Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Noam Chomsky: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Out of Fear
Scholar assails U.S. for hypocritical application of Non-Proliferation Treaty
Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one thing. "No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons." But to Chomsky, nonproliferation requires reciprocal action, rather than international condemnation. Chomsky's reputation as a prolific author of books on subjects including linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, political science, and media might lead one to believe that his views stem from esoteric theoretical arguments, but Chomsky takes a pragmatic view of international relations. His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel.
Noam Chomsky speaks in Harvard's Memorial Church (Photo/Haris Sair) Speaking at Harvard's Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued the foreign policy of President Obama '91 and explained the historical reasons that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons. "If they're not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy." The problem, said Chomsky, is the defiant and hypocritical insistence of the United States on holding the constant threat of military action over Iran as a punishment for its noncompliance with United Nations mandates. "Hostile actions of the United States and its Israeli client are a major factor in Iran's decisions of whether or not to develop a nuclear deterrent."
In Chomsky's eyes, Security Council Resolution 1887, which was strongly endorsed by President Obama, calls upon all nations to peacefully participate in the international regimes for nonproliferation. The resolution encourages nations to develop civilian nuclear technology, while stressing the need for conformity to the IAEA's inspection system, and Chomsky said that the inclusion of language about peaceful action was primarily directed at the United States and its veiled threats that, "We must keep all options open." Indeed, with its nuclear missile submarines positioned within striking distance of Iran, Chomsky estimates that there is effectively no chance that Iran would ever use a future nuclear weapon for offensive purposes. But he warned, "The threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent."
The escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States is entirely absurd to Chomsky in light of the widespread acceptance of the rights of Iranians to develop civilian nuclear technology. He sees the cult of American Empire in the government's condemnations of Iran for refusing to follow the demands of the international community, because the definition of "international community" used in such rhetoric amounts to little more than the opinion in Washington, D.C. and among its allies. He cited to the hypocrisy of the U.S. position in its historical relationships with the three nations that did not ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan. These three nations, said Chomsky, have all received nuclear technology from the United States in violation of security council resolutions, but most Americans would not realize this, given the pro-government bias of the media.
Essentially, Chomsky believes that President Obama's foreign policy has embodied a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush's second term in office. But he believes we are fortunate to be living in a time when the anti-war movement is much stronger than it was during the 1960's. He recalled a demonstration he was involved in during 1965, when state police violently dispersed a crowd from Boston Common. The next day, the Boston Globe, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, denounced the protesters. Just three years later, following the Tet Offensive, public sentiment had moved enough that protests became common, but he ascribed this to a growing sentiment on Wall Street that the country had paid too high a price in Vietnam. Looking back at the lessons of that war, Chomsky said that the United States had essentially achieved its goal of "innoculating" the region from the domino-theory chain reaction by 1970 by installing dictators in neighboring countries and helping Suharto come to power in Indonesia.
Prize-winning journalist Amy Goodman noted in her introduction of Chomsky that he had played a crucial role in bringing the attention of the world to the oppression of the people of East Timor by Indonesia. She recounted the beatings and massacres she witnessed while traveling there as a journalist, as well as the elation when the nation achieved independence. "This nation of survivors had prevailed. They had resisted, and they had won." Chomsky, when speaking about activism and civil disobedience, stressed the need for determined persistence. "You're not going to win tomorrow. You are going to have a lot of defeats, but you have to keep at it."
Comments
Due to trouble with browser compatibility, Common Dreams has reverted to the older version of Disqus for comments while they fix these problems.
103 Comments so far
Show AllPuck..Twain;
"as it's the law of biological physics (see Weber-Fechner) to organize with sensitivity, creativity, and subtlety toward an aesthetic experience;"
how does the weber-fechner mathematical model support what you are saying?--(with which i agree)
If you decrease the stimulus you increase the sensitivity, if you increase the sensitivity you increase the organization. If an object similar to a stick or needle, with relative size, to a single cell creature, is pressed against the cell wall the cell wall will contract reducing the energy flow to the outer/distal regions(based on the energy economy of biological systems and structures). When the stimulus of the pressing stick is reduced then energy flow once again ebbs and flows to the distal regions of the cell body, with an accompanying increase in receptivity with the environment -- this holds true for any stimulus source whether temperature, texture, motion, etc.
Like the opiate receptor and other neurotransmitters (Candance Purt) this action is "highly conserved" from singular cell systems to the complex human system -- if you take your hand out of scalding water (reducing the stimulus), after a period of recovery(improving organization...if not heat destroyed) the hand is returned/continues organic development to a more receptively sensitive state.
The greatest aspect that separates humans from other Earth creatures is the imagination; part of this includes the human ability to use conscious control and the optical righting reflexes to over ride what would usually be energy economic, in the field of gravity, reflexive behavior. For better and for worse, the human has a choice; and more then any other creature is formed by and forms it's environment.
