Obama Open to Iranian Enrichment?
One key issue in the Iran policy debate concerns whether or not the United States could live with a deal wherein Iran verifiably foreswears nuclear weapons but does not foreswear uranium enrichment. Since Barack Obama won the election, people who oppose talks with Iran have largely stopped bothering to actually oppose talks with Iran. Instead, the Israeli government and its allies in the United States (in congress and on the outside) have a threefold strategy to bend-but-not-break on the Iran issue. First, they want to make sure that military options stay on the table. Second, they want guarantees that the talking phase will be brief. And last, they want the United States to walk away from the table unless we can get the Iranians to stop enriching.
This last one probably ensures that talks would fail. But Steven Walt makes a nice catch and observes that Obama’s Turkey speech included a key bit of language that underscores how serious the administration is about reaching a diplomatic accord:
Finally, I was struck by the language he used when addressing Iran’s nuclear program. He said that “the peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions” (my emphasis), adding that “Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will build a weapon or build a better future for their people.” Was this a subtle hint that the United States might be willing to tolerate Iranian enrichment, provided that we are confident that it was not masking a covert weapons program? Hmmmmm.
Of course there’s still the issue of whether or not the Iranians are interested in diplomacy.
50 Responses to “Obama Open to Iranian Enrichment?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 6th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Wrong.
Weapons ambitions has been US shorthand for enrichment since at least W. Bush’s administration.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Mr. Yglesias seems fascinated by murdering rapist Steven Walt.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
SLC appears to be taking a break from his regular afternoon pig-fucking.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“murdering rapist Steven Walt”
Huh? Has Mr Walt ever been even indicted on rape or murder charges? Accusing someone of such crimes just because you disagree with them seems excessive. By the way, it’s Stephen, not Steven. You of all people should know not to trust Matt’s spelling. You’ve been around here long enough to know better.
As for Obama’s phrasing, I’m not sure what to think. It is certainly helpful as a means to get Iran talking, but I’m not sure he really means it. And I’m not sure Iran will respond to it. But it is a good idea to separate electricity and weapons issues. We do that with Saudi Arabia whenever they hint at starting up a nuclear program for electricity generation. And they are even more reprehensible than Iran.
Iran is smart to pursue nuclear power generation and enrichment. They have enough uranium to supply 30% of their electricity for the next 150 years, which is more than we can say. And moving away from fossil fuels is very forward looking compared to most oil-rich countries. Of course, we must be very careful to ensure that none of their technology gets diverted to weapons production. We need to watch those centrifuges very carefully.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I enjoy SLC’s perspective, but I think it would be better if he were five times as insane as the average insane person, rather than just three times.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“but I think it would be better if he were five times as insane as the average insane person”
Hey, lay off us crazy people. It’s not our fault we were born with imbalanced brain chemistry. And being crazy isn’t as bad as it may seem to sane people. Sure, my depressive phases suck, but the manic phases are a lot of fun.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Matt
There’s less to this than meets the eye, as I explain here:
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/04/Obama-hinting-at-Iran-policy-change-Probably-not.aspx
April 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
SLC, your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
There’s additional evidence that enrichment by Iran might be OK with strong verification. Obama has talked this week about creating a international system to supply electricity-generating quality enriched fuel (and prior hints on a recycling of spent fuel on an international basis).
Obama is big on strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Enrichment for electricity generation is already approved for any country that signs the treaty and agrees to inspections/enforcement. Iran has signed the treaty (while Israel has not). The strengthening that Obama probably has in mind is tighter controls on enriching nations – more inspections, more remote monitoring, etc.
The Iranians maintain that they have repeatedly said they don’t want to do the higher level of enrichment needed for weapons grade uranium, so conceiveably they could agree to something in a new NPT that allows for home-grown enrichment for electricity. They won’t agree to give up local enrichment because they don’t want to be cut off from supplies because some wingnut warhawk in some country (like the US) gets into power and imposes a boycott. I don’t blame them for that worry.
I think there are grounds for a deal, and Obama senses that and will act accordingly. But he’s likely to do a deal within a larger framework of NPT strengthening overall and also a larger framework of Iran agreeing to act more responsibly in exchange for general trade and regional influence – giving up support for Hamas/Hezbollah as part of separate settlement deals in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine.
