 |
 |
 August 26, 2006
Guest: This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. They did so just days ahead of an end-of-August deadline imposed by the UN Security Council. Kofi Annan is now en route to Tehran to try to forestall a deepening crisis. The US's fellow UN members have in recent years accused us - rightly at times, of sidestepping and denigrating the world body. But if Russia and China do not stand by the UN's resolution and back up the offer of incentives dangled before Iranian President Ahmadinejad with penalties now that the overture has been rebuffed, it is they - not the US - that will undermine the United Nations. Some months ago, the second highest ranking UN official, Mark Malloch Brown ignited a firestorm when, at a conference sponsored by the Security and Peace Initiative, he laid into the US for failing to adequately back the UN. If Russia and China back away from concerted and forceful UN action on Iran (I realize I am sidestepping what the nature of such action would be and the questions I raised last night about whether and how sanctions can be made effective, but unity and the perception of forcefulness may ultimately be what matters most here), they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. —Suzanne Nossel 9:31 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (189)Comments
We don't really have any auithority to stop them. Lets be honest here, how many UN Resolutions have we blocked against Israel? How many do we stop from being enforced? Don't bother with arguments against equivilance, to russian or chinese eyes theres no difference. Posted by: SoulLite on August 26, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINKThe world is going to hell in a handbasket, I tell ya. And we've got a drunk monkey at the wheel. 'Inauguration', 'Grand Opening', 'Start-up',... Pipes, warning signs and other such tinkertoys look impressive, but they don't make power -- or nukes. Nothing I read says this plant is operational. I understand Iran has the technology, but there's a lot more to it than just having blueprints. Didn't this come about amazingly fast, and just under the U.N. deadline? Isn't this just another posturing step? I'm skeptical, but also looking for real information. Is this credible? Posted by: wishIwuz2 on August 26, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINKGiven the US view, stated or unstated, that it has the right to attack any country it chooses, regardless of actual threat. Given the fact that the US attacked Iraq despite the opening of sites for inspection and despite the growing body of evidence from Blix and El Baradai that there was no undeclared WMD. Given a cursory look at American internal politics and the Reublican troubles at home, coupled with their use of external enemies to win the last 2 elections. Given the example of how poorly Israel did in Lebanon when relying on primarily airpower with the resultant civilian casualties and loss of world opininion. If I were Iran, I would assume: All of this was avoidable. But the US had to not play the bully, had to not overtly call Iran part of some axis of evil... Blame the Russians and the Chinese all you want, but the blame is primarily Bush's. It took 5 years of bluster and stupidity to get to this point, maybe more. Posted by: Wapiti on August 26, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINKRefresh my memory - isn't it true that Iran has the right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to build a heavy water reactor? Also, say you were negotiating with your neighbor about building a second story to your house that was allowed by the zoning laws but the politically well-connected neighbor didn't like, and your neighbor demanded that you stop all construction-related activities as a condition to negotiations. Wouldn't you have the suspicion that once you stopped, thus giving your neighbor everything that neighbor hoped to gain from the negotiations anyway, that the "negotiations" would then be extended to eternity? Wouldn't it be smarter to have the architects keep on designing, and comply with the existing planning laws for building second stories that everyone else, like your neighbor India, was bound by? Posted by: RepubAnon on August 26, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINKThere are many, many assumptions in your posts, Suzanne. Many, many. Try and build your foundations first. Posted by: 54tg7,,x on August 26, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKI agree wholeheartedly with RebupAnon. Suzanne, sorry, but this post is a pile-of-junk, BushCo/Bolton/Neocon talkingpoints. Iran is 10 years away from producing weapons-grade fissile material -- and has been that way for 30 years. Let's watch Bush screw up the UN. Everything else he's laid his mitts on has turned to crap. Can we turn Political Animal / WashingtonMonthly back into a reality-based blog where spin is rebutted with facts. The third-order issue should not be raised without addressing the falsity of all the presumptions, by which I mean, don't complain about how bad the support for a UN role in Iran is amongst our presumed allies against proliferation without identifying how the UN's choices for action have been so degraded by the neo-cons running the USA show. Why do you support Bush war mongering? The greatest danger is that the Bush Administration will deceive the US into a conflict with Iran. Don't buy into Bush propaganda on Iran the same way the media got suckered on Iraq propaganda. I have zero trust that Bush will not screw up Iran policy. It is completely nuts to get into a conflict with Iran. Naive well intentioned people in the media do great harm to the US by providing cover for the Bush administration nutcases. Why doesn't Bush try diplomacy for a change and actually talk to the Iranians? There is no reason why Iran should not be an ally. Posted by: bakho on August 26, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINKVery interesting ideas, Suzanne, but do we need such a dense writing style? Your last paragraph is an example. The parenthetical statement is longer than the sentence it's nested in. It's hard to follow the