First off, it’s almost beyond belief to think that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program. They’ve done everything short of shout it from the rooftops. And we’re not going to invade them over it. Their systems are apparently not designed for energy production and they don’t seem to much be on the “green power” kick. In fact, the mullahs of Iran have not been particularly caring about their domestic population since they took over. Plus, you don’t need to defiantly challenge the world and hide your facilities in bunkers, nor go out of your way to link nuclear programs to your militaristic ambitions.
Fundamentally, we don’t want anybody else to have nukes, and it’s not a double-standard. It’s plain honest self-interest. We’d rather not use them and we don’t want to use them and we don’t anyone else to even have the option. Iran is at least somewhat in the same baot. However, they are also very aggressive - far mroe than any other state - in attempting to influence and control the Middle East. Their leadership is extermely hardline, but is factional and unstable. They might well be willing to cause a few massacres if they thought it would paper over domestic cracks, or if an irrational leader got enough power. Frankly, their neighbors mind a hell of a lot more if Iran gets nuclear weapons than we do, and it’s from similar concerns.
Back to the topic really at hand: sure, someone can say that there’s a double standard with regard to nuclear weapons. But the important thing is that as yorick73 argued earlier, nearly every country in the world signed up to the double standard in the NPT. 180-odd countries agreed: yes, the nuclear powers keep their weapons until the day that we can get rid of them; and non-nuclear power said yes, we won’t seek those weapons, but we want help with peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
So we aren’t shoving our decisions on who should and who shouldn’t have nuclear weapons down anyone’s throat. We all agreed to the terms, and when you hear debate in the news about nukes, it is actually in the “we made an agreement and you have to honor it” line, not really the “what’s sauce for the goose isn’t sauce for the gander” that it often appears to be.
Tons of American munitions ended up getting used against American troops. Iranian munitions are bound to make their way over the border even if it’s via a third party as they make a ton of different stuff which they sell on the world’s arms market. And even if the Iranians were supplying insurgent groups, what do you expect? Would America not supply Mexican insurgents of somebody invaded Mexico?
The Saudis and our other gulf allies are by far the biggest supporters of Hamas, and since when is it wrong to support democratic governments? How about we ask how much America’s need to militarily dominate the region and America’s support of Israel fuel violence in the region?
I think Obama wants to make a deal with them as it’s far better than any of the alternatives. He definitely doesn’t want war, $200-300 a barrel oil for any length of time would kill off any economic recovery.
Is that what you call him now?
I shall put a little black mark next to his name in my list.
Nope, we’re denying Iran its right under the treaty to a civilian enrichment program because of our fears that they may morph it into a military program.
That’s an abrogation of our treaty responsibilities as a nuclear power.
You can argue whether that’s as big a deal as Iran keeping construction of the Qom facility secret, but the contrast between US and Iraqi behavior is reduced to one of magnitude versus one of kind.
Where do you get this idea? The NPT states: “Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.”
The IAEA has time and again criticized Iran for not following through on their commitments to abide by the Additional Protocols or the safeguards agreement. For example, in June 2009 the IAEA reported, “Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council,” and “Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns and which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.”
Translation: Iran isn’t fulfilling its requirements under the treaty. If a country doesn’t fulfill its NPT requirements, then they don’t get help on their nuclear program. Your assertion that we HAVE to provide nuclear technology to Iran under the current circumstances is absurd and without basis in fact.
I guess you missed my post above, but I still haven’t seen anything speaking for that Iran has even ratified the Additional Protocol, so why would you hold them accountable to it? My understanding is that their parliament never ratified it, but their government volunteered to follow it for some years until they decided to stop that, as they were not guaranteed their rights of a civilian program during the negotiations.
Sorry, I missed your post. Yes, Iran agreed to abide by the agreement without ratifying it; but they have since decided not to do so, and they are deficient (as the IAEA has stated) in the safeguards agreement which is required both by the NPT and the protocol.
Personally, I think the Iranian approach to the protocol is to try to have one’s cake and eat it too. As in, we’re not going to sign the protocol until we’re guaranteed x, y and z. But all other countries seem to understand that they first have to sign the agreement to get x, y, and z.
If a country doesn’t wish to sign a treaty, whatever the subject, that is their right not to do so. But that doesn’t mean that the rest of the world can’t criticize them for not doing so. You make your decisions, and live with the consequences.
While I do not know their intentions or what they are trying to do, I think the situation regarding the Additional Protocol is analogous to the US President signing a treaty, but it then fails to pass through congress, so it’s not really ratified. So the years they did abide to it was more a bit of goodwill before final ratification, which never came to pass… so they would then be free to stop abiding by it.
My understanding is that Iran never signed the protocol, they just stated that they’d follow it. If a country signs a treaty, they are bound by customary international law (and I believe the Vienna Convention, too) not to do anything to undermine the intent of the treaty during the period before which a country formally becomes bound by the treaty by its ratification.
But even still, if they don’t want to be part of a treaty, other countries are free to treat them as a country that won’t sign an important treaty. It’s like the First Amendment: just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that other people cannot criticize you for saying something if it offends them.
That sounds plausible, I don’t know the details of international law.
Of course they can be criticized, but is it right to call it out as illegal, or that they broke the law? It would be nice if somebody knowing international law better could clarify.
And if you go to war again, who is it going to be against? Your ability to fight a two-ocean war against who? Sweden and Togo? Who you sitting here to go to war against? That time has passed. It’s passed. It’s over. The war of the future is nuclear terrorism. It is and it will be against a small group of dissidents who, unbeknownst, perhaps, to their own governments, have blah blah blah. And to go to that war, you’ve got to be prepared. You have to be alert, and the public has to be alert. Cause that is the war of the future, and if you’re not gearing up, to fight that war, eventually the axe will fall. And you’re gonna be out in the street. And you can call this a drill, or you can call it job security, or you can call it anything you like. But I got one for you: you said, “Go to war to protect your Way of Life,” well, Chuck, this is your way of life. Isn’t it? And if there ain’t no war, then you, my friend, can go home and prematurely take up golf. Because there ain’t no war but ours.[right]-- Conrad Brean, Wag The Dog[/right]
Didn’t they withdraw from the protocols because we were telling them they couldn’t have a nuclear fuel cycle, something the npt specifically allows them to have?
You may sneer, BG, but Cole has been known to prevaricate whenever it lets him harp on his favorite object of hatred. His views are sufficiently skewed as to be useless and intrinsically untrustworthy.
But I fear that what will happen is that because of the screw up with Iraq, we will be extra extra extra cautious the next time (whether it is Iran, North Korea, or Country X) to the point that we will wait too long to take out the threat.
Has this ever happened in the US, except in regard to such things as ‘socialistic’ health care reform?
Neocons and the easily frightened will be screaming about Iran for decades to come.
If they ever get any hard facts to back up their fears, you can bet the president will let us know in time. Meanwhile, it is important that we do not let ourselves be bamboozled into taking expensive and irreversible action on the basis of what amount to accusations of witchcraft.
Not to toot my own horn, but I’ve worked in the foreign policy field for some time and my graduate studies included arms control. I feel as though my opinion is somewhat informed on these types of matters.
And for the record, it isn’t the US “calling out” Iran. The matter of uranium enrichment has gone to the UN Security Council, and they have adopted resolutions since 2006 calling for Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA and instituting sanctions on Iran due to to this whole situation.
To Squink’s worry that Iran’s nuclear program is just like Iraq and WMD, in that the US made unsubstantiated claims that others rejected and we ended up going to war, one can clearly note that this process has wide international support and is proceeding with inspections to ascertain the facts.