My opinion is that Obama is going to try to do a sweeping deal in stepwise fashion, but with all the parts machined to work together. The major question I have is how Afghanistan, Pakistan and India fit into this tapestry.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Iran has already “verifiably foreswears nuclear weapons” — it is called the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Look into it.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Why would Iran want enrichment with no weapon? Isn’t getting a weapon the whole point? I don’t really understand the scenario in which Iran risks continued sanctions just so it can have Enrichment, but never ever plans on building any nukes.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Matt: Of course there’s still the issue of whether or not the Iranians are interested in diplomacy.
There’s reason to believe they’re interested. Of course Bush took the opportunity and crapped all over it:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/iran-offered-recognition-of-israel.html
April 6th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Craig,
They want enrichment to control their own resources. If they had to ship their uranium to some other country for enrichment, they’d be at the mercy of that country. The country that has been suggested in the past has been Russia. Would you want to be at Putin’s mercy? If you think so, ask the Ukrainians how they feel about being at Putin’s mercy. You need a fairly steady supply of enriched uranium to keep an electricity program going, and there is no country in the world that Iran can rely on for that. Until the US and several other countries guarantee a consistent supply for Iran, Iran cannot reliably produce electricity with it. Guarantees are subject to the mercy of changes in government, after all. There is also the issue of breeder reactor technology, which can vastly expand the energy generated from uranium. The West has dragged their feet on this technology because uranium is still pretty cheap. Wouldn’t want to piss off the mining companies, after all. But Iran will never be able to master breeder technology until they master the conventional uranium cycle. That’s why Iran wants enrichment.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
интересное сообщение…
Since Barack Obama won the election, people who oppose talks with Iran have largely stopped bothering to actually oppose talks with Iran. Instead,[...]…
April 6th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“The major question I have is how Afghanistan, Pakistan and India fit into this tapestry.”
I doubt there is a person on this planet who can answer that question. There are many answers, but none that work. It’s kind of like quarterbacks in the NFL: if you have more than one, then you don’t have one. Unfortunately, we need that answer soon. And we won’t get it. Instead, we will have more war. But hey, we’re used to war. It’s peace that we can’t relate to.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
A third-world country which wants to do enrichment but not go nuclear? Dream on!!
National pride is tied to nukes, not enrichment.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Iran’s nuclear power program has its origins in U.S. aid programs back in the 1970s. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Enrichment is the Israeli “red line,” why should we enforce it?
April 6th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
First of all, it isn’t clear to me that it’s only opponents of negotiation who would want to keep military options on the table. A credible threat to use force might be viewed as one inducement to negotiation. Of course, one might want to use a good cop – bad cop routine here. (Someone impressed by his own penetrating insight into the nature of things might here be tempted to add, “Hmmmmm.”)
Second, also obviously, while it isn’t clear exactly what the timeline is, if Iran is in fact building a bomb and if the goal of negotiation is to prevent them from doing so, then at some point if negotiations are being used to run out the clock while avoiding punitive action (either military or diplomatic or economic) then they become counterproductive.
Negotiations don’t exist simply for the sake of talking. They exist to reach specific goals in the mutual interests of the parties involved.
So the first two points hardly seem part of a nefarious scheme to sabotage negotiations.
I don’t know what to make of the enrichment issue per se. I suppose if we can monitor the degree of enrichment and also make sure that they don’t have sufficient capacity to very quickly enrich enough to make bombs that would be an ok outcome.
However as usual I don’t understand Yglesias’s concept of negotiating by giving things up ahead of time. I mean, let’s go in demanding that they stop enrichment and see what we can get them to agree to instead of moving towards their position first without getting something else in return, ok?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:45 am
“A third-world country which wants to do enrichment but not go nuclear?”
Iran is hardly a third world country. They may not be up to European standards, but neither is Alabama, Mississippi, or Oklahoma. And unlike those states, at least Iran has civilized people that didn’t have to be imported from other places. At least Iran has universities, not football teams that claim to be so.
“National pride is tied to nukes, not enrichment.”
No, their national pride is based on the ancient culture that was once theirs. The Persian Empire was the most sophisticated and powerful empire of its day. They draw their pride from that, and they want to become a proud empire like that again. Except that they want to do that without conquering people, they just want to have that kind of influence. They have no need for nuclear weapons, but they do want us to believe that they do. Nuclear weapons have no real use because their use is so unconscionable. But if people believe you have them, then you have leverage over such people.
