"Here we are condemning Iran for doing its job, declaring a facility, inviting inspectors in. And the conclusion it’s reached from this? That they’re producing nuclear weapons," said Ritter.Thursday has come and, surprisingly, an agreement has been reached, thank God. That agreement has Charles Krauthammer chiding Obama as a damnable appeaser. If you read his piece, tell me if you can figure out Krauthammer's logic. Damned if I can. When a pundit switches subjects three times in two sentences, you know that argument has given way to bluster.
"This is politically motivated hype designed to create a situation this coming Thursday that will find the United States unable to reach any sort of agreement with Iran about its nuclear program," he added
Remember, this same neocon was a big supporter of the Iraq war -- and he also predicted that Iraq would experience "explosive growth" during reconstruction. (Interesting choice of words, that.) How many times do guys like Krauthammer have to be proven wrong before they are yanked offstage?
By the way, the Qom facility that everyone is talking about was hardly a big secret. Ritter again:
The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.We still have no evidence of nuke manufacture:
The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched.Let us suppose, as a thought experiment, that Iran was making nukes. By what right can we forbid them from possessing such weapons?
Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran's nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today.
Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility.
"Iran is a rogue state," we hear. "They will use the weapons aggressively."
Really? When was the last time Iran started a war?
What makes you think they would they be mad enough to launch a strike that would surely lead to an annihilating counterstrike? The Russians did not possess that brand of psychosis, and neither, I think, do the Iranians.
But there are people in the world who have descended into that level of insanity. Consider this article from 2003. The whole appalling thing is worth reading, but the following sections are particularly germane to our discussion of what constitutes a rogue state:
An Israeli professor and military historian hinted that Israel could avenge the holocaust by annihilating millions of Germans and other Europeans.Note: The professor's name is actually spelled Martin van Creveld -- and he's enough of an insider that I find him credible when he avers that Israel has targeted Rome, Berlin Paris and London with nukes.
Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.
"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force."
Creveld insists that others in the Israeli government think as he thinks. If so, then the Israelis really do appear to be insane enough to strike without care of counterstrike:
Creveld argued that Israel wouldn't care much about becoming a rogue state.Yes, it's true: If Europe ever tries to prevent Israel from going through with its program of ethnic cleansing, Israel will destroy the Louvre and the Sistine Chapel and the British Museum, along with hundreds of millions of innocent people. "We have the capability to take the world down with us." Israel is willing to engage in a mass murder spree that would dwarf Hitler's, even at the risk of a nuclear Masada. That's how deeply the Israelis care about their long-term plans for genocide. Crevald is explicit on that score, and he's not just speaking for himself.
Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us."
If anyone of similar authority in Iran ever uttered such words, you'd see outraged headlines around the world.
Thomas Friedman, of all people, offers further enlightenment. He speaks of Israel circa 1995:
I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.So I ask you: What constitutes a rogue state?
And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.
Which country has plunged deepest into the tar-pits of irrationality?
Which country has a history of military aggression?
Which country has made the more vile threats?
Which country has a nuke aimed right at the Mona Lisa?
9 comments:
And who the hell made Israel?
Joseph, I read somewhere, here perhaps, that Obama was told of this facility by the Bush administration during the transition. If so, why the damning words now? Obama still said he intended to sit down with whats his name for a little talk, perhaps tea. Bet Hillary already knew when she called Obama naive during the debates. I don't think he had the Security clearance before the inauguration to know about the Iranians before all that. Maybe thats why Hillary took the State job. To prevent a big mistake.
Thank you Joseph! Thank you for writing what most all mainstream journalists don't have the guts to say. This is so obvious and referenced, yet it's become a crime to say as much. Just look at the villification of Trafficante this past week. It just defies all logic that all of our media continues to lie about the whole "wipe off the map" misquote. I am really getting tired of all of our politicians being so subservient to Israel and the neocons. And one other thing, doesn't it seem that Obama is getting treated exactly like Rabin was by the rightwing? I wouldn't be surprised if many of the same forces were at work if you consider who was the next prime minister of Israel after Rabin in 96. It was Netanyahu, the same psycho in charge today./
"Let us suppose, as a thought experiment, that Iran was making nukes. By what right can we forbid them from possessing such weapons?"
They signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And as far as anyone can tell, they are abiding by it. But it does say they can't get nuclear weapons.
When I was in Iran back in March(before the whole ugly mess that followed the election) the word on the street was that Ahmadinejad will be elected or selected one way or the other. The logic behind this assumption went something like this:
-the economy is on the verge of collapse(unemployment, inflation)
-oil revenues are down(virtually the only source of income)and Government expenses are up(Gov tried to get out of some subsidies at the begining of the Iranian calander year-March 21 but backed off in fear of a public revolt)
-sanctions would deal a deadly blow to a fragile economy
-Obama can be packaged and sold as "other than Bush" to the Iranian people who have had enough with the anti west and pro Palestinian stand of the Gov
-Obama in return had given signs that he also favors peace
-if there is to be "peace" between the US and Iran, it has to happen when a hardliner was in power in Iran(any future economic improvements can not be attributed to moderates)
I don't think back then the people or the Gov predicted the events and trends before or after the election(the level of participation and loathing for Ahmadinejad). So, when it came down to the wire they had to resort to fraud to get Ahmadinejad elected. Two more observations that support the idea that a deal was struck shortley after Obama's election.
-Obama adminstration did sit on the fence for a short while after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations that persued to make sure that Ahmadinejad can hold his own before the plan was put back on the table. However, as soon as it became evident that the election would stand, the MSM's coverage (and tone) of the Green Movement in Iran dramatically changed. The Huffpost used to have minute by minute coverage of the Iranian uprising and then puff! it stopped dead with no explanation. TPM used to have a special page covering the Uprising and suddenly it was gone. Last week several tens of thousands(my husband was an eye withness)of American-Iranians had a rally in NY to protest Ahmadinejad's election and there was but a mere mention of it in MSM. The movement in Iran has slowed but not stopped, the media here would have you believe it is dead.
-On Thursday right after the US-Iran meeting was over a newspaper in Iran reported that further talks have been arranged for the middle of October. The US had not even had time to report the results of this meeting and had to rush and put a memo out about the October meetings.
beeta, I suspect that reason the TPM and Huffpo coverage changes has to do with the fear of consequence. Nobody likes Ahmadinejad, just as no-one liked Saddam Hussein circa 2001-2003. But the neocons are back and they are serious about wanting war with Iran, even though the consequences will make the Iraq debacle seem like a breeze.
Joseph,
Are you saying that further demonizing of Ahmadinejad by Huffpost and TPM would play into the warmonger NeoCon hands? And that they stopped covering the Green Movement in Iran for fear of helping the drive toward War?
But that was my poiont.
Nukes have been used as an excuse by NeoCons for pushing war. The excuse can be eliminated by signing an agreement and having inspectors go into Iran and declaring everything on the up and up. I would not even be surprised to see us accepting Iran with NUKEs down the road like Pakistan.
During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.
Maria
Recovery Bull Software
Maria -
Those WMDs were all destroyed during the 8 years of international weapons inspections. That fact was known before the Iraq war; no intelligence agency anywhere in the world (including those in the US) thought otherwise. So what's your point?
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment