Email List
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Can Talks with Iran Lead to Obama's 'World without Nuclear Weapons'?
In one key conflict area-Iran-President Barack Obama appears to be keeping, at
least for the moment, his campaign commitment to engage rather than threaten,
to use diplomacy rather than force.
As talks with Iran go forward, hope continues to rise for serious diplomacy
that could, just maybe, lead us a few steps closer to the "world without
nuclear weapons" that Obama has called for.
But achieving that goal means more than just talking, as earlier
administrations always did, of preventing other countries from obtaining nukes.
It means recognizing-and implementing-Washington's own obligations under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, obligations to move towards complete nuclear
disarmament. That was the treaty's deal: Countries without nuclear weapons,
like Iran, agreed not to seek or make such weapons, in return for access to
nuclear power and nuclear technology for peaceful uses, and for a commitment by
the Nuke Five (the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia) to get rid of their
nuclear weapons once and for all.
Reaffirming that commitment to our own nuclear disarmament should be the
starting point of any U.S. negotiations over anyone else's
If negotiations with Iran mean Washington simply goes through the motions, just
to be able to say "we tried" before escalating to harsher sanctions
or even military strikes later on, diplomacy doesn't stand a chance.
So what should real nuclear engagement with Iran seek? One great medium-term
goal would be the creation of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone across the entire
over-armed and volatile Middle East. A number of countries in the region have
argued for such a zone for years, including U.S. allies such as Egypt. Iran
would almost certainly be very interested.
But there's already a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal in the Middle East,
whose very existence is instigating a regional nuclear arms race, and
undermining non-proliferation efforts. That arsenal belongs to one of the small
group of outlaw countries that have refused even to sign the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Its arsenal is widely known, but not officially acknowledged, and the
UN's nuclear watchdog agency has never been allowed to inspect the hundreds of
high-density nuclear bombs.
That country is Israel. And Obama, so far, has accepted Israel's policy of
"strategic ambiguity," in which Tel Aviv refuses to acknowledge its
nuclear arsenal. Israel rejects a nuclear weapons-free zone, because it would
mean having to open its nukes to immediate international inspection and then
quickly getting rid of them. Other countries that built and tested nuclear
weapons, such as India and Pakistan in 1998, faced serious U.S. sanctions. But the
U.S. refuses to hold Israel accountable for its dangerous nuclear weapons.
Regional nuclear weapons-free zones-which exist all over the world-help build
global campaigns to strengthen disarmament and international law. A nuclear
weapons-free zone in the Middle East would mean Israel would have to get rid of
its nukes. Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and everyone else in the region would
have to continue their current obligation not to create nuclear weapons. And
the U.S. would be prohibited from sending nuclear weapons on ships, subs or
planes into the no-nuke zone.
The great secret is that support for such a nuclear weapons-free zone in the
Middle East is already U.S. policy. In 1991, in the United Nations
resolution ending the Gulf War, the U.S. included a call for "establishing
in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and all missiles
to deliver them." The whole region-no exceptions. And UN Security Council
resolutions are binding, so now it's the law-for the U.S. and the whole world.
A nuclear weapons-free zone would allow everyone in the Middle East to sleep a
little better. And it would make future negotiations-over issues including
Iran's nuclear power facilities and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict-much more
likely to succeed.
nuclear
weapons-existing or potential.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllCan Talks with Iran Lead to Obama's 'World without Nuclear Weapons'?
ANSWER: No
Only the Nobel Peace Prize committee and perhaps the author of this article believe in such political rhetoric.
If Obama were serious, conservatives in Congress would be jumping out of their seats. Obama can't even stop Israel from expanding settlements, does one really think he or anyone else is going to rid Israel of nuclear weapons. If it were a serious statement to rid the world of nuclear weapons, why don't you hear that same hope coming out of Russia, China, France, and Britain. Because it is political rhetoric to put pressure on selected countries to rid their nuclear capabilities (civilian or otherwise).