Iran has leverage over you because you buy into their bluff. That doesn’t make Iran evil, it makes you stupid. You believe their bluff. Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in a long time, and they have only responded when people have attacked them. They are quite good at asymmetrical retaliation, but that means nothing if nobody fucks with them. We can make it mean nothing by not fucking with them. Obama seems to be moving towards calling their bluff. But we don’t know that yet. We’ll see. Bush took the approach that he held a bullshit hand, when he actually had a straight flush, and wanted throw the table over rather than seeing what happens. But he didn’t have the foresight to play this game properly. So now, Iran has more cards, and they are probably bullshit cards. Iran want us to think that they want nuclear weapons because that gives them a freebie to give away. But that wasn’t a freebie until conservatives insisted that the bluff was real. So now Bush has given Iran a bargaining point for which Obama must give something in exchange. Iran got that bargaining point because Bush made something that wasn’t real seem real. Now we are asked to fight a paper tiger. Obama needs to change this game, and he’s trying.
But this concept that Iran would launch a nuclear weapon on Israel is silly. The fallout will land on Jordan, Iraq, and Iran. Now Iran just give shit about Jordan, but they do care about Iraq and themselves. And it’s unlikely that they would destroy important holy sites in Israel. And in retaliation, Israel will certainly turn Iran’s cities into a sea of glass. Israel won’t overtly admit that because they’d have to admit to their illegal nuclear weapons. But everyone knows they have them. So everyone knows that Israel’s threat is real. And the prevailing winds blow from Israel to Iran, so Israel has no fallout problems to worry about. And Israel has our unconditional support, so nobody will fuck with them. I doubt we’d attack Israel if they launched a nuclear attack on us. As long as they avoided Miami, New York, and DC, of course. But they would never attack their lobbyists.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:55 am
“Now Iran just give shit about Jordan…”
I’m truly amazed about how I can just omit words. But I do it all the time. My thought process is always interrupted by my insanity. That should read:
Now Iran just DOESN’T give A shit about Jordan…
Nonetheless, the point stands.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:08 am
I’m amazed that people can read (here and elsewhere) that there is a major difference between enrichment for nuclear electric power generation (call it level 1) and enrichment for weapons grade atomic bombs (call it level 2), and they still ignore the difference.
Iran has a right under the NPT to do level 1 enrichment, with on-site inspections and other controls. They say they will not give up this right (while other countries are permitted this right).
Iran has repeatedly denied that they desired to do level 2 enrichment, and this is forbidden by the NPT they signed long ago.
Israel wants to deny Iran the ability to do level 1 enrichment and threatens to bomb Iran’s facilities if they don’t give up that goal. This is nuclear blackmail or terrorism or whatever you want to call it. It is the same kind of pre-emptive war Bush conducted on Iraq, with no clear and present danger or threat. Except this pre-emptive war by Israel would spread radioactive fallout over Iran by exposing Iran’s level 1 uranium and also spread to Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, and India (and probably most of southeast asia.)
Israel’s demands and threats are quite likely to lead to war if acted upon. I can’t think of a quicker way for Israel to self-destruct than to incite other countries that are Islamic to retaliate for an unprovolked attack by Israel on Iran. There is no legal basis for Isreel to attack under international law as long as Iran conforms to the NPT treaty, and there is no evidence that they haven’t.
Isn’t this nearly identical to the Bush/Rumsfeld WMD threat from Saddam that proved to be untrue after we had used this pretext for invasion and occupation? We’ve been down this road before except now Israel will lead us into even greater disaster.
April 7th, 2009 at 3:19 am
With the right approach, why wouldn’t the Iranians be interested in diplomacy? It would be a sign of weakness if we didn’t engage them in such a fashion, since that would hint that we fear their influence or the Shanghai East or whatever alliance, since noone strategically would really fear them, if rationally thinking about it.
At the same time, the Iranians don’t want to look weak to us, which again points to fear of diplomacy, since they know we have no desire to attack them, and there’s plenty of influence to spread around, especially with the establishment of elementary human rights and self-rule principles acceptable to both cultures, and all interested in economic advancement for themselves and their peoples.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:40 am
пишут интересное…
One key issue in the Iran policy debate concerns whether or not the United States could live with a deal wherein Iran verifiably foreswears[...]…
April 7th, 2009 at 5:08 am
raivo pommer-www.google.ee
raimo1@hot.ee
In New York hat der Hedgefonds-Manager Ezra Merkin Ärger mit der Justiz – weil er das Geld seiner Kunden allen Warnungen zum Trotz bei Madoff investierte.
