The USA is making progress with Iran on the nuclear issue.
That's what I keep hearing, anyway. Progress in this case is defined as Iran allowing the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to inspect it's uranium processing facility outside Qom on October 25th. IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei said the inspection is to insure Iran's nuclear plant is "for peaceful purposes." This is interesting, because the Iranians attempted to hide that "peaceful" nuclear facility from the outside world for years, and didn't acknowledge it's existence until very recently, after several Western intelligence agencies blew Iran's cover. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IAEA will not find nuclear weapons sitting around at the Qom facility during their inspection. I'm basing my prediction on the fact that the Iranians are not the Three Stooges. They are not THAT dumb. They just think we are.
Even more interesting is the fact that we don't know how many other secret nuclear enrichment plants Iran has. Back in january, the NY Times reported the following about a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran had suspended it's pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003:
The public version [of the NIE] made only glancing reference to evidence described at great length in the 140-page classified version of the assessment: the suspicion that Iran had 10 or 15 other nuclear-related facilities, never opened to international inspectors, where enrichment activity, weapons work or the manufacturing of centrifuges might be taking place.
The Israelis didn't buy the American conclusion in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on nuclear weapons, and reportedly presented evidence to the U.S. that Iran was still pursuing nukes. Israel requested bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. in 2008, which were capable of penetrating Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel also requested refueling equipment that would allow Israeli aircraft to fly to Iran and back to Israel, along with the right to fly over Iran. Obviously, Israel wanted to take out Iran's nuclear sites. President Bush turned the requests down. Bush pursued further covert ops instead. Israel wasn't the only one who thought the CIA's 2007 NIE was wrong. British intelligence agreed.
So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and the problem has been kicked down the road to President Obama. The Iranians continue with their nuclear plans unabated, while America and the UN continue the same path as always, negotiations and threats of sanctions. In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with Vladimir Putin to ask Russia to stop helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I assume Russia cannot stop helping unless they have already BEEN helping.
The problem with negotiating with Iran is simple – the Iranians lie.
The problem with sanctions against Iran are mainly two – Russia and China, who have shared economic interests with Iran, namely, oil. India is also heavily interwined with Iran's oil industry, along with many other countries. The Russians and the Chinese help Iran negate the power of any sanctions. One of the sanctions being discussed against Iran now is a ban on importation of oil products to Iran. Even though Iran is an oil-rich country, a lack of oil refining facilities causes Iran to import much of it's gasoline and other petroleum products. China opposes those sanctions and has restated it's prioritization of Iranian oil. Russia said recently it will "consider" new sanctions against Iran (my translation: Russia will vote against any truly harsh sanctions, or will continue to help Iran get around them. I'd love to be wrong about this).
If negotiations are fruitless, and sanctions can be gotten around, what's left ? Military action against Iran ? Non-military regime change ? Can anyone see Obama or the UN actually taking military action against Iran ? Very doubtful, and the American people are extremely war weary already. The way I see it, Israel is the only one who'd be willing to take military action, but they'd most likely have to do it without American or UN approval, which makes that a lot more dicey, and since we don't even know how many nuclear facilities Iran has, it may not even work.
In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything. Various experts say Iran could have a bomb between next year and 2013, but the experts have been wrong about quite a lot in the Middle East in recent years, so who knows ?
I sure hope I'm wrong. We need your help, President Obama. This is way beyond partisanship or political ideology. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could and probably would start an arms race throughout the Middle East. I can barely think of a less desirable outcome.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
I thought libertarians were not neo-cons.
"So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions,…"
Reminds me of 2002. It is not true, and you have no evidence that Iran "has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions." You are simply speculating along with the other neo-cons who believe war is the answer to virtually everything.
According to the rules Iran is obligated to abide by…..they didn't have to divulge anything until 6 months away from being operational. AND, Iran alerted the IAEA before Obama, Brown and Sarkozy had their photo-op.
Additionally, Obama's representatives, in one day, got Iran to agree to sell their enriched fuel to Russia. While Israel sits on 100-200 nuclear warheads and doesn't abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty…..you, wrongly, tell your readers that Iran is the essence of all threats coming out of the middle east.
Iraq run-up part two.
When is Cheney going to invade? Wasn't that scheduled for, like two years ago?
Rev Red, you don't seem to see what King said about the words of Ahmedinejad and what we have found out lately. You even hold with El Baradei that Iran hasn't been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 when our NIE said they had dropped it. Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha simple people really get to me. That Muslim has been on the side of Iran and against Israel for too long now.
