As you may know, the Obama administration has been pressuring the Iranian regime to engage in a peaceful dialogue concerning their nuclear program. The Americans indicated a deadline of September 2009 for a response, and the Iranians just sent out a document that is supposed to be their answer. You can read it at:
http://documents.propublica.org/iran-nuclear-program-proposal#p=1
It is safe to say that the Iranians are stalling. They waited until the last possible minute to publish this, and it says basically nothing. By this I mean that there are oblique references to their nuclear program, the supposed topic of discussion, but nothing specific. The main text is basically stating that they are ready to talk, and setting up principles to guide the discussion. None of this is new, and fits with the general Iranian strategy of veiled hostility towards western powers in the form of Ta’arouf, stubbornly protecting their sovereignty while establishing their moral superiority, all the while not budging an inch on enrichment and sending up a smoke screen as they continue to spin centrifuges.
One line I feel is particularly egregious is the one about “free and fair elections,” in light of the barbaric repression of the homegrown Reform Movement. However, there is a limit to the usefulness of complaining about Iranian intransigence in regards to their nuclear program. This has become routine, for America, Israel and pretty much the entire world. Its not very productive. I am more interested in identifying the hypocrisy of the relevant regimes, in regards to the Iranian Nuclear Issue, and then disregarding this rhetoric and getting to the real meat of the issue.
It is a given that all governments are deeply hypocritical. Even in a political system as “enlightened” as representative democracy, politicians promise one thing during election season, and once in office not only renege on promises but also abandon supposedly “core” principles. I would argue that while this is reprehensible, even morally repugnant, it is a necessary symptom of managing a country and facing political realities, but that is another discussion entirely.
In terms of the Iranian nuclear issue, I would argue that there are 3 ‘super relevant’ parties, militarily speaking (America, Iran, and Israel). Additionally there is one powerful and unpredictable wild card (Russia) and many supporting parties (EU countries, China, the Sunni Bloc). In terms of the “super relevant 3” and the Iranian issue, each is deeply guilty of hypocrisy.
America: Progenitors of nuclear weapons, in possession of world’s biggest and best nuclear arsenal, and the only country to use a nuke in wartime aggression. The Iranians already have a complex about getting pushed around by the Americans (not least because of the coup against Mosaddeq), and this attitude of ‘we can have nukes because we are good and you are Evil so you cannot’ does not sit very well in Tehran. Additionally there is the recent American nuclear deal with India, who never signed non-proliferation pact.
Israel: Only nuclear armed country in the Middle East (I consider Pakistan part of South Asia). Even though Israel has never admitted it has a nuclear program, the whole world surely knows about Dimona, and also that this capacity was developed covertly with the help of the United States and France. Israel has bombed Iraqi and Syrian reactors, and is threatening to take down Iran's. Israel argues, rightfully so, that an Iranian nuclear bomb is an existential threat. However, it is clearly hypocritical to argue that Israel was right in developing a covert nuclear program and then demand that Iran be completely transparent in theirs.
Iran: Claims peaceful intents only, but won’t let UN inspectors view most of their facilities. They have stonewalled IAEA and other efforts to glean information. Coupled with the facts of Iran’s immense oil wealth, the UN sanctions against the regime and the people, and given the lunatic and provocative propaganda of Ahmadinejad, it is impossible believe that Iran would go to these lengths merely to prove a point and build a few nuclear plants.
As we have just seen, all three major parties are guilty of intense hypocrisy. The crux of the issue is the following:
Everyone wants nuclear weapons, and everyone wants their neighbors not to have them. The countries without the nuclear capacity say ‘why not us?’ and the nations with capacity say ‘because we say so and we have nukes.' In a way, both sides of the coin are equally correct and rational. As time and technology progress, and nuclear weapons (both new and “used") become easier to acquire, these vexing problems will continue to haunt us.
It is a given that all governments are deeply hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute monarchy is not hypocritical.
America: Progenitors of nuclear weapons, in possession of world’s biggest and best nuclear arsenal, and the only country to use a nuke in wartime aggression.
There's a case to be made that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad idea. But aggression? You'll have to explain that.
What is your solution to this vexing nuclear question? I say that the problem is not with such-and-such a country having nuclear weapons but with such-and-such a country's insane and possibly apocalyptic regime. I say the Shah should be brought back and put in charge - fully in charge, not like his father - and as an Israeli, I'd be mostly comfortable with that.
First off, thanks for commenting! I appreciate the feedback and look forward to discussing this with you.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the hypocrisy business goes, you are right about a monarchy, if the king or queen is honest with the people. This is a good point! However, I am not sure that the lack of hypocrisy makes up for a total lack of accountability and little to no regard for the will of the people, but there are certain advantages to this traditional form of government.
You write "There's a case to be made that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad idea. But agression? You'll have to explain that."
I am not making an argument either for or against dropping The Bomb on Japan. I was merely describing the conditions under which the US made this choice. It was during wartime and was not a test, thus it was an action meant to inflict harm on an enemy, which is inherently aggressive.
That being said, the decision to drop The Bomb is certainly controversial, and we can talk about that as well. Personally, I think this was pretty much the best way a nuclear bomb could have been used (I wish they had dropped just used one), but I'd love to hear your opinion.
Regarding your final point, I would say that as a Jew who loves Israel and is considering making Aliyah, I understand your concerns about the insane, irrational and apocalyptic regime in Tehran. It is indeed a terrifying to imagine the Iranians with a nuke.
However, I don't think imposing a government on Iran is either feasible or a good idea. The CIA tried this with the overthrow of Mossadeq, which lead directly to the Islamic Revolution and the current crisis. There are numerous other examples of Western meddling in the governments of Islamic countries, and the interventions may be successful in the short run, they always come back to bite America in the butt (as in the 9/11 attacks orchestrated by Bin Laden, who was basically nobody before the CIA armed him).
Instead of trying to impose a government on Iran, or any country, I think it is better to try to understand them and use this knowledge to exert effective pressure. Of course if this fails, the military option is always an option, but in the case of Iran, this is very high risk and may not even be successful.
My solution is what I outline in Part 2 of the blog post: Trying to get Iran to stop enriching uranium and allow UN inspectors into the country in the context of a world-wide nuclear arms reduction plan. Given Iran’s strong position on their “rights,” and the resistance of security council powers like Russian and China to impose new sanctions, trying to actually achieve a deal may be the only non-military option available.
I am currently working on a new post discussing new developments in the situation, and hopefully will have it up in a few days. Once again, thanks for writing and I hope to hear from you again soon! Dan