Because of imagination and the constancy of gravity the stimulant for a human behavior can also become a constant(Feldenkrais, Body and Mature Behavior). And, because humans develop in size an networking with so much of the voluntary areas of their nervous system, the confounding situation of choosing non-energy economic forms of behavior can become habituated.
In a human not overly domesticated and over using conscious control and imagination, the righting reflexes will bring the eyes, ears, and nose (bifocal teleceptors) to the horizontal, with reflective turning toward a novel stimulant. Because of the long development period of humans, including dependency, the emotive force of action, particularly habitual, can become so familiar that it distorts the natural energy economy scale; as the subject in question senses, imaginatively, that they will burst or dissolve into nothing if they were to give up some proposed behavior.
Imagined or not, the threat is sensed as real, thus an environment nurturing and a new behavior option formed, must be established before the old behavior will be let go...actually will become obscure through non-usage, and won't reappear unless an extremely strong upheaval in the environment occurs. That's why attacks such as War Pig name calling don't do much good except for a short term form of artistic expression, but for the object of the name calling, they will in most likely hood take it as a cheap form of titillation leading to their habitual form of sadistic excitement, but leading neither toward or with the pleasure of energy economy.
So...reduce the effort...which can be the effort of imagination...and sensitivity and organization will improve...and humanity will have a more human ability to respond to the human challenges of the day...it's why the likes of Thick Nhat Hanh continue with the number one mantra of "Stop...listen."
Have you seen "Children of Heaven"? It is a wonderful movie, suitable for the whole family. I would like people to see more films like this... so we are not so eager to bomb them.
Joe
The "thug" reference was only conditional, but I give credit to Rick Steves for making “Rick Steves' Iran: Yesterday and Today”.
Even given that PBS is corporate media too, Steves seems to be a genuine advocate of being a "citizen of the world". He did an excellent job of presenting Iran's appealing human face and vibrant cultural history.
I'm not sure how much impact Steves has; perhaps because he's so low-key and RELATIVELY obscure compared to Michael Moore, AFAIK Steves didn't get blasted for making this enlightened travelogue the way Moore did for daring to show ordinary, happy Iraqis before Amerika's illegal and invasive war of aggression upon that country.
Neocon apparatchiks, their mass-media demagogues, and regular old yahoo wingnuts alike couldn't face the prospect that the all of the propaganda fomented about Islamofascist Menace could be shown up as empty, meritless deceit by a few video clips of Iraqi families behaving in a civilized, humane manner.
minitrue - Yours is a perfect description of the situation, the pattern. Nice article at the blogspot too. I plan to tell friends about it.
Also teddy. Thanks for your remarks. Talk about attacking Iran, like all war-mongering, is glib talk about killing families. Hillary Clinton and General Gates beating the war drums try to get us to imagine some cartoon bad guys, but that is not the case. Leaders may be what they are, but the people are not junk.
We cannot say this enough - the people of Iran are wonderful people. And yes, there is such a love for poetry, music, art and architecture there. The average person knows poetry by Rumi and other Sufi poets I do not know, and by Omar Khayyam and others we do know. The soulfulness and loving messages are surprising. We do not want to irradiate them, pulverize them. Stop making them afraid and we have a much better chance of letting them solve their own problems peacefully as they did once before in the early 1950s.
Joe
JoeClientelle - isn't it funny?
if one were to really just step back -- forget all the prior histories - and just pretend that we don't know these people and countries and we're NOT involved ....
just the talk alone - the threatening - the lies, the hypocrisies, and then watch who has been killing most and oftener, and habitually making these actions....
the ones that really are INSANE and CRAZY ARE these israelis, Hillary Clinton and company...these neo-cons.
it's like they're CONSTANTLY spitting fire from their mouths that you can see them frothing already..threatening left and right , bombing, massing soldiers left and right...spouting off on the airwaves constantly about WAR. WAR. WAR........
they ARE insane.
"War is the Health of the State"
by Randolph Bourne (1918)
http://www.antiwar.com/bourne.php
Any nation hell-bent on invasions and wars of aggression,
such hostility, such a state so void of all morality,
is allowed to exist only to prove the harm for all of heaven to see,
and in about six seconds shall be put out of its misery.
it should also be noted that as a Signatory to the Nuclear-non Proliferation treaty decades ago -
iran honored that treaty -
the USA and other big powers did NOT.
the treaty included that iran was to desist from having nuclear WEAPONS - as the big powers also began their DISMANTLING of nuclear arsenals, which they have NOT...this is of course provoked by the actions of the USA that has always either invaded, or undermined, or regime-changed, or "isolated" or "contained" countries.
therefore - beyond iran -- why WOULD russia do so? why would CHINA do so ? and down the line, why would INDIA not WANT nuclear weapons as well as pakistan?
and THEN the NON_signatories India, Pakistan and Israel - client states to the USA GOT NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY from the USA to build weapons ILLEGALLY .. when pakistan and india declared themselves openly as "Nuclear Powers" - the USA did NOT fib about it.
in contrast - Iran meanwhile was honoring its commitment - sent the nuclear fuel for enrichment to france - which THREE TIMES refused to return the fuel for energy purposes.
WHO DID NOT HONOR the treaties?
it wasn't IRAN.
it was the USA, France, England other Big Powers including russia and china ,
and the ILLEGAL ones of Pakistan, India and Israel.
it wasn't Iran that was being Dishonorable....
and at that even AFTER decades of being undermined by western powers , after their own Mossadegh was removed by the CIA...
STILL the iranians gave the benefit of HONOR to the west which did not honor the treaties IT created to whihc iran signed and followed....
UNTIL the west showed -- the one that can NOT be trusted IS the west.
So sad, but too true.
FEAR ITSELF
ReadyToTransform
“Truth Light, I 'm not sure what you mean about
Israel having nuclear weapons only on paper?”
You are of the intelligent middleclass and articulate a rational for what goes on behind closed doors based on what people say. In essence trusting in your ability to spot a liar, to know if its light exposing darkness, or a pretense of light hiding an intent to be enriched upon your misery in darkness.
Whereas I’m of the slow and careful thinking laboring class and have never been able to know when one more intelligent is feeding me truth or fiction. A reality I learned in a most painful way in the Vietnam War. For I had just made Staff Sgt. and a 2nd Lieutenant fresh out of West Point got upset because I would not reenlist, and with all his pretense of friendship I though he would advance my next promotion. When if fact he was destroying my career by blaming me for fires he started, just so he could look important putting them out.
So when I heard that deceitful liar Israel had nuclear weapons I said to myself, where is the proof? For we have an overabundance of words coming out of the mouths of people, even more words on documents written by people, but yet no one has found facts that do not depend on the honesty of people. Comes now facts:
FACTS
(1) Israel was created when war materials were given by the U.S. and Britain, and Israel would immediately crumble if our $4 billion yearly aid were to stop. Now, all that investment would be lost if Israel anyway were able to act contrary to our will.
(2) Israel has absolutely no need to defend itself from enemies more powerful, as it has all the Western super powers at its beck and call.
(3) Israel is far to small to occupy any neighbor country. It could invade and destroy a neighbor, but the manpower to occupy another nation it does not have.
(4) So, absolutely no military advantage or logical excuse can there be for Israel having nuclear weapons.
(5) And so, if the only reason for Israel being given nuclear weapons by the West, is to keep the Middle East in fearful submission to the West, surely it is only a smoke screen to generate the illusion of a fire when in fact there is no fire to fear.
“The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”
Winston Churchill
Like some below, I too wonder what Chomsky means when he says the peace movement is stronger today than in the 60's.
Over all we, the people have been LOSING power more and more and the corporate Imperium has gained more and more control.
Over all, in other words, things have been getting worse and worse - with Chomsky and other progressive writers seemingly missing that. Perhaps they are saving themselves from the stress, strain and pain that comes from looking at the stark situation without consoling illusions.
Today, with Peak Oil and other forms of resource depletion (Peak Everything), ecological degradation and climate change, we are approaching the point of no return. Chomsky and others lack a sense of urgency and seem to think we have all the time in the world.
In other words, since the stakes are so much higher - we,as a species now know that we literally cannot afford to waste ANY more time or wealth, and need to radically change our entire adaptation to existence - the democratic response needs to match the urgency of our circumstances, and it absolutely does not! We need outrage, from Chomsky, the rich power progressives and about 50 million people in the streets.
The elites who continue to try to "make peaceful revolution impossible" and stop the reforms and redirections that are necessary - because they want to hold on to their power, need to be openly denounced as psychopathic traitors to this country and to humanity. Chomsky and other writers should be networking and using their combined media platforms and social networks to start making radical joint statements. I mean, come on, this is it: if we dont change directions on this planet right now, we are headed for serious trouble, far worse than the state of the world today - and today is horrendous enough!
Alexander Cockburn is perhaps the epitome of the career Leftist writer who thinks we have all the time in the world. These guys dont seem to see that we are headed full speed into an evolutionary wall: resource depletion, over-population, over-consumption and climate change. Cockburn still doesnt realize that Gaia trumps Marxist philosophy of history.
Post Script:
If these progressive writers networked and linked up, sharing their resources, together they have such a high profile and extensive support network that they are virtually untouchable.
When Treasury Secretary O'Neil was asked if he was worried the Bush Administration would come after him for the things he said in his book, he replied, "I am old and I am rich - what can they do to me?"
Chomsky and other writers are not rich like O'Neil but they have independent income - from those of us who bought their books - and networked, they would be in a position to make radical statements far more easily than the average citizen who might easily lose their job if they openly state the truth. And they should be petioning the rich power progressives to start up think tanks and media platforms. It blows my mind that there is such a lack of a sense of urgency in ALL these circles.