I see you think that Oba mao will some day manage to get the Israelis to back off from whatever kind of attack on Iran they think may work. We found out last week just now much his karma works outside the US when the IOC slapped his butt and sent him home. The Israelis aren't about to sit on their butts waiting for Iran to attack them. They are the caged animal backed into the back of the cage and they have attacked before which should tell the Iranians that they won't back off. To think that Israel will back off and wait to be attacked by Iran is about as smart as thinking that Oba mao mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq in his little speech earlier today. Yes he mentioned about every country in the area that is a problem but failed to mention the two we are fighting in. Do you consider that real leadership? I don't.
The Man best get his butt in the game, somewhere, as sitting back and hoping is not ever going to work for us.
These words form da King make too much sense to me. "In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything."
Only a complete fool would think that da King was wrong in that statement. What do you say about those words? Did he just make all that up or has the wild man from Iran spoken them and others that makes all that true.
Wild eyed….doesn't quite capture it. That's what I think. I know that conservative wingers need a continual supply of bogeymen to threaten to attack…..in order to feel completely human, but honoring facts isn't part of the fetish.
Until wingers recognize the terroristic actions of Zionists that are equally dangerous as the actions of Islamic radicals…..understanding the truth about the middle east will be impossible. Wingers have a strong "America is exceptional" tick. The hell of it is that those same wingers have a strong "Israel is exceptional" tick, as well.
Ahmadinajab has little power…and his words about Israel, according to middle eastern linguist Juan Cole, have been misconstrued.
If there's any objectivity left in those winger brains…..what the hell would you want to do for your country if America's "favorite ally" had 100 nukes pointed at you? Wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself from such a threat?
While Iran has not attacked anyone….the same is not true for Israel, like America, a warmongering nation.
Wingers also refuse to accept the truth that Iran is well within their rights to control their own nuclear energy program. Furthermore, Iran is now in the midst of promising talks about any enriched uranium.
Can't you guys see that the mental path you are following is the same wrongheaded path that led us into Iraq….which resulted in 100,000+ dead Iraqis and 4500 dead Americans? In the end, Saddam had nothing. Are you that oblivious to reality? Has amnesia set in that badly?
Meanwhile, the Taliban (which da king informed us was defeated by Whimpy II ) is the major problemo in Afghanistan .
Reverend, I have not been following this blog, and therefore your postings, for that long, but you really lost me with the statement that "Israel, like America [is] a warmongering nation." I'll presume that, upon reflection, you would have admit that's over the top. Or do you actually believe that? If so, you must realize that you are way out on the left fringe.
B,
Welcome to the blog.
And yes, the Reverend actually believes what he writes, hard as that is to believe.
Rev,
It's time to wake up and start living in the year 2009. Obama, Democrats, Republicans, the UN, and most of the world are all trying to stop Iran from acquiring nukes now. It's not Bush. It's not neocons. It's almost everyone. Maybe they know something you don't.
And you had to ignore an awful lot of evidence that I linked to in order to make the comments you made.
Rev, when will you be leaving the US to iive in a less warlike nation? From the looks of what you said, you must think that about anywhere would be better, other than Israel.
Rev,
Do you have any idea how many Israelis are the descendants of the Jews who sat back and let the Nazis kill them? I guess you don't know that those who fought back in Poland may have died, in the end but they at least took a number of Germans with them in Warsaw. Surely you can realize that threatening to blow them to hell won't work if you hope to keep them from striking first. It is possible that Ahmedinejad has no power, at all, but it is also possible that he speaks for the people who do have the power and they manage to hide behind words like yours about him having no power.
When will you manage to come back from the far left fringe and realize what King told you just now about it being Oba mao who is now trying to deal with Iran? It is not Bush or any of those neo cons that you far lefties want to believe everyone who doesn't agree with you since they aren't in any kind of power today. You need to get your mind working beyond 2003 or 2004.
The reason the Rev posts nonsense is simply to generate attention, which is classic internet troll behavior. If you ignore the inflammatory posts, i.e., "Don't feed the trolls", hopefully someday he will just go away and watch more MSNBC.
I'm not trolling.
To those who think it's over the top to say that America and Israel are warmongering nations…..I would simply ask you to review the historical facts. No nation has led more wars in the last 60 years, or so, than the U.S. Think……Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia, Latin America (clandestine and illegal), Iraq twice, Afghanistan and, marginally now, Pakistan. And in every case I mentioned…it was not a war of necessity, which makes it all the worse.
Israel has attacked Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinians (repeatedly) and wants to attack Iran.