Nicht nur der Milliardenbetrüger Bernard Madoff selbst muss sich vor Gericht verantworten: Im Skandal um das dubiose Schneeballsystem des 70-Jährigen hat die New Yorker Generalstaatsanwaltschaft nun den Hedge-Fonds-Manager Ezra Merkin angeklagt – weil dieser ohne Wissen seiner Kunden 2,4 Milliarden Dollar (1,8 Milliarden Euro) bei Madoff angelegt haben soll. Merkin habe zwar nichts von Madoffs gewaltigem Anlagebetrug gewusst, aber absichtlich alle Warnungen in Zusammenhang mit dessen riskanten Investitionen ignoriert, um riesige Honorare von seinen Kunden einzustreichen, sagte Generalstaatsanwalt Andrew Cuomo am Montag.
Der Klageschrift zufolge kassierten der frühere Chairman der General Motors-Finanzsparte GMAC und drei seiner Fonds – Ascot, Gabriel und Ariel – insgesamt 470 Millionen Dollar von Kunden ein, die nun zurückgezahlt werden sollen. Merkins Anwalt Andrew Levander nannte die Klage “überhastet und schlecht durchdacht” und kündigte Gegenschritte an.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Re Michael S
Juan Cole is a lying goat fucking shithead. Here is a list of President Amadinejads’ threats against Israel that fuckface Cole says don’t exist.
October, 2005: “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine… I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.”
July, 2006: “Nations in the region will be more furious every day. It won’t take long before the wrath of the people turns into a terrible explosion that will wipe the Zionist entity off the map…The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime, and the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem. It is a usurper that our enemies made and imposed on the Muslim world, a regime that prevented the progress of the region’s nations, a regime that all Muslims must join hands in isolating worldwide.”
August, 2006: “Our position on the Middle East is clear. We want the root of tensions to be removed. During these sixty years what was the root of massacres, crimes and conflicts?…The solution is clear and nothing has changed.”
October, 2006: “This regime (Israel) will be gone, definitely…”You (the Western powers) should know that any government that stands by the Zionist regime from now on will not see any result but the hatred of the people…The wrath of the region’s people is boiling… You should not complain that we did not give a warning. We are saying this explicitly now…”
November, 2006: “The great powers created the Zionist regime to extend their domination in the region. Every day this regime is massacring Palestinians…As this regime goes against the path of life, we will soon see its disappearance and its destruction.”
December, 2006: “The Zionist regime is on the slope of disappearance and the freedom movement and the struggles of the Palestinian people have more success every day…It is the religious duty of all Muslims to stand by the Palestines…The continued crimes of the Zionist regime will only accelerate the downfall of this fake regime.”
December, 2006: “I want to tell [Western counties] that just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and does not exist anymore, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out and humanity will be free.”
June, 2007: ”God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime…”
June, 2007: ”In Lebanon, the corrupt, arrogant powers and the Zionist regime did all they could in an unfair 33-day war. But after 60 years [Israel's] greatness fell apart…The countdown to this regime’s destruction started through the hands of Hezbollah’s children…We will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future thanks to the endeavours of all Palestinian and Lebanese fighters.”
August, 2007: “Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional. As for the Israelis, let them go find somewhere else.”
August, 2007: “The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan…When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution.”
October 5, 2007: “Canada and Alaska have vast lands, why don’t you relocate them over there and keep helping them over there with (aid of) 30 to 40 billion dollars per year for building a new existence over there?”
November, 2007: “It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive. Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime…”
January, 2008: “I advise you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity which has reached the end of the line… It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall. The ones who still support the criminal Zionists should know that the occupiers’ days are numbered.”
February, 2008: “World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the Zionist regime and have unleashed it like a savage animal on the nations of the region.”
March, 2008: “Gaza is the beginning, the real issue is elsewhere. They should know that both in the prelude and in the real thing they face a defeat and this time they will be uprooted.”
April, 2008: “The time has come to see the weakness and collapse of the Zionist regime and its supporters. They are doing everything in order to save it, but they will not succeed.”
May, 2008: “Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken… Today the reason for the Zionist regime’s existence is questioned and this regime is on its way to annihilation…has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese.”
June, 2008: “(Israel) has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.”
April 7th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Since Obama should know by now if he has paid ANY attention to what the Iranians have REPEATEDLY said, they ALREADY HAVE foresworn any nuclear weapons program.
Ahmadinejad also just stated that Iran supports the idea of a nuclear fuel bank in Kazakhstan which of course is a next door neighbor to Iran. Iran has previously stated they are open to such a deal as long as one of the facilities is on their soil.
In addition, talk about “verifiably not having a nuclear weapons program” is code for either “we blink” or “we’re bullshitting you” – because a) it’s impossible to “verify” that a program does not exist, because you can always claim – as the Israelis repeatedly do – that it’s just being hidden well, and b) Iran already HAS verification from the IAEA that NO nuclear materials under IAEA supervision has been diverted to military uses, and NO OTHER nuclear materials are known to exist on Iranian soil.
