hostile to Iran has such a military advantage in terms of nuclear weapons, etc. that it doesn't matter. If Iran started today to go for broke and make a weapon from uranium, the type that is easier to make, in 5 years they could have several Little boy type devices which are gigantic and have to be dropped from a plane. To get something that they could put on the end of a missile would require weapons grade plutonium, and some advanced know how for an implosion device. To give an Idea of how hard that is, North Korea's nuke detonation was estimated to be 1/15 the yield of little boy, and 1/20th of fat man (which is an analogous device). Of course if there was a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, that would hardly seem to matter, but for Iran to be in a position of MAD with Israel, i would say 10-20 years from now is the window one is looking at, assuming they really are going to do that. I think they are for many reasons, but that's another issue. The official document from U.S. intelligence is that they stopped pursuing it for the time being in 2003.
ConcernedCanuck @ 30:
This is why Bushco isn't speaking softly.
Progressives want peace and are anti-war. Peaceful use of nuclear technology is no problem. Bullying tactics against sovereign nations is not progressive. American hegemony is not progressive. Diplomacy is.
curtilingus @ 46:
Because the (Sunni) enemy of my (Shia) enemy is my friend?
ranch111 @ 43:
it's ok for israel to have 200, right?
mudshark @ 42:
it sure looks like Bin Missin and boosh are like eastwood and wallach in the good, the bad and the ugly.
amazingly, our "Friends" in pakistan armed 9 other countries with nukes. no problem,eh?
who the f#ck are we to say ANYONE can't have a nuke??
A "blow" to progressives? Progressives ought to know that Iran has the right to do what it wants. Israel did. Progressives need to defend Iran when President Obama starts bombing. Oh wait. I forgot. Progressives think the world will end if they criticize Obama. The Obama war on Iran will be a test to see just how many true "progressives" will protest when he commits war crimes against human beings.
Lets wait and see Obama get elected first before we get on his case.
Just look at what Bush/Cheney have done. In less than ten years they have, all by themselves, sped up nuclear proliferation in the middle east. All that we gained from attacking Iraq is proving to every other country in the ME, rogue or not, that we will kick your fucking door in unless you have nuclear technology. So now every damned one of them is racing to get their hands on nuclear weaponry. How can anyone blame them?
We need someone with common fucking sense to stem the tide. The days of us threatening and bullying other countries to do what we want is over. We have lost the moral/military/financial high ground. We need someone to be an honest to god diplomat. Dare I say it, a "Statesman"! Putting a gun to someone's head and/or threatening embargoes is history for us. The Bush/Cheney/McCain's of our country have pissed away our bragging rights. Until we start approaching other governments as equals, even when it's distasteful to us, we'll never make any progress.
Did you hear Condoleeza Rice bitching that Russia invaded a sovereign nation (Georgia) that didn't threaten them? Has she looked in the fucking mirror lately? We can't expect others to listen to us, when we are incapable of doing what we ask them to do. After all, we're the country that put a dickhead like Bolton as our UN Representative. That's like appointing David Duke to a position with the NAACP. We insult and berate other countries and international organizations constantly, and at our own peril.
It's time this country grew up and quit throwing tantrums to get our way. Respect does not lie in that direction, only conflict. Why should we expect Iran to act any differently towards us than we act towards them?
BaScOmBe hearts Rachel Maddow hates MSM and Incumbents @ 37:
Are you referring to the OP or the comments? I don't think Cernig is fearmongering at all.
Shorter Cernig:
1).Iran wants energy independence- in the past, they've had their promised supply of enriched, fuel grade uranium cut off.
2).Bushco fronts a cartel with desires to create a monopoly on the supply of fuel grade uranium.
3).Bushco conflates Iranian fuel grade enrichment with weapons grade enrichment in order to create a casus belli, avoiding a diplomatic approach (the IAEA’s proposal for an international consortium) that might achieve peaceful resolution.
I don't see the fearmongering here. I see analysis.
So if bombing Iran fixes a nuke permitting issue,
then we need to revoke the permits of Israel and India first?
10-Karen Marie hit this directly on the head.
THIS IS NOT A CONCERN for "progressives". At all. I'd like to add to Karen Marie's point, with this:
1. Iran's Oil reserve has been in depletion since 1979.
2. Their super elephant gas field (South Pars) has more BTU content than Saudi Arabia's super elephant oil field, Ghawar.
They know that they will have to stop burning their fossil fuel to generate power in order to avoid the Export Land Model ruining their income.
They also know that even having ONE nuke is enough to deter American Imperialism (viz North Korea).
They also know that Israel has enough nukes to turn Iran into a blue-glowing glass parking lot.