thread. Posted by: Punditbot on August 26, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKIran may be a problem but, the intelligence agencies dont seem to think so. Anyway, the question we should all ask ourselves when we go to the polls this fall is: "Do we really want the same bunch of incompetent legislators running the show should we need to engage Iran?" It's time to elect people with with conviction and integrity and throw out the corrupt bunch that we have now. Posted by: j_ny on August 26, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINKSuzanne Nossel: what international law is iran breaking? describe what agreement or treaty they are defying? iran has a right to develop a clear weapon if it chooses. i would prefer that no country have a nuclear weapon, but if america lets india and pakistan and israel have one, why should i take their whining at the UN seriously? Posted by: red mike on August 26, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKin blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. The scolding step-parent approach is really not an attractive policy. I am not familiar with NPT, but is the conflict really about Iran's nuclear aspirations or is it Iran's refusal to obey the righteous authority of the US, with people like Ms. Nossel using the stick of the UN to impose its authority. The scolding step-parent is about to evolve into the abusive foster parent, stuffing a sock down the throat of Iran and then throwing the dead out a window while driving off with the petrol. When the US renounces and dismantles its nuclear weapons then let Ms. Nossel write about other belligerent countries problems. I am really becoming increasingly afraid attempts to use force against Iran are becoming imminent, and it is because of people like Nossel, who will not do anything more than stoke the fires of hate and bigotry, who are to blame for the non-stop demonizing of Iran. [url=http://site.voila.fr/111a/1860mms/index.html]彩信下载专业网[/url] Thomas 1: "I guess we had no "authority" to stop Japan or Germany in WWII then either" thanks for the partial history lesson. you guys sure helped a lot, you shortened the war by five years. but you didnt do it single handed (ask the millions of russians killed) and you were very tardy to the party. canada declared war on the axis in sept of 1939, you gusy showed up in 1941, ONLY after being attacked. "Where are the Truman's and John F. Kennedy's when we need them?" bad analogy dude. truman couldnt win korea and jfk couldnt win vietnam. Posted by: red mike on August 26, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKFirst of all, we have different fears and so different agendas. You are focused soley on Iran (though you seem to have difficulty differentiating Tehran from Baghdad), while we, although also having some concern about Iran's programme, are in addition trying to hamstrin g a Bush-led US because frankly a little craziiness by a country the size of the US is a lot more frightening than a lot of craziness by a country the size of Iran (though at this juncture I don't know if it can be said that Iran is winning the craziness competition). Any of the unity you say matters most cannot happen if the US insists it be by following the US piper which seems to be your line. Posted by: foreign guy on August 26, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKlessee... how to turn the anti war left into defenders of Israel??? Jews on leftist forums, hijack the conversation about Iraq and turn it into HOW TO STOP THE EVIL IRANIANS>>> We will be saturated with 'news' of Iranian TERROR until the left produces ONLY ISraeli friendly hawks. Any takers? ... anyone stupid enough to see through the name changes of these stealth jews? Posted by: Charles on August 26, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINKThis action by Iran doesn't violate the NPT, and even if it did, any country has the right to withdraw from the NPT by giving three months' notice. The NPT is not international law. Furthermore, there is no moral justification for forcing this UN resolution down Iran's throat while allowing Israel to ignore UN resolutions by the boatload. Posted by: Firebug on August 26, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINKwe've got a drunk monkey at the wheel. The drunken monkey's power derives from the people, who are ex-slave owners used to fucking any brown skinned child that attracts their eye. Iran is much like an attractive slave child to people like Thomas1, Suzanne Nossel, Cheney, and Bush. They see something they like and want to slober all over it before they tighten the garret and smash in its head. Their genitals become excited when the eyes of the child bulge out as the knot of their righteous morality tightens. The people of the US have assumed the powers of the plantation foreman, who rape all children and give stripes to any who interfere with their absolute authority. I've come here under many names, many guises, always spewing my antisemitic filth. I'm a very, very sick person. Before the invention of the internet, I would have been the loon you walk past in the park. Posted by: Charles on August 26, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINKIt seems to me that the national interests of China and Russia would be best served by a non-nuclear Iran. After all, they're both nearer to Iran than the USA, and each has a restless Muslim population. What are they seeing that I'm missing? Posted by: Bob Miller on August 26, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINKThe US should stand up for the UN. What does that mean? The US cherry picks what it wants to follow anyway. What's to be done about Iran anyway? Another invasion. Or just a round of bombings. Good read: http://mondediplo.com/2006/08/03airpower Posted by: CapeCod on August 26, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINKCharles, before the Civil War, you were the person who would purchase an African child, boy or girl, and then take them home and fuck them every which way. Most child molesters are descendants of slave owners. Security analysts are envious of that type of absolute power. It makes them salivate and want to create terror zones where that kind of behavior is commonplace. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK Charles, if I have mistakenly identified you as being a neo-con ex-slave owner child molester, like Ms. Nossel, I apologize. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK>"I guess we had no "authority" to stop Japan or Germany in WWII then either." Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? The Japanese attacked the United States on Dec 7, 1941. It is one of the few cases where the US went to war as a response to a direct attack/actions by a foreign nation. Hmmm... only other situation I can think of like that would be the War of 1812? Every other time the US has either been the agressor nation or has acted abroad via proxy to defend economic interests. War of 1812 - Direct Threat