We need more than a renewal of American commitment to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, whereby the Nuke 5 will once for all get rid of their nuclear arsenal, in order to save the world from the Third World War that now threatens. It might be heartening that Russia is apparently receptive to the idea of signing a New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with the US. But, in the post-Iraq and Afganistan invasions and post fiancial debacle world, it is not a return to a biplar world that is likely, but a still amorphous multipolar world that is having excruciating birth pangs and may result in post-partum trauma.
On the morrow of an announcement that Russia might be receptive to the proposal for a new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and on eve of Obama’s visit to China, it is important for world leaders to stop and think, and to be politically clear, scrapping the deception of the Bush era ‘moral clarity’. “Spreading democracy” in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran or Central Asia or the Middle East is not what either America, or Europe wants. They, and China and Russia, want to grab the vast energy and other mineral resources of Central and West Asia. The way the New Great Game has been playing out so far bodes very, very ominously for human survival, because what threatens is a full-scale Third World War, with atomic weapons certain to be deployed. Obama and the West should own up to the reality that, so far, the hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Central and East Asian lives that have been sacrificed in these apocalyptic wars has resulted so far in nothing but utter chaos. A re-think towards Western (and Chinese and Russian) military withdrawal from the region is imperative for the survival of civilization. The regional medium powers (Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, maybe even India) should be given more degrees of freedom to exercise influence in resolving the conflicts and bring about a calming of the turmoil. They have both the military clout and the cultural affinity to more successfully engineer a ceasefire and eventual Peace Agreement that would reflect the profound aspirations of the peoples of the region for their own social, economic nd political development. The West can thus be freed to use its now wasted financial and human resources for fixing its enormous domestic problems (unemployment at more than 10%, spreading homelessness, ubiquitous breakups of families, apocalyptic urban and rural violence, racial hatred), and to repay its enormous external debts to China and the West Asin countries. If the West feels like, it can offer logistical support to undo the enormous damage that it has done during long years of barbaric invasion of these lands. That will be paid for from the inward investments in energy-resource projects that the Central Asian countries are bound to see flooding-in, from China, but also from India, West Asian countries, and Western countries themselves, if they are so inclined. Easier said than done? Humanity is not imbibed with such noble sentiments? The human race reacts to brutal power more readily than to wisdom? NOT TRUE. The human specie would not have survived all the catastrophes that have been visited on planet earth so far, if we did not, in moments of great danger, show a resilience, a profound wisdom reflecting the survival instinct that has been etched into the neural paths in our brains by millennia of physical and emotional reactions to imminent danger. An urgent change in the mindset of world leaders is required. And Obama’s visit to China is the ideal place to start.
The new START is the kind of breakthrough that humanity prays for with the strongest resourcefulness of his soul, probably more fervently than women have, for millennia, prayed for a really effective contraceptive device. The next three breakthroughs they are praying for are: (1) a really well-balanced and practical climate change management protocol that will, at least partially, reverse global warming; (2) a resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict, for which an 'open sesame' key exists; (3) a hyphenation of Eurasia which would be a first in the whole history of the world, after several botched attempts by Darius, Alexander the Great, Tamerlane and Suleyman the Magnificent.
For the second of these items on the global wish list, the 'open sesame' key, if only Israel could be persuaded to see its self-interest as linked with the interest of humanity, would be the release from prison of Marwan Barghouti soon enough for him to stand for the January 2010 Palestinian elections. That would allow a credible and united Palestinian Authority to emerge and to secure a two-state peace deal the world can really believe in.
For the third item, Turkey's Erdogan has laid much of the groundwork, so that, what remains is for Iran to be brought in from the cold with its sovereignty and its dignity respected, and the AfPak war ended very soon through regional consultations (including with China, India and Russia, but also Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan) and without sacrificing security and energy-resource considerations. China has already proposed military cooperation with the US. With vision and goodwill, a new dawn for humanity could emerge from the surface picture of gloom projected by news of perpetual war.
An intention is an uncompleted part of a plan. I believe the plan of the Obama administration, judging by actions so far, is to continue to pursue US economic and military dominance of the world outside of the framework of international law.
