In the Arena

Negotiating with Iran

Can’t wait to see all the over-the-top reactions from the right about this decision of the Obama Administration to lift the Bush Administration’s precondition that the Iranians stop processing nuclear fuel before we engage them in negotiations over their nuclear program. Three points:

1. There should be no surprise here: this is precisely what Obama promised during the campaign, precisely what the American people voted for. Indeed, it was one of the more high-profile promises of the campaign, challenged repeatedly by John McCain. And, given the fact that the Iranians have refused to respond to Bush’s foolishly provocative precondition, there is nothing to lose by changing the ground rules and seeing if the Iranians respond.

2. Why was Bush’s precondition foolishly provocative? Because the Iranians have the right to produce nuclear fuel–for peaceful purposes. Of course, everyone suspects the Iranians have a bomb in mind, especially since they’ve not cooperated with the IAEA, which monitors the non-proliferation treaty that Iran remains pledged to support. But if the Iranians are merely producing nuclear fuel, they’re doing nothing illegal. Just very suspicious.

3. I’m not very optimistic that we’ll be able to prevent the Iranians from either producing a bomb or, if they choose, putting the pieces into place that would enable them  to produce a bomb on short notice (as the Japanese apparently are). The question is, how dire a threat do you think this is? The Israelis, and some of their American right-wing allies, believe it is mortal. I don’t. I think it is a consequence of Iranian pride and a rational desire for deterrence. As long as the Israelis and Pakistanis have the bomb, the Iranians will want one. After all, no sane mullah–and they have proven themselves to be quite sane, if often noxious, when it comes to foreign policy–could have watched the events of the last decade and not drawn the conclusion that having a bomb enhances Iran’s national security. The other two members of the “Axis of Evil” offer a dramatic narrative: North Korea developed a bomb and hasn’t been attacked; Saddam Hussein didn’t, and he is gone. 

Again, I think that every effort should be made to talk the Iranians out of obtaining a bomb–and, not coincidentally, talk them into rejoining the rest of the world. An Iranian bomb would lead to a middle eastern arms race, further destabilizing an already fissionable region. Which is why these new negotiating tactics–as well as the various Iran-related diplomatic initiatives the Administration is taking with the Syrians, the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians themselves–should be given a chance to succeed. But it is not the end of the world if they fail. In fact, it is entirely possible that the United States could have a cooperative, positive relationship with a nuclear Iran. But that relationship stands a chance of being much more positive and cooperative–and less dangerous–if the Iranians can be convinced to stand down.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Morning Must Reads: Haunted

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Just to throw something out there, how much would the US pressuring Israel to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty help to get Iran away from the nuclear pathway if in fact thats where they are going? I mean you gotta think their stock response to us is that everyone knows Israel has nukes but they won’t admit to it, we won’t make them admit to it, and they haven’t signed the treaty but I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, Iran has.
    .
    As an aside I don’t think “everybody” believes they are angling for a bomb but thats a discussion for another day.

  • stuartzechman

    I’m not very optimistic that we’ll be able to prevent the Iranians from either producing a bomb… The question is, how dire a threat do you think this is? The Israelis, and some of their American right-wing allies, believe it is mortal. I don’t. I think it is a consequence of Iranian pride and a rational desire for deterrence.
    .
    I agree with you, Joe Klein, and I also agree with sgwhiteinfla that stopping the arms race in the Middle East requires the United States to pressure Israel into being signatories to the NPT.
    .
    This is the sane, rational, realistic view of our foreign policy objectives in this area.

  • bitterpill8

    SG: The Israel Nuclear arsenal is the worst kept secret in the ME. Which explains why our position vis a vis Iran confuses Middle Easterners – except the Saudis. I can understand Israel’s anxiety about Iran as a nuclear power; but why are we dancing around Israel. Why doesn’t the IAEA not come out with a statement saying Israel is a nuclear power? I guess the US Rep and even some Europeans won’t go along. The hypocrisy shows us up as pretty dishonest, doesn’t it.

  • 53_3

    I wonder if there is room for Joe in Obama’s foreign policy think tank.
    .
    I think his experience and sanity would be valuable assets.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    By the way Joe, not to try to put you on the spot, what do you think about the US abstaining from attending the UN forum on racism reportedly because of anti semetic language including in some of the UN’s material? I actually had a chance to read the offending language but I would love to get your take on it.

