Iraqi minister defends Iranian nuclear program - 'Every country has right' to nuclear technology, Zebari says

[DealMonkey]

Um, so Iraq's position on the Iranian nuclear program is "don't ask don't tell?"

Iraqi minister defends Iranian nuclear program
'Every country has right' to nuclear technology, Zebari says

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and the international community should drop its demands that Tehran prove it's not trying to build a nuclear weapon, Iraq's foreign minister said Friday.

"Iran doesn't claim that they want to obtain a nuclear weapon or a nuclear bomb, so there is no need that we ask them for any guarantee now," Hoshyar Zebari said after meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are "an international issue," Zebari said. "In our beliefs, it is a matter of principle. Every country has the right to have its nuclear technology, every country like the Islamic Republic or any other country, since it is for peaceful purposes."

Zebari did say that Iran's nuclear program must be monitored by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He also called for a diplomatic solution to the standoff between Iran and the West.

"We have agreement that we need to deal with this issue politically, peacefully and diplomatically," Zebari said. "We know that the wise Iranian administration will be able to resolve this issue."

Iran in February ended its voluntary cooperation with the IAEA, which included ending surprise inspections of nuclear facilities.

Iran claims it is enriching uranium to create nuclear power. But the United States and other Western countries have accused the Islamic republic of pursuing nuclear weapons. The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran cease enrichment activities, but Iran has refused.

World powers -- including permanent Security Council members Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States -- met this week to discuss the possibility of an incentives package to entice Iran into abandoning its nuclear-enrichment program, according to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. He did not elaborate in his comments Thursday to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Whether incentives will sway Iran is uncertain. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad already has likened one incentives package to trading candy for gold.

Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif said Thursday that Iran wanted to negotiate directly with the United States on the matter and said that Iran would not be force-fed a solution. Incentives, or the carrot-and-stick approach, will not be effective, he said.

"It's not whether Iran likes carrots," he said. "Iran likes respect. Iran demands respect. If there is to be a solution in Iran, Iran has to be part of the solution. We don't expect others to cook for us something and then present it to us and then tell us, 'Eat it or else.' This is not the way Iranians do international business."

Also Friday, Iran expressed support for Iraq's national unity government, asked for the release of 72 Iranian inmates held in Iraqi prisons and declared its willingness to take part in the reconstruction of Iraq, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/26/iraq.iran/index.html

 

[sandorski]

Doesn't seem unreasonable or gullible.

 

[Looney]

Wasn't this guy appointed by the US?

 

[EatSpam]

Sounds like Zebari is due for a replacement. Everyone knows that only the United States and Israel can have nuclear weapons.

 

[Rainsford]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we DON'T care if they are developing peaceful nuclear technology, do we? And really, there is no real evidence that this isn't what they are doing...so I see nothing wrong with just keeping an eye on them for the moment. I've found the campaign against any kind of nuclear program in Iran kind of strange, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like Zebari is due for a replacement. Everyone knows that only the United States and Israel can have nuclear weapons.

We're not even talking about nuclear weapons...or did I miss evidence to suggest Iran is developing them? So far as I've seen, the evidence seems to point to their lack of ability to do such a thing for a while.

 

[Tab]

If Iran does want nuclear weapons, I can't say I blame them.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would want the heads of anyone developing the means to kill us.

While there?s no direct smoking gun saying Iran is doing such a thing, they sure aren?t helping the situation any with how they respond or talk back. Spouting the destruction of Israel is a very smart thing to do while under investigation for nuclear weapons.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Tab
If Iran does want nuclear weapons, I can't say I blame them.

Indeed. Being nuclear equipped is the only way to protect your nation from US invasion. The US has never attacked a nuclear power. Now, if I'm a nation like Iran, whom the US has previously meddled with internally for decades, and I'm added to a list of the 'Axis of Evil', one of which is summarily invaded and occupied, then you're damn right I am seeking nukes to ensure my security.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we DON'T care if they are developing peaceful nuclear technology, do we? And really, there is no real evidence that this isn't what they are doing...so I see nothing wrong with just keeping an eye on them for the moment. I've found the campaign against any kind of nuclear program in Iran kind of strange, but maybe I'm missing something.

