Maybe you can see where this isn’t really an answer to what I asked:
‘What happens if we don’t agree about what to do?’
‘Keep working on an agreement.’
Outside of diplomatic circles I believe that’s what is known as “not doing anything” or “wasting your bleeping time.” There’s some broad international agreement here - getting the EU to sign on was significant - and I’d be glad to see even broader international pressure. But when you say nothing should be done until everybody agrees on it, that makes it very easy for anyone to throw up a roadblock.
Yes, exactly, it does make it possible for governments with different perspectives to throw up a roadblock. That’s the point. It should be challenging to gain international approval for a coalition of countries to cause disaster on another country. Iran has 74 million people. Why should 74 million people suffer when those who want to cause the suffering can’t get the evidence needed to convince 5 governments that there is an actionable problem?
You don’t see that your “doing something” is ineffectual and damaging. Worse, its not even a certainty there is any reason to do these things to the Iranian people. Our approach is as much shaped by preventing “nuclear weapon capability” as it is by “actually developing a weapon”. It’s a policy that dooms us to punishing a nation’s people for what essentially amounts to thought crime. The policy is the result of not liking the treaty’s terms after we signed on to it. It’s a farce. Simply put, it’s best to do nothing when the only thing you can think of to do is make things worse.
Worse still is that this list of ineffectual activity only enables the right wing of our country to more easily push toward more violent "doing something"s. All likely to be just as ineffectual and damaging. Romney already has the rhetoric and advisors of another Bush. Although I still think (or maybe it is only hope) invasion is an unrealistic concern under Romney, I feel pretty confident that somebody like Romney will order true horrors for the Iranian people on what is basically innuendo and guesswork heaped on top of silly bogeyman characterizations of their leadership. 2002 all over again.
The two best, most decisive ways to resolve this problem are negotiation entirely via the UN or an all out bombing campaign. I am actually for the latter if there is solid evidence of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Without it, the only appoach that stands any chance of success is an international unified approach and that is only attainable via the UN.
If only the IAEA had released a report certifying that certain aspects of the Iranian nuclear program were consistent with military dimensions, and military dimensions only. And indeed, one can not conceive of more noble, altruistic, rational actors than Russia or China, whose resistance must be looked upon as the true barometer of the reasonableness of the IAEA’s findings. Woe, oh woe! Of course, back in the real world, individual nations are still able to dictate their policies for global trade. Naturally, as you had no answer to that fact and tried to handwave it away, you have no cogent reasoning behind it somehow being ‘right’ for the UN to institute sanctions but ‘wrong’ for individual nations to do the exact same thing.
That is, your argument does not present a moral, pragmatic or utilitarian argument at all, just a “UN Good, Not UN Bad” argument.
Ah yes, bulldozing sites before the IAEA can visit them, building fortified nuclear installations under mountains, refusing to implement the Additional Protocol, developing a nuclear weapons program… why oh why are we punishing Iran for thoughtcrime?
Ah another Bush. Like the other Bushes who… didn’t attack Iran?
As the IAEA already provided that evidence (and you keep ignoring it), we now know that you are actually the only person in this thread, and probably on the Dope, who is advocating bombing Iran. Of course, bombing Iran would hardly be decisive or resolve anything, but at least you admit that you’re afraid of your nonsense war scenarios because you are, yourself, someone who’d support bombing Iran if you weren’t being willfully ignorant of the current state of affairs. It’s a little bit like how liars think everybody else lies, thieves think that everybody else steals, and people who’d want to bomb Iran think that American politicians are not just going to bomb but actually invade Iran despite the fact that it’s almost literally impossible for our military to do so.
Of course, there’s no reason to think that if you wave your magic UN wand, Iran will suddenly negotiate… as even a passing knowledge of the history shows that Iran has ignored pretty much all UN significant demands and that’s been the cause of UN sanctions against Iran.
Let’s hope, though, that the people who are actually aware of the facts don’t follow your curious ideology and bomb Iran if the UN Fairy doesn’t fix things.
Interesting that it’s the other countries that are causing the disaster and not the Iranian government that started a nuclear program and refuses to let the IAEA get a good look at it. Regardless, you’re still not answering the question. Yes, it’s difficult to win UN approval, and no, that’s not inherently bad. The question I am asking you is: what should the US and Europe and other countries do if the UN refuses to approve any type of sanctions or other measure regarding Iran. Sit there and hope Iran doesn’t do anything harmful? Keep negotiating forever with countries who have already rejected the proposal because the process of diplomacy itself is ultimately more important than ever getting anything done on serious issues? Help me out here.
I think your views on Russia and China’s motivations are naive.
You’re correct, I don’t see that. I think it might convince the Iranian government that it will hurt the economy and the country’s standing and bring trouble on itself internally if it continues to pursue a nuclear program the international community opposes without taking steps to make it clear they won’t develop nuclear weapons.
You know what would clear that up? The full and unfettered IAEA inspections Iran’s government is not allowing.
This looks like 20% enriched absurdity. The policy is intended to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It was instituted because the country created a nuclear program that left open the possibilty that they will create those weapons- not for “thought crime.”
This is a deeply weird position. The UN approving something doesn’t make it moral or a good policy. Broad international agreement is usually a good thing, but the action is good or bad on its own terms. That’s not contingent on the UN imprimatur. I don’t want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons- that would be very bad on its own and the aftereffects would probably be worse. I think that’s more important that a mandate that everybody agree via the UN.
Point of clarification: the IAEA has certified that it’s more than a possibility and that Iran has indeed in the past definitely been working on nuclear weapons and they cannot certify that such work is not still proceeding. Previous reports have stated that without implementation of the Additional Protocols, there is no way to verify non-diversion and the nonexistence of a parallel weaponization program. The IAEA’s Feb 2012 Report on Iran:
Marley23, I didn’t argue that agreement via the UN is in and of itself good while other strategies are bad. I wrote that it was the most effective and least damaging while other strategies are not effective and more damaging. That’s all there is to it.
Looking at the two variables, damage and effectiveness, in another way: An extended bombing campaign that wipes out every known and suspected nuclear facility in Iran would also be effective. It would also be the most damaging.
Look at FinnAgain’s posted report. Although my summary will be called handwaving despite the summary being the one quoted from the agency itself and found in countless articles: Iran’s weaponization program ended in 2003, elements of it have fizzled out, and nothing verifiable to report of more recent activities.
Lastly, I also prefer the “entirely UN” route because I trust the consensus judgement more than I trust the judgement of my own country (especially under right-wing, interventionist leadership) and countries like Israel (similarly right-wing in foreign policy). I as a person whose only contribution to this issue is to vote for my leaders would prefer we follow the “entirely UN” route because the consensus steps are based on what we can be sure of. Our unilateral steps may or may not be informed by good data. I honestly can’t know that. I can know that my government’s interpretation of information varies greatly based on its leadership (e.g. Iraq 2002). Given what I do know and what I don’t know, I am left with consensus, and the most effective consensus is agreement via the UN.
Do you mean that sanctions done through the UN are the most effective and least damaging? Because you can’t be arguing that UN-supported attacks would be the least damaging. What you did say is that whatever happens should be done through the UN.
And the full extent of Iran’s activities is not verifiable because Iran won’t let the IAEA verify its activities. Maybe you can see where this is a problem.
No, that’s fantasy.
N nations engage in sanctions, that’s not effective and more damaging, N + X nations engage in sanctions under the UN umbrella, and they’re somehow magically effective and less damaging. Of course, the UN already has sanctions in place, and you’ve still offered no coherent, let alone cogent, rationale for why individual nations should not choose to regular their own global commerce as they see fit.
No, that’s not “handwaving”, that’s a fictional story. Nowhere does it say that the weaponization program ended in 2003, you claimed that to buttress your failed argument. What they actually was said was that “The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a structured programme. There are also indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.”
The claim that “Iran’s weaponization program ended in 2003” is one you’ve imagined, the IAEA never said anything of the sort. Further, the claim that there’s “nothing verifiable to report of more recent activities” evinces a willfuly ignorant argument. I quoted and cited several activities, from incredibly finely tuned implosion devices to implosion simulations to missing nuclear material, all of which Iran has absolutely no answer for. All of that is 100% verifiable. Even if your dodge is that the military dimensions of such actions haven’t been verified, the fact that Iran provably had a nuclear weapons program, lied about it, hid it, and continues to stonewall the IAEA means that, to put it mildly, someone who accepts your claims as at all likely couldn’t have been paying attention for the last decade or so.
“Sure, you developed your program in secret, hid nuclear facilities in hardened bunkers under mountains, had a nuclear weapons program that you didn’t admit to and whose extent we still can’t verify due to your obstructionism, continue to hide information from us including by bulldozing buildings we want to look at, and have numerous outstanding activities for which military applications are by far the most plausible explanation and for which you’ve absolutely no alternate explanation… but the only rational conclusion is that we’re just not sure of what you’re up to.”
Great, the UN has already implemented sanctions on Iran. What’s the issue, that the current selfish, financially-driven posturing of nations like Russia and China means that…
And if Russia and China were suddenly convinced, that would mean the evidence was any better? Are you really unaware of the Bandwagon Fallacy?
Would that we had some sort of Agency which was International and dealt with Atomic Energy. Woe unto us yet again.
Now I know how to get you to identify my full argument in your rebuttals: make a mistake. At least we both are aware that my main point is that sanctions enacted by the UN are the only sanctions likely to be effective in getting Iran to comply. Just stick with the effective part: effective. Effective.
If Iran getting a nuke is bad and all the unilateral and multilateral sanctions and subterfuge fail to stop them from continuing their enrichment, and this enrichment is for the purpose of developing a nuke…what’s left to do?
I’m not convinced that no other sanctions will work because there’s some evidence the current US and EU sanctions are having an effect. (And there are other, even broader international sanctions.) But I agree with you that the more countries are onboard with sanctions, the more likely they are to work. Unless that requires diluting their effectiveness to nil, of course.
He’s truly a great man to have kept us from imminent war. He, at least, thinks of the children and small furry animals! My tears and (meaningless, considering I’m an agnostic) prayers go with him…gods keep him safe and working tirelessly to keep us from a war long overdue with Iran!
Now forgive me…I need some tissues and someplace quiet for a while…
The policy is intended to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It was instituted because the country created a nuclear program that left open the possibilty that they will create those weapons- not for “thought crime.”