So: the Iranian are simply acting in their own best interest, and they should be SUPPORTED by progressives as they work to their own self-defence and betterment. If they DON'T get a massive nuclear program going, NOW, they know they're screwed - they won't be able to claw their way out of the depletion well without it and maintain some sense of modern civilisation (keeping the lights on and running water, etc.)
Lately, C&L's articles have been getting really stupid. Knocking McCain for his diction, and now this travesty. It's very disappointing.
James @ 48:
Yes, the IAEA decided to give Iran a by on the thirty percent enriched samples gathered in 2004. Three months notice is all that's required to withdraw from the NPT and I absolutely agree with the rest of your assessment with but one small objection. In such a case Iran could choose to supply a third party with nuclear material. Unlikely but one has to consider all the possibilities.
curtilingus @ 46:
For that matter, why have we not punished Israel, also dominated by religious zealots? Afterall, they actually had their own spies in our country a while back - to steal military secrets. Nice ah-lies. (as Condi says)
I lament the fact that we had no real leaders in our country after the Soviet Union was dissolved. The neo-con, PNAC folks took control of our foreign policy (GHWB and then along with their buds in the Clinton admin) determined to use the opportunity to make the US the imperial power of the world, since we were the "sole superpower" left standing.
We Earthlings have now populated the world with enough destructive weapons to blow oursleves up many times over - and that will probably happen at some point, whether on purpose or by accident. Even if there is only a small chance that diplomacy, involving all nations (friend and foe alike) can succeed, there is absolutely no chance we can avoid obliteration if we don't engage. And our government's arrogance and hypocrisy is the biggest part of the problem.
The family of nations is just like any dysfunctional family in which the members don't talk with one another. Without sharing information - having discussions to understand each other's thinking and feelings - unrestrained fear, resentment and anger develop. We see the results of that every day in our own neighborhoods. It's just on a different scale.
Amitola @ 63:
Why on earth would Israel need to steal technology from the US when virtually all of it is available for exchange or transfer. I'm quite sure Israel still has spies in the US just as the US has spies working in every allied country. While Israel has produced it's share of religious nutbars to put it on a par with a theocracy like Iran is patently ridiculous. Think of Meir or Rabin and tell me they were religious nuts. Nonsense.
palin , bet she dont know if Iranians are persians or arabs - lol she scares and Sleep if you want to but just recant, Silk Worms’s aint only in China
then chief of staff cheney and then defense secretary rumsfeld felt it was okay for then president ford to allow the transfer of nuclear reactor design and construction to iran in 1975 or 1976; they have the technology, we gave it to them
are they conforming to iaea and other international nuclear guidelines regarding enrichment, use, and transport ??
has anyone, anywhere, shown they are enriching it about the 3% level needed for civilian needs and are doing it to the 97% level needed for weapons grade ??
when the 1st is acknowledged, and the 2nd two are answered by anyone other than the bush administration, then i'll begin to worry, but until then, they have nothing to sell but fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, etc
[Deleted. Off topic. km, if you've got issues with the editorial policy of the site, this isn't the proper place to discuss them. It certainly isn't the place to then try to start up a completely separate topic. If you've got concerns please write us at sitemonitor1@gmail.com . We'll make sure that your concerns are passed up the chain of command. Thank you. Site Monitor]
AMND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE! How in God's name can the USA say...You can't have nuclear capibilities for domestic use. Go fuck yourselves and that is from a born, raised total Canadian.
Now, if after conclusive proof the nuclear plants are not for domestic use then fine, go unfuck yourselves.
But here's something very interesting and should piss every Republican totally off.
The French Foreign Minister is working on a OIL deal with Venuzeula in order to form a partnership that will act towards Venuzuela acting as a go between in developing a peace-oriented relationship with IRAN! The French want to get Irans confidence and then permission to go in and check on their nuclear program themselves so they can decide on what to do if Iran is to be invaded. No more going in because some false American Bullshit tells them to.
It's called DIPLOMACY and that's what Barack wants to do.
BaScOmBe hearts Rachel Maddow hates MSM and Incumbents @ 37:
I agree!
This is fear mongering.
It is important to know that enrichment does not equal nuclear bomb ability.
What is missing from the conversation are some facts about enrichment of uranium and the purity required for energy vs. "the bomb".
Some facts:
Uranium used in a reactor is of much lower purity than what is needed to build a bomb.
In order to enrich uranium to a purity suitable for building a bomb, a lot more centrifuges need to be constructed and used. It takes many more steps to get to the required purity.
Iran does not have a domestic supply of uranium that can be refined pure enough to make a bomb unless their centrifuges are made with specific metals to wit