I'm not sure that Chomsky's repeated opinion that the antiwar movement has advanced since the '60's signals a lack of urgency on his part. He usually continues to the effect that resistance to the Vietnam invasion was almost nonexistent for years after the war started and did not really get moving until the US had fielded hundreds of thousands of soldiers and dropped unprecedented quantities of explosives and chemical agents.
The current wars have a considerably different curve, and it's hard to justify any analogy completely, but he seems to argue that the wars have not hit the same level because of a lack of faith in government violence on the part of the populace. Neither Nixon nor Johnson ever drooped in the polls so far as did W or Congrefs, and 0bama is in a steady decline. So Chomsky argues, unless I mistake him, that the resistance of the population stops the even broader abuses that the US vented on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
Iran developing N-weapons is like putting a target on your back saying "shoot me".
The MSM is putting a target on the back of Iran; it says "shoot me".
It doesn't surprise me the news would twist the words of Chomsky. (The Harvard Law Record?)
Two facts from Social Psychology illuminate what is going on with the U.S. and Iran. These two empirical findings are two of the most verified facts in Social Psychology.
1. General Attribution Error.
Experiments have proven that we humans have a strong tendency to explain our own behavior according to the situation but explain others' behavior by personality. For example if I trip when I cross the room, I'll think it was because the rug was loose. However, if I see another woman trip, I'll think it was because she is clumsy.
2. Negative Attribution Bias.
Experiments have also shown that once a group starts identifying someone as "bad" that the group reinforces that view among its members so that whatever the person does is viewed as more evidence that that person is "bad." For example in the recent Late Night wars, once Jay Leno was identified as the "bad" person, it became the general view of all commenting on it.
Concerning Iran we are making both psychological errors. We identify what Iran does as something based on their inherent nature and since we have already decided they are the "bad" guys, no matter what they do, we interpret that to reinforce our bias that they are "bad." Thus Iran must be pursuing nuclear weapons becaue they are evil folk who want to hurt others. They are not evil folk anymore than any other nation. They are pursuing nuclear weapons, if they actually are, because it seems appropriate to them in their situation.
But in the U.S. we continue to demonize certain countries. Oh well.
Libwing, the basic dynamic behind the psycho-dynamics you describe is projection.....but...
There is no Other
Yes, yes. You are correct in relation to psychological perspectives; as is Chomsky. However, there has been and continues to be the over-riding motive behind all of this, which is simply power. Iran has oil, and oil is power. You can psychoanalyze until you're blue in the face, and Chomsky can argue logical behavior but the fact is: if Iran didn't have the oil reserves it has no one in America would even know where it was! To this day the Monroe Doctrine of exceptionalism persists in all it repulsive glory. Indeed, there are those who are easily taken advantage of in their psychopathic fanaticism of self-preservation. They are easy pawns to lead the charge. Just as religion has been used throughout the ages to justify the essence of evil, world security and rationale/irrational responses to such calls are a foil for the real goal- power. Iran knows this. The poor people around the world know this. Ironically, many of the 'experts' myopically cling to delusions of right and wrong- good and bad; proceeding to psychoanalyze through colored glasses. Not that such analysis is not useful. But as insightful as it can be, it is equally distracting to the over-arching motives of those who control the game. And those puppeteers could care less about such banal issues as right and wrong, security and fairness. Their hearts and souls have been so devoured by their insatiable quest to caulk the holes in their lives with power. Imperialism has endured for millenia for one simple reason- humans who value love do not value power, and humans who reject love will become obsessed with power. It is in this respect that the human species is fundamentally flawed. Personally, I think the Grand Designer should be fired for such an incompetent design!
DARKNESS -- HARVARD LAW RECORD
“His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel.”
LIGHT -- CHOMSKY
“Iran hasn't invaded another country for hundreds of years -- unlike the United States, Israel and India (which occupies Kashmir, brutally).
The threat from Iran is minuscule. If Iran had nuclear weapons and delivery systems and prepared to use them, the country would be vaporized.
To believe Iran would use nuclear weapons to attack Israel, or anyone, "amounts to assuming that Iran's leaders are insane" and that they look forward to being reduced to "radioactive dust," strategic analyst Leonard Weiss observes, adding that Israel's missile-carrying submarines are "virtually impervious to preemptive military attack," not to speak of the immense U.S. arsenal.”
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20091105.htm
GoatMilkBlog.com
Q: Prof. Chomsky; You have reiterated several times that the majority of world countries, including the members of Non-Alignment Movement, support the nuclear dossier of Iran, yet the American neo-cons are still trumpeting their hawkish mottos. Why?
A: Not only the non-aligned movement, but also the large majority of Americans believe that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy. But almost no one in the U.S. is aware of this. That includes those who are polled, and probably think they are the only ones who hold these beliefs. Nothing is ever published about it. What appears in the media, constantly, is that the “international community” demands that Iran stop uranium enrichment. Almost nowhere is it brought out that the term “international community” is used conventionally to refer to Washington and whoever happens to go along with it, not just on this issue, but quite generally.
