The Problem with Iran
Posted by Michael Cohen
Last night at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton got hit with both barrels over her support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. While I tepidly sympathize with the concern about this amendment ('if you give the Bush Administration an inch . . . they will invade an Islamic country') the current debate over Iran, in Democratic circles, is vaguely troubling.
For those of you who have read my earlier posts you would know that I am not a giant fan of the junior Senator from New York, but I thought her argument about Iran last night was a strong one:
I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound -- it's not even a question of whether, it's a question of when and what weapons to use -- and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya. And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is not anything other than an expression of support for using economic sanctions with respect to diplomacy.
She's basically right here on two counts. First, the most bellicose language in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was taken out of the final version and if you read the amendment it does seem a bit tame.
Second, Democrats agree that war with Iran is a bad idea, but what is their alternative? If you read the responses of the other Democratic presidential candidates from last night they spend most of their time saying why they think military action is a mistake . . . and precious little on how a Democratic Administration would stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Frankly, Hillary has come the closest to answering this question (although she has a ways to go).
I was a shocked to go to Joe Biden's presidential campaign web site and discover that this is basically all he has to say about Iran's nuclear program.
We need to end the genocide in Darfur as well as check Iran and North Korea’s progress on nuclear weapons and prevent them from increasing their nuclear arsenal.
And this guy is the supposed foreign policy expert of the Dems running for President. He has an entire section on what the US should do in Darfur and nothing on how to deal with Iran's nuclear program. My old boss Chris Dodd says even less. Barack Obama says more about Charles Taylor on his web site then he does Iran. Kudos to John Edwards for actually addressing the issue in-depth.
Let's be clear: Iran getting a nuke would be a very bad thing. While I certainly don't buy into the Podhoretz loony-tune/batshit crazy argument that Iran represents some enormous existential threat to the United States, there is a strong case to be made that Iran getting the bomb could spark a larger regional conflagration or a destabilizing regional nuclear arms race. Neither of these events would be good for America's national interests and its incumbent upon any future U.S. President to make every effort possible to prevent this from happening. It's also incumbent upon every Democrat running for President to openly acknowledge the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. (Simply acknowledging the threat does not mean one endorses Bush's bellicose "World War III" rhetoric or the use of force.)
Moreover, it's worth remembering that the threat of military force against Iran may not be the worst thing in the world. Certainly, it was, in part, the threat of force in 1994 that got North Korea to sign the Framework Agreement and freeze their plutonium reprocessing. I think the use of force against Iran today would be a disaster (contrary to what Glenn Greenwald says about me), but at the same time, I'm not so sure it makes sense to take it off the table completely - if only as a possible lever to force Iranian acquiescence at the negotiating table. (A view shared in part by French President Sarkozy.)
That point notwithstanding, simply attacking the Bush Administration is not an effective policy for Iran or even smart politics. Part of the reason that Democrats got run over during the Iraq debate was that they didn't present an alternative argument for dealing with Saddam short of war. As Hillary points out, the choice (as presented by the Bush Administration) was go to war, or do nothing. Considering the many better options then war for dealing with Iran it shouldn't be that hard for Democrats to come up with a reasonable plan.
At the outset of what should be a year-long debate about what to do about Iran's nuclear program, Democrats need to do more than simply remind us that Dick Cheney is a nut.
HRC says this, and you apparently agree:
Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
I say put up or shut up. We've seen this film before, and it takes more to get past the laugh test.
I have yet to see the actual evidence for this claim, only its mechanical repetition by drum-bangers. The people charged by the international community with investigating this allegation, the same people who have proven to have a better track record than the US government on getting these matters right, indicates that there is no evidence at this point that the Iranian nuclear program is anything but legal. So tell me what you know that they don't.
Any use of force or threat of force to compel Iran to halt its legally permitted program is a violation of international law and a threat to the peace. It would of course be legal to get Iran to pursue a different course by trading something in return.
You ask, what is the alternative to threats, escalation and sanctions? Achieving a reasonable and verifiable assurance of US security where Iran's nuclear program is concerned is easily within our diplomatic grasