What sorts of action to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons would be justifiable?
Posted at 5:00 AM on January 13, 2012
by Eric Ringham
(42 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Science/Technology, Security
Some in Iran are blaming Israel and the United States for the assassination Wednesday of an Iranian nuclear scientist. The United States has denied any involvement, but some Western observers believe Americans are involved in a covert campaign to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Today's Question: What sorts of action to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons would be justifiable?
Comments (42)
Western economies have only one real growth sector -- opinion blogs, which are growing as common as bar-stools and free time, and whose actual value is probably inversely correlated to both.
I saw a piece where they interviewed American ex-pats on the ship leaving Libya. One spoke of how a group people came into his residence and stole this laptop, among other items.
There were other interviews of intimidation, etc.
We call this a criminal act in America.
Remember Krugman's "50 mini-Hoovers"?
We could have 20 mini-Pakistans.
Regards
I don't know why the formerly serious New Statesman gives Pilger house room (actually I do: depressingly, they sell a few more copies when he's on the cover).
"The revolt in the Arab world is against not merely a resident dictator, but a worldwide economic tyranny, designed by the US Treasury and imposed by the US Agency for International Development, the IMF and the World Bank, which have ensured that rich countries such as Egypt are reduced to vast sweatshops, with 40 per cent of the population earning less than $2 a day. The people's triumph in Cairo was the first blow against what Benito Mussolini called corporatism, a word that appears in his definition of fascism." John Pilger
You can't take Pilger seriously. He has some merit as an investigative reporter but he's about as biased as a tilted plank.
I have news for you, "Lol a": the internet in the US is not censored. If it were, you wouldn't see stuff like those Pilger articles. And as for government "stalking" and detention-without-trial, our government is just about the least-worst in the world in that regard. That's not to say it's perfect, and I do hope I live to see the repeal of the (Orwellianly named) USAPATRIOT Act, but if you think it's better in Syria, or that American-style freedom is not what many of the Arab Spring protesters were striving for, you are quite mistaken.
"But there is a word that gets overused and can be misused – namely, anti-American – and it has to be used about him."
I think you confuse Anti-American with John Pilger's true demeanor of humane and fair treatment for all people.
"Next, Mr Pilger thinks the Arab revolts show that the West in general and the United States in particular are "fascist":
Where did you get that idea?
"Maybe he hasn't noticed, but what most of the Arab protesters say they want are the very freedoms that they know full well, even if Pilger doesn't, to be available in the West."
You mean the freedoms of the right to have a U.S. censored internet, the right to be stalked by the government without evidence of violating any law, you mean freedoms that include the military right to detain anyone on suspicion of terroristic activity or support?
What actions should be taken to prevent Iran from using nukes...well not the actions that we have been using in the past.
I remember thinking that John Pilger's work from Vietnam was very good at the time. I dare say if I went back and read it again I’d probably still admire quite a lot of it. But there is a word that gets overused and can be misused – namely, anti-American – and it has to be used about him. So that for me sort of spoils it... even when I’m inclined to agree.
Next, Mr Pilger thinks the Arab revolts show that the West in general and the United States in particular are "fascist":
Maybe he hasn't noticed, but what most of the Arab protesters say they want are the very freedoms that they know full well, even if Pilger doesn't, to be available in the West. No doubt he believes they are laboring under some massive mind-control delusion engineered by the CIA.
Oh, sorry, I miswrote. That first one was about a false flag attack, and it's not by Pilger. Anyway, a single "former Israeli intelligence officer" is not "several reliable sources" by any stretch of the imagination.
@Lol a:
Are you the same writer as "Mary," or just answering for her? Anyway, "Mary" mentioned "several reliable sources." All those URLs point to articles by John Pilger, who is only one source, and his reliability is in dispute. Furthermore, "Mary" alleged that those "reliable sources" pointed to a "false flag" attack being planned. (I assume that would be an attack by US forces on a US target, which would be blamed on Iran.) None of those Pilger articles mentioned anything about that.
You make the mistake of being skeptical in only one direction. Be skeptical of the skeptics, too. When one journalist claims virtually all other journalists are dupes of a vast conspiracy, it should raise suspicions.
Steve the Cynic:
http://dprogram.net/2012/01/13/ex-israeli-intelligence-officer-pearl-harbor-style-attack-will-be-pretext-for-war-on-iran/
John Pilger-a jounalist with integrity:
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/iran-the-next-war
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/10/iran-nuclear-pilger-obama
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/04/john-pilger-libya%E2%80%99s-independence-not-the-nature-of-its-regime-is-intolerable-to-the-west/
Historically, of course, the ultimatum is a tool of the strong against the weak: open up the gates or we'll raze your city, rape your women, and enslave your men. But nowadays, powerful countries wish to be seen as rule-abiding, and are less inclined to shake their fist at weaker states. The ultimatum has become largely a tool of the weak -- a form of asymmetric warfare.
In these matters, Barack Obama is, of course, the consummate grown-up. He neither issues ultimatums nor takes the bait when others do so. He is elaborately respectful of the sovereignty of other states (except, perhaps, when he authorizes drone strikes). At some deep intuitive level, Obama believes that he can persuade adversaries that their true interests lie in cooperation.