bad analogy dude. truman couldnt win korea and jfk couldnt win vietnam. dem Jews gonna turn you into the war party next. Perhaps I apologized too soon. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINKSuzanne did you read Laura’s post? “Where can President Bush start to rouse Republicans to get to the polls? Barnes: "The place to start is Iran." Are you coming around here to get folks on board to elect Republicans and push the neocon agenda? Many of us are tired of your neocon fear-mongering and chronic urgency without any evidence. We had our fill with Iraq. Sister, this blog is one long deconstruction of the 'Middle East emergency'. Why exactly is Iran a threat? Do they want to nuke the US or Israel or invade someone or are they just crazy? What stability do they threaten? Please be explicit. You assume Russia and China are interested in an immediate solution... China sees US resources being sapped throughout the middle east, causing us to borrow more and more from them... Putin wants to be a superpower again and seems to be playing the President like a fiddle... I haven't played it all out, but if Russia and China think they can stop Iran at their will, they may not see it in their interest to slow Iran down quite yet... They also probably make more money as the threat to Iran increases... Add to that, this whole thing plays into a GOP election timeline, and you have no reason to believe any of this willbe resolved this year, and we will be right back at it in Aug 2008... Posted by: justmy2 on August 26, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK"International law" barely exists. Yes, there are a few principles that are more-or-less agreed to, but no international court has the power to interpret "intenational law." No international police force enforces it. E.g., when Hezbollah made unprovoked rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, no outside international body came to Israel's aid. When Slobodan Milosevic was commiting genocide, no formal outside international body intervened. (Fortunately, President Clinton organized a coalition of the willing to take action.) I didn't want the US to be the world's police force. Unfortunately, there's no one else. Al Qaeda and the Taliban would rule Afghanisatan today, but for the US. Saddam would be in power, but for the US. Even in former Yugoslavia, European countries didn't get involved until the US provided leadership. Iran already considerable influence over Syria, and over Lebanon (via Hezbollah). They can afford a huge military arsenal. If Iran gets a nuclear arsenal and goes on to control other middle eastern countries, no world body will stop them. If Iran provides nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, no international body will stop them. In short, I didn't want to see unilateral US action against Iran, but there is no other option. Posted by: ex-liberal on August 26, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKf Russia and China back away from concerted and forceful UN action on Iran....they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. With all due respect, let's get several things straight here: China funds the Unites State's debt. There would be no War on Terror, no cluster bombs for Israel, no high tech Pentagon gizmos without Chinese money. Russia is now the world's foremost enegry exporter, including Saudi Arabia. There would be no fuel for SUVs, for suburban commuting,for tanks, for aircraft carriers without Russian oil. So who is zooming whom? Posted by: Thinker on August 26, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKGee. Kevin has turned to the neo-cons to do holiday relief. Sorry Suzanne, I am not impressed at your re-hashed ramblings, in fact just a couple days of reading your writing and I am about ready to cancel Mr. Drum from my blog reading list. ttul Dear Kevin Drum, could you please be more careful to whom you hand the keys. We appreciate reasoned argument, not Suzanne Nossel's consultant-speak nonsense. Hey Suzanne, your position is a non-starter. Israel has ignored tons of UN resolutions, and already has the bomb to boot. You sound like an op-ed in the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. You want to egg us into a war where someone else does the dying for you. We irate moderates aren't going for it. Posted by: Shogun on August 26, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINKWhat is the most likely explanation for all this? BushCo can't stand to have another country thumbing its nose at them. Iran taking an independent stand must be like waving a red flag at a bull. The thin-skinnedness of the so-called U.S. government is absolutely unbelievable. So: take one failed (disastrous, actually) Mid East adventure, mix in the accumulating internal embarrassment together with loss of Republican support, season with Iraq's refusal to say "Uncle", garnish with neocon blinders and what do you get? Intense pressure for more war. Ab-sol-ute-ly sickening.
Boy, The Suzanne Nossel lovefest is really going swimmingly... But you reap what you sow... But seeing the lack of response, I assume she isn't even reading the comments... Why is it that those who are least capable of defending their arguments refuse to engage in comments in the blogosphere...? Ok...dumb question... Why call Charles names when he speaks truth?
