Much ado about nothing
"Much of the discussion about Iran's nuclear program is quite simply hysterical," says Immanuel Wallerstein. "The reason that the United States in particular is so agitated about Iran's potential nuclear armament is that the spread of nuclear weapons to so-called middle countries clearly reduces the military strength of the United States. But that doesn't mean that it threatens the peace of the world."
posted by Jean at 8:27 PM
3 Comments:
I'm not sure that Wallerstein is looking at this issue from the correct viewpoint. It is not so much that Iran may or may not have nuclear power, but rather who is the person behind the trigger button if they in fact manage to develop a nuclear weapon. From there, you have to consider whether the current leadership of Iran will have any qualms with allowing even more radical groups to share the "wealth." There are few arguments out there that would convince me that allowing Iran to join the nuclear weapons club is anything resembling a good idea....
J and SH:
What evidence do you have that Iran would act more recklessly than the United States, Israel, India, Pakistan or other nuclear powers? How many countries has Iran invaded? Why don't the irresponsible, reckless and radical actions of the United States concern you more? It's a massively armed rogue superpower that does not feel constrained by any international agreements. In addition to the standard 500-pound "conventional" bombs which have wiped out entire neighborhoods and their inhabitants, it has used white phosphorous, depleted uranium, napalm, and a host of other nasty weapons on civilian populations. Why doesn't this bother you?
The United States has 7,000 nuclear weapons, and the Bush Administration's Nuclear Policy Review of 2002 endorses U.S. nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states. The administration
seeks new, more "usable" nuclear weapons.
Iran is entirely within its rights under the NPT to develop nuclear power for energy. The evidence indicates that it is still years away from having bomb-making capacity, but even assuming it is moving in that direction--who could blame it?
Any solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation must address the need for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. UN Security Council Resolution 687, sponsored by the United States and Britain in 1991 to disarm Iraq, commits the United States to that goal. Yet Israel is believed to possess 200 nuclear weapons. The Nuclear on-Proliferation Treaty is a grand bargain whereby non-nuclear weapons states abstain IF existing nuclear powers work towards nuclear disarmament.
It is pure hypocrisy to single out Iran for condemnation while ignoring this larger international geopolitical context, and the aggressive actions of the United States which drive other nations to seek a nuclear defense against U.S. invasion.
So much outrage, so little time...
Back in the early 1980s, I was outraged by what Soviet authorities were doing to dissenters--censorship, harrassment, physical abuse, detention, show trials and forced confessions to "anti-Soviet" crimes, incarceration in psychiatric hospitals, blackmail, and so on. Along with others who shared my outrage, I campaigned hard for their rights, and we scored some successes.
At another place and another time, I've been outraged by how city politicians shafted local citizens, going back on promises and putting monied interests above those of the community and the environment, and got deeply involved in that campaign, too. That one we lost.
These days my main beef is with U.S. foreign policy, because after studying the issues for many years (and continuing to do so), I can't avoid the conclusion that the United States is a major and immediate threat to global peace, stability, and progress. (There's nothing inherently anti-American about this view, by the way, since many millions of Americans would be far better off if the current disastrous and destructive policies were radically reformed.)
You don't have to agree. You are free to get outraged over other issues of your own choosing, based on your values, your priorities, your particular knowledge of the world, and your personal life experience. You are also free to express your outrage. You clearly have a lot you would like to say. However, it might be more appropriate to do so on your own blog rather than leaving lengthy anonymous comments on someone else's.
Post a Comment
<< Home