Let me confess at the outset that I am no expert on Iran’s uranium-enrichment capabilities, nor about the subtleties of diplomatic negotiations on nuclear weapons. All I know is what the average person would know who reads, say, the New York Times about our (and Europe’s) negotiations with Iran about lifting economic sanctions in return for their damping down their nuclear program. What I give here is just a layperson’s view.
Last night an agreement with Iran seemed out of sight; today it seems closer. But who seriously believes that any agreement will prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons? They aren’t going to stop their program entirely, maintaining that it’s for peaceful uses—and does anybody believe that?). If an agreement is reached it will only defer the building of weapons for 5 or 10 years. Meanwhile we lift the sanctions, giving Iran an economic leg up. And of course Iran’s history of cheating and hiding its weapons program is well known.
Obama has said that the U.S. won’t tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons, but in fact he’s making sure that will happen—maybe just a bit later than it otherwise would. And he won’t be president much longer, either. If we’re truly afraid of an Iran with The Bomb, it’ll be our kids who actually face the problem.
I am not of course in favor of bombing Iran, though Israel may try to do that, but I see no long-term solution to a rogue theocratic state developing nuclear weaponry. It’s going to happen, and all we can do is hope that they have the sense not to use it—or sell it to fanatics who don’t mind dying if they can take a lot of us with them.
I didn’t get the impression that all sanctions were to be lifted. I’m no expert either but I get the feeling that we would have more oversight this way (through the IAEA and others) than with just screaming at them like Bibi and the Repugs. And remember that Iran has been more reasonable and secular in the past, pre Khomeini revolution, and has had a fairly sophisticated culture not so long ago, which might possibly re-emerge. In many ways the Iranians don’t scare me as much as the Saudis.
In about 2001 it is said that the Iranians offered, discretely, to settle Iran-US differences on terms highly favourable to the US. They were ignored. If that story is true it was a big mistake by the US. Khatami was quite moderate by the standards of his predecessors and successors.
It was a gargantuan mistake and really showed the Bush Jr. administration for what it was. Iran offered to help us against al-Qaeda with intelligence and more. The Bush Jr. admin said, basically, fuck off. Sure, Iran no doubt offered out of self interest. Who would or could expect anything else? So instead of improving relations with a major country in the region, arguably the major country in the region, and accepting aid that would have surely been of significant benefit to us, we smugly alienated them further.
Pakistan is pretty close to a rogue theocratic state with Nukes.
And Israel – certainly theocratic and with nukes as well. And quite rogue at that. Isn’t the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons the main driver of the arms race in the Middle East?
I’ve always wondered about that. It’s been a pretty given that the Israelis have nukes, with the wink and a nod that the US gov’t gives them.
Israel is not a theocracy. It is a secular democracy and they are far from a rogue nation.
So the bronze age theocratic mythology of that land being given to them by their god played no role in precisely choosing that part of the world to establish their nation? And that very same mythology plays no role in settlers justifying to continue settling (illegally)?
Will Israel use its nukes offensively? Probably not. But when it comes to frequency of waging war on its neighbors in recent history its belligerence far outpaces Iran’s.
“But when it comes to frequency of its neighbours waging war on it…”
There, fixed that for you.
What you described, is not the definition of a theocracy.
Nor did I at any time intend it as a definition of a theocracy. However, we should not hide behind dictionary definitions to obscure Israels’s clear biblical mythological orientation in justifying its geographical location.
Do its rulers and founders (largely secular – even atheist) believe it? Perhaps mostly not, but they surely don’t shy away from instrumentalizing it through their orthodox constituents who do belief it. An observation made by non other than Israel fanboy Sam Harris.
Why talk only about mythology and cut out the history underpinned by both archeology and written evidence? This is the cradle of Jewish nation, this is the only place on Earth they had an independent state and those are facts, not mythology. For founders of modern Zionism – as you rightly write, largely secular and atheists – as well as for atheists of today what counts is history, not the fables from the Bible. Jews are from Judea; Arabs are from Arabia. It is a myth that Arabs lived in Judea since time immemorial. They came as imperialist invaders and we know very well the historical moment they came. Of course, many centuries passed and they should have full right to live there together with the indigenous people: the Jews, but to live in peace, not trying to kill Jews whenever they have a chance.
You commented on a portion of this thread that claimed Israel is a theocracy so you’ll forgive me if I thought that was what you were addressing. No one is “hiding behind” dictionary definitions – it’s important to know what you are talking about when you label things.
The zionists were offered a homeland in Uganda but they refused. It wasn’t about a homeland for jews it was about re-establishing Zion, despite that the land had been occupied by other people for two millenia. If we all had to go back to where our ancestors lived two thousand years ago it would be a much bigger disruption than everybody in the roman empire having to go back to their ancestral home just to be counted in a mythical census. Just imagine it.
Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors in modern history…..unlike any of its neighbors.
Pakistan scares me more than Iran.
+1
I remember hearing on the CBC, in conversation with a strategist of some sort, that there are institutions that run these sorts of scenarios. For this one, the best option was to allow Iran to develop its nuclear program. Otherwise, the US would end up in a big kerfuffle.
The whole nuclear thing is becoming real again. Russia is rearming and talking with North Korea, Iran is developing nuclear capabilities, etc. It’s the cold war but worse because places like North Korea and Iran are bat shit crazy.
Here is an interesting web application Global Zero developed in which you get to select a city, your nuclear weapon & see the result.
Yikes, that is a scary application. I was surprised at all the different bombs developed and how devastating the largest ones are…mind boggling.
Even the smallest would pretty much destroy the small town I live in. The likelihood of us being a target is, of course, about 0.
It’s an interesting app to play with.
Hmmm, it’s not very likely that Auckland (where I live) would ever be a target worth wasting a nuke on.
Unless, of course, there was a nuclear-capable ship docked in the Port of Auckland. That would do it. A consideration that was not lost on us when New Zealand declared itself nuclear free. Which the US *hated*, not for any conceivable strategic reason, but purely for political considerations. (A sort of domino theory, I think. A bit like the one that led the US into Vietnam…)
You’ll just all be snuffed out by the nuclear fallout. It reminds me of “On the Beach” where an American nuclear submarine comes into Australia and people are throwing things at it and telling them they destroyed the world. The rest of the world had already succumbed to the missile exchange and the poisonous nuclear fallout hadn’t reached the southern hemisphere yet.
Haven’t seen the movie. I don’t know whether nukes would have enough fallout to kill everyone here in the southern hemisphere. Obviously nuclear testing on Pacific islands, in Australia, Siberia and the Sahara has had relatively local effects.
So if Washington and Moscow, Karachi and Tel Aviv will kindly stick to incinerating each other, it might leave the rest of the world with a chance…
A nuclear winter would most certainly snuff out the world and the fall out of the biggest bombs would reach the southern hemisphere eventually.
On the Beach was made in the 60s after a novel of the same name. The author was (rightly) terrified on nuclear annihilation. There was a more recent remake I think in the 90s which was a mini series on TV. It’s worth looking into.
Yeah, written by Neville Shute Norway.
Whether a ‘missile exchange’ would escalate into everyone using the lot is, I suppose, one of those scenarios the wargamers love to pontificate on. That strikes me as a bit like Lubitz deciding to kill ‘everybody’ (i.e. the whole airliner full) along with himself.
Who knows.
During the Cold War I often thought that the best place to live was right next to an air base supporting nuclear strike aeroplanes or missiles.
The reasoning being that me and mine would be instantly vapourised in a nuclear strike and not have to live through the aftermath.
Yes, I thought that as well and since I grew up in an area that supplied electricity and raw materials to the US, I figured I’d be vaporized pretty quickly. The rest of Canada would not be so lucky as the US knocked down missiles from Russia over Canada.
So it would have been in Canada’s interests to shoot down the US’s anti-missile missiles before they could interfere with the Russian missiles… ?
Probably not since Canada doesn’t have any nukes to do so and we couldn’t detect them any sooner than the US could so they’d already be over Canada by the time we saw them.
It isn’t only Russia rearming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html?_r=0
Their program could be said to be in response to that of the USA. The USA and its NATO puppet have consistently been hostile to Russia since the Bush administration. One way has been by pushing the boundaries of NATO right to the borders of Russia despite promises to the contrary given by the US to Gorbachev when he dismantled the USSR. You can’t believe what the american government tells you, especially about foreign affairs, without independent verification.
NATO is only threatening to Russia in that it stands in the way of the latter annexing whatever country it sees fit.
Of course Russia wanted to maintain a sphere of influence – just as the US does. And an agreement is an agreement. US and NATO have agressively pursued regime changes in Ukraine. They pushed NATO right to the borders of Russia in the baltic states in spite of undertakings not to do so. They provoked the overthrow in Ukraine of a properly elected government and tried to deprive Russia of its black sea bases which were secured by treaty with the government of Ukraine but the US-supported puppet reneged on.
If it weren’t for US commitment to the neocon agenda as outlined in the documents of the project for a new american century (google Robert Kagan (wife a current undersecretary of state in the Obama administration who has lots of baggage also), John Bolton and other sweethearts) we could have had a mutual treaty with Russia that would have protected and strengthened both our countries. Read a little contemporary history and FFS don’t believe what the american MSM tell you. If you’re a freethinking skeptic act like one.
I agree that Russia was screwed over the NATO deal and its barely restrained expansion; I suspect Western leaders know this and they carry some responsibility for the mess we are in today with Russia. However, Putin doesn’t get use this as an excuse for his aggressive behaviour forever. As this Moscow Times article puts it:
Things can blow back over a really long time. This current mess in Iran can be traced back at some level to the CIA taking down a democratically elected government in 1953 and installing the Shah. Essentially to protect the interests of big oil (before I was born, so no details). Moral might be not to interfere…..
On the nuclear issue though I do feel that more engagement is an improvement over no engagement. International inspections are pretty good – there really were no WMDs in Iraq, as the international inspectors told us. Despite the lies of the Bush and Blair administrations to the contrary.
As for unstable governments with the bomb.
Pakistan, Russia (which has lots of the things – about a half the world total), North Korea, and at some level Israel (I just spent two days with an Israeli ranting on about the inadequacies and dangers of his newly reelected Prime Minister). So it could be said that control is already in the hands of some pretty crazy people.
So, on balance I’d rather see an agreement than continued sanctions that hurt a lot of people and really help nobody.
I agree – this agreement is better than the alternative. No agreement would be a disaster.
Iran is actually a very sophisticated society and being a theocracy is pretty new and a reaction against the behaviour of the shah. It’s actually more democratic than any other Middle East country bar Israel. I don’t think the ayatollahs will retain power there long-term. It’s impossible to stop them having the bomb long-term, because now they have the knowledge. Therefore, the trick is to delay them long enough for them to come out of this experiment with theocracy.
The Iranian govt can’t be trusted, but the ayatollah has issued a fatwa against nuclear war, and that is taken seriously.
When it comes to nukes, North Korea is the one to worry about.
You missed the biggie, the one whose lawmakers have announced to the world, via the Cotton letter to Iran, that it must not be trusted, if its theocrat party wins the next election.
This is the onwe with thelargest nuclear arnsenal; the only one who’s ever used nukes in earnest.
Yep, the USCIA’s shenanigans in Iran in 1953. The U.S. moth can’t resist the interventionist flame.
1. Iran will never, ever get nuclear weapons, and it isn’t trying to.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/05/world/iran-may-be-able-build-atomic-bomb-5-years-us-israeli-officials-fear.html
2. Israel will never bomb Iran. The risk of retaliation, while low, is still unacceptably high.
3. “And of course Iran’s history of cheating and hiding its weapons program is well known.”
-Mr. Coyne, I suspect you’ve confused Iran for Israel.
I’m also a layman in this, but I have known very many impressive Iranians, and I understand a very large fraction of the country is in favor of major reforms and against theocracy. I do not think we should make enemies of them. Somehow we should court the Iranian people while marginalizing the theocrats
Don’t ask me how to do that, though!!
With absolutely no special knowledge of the area (and I agree on some impressive people I’ve met from that region too)…. As people increase their wealth and gain respect and stability they generally become less religious and their countries become less likely to be a source of terrorism. Which is why I think that lowering sanctions and increasing contact is a positive thing for a useful long term relationship. Of course the “trust but verify” maxim applies.
I also know some impressive and progressive people from Indiana, yet the state’s government just passed a pretty regressive and theocratic law.
Same with Iran – it really might not matter that much what a minority of population thinks if they aren’t the ones who affect the policy now or in near (10-20 year) future.
Then you can’t really object to the West achieving the best that it can. Personally, I think that the sanctions to date have accomplished quite a bit. Our desires cannot be dictated.
In the absence of a deal like the one that’s being negotiated, what’s your plan? How do YOU propose to prevent – or discourage – Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
Those are two good questions for the Republicans. From their rhetoric, war seems to be their favored option of prevention. *shiver*
Despite how well it’s worked out in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria……..
“a rogue theocratic state developing nuclear weaponry” — but of course, the United Christian States of America already have the bomb. Wait til Prez Cruz and Veep Palin get their hands on the button. There goes Frisco, there goes Tehran, there goes Boston there goes Bagdad
Yes, but that’s five or ten years more without a nuclear Iran…during which time we can make great strides towards secularizing them and integrating them with Western society — especially once we start to normalize relations as this will certainly be seen as a first step towards.
Plus, if we’ve set the precedent that a treaty can push back nuclear armament by a decade, then, the next time it starts to become imminent…another treaty can maybe push it back two decades….
b&
Its also 5-10 years during which they may walk back their weapons program. South Africa, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina did that, and probably several other countries I’m forgetting. The strategy of non-proliferation has certainly not been perfect, but ~5 new countries in 50 years is pretty darn good. If you’d asked any political analyst or futurist about it in the late 60s, I bet none of them would have predicted that low a number, even with the NPT.
I don’t expect Iran will ever give up on having a nuclear power plant or two. Both the industrial capability and the symbolism of it is just too strong. But they may decide that going from LEU and ability to enrich to maintaining a stockpile of HEU may not be worth the effort.
The sad truth is, pretty much nothing the western world does or promises will make a difference if either the oil dries up or conversely if it gets too cheap. The only way a possibility of a non-nuclear Iran has any chance is if their oil-based economy remains highly profitable. Our negotiations only have power as long as its seen as a luxury and not as a necessity.
I’m trying to watch the formula one race right now so its hard to pay attention to this, more important issue.
First – If I were Obama/Kerry I would be paying even less attention to Israel and the republican congress based on resent weeks performance and that should not require additional explanation.
If the goal is to keep Iran from getting the bomb What would the alternatives to what they are doing now be? Because doing nothing they would have it before long. Bebe himself has said that. He has also been saying it for the last 20 plus years.
Sanctions were not going to stop them so again, what would the alternative be? By the way, look how well we did keeping North Korea from getting the bomb. How did that one go?
I’m just guessing but It seems like a good idea to give this thing a try and delay their program as much as possible. Hope for a change for the better over there down the road.
One thing is pretty clear. The republicans got nothing. No common sense, no ideas.
This is similar to my layperson views. The effort has not been to stop Iran (that cannot happen), but to slow it, maybe, and to have agreements in place where we might monitor their progress. Also, and perhaps especially, the effort is to create a climate over there that does not play into the hands of the hard-liners. The many moderates need to be made important, for theirs and our future.
So I do not think it is a fools errand. It is more like trying to develop a course that still sucks, but sucks less than the alternative.
I think the point of negotiations is to encourage Iran to open up to an alternative to permanent ideological warfare. I am totally convinced that the vast majority of the Iranian people want normal contact with the rest of the world, and I am convinced that Iranians are our best hope to overcome the lunacy of theocracy in the Middle East. They have been dealing with religious oppression first-hand, they are a culture that values education, and they have oil.
It’s like the overtures the Obama Administration has made to Cuba. Let’s talk, let’s eat together, let’s trade. I approve of negotiations with everyone. We should negotiate with North Korea, too. What’s worse than what we have now?
Interesting idea about North Korea. But like the old Vulcan saying goes: ‘Only Nixon can go to China’.
Normally, I’d be skeptical, but in this case the Vulcan saying is probably correct.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I don’t want nation-enemies and I’m at a loss to know how to create friends without dialogue.
But thanks for bringing this topic to WEIT. I acknowledge that my information bubble is weak on this issue.
Mike
And remember this deal isn’t only being brokered by the US. Germany, Russia, China, France, Britain and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are also involved. With so many powerful and disparate countries involved, it makes far more sense that a peaceful resolution is negotiated. The Iranian people have suffered enough.
Iran needs to be welcomed into the family of nations.
There is a strong secular element in the modern state that would like to develop better relations with the West. Too many Americans have no idea what the USA did to Iran in 1953 and then continued to do to the Iranian people under the Shah. Most Iranians are very well aware of this history.
Given all of that, it seems to me to be in our interest to develop a positive engagement with Iran and encourage them to be part of the world community. We should end sanctions and open full diplomatic relations with Iran.
This makes sense for both of our nations.
One of those end time preachers said we will be in a war with China and Russia.Better learn how to duck and cover.
The Bush administration did everything to encourage Iran to get nukes.
They invaded their neighbors to the east and west (Afghanistan and Iraq), then threatened invade Iran itself. The Iranian government would have to be stupid NOT to try to get nukes under those circumstances.
Would they still have seeked nukes otherwise? Sure, but not as vigorously.
I can’t think of any reasonable person who wants Iran to get a bomb, but like Jerry says there doesn’t seem to be a good solution. Sabotage has been somewhat successful, though it will only slow them down.
I guess the only real hope is that the Iranian people overthrow the theocracy and then the new government scraps the nuclear program. Unfortunately, that seems quite unlikely (to put it mildly).
I’d be glad to see sanctions lifted. They don’t seem to be doing much good. If we could use them as a bargaining chip and slow down Iran’s nuclear program, so much the better.
Because if there is always the threat of a nuclear Iran, US defense contractors can make major dosh selling weapons to virtually every nation in the middle east?
While I would much prefer a world in which nuclear weapons were kept entirely away from unstable and dangerous religious zealots, in the one history we have available to scrutinize for evidence of stable global strategies mutual assured destruction seems to have kept the three largest superpowers from using them for several decades now.
It’s possible that a credible threat of nuclear retaliation on the part of the Pakistanis and Iranians could serve to counterbalance the increasingly scary posturing and hostile swaggering by the current right-wing extremist Netanyahoo, who already has far too many nuclear weapons notwithstanding their policy of lying to the international community about the makeup of their arsenal.
Let Iran develop nukes. But let them know that there are consequences for using them.
Jerry, firstly I enjoy your writing immensely. Secondly your fear of a nuclear armed Iran should be tempered by the world’s fear of Sunni Saudi Arabia. A state with absolutely nothing to offer the world except vile religion, oil, and terrorists; our partners in peace.
Do I trust Iran? Certainly not! But an Iran which lets women go to university, has a kind of democracy, and despite our best efforts remains more governable than Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Bahrain, is actually a stabalising influence in that shit hole of instability.
If I could not live in Israel, in that part of the world I would choose northern Lebanon, failing that it would be Iran. Our allies, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iraq would lead me to suicidal considerations.
No nation has a right to wage war on another nation, merely because the latter is developing a nuclear capability, whether for producing electricity or for developing a nuclear arsenal.
If you think you have a right to do what you want in your backyard, others, too, have a right to do what they want in their own backyard.
If any of the existing members of the Nuclear Club is fearful of proliferation of nuclear capability, among nations that are presently non-nuclear, then it should consider disarming or destroying its own nuclear weapons, and encourage others to do so.
If you think having a nuclear arsenal is a form of deterrence, to others from taking an aggresive stance, then it would not be surprising that others, too, may be having similar thoughts.
I think we should be allying with the Iranians not the Saudi Arabians…
Quite.
There is no evidence that the Iranians intend to make a nuclear bomb. Far more scary is the scenario where the US allows Saudi-Arabia to develop nuclear capacity, ‘for peaceful purposes’. Saudi-Arabia, if people need reminding, is a theocratic state with an ideology near to IS, and quite aggressive to other faiths.
I don’t have any special knowledge of either country, but what you say seems to be obviously true. The willingness of so many here to believe that Iran is likely to develop nuclear weapons, or that the US should be enforcing ‘sanctions’ on a country that doesn’t practice apartheid or blow up its cultural monuments and hasn’t invaded any of its neighbours (let alone other continents), is a recurring surprise to me.
Surely, the first question should be is, how ‘rogue’ a nation is Iran? It was, I seem to recall, quite helpful to the US in connexion with Al Qaeda (though that assistance was quickly forgotten and unrewarded, if not spat upon), and that despite the generous support given by the US to its erstwhile ally, Saddam Hussein, in the war he had earlier picked with it. Iran is certainly not a North Korea – a nation with quite the most vicious little government one could come across, and certainly a worry for those who live, as I do, in East Asia. I am very glad that Jerry is against a sort of proleptic bombing of the country, which in addition to killing numbers of innocent people would create yet more terrible resentments and yet more of the kind of political chaos that has helped (with the aid of religion, I hasten to add lest I be misunderstood as underestimating the dangers of religion) to foster Daeth. As for Israel, I think it is important to distinguish between Israel the nation and the present, and continuing, Israeli government, whose policies seem designed to keep the pot boiling. The Israeli friends I have here in Japan are in despair at Netanyahu’s vistory.
I’m reading the comments above and marvel: theocratic Israel and democratic Iran – inadequate media reporting cannot explain it. The name of the country is ISLAMIC Republic of Iran; the highest authority is in the hands of a Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The Assembly of Experts consist of Ayatollahs only. Besides a regular army there is (probably stronger) Corps of the Guardians of ISLAMIC Revolution (IRGC). Just that should be enough to show that this is a theocracy, and a very brutal theocracy: since President Hassan Rouhani’s election in June 2013 until February 2015 Iran executed 1,193 people, that is on average more than two execution a day. Some executions are done in public by hanging from building cranes on public squares in towns. Among those executed are gays (being a homosexual is a capital offence in Iran), human rights activists, bloggers, minors, women who defended themselves from rapists. The most popular slogan in the country, shouted by millions at every rally, is “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. The highest functionaries of the state, army, IRGC repeat it as well, promise to wipe out Israel from the map, to change the world order and defeat “the arrogance” – that is the name used for U.S. This is the country which has a goal to export its Islamic revolution and which already has control over four Arab countries: Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. This is the country which is arming terrorist groups all over the world. I suggest you read a dramatic article by Hanin Ghaddar, a female journalist from Lebanon, describing consequences of a pact with Iran for liberal people in the Middle East: http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/189809/obamas-harvest-of-violence. (If you are surprised that her article was published in Jewish press, you may want to think which countries are free and which are not.) And there are many Arabs, democrats and liberals, who share her fears.
Ghaddar’s conclusions: “Our deaths are simply collateral damage in the process of striking a big bargain so that Iran can get its nuclear bomb and rule our region” and “Reality now tells us that today’s America does not care about our aspirations for freedom, for democracy, and for citizenship,” seem a bit over the top. But, it’s easy to understand why it feels like that. It is absurd to blame this ALL of the turmoil in the Mideast on the U.S., notwithstanding all our faults. I see no way for the U.S. to unilaterally solve the Mideast fundamentally religious crises. The Obama administration’s tact to negotiate offers some hope, but negotiation with theocrats (think Ted Cruz) offers little hope. If things look bad now, wait till the U.S. administration is theocratic.
Very interesting and, I think, important article. Thanks.
One solution: Iran can do something heroic for the its people and the entire region by making peace with Israel.
But Iran seems to be priming its people to obliterate Israel, the “little Satan” (as opposed to the US, the “Great Satan”). Hard to square the constant refrain of “Death to America, Death to Israel” with a meaningful peace treaty. It is pretty clear what they intend to do with their bomb.
It won’t be easy by any stretch of the imagination, as it will take a very great leap of faith for Iran to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. But it’s not impossible. Clearer heads (who can take the long, long view) have to prevail in order to avert a disaster for all of us.
“Map” of middle east conflicts and alliances. Very funny:
http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/the-confused-persons-guide-to-middle-east-conflicts/388883/
That straightens everything out admirably! How fortunate that Obama’s advisers have access to this.
And here is opinion of somebody who is an expert, Olli Heinonen, former senior IAEA official, about the proposed agreement:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet
From what I understand, both the CIA and Mossad have said repeatedly there’s no Iran nuclear weapons program.
Could there be? Sure, but they’ll get help from Russia or China if they need it.
Moreover, from what I gather under the NPT *any* country is allowed to develop civilian uses of nuclear power, nuclear medicine, etc. So denying Iran (which is no flowers-and-rainbows place, for sure) their *rights under the treaty which they signed*, if anything, looks hypocritical or worse. (Especially with the unsigned parties around!!)
I do not know about CIA, but what Mossad said was misrepresented in the Western media. Mossad confirms that there is such a program. About peaceful use: enriched uranium, which is needed for peaceful use of nuclear energy, is produced in a few chosen by IAEA countries and delivered in form which cannot be used for nuclear weapon to the user country. Iran got theirs from Russia and could continue with it. Nobody is trying to prevent peaceful nuclear energy. However, when you have the facilities to enrich both uranium and to produce plutonium (as Iran now has) you can produce the stuff needed for nuclear weapon.
Josh Marshall, who runs the website Talking Points Memo (and who is also Jewish, if that is important) is always worth reading on Israeli politics since he is well-informed, sober, and has an understanding of the complexity of political situations. He has a good post up in which he discusses Netanyahu’s past policies and present predicament, and in which he remarks that his previous coalition ‘gave (Netanyahu)a fig leaf on the international stage – continued settlement activity but with the appearance of on-going two state negotiations which he nonetheless made sure would not go anywhere.’ Marshall goes on to say that ‘Kerry was still working on the assumption that Netanyahu was genuinely open to a two-state settlement in 2013 and 2014. But I think everyone at the White House is very clear now what was really up over those five years. His statement in the closing days of the campaign were just a capstone to five years of increasingly incontrovertible – and to the White House, frustrating – evidence. The refusal to allow a simple walk back amounted to a statement: You’ve been lying to us about this for five years. Lying to us again won’t get things back to where we were. There’s a lot more going on here than pique.’
Yes, Iranian (and Arab) rhetoric is hateful and wrong, but it does not occur in a vacuum and is not motivated solely by religious hysteria. If there was a genuine willingness on the part of the Israeli government to work towards some sort of political settlement, as opposed to encouraging the continuing physical settlement of Palestinian land, then some of that rhetoric at least would die down and the wretched amount of violence would be reduced (as it was in Ulster when the British Government ceased its unproductive intransigence and began seriously talking to its adversaries with the aim of reaching a settlement).
I recommend also the searching essays concerning Israel and its policies of the late Tony Judt, the historian (who was also Jewish, if that matters); in one he quotes the Israeli journalist Amos Elon who was shocked at the answer he got when he asked a senior Israeli diplomat who was about to leave his post in the US what he thought he had achieved: ‘”Oh, that’s easy,” the diplomat replied. “I have succeeded in convincing Americans that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”‘
Pace the irresponsible Alex Rosenberg, an understanding of history and is an important thing, and the study of history an important discipline.