Prague Twin

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Iran knows how to talk


Say what you will about Ahmadinejad, but the guy knows how to use rhetoric. Today, he announced that Iran would accept the west's proposal that they stop the enrichment process if the west would do the same. This is a brilliant move that highlights the inherent hypocricy in the west's position.

"We are for talks but they have to be fair negotiations. That means, both sides hold talks under equal conditions," he said.

Iran wants to be considered an equal, and honestly, can you blame them? Can you blame them for wanting a nuclear weapon and yet denying that that is what they seek? The U.S. has toppled the government to their east and their west. Imagine how pressured the U.S. would feel if, say, Russia had toppled the Mexican and Canadian government. The only reason Iran is not honest about their plans for building a nuclear weapon is that the U.S. has made it clear through a deliberate leak that if it can be proved that Iran is developing nuclear weapons they will attack with full force. It seems reasonable at this point that they would want the deterrent that would be provided by a nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is doing everything it can to provoke Iran into making a move that would trigger a U.S. attack. Any sane observer at this point can clearly see that plans to attack Iran are in the works, and that it may indeed be too late to stop the attack. And yet it is exactly these plans that are pushing Iran towards the development of nuclear weapons.

The Americans are pushing Iran to become a nuclear state. Iran just wants to be a supplier of nuclear fuel. But [with their threats] they are pushing it further.

Usually it is clear why military action is in the works. If you follow the profit trail, almost everything the U.S. does has a profit motive. But I can't see any clear profit motive for an attack on Iran except the most cynical of all views that such an attack would generate the demand for even more weapons and other military equipment. I'm not quite that cynical yet, so I'm a really wondering now.

What does the United States stand to gain from attacking Iran? Further isolation. Further debt. Soaring oil prices. Oh, soaring oil prices. Are they really that depraved? It looks like we will soon find out.

I'm not a religious man, but god help us.

20 Comments:

  • It's perfectly reasonable for Ahmadinejad to want to be treated equally, but I'll bet most Americans who read what he said will accuse him of arrogance and gall.

    By Anonymous abi, at 2:58 AM  

  • god help us indeed. We don't get insight like yours here. We get pundits that lazily compare everything to world war II.

    great analysis

    By Blogger GraemeAnfinson, at 6:56 AM  

  • It is a treat to read your essays, PT, because they never fail to be thoughtful. No exception this time either.

    Political realities often distort the way our covernments behave - enemies of our enemies became our friends even if their morality is as questionable as that of our enemy's. Real Politics, and I understand that. Also, the apparent inequality between nations where the strong ones have their own rules makes sort of sense in the kind of world we are living in.

    However, my nausea starts getting bad when people like Big Dick and little George start talking about the peace, democracy, justice, freedom and right to prosper for all the people on earth. I can't recall any administration anywhere (that was democratically elected )having obviously less interest in upholding those admirable goals. This bunch of neocons in the White House have done absolutely marvelous job by packiging their ideology so well that many are still unable to realize it's emptiness, it's hypocrisy.

    This is the reason why yours truly greeted Ahmadinejad's clever utterance with a laugh. I wish it would have been somebody else for I don't like this man. In my mind, Ahmadinejad reminds me too much about that other oddity in the White House.

    By Anonymous pekka, at 9:10 AM  

  • Great Post!

    Adding some Irony to the whole situation, Kissenger supported nuclear power under the shah, but then the Islamic Revolution took place...and it now just apparently seems much too Muslim.

    By Blogger A.Anfinson, at 4:32 PM  

  • Dear PT, abi, graemeanfinson, pekka, a.anfinson:

    Okay. Clear your minds of your distrust of W and Cheney as many of Americans don't trust them either. Just focus on the following question: "Will the world be a safer place if Iran has a nuclear weapon in consideration of the facts that Iran is a Muslim theocracy run by Mullahs and the president of Iran has stated his firm belief that Israel should be wiped off the map?"

    If the answer to that question is yes, then justify it in writing because the more you attempt to justify that view, the more insane your reasoning will seem to yourself and then you will change your opinion.

    If the answer to the question is no, then let us discuss how to deal with the situation because in my view a military solution is not viable; sanctions would be a mistake according to Dr, Mohamed El Baradei, head of the IAEA; and diplomacy does not seem to be a viable option because President Ahmedinejad is much more untrustworthy than either President Bush or Vice President Cheney. You may not like the latter 2; you may not like their policies; you may not trust them with America's foreign policy but I would trust them with my wallet while the same is not true of the the president of Iran.

    Okay. See the paper yesterday everyone? Did you see the photo of the executed Nosrollah Shanbi Zehi? Just Google "hanging Nasrollah Iran" and look at the photos from Fox News. Check out the use of the hydraulic lift, a true multitasker that.