So I think Walt is over-estimating what Obama means with these short words – because Obama has never been clear that he really understands the Iranian situation at all. He has repeatedly stated things that simply are not so, all during his campaign and since his inauguration.
In any event, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out here, either Obama is going to “blink” and allow Iranian enrichment – despite having previously said that he wants NO centrifuges on Iranian soil – or he is going to have to deal with the Israelis who will not wait while he futzes around for another four years like Bush did.
And it’s pretty clear Obama does NOT have the balls to directly prevent the Israelis from starting a war with Iran.
SLC is the fuckface because he a) he’s stupid enough to believe a bad translation of Ahmadinejad’s statements, and b) aside from some bad translations, nothing in the statements he cites says anything about getting rid of IsraelIS, just the Israeli regime – which is the official policy of Iran and the policy of anybody who understands how the Israeli regime is an illegal, rogue, terrorist state with no legitimacy whatsoever, i.e., a one state bi-national solution.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Re Richard Steven Hack
My, my, Mr. Hack seems to be up rather early this morning as its 3:30 AM in San Francisco. Judging from his somewhat incoherent ravings, his before bedtime smack injection must have been a little light. Have to watch that, maybe time to change dealers.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:47 am
SLC: I don’t know what you believe you gain by ignoring reality.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Why don’t we just supply Iran with the Uranium. Our concern about Iran enriching the Uranium is that they may cheat and produce weapons grade material. Then it will still take some time for them to get a bomb, but they might become a proliferator. If we or the Russians or whoever supply them with the Uranium then they can have nuclear power, but no capacity to build a bomb. I get the point that they may not trust us to keep our side of the bargain, but I really think if they wouldn’t take this deal along with removing sanctions and normalizing relations then they probably don’t actually want to give up on nuclear weapons. That said we should probably take a deal like the one Walt describes if that is the best we can do. I just think we shouldn’t kid ourselves about the long term need to change the incentives that cause Iran to want a nuke in the first place.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Re Michael S
Just what reality is it that I am ignoring? Incidentally, here’s an interview with somebody who I can identify with, eve if he is 99 years old. I hope that Bibi pays attention to his fathers’ views.
http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=803
April 7th, 2009 at 7:49 am
I’d love to hear from the Obama-loving Iranian apologists when the Iranian government in the last 30 years has actually been interested in diplomacy, and why the Iranian government’s lack of interest in it for that period of time means they are interested in it now.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:44 am
SteveIl @ 31
I don’t much care for the ObaFraud nor do I feel the need to apologize for Iran.
However Iran is entitled to its full rights under the NPR and there is NOTHING Obama will give them which will make them give up those rights.
On another hand Israel is a rogue nuclear power guilty of all the crimes for which they accuse their neighbors.
As long as the United States refuses to enforce a nuclear free MidEast then it will be a good thing for Iran to have a stockpile of nuclear weapons; it is the only reasonable solution as long as the United States refuses to constrain Israel.
Given US and Israeli histories of illegal and unprovoked aggression don’t you think that Iran would be insane not to seek weapons parity?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:29 am
JT:
Actually, they have no right. They violated the Nuclear NPT, were caught, and have done next to nothing to mitigate their illegality. They put in for the required extra protocol but never ratified it, and have used stalling tactics to continue their weapons development under the guise of enrichment for civilian purposes.
Being an spokesmouth for real tyrants doesn’t help your argument.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Fine by me. I don’t think we’ll get very far with that initial position, but it’s still a big improvement over the previous stance which was that Iran had to give up enrichment before we would start negotiating with them.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
SteveIL,
They made an offer for comprehensive bilateral talks on all issues, specifically support for terrorism and recognition of Israel,after the fall of the Taliban and Iraq.
This was a serious offer. Iran is significantly more concerned with the fate of the Hazara than the fate of the Palestinians. They wanted US cooperation with securing rights for the Hazaras in Afghanistan. The offer was dismissed, nominally because it was too broad, more likely because at the time we felt we were in a position to ignore it.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Notwithstanding that the most elementary logic leads you to the conclusion that even if Iran is capable of producing a nuclear weapon, it would never jeopardize its existence by using one, Israel keeps the military pot boiling.