Q: Most of the analysts of international affairs cannot still digest the nuclear double standards of the U.S. government. While supporting the atomic arsenal of Israel, U.S. continuously pressures Iran to halt its civilian nuclear programs. What are the reasons? Does the IAEA have the authority to probe into the cases of Israel’s atomic weaponry?
A: The basic point was explained very candidly by Henry Kissinger. He was asked by the Washington Post why he now claims that Iran does not need nuclear energy so it must be working on building a bomb, while in the 1970s he insisted forcefully that Iran needs nuclear energy and the U.S. must provide the Shah with the means to develop it. His answer was pure Kissinger: “They were an allied country” so they needed nuclear energy. Now they are not an ally, so they do not need nuclear energy. As for Israel, it is an ally, more accurately a client state. So they inherit from the master the right to do as they please.
The IAEA has the authority, but the US would never permit them to exercise it. The new U.S. administration has given no indication that it is any different.
http://goatmilkblog.com/2009/04/21/iran-is-too-independent-and-disobedient-chomsky/
CHOMSKY SAYS IRAN DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS! That's the message of this none too subtle propaganda piece. I'm re-assured that some of the more recent comments noted this. There's nothing in the text to back it up; as others have noted, Chomsky does NOT believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Good point, and almost certainly correct. He has given the opinion that they are not many times and fairly recently.
He might have said they would be crazy not to, and the author here may have assumed that he therefore meant that they actually were.
CHRISTIANS, JEWS, MOSLEMS -- GET YOU NOSE WHERE IT BELONG
As a pacifist who sees no hope of world peace until the three major religions get their noses out of each other’s business, may this slow thinker point out to all PhD theologians: Founding fathers of the three major faiths are in fact the Old Testament prophets.
And so, not to say that I agree or disagree with what Scripture says about the rights of women, but just to show what the three faiths share in common, let us start with the Prophet Moses:
WOMEN’S RIGHTS -- OLD TESTAMENT
(1) If the men in a family are so fool as to let their women run loose after dark, if a virgin is seduced or raped, then she is married to the man for life.
(2) A woman is married for life to the first man she has sex with. Any woman who has sex with more then one living lover commits sin.
(3) A wife is married to her husband for life.
(4) Blood guilt for the sins of a wife or daughter are all on the husbands head.
(5) A woman must keep her head covered and be silent in a house of worship.
(6) A woman is not to teach or have authority over any man.
(7) A sex code is a bond that preserves the sanctify of a family, adultery murders permanently the family, adultery is worse then murder and both parties guilty of adultery must be stoned to death.
(8) A husband may evict from his home any wife or daughter who treats him in contempt, and be relieved of any burden to support them.
In early 1968, the CIA issued a report concluding that Israel had sucessfully started production of nuclear weapons, and we know our tax dollars have help build up their stock pile. For the 8 years Bush was in office, he and Israel did everything to provoke Iran into a war, and Israel threatened to nuke them. That is when Iran started talking nukes.-Israel wants to strike Syria again--[remember the bombs Bush sent to help]-and also Lebano, and fear Iran may interfere. Chaney and daughter keep talking about another attack on our country, and wonder what they are brewing up in the pot this time and to blame Iran as an excuse to invade??????????????
Actually, Iran has always denied that it had any intention to build nuclear weapons.
And as Israel has all of Europe and the U.S. ready to bomb any nation that harms its existence, the only reason for Israel having weapons of mass destruction would be to keep the Middle East in fearful submission to the Western powers. Therefore, I seriously doubt that Israel has even one nuclear weapon.
Wow.
I have not been so baffled at a post for some time. Buchenwald and Auschwitz still in living memory, Roosevelt's turning boats of refugees back to their deaths still in living memory, the Israelis have set centuries of antisemitism aside to trust their defence to their historic persecutors?
Far better, far easier they should return part of Palestine, make uneasy peace with the Muslims, and arm against the day the West turns.
Also, why should we not see keeping the Middle East in fearful submission to Western powers be a major part of the deal Israel has cut with the United States to gain its arms? It is a devil's deal to become again the lightning rod for aggressions that originally nothing to do with them, but it appears the lack of faith in their security has driven Israel to run unnecessary risks by offending its neighbors and its Muslim population again and again.
Your argument is that because the Jews suffered the worse genocide commited by man, this is absolute proof that they would defy all the super powers of the West and secretly build nuclear weapons. But our ruling elite give them $4 billion military aid each year, surely they are not so stupid as to allow Israel to nuke them into fighting World War Three.
No, Truth, that is not my argument at all, nor close.
I will try to be clearer.
I argue that because so many Jews have been abused on so many counts, many of them feel that they must take their defense in their own hands, and do not feel that the US or Europe are permanent and reliable allies. That does not in itself demonstrate the presence of nuclear weapons; it only negates the argument that they would avoid doing so out of any deep, abiding trust of the US and the NATO countries because said trust does not amount to much.