  • rustyreturns

    Joe Klein says “Again, I think that every effort should be made to talk the Iranians out of obtaining a bomb–and, not coincidentally, talk them into rejoining the rest of the world. An Iranian bomb would lead to a middle eastern arms race, further destabilizing an already fissionable region“.
    .
    An arms race with NUCLEAR missles no less. Well we shall see if talking to radical Islam will work, if it doesn’t we need not worry anyways. The world will be ended with your “talks”. So be it if that is what the lunatic left wants. All the more faster the end of days will be upon us all. Hope you have your sins all repented Joe! Oh that’s right, Jews do not repent, silly me.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Racist Rusty Can’t Resist.

  • stuartzechman

    Rusty:
    .
    Oh that’s right, Jews do not repent, silly me.
    .
    What the f*ck was the point of that?
    .
    Do you really want to be totally ignored here? Do you really want to never have a serious discussion of your views here ever again?
    .
    This sort of thing is pointless, needless offense no matter what your politics are. You don’t have to be a rightist or a leftist to see that, Rusty.
    .
    What is your problem?

  • nathan7777

    I wonder if Racist Anti-Semitic Rusty is really Glenn Beck sitting in his doom bunker.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    That scorpion sting has gotta hurt….

  • jsfox

    “Oh that’s right, Jews do not repent, silly me.” And the Right wonders why the are looked upon with such scorn and derision.

  • stmichaeltraveler

    Stable Middle East: Iran, Israel and Nuclear Bomb

    There is no dispute that Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan. The steps required to allay our fear that Iran in the future may develop Nuclear Bomb are:

    1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
    USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.

    2. Nuclear Shield
    An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;

    3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East.
    This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.

    Unfortunately the attentions of the past two US Presidents (Clinton and Bush) were on nuclear fuel cycle of Iran. They both ignored that Israel had nuclear bombs. This condition was created by the strong Israeli Lobby.

    In The Hague last week, Iranian officials offered to cooperate with the US. We hope this cooperation between USA and Iran would continue to the other tension areas of the Middle East. Iran in the past had stated that the affairs of the Palestinians relation with Israel are basically a Palestinians. Many expect that Iran would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state. However; many suggest that any resolution about Palestinian state would be a non-starter with Israel.
    Israel has used Iran as diversion away from creation of an independent Palestinian state. This problem of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation is the seed for an unstable world including the Middle East.

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    The Iranians have never agreed to or honored an International Deal regarding Arms, look it up. “Hoping” they will start now is like wishing the tooth fairy will kill all the rabid Unicorns on the loose.

    Jimmy Carter spent 444 days being humiliated by the same people and did not get anywhere. And mind you, he capitulated as much as any US President could have. Just read his memoirs about this. These people lie, then lie some more, then lie again. That’s the totality of their “negotiations”.

    Why doesn’t someone just ask them what they WANT? Oh yeah, they already said what THEY WANT. “Wipe Israel off the map”.

    I wonder how long it will bebefore US policy officially becomes “You can have Israel and we will help you, because Allah knows, you deserve Israel, it’s ALWAYS been yours to take”

    My bet is December 2010, right after mid-term elections.

  • jacobblues

    Of course North Korea didn’t develop a supposed nuclear device prior to the US invasion of Iraq so I’m not sure where the idea comes from that North Korea’s weapons development was the key behind the US decision not to invade.
    .
    I guess the roughly 1 million North Koreans under arms might have had something to do with it… as well the threat to US ally South Korea (without whom which we wouldn’t be able to conduct much of an invasion anyway).
    .
    In addition, the South Koreans were trying to conduct a strategy of detante / integration with their North Korean next-door neighbors.
    .
    As well, the fact that the North Koreans are patrons of China, which not only has its own nuclear arsonal, but an even more powerful army than the N.Koreans.
    .
    I’ll toss one more idea into the pot. The fact that North Korea hasn’t gotten into a war with the US since the 1950′s, while Iraq was under UN sanctions from its previous invasion of Kuwait and tangle with the coalition forces led by the US back in 1990.
    .
    But hey, let’s go the, Iran wants the bomb because Israel has one route and ‘deterrence’. After all, Israel has been threating to wipe Iran off the face of the earth for 30 years, with weekly demonstrations and synagogue sermons calling for ‘Death to Iran’
    .
    Oh wait, it hasn’t. Neither has Pakistan who appears to have saved their nukes for a fight with India…over Kashmir.
    .
    Let me ask you this question Joe since you appear to be of the age. How secure did the United States feel during the Soviet Union’s ascent and ideological pursuit of global Communism while at the same time pushing to develop its own nuclear stockpile?
    .
    Was it safer than we all felt after SALT I and II? After Reagan and Gorbachev?
    .

  • mjkoch

    I cannot understand why any reader would defend Iran. Iran was responsible for directing, arming and training Hezbollah who murdered 251 marines during the Reagan adminstration via a car bomb in Lebanon, Iran has blown up Kobar Towers in Saudia Arabia, murdering 18 US soldiers, the 8,000 rockets Hezbollah targeted at Israeli cities in 2006 were given to them by Iran, Iran has blown up the Israeli Embassy in Argentina and the Jewish Cultural Center in Argentina, Iran funds, arms, and trains Hamas which has conducted suicide bombings against Israeli men, women, and children, murdering hundreds on busses, in restaurants, and supermarkets, and Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map. Is this the country Obama has no problem with developing nuclear weapons?

    One can speak about the other nuclear powers all they want to absurdly claim that if they can have a bomb so should Iran but when is the last time America, France, Russia, England, China, and Israel sent suicide bombers into public places to murder civilians, blew up embassies, sent thousands of rockets towards another countries cities, or called for another country to be wiped off the face of the earth???? The Iranian government is a dictatorship with a crazy messianic view of Islam and they should be the very last country ever allowed to obtain a weapon of mass destruction.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The real problem with Nuclear Weapons is the fact that they reveal that the planet itself is too small to sustain the forces of tribal thinking that drives the human psyche.
    .
    See: Tom Engelhardt’s The End Of Victory Culture

    for a very insightful analysis of the paradigm shift that MAD has forced us to assume.
    .
    Watching people blithely assert ‘they only want our destruction’ and ‘they always lie’, completely ignoring the fact that the Iranians are exactly as rational or irrational as humans everywhere reminds me that there is much to be accomplished before we can declare Earth safe from our propensity for self-destruction.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Iran was responsible..
    The habit of using first person singular to describe millions of individuals is the first symptom.

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    Paul,

    “Watching people blithely assert ‘they only want our destruction’ and ‘they always lie’, completely ignoring the fact that the Iranians are exactly as rational or irrational as humans everywhere reminds me that there is much to be accomplished before we can declare Earth safe from our propensity for self-destruction.

    .
    I am not sure what planet you are on, but the Iranians have called out for the total destruction of Israel hundreds, if not thousands of times. That is reality.
    .
    Lying: Read Jimmy Carter’s memoirs. That is reality.
    .
    You claiming they are as rational as “everyone”, now THAT is a ” blithely assertion” YOU SOLELY OWN, not I, nor anyone else that admits their actions.
    .
    They are simply savages. It appears you think all psychopathic killers are “as rational” as everyone else. Why would you think that? Any government that calls for the MURDER of innocents is a savage government, period. But here you sit, treating them as equals.
    .
    They don’t even treat their women as equals, does that mean you hate women also?

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    mjkoch
    .
    Just a question here, which is the only nation to actually drop an atomic bomb on another nation? Its funny how easy it is to point the finger so as to not be able to make a rational argument. Nobody is defending Iran here. Instead we are talking about what will really bring peace into the region. Unfortunately the people who claim to be pro Israel never want to engage in that conversation. Instead they just want to point out quotes from Iran’s President and try to use that for justification of starting a war with them. How about we don’t have a war at all? How about we move in a direction that encourages Iran to drop any ambitions they may have for a nuclear weapon? Its ironic how irrational Iran is painted now because it mirrors what was said about Egypt before they entered into a peace agreement with Israel. So how about you come up with some actual solutions instead of coming here just trying to prove your pro Israel cred?

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Simply savages? I wonder what you think about black people. Yeah you’re done. Totally discredited all of your own commenting.

  • stuartzechman

    I am not sure what planet you are on, but the Iranians have called out for the total destruction of Israel hundreds, if not thousands of times. That is reality.
    .
    That is a lie.
    .
    More precisely, this is a rightist/Likudnik lie meant to distract and confuse the uninformed or the easily disturbed into political acquiescence.

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    And Paul,

    We are not splitting hairs here. No one has ever claimed that 50+ million Iranians want to wipe out Israel. So don’t bother with the “millions of individuals” blather.
    .
    Since Total Gun Control became law in Iran in 1981, and the citizens are totally disarmed, the MULLAHS are the ONLY one’s that count. Coincidentially the same ones that own the nukes, and call for the death of Israel.
    .
    My brother-in-law is from Iran, and I will be the first to tell you that the Persian people are just people like us. Problem is, the Persians are not in control…
    .
    The 12th Imam is, wake up.

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    sgwhiteinfla,

    There is no solution. Islam teaches to hate Jews. How do you stop that?
    .

    You cant. Bummer, I know.

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    stuartzechman,

    I guess all those YouTube videos showing the leaders of Iran and all their “clergy” calling for the Death to Israel is just really cool special effects that Speilberg filled in the studio?
    .

    Do you also believe the Earth is flat or we never went to the moon?
    .
    Funny !

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    sgwhiteinfla ,

    People that call for the death of children are savages.
    .
    I never mentioned black people you racist loser. You did.
    .
    Do you know any black people that call for the death of innocent children?
    .
    I hate loser racists like you to be perfectly honest. Piece of feces.

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    sgwhiteinfla,

    Oh, in my anger and rage at your racism, I forgot to mention I was black, you ignorant racist idiot.
    .
    Call me a racist again and see what happens

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    SoldierInGodsArmy
    .
    You’re a racist. Now what?

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    Be patient :)

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Islam teaches to hate Jews
    Forcing one to wonder who teaches to hate Islam….

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    /jeopardywav

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    Paul,

    I am aware of no one that teaches to hate Islam. Do you?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    You musta learnt it somewhere…..

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    Paul,

    I do not hate Islam. Funny how the losers on this site immediately start accusing other commentors of “xx fill in the blank xxx” rather than ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS.

    Paul, you can go sit in the LOSER CORNER with your friend SGWHITEINFLA.
    .
    Or, you can actually address REALITY and stay on topic?

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    Paul, maybe you should be the “ambassador” to Iran for the US? YOU could ask them why can’t women drive? Maybe YOU can convince the savages not to kill innocent children?
    .
    Naw, too hard.
    .
    Or, you could defend the hating, murdering savages, and accuse me, a taxpayer that strongly believes in democracy that I am bad instead?
    .
    Tough choice I know…

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Paul obviously this guy is off his meds. No need to even bother rattling a cage that is already rattled lol. Plus he’s a racist.
    .
    BUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

  • stuartzechman

    I guess all those YouTube videos showing the leaders of Iran and all their “clergy” calling for the Death to Israel…
    .
    Since we’ve exposed the lie that the (relatively powerless) Iranian President was calling for the annihilation of every Israeli citizen by the Iranian military for the propaganda that it is, why don’t you link to said videos and credible Farsi translations, so that we can judge for ourselves whether the real leaders of that country are seriously militarily threatening their nuclear-armed neighbor with “total destruction”, or your claims are more ill-informed rightist or desperate Likudnik propaganda?

  • SoldierInGodsArmy

    stuartzechman,

    So when:

    a) Did you start thinking that the Iranian president is powerless? and who told you this?
    .
    b) My brother-in-law was born in Iran, lived there 30 years, and has a pretty good grasp of HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE. But hey, a looney conspiracy theorist such as you, living in your mom’s basement, must know better. After all, you speak Farsi!!
    .
    You are a conspiracy theory nut aren’t you? Hey, 3 bonus points… Did the US land on the moon? Y N (Circle one)
    .
    Looney Bird.

  • stuartzechman

    …So about those links and credible translations…

  • stuartzechman

    So when: a) Did you start thinking that the Iranian president is powerless? and who told you this?
    .
    Gee, I don’t know. How could anybody get the idea that the Iranian president was somehow different than the Iranian Supreme Leader?

    The post of Supreme Leader (Persian: رهبر انقلاب, Rahbare Enqelab,[1] lit. Leader of the Revolution, or مقام رهبری, Maghame Rahbari,[2] lit. Leadership Authority) was created in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation, in accordance with the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists.[3] The title “Supreme” Leader (Persian: رهبر معظم, Rahbare Moazzam), is often used as a sign of respect; however, this terminology is not found in the constitution of Iran, which simply referred to the “Leader” (rahbar).
    .
    More powerful than the president of Iran, the Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts – the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[4]
    .
    Iran has had two Supreme Leaders; currently the post is occupied by Ali Khamenei.

    Hmmm…with all of that ambiguity, I’m not sure what to do…
    .
    I know! Let’s ask Joe Klein!
    .
    Joe Klein:
    .
    Is the Iranian President really comparable in power to the American executive?

  • jjworleyeoe

    @ stuartzechman:

    Regarding the statement from the Wikipedia article you cite:

    “The notion that Iran can “wipe out” U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.”

    As long as they don’t have nuclear weapons, this would be true, No? But, that’s the rub now isn’t it?

    As for having Israel sign the NPT, what good would this do? Exactly which country do you think Israel would transfer nuclear technology to? Personally, I can’t think of one country, so what’s the point of them signing the treaty? Moreover, the a major consideration regarding a military strike against Iran is to keep the Middle East from becoming engulfed in a nuclear arms race. This much should be without question.

  • stuartzechman

    jjworleyeoe:
    .
    As long as they don’t have nuclear weapons, this would be true, No?
    .
    So you’re not confident in the current Israeli nuclear arsenal as a deterrent? You think that the capability Iran might acquire –somewhere on the order of North Korea’s pitiful efforts– is enough to seriously threaten Israel, should the Iranians actually care about doing so preemptively?
    .
    As for having Israel sign the NPT, what good would this do? Exactly which country do you think Israel would transfer nuclear technology to?
    .
    To whichever proxies they may find it necessary to empower, that’s who –just like Iran. I understand your point –Israel is relatively friendless in the region– but you don’t think that they’re likely to proliferate? …even after potentially providing nuclear capability to Apartheid South Africa?

    U.S. Intelligence believed that Israel participated in South African nuclear research projects and supplied advanced non-nuclear weapons technology to South Africa during the 1970s, while South Africa was developing its own atomic bombs.[15][16] According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel.” although he goes on to say “A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation.”[17] According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium in exchange for 50 tons of South African uranium and in the mid-80s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 ballistic missile.[10] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six atom bombs.[13]
    .
    Chris McGreal has claimed that “Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa’s development of its nuclear bombs”.[7] In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with “special warheads” for South Africa.[18]

    This last bit is even more puzzling:
    .
    Moreover, the a major consideration regarding a military strike against Iran is to keep the Middle East from becoming engulfed in a nuclear arms race. This much should be without question.
    .
    A “military strike against Iran”? By whom? Israel?
    .
    Why is the notion that military aggression against Iran is a preventative measure against proliferation “without question”?
    .
    Why wouldn’t it simply be that a strike is under consideration because it may be (at least according to Likudnik ideologues) in Israel’s interests?

  • jjworleyeoe

    I think Israel learned from the SA dealings that it doesn’t make sense to engage in these types of proliferation activities. Moving forward, I would say the U.S. and, or Australia would sell Israel all the uranium they need for peaceful purposes. And, yes, I think that it makes sense for Israel to have a nuclear deterrent given the number of countries aligned against them in the region and to some extent around the world.

    Dude, what world are you living in? Do you honestly think President Obama is going to bring Iran to the table and get them to completely open up their nuclear activities to remove pervasive belief that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons? No. He’s not going to make that happen. In fact, there is nothing short of imminent military strike that will achieve this aim. Absolutely nothing. Consequently, there are ONLY two options: military strike or attempt containment as suggested by many notable pundits have suggested, including Joe Klein, et al. As for containment, that’s more of a joke than thinking we can actually negotiate an acceptable solution (i.e., proof Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and the necessary checks and balances to ensure enrichment isn’t siphoned off into a clandestine nuclear arms program). Once Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia won’t be far behind. Then comes Japan, then Venezuela, then Brazil, and at some point Iraq. Certainly, this will take time, but every time there’s new nuclear power, then the world is indeed going in the opposite direction in terms of global security from man-made annihilation.

    The reality is that the world needs to do more to stop future proliferation of nuclear arms while trying to reduce and then at some point eliminate them all together. Take Japan for example. Yes, the U.S. should be willing to take military action against Japan once there’s sufficient evidence that they’re close to building a weapon. That potential option should be SOP for any country that’s considering acquiring nuclear weapons.

    That’s my $0.02.

  • stuartzechman

    I think that it makes sense for Israel to have a nuclear deterrent given the number of countries aligned against them in the region and to some extent around the world.
    .
    Maybe so, especially from an Israeli perspective. From the perspective of those who remember that a former PM of theirs committed war crimes in Lebanon, and that they were proliferators to the Apartheid regime, maybe not so much.
    .
    Dude, what world are you living in?
    .
    The world in which Israel’s national interests are distinguishable from my country’s.
    .
    Do you honestly think President Obama is going to bring Iran to the table and get them to completely open up their nuclear activities to remove pervasive belief that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons? No.
    .
    But who cares? Having a completely transparent nuclear program is a worthy goal, but not a necessity for life in America to continue relatively unaffected by those events. Whose “pervasive belief” do you care about? Israel’s? Saudi Arabia’s?
    .
    In fact, there is nothing short of imminent military strike that will achieve this aim. Absolutely nothing.
    .
    Maybe so, maybe not. You’re speaking in absolutely certain terms, here, as if it’s biblically foretold. Perhaps situations may change. Remember the Soviet Union? What ever became of that existential threat, I wonder?
    .
    As for containment, that’s more of a joke than thinking we can actually negotiate an acceptable solution (i.e., proof Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and the necessary checks and balances to ensure enrichment isn’t siphoned off into a clandestine nuclear arms program).
    .
    Why does the only “acceptable solution” involve “proof” of a perpetually non-nuclear Iran? Eventually these people will have some sort of nuclear capability. We can live with that. We live with France’s, we live with Russia’s, we live with China’s. As long as Iran doesn’t immediately throw nuclear payload intercontinental ballistic missiles into the atmosphere during the foreseeable future, the situation is not threatening to the United States. Israel: maybe, America: no way.
    .
    Once Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia won’t be far behind. Then comes Japan, then Venezuela, then Brazil, and at some point Iraq. Certainly, this will take time, but every time there’s new nuclear power, then the world is indeed going in the opposite direction in terms of global security from man-made annihilation.
    .
    OMG! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
    .
    Dude, what world have you been living in for the past thirty years?
    .
    If you will recall, it was in as recently as the last decade that the United States was locked in a grim standoff with an implacable existential enemy with an almost equal nuclear capability to ours for which the penalty of one false move might have been total, nuclear-winter, darkness for months on end, hundreds of millions dead and dying, global thermo-nuclear annihilation, and from which the next master species –the cockroaches– would emerge into dominance.
    .
    Talk to us about “man-made annihilation” when we are even mildly worried about the realistic chances of a similar situation arising. The fact is that you’re assigning yourself incredible powers of omnipotence in your future predictions, and even if you were a complete clairvoyant, the United States isn’t truly existentially threatened by that situation in the slightest –unless you believe that deterrence failed us for the last five decades when we truly were threatened.
    .
    It seems as if you’re looking for a reason –any reason– to attack Iran that has something to do with us. It’s almost as if you’re, I don’t know, confused about your citizenship or something. I can understand an Israeli citizen being as freaked out as you are, but what does that have to do with the United States?
    .
    Yes, the U.S. should be willing to take military action against Japan once there’s sufficient evidence that they’re close to building a weapon.
    .
    You’ve got to be f*cking kidding, right?

  • Cliff

    I always love when one of Klein’s posts brings a bunch of nutjob one-shotters out of the woodworks.

  • cfukara

    JK:
    ” .. North Korea developed a bomb and hasn’t been attacked; Saddam Hussein didn’t, and he is gone. ..”

    And Israel has not been attacked yet – or asked to prove that it does NOT have the bomb, right JK?

    JK:
    ” .. Iranian bomb would lead to a middle eastern arms race, further destabilizing an already fissionable region. ..”

    If, JK, you do agree that a nuclear state in the Middle East destabilizes the “already fissionable region” then can we and our coalition [of the (mostly un)willing] go in there on a search and destroy mission to scour that scraggly drain-on-American-taxpayer-wasteland for the bomb or any bomb-making capability – Iraq style?

    .

    53_3 Says:
    ” .. room for Joe in Obama’s foreign policy think tank. ..his experience and sanity would be valuable assets.

    Ahem.
    Eh, Seconded. [After all that results-averse, belligerent Henry Kissinger was once feted and hailed to the high heavens. And don't we reward failed companies and failed CEO's with $billions?]

  • rustyreturns

    Dear Stuart Zechman;
    1. I am not making a racist remark when I said “Jews do not repent”, the meaning behind what I said is simply the jewish people are “God’s Choosen” people, and what I have read and been told by many jewish people is they do not need to repent if the world somehow ends abruptly from a nuclear holocaust initiated by the radical islamic agressors from such places as Iran. This was told to me by a very respected Rabbi, who also happens to be a very good friend and former roommate from college.
    2. I also believe that Israel was put into place by God himself in 1946, and any action taken by Iran or any other muslim country to destroy Israel is an abominiation agaisnt God.
    3. You should try reading more of the Torah before becoming “outraged” over nothing.
    4. If you think Iran’s mullahs and its President Ahmenejad does not have the most destructive endings to Israel, then you are truly what you portray on here, a desparate social progressive liberal who does not give a damn about anything worthwhile, including Israel or the United States of America.
    5. And last but not least, I could give a rat’s A$$ what you or any other liberal on this blog site thinks about my comments or about any “discussion” you may want to have on this site with me. Your ONLY defense is to call someone a RACIST. This is the new liberal agenda to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with you or has a position that is different than yours. You and Obama, can go F@ck your ownselves and I hope you enjoy it.

    To Soldier in God’s Army: Please continue to come to this site, Please continue to show a different view of the world than the nutjobs who frequent this site who are claiming moral superiority over you. People who attack and call you a racist at the first instance that you disagree with your position.
    .
    Example here;
    sgwhiteinfla Says:
    Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm
    Paul obviously this guy is off his meds. No need to even bother rattling a cage that is already rattled lol. Plus he’s a racist.
    .
    BUAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

  • cfukara

    SoldierInGodsArmy Says:
    ” .. Iran .. why can’t women drive?

    Most people in that land don’t drive (cars). Is that a big deal to you? Let us look at some ways of a people/society: Try this, why can’t American women be in polygamous family relationships if they so desire?

    ” .. Maybe YOU can convince the savages not to kill innocent children? ..”
    Poor child of little faith.
    Have you not read the holy biblical stories of your god wiping out entire towns and villages because there was not a single good man or woman or toddler in there?

    Maybe YOU can convince a savage god not to kill innocent children?

  • cfukara

    rustyreturns Says:

    ” .. 2. I also believe that Israel was put into place by God himself in 1946, ..”

    I have no valid quarrel with beliefs.

    Thus, you believe that the USA and allies of the WW2 were merely agents in the service of that god.
    Then you also believe, as it is said, that what the good god gives (or creates or puts in place) through his agents, then good god also takes away (or destroys or takes out of place) through agents, right?