The reason:
Israel must ALWAYS be perceived as a “victim”.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Well, SLC, I posted a link to Juan Cole’s story of Iran’s 2003 peace feeler to the USA, which Bush completely ignored. In response, you called Prof. Cole a “fuckhead” or something, and refused to address the substance of the story. Of course the fact that Iran seeks diplomacy while the United States issues threats is damaging to your visions of a Iranian existential threat to Israel. This allows you ignore Israel’s continuing crimes in the occupied territories (and don’t tell me Gaza’s not still occupied as long as Israel can decide exactly whether and what kind of food Gaza may import).
April 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Re Michael S
1. Prof. Cole has no credibility as he has claimed that the president of Iran, Mr. Amadinejad, has never called for the elimination of the State of Israel. In comment 25, I posted a list of several such calls Mr. Amadinejad has made.
2. Apparently, Mr. Michael S doesn’t consider the qassem rockets raining down on Sderot a criminal act nor does he consider the homicide bombing of pizza parlors a criminal act. But of course, to the Michael Ss’ of the world, killing Jews is perfectly OK.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
SLC you ignorant slut. Prof. Cole is right – you and all supposed Israeli-supporting fanatics (although your views are more likely to bring about Israel’s destruction) are using a mis-translation of a statement made by a figurehead president to justify war against Iran. Ahmadinejad said something about the end of the “regime” in Israel. He even uses similar language in the quotes you thoughtfully provided to support my argument. That’s a lot different than calling for the wholesale slaughter of a population. And calling for the destruction of the Israeli population wouldn’t even make sense from Iran’s point of view since the area also contains millions of Muslims! You (SLC) just don’t make sense at all! You speak in tongues and when that doesn’t work you dismiss inconvenient facts by resorting to disgusting ad hominem attacks.
And by the way, of course the launching of Qassam rockets into Israel is worthy of condemnation. But remember, SLC – the occupation came first
April 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Re Michael S
Gee, Mr. Michael S thinks that the Qassam rockets are worthy of condemnation. I’m sure that the hapless residents of Sderot are greatly heartened by his condemnation. By he way, the State of Israel no longer occupies so much as a square inch of the Gaza Strip. As for Juan Coles claims of mistranslation of Amadinejads’ statements, this claim has been totally discredited. It is Prof. Cole who had done the mistranslation.
However, let’s take a look at those peaceful Hamas folks who run the Gaza Strip. Attached is a link to their charming ideas which I’m sure will appeal to Mr. Michael S.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076694.html
Here’s a money quote from Ckhapter 22 of the Hamas Covenant.
According to Hamas, the Jews are responsible for all the ills of modern society – the French Revolution; the Communist revolution; the establishment of secret associations (Freemasons, Rotary and Lions clubs, B’nai B’rith) designed to help them gain control of the world by secret means. They control the economy, press and television; they are responsible for the outbreak of World War I, which they initiated in order to destroy the Muslim caliphates (the Ottoman empire), to get the Balfour Declaration and set up the League of Nations with the aim of establishing their state. They also initiated World War II in order to make a fortune from selling war materials; they use both capitalism and communism as their agents.
But then, Mr. Michael S as a connoisseur of the “Protocols of Zion”, “Mein Kampf”, and the “Myth of the 20th Century” will find Chapter 22 very much too his liking.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Let’s take a look at SLC’s peaceful friends, the fanatical messanic settlers in the West Bank, who enjoy throwing rocks at children:
List of violent incidents and abuse of Palestinians by settlers around the settlement in the a-Ras neighborhood, March-September 2007
The following list is partial and does not reflect the actual scope of the violence and abuse suffered by residents of a-Ras and surrounding areas. Yet, the list gives a picture of the ongoing violence by settlers that is carried out under the protection of the security forces posted permanently in the area.
21 March: Settlers spit at Palestinian passersby .
22 March: From the windows of the settlement’s building, settlers throw refuse at passersby .
23 March: Settlers assault a Palestinian woman passing in front of the settlement .
24 March: Three youths from the settlement attack a Palestinian. The police then arrest the Palestinian, contending that he struck the settlers. The police stated that the settlers had filed a complaint against him .
24 March: Settlers throw stones at a Palestinian child. Border Police stop the Palestinian child, claiming that he threw stones. No measures are taken against the settlers who threw stones .
25 March: In the evening, settlers urinate from the windows of the building onto the street .
30 March: A group of settlers who passed by the settlement throw stones at a Palestinian-owned shop, while two army jeeps were present at the scene. The shopkeeper asks the soldiers to intervene, but they do nothing. The officer in one of the jeeps orders the shopkeeper to remain inside his shop. Police officer who passed by in a jeep does not intervene, despite the calls of the shopkeeper .
