An article I saw today specifically states that both the Republicans and the Democrats are "fractured" over the Iran issue, devolving into four camps: the "hawks", the "appeasers", the "negotiators", and the "realists".
Let me lay out the FACTS again:
1) Nothing Iran is doing is illegal under its obligations to the NPT.
2) Even if Iran began enriching unanium for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon, it would STILL be FIVE TO TEN YEARS before they can even produce ONE single gun-model nuclear weapon - let alone one that can be DELIVERED by any missile they currently have in their inventory or are developing.
3)
The Iranians have gone FAR beyond their obligations under the NPT to attempt to satisfy the Europeans and the IAEA that their intentions are peaceful. (I'm not saying they DON'T want a nuclear weapon, even if THEY say that. I'm assuming they DO. But NOTHING they've done publicly indicates that they are currently pursuing such.)
4) The Iranians already HAVE the ultimate nuclear weapon - the oil bourse denominated in Euros which goes into operation in March of this year. The Iranian nuclear program is just a SMOKESCREEN for the REAL threat to the United States - and the neocons know this. This article here lays it all out:
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-petrov200106.htm
5) Any argument based on the current President Ahmadinejad's hyperbolic comments about Israel and the Holocaust is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. These comments are propaganda on a par with Bush's proclamations about "spreading democracy" everywhere. It's ruminant evacuation and has nothing to do with actual government policies in Iran.
6) As long as Israel has nuclear weapons and the US - also a possessor of nuclear weapons - is willing to threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons - as we have EXPLICITLY done - then EVERY country in the Middle East will want nuclear weapons. Remove the threat - remove the proliferation. It's that fraggin' simple, folks! Force Israel to unilaterally diasrm ALL of its nuclear weapons. Granted, every state is fascist by definition, and all of them will continue to want to be the Big Kahuna in the region, so many of them might still want to obtain such weapons. But it will be a lot easier to negotiate to restrain them in the face of the fact that there are no weapons already in the region than it will be to do so with Israel sitting there with 100-400 weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles on submarines in the Gulf - owned by a state whose Zionist idealogue leaders have repeatedly stated their intention to dominate the entire Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates.
7) There is NO incentive for anybody dealing with Iran - Russia, China, Europe - to pressure Iran not to go nuclear - and certainly no incentive to impose sanctions on Iran. Iran is a major trading partner with Russia (albeit an oil competitor). China needs Iran's oil. India and Pakistan are planning to building pipelines from Iran into India. None of these countries are in any threat from a nuclear-armed Iran (with the possible exception of Pakistan, and that is still unlikely.)
8) Therefore, sanctions and embargoes are not going to work. Iran is not Libya. Iran is not Iraq. The situations are sufficiently different that it is very unlikely sanctions - which were ineffective in Iraq except to kill millions of children - are likely to work well. One should also question the use of sanctions against ANY country - considering the effects on Iraq. Do we want to starve another half million children just to pressure another government? Do the people on this site want to say with Madeleine Allbright, "Well, we think it's worth it?"
9) The article recommends policy change, rather than regime change. Yes, this is a very good idea. And how do you expect the Bush administration to implement it, when you have Christian neocon fanatics like John Bolton at the helm at the UN? When you have Zionist fanatics like Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel urging military strikes on Iran with or without the support of the US military?
Facebook
Twitter