Action heroes The al-Qaeda franchise will pour forth its bowl of pestilence and death. We know this because we’ve watched it countless times on TV and in the movies, just as our officials have done. Based on their behavior, it’s reasonable to suspect that everything John Reid and Michael Chertoff know about counterterrorism, they learned watching the likes of Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Vin Diesel, and The Rock (whose palpable homoerotic appeal it would be discourteous to emphasize). It’s a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire “red mercury,” and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs. For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury. You won’t hear about those fellows until it’s too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven’t got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots. Posted by: tj on August 26, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINKJesus you guys are quick. Well, let me unleash my own snark anyway, although red mike and asdf nailed it: >Where are the Truman's and John F. Kennedy's when we need them? In the clouds still smarting over Korea and the Bay Of Pigs. Both failures, both of which you might notice didn't lead to the end of the world or even close to it. And dearest Ms. Nossel, heavy-water is used in reactors of the type that use reactive materials that Iran can supply internally. Man, BushCo started this match with Iran in the position of one pawn against a full board and that pawn is just mowing down eveything. Posted by: doesn't matter on August 26, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK"This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities" Heavy water is not a component of nuclear weapons. It is used in heavy water reactors - reactors that can be fueled by UNeneriched uranium. There is no defiance or violaton of UN by opening this plant. Enriching uranium, in definance of the UN is a separate issue from anything to do with this plant. Posted by: Tano on August 26, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKIf you were a developing country in a volatile part of the world...and if the president of the world's most powerful country designated you as part of an "axis of evil"...and if that same president then attacked one of the other so designated countries without ANY provocation (save for his own and his associates' gross and inexcusable stupidity)...would you: ????????????????????????????? Posted by: RonB on August 26, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKSuzanne-- You really think that Russia's and China's failure to "act" on Iran (whatever that means) is equivalent to the USA going to war in Iraq over the UN's objection? You admit you don't even know what to actually do about Iran, yet you come in with this ridiculously self-righteous attitude. It's laughable. A consultant who doesn't have any real ideas for action shouldn't attack people for not "acting". Do you realize how funny this sounds? And what interest does China or Russia really have in a non-nuclear Iran? Teheran is not going to lob nuclear missiles at either nation. That's why they care very little about this whole brou-ha-ha. China fought a war with India not too long ago. Russia fought a (proxy) war with Pakistan. Both Pakistan and India were allowed to have nuclear weapons with little more than a peep out of the U.S. So I doubt too many people in Russia or China are sympathetic to the legalistic arguments people like Suzanne Nossel make when it comes to Iran. Posted by: kokblok on August 26, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK Suzanne, You're inching far too close to the line of common sense with this post, I'd advise you strongly to retract it. This kind of stuff is not going to fly on Kevin's website. If America is not shown to be the evil empire and focus of evil in the world, the Democratic base does not want to hear it. Posted by: minion of rove on August 26, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKI assume she isn't even reading the comments... Ms. Nossel is like Lanny Davis, an elitist who works from a top down perspective. If America is not shown to be the evil empire and focus of evil in the world, the Democratic base does not want to hear it. Heh. I still marvel at Bill's post in the Accountability thread the other day. Might we then start to understand why they hate us – and more usefully why we should hate ourselves? "Where are the Truman's and John F. Kennedy's when we need them?" While I understand they why & wherefores of our nuking Japan at the end of WWII it nevertheless does not put Truman in my Column of "good guys" As for why the are no Kennedy's - he would never get elected in today's US political game. He would be swifboated mercilessly, that whole PT109 thing is just begging for the full blown Gore/Kerry/McCain/Chamblis treatment P.S. Did I stumble into the wrong blog? Why does this post feel like it belongs on some fetid right wing nutter site? Posted by: freemti on August 26, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKOh, by the way, the name of Ms. Nossel's organization is an oxymoron. "Democracy" = "the people choose". "Arsenal" = "the weapons we use to impose our will by force". In all likelihood, the world will have to get used to Iran eventually developing nuclear weapons. The same applies to North Korea. While pundits from the Right can urge military action, the truth is that the Bush Administration won't touch either country so long as they have any other option. Despite the early warnings of quagmire, Afghanistan was a relatively minor affair. It remains so, largely because we rightly have no interest in pacifying the Hindu Kush. Even Iraq remains manageable from a military perspective (meaning our units do not face any meaningful opposition capable of defeating them). But Iran and North Korea are horses of dramatically different colors. Iran is even larger than Iraq, has more population and a strong sense of national cohesion. We won't even bomb them. Even if we were not in Iraq, Iran is safe from us. If North Korea decided to start a war, we could expect US casualties in the hundreds on the first day, thousands within as little as a week. Not to mention the almost certain destruction of Seoul. So we'll walk softly there, as well.. It is not coincidental that the Bush Administration seeks diplomatic solutions for Iran and North Korea. The efforts will probably be futile, but they beat a major conventional war. Posted by: Trashhauler on August 26, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKThe foreign policy of the US towards Iran is being driven by the fears of its small or weak allies who have some reason to be afraid of Iran (not just Israel, but the Gulf States as well). Chinese and Russian foreign policy is being driven by Chinese and Russian national interest. Guess which approach makes more sense. Posted by: kokblok on August 26, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKWell Suzzanne, if you insist. "Russia and China you are both naughty nations!" Did that help? Posted by: Matt on August 26, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKGiven the influence of PNAC alumni on the current US Presidential Administration, and the demonstrated tendency of Cheney and his crowd to do exactly what they say they are going to do, for the government of any