    Now answer the question again if your answer was "yes."

    It is not enough to ask for God's help, PT. Somehow we must help ourselves, although I confess the way is not clear to me. If we do not and Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, then perhaps we will be signing off: "See you in hell."

    By Anonymous The Loop Garoo Kid, at 5:56 PM  

  • Dear PT, abi, graemeanfinson, pekka, a.anfinson:

    Okay. Clear your minds of your distrust of W and Cheney as many of Americans don't trust them either. Just focus on the following question: "Will the world be a safer place if Iran has a nuclear weapon in consideration of the facts that Iran is a Muslim theocracy run by Mullahs and the president of Iran has stated his firm belief that Israel should be wiped off the map?"

    If the answer to that question is yes, then justify it in writing because the more you attempt to justify that view, the more insane your reasoning will seem to yourself and then you will change your opinion.

    If the answer to the question is no, then let us discuss how to deal with the situation because in my view a military solution is not viable; sanctions would be a mistake according to Dr, Mohamed El Baradei, head of the IAEA; and diplomacy does not seem to be a viable option because President Ahmedinejad is much more untrustworthy than either President Bush or Vice President Cheney. You may not like the latter 2; you may not like their policies; you may not trust them with America's foreign policy but I would trust them with my wallet while the same is not true of the the president of Iran.

    Okay. See the paper yesterday everyone? Did you see the photo of the executed Nosrollah Shanbi Zehi? Just Google "hanging Nasrollah Iran" and look at the photos from Fox News. Check out the use of the hydraulic lift, a true multitasker that.

    Now answer the question again if your answer was "yes."

    It is not enough to ask for God's help, PT. Somehow we must help ourselves, although I confess the way is not clear to me. If we do not and Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, then perhaps we will be signing off: "See you in hell."

    By Anonymous The Loop Garoo Kid, at 5:56 PM  

  • I think the one possible deterrent to invading Iran is: they're a much stronger foe than Iraq. If you like our quagmire in Iraq, you'll love the hornets' nest we stir up in Iran. I think Iran is much stronger militarily and economically than Iraq was 4 years ago. That, plus the fact that our military is overextended (to put it mildly) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Hopefully that will deter Bush and his PNAC puppetmasters from invading Iran.

    By Anonymous Tom Harper, at 9:54 PM  

  • Abi, Graemea, and Pekka,

    Thahks, and your opinions have been interalized, restt assured.

    Loop and Tom,

    I don't think they can be deterred and that is exactlly my point. Although the Economist backed the American plan to invade Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (or so we all thought), they are steadfast in their belief that Iran should be left alone even if they want to develop a nuclear weapon. Why? Because disarming them would cause more problems than it would solve.

    As a side note, the Economist said that their reasoning for invading Iraq was soley bsased on their understanding of Iraq's nuclear threat. Now that that threat has been shown to be overblown, they unequi ically regect their original stance, quote unlike the adminstration who has chnged the official goal to match the situation at hand.

    I agree with the Economist in saying that any attack on Iran for any reason will be a HUGE mistake.

    Yes, you can quote me on that.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 4:20 AM  

  • Abi, Graemea, and Pekka,

    Thahks, and your opinions have been interalized, restt assured.

    Loop and Tom,

    I don't think they can be deterred and that is exactlly my point. Although the Economist backed the American plan to invade Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction (or so we all thought), they are steadfast in their belief that Iran should be left alone even if they want to develop a nuclear weapon. Why? Because disarming them would cause more problems than it would solve.

    As a side note, the Economist said that their reasoning for invading Iraq was soley bsased on their understanding of Iraq's nuclear threat. Now that that threat has been shown to be overblown, they unequi ically regect their original stance, quote unlike the adminstration who has chnged the official goal to match the situation at hand.

    I agree with the Economist in saying that any attack on Iran for any reason will be a HUGE mistake.

    Yes, you can quote me on that.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 4:20 AM  

  • My opinion about Iranian nuclear armaments is the same as I have reserved for all those that have deemed necessary to have such dangerous and immoral implements of anhiliation. I don't like them at all, and I consider them as one of the worst inventions of the mankind. Many of those whom created them realized, perhaps too late, what kind of monster genie they let out the bottle and dedicated their remaining lives to alert the rest of us about the dangers they posses. They were, unfortunately, not as successful doing this as when they invented this insane curse.

    How to stop Iran ever going nuclear is a tall order. I full heartedly agree with you, lgk, that military option is not the way to go. However, I disagree with you that diplomacy is not doable because this is exactly the detail that, in all practical purposes, has been missing. There is a huge void between Iran and the U.S. created partially because of not having diplomatic ties. Under the present situation in the neighbourhood, not to talk to each other is insanity to the highest degree. The last thing solving this problem is to rattle sabers or to set conditions in order to start immediate negotiations. Secretary Rice, by setting these, is not doing any favours to anybody.

    I wish not come across as a any kind of supporter of Iran. Nevertheless, if you take a look at the old attlas, you can easily understan the nervousness that Iranian rulers must feel in that volatile region. There are several nations armed with nukes and then there is the Americans kicking the doors in right by them. If this sort of situation combined with the threatening language from the Bush Administration doesn't make one jumpy, I don't know what does.

    And finally, lgk, you are correct that Bush and Cheney don't encourage trust. Hell, these guys are either the biggest liars since Tricky Dick Nixon or that they are mentally deranged. This might sound like an over statement, but I am starting to believe that there is mental health issues in the mix. I am scared shitless, that these cowboys will take you and the whole Middle East over the looming cliff.

    By Anonymous pekka, at 11:50 AM  

  • See Kevin Drum's post today on why a U.S./Iran detente would be in the interests of both countries (especially since we're both sworn enemies of Al Qaeda.)

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010790.php

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 5:56 PM  

  • nice article

    unfortunate situation.

    the insanity continues

    By Blogger michael the tubthumper, at 6:04 PM  

  • Anyone have any proof Iran is going after a nuclear weapon? The US doesn't exactly have a good track record on these sorts of things.

    By Blogger GraemeAnfinson, at 7:11 PM  

  • Seems America couldn't find it moral high ground with both hands...

    By Blogger Frederick, at 3:34 AM  

  • Loop, is the world a safer place because anyone has a nuclear weapon? Wouldn't it be safer if no one did?

    Are you seriously suggesting that a nuclear weapon is more likely to be used by a Muslim nation than a Chrisitan one? Quick quiz: which is the only nation ever to use a nuclear weapon in anger? Against civilians. Twice.

    By Anonymous abi, at 4:48 AM  

  • Sorry for my incohearent comment.

    Essentially I agree with what is being said here. I think we all agree that whether the world is a safer place with or without Iranian nuclear weapons, we are all scared shitless as to what Cheney&Co. are going to do about it.

    We can't fix every problem, only react to them in the most sane way possible. Despite it's shortfalls, I argue that diplomacy is the best route.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 4:56 PM  

  • Abi,

    In a word, "yes." I believe that someone like Amedinejad is more likely to use a nuclear weapon than George W. Bush.

    Would the world be safer without nuclear weapons? Certainly, but they are here, probabl to stay.

    I am uneasy that certain parties in Russia and Pakistan appear all too willing to sell nuclear technology.

    Say or think whatever you like about the leadership of the United States, but our leaders recognize the ecological disaster that would be involved in using a nuclear weapon.

    Can the same be said of certain parties like Saddam Hussein who gassed Kurdish villagers? Or the inurgents who have exploded chlorine bombs in Baghdad?
    Or the current leader of Iran who has suggested Israel should be wipoed off the map.

    Yes Abi, the U.S. is the only nation to use an atomic bomb, ones that were much less powerful than those we have today. But the use of those weapons ended WW II and rendered the invasion of Japan unecessary. Can you conceive what a bloodbath that would have been?

    Of equal importance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have taught most of us that such weapons should never be used again.

    By Anonymous The Loop Garoo Kid, at 6:28 PM  

  • Hi Mike,
    Just using this comment box to let you know I have moved my blog. After struggling with New
    Blogger I got fed up and changed over to Wordpress and what a delightful difference.
    Anyway, I am now at http://expatbrian.wordpress.com. Please come and say hi and adjust any link. Thanks!!

    By Anonymous expatbrian, at 11:22 PM  

  • In the worst case scenario, Iran will get enough enriched uranium and plutonium to make a little bomb within five to ten years. Compare this to what the other guys have already, and you should be able to see the exageration around this issue.

    The Iranians propably will be, if the things remain constant, where N.Korea was already several years ago. That, to me, isn't the most scary item challenging the world peace right now. Also, contrary to the prevailing notion, Iranians are not fatalistic suicide bombers waiting to launch this pop-gun of theirs any time soon. Hell, Israel alone could pulverize them in a moment's notice!

    Nukes as an offencive weapon are more or less useless. Owning them, unfortunately, guarantees to any country a seat with the big boys and makes them listen, too. Nevertheless, these nukes serve no really rational purpose and shouldn't be in anybody's arsenal. That they are, is an unacceptable risk and that they are deemed, by those whom have them, to be unacceptable only by the new kids in the blog is a bad joke.

    By Anonymous pekka, at 3:24 AM  

  • How about we don't want a nation waging war against us to obtain nuclear weapons? Possible motive?

    By Blogger Roger Fraley, at 12:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home