You can be too forbearing, as you can be too peremptory. Engagement does not work if it's one-sided. Indeed, the president has responded to the Iranian ultimatum with one of his own: the United States will treat any attempt to block the Straits as a casus belli. If you deliver a threat in private, does that make it a diplomatic demarche rather than an ultimatum? Maybe; I won't quibble. It still comes with an "or else" attached.
Give us a clue, Mary. In doing such homework, where would one look for the information you refer to? What are the "reliable sources" you mention?
The solution is to stop provoking this form of asymmetric warfare.
Several warnings of an imminent “false flag” attack by the Israeli-influenced US on one of its own warships, which will be attributed to Iran, have been reported by several reliable sources.
Do your homework. The real information is out there.
America is Israel's Bitch
Lets just start a full scale nuclear war, world wide. At least then we would kill at least one of the Zionist Banksters behind this whole thing.
This has nothing to do with nukes, it has to do with one world bank.
If Israel attacks Iran on the presumption that the US will feel electorally bullied into defending, it would be a roaring declaration that the current Israeli leadership views the US military as nothing more than IDF expeditionary forces.
If Obama loses the election, I have this dream, this one vague hope, that Israel pulls something in the two month window at the end of 2012 when Obama is still the president but knows he's going out regardless of what he does. At which point, he can do what no US president has ever done and enact actual policies that show the Israelis that they can't take US support for granted.
The overthrow of the Iranian government has been the unstated policy of the United States since the Iranian revolution in 1979. The US support of the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein in the 80s was part of this policy, where we gave technical assistance to use of chemical weapons (WMDs), as was the invasion of Iraq by W. As stated by one of W's adviser's, Iran was on the hit list of nations six countries to invade. As they stated, "real men go to Iran".
The nuclear issue, as the "CAPABILITY" to produce a weapon, not to produce one is the stated goal of the Iranian government which is an acceptable by IAEA guidelines (see Japan). This has been it's policy since initiated by the Shah of Iran and is accelerating due to recent moves to encircle the country and continued moves of sending terrorists in to the country. Please refer to Kurdish terrorists supported by the CIA and "unknown" acts of terror in assassinating Iranian scientists.
What I find fascinating about the media, including NPR, is it's reference to any government that US wants to overthrow as a "regime". This is not reporting, this is propaganda, intended to gin up the public into another costly adventure intended to benefit the Military/Industrial Complex.
Iran has never invaded another country, unlike others I could mention, nor do threaten to do so, if it's policy aims are not met.
NPR's coverage of this issue has lowered it's stature as a news organization and made it seem more like an organ of the state. Pravda? As a sustaining member I am deeply depressed by your coverage.
If we are serious about peace with Iran we should stop trying to overthrow their government. If there is a change it will happen from within.
I wonder what the U.S. would do if the rest of the world decided to impose sanctions on us to get us to destroy all of our nuclear weapons? Actually that might be a good idea.
The U.S. should leave this issue to the United Nations and to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
We do not have the right to decide who should have nuclear power and nuclear weapons and who shouldn't.
When will the U.S. stop behaving as if the entire Middle East were our private domain and when will the U.S. stop assuming it has the right to do whatever it wants to do in the Middle East?
I think a lot of politicians in this country have been talking about the need to cut government spending. How much money could we cut from our unbelievably bloated military budget (roughly the equivalent of the military budgets of all the other countries of the world combined), if we would pull all of our military forces out of the Middle East? How much money could we cut if our Department of Defense really behaved like a Department of Defense, and not like a Department of Intimidation and Aggression?
Justifiable or not, small hits that multiply the acrimony seem like a poor trade. Whereas quietly supporting the direction of their ’09 protest movement (without laying claim to it) might be more effective; and cheaper than a war.
Iran HAD a democratically elected government until the US and England helped overthrow it for oil in 1953. We keep forgetting that part. What we have today is a direct result of our meddling where we don't belong. He need to keep that little nugget of history in mind when we move forward with out current actions. The Iranian people see us for the gigantic hypocrites that we are, we're duped to believe that out meddling is for world piece, not so we can drive ridiculous SUVs through the McDonald's drive through.
Iran must be prevented from aquiring nuclear weapons. That said, it is not only the US and Isreal that should insure that they do not aquire these weapons but the entire civilized world. With a theocratic government based upon a fundamentalist Islamic ideology, the chance that these weapons being used in an offensive manner is far too great for the world to ignore. The US and/or Isreal should only take military action unilaterally if the rest of the countries refuse to accept their responsibility as members of the international community.
I think it's a question for the UN, not the US.
I think BHO should write a memo to Iran ,,, and use a lot of exclamation points.
Or, on our current path just wait for them to drop a 20 mega ton nuclear weapon on Jerusalem,,,or Washington DC. Then we reciprocate and start WWIII with the Islamic radicals around the world.
What could go wrong?