Perhaps those who reject my over the topness could provide the names of nations who war more than America and Israel.
I know that these facts make those who hold American exceptionalism dear to their hearts, uncomfortable. Listen, I love the U.S. too….but I'm not going to remain blind to the truth.
And to King…..in 2002 there was also a consensus by many nations that Saddam possessed WMD and was a threat…..not a gosh-darned bit of it was true. Anyone dispute that? Then why in the hell would I believe it when the same ignorant people agree with American neo-cons that Iran is about to kill us all? It would be an act of willfull gullibility to simply nod in agreement with chickenhawks who have been 100% wrong on just about everything.
And B…..if the truth is considered to be "out on the left fringe"…..so freaking be it. That doesn't negate the truth in my viewpoint.
Rev,
If you were any dumber, you'd be dangerous. As it is, I don't think you should be allowed to drive a moving vehicle. Let's review the American "wars of aggression" you just listed. Here's the list of wars you think we "started" – Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Bosnia, Iraq twice, Afghanistan and, marginally now, Pakistan. I'm leaving out Latin America, because we didn't fight any actual wars in Latin America.
Korea – During WWII, North Korea (backed by Communist Russia) and South Korea (American backed) fought along the 38th parallel, the dividing line between North and South Korea. In 1948, NORTH KOREA INVADED SOUTH KOREA, you imbecillic dimwit. The US and the United Nations intervened on behalf of the invaded SOUTH. The communitst People's Republic of China sided with the NORTH.
Vietnam – The US entered this war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. The WAR WAS ALREADY GOING ON WHEN WE ENTERED IT. And after imbecillic dimwits like yourself were responsible for losing that war, millions of southeast asians were murdered in the aftermath. You must be SO proud of being responsible for that mass murder.
Grenada – We went into Grenada to rescue Americans after the communists overthrew the democratically elected Grenadan government.
Bosnia – We went into Bosnia to stop the ethnic cleansing (genocide) that was taking place.
Iraq 1 – We liberated Kuwait after Saddam invaded.
Afghanistan – The Taliban were hosting Al Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11.
Iraq II – I was against this one, but Saddam violated every condition of his Iraq 1 surrender, and that's why he was overthrown.
Pakistan – We are bombing Al Qaeda there. You know who Al Qaeda is, hopefully.
In conclusion, please get an effing clue.
you gotta know that AIPAC has the propaganda machine cranked up to warp drive if they can get a libertarian like King talking about an invasion of Iran
here's a little bit more about the intel about Iran's "bomb" from the libertarian website antiwar.com
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/10/06/leaked-iran-paper-based-on-intel/#
also from antiwar.com…….
"This is a reference to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which accords the signatories that right: and indeed, the NPT framework loomed large in the President’s remarks, including his indirect reference to Israel’s refusal to sign that treaty. "This is not about double-standards," said Obama, "or singling Iran out," but of course that’s just what it’s about. At this very moment Israel has a great deal of its nuclear arsenal – containing at least 200 atom bombs– aimed straight at Tehran, as well as god-knows-how-many other Middle Eastern capitals. Who is threatening nuclear holocaust in the Middle East? It isn’t the Iranian mullahs, that’s for sure.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/10/01/on-your-mark/#
Rev's historical stupidity is well documented and that response by King was spot on.
Iran had been lying about that facility and that is the real truth..
another good story from the libertarian website antiwar.com…
"Reporting that China is skeptical about the new claims, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said, "Shouldn’t the American media infuse its coverage with some of that same skepticism, along with a similar desire to see actual evidence to support the claims being made? Isn’t that exactly the lesson every rational person should have learned from the Iraq War?"
There is little evidence that any lesson from the Iraqi fiasco has been learned."
Glenn Greenwald being cited by libertarians? Will wonders never cease?
http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2009/10/06/countering-the-conniptions-over-qom/#
this from the same story at the libertarian website antiwar.com…….
"What are the facts? In 1974 Iran signed its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements of the Safeguards Agreement stipulated that Iran must declare to the IAEA the existence of any nuclear facility no later than 180 days before introducing any nuclear materials into the facility. That is why, despite much propaganda, the construction of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was perfectly legal.
In 1992, the Board of Governors of the IAEA replaced the original Code 3.1 with the modified Code 3.1, which requires a member state to notify the IAEA “as soon as the decision to construct or to authorize construction has been taken, whichever is earlier” (emphasis mine).
On Feb. 26, 2003, Iran agreed to voluntarily implement the modified Code 3.1 until the Majlis, Iran’s parliament, ratified it. But in February 2007, the Board of Governors of the IAEA sent Iran’s nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council. Iran contends that the IAEA acted illegally.
In retaliation, Iran notified the IAEA in March 2007 that it would no longer voluntarily abide by the modified Code 3.1. Iran reverted to the original Code 3.1. Although the IAEA contends that Iran cannot revert to the original agreement without its consent, Iran’s argument is on solid ground, because the Majlis never ratified the modified Subsidiary Arrangements. It also presented evidence that the preliminary work on the Qom facility may have begun in the early 1990s, when the 180-day advanced notification was required.
I don't know who you're arguing with King…..nothing you said diminished the fact that each and every American war I listed was a war of choice.
The only direct threat to America in any of those wars of choice was from al-Qaeda…and they do not represent any country.
I KNOW what the U.S. justification was for each war of choice we entered into. That has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the fact that we started those wars….we entered into them when a direct threat to the U.S. didn't exist.
Roy may know, you know, history…or not, I don't really know…..but he's not acquainted much with objective honesty. At least not when it comes to America's wars of choice.
walter…..keep those spot on comments coming.
walter,
I hate to point out anything like facts to you, but I said the option of a military strike was remote. I only pointed it out because it IS an option, however unlikely. My conclusion was that we wouldn't do a thing, and that Iran would end up having nukes. Try to keep up.
And if you think Israel is going to nuke Iran, think again.
Rev says, "each and every American war I listed was a war of choice."
So were WWI and WWII. So was the Revolutionary War. Should we have not fought those either ? Should we allow hundreds of millions to be slaughtered just so we can say we didn't enter a "war of choice" ? I'd be ashamed of my country if we acted like that. You don't beat tyranny by sitting back and doing nothing while the tyrants are on the march. If we don't fight those tyrants, who will ? Nobody, and then the world goes to hell. Maybe that's your goal, but it's not mine.
King,
I have to disagree with you about the year we entered South Korea and how it happened. I was 17 and just graduated from high school when it took place. I guess, even at that age, I was a war monger since I agreed with President Truman on his actions. I graduated from high school in May of 1950 and Truman sent troops to Korea about a month later, so 1950 is the correct date.
In case Rev and walter don't know, Truman had issued the Truman Doctrine about 1948 in which he promised to help those Asians who were threatened in Communist takeovers and South Korea certainly filled the bill. The Koreas were divided under the auspices of the newly created United Nations and Truman's action was based on UN promises to the South Koreans. Truman said that help was needed, like yesterday, so he was going to send troops and let the UN debate sending troops for two or more weeks. In other words, help them when help will be of help and not wait until it was impossible to help.
Anyway all Truman did that could be called wrong was to uphold his newly declared doctrine for eastern Asia so the people of the region could feel that the newly formed Peoples Republic of China wouldn't help communists take over the region. He did it with UN approval, so that the other members could decide when the blue helmets would take over. The blue helmets were worn at command headquarters during the war but some other nations were heavily involved in it. The UK, Turkey, and Australia were all heavily involved in the war. Since the Chinese and N koreans liked the human wave attack so much the Turks loved the ensuing hand to hand combat. The reason for that was that for a Turkish infantryman to wear the long flowing mustache that was their badge he had to slit a throat in combat.
The Aussies and British soldiers performed admirably, although not in really large numbers.
I wonder when the left leaning people here will find out that the UN troops violated the hell out of the Geneva Conventions in the way they fought often. Surely Rev will pounce on this little bit of info if he reads this post. When the Chicoms were getting their unarmed troops reeady for a human wave attack with much bell ringing, whistle blowing and yelling along with lots of drugs it was obvious that a human wave attack was coming. One vet of Korea told us in basic training that before these things happened trucks came down the MLR and handed out shotguns to be used to good advantage. He said they didn't even stick their heads out of their foxholes, just pointed the muzzles toward the solid wall of men, pulled the trigger and sometimes looked out to see the hole the made fill in immediately. Those were the days when the old M-1, Garand rifle was standard equipment and although very handy in hand to hand something a bit faster firing was needed.
I just thought I would throw in some more or less firsthand info about that little war that was the last of the old type wars that were fought with huge armies against huge armies in the field. Main Line of Resistance, and all that. They were so primitive that they still dug foxholes and lived in them on the MLR.
I guess Rev doesn't think the US had any business standing behind the ROKs when China was doing most of the fighting for the NKs. We weren't supposed to be standing up against Communism, but in the 1950s few of us knew that.