In "they are not so stupid," does "they" refer to American elites? American elites provided for both Indian and Pakistani nuclear development, and went to great lengths to keep both secret and allow both to develop.
I tend to think that most of this psychopathy as opposed to stupidity, but I do not rule stupidity out.
Are you really arguing that American government and business would not do something catastrophically stupid, particularly if it got them some kind of profit in the short run? Remember that that $4bn does not come from the elites, but that much of it gets paid back to them.
Are you arguing that American patricians are too wise to get into a nuclear conflict? Perhaps not. But if so, I wonder at your confidence. And if they were to have a nuclear strike against, say Iran, how exactly would that start a general nuclear conflagration? And if they were to have such a strike, would they not prefer that the blow came from Israel?
"Therefore, I seriously doubt that Israel has even one nuclear weapon."
_____________________________________________
I'm hoping that was a typo, and you meant to type "Therefore, I seriously doubt that Israel has ONLY one nuclear weapon".
Since Eileen Fleming hasn't stopped by to read you the riot act, I'll do the honors:
Google "Mordechai Vanunu", if you dare.
Google offers nothing. Give us a WEB page with more then words, mote then stuff like:
http://www.counterpunch.org/goodman08182004.html
For yes, the WORDS of Mordechai are that he saw nuclear weapons in the making, yes the WORDS of Israel are that they jailed the man for 18 years, but words prove absolutely nothing. For Hebrews are about the most intelligent race on earth, and without proof it is impossibleto know if one more intelligent is lying to you. He shows us pictures, but they could be of a nuclear weapons plant in the U.S. or England.
Have an open mind, or our super-intelligent rich will surely thought control your mind. "God be true and every man a liar."
wow, can you provide more of these eh... writings? I really love it when bad guys finally admit what they are really up to and lie so tranparently even the most stupid idiot can see through it. Do go on!
Response to "BARDAMU":
Baffling indeed is your line of argument which is based on the following premises:
1) “Anti-semitism” (defined as irrational hatred and persecution of Jews) cannot be overcome.
2) Essential innocence and eternal victimhood of Jews (enforced by the Shoah).
3) Israel’s violence and even cruelty is always “good” (defensive and “protective”).
Conclusions:
1) Jews can only be safe and happy in a “Jewish state” (when they return to the “Holy Land”).
2) A terrible collective trauma (the Holocaust) translates into a carte blanche to do whatever is deemed necessary to prevent such a tragedy (no legal or moral restraints applicable).
3) Any act of aggression or violence against Israel is not the result of its own actions (crimes).
So your argument is that Israel’s exceptional “security needs” require an arsenal of nuclear weapons (and a state “armed to its teeth”) because there are so many bad / fanatic people out there (especially Arabs and Persians) who – for no reason at all - want to “drive us into the sea” so they have to be kept “in fearful submission”.
Security comes from peace (not the other way round) and peace is impossible when your neighbour uses his impunity to terrorize the victims of his aggression into submission. While Israel fully exploits Holocaust guilt in Europe, it does not even allow a debate about its own crimes (terrorism under the British mandate, the Nakba, 1967 -the brutal occupation and ongoing land-theft in East Jerusalem and the West Bank) and the media (outside Israel) complies ...
The problem is, that your premises begin to crumble once they are closely inspected and most importantly, the role of Zionism is crucial to understanding the logical fallacy:
I cannot go into a detailed analysis here but allow me to give just a few examples:
“We should work to overcome those attitudes from which the Holocaust was constructed, particularly the national chauvinism that split the Aryan Nazi from the non-Aryan subhumans”.
“The affirmation of human rights gives dignity to each person ... to affirm one social body by denigrating another is as dangerous as it is ... powerful..”
(Joel Kovel: “Overcoming Zionism”, p. 73)
Zionism did not fight “anti-semitism” but even encouraged it in order to create support for its dangerous ideology: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/LBzad.pdf
You cannot built a national identity on a mountain of lies ... nor can you provide “security” to your people by dehumanizing and terrorizing the Non-Jewish population of your “homeland”, in order to “encourage them to leave”.
As long as Israel clings to all its biblical myths and convenient lies (a completely distorted self-image), most of all the “eternal victimhood” nothing will change. Of course Iran must seek a deterrent because Israel is ruled by crazy people who project their own aggression and systemic immorality on their neighbours to reinforce the collective illusion of “self-defense” (the political leaders in the Arab countries have also a lot to answer for but the Middle East is just another geostrategic chess-board for the new "rulers of the world" who reserve the right to approve of governments or else ..)
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/12/6/robert_gates_unanimously_confirmed_by_senate
(Even Gates is being admonished for not giving the “right” answers about the “Iranian threat” ...)
Integrity (respecting the rights of other people)and "Satyagraha" is the best way to “security” but tell that to the lunatics in the White House and the Zionist “extremists” ...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14034.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13749.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3499.htm
I wrote acerbically because your denial of Israeli possession of nuclear armament astounds me. It is not anger; I just cannot imagine what you're thinking. I did not intend to offend you, though it is obvious why my post did, and I am sorry I did not word it more carefully.
You still have me kerflummoxed, though.
I don't agree with anything like any of the ideas you call my premises, and I can't figure out why you feel these are in some way related to points the points I made.
Beyond that --
I do not think Israel's security needs are exceptional, or that they require nuclear weapons. I think that some Israelis think they do and that others find it convenient to pretend that they think so.
I do find the Israeli government's possession of nukes convincingly documented. I do think they are there because of fear which has been massively motivated. I do not consider them a good idea. I do not see them as actually providing security.
I agree that security comes with peace and usually from peace, that Satyagraha is key to security, and that a Jewish state, Hindu state, Muslim state, Buddhist state, Christian state, or anything else of the sort is intrinsically a bad idea.
That does not seem to be the dominant attitude of the Israeli government, though, does it? I don't see how your interest in peace means they have no interest in weapons.
Food for Thought? Yet another "conspiracy theory"?
"Considering that the Mossad is quite possibly the most ruthless and efficient intelligence agency in the world, it is peculiar that they have never been scrutinized in relation to the Kennedy assassination, especially when practically every other entity in the world (short of Elvis impersonators) has been implicated.
But that all changed in January, 1994 with the release of Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgment. In this book, Piper says, "Israel's Mossad was a primary (and critical) behind the scenes player in the conspiracy that ended the life of JFK. Through its own vast resources and through its international contacts in the intelligence community and in organized crime, Israel had the means, it had the opportunity, and it had the motive to play a major frontline role in the crime of the century - and it did."
In the days leading up to Ben-Gurion's resignation from office, he and JFK had been involved in an unpublicized, contentious debate over the possibility of Israel getting nuclear capabilities. Their disagreement eventually escalated into a full-fledged war of words that was virtually ignored in the press. Ethan Bronner wrote about this secret battle between JFK and Ben-Gurion years later in a New York Times article on October 31, 1998, calling it a "fiercely hidden subject."
In fact, the Kennedy/Ben-Gurion conversations are still classified by the United States Government.
...JFK told Charles Bartlett, "The sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability."
Senator J. William Fulbright told CBS Face the Nation on April 15, 1973, "Israel controls the U .S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. - somewhere around 80% - is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government."
"The bottom line is this: JFK was adamantly determined to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb. LBJ simply looked the other way. JFK's death did indeed prove beneficial to Israel's nuclear ambitions and the evidence proves it."
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/08/28/the-kennedys-vs-israels-lobby/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2841377.stm
Google Video: Israel's Secret Weapon (44:45, BBC documentary)
GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS
(1) Judaism taught us that the deadly force of government can never overcome evil, not even if the government were controlled by God himself. Not even if God was in a cloud above for 40 years wondering in the desert. Not even if God was in the holy temple in Jerusalem and government leaders could talk directly to him for 865 years
(2) Christianity first taught us to be pacifist, “Jesus said, Do not use force to overcome evil. If they strike you on the right cheek, turn to them the other.’”
(3) Christianity finally taught us to never trust Christian Crusaders who talk like pacifists, but act like the devils most valuable disciples. For they are “lukewarm” Christians, a mixture of hot-good and cold-evil such that is impossible for them to tell the difference between good and evil.
(4) Islam taught us that even the most harmless people on earth, Moslems who fight only in self-defense, even they cannot live in peace with Jews and Christians who kill in the name of God.
(5) For this world has but one purpose, to establish a full and perfect understanding of darkness. Darkness being an illusion of good hiding misery, a liars pretense of good hiding his intent to be enriched upon our misery, a mixture of good and evil such that one needs the Holy Spirit to show him the way out of darkness and evil.
(6) Evil: to enrich yourself upon the misery of another, a crime in any fair and just society.
Written in 2003, even more true today.
Hubris Uber Alles
Astride the known world,
Filled with hubris
They marched in their turn:
Darius, Xerxes, Agamemnon, Alexander,
Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and more
All their empires rising, conquering,
Their passing marked by mounds of skulls
And vainglorious boasts.
Their places taken in turn by others
as their empires rotted from within.
Now yet another warlord stands,
His nation’s proud banner, once a beacon
Of freedom and hope to all mankind,
Now a symbol to be feared
By friend and foe alike.
This, too, shall pass away
After adding its quota of skulls to the mountain,
While the common man around the world
Holds tight the dream of Brotherhood and Peace
Close to his breaking heart.
Steve Osborn
9 August 2003
"His nation’s proud banner, once a beacon
Of freedom and hope to all mankind..."
Beacon of freedom and hope? Hardly!
I speak of a long time ago. (in a galaxy far away?)
A-BOMB -- DOES ISRAEL REALLY HAVE IT?
bardamu
“I argue that because so many Jews have been abused on so many counts,
many of them feel that they must take their defense in their own hands,
and do not feel that the US or Europe are permanent and reliable allies.