midsized regional power (which is what Iran is) NOT to be building nuclear weapons as fast as they can would at best be malfesence in office. More likely treason. The Iranian government (however nasty we may consider it to be from 9,000 miles away) has _no choice_ but to develop such weapons. And they have been placed in that postion squarely by Bush, Cheney, and the American polity. Not Really Posted by: Not Really on August 26, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKMy interpretation of minion and RSM: "If, in any discussion of foreign affairs, about any country, at any time, you criticize the US or its military, we will label you a ____________hater. And then you will have no credibility, you see?" They "win" all their arguments this way. Posted by: Foundation of Mud on August 26, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKWhy should we worry about Iranian nukes ? After all, Dubya has spent billions on a missile defense system that will protect us... If there was a threat of terrorists using nuclear Well, at least the Republicans have secured our ports and borders against infiltration by terrorists..Oh, wait a minute... Posted by: Stephen on August 26, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKSuzzanne Nossel: "This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities." My god, Suzzanne is taking it as a given that Iran has "nuclear weapons production activities." Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, has conducted 3 years of go-anywhere see-anything inspections and has found no indication that Iran has a nuclear weapons program! Yes, Iran is enriching uranium but it is allowed this activity under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treat it signed and is apparently following to the letter. Intelligent Americans seem to be very eager to believe the unfounded allegations being thrown around again by the Bush about the threat of a Middle Eastern nation. How many times do you people want to be fooled by these charlatans? If you accept the case that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then it's only a short step towards accepting the notion that military action is justified in stopping it. Hello! Do any of you recall that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk" case? I'm one helluva lot more skeptical now about any such claims that could lead us to take preemptive military action against another nation. I now need to see some iron-clad evidence of such claims before I'll believe those claims. I wish more Americans were as skeptical about these claims as I am! Posted by: Taobhan on August 26, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKLet's get back to fundamentals here. Our choices--doing nothing, or doing something with George Bush in charge. I'll pay attention to geopolitics and the hard choices facing the US when and if we ever get out from under the Neo-cons. All the rest if building castles in the air. Posted by: Raenelle on August 26, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINKHeavy water could be used to produce tritium in a reactor, I think. Posted by: Boronx on August 26, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK"If, in any discussion of foreign affairs, about any country, at any time, you criticize the US or its military, we will label you a ____________hater. And then you will have no credibility, you see?" They "win" all their arguments this way. There is self-criticism of US policies and actions, and then there is saying we should hate ourselves. Can you see the difference? Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKrsm ... you've never shown the slightest inclination toward introspection of america's genocidal foreign policy. for you to whine about degrees of acceptable criticism is, minimally, disingenuous, since you will never partake it at any level. but don't worry ... I'm sure all the protein you and the neocons derived from sucking bush's dick these past 6 yrs will sustain you. Posted by: Nads on August 26, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKSidestepping the issue of what to do? How stupid! The US should talk to the Iranians. It is called diplomacy. It is that simple. DUH Bush won't talk to the Iranians because he is an incompetent war monger. It has nothing to do with the UN or any other countries. Posted by: bakho on August 26, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINKNads Oh, nicely loaded question, that. No wonder we are required to hate ourselves. We're genocidal! You're right, I refuse to recognize the genocidability of our foreign policy. As for never critiquing our foreign policy, you're just a poor reader with blinders. but don't worry ... I'm sure all the protein you and the neocons derived from sucking bush's dick these past 6 yrs will sustain you. Yea, like anyone would ever enter into any sort of reasoned discourse with you. Heh. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKlike most neocon, bush-worshipping cocksuckers, your critique of american foreign policy is that it isn't aggressive or genocidal enough. Posted by: Nads on August 26, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINKlike most neocon, bush-worshipping cocksuckers, your critique of american foreign policy is that it isn't aggressive or genocidal enough. Why do you hate America? Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKNice post, Suzanne, but a bit late in the game. The Left is no longer sane. Posted by: harmony on August 26, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINKRSM, How would you classify the killing of 2 million or so Vietnamese in order to prevent Vietnamese self-determination? On the subject of Iran, who subverted and overthrew whose democratically elected gov't? If the full story of US interference in Irans affairs was known, both to the American public and to the world, how would that effect our stature and our credibility? And Mike, kindly keep your eye on the ball as to what I have said and what I haven't said. I haven't said the US is evil. I haven't said "Iran is good." I'm saying, look at the factual history and ask if we're justified in arrogating the moral highground to ourselves? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKNossel... isn't that JEWISH?? ethnocentric bias should be admitted in every discussion of the Middle East. We simply cannot afford to trust Jews [hiding their ethnocentric bias] to tell the truth Posted by: tj on August 26, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKRepeating 2002 by pumping up fears of Iran's eviltude while bemoaning the glacial UN mere weeks before a midterm election may not be the best ways further our goals in the region. Posted by: Boronx on August 26, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKWhy do you hate America? Why do you waste time with non-sequiturs? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKHow would you classify the killing of 2 million or so Vietnamese in order to prevent Vietnamese self-determination? Apart from my taking issue with your statement, it doesn't even meet the definition of genocide... The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Why do you waste time with non-sequiturs? Why do you waste time with ad hominems? I'm assuming you are doubling as Nads or Bill. Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINKWe simply cannot afford to trust Jews [hiding their ethnocentric bias] to tell the truth But we can sure afford to trust racist trash like yourself, huh tj? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKWhat ad hominem are you talking about? And are you disputing that our intervention in Vietnam was specifically in order to prevent the national unity elections called for in the Geneva agreement? Posted by: obscure on August 26, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKWhat ad hominem are you talking about? The one that led to the non sequitur. And are you disputing that our intervention in Vietnam was specifically in order to prevent the national unity elections called for in the Geneva agreement? I am disputing that our foreign policy is genocidal, since that was the discussion going on. Are you talking about something else? Posted by: Red State Mike on August 26, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKI don't think anyone can rationally argue that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. So here we see what the Democratic response would have been if Iraq had in fact been building WMDs. No different. Posted by: bill on August 26, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone brought up this hypocrisy in the American position: This year, we signed a treaty with India, a non-signatory to the NPT and a country with a nuclear weapons capability, to exchange nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This same year, we are pursuing sanctions against Iran, which is a party to the NPT, because they are developing uranium enrichment capability. These sorts of stances completely undermine the NPT, which I would argue is pretty much dead at this point. The question is, do we try to salvage the NPT, or build a new framework for today's realities? Or is this question not worth asking when you have an administration that treats treaties and international accords with open disdain? Shouldn't nonproliferation be a key leg in any successful anti-terrorism policy? Posted by: forsythe on August 26, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINKThere is self-criticism of US policies and actions, and then there is saying we should hate ourselves. We should hold Americans to the same standard we held Nazi German generals and political leaders at the end of WWII. That means hanging the generals who have overseen torture and murder of captives and civilians and put Bush and Cheney in prison for life. I would enjoy seeing Bush turned into an insane Rudolf Hess while serving a life-time in solitary confinement. I suspect Bush would go insane in less than 90 days. And what about those unbrave men and women that drop bombs on wedding parties, torture, and shoot old ladies in the face? Most Nazi soldiers were held for a short time and then released back into society by the Americans. So, I will accept that punishment for these followers of deadly authority. Perhaps we should tattoo 'Served Bush' on their foreheads so the rest of can be sure to keep children away from them. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKIf people in the midst of this argument have airstrikes in the back off their minds as some sort of possible solution that might be turned to in this case, they need to go outside remove their shirts and flog their own backs with a garden hose until they forget about it or pass out. We are fucked because we are in Iraq. Yes, I know where you are going, but just stop right there and say it again. We are fucked because we are in Iraq. It's natural to sift desperately for reasons why we aren't hamstrung, but when you weigh all of the options in balance it always comes out this way. The C+ Augustus crowd thought that the invasion would be a clever little stratagem, but they were completely mistaken and now they think the can pull something off by doubling down with more people's lives. And the kicker? All of this was the very obvious outcome and predicted by many but the Pep Rallys didn't want to hear about it. The irony? In the grand scheme of things if the Iran nuclear issue had been looked at and people had realized that it was probably a more realistic concern than Iraq, still having a Hussein dominated Iraq would have allowed us more leverage in that fight. Afghanistian would have sufficed for the basing. Forget about the politics of it, it was a massive strategic blunder pure and simple. You simply cannot overstate the imcompetence of it. Because moderates consider people who accept the moral authority of Israel's and the US's military hegemony worthy of attention and a place at the table of discussion, we are at war. Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINKI think kokblok and others have nailed Nossel on this one. This is a lame, dime-a-dozen "liberal hawk" monologue built on false assumptions and vague hints of violence. But there is a kernel of a real, important issue here. The UN Security Council invested a substantial amount of diplomatic energy into stopping Iran from advancing their nuclear program, with an implied threat of force if they failed to comply. Generally speaking, most American liberals have supported this process due to it being vastly preferable to any ideas the neocons were likely to come up with. But Iran has now called the bluff. So a failure to provide some sort of stick takes a bite out of the credibility of the liberal internationalist approach to national security. The root problem here is that the internationalists have shot themselves in the foot by trying to bluff Iran and selectively applying the NPT to countries they don't like while giving Israel and India a free pass... but the consequence of this failure is that it will strengthen the hand of those who want war with Iran. It also may lead to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at some point in the not-so-distant future. And while allowing this to happen may arguably be the least-worst option, it's also a position that can be credibly tagged as "isolationist". I seriously doubt the Mullahs are on the verge of developing nukes and handing them over to terrorists... but I live in the DC area and I'm not entirely sure I want to bet my life on this matter. So at the risk of sounding like Karl Rove, does anyone to the Left of Bill Kristol actually have a plan for dealing with this situation? While doing nothing is probably better than bombing Iran, I'd really love to hear some actual ideas that involve doing something. We are fucked because we are in Iraq.Yep. And we need to get out of Iraq to get unfucked. But what should we do in the meantime? Posted by: ajl on August 26, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK Perhaps China and Russia should put aside their substantial economic interests in Iran, and approve sanctions. But when it comes to deplorable policies, consider: UN SCRs aren't unimportant. But more effective would be policy changes at Foggy Bottom. If the use of force is on the horizon, the US should be willing to offer substantial concessions to induce Iran to obviate the need for it. (I forebear to mention how in 1953 (and again during the course of the Iran-Iraq) the United States did what it could to, in good time stoke hostility in Tehran.) Posted by: Perspectivist on August 26, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKYep. And we need to get out of Iraq to get unfucked. But what should we do in the meantime?
2) Realize and speak outwardly that there is not a single carrot that will deter Iran from the bomb. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This is the North Korean lesson to every nation on earth. Exhibit B is Pakistan. Arguably the entire future existence of the Iranian State rides on achieving this. 3)Depending on the answer to question #1, you either withdraw from Iraq proper in drawdown stages beginning this fall, and concede that the place will be carved up by Iran, Turkey and Jordan, with perhaps better or worse consequences than S. Hussein. Or you withdraw from Iraq via Iran, following the roads into Afghanistan making pit stops along the way in Tehran or wherever our sparkling WMD intel tells us to go. This trip will probably take two years and ignite wars elsewehere, but eventually we exit via Afghanistan or the Caspian Sea, probably with empty hands and probably leaving behind an equally appreciative populace as we did in Iran. So in short, there is no "unfucking" ourselves from this. That is why its such an amazing blunder to consider. It just keeps on snowballing. Posted by: Ten in Tenn on August 26, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINKIsn't Saudi Arabia attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon through their secret nuclear program with Pakistan? Why aren't the wingnuts calling for a confrontation with Saudi Arabia? Are they appeasers? If there is a terrorist threat from Iran, wouldn't it be irrational to assert that there is any the less terrorist threat from Saudi Arabia? Posted by: bblog on August 26, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKKofi Annan is now en route to Tehran to try to forestall a deepening crisis. Annan's primary purpose in heading to the Middle East is Lebanon. After visiting Lebanon he will go to Israel, Syria and Iran. While I'm sure the nuclear issue will be on his agenda in Tehran, he didn't suddenly pack his bags because of this event. Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKI live in the DC area and I'm not entirely sure I want to bet my life on this matter. You are willing to bet other peoples lives though. The people in Tehran already have US nukes targeting them. Complete crazy mother-murderers like Bush have their finger on the trigger ready to make my worst fears happen. Bush is also counseled by crazy motherfucking homegrown mullahs like the Priest Ted Haggard, with whom he meets with weekly. Rod Parsely, another insane war whore, helps the generals determine targets and spends his time with people like Ms. Nossel drawing up re-education plans for the entire Islamic population. Living in DC does not give you the right to act out your hysterical fears and kill people so you can sleep soundly. You must be hiding some guilt that realizes the US deserves retaliation for its crimes. Iran will not give the bomb to terrorists or initiate a first strike any other way. Iran wants us to stop trying to impose imperialist regime change and the only way to guarantee that right of nations is to obtain nuclear weapons capability, because even 'liberals' want to destroy Iran. Isn't that right, Ms. Nossel? Baby fucking Jesus! Think of how the strategic analysts in Iran must read the crap people like Nossel write. The only conclusion they could have is that Iran must accelerate their nuclear program ASAP before the US strikes. Does anyone know who finances Democracy Arsenal? Is it Scaife, the DOD, or the WH? Horrors, it might be the DLC! Posted by: Hostile on August 26, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINKJohn Robb's latest insight on the Western way of war. If Robb is right, then neocon chest thumping about Iran is inherently frivilous: PLAYING WITH WAR * Operations of low lethality. Western militaries do not have the desire, nor the sanction, to conduct the high casualty operations typically associated with real wars. Technology has been leveraged to increase the precision of attacks to limit collateral damage and save the lives of soldiers. The corollary to this is that western militaries are also fiercely protective of the lives of their soldiers. Warfare, increasingly, is supposed to be costless. What this means is that we will not see Sherman's 'March to the Sea' or Hama in the near future - and - the loss of a hundred soldiers in southern Lebanon will be enough to stop the Israeli army. Playing with War * Asymmetric motivation. In almost all instances, the opposition will approach the conflict as an existential war. This motivation both allows them to fight harder and longer than those western forces sent against it. The only aspects of warfare left in the west's favor are training and technology. Learning to Live with Limits * Nation-building as a global social policy. Historically, counter-insurgency against an established enemy has almost never worked (and when it has, it usually involves bloody exterminations). Any attempt to build a nation will likely, particularly in the current environment of globalization, yield an opponent that will be impossible to defeat through limited means. Further, the durations of these conflicts will exceed the capacity of the western states to maintain a cohesive set of objectives -- they will shift with opinion polls and political winds. he laid into the US for failing to adequately back the UN. Is it true that the French lied to Colin Powell outright when they promised, if necessary, to enforce UNSCR 1442? Is it true that the French lied outright when they promised to Rice and Bolton that they would enforce UNSCR 1701? Will the deployment of U.N. troops in support of the Lebanese army actually result in a reduction of Hezbollah military power, or even slow the rate of the Hezbollah re-armament? does anybody in the world care that UNSCR 242 requires the neighbors of Israel to negotiate with Israel for the return of conquered lands, negotiations that entail the recognition of Israel? Egypt negotiated, and got back the Sinai excluding Gaza -- now Israel has withdrawn from Gaza; Jordan has recognized Israel without demanding that it get back the West Bank. But enemies of the Zionist entity demand that it return the Golan Heights to Syria unconditionally. the list of the questions is to make a point: nobody cares what the resolutions of the UNSC contain, except possibly the resolution that led to Gulf War I, strongly led by the U.S. For Malloch brown to single out the U.S. is ironic because