1 April: Soldiers throw bottles of urine at Palestinians .
2 April: Soldiers throw bottles of urine at Palestinians .
3 April: Soldiers throw bottles of urine at Palestinians .
4 April : In the late afternoon, three soldiers, about eighteen years old, leave the new settlement and grab a four-year-old Palestinian child, who a day before had been hit in the shoulder by a stone thrown by settlers from the settlement. His cousin sees what is happening and the sides start yelling at each other. A soldier stationed in the settlement building sees the incident and orders the cousin to go into his house, but does nothing to stop the assault .
14 April: All day long, a large group of settlers stand by the settlement building and prevent Palestinians from moving along the street. The settlers swear at them and threaten them. Soldiers and police are present throughout the day and do nothing .
18 April: Young settler women block Palestinians children from using the road leading from the wadi to the checkpoint .
19 April: Young settler women block Palestinians children from using the road leading from the wadi to the checkpoint .
19 April: In the afternoon, two men and two women come out of the settlement building and attack Palestinian women and children .
19 April: Settlers, (one of them armed) prevent a Palestinian resident to pass near the settlement building (the way to his home) the settlers order the Palestinian to bypass the structure and not go near it .
25 April: A settler beats a Palestinian woman who passed along the road by the new settlement .
28 April: In the late afternoon, settlers throw stones from the building at a Palestinian walking in the street .
1 May: In the morning, settlers throw stones from the building at a Palestinian walking in the street .
2 May: In the late afternoon, settlers about fifteen years old throw stones at Palestinian passersby. They then go outside and beat a Palestinian woman walking on the road .
2 May: A settler tries to enter the mosque next to the new settlement during prayers. A Border Police officer forces him away and they get into a tussle and a verbal battle. Other settlers come out of the building and attack the soldiers who had detained the settler. Soldiers order Palestinians to leave and go home. This was the third time, residents said, that that settler had tried to enter the mosque .
5 May: Some five settler children stand, in the late afternoon, under the new settlement and throw stones at a Palestinian house. An adult settler stands alongside them. Soldiers pass by in a jeep (license number 611154), and, despite calls for help, refuse to intervene .
9 May : In the evening, two youths throw stones from the roof of the settlement building at an adjacent Palestinian house while the occupants, small children among them, are outside. The father calls to Border Police officers at the checkpoint to come, but to no avail. Also, police officers who pass by in a jeep (license number 22448) do nothing to enforce the law. Settlers break into the patio of the house, swear at the occupants and harass them. A Border Police officer at the checkpoint ignores another call for him to intervene. One of the settlers spit at one of the family and strike him. The stone throwing and swearing by the settlers continues for a few hours .
10 May: Before evening, four settlers, two adults and two youths, throw stones and glass bottles at a nearby Palestinian house. Two members of the family in the house call to the soldiers at the checkpoint for help, but they reply, “Shut up and go home.” The stone throwing continues for about half an hour .
12 May : Three minors and an adult female settler assault, in the afternoon, two Palestinian women who were crossing the checkpoint. The minors throw stones and bottles, and the settler woman assaults them with a rubber hose and with her hands. In response to a request for help by one of the Palestinian women, a soldier at the checkpoint says he is there only to protect the settlers and that he is not interested in what they do. The police refuse to come to the scene and demand that the complainant go to the station to file a complaint .
13 May: Before evening, three minors throw stones at Palestinians in the yard of their house .
8 June: At night, four young men from the settlement throw stones at a nearby house .
9 June: In the afternoon, two young men from the settlement try to knock a Palestinian man who was about eighty years old off his donkey .
11 June: In the afternoon, six youths from the settlement throw stones and eggs from the roof at Palestinian women standing near a neighboring house. Calls for help to a soldier at the checkpoint, to a police jeep, and a Border Police jeep that pass by are to no avail .
14 June : In the morning, five minors from the settlement harass Palestinians who pass by on the street, steal a barrel of vegetables and throw them into the trash .
15 June : Before evening, two settlers assault a local Palestinian, kicking and beating him. The incident takes place in front of two army officers .
6 July: A few youths from the settlement assault, before noon, a Palestinian six-year-old child who passes by on the street. Two of the assailants, who are on the road under the settlement building, also throw glass bottles. The settlers also throw stones at a Palestinian in his sixties, who is walking with crutches, hitting him in the chest. He is taken to hospital. The incident occurs in front of Border Police officers at the checkpoint. One of the policemen admits that he saw the old man being hit, and claims that he is forbidden to talk with the settlers, and that he is only there to protect them .
17-23 July: A group of children from the settlement throw stones and grab the clothes of Palestinians passing through the checkpoint. Adult settlers and soldiers standing there do nothing to stop the abuse .
5 August : In the evening, settlers throw stones at nearby houses and at Palestinians standing at the checkpoint. They also smash the window of a Palestinian car. Soldiers do nothing to prevent the stone throwing .
6 August: In the evening, settler children throw stones at a Palestinian woman passing through the checkpoint .
9 August : In the evening, settlers throw glass bottles at small Palestinian children passing by .
12 August: In the afternoon, settler children throw stones at Palestinians passing by. In the afternoon, settler children again throw stones. An adult settler standing by them curses at Palestinians and instructs the children to put things in the middle of the road to prevent their passage .
15 August: In the afternoon, settlers throw stones at Palestinians passing by .
19 August: A settler throws stones at a Palestinian who passes nearby .
20 August: In late afternoon, settlers throw stones and assault Palestinian workers who come to a nearby house and unload construction materials. The settlers try to prevent the truck from reaching the site and from unloading the materials.
22 August : Settler minors throw stones at Palestinian children passing by in the street.
23 August : At night, two settler women leave the settlement building and go into a Palestinian’s yard. When the Palestinian homeowner calls out that they are trespassing, the women throw stones at her and at the house.
1 September: Near midnight, two settlers throw stones at an adjacent house.
3 September : Four settler youths – three boys and one girl – enter the yard of a Palestinian house next to the settlement. When a member of the Palestinian family say they are not allowed to cross, the settlers throw stones at him.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Re Michael S
How many homemade rockets have the settlers fired into Fraudistinian towns and villages?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Re SLC
If you include rocks and fists, quite a lot. And all with the help and assistance of the most moral army in the world.
You really are just totally out of ideas, aren’t you?
April 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Look -
SLC thinks that unless rockets are homemade, then they’re unimportant. The Qassams are a declaration of war, but those American-made bombs falling on Gaza and Lebanon don’t count! Nice logic, SLC. Obviously the Palestinians should try to get their hands on some quality munitions in order to satisfy your moral qualms.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Njorl:
If that was before the U.S. found out about their illegal nuke intentions, then Iran was doing this to keep us off their backs. If it was after the U.S. found out about their illegal nuke intentions, then Iran was engaging in CYA.
So the question remains, when has the Iranian government in the last 30 years actually been interested in diplomacy.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
They made an offer for comprehensive bilateral talks on all issues, specifically support for terrorism and recognition of Israel,after the fall of the Taliban and Iraq.
Good question. In Nov. 2007 the American intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran had terminated whatever had existed of the nuclear weapons program in 2003. And Iran issued its peace feeler to the U.S. in 2003. So within the last 30 years, it appears that the Iranian government was interested in diplomacy at least in 2003. Since the Bush administration responded with threats and covert hostile activities on Iranian territory, their interest may have abated a bit since then.
April 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
This is a must read:
Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran – the bluff that never stops giving?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trita-parsi/netanyahu-and-threat-of-b_b_183822.html
April 7th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
SteveIL: “They violated the Nuclear NPT, were caught, and have done next to nothing to mitigate their illegality. They put in for the required extra protocol but never ratified it,”
This is completely false except for the last sentence.
Iran’s violation of the NPT was minimal and has been ignored by the IAEA ever since it was revealed and declared by Iran. Also they had good reason to do so since their program was being hampered by ILLEGAL sanctions by the US and Europe since the NPT Charter REQUIRES the US and Europe to assist Iran in its nuclear energy program.
Iran did indeed institute the Additional Protocol for over TWO years, while not ratifying it as negotiations were ongoing, and only withdrew from that AP when the IAEA ILLEGALLY referred its IAEA dossier to the UN Security Council. Most commentators have declared the IAEA action to be illegal and taken under US pressure.
Subsequent UN sanctions have been illegal as well under the NPT.
And it’s irrelevant as to when Iran decided to engage in diplomacy with the US since the US has never been interested in diplomacy with Iran for the last thirty years, even supporting Saddam Hussein in his illegal invasion of Iran.
So SteveIL’s comments are laughable at best.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
If you ever want to hear a reader’s feedback
, I rate this post for four from five. Decent info, but I just have to go to that damn msn to find the missed parts. Thanks, anyway!
April 15th, 2009 at 5:42 am
This topic is quite hot in the net at the moment. What do you pay the most attention to while choosing what to write ?