That does not in itself demonstrate the presence of nuclear weapons;
it only negates the argument that they would avoid doing so out of any deep,
abiding trust of the US and the NATO countries because said trust does
not amount to much.”
LIGHT
(1) Empire USA is an absolute top-down dictatorship. That is why we had to drop the A-bomb on Japan weeks after World War Two was won, to terrorize the world into absolute submission.
(2) If our Empire allowed even the slightest independence it would be a show of weakness. That is why when Honduras did such a little thing as raise minimum wage to $3 a day, a CIA coup dictatorship had to be immediately put in place.
(3) Surely most in Israel do not want war with Palestine, but our Empire demands it, as the Middle East most be kept in fearful submission.
(4) If Israel first made peace with its enemy nations, then Israel could defy our Empire and be independent. And that is why our Empire demands that Israel keep building more homes in the West Bank.
(5) Our Empire gave Israel the A-bomb so it could be more independent? The joke of jokes.
bardamu
“American elites provided for both Indian and Pakistani nuclear development, and went to great lengths to keep both secret and allow both to develop.”
LIGHT
(6) The man in Pakistan who purchased the A-bomb from North Korea was kept under house arrest for years, surely there is no evidence our Empire was involved.
(7) India the largest nation on earth, with a most aggressive and involved democracy, and we controlled their nuclear weapons program? Surely you jest, surely another nuclear power in the world is the last thing we want to happen.
bardamu
“Are you really arguing that American government and business would not do something catastrophically stupid, particularly if it got them some kind of profit in the short run? Remember that that $4 bn does not come from the elites, but that much of it gets paid back to them.”
LIGHT
(8) Empire USA is world dictator absolute, we need to take no risks whatsoever. All things considered, more negatives then positives for our Empire in giving Israel the A-bomb.
bardamu
“And if they were to have a nuclear strike against, say Iran, how exactly would that start a general nuclear conflagration? And if they were to have such a strike, would they not prefer that the blow came from Israel?”
LIGHT
(9) In appearance only, should a strike against Iran come from Israel. That is why if our Empire did strike Iran, the A-bombs would likely appear to come from submarines owned by Israel.
Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, Chomsky is just playing his role as a "left-wing" pro-imperialist propagandist. He demonizes Cuba all the time as well.
The article lies, everyone who knows Chomsky knows its a lie.
My take on history is that, after you nuke an enemy you get to go see their women and take home the least glowing one you like as a War Bride. Perhaps Iran has designs on North Korean women, or the converse. At any rate, these nations are a clear danger to the other. Sure glad I'm not caught in the middle of this one.
Hardly, more like a clear danger to Empire USA.
For Iran is the best defense against our wars of plunder in the Middle East, and North Korea is doing the same good for Asia. Our days of glory and Empire are dead and gone my friend,
“Take kindly the counsel of years,
gracefully surrendering the things of Youth.”
Desiderata
My question is - why has Israel never tested a nuclear weapon? If they have them, you would think they would want to prove to themselves at least, that they work...
This is probably a moot point however, if Israel did not have nukes but wanted some for whatever reason -- they would just order the US to bring them some pronto.
I bet that some other country has done that already for the Israelis. Furthermore if a state has numerous nuclear bombs at least one of these is likely to work. Finally, even if none of the Israeli bombs can work, their existence alone is a deterrent because potential enemies cannot be sure of that. Please don't misconstrue my last sentence as a support for Israel's nuclear arsenal.
They didn't have to, they got them from the US who pays them to have them.
I wish I had a friend who payed me to drive a nice car and gives me nice house for all my criminal actions.
Apparently one of the Iranian mullahs is Mr. Chomsky's spy that keeps him informed of the nuclear intents of that government.
RickOshea
__”My question is - why has Israel never tested a nuclear weapon?”
Surely one of the millions of questions left unanswered by the theory that defies all the facts, logic and reason that shows the reverse.
THREE THEORYS
(1) A man is telling truth, when he says that Israel has A-bombs.
(2) A man is telling truth, when he says his pictures show Israel has A-bombs
(3) Israel is telling truth, when it says it may or may not have A-bombs.
Such is the word of man,
such is a gullible public that puts high above facts and
logic the deep, dark and mysterious words of man.
Are some of you actually not aware of the nuclear power of Israel, and with such short range delivery requirement? And why would they test the bombs when the US has done it for them? And why does the US support Israel financially at the expense of Americans' health and well-being? And why wouldn't Iran want to have a couple bombs to blow the crap out of Israel when they come for them like they have Palestine? Are you people blind to the devastation that Israel has wrought throughout the world? How come all the Jews that worked at the Towers were told to stay home 911? Come on people, wake up...the nightmare is all around you...and delivered daily by mostly Israeli owned corporations. You think the Native Americans were mad for what we did to them, you ain't seen nothin yet. The Zionists are coming and they will be coming for US too. After they have done in the rest of the Middle East and your tax dollars are actually helping them devastate their enemies...Christ, what a sick bunch of inhumanity we are facing.