the U.S. tries harder than any other nation to make the U.N. enforce its resolutions. The Iran case fits the general pattern. Having signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and having received technical assistance under its auspices, Iran will now violate the treaty ad lib. It will continue to receive technical assistance as it "negotiates" with the IAEA. As France, Russia and China did with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the countries that count on making the most money will oppose sanctions on Iran, and will bust any sanctions that the U.S. chooses to impose. What to do? following yesterday's discussion, I'd propose (and I wrote this to my congress folk and pres. Bush) immediate increases in U.S. energy production capacity to make us less dependent on the middle east. Build some more of everything in every state: coal liquifaction; PV cells; wind farms; biofuels factories; thermal depoplymerization plants; nuclear power plants. Accompany this with investments to reduce fuel consumption. For evidence that this is both workable and economically productive, check out the posts by Secular Animist yesterday. Include an increased investment in CO2 sequestration in order to make the synfuels plants acceptible to environmentalists. This will both increase American military and commercial power, and make Iran less of a problem. Posted by: republicrat on August 26, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK(1) "This morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities." You have proof, do you, that this plant is involved in nuclear weapons production rather than research or for power generation? (2) The US wants China and Russia to uphold UN resolutions, to prevent the undermining of the UN. Hah hah hah. This is the same US that never met a foreign treaty (Kyoto, ICC, Geneva Convention) it didn't snub its nose at? The same US that told the UN to go screw itself four years ago? The same US that had Colin Powell lying to the UN? (3) The US doesn't want to set poor examples regarding proliferation? This is the same US that has never criticized Israeli nukes? That signed an agreement with India that basically amounts to not just legitimizing but helping out its nuclear program? That has done nothing to sanction Pakistan?
So at the risk of sounding like Karl Rove, does anyone to the Left of Bill Kristol actually have a plan for dealing with this situation? While doing nothing is probably better than bombing Iran, I'd really love to hear some actual ideas that involve doing something. You want a plan? You can't handle what needs to be done. The problem with countering nuclear proliferation is that no one trusts us at this point. Our stated foreign policy seems to be that we will invade anyone who might remotely be a threat in the future, or have something we want, unless they have nuclear weapons of their own. To persuade other nations that they don't require nuclear weapons to keep us away, we might consider: Yeah, it sounds crazy. But given the current account deficits - just how long can we pay for the best military in the world on Chinese credit? That bill will come due. And when it does... Better to have friends than to be everybody's enemy. Posted by: Wapiti on August 26, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK... they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. Do they care? Do their trading partners care? No. No. Posted by: republicrat on August 26, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKThis morning Iran opened up a plant that produces heavy water, in blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. As noted by others the heavy water plant is not "in blunt defiance of UN insistence". The relevant portion of the IAEA Director General's report GOV/2006/27, as noted in UNSCR 1696 is: In this context, the Board deemed it necessary for Iran to:(emphasis added) Posted by: has407 on August 26, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK ... they will deserve at least equivalent criticism. You are comparing Iran proceding to open the heavy water plant to: blunt defiance of UN insistence that it stop its nuclear weapons production activities. You need to make that case by supplying some supporting information and explanation. Then you compare that defiance to what U.S. did when it ignored the UN and invaded Iraq with lethal air and ground forces. Another great leap you need to explain. Posted by: little ole jim from red country on August 26, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINKnuke 'em. hit them till they glow. 0nly 1.3 billion muslims-- how many nukes would it take? Posted by: Dr Wu on August 26, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKOh no! The UN may be ineffective?!? That's crazy talk. Any body whose members are mainly autocrats and dictators simply must be better than the US. I mean, we're the bad guys, right? As the first commenter stated, it's our fault for backing Israel. Why do so many Lefties hate the US? I question your patriotism. Posted by: Birkel on August 26, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINKreconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. So the question now is, why does Kevin Drum allow liars and propagandists to post on his blog? Posted by: bblog on August 26, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKThe US doesn't want to set poor examples regarding proliferation? This is the same US that has never criticized Israeli nukes? That signed an agreement with India that basically amounts to not just legitimizing but helping out its nuclear program? That has done nothing to sanction Pakistan? The U.S. tried to sanction Pakistan. It led to stronger relations between Pakistan and the Taliban. Today's announcement does not seem, in fact, to be a contradiction to Iran's treaty. The most likely use to be made of the heavy water is a heavy water reactor (in Canada, the design is called "CANDU", and they are quite safe and reliable.) In principle there is a difference between never signing a treaty (US with Kyoto, Israel with NPT) and ignoring a treaty after signing it (Iran with NPT.) Legalistically, there is also a distinction between ignoring a UNSC resolution and vetoing one. The principle seems to have been laid down recently that even unanimous UNSC resolutions have no force. Posted by: republicrat on August 26, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK | |