EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
- The Terror Con
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Are Iran's Intentions?
The January/February issue of Foreign Affairs featured the article “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option,” by Matthew Kroenig, along with commentary about other ways to contain the Iranian threat.
The media resound with warnings about a likely Israeli attack on Iran while the U.S. hesitates, keeping open the option of aggression—thus again routinely violating the U.N. Charter, the foundation of international law.
As tensions escalate, eerie echoes of the run-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in the air. Feverish U.S. primary campaign rhetoric adds to the drumbeat.
Concerns about “the imminent threat” of Iran are often attributed to the “international community”—code language for U.S. allies. The people of the world, however, tend to see matters rather differently.
The nonaligned countries, a movement with 120 member nations, has vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium—an opinion shared by the majority of Americans (as surveyed by WorldPublicOpinion.org) before the massive propaganda onslaught of the past two years.
China and Russia oppose U.S. policy on Iran, as does India, which announced that it would disregard U.S. sanctions and increase trade with Iran. Turkey has followed a similar course.
Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. In the Arab world, Iran is disliked but seen as a threat only by a very small minority. Rather, Israel and the U.S. are regarded as the pre-eminent threat. A majority think that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons: In Egypt on the eve of the Arab Spring, 90 percent held this opinion, according to Brookings Institution/Zogby International polls.
Western commentary has made much of how the Arab dictators allegedly support the U.S. position on Iran, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population opposes it—a stance too revealing to require comment.
Concerns about Israel’s nuclear arsenal have long been expressed by some observers in the United States as well. Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, described Israel’s nuclear weapons as “dangerous in the extreme.” In a U.S. Army journal, Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote that one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their `use’ on the United States”—presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies.
A prime concern right now is that Israel will seek to provoke some Iranian action that will incite a U.S. attack.
One of Israel’s leading strategic analysts, Zeev Maoz, in “Defending the Holy Land,” his comprehensive analysis of Israeli security and foreign policy, concludes that “the balance sheet of Israel’s nuclear policy is decidedly negative”—harmful to the state’s security. He urges instead that Israel should seek a regional agreement to ban weapons of mass destruction: a WMD-free zone, called for by a 1974 U.N. General Assembly resolution.
Meanwhile, the West’s sanctions on Iran are having their usual effect, causing shortages of basic food supplies—not for the ruling clerics but for the population. Small wonder that the sanctions are condemned by Iran’s courageous opposition.
The sanctions against Iran may have the same effect as their predecessors against Iraq, which were condemned as “genocidal” by the respected U.N. diplomats who administered them before finally resigning in protest.
The Iraq sanctions devastated the population and strengthened Saddam Hussein, probably saving him from the fate of a rogues’ gallery of other tyrants supported by the U.S.-U.K.—tyrants who prospered virtually to the day when various internal revolts overthrew them.
There is little credible discussion of just what constitutes the Iranian threat, though we do have an authoritative answer, provided by U.S. military and intelligence. Their presentations to Congress make it clear that Iran doesn’t pose a military threat.
Iran has very limited capacity to deploy force, and its strategic doctrine is defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to take effect. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons (which is still undetermined), that would be part of its deterrent strategy.
The understanding of serious Israeli and U.S. analysts is expressed clearly by 30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who said in January, “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons” as a deterrent.
An additional charge the West levels against Iran is that it is seeking to expand its influence in neighboring countries attacked and occupied by the U.S. and Britain, and is supporting resistance to the U.S.-backed Israeli aggression in Lebanon and illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Like its deterrence of possible violence by Western countries, Iran’s actions are said to be intolerable threats to “global order.”
Global opinion agrees with Maoz. Support is overwhelming for a WMDFZ in the Middle East; this zone would include Iran, Israel and preferably the other two nuclear powers that have refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: India and Pakistan, who, along with Israel, developed their programs with U.S. aid.
Support for this policy at the NPT Review Conference in May 2010 was so strong that Washington was forced to agree formally, but with conditions: The zone could not take effect until a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors was in place; Israel’s nuclear weapons programs must be exempted from international inspection; and no country (meaning the U.S.) must be obliged to provide information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.”
The 2010 conference called for a session in May 2012 to move toward establishing a WMDFZ in the Middle East.
With all the furor about Iran, however, there is scant attention to that option, which would be the most constructive way of dealing with the nuclear threats in the region: for the “international community,” the threat that Iran might gain nuclear capability; for most of the world, the threat posed by the only state in the region with nuclear weapons and a long record of aggression, and its superpower patron.