No, you aren't missing anything, Rainsford. The whole affair is strange. Which implies that there's something else, unspoken by the Bush administration, afoot here. In general, though, the US would look a LOT better if we were in compliance with the NPT.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Indeed. Being nuclear equipped is the only way to protect your nation from US invasion. The US has never attacked a nuclear power. Now, if I'm a nation like Iran, whom the US has previously meddled with internally for decades, and I'm added to a list of the 'Axis of Evil', one of which is summarily invaded and occupied, then you're damn right I am seeking nukes to ensure my security.

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
No, you aren't missing anything, Rainsford. The whole affair is strange. Which implies that there's something else, unspoken by the Bush administration, afoot here. In general, though, the US would look a LOT better if we were in compliance with the NPT.

:thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

I very much agree that recent weapons developments has made any country not having nuclear
weapons a sitting duck.

Twenty yeas ago, the best way to conquer a non-nuclear weapon equipped foreign power was through
either direct ground invasion or through air power. Both required near by military bases and a massive buildup of forces. And a ground invasion can get very expensive for the attacking force when it gets down to house to house fighting.--and even when the governments falls---the subsequent occupation can be exhausting--as we are finding out in Iraq.

But the smart bomb and the stealth bomber has largely changed the calculus---now planes from just a few air craft carriers can really make a country hurt. -- with almost certainty---quite a number of key targets can be taken out in just minutes. In a matter of days the entire country can be be totally paralised as all internal communication is destroyed.-------before the smart bomb, the equivalent damage would take hundreds of times more planes.

To a certain extent one can think of Ronald Reagan's bombing of Kaddaffi as a dress rehersal--the raid was meant to kill Kaddaffi---as it was it was just a shot across the bow that shut him up.

Now we do the same thing to Iraq---an oil rich nation---and Iraq fell within a week.

But if you are a resource rich country---the conclusion is obvious----only nukes can protect you against the lone standing superpower that has a unstoppable military and is willing to use it. While said nukes may later become a offensive weapon---the immediate need is for nukes as a defensive measure--and any resource rich nation would be almost criminally irresponsible to its own people to
not imbark on that program.

Of course, the logical certainty is---the more nations having nuclear weapons--the more likely some irresponsible nut who happens to lead a nuclear power will end up using the nuke.

But as a somewhat ashamed US citizen---I would have to conclude the US loses the irresponsible arguement---as GWB is a poster boy for both irresponsable behavoir and the best arguement why other nations need nukes.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now we do the same thing to Iraq---an oil rich nation---and Iraq fell within a week.

Let's not forget that Iraq wasn't your average oil rich nation. They had been starved out for 12-years by the most brutal sanctions regime in the history of "soft" warfare and the once vaunted Iraqi military was a shell of its former self. Up until the very last second they were destroying the few long-range missiles they had in an effort to avoid an attack that was coming anyway, hell or high-water. Operation: Iraqi Freedom (gag) was a turkey-shoot, which makes all the chest-thumping about how slick the American military is even more sickening.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gullible and Naive?

That pretty much sums up the state of Bush admin fanbois. Somehow, the demonstrable lies and exaggerations wrt Iraq are instantly forgotten with the advent of a new boogeyman...

With the yammering from Baradei being much the same. They were in Iraq for 7 years, and couldn't find a way to certify the nothing that was there, only to reinforce the Bushista agitprop and demands to prove a negative.

It's the Neocons' most effective tool. Make a semi-plausible accusation, then demand that the other side disprove it. Prove there's no WMD program, no nukes, no sasquatch.

Prove you're not a child molester, Deal Monkey....

It's a whole different kind of faith-based initiative...

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
With the yammering from Baradei being much the same. They were in Iraq for 7 years, and couldn't find a way to certify the nothing that was there, only to reinforce the Bushista agitprop and demands to prove a negative.

According to Scott Ritter the fed did everything it could to make sure that Iraq wasn't declared WMD-free, for obvious reasons. As for the rest, Jhhnn is dead right. I'm starting to wonder if there's ANYTHING Bush can say or do that would qualify as too much for his supporters.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But if you are a resource rich country---the conclusion is obvious----only nukes can protect you against the lone standing superpower that has a unstoppable military and is willing to use it. While said nukes may later become a offensive weapon---the immediate need is for nukes as a defensive measure--and any resource rich nation would be almost criminally irresponsible to its own people to not imbark on that program.

Indeed.

And yet some of us expect another nation to, essentially, relinquish a portion of it's sovereignty, by not working to guarantee it, in favor of protecting American and Israeli interests.
Simply ludicrous. Sure, Iran has made plenty of verbal threats. So what? You want a list of American verbal threats alone not to mention military actions and covert subversive actions?

Iran is not a great place. I wouldn't want to live there. They might possibly be aggressive towards Israel in the future. But this isn't Minority Report. And, since the end of the Ottoman Empire, 'Iran' has never invaded anyone yet suffered through an overthrow of a democratically elected leader by the US and spent almost 10 years fighting off an invasion by Iraq which was supported by the US with finances, arms and logistics.

If you ask me, it's pretty clear whose the most aggressive party at the table.

Perhaps we should just come clean, drop the 'protecting the freedom and safety of the world' rhetorical hogwash, and admit that we don't want Iran to have nukes because it critically damages our ability to enforce American & Israeli geopolitical will on the region. And, well, that's just plain bad for business and would make lots of pockets very nervous.

Originally posted by: HardWarrior Operation: Iraqi Freedom (gag) was a turkey-shoot, which makes all the chest-thumping about how slick the American military is even more sickening.

I agree. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what half a trillion dollars a year (not even including Iraq war funding) is buying us.

Where's Osama? Where's Mullah Omar? Why is the Taliban still staging attacks in Afghanistan after nearly 5 years? Why can't we put enough troops on the ground to properly pacify and occupy Iraq after over 3 years?

It doesn't seem to me we're getting much value for our dollar.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's a whole different kind of faith-based initiative...

Absolutely. To borrow a phrase from Colbert, these people believe on Wednesday what they believed on Monday no matter what happened on Tuesday.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Apparently that's a bad translation on CNN's part. An Iraqi blog I read said a more accurate translation would be:

We respect Iran's and every other nation's right to pursue nuclear technology for research purposes and peaceful use given they accept [giving] the internationally required guarantees that this will not lead to an armament race in the region?

It's pretty much saying the minister is okay with them developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as long as they comply with requirements set by the international community.

Here's the site and it also has a link to the audio clip where minister Zibari made the statement (it's in Arabic).

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Gullible and Naive?

That pretty much sums up the state of Bush admin fanbois. Somehow, the demonstrable lies and exaggerations wrt Iraq are instantly forgotten with the advent of a new boogeyman...

With the yammering from Baradei being much the same. They were in Iraq for 7 years, and couldn't find a way to certify the nothing that was there, only to reinforce the Bushista agitprop and demands to prove a negative.

It's the Neocons' most effective tool. Make a semi-plausible accusation, then demand that the other side disprove it. Prove there's no WMD program, no nukes, no sasquatch.

Prove you're not a child molester, Deal Monkey....

It's a whole different kind of faith-based initiative...

Damn, play devil's advocate one time and you get nailed for it. Well, let's put it this way: if there was some way to be 100% sure that Iran is only developing their nuke program for peaceful purposes, I would be 100% for it. Thing is - I just don't trust that's what they're doing.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I just don't trust that's what they're doing.

Trust, at least among rational folks, is a two-way street. To my knowledge, the Iranian's have never taken it upon themselves the right to decide on the flavor of our government. Nor have they tried to dictate terms over our sovereign right to decide what weapons we can own. Beyond these things, there's that nasty mindset of the Bush administration that says, no matter WHAT they do, the US won't promise not attack them at any time. If it comes down to a matter of trust between the US and Iran, which it doesn't BTW, the Iranians have far more reason not to trust the US.

Again, and this is a VERY salient point, all they have to do is exit the NPT and there's nothing the UN, or a "coalition of the willing" can lawfully say or do should they decide to build a bunch of shiny new physics packages.