  • stuartzechman

    Rustydog:
    .
    1. I am not making a racist remark when I said “Jews do not repent”
    .
    I think that it’s needlessly (without need) offensive for you to mix up something that individuals can’t control, i.e. their ethnic-religious group identity in a criticism of their politics. It’s just like saying “Well, I guess that X doesn’t really care if Obama turns the US into a totalitarian state –after all, don’t Catholics blindly follow an infallible pope?“.
    .
    It has nothing to do with anything substantial, and it puts the person you’re attacking this way in the position of not only defending their ideas, but also defending their group. Because the critique is leveled against their group, there’s less chance of a rational response, and more of a likelihood of an angry, emotional defense of an extended “family”. Put that together with a historical antipathy or tension between groups (Christians and Jews, for example) and you’re likely to turn a productive political debate into an ugly confrontation between groups for no constructive reason whatsoever.
    .
    I don’t know what country you’re from, Rusty, but here in America, we judge people on their ideas, not their group identity, because we believe in individual merit and individual freedom. Whether or not the Jews have some religious belief that’s different from anybody else’s doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to real Americans in a political discussion, unless the arguers in question are putting themselves and their politics forward as orthodox or fundamentalists of a particular faith. If Joe Klein was here saying “I represent the Jewish peoples’ views on such and such…“, then you’d have a reason to quarrel with his religious ethnicity as a whole, but he’s not.
    .
    This is America. The closest you can legitimately come to bringing social identity into a debate is to attack the purely voluntary political associations of your opponent. I can’t help being a European-American, but I sure as hell have chosen with my God-given free will and conscience to be a liberal Democrat. Attack me for that, not my heritage or my religion, Rusty.
    .
    BTW, you can’t attack Joe Klein for being a liberal, since he’s a centrist Democrat. Go ahead and attack Klein’s centrism –they hate you conservatives openly now.
    .
    what I have read and been told by many jewish people is they do not need to repent if the world somehow ends abruptly from a nuclear holocaust initiated by the radical islamic agressors from such places as Iran
    .
    Unless those people are lunatic orthodox fundamentalists or cultists, that has no f*cking bearing on their foreign policy views as Americans, just like American Catholics can support the invasion of Iraq against their pope’s dictates.
    .
    This was told to me by a very respected Rabbi, who also happens to be a very good friend and former roommate from college.
    .
    Maybe the fact that the guy’s a Rabbi should have clued you in to the idea that he’s a special case –somebody whose religion plays an unusually large role in his life, unlike most other people in a pluralist democracy like ours.
    .
    2. I also believe that Israel was put into place by God himself in 1946, and any action taken by Iran or any other muslim country to destroy Israel is an abominiation agaisnt God.
    .
    You and I can argue about which one of our viewpoints more resembles the thinking of the people in charge of the theocracy of Iran (or the Taliban, for that matter), but that’s beside the point. Joe Klein’s views aren’t the politicization of his ethnicity-religion, even if yours are.
    .
    3. You should try reading more of the Torah before becoming “outraged” over nothing.
    .
    The precepts of Klein’s religious heritage aren’t the issue, it’s that you’ve substituted them for his individual views during a debate.
    .
    4. If you think Iran’s mullahs and its President Ahmenejad does not have the most destructive endings to Israel, then you are truly what you portray on here, a desparate social progressive liberal who does not give a damn about anything worthwhile, including Israel or the United States of America.
    .
    Make no mistake about it: I am a liberal. This doesn’t mean that I think that the government of Iran is reasonably threatening to the nuclear-armed Israel. This does mean that I give a damn about worthwhile things, like my country the United States of America. You are the bizarre two-nation, dual loyalty, double-citizen here. You are the one elevating another nation’s interests to be the equal of America’s for strange religious reasons.
    .
    5. And last but not least, I could give a rat’s A$$ what you or any other liberal on this blog site thinks about my comments or about any “discussion” you may want to have on this site with me.
    .
    I just engaged in a debate with my fellow liberals here in which I told them that you were a rightist, not a troll. I said that you weren’t a provocateur, even if liberals were provoked by your arguments. If you are simply here to be a disruptive influence, instead of to honestly represent the views of the right, then I need to amend my opinion, apologize to the people who are calling you a troll, and give up trying to get good information about conservative ideas from you, Rusty.
    .
    the new liberal agenda to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with you
    .
    You must know in your heart that I’m not a part of this (even though it does exist), right?
    .
    Please continue to show a different view of the world…
    .
    That’s what I think that this forum needs –sometimes desperately. If you continue to link to sites with articles by people whose theories lead them blame Jewish people for the banking crisis, and you continue to blame Klein’s heritage for his individual political views, you will be showing a different view of the world indeed. That view isn’t different because it’s conservative, Rusty, it’s different because it’s wrong and un-American.
    .
    Please think hard about this.

blog comments powered by Disqus