One can find no mention at all of the fact that the U.S. and Britain have a unique responsibility to dedicate their efforts to this goal. In seeking to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of Iraq, they invoked U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which they claimed Iraq was violating by developing WMD.
We may ignore the claim, but not the fact that the resolution explicitly commits signers to establishing a WMDFZ in the Middle East.
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...
69 Comments so far
Show All"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson
"Religion . . . comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion." Sigmund Freud
"Religious creeds encourage some of the craziest kinds of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors and favor severe manifestations of neurosis, borderline personality states, and sometimes even psychosis." Albert Ellis
"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind." H. L. Mencken
"Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
"The great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights . . . not only for acquiescence in poverty, inequality, exploitation and oppression, but also for enthusiastic justifications for slavery, persecution, abandonment of small children, torture, and genocide. . . . Moreover, religion enshrined hierarchy, authority, and inequality. . . . It was the age of equality that brought about the disappearance of such religious appurtenances as the auto-da-fe and burning at the stake." Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages." Ruth Hurmence Green
"Not material or economic conditions in the ordinary sense, but perverse religious ideas explain the suspension of civilization in Europe from the 5th to the 12th century, and in the Mohammedan world after the 15th century." Joseph McCabe
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." George Washington
"For more than three thousand years men have quarreled concerning the formulas of their faith. The earth has been drenched with blood shed in this cause. . . ." Felix Adler
"[M]ore wars have been waged, more people killed, and more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history. The sad truth continues in our present day." Charles Kimball
“international community”—code language for U.S. allies'''
Merkan "allies" are VERY few in number. In fact Merka has no true allies. Instead, those that pretend to be Merka's allies are merely protecting their "ekonomic" interests, i.e. "dear leaders" protecting hierarchical ekonomic structures, based on "friendly" trade (plunder/konsume) relations with Merka, in order to keep their citizens addicted or dependent upon that ekonomic structure, and thus to the political power hierarchy.
The BIG news today is that the people worldwide are fast learning to get their fulfillment from their own personal initiatives, and fast realizing that they don't need to depend on those structures of mass oppression, and with revolutionary implications in all realms - geopolitical, natural, social, personal.
I cannot wait for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Once that happens, you won't hear shit about Iran. Remember North Korea? Haven't heard how much of a threat they are lately, have you?
Although the title implies the article is about "Iran's Intentions," little of Iran's intent is discussed. So, lets take a look at one of Iran's proposed intents: To limit exports to Europe. Many pundits have said this is a ruse, it will have no effect, or other such sentiments as to trumpet its being a non-threat. Yet, in an article published March 1, Bloomberg cited the EIA, saying " Global fuel use averaged 3 million barrels a day more than output when Iran is excluded from the calculations and 500,000 more when Iran is included." So, even with Iranian exports added, global supply cannot meet demand; and with those exports denied, a severe shortage will occur that the current pace of demand destruction cannot keep up with. So, I would conclude that Iran's ploy is very well thought. And implied within the EIA announcement is the fact that it's Peak OIl, not speculators diving up global oil and fuel prices. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/global-fuel-demand-outside-iran-outstrips-supply-u-s-says-1-.html
So, Iran's intent does pose a very serious threat to those nations threatening Iran. Some nation's economies can withstand such a drastic rise in oil and thus fuel price because they have no or insubstantial fiscal problems: Russia, China, the OPEC nations [although some have severe internal problems, like Saudi], and the BRICs; and do note that they are mostly in opposition to the US Empire's motives and methods. As I've stated often recently, the US Imperial policy regarding Iran--Regime Change--is checkmated thanks to Iran's intentions.
I think it was Scahill on DN who said oil tankers can no longer purchase insurance if they are operating to or from any of Iran's major ports ( a USA sanctioned Iranian entity owns all of Iran's major ports). This would end much of Iran's exports of oil. Perhaps this is why USA is suddenly a net exportor of oil, along with its over abundance of N.G. used in refining oil.
Again, the USA is NOT a net exporter of oil--you must wash that lie from your mind. Iran has its own fleet of tankers capable of transprting its crude. Seldom is NatGas used by refineries; rather, it's often used to "lighten" heavy oil for transport via pipeline, or to allow it to flow for refining, as with bitumin.