I just thought about something else Rev won't accept about the Korean War. The Chinese used plain, pure segregation in their prisoner of war camps. Americans were divided by race and the black Americans saw through the segregation thing immediately. They also segregated Americans from the British and Aussies. I don't blame them for what they did because Americans of both races don't make very good POWs. They were so imaginative with the things they could do to make life as miserable as possible for their interrogators (Chinese) and their guards. Americans have always been that way and the black Americans of that day had all lived in the same kind of segregated conditions all their lives so they had ways to "fight" back against their captors.
Threre were some excellent books written about those POWs of that time before the 50s were over and mostly they were written by those who had been there in collaboration with someone else, kind of like Sarah Palin has done and will do many more times. That is the normal way for politicians, isn't it.?
If you noticed, I didn't include the two world wars or the revolutionary war. I'm not saying we should have fought them…..but I'm not saying we shouldn't have either.
What I find most interesting about King's explanation is how he describes America's role as stopping tyrants. I'm thinking that isn't libertarian…umm…thinking. I would suggest that in all of America's tyrant-busting, we have become the tyrant ourselves, see: Terror Twins.
Soldiers, like policemen and firefighters, are simply obeying orders and doing their jobs….and because of that they deserve our respect. However, those who send soldiers off to fight wars of choice….not so much.
Finally King, America had knowledge of the evil concentration camps where Jews were being extinguished…..and yet, it took Pearl Harbor before we did anything. Ashamed of that?
Roy,
You are correct. It was 1950 when North Korea invaded the South. My mistake. Excellent comments about the Korean war. I missed that one. I was born in 1953.
Rev says, "What I find most interesting about King's explanation is how he describes America's role as stopping tyrants. I'm thinking that isn't libertarian…umm…thinking"
No, I don't believe you are thinking at all. What is more Libertarian than, you know, LIBERATING PEOPLE ? Damn.
Rev says, "I would suggest that in all of America's tyrant-busting, we have become the tyrant ourselves, see: Terror Twins."
Well, that obviously because you are a dumbass. See: FREEDOM.
Rev says, "Finally King, America had knowledge of the evil concentration camps where Jews were being extinguished…..and yet, it took Pearl Harbor before we did anything. Ashamed of that?"
No, but YOU should be. It was liberals like yourself who prevented America from getting into WWII even earlier. This is also totally inconsistent with your previous statement condemning America for getting into "wars of choice." You can't play both sides of that field, unless you are a dishonest hypocrite.
so instead of saying…."you gotta know that AIPAC has the propaganda machine cranked up to warp drive if they can get a libertarian like King talking about an invasion of Iran"
I should have said…..you gotta know that AIPAC has the propaganda machine cranked up to warp drive if they can get a libertarian like King talking about an invasion of Iran (as an option)
oooohhhhh….I can see your point
King sez…….."No, I don't believe you are thinking at all. What is more Libertarian than, you know, LIBERATING PEOPLE ? Damn."
Ron Paul wasn't to keen on liberating the Iraqi people…….King giveth libertarian credentials and King taketh them away
A clue for walter – Ron Paul and myself are two totally separate people, and entitled to our own opinions.
A second clue for walter – About Iran, see my previous comment. Nothing has changed.
You said it King….Ron Paul was being libertarian for not wanting to liberate the Iraqi people and now you are saying that's what libertarians do.
It seems to me you are talking out both sides of your face
Yep, walter.
Nope, walter. It's my opinion that liberating people IS Libertarian. Notice the similarity between the words "liberating" and "libertarian." Ron Paul and others believe that we shouldn't become entangled in foreign affairs. Again, see: Ron Paul and myself are different people. I don't speak for him, and he doesn't speak for me.
You're just trying to twist my words because I proved you wrong about Ron Paul being a Libertarian. Petty stuff.
let me re-post this from wikipedia about Ron Paul's political party
Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)
he was a libertarian what 4 months out of a 33 year career of being a republican?
Read the Libertarian party platform, then read Ron Paul's political positions, which are Libertarian almost down the line. That should end this non-debate.
Conservatives often have Libertarian leanings, because there is considerable overlap there, especially on fiscal and big government issues. Last year's Libertarian candidate was Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman (poor choice by the Libertarians, but, oh well). Plus, Ron Paul is often at odds with the standard thinking of the Republicans.
FYI – I used to be a member of the Libertarian party, but I'm not now. That doesn't mean I don't agree with them on the majority of issues. I do. Ditto for Ron Paul. Everybody knows Paul is Libertarian, even if you do not.
Ron Paul's political affiliation speaks for itself
Cop out.
pointing out the obvious is a cop out?
yeah, whatever you say