So the intent of this administration, as others before it, is to talk like it wants to follow international law (and Article 6 of the NPT) but to actually continue violating it, when it serves the needs of dominance—in short, a policy of deception which fools few other nations.
If anyone here (you too Phyllis) can see any evidence of a plan by Congress or President Obama to shift course and abide by international laws in ANY realm of military affairs, except restrictions on the actions of others, please let me know. US hypocrisy appears to be continuing unless and until we elect an actual progressive on foreign policy who believes in the rule of law as president.
Someone like Ralph Nader perhaps. Unfortunately, it is highly doubtful that either party would ever nominate a person who is uncorruptably knowledgeable on the issues and who has not been totally vetted to toe the line. Therefore, as things stand, it should be a long wait before "...we elect an actual progressive on foreign policy who believes in the rule of law as president."
The only hope is to reform the election process and campaign financing by supporting those, such as the Public Campaign Action Fund and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, who are working towards those ends.
The Iranian government has 0% of nuclear weapons worldwide & threatens no one outside of Iran.
Washington could disarm 90% of its nuclear arsenal and reduce risk to everyone, for reasons that were obvious before STRANGELOVE. Since it is certainly not any threat from Iran that keeps them from doing so, negotiations with Iran are irrelevant to disarmament.
The following is worse, though it may be an error in phrasing:
"Obama appears to be keeping, at least for the moment, his campaign commitment to engage rather than threaten, to use diplomacy rather than force."
Did we forget about 0bama's redoubling of efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and neighboring regions? Did we forget about Somalia and Colombia?
0bama's regime is classic Machiavelli. The fist appears velvet at home, albeit thinly clad. But viewed from any other angle, it's just violence and more violence.
Why should Iran give up its nuclear weapons pursuits when Israel has its nuclear arsenal aimed at Teheran?
Iran has every right under the NPT to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. To date, Israel has not been part of the NPT agreements, thus, refusing inspections.
The focus of this conflict should be on the Israeli nuclear program and how the Zionists destablize the Middle East region along with its puppet---the USA doing their bidding all the time at the UN.
I am tired of the burden of proof always resting with the Iranians. Iran is not the problem. The likes of Netanyahu, Peres, Olmert and their allies in the U.S. Government amd associated lobbies from the ADL to AIPAC to WZC to Jewish Federation and all the media outlers with an anti-Muslim/Arab hatred and bias are the ones always stirring up trouble.
The problem for Iran and Muslims in general is that they don't own enough US politicians.
Israel doesn't make that mistake.
- And UN Security Council resolutions are binding... -
US S.C. res. 242: 'Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict' (1967).
Over 40 years and counting on this one.
------
- ...so now it's the law-for the U.S. and the whole world. -
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement of wishes.
Bennis sez: "... Obama, so far, has accepted Israel's policy of 'strategic ambiguity,' ..."
***
'Strategic ambiguity'?
Hell, he appropriated that for his presidential campaign.
2 Questions:
1. WTF is "strategic ambiguity?"
2. How do we know it is Iran's INTENTION to build nuclear weapons?
Ooops, and 1 more:
3. We can read minds?
You know, reading a statement like this "As talks with Iran go forward, hope continues to rise for serious diplomacy that could, just maybe, lead us a few steps closer to the "world without nuclear weapons" that Obama has called for." is utterly baffling.
Who but the mentally incompetent and Israel shills don't know by now that they're being manipulated with Iran just the same way they were manipulated with Iraq and for the same reasons? Okay, anybody who hasn't noticed yet that this is another propaganda, BS campaign for Israel, please, raise your hand.
While Israel would "benefit", the threats the U.S. and Europe make against Iran are not for the sake of Israel; it's just one potential "benefactor", out of more.
But whoever thinks Obama speaks truthfully about important issues is dreaming and hasn't been paying attention, I agree, and state. The U.S. will NOT give up its nuclear weapons arsenals. The U.S. is working on making smaller, much more powerful, "modern" nuclear weapons.