Thanks CD for publishing Chomsky. More Chomsky please, and David Graeber and Michael Hudson.
I think that a stern statement by the US against an attack would be enough to deter Israel. They cannot go it alone, and they know it.. If this was to escalate beyond the initial attack they would be done for..
They would be forced to go nuclear to defend themselves and that would be it..
China and Russia would never stand for that and the US would be for forced to come to Israel aid.. And there you have it, WW3.
One tiny little country holds the fate of the world in it's hands.
show me the treaty that requires the US to defend or assist Israel.
it does not exist.
I have never read a Chomsky essay where I didn't go away knowing more than when I started.
But he has a couple of "lapses" here, one seems devious.
He says that the US assisted Israel with its nuclear program. He makes this statement within the context of Israel's nuke bomb. That's BS. The US provided Israel with an early GE energy reactor, but when Kennedy got wind that Israel was jerking the US around on a bomb -- including building a phony reactor at Dimona for "inspection" purposes -- Kennedy went ballistic, pardon the expression. He chewed Ben-Gurion out and was ready to withdraw US support of Israel. There are those who wonder whether this was related to his assassination.
Israel developed their nuke not with the aid of US, but N. Korea, China, and S. Africa.
As far as Chomsky saying the US helped Pakistan build its nuke -- uh, . . . who, then, was A.Q. Khan??
Finally, Chomsky does not see any threat to the US or the world outside the ME if Iran has a nuke. Last month Iran put its 3rd spy satellite in space, showing us that it has the capability. Hold this thought.
Last month the UK parliament released a report discussing the utter chaos a nuclear explosion 500 miles in space would create on earth. Absolute chaos and loss of millions of lives. Hold this thought.
OK, now, to see Iran's threat to the world [and Israel's] add 2 and 2 and see if you don't come up with something scary. Really scary. This is why Obama's hair has turned white. So did Bush's. This is why the constitutional scholar, Obama, continued and expanded Bush's unconstitutional practices like warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial/unlimited incarceration, extra-judicial killings, . . .
Read between the lines. Talk about the 1%. The world is basically screwed, if not doomed, because a tiny, tiny sub-set of bickering Semites and Persians.
You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? Exploding a nuclear bomb in the upper atmosphere would damage Israel as well due to atmospheric currents distributing fallout. There is no way Israel's cynical self interested leadership would do that anymore than any other country with a cynical self interested leadership (all of them) would do such a thing. From what I can see you are just looking for a sneaky way to argue the neo-con point that we should all be terrified of an Iranian bomb *IF* they even ever attempted to get one, which even U.S. spooks admit they aren't trying to do now.
Sigh!
The sharpest knife -- no, probably not. But as a lawyer with a PhD in neurosciences, I'm sure I'm a lot sharper than you. I'm obviously more knowledgeable on this issue.
Read Parliament's report, bucko. A shaped charge detonated over NYC would not (directly) affect Tehran. Do you know the meaning of the term "nuclear blackmail?" Israel has been doing it for 40 years. Iran would love to be in the same position.
I am not promoting the neo-con, or any, position. I am saying that Chomsky, like most of the "enlightened" Pollyanna commentators on this issue, doesn't have a clue what the real threats are.
Oh and what "real threats," would those be when even the U.S. government is admitting Iran does NOT have a weapons program?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/04/liar-netanyahus-official-briefing-iran-has-no-nuclear-weapons-program/
I hope Israel is paying you to be a Hasbara mouthpiece it would be a shame if you were shilling for the Likudist/AIPAC postion of having the U.S. engage in Israel's war for them, with your talents, without at least being compensated by the child murdering land thieving Zionists.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html
How much does a soul like yours go for on the open market, a buck fity?
"Israel developed their nuke not with the aid of US, but N. Korea, China, and S. Africa."
actually it was france and the UK, france gave the nuke plant - britain key components to process uranium. either way the entire project was partially funded by US aid and assistance from nuclear scientist trained in the US, making the entire project a joint western enterprise (remember the crusades). israel then shared this tech w/ the south africans who had a change of heart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html
{The seventies saw covert collaboration develop between the Israeli and South African nuclear programs, which was camouflaged by the well known collaboration between these countries on conventional arms. South Africa is known to have received technical assistance from Israel on its weapon program, in exchange for supplying Israel with 300 tons of uranium. But the extent of this assistance is not entirely clear. Several Israeli nuclear scientists, including the "Oppenheimer of Israel" Ernst David Bergmann, visited South Africa in 1967, and evidence of increasingly close relations accumulate throughout the 70s. Moshe Dayan is reported to have made a secret visit to discuss nuclear weapon cooperation in 1974, including the possibility of nuclear tests [Burrows and Windrem 1994].}
see the connection here, one racist apartheid government working w/ another racist apartheid government - exchanging nuclear technology w/ their only friend. kinda like simon bar sinister working with rif raf on the underdog cartoon. rif raf's down - simon bar sinister is still lurking about on the planet reeking havoc. this time he's plotting a global thermal nuclear war. stay tuned world and be sure to tune in tommorrow. underdog where are you ????
...peace...
What is your source for saying that Iran has launched spy satellites? If true, this would mean Iran has the means to launch an ICBM against the US, but there is no evidence of such advanced missile technology. Also, the UK parliament report on nuclear explosions in space does not refer to any existing Iranian capacity.
Val, there are many, many online sources discussing Iran's satellite history. Here's a report by Discovery on the Feb launch.
http://news.discovery.com/space/iran-satellite-launch-120203.html
Yes, you got it. ICBM capability. But who needs it? Put the nuke into orbit over the US and keep it there. Any attempt to destroy it and it would automatically fire. Now name your price. (Not you, personally, of course.)
Nuclear blackmail. This is just one possible blackmail scenario. Israel could, and would, do the same thing if push ever came to shove.
One cannot put anything in orbit over the US without it passing most of the rest of the world too. Geostationary orbits (like communication and weather satellites) are only possible over the equator - but at the required 22,000 miles up, wuold not at all be a practical place to put a bomb. For that matter orbiting bombs at any altitude make no sense. Lobbing them with a ballistic missile provides much better accuracy in hitting the target.
pj, you're thinking inside the box.
Yes, an ICBM can be lobbed into Times Square quite accurately, if it can get past all the defenses.
The advantage of a space-burst is that there is no defense in the world that can stop an EMP -- referred to as a high-altitude EMP, or HEMP. The idea is not to hit a target, it's to take out every transistor in a very large area. In Jul.1962, before transistors were prevalent, the US blew a 1.4 MT nuke 250 miles above the Pacific. The HEMP did major damage to electrical circuits in Honolulu, 900 miles away, blowing out street lights and the phone system. Today's solid state equip would be fried. Google Starfish Prime.
Here's the Feb02.12 report on HEMP to Parliament. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmdfence/1552/155205.htm#a7
When I said put the bomb over NYC, I was speaking figuratively. Presumably, the bomb would be kept in LEO until called for and then detonated as the target passed under or put in position above the target region. One doesn't have to be Authur C. Clarke to work this out.
You need to learn some humility, particularly with claims of:
"there is no defense in the world that can stop an EMP"
Try looking into ASATs, or hunter-killer anti-satellites -- that move under the cover of stealth tech, to intercept any space-borne threat to Empire.
We often hear about airplanes, subs, boats, and even grunts -- with such stealth -- do you really think that Empire has ignored its satellites?
Such satellites are part of entire category of systems, dedicated to Empire having the highest ground and deadliest most resilient force multipliers. It's all about total domination, of everything and anything -- and over-kill and flexibility to adapt to anything that they missed.
Decades ago, Empire was playing with such satellites, that maneuver to come between the enemy's satellite(s) and their controlling ground station(s), to intercept, decode, decrypt, and spoof communications (optic or EM), so that the enemy's equipment is now subservient to Empire, all the while still appearing to be responsive to the enemy's ground station control.
Now that Empire has actual control, they can accidentally drop the enemy's weapon into their own laps -- or vaporize it as needed.
--------------
I will grant you, that if made somehow possible, exploding a nuke in space, has no direct defense. But military systems are very redundant, and designed to fight and win nuclear confrontations.
They even have backups to backups -- like using minuscule random (but predictably prevalent) meteorite trails -- to bounce radio waves off of, if all over satellites are destroyed or EMP'ed-tied of any useful life.
Many decades ago, the USSR maintained the use of vacuum tube computer electronics, in their critical airplanes, so as to withstand EMP levels hundreds of times higher than solid-state electronics could.
Since then, solid-state electronics have been designed to be more radiation hardened (i.e survivable), but such INSANITY -- really begs the question of exactly who's going to be doing Empire's business -- as the entire Planet starts to melt down and/or burn up ?