Obama: "iran Has A Right To Nuclear Power"

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060200947_pf.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0200947_pf.html[/url]

Israel will attack them.

Could this be the act that gets the whole world to engage Israel in combat?

I am beginning to think that we are not going to make it to the next election to fix things before complete chaos erupts.

Iran, with nukes?!


God help us.

Got to get back to work. lol

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Hassan]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1881220' date='Jun 2 2009, 01:51 PM'][url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060200947_pf.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0200947_pf.html[/url]

Israel will attack them.

Could this be the act that gets the whole world to engage Israel in combat?

I am beginning to think that we are not going to make it to the next election to fix things before complete chaos erupts.

Iran, with nukes?!


God help us.

Got to get back to work. lol

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

Do you understand the difference between "Nuclear power" and "nuclear weapons"?

Iran, like any country, does have a right, as I recall, to nuclear power under international law. If Israel attacks Iran for producing nuclear power Israel should be punished If Iran tries to move further and produce nuclear weapons Iran should be punished.


They May Not Want The Bomb
And other unexpected truths
-Fareed Zakaria

Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were "un-Islamic." The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini's statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.

Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear "breakout" capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Iranians aren't suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as "a messianic, apocalyptic cult." In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran's ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those—including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.

One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, "Think Amalek." The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.

Iran isn't a dictatorship. It is certainly not a democracy. The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy. Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the "mad mullah" who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahs—which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority. Iran might be ready to deal. We can't know if a deal is possible since we've never tried to negotiate one, not directly. While the regime appears united in its belief that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program—a position with broad popular support—some leaders seem sensitive to the costs of the current approach. It is conceivable that these "moderates" would appreciate the potential benefits of limiting their nuclear program, including trade, technology and recognition by the United States. The Iranians insist they must be able to enrich uranium on their own soil. One proposal is for this to take place in Iran but only under the control of an international consortium. It's not a perfect solution because the Iranians could—if they were very creative and dedicated—cheat. But neither is it perfect from the Iranian point of view because it would effectively mean a permanent inspections regime in their country. But both sides might get enough of what they consider crucial for it to work. Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?

[Apotheoun]

I do not believe that the Iranian government's interest in nuclear energy is peaceful. They have enough oil to supply their energy needs without nuclear energy and the radioactive waste that it produces, which can be used for military ends.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Apotheoun

[RemnantRules]

When the leader of Iran calls Isreal "Little Satan" and openly wants America wiped off the map, I tend to be a little Apprehensive in giving them the ability to eventually produce nuclear weapons.

[ironmonk]

Iran will use nuclear power as a cover for their weapons program. Amajabababajad (whatever his name is) is completely insane.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[dominicansoul]

...and they called palin dumb...

this is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard a president say...

[Maggyie]

I hate to use the word "appeasement" because I don't think diplomacy is appeasement. However this does seem to constitute "backing down." Wasn't it orginally our position that we didn't want Iran to even have "peaceful" access to nuclear power? Especially in a country like Iran where instability is guaranteed due to the huge percentage of people under age 30, oppressive political structures and growing infiltration from Western media?

[Hassan]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1881271' date='Jun 2 2009, 02:41 PM']Iran will use nuclear power as a cover for their weapons program. Amajabababajad (whatever his name is) is completely insane.

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]


EVen if he was, that would not matter as he is not in charge of Iran's armed forces. The individual with the actual power in Iran has, as did his predecessor, declair Nuclear weapons "unislamic".

[Hassan]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1881275' date='Jun 2 2009, 02:48 PM']I hate to use the word "appeasement" because I don't think diplomacy is appeasement. However this does seem to constitute "backing down." Wasn't it orginally our position that we didn't want Iran to even have "peaceful" access to nuclear power? Especially in a country like Iran where instability is guaranteed due to the huge percentage of people under age 30, oppressive political structures and growing infiltration from Western media?[/quote]

President Bush did. Either way I don't think we have a right under international law to block a country from having peaceful nuclear power. I don't see where this is going to help us. The program is often seen through the prism of Iranian nationalism, which is fameously strong, and ven the more liberal youth often see it as a matter of national pride. I think we need to pick our battles with this. I don't like any nation, particularly in Iran's position, to have niclear weapons, and we must try all rational options to prevent that, but I'm not convinced that apposing nuclear energy is going to o that. It seems it will only encourage the Iranian right.

[CatherineM]

My husband got into a huge discussion with an Iranian taxi driver about this issue. I was willing to agree to anything he wanted if he'd just let us out of the cab. Maybe Obama is feeling the same way.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1881272' date='Jun 2 2009, 02:43 PM']this is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard a president say...[/quote]


ohh... i could think of at least a dozen since January.

[KnightofChrist]

We can not trust that Iran will use Nuclear Power for peaceful means. When you have Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust of the Jewish People, saying "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." and "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm." and other similar comments it would be insane to allow them to have something they could easily make into a Weapon.

Call ME crazy but Ahmodinejad sounds as if he is going to nuke Israel and/or it's supporters.

[Hassan]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1881488' date='Jun 2 2009, 07:56 PM']We can not trust that Iran will use Nuclear Power for peaceful means. When you have Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust of the Jewish People, saying "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." and "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm." and other similar comments it would be insane to allow them to have something they could easily make into a Weapon.

Call ME crazy but Ahmodinejad sounds as if he is going to nuke Israel and/or it's supporters.[/quote]

I don't know how many times it can be said. Ahmodinejad does not control if Iran will decide to go for a weapon or not. Even If Iran did want weapons and managed to get them, Ahmodinejad would not be the individual who decided if they were used or not.

The Iranian Presidency and the American Presidency are not analogous roles.

[Hassan]

Moreover Iran has acted as a rational strategic actor. They may talk a big game but the have shown a propensity to place pragmatic geopolitical concernes over ideological purity.

For example look at the Iranian relationship with Russia. How much did Iran do for Muslim Chechnya? Not much. Why? Because they wouldn't comromise an important geopolitical asset for ideological purity in protecting "fellow Muslims".

[Didymus]

I would agree that they have a right to nuclear power. If we're so stupid that we wouldn't be able to tell when a country begins enriching uranium for nukes (the necessary process for weaponizing nuclear power), then we'd be too stupid to determine whether that same country is going nuclear in any way after we restricted their access to it in any form.