®∑
DTOM
Emphasize our relationship with the Iranian people as opposed to the government of Iran. I've known Iranians living here and read about Iranian people's attitudes about Americans, and I'm convinced that we share a more amicable relationship than is suggested by what the two governments are displaying.
With our exit from Iraq and possible talks with the Taliban, Iran is looking more like the boogeyman du jour.
Economic sanctions seems like the logical answer, but we would have to ensure that all nations adhere to that plan, which is probably unenforceable. Military action seems like the next logical answer, but our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to preclude that option. That being said....what business is it of ours whether Iran has nuclear weapons? The US has such weapons, and for the US to insist that Iran not have them seems rather disingenuous. Israel may feel threatened by a possible nuclear attack, but, frankly, why is that OUR problem? What gives the US the right to determine who should, and who should not, have nuclear weapons?
Hold the remaining GOP debates in Tehran. That'll show'em. There's nothign that prevents the SuperPac from SPENDING money overseas. They could funnel millions of dollars to insurgent forces in Iran.
(1) Hire the Taliban to destabilize Iran. It will get them out of Afghanistan , make use of their military skill set and allow them to avoid blowing up their own country. (2) Supply information that Putin and his cronies are profiteering in Iran through inflated weapons sales. This should further anger both the Russian and Iranian populace. (3) Expose the link that shows Chinese government businesses extracting wealth from Iran and making the mullahs wealthy in return for nuclear and weapons assistance.
Does anyone remember what happened in the Gulf of Ton-kin? The lessons we learned from that incident 40+ years ago which was used as a pretext to expand our involvement in Vietnam should help us remember what is NOT justified by a possible naval skirmish. We need to find creative ways to solve complex problems and avoid jumping to knee-jerk reactions to Iranian provocations.
Maybe Monday we could take up this question: What sorts of action by the other nations of the world would be justifiable to rid the US of its nuclear weapons? Today's question is particularly interesting since it is being asked in a country with about half the world's nuclear weapons and enough to kill everyone in the world a dozen or two times over. We're also the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon to murder tens of thousands of people in an instant - and did so twice in a week.
I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I don't see how we have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Mr Obama has not yet “failed” on Iran: Iran grew stronger on George Bush’s watch and has grown more isolated on Obama's. Among all the options supposedly still on the table might be another go at diplomacy. But time is short, and this week’s Republican ruckus from New Hampshire will make it hard to try again until America’s election season is over.
Clark is just mad because his field is soon to be obsolete. He'll be replaced by a webpage soon....
Military action against Iran is quite simply the biggest military/economic policy decision since Vietnam.
The wrong result would be to see the price of oil spike. Then watch the worlds economy go into a deep recession. Good Luck!
Iran must be made to understand that owning nuclear weapons is a curse for it rather than a blessing. And Israel must be persuaded that striking Iran would be far more dangerous than living with its nuclear ambitions.
Justifiability is a slippery thing. People have an amazing capacity to justify virtually anything they want to do, or not do whatever they don't want to but have a feeling they should. In the antebellum South, they convinced themselves that slavery was okay. The Nazis convinced themselves gassing Jews was the "final solution" to their "Jewish problem." The WWII Allies justified the carpet-bombing of cities as a military necessity. To this day, Americans risk being called unpatriotic for suggesting that the A-bomb attacks on Japan were unjust. I continue to be amazed at how many folks were convinced by the thin rationale presented by the Bush administration that the Iraq invation was justifiable.
It is simply not true that people choose their actions based on what's justified; rather, they find reasons to justify in their own minds what they want to do, often not even admitting to themselves what their true motives are.
if we really feel we must squash Iran's desire to build a nuclear weapon, sanctions are probably the only logical way. I would rather remove Iran's desire to feel they need nukes. But I think the other choice would to be to say "Who cares". We didn't seem to give a rat's ass that Pakistan got them. Same with North Korea. And what exactly is Iran going to do with them? Sail across the ocean in one of those diesel powered tugboats they call a navy and sling shot them at us? If push came to shove and they ever used one, or gave one to someone else whose used it, withing 30 minutes Iran would be no more then a smoking radioactive hole in the ground. I think reminding them of that option at every point along the way would be the wisest recourse.
US government and opinion makers have drunk too much of their own Kool Aid. This "group think" sent the US into a futile and bloody war in Iraq and it could do the same in Iran.
The current sanctions are the most effective to date, hence the saber rattling coming out of Tehran. The currency has fallen dramatically and the leaders are feeling real pressure, this is why they have threatened to close the straits of Hormuz. The real question now is will the outcome be the desired one, as uintended consequences could result.
The current sanctions are the most effective to date, hence the saber rattling coming out of Tehran. The currency has fallen dramatically and the leaders are feeling real pressure, this is why they have threatened to close the straits of Hormuz. The real question now is will the outcome be the desired one, as uintended consequences could result.
Don't elect Dr. Ron Paul.
All snark aside, I think Kurt has it about right
If you aren't really serious, sanctions are good. If you are serious, outsource the job to Israel. I believe, publicly, we have endorsed option one, while privately we have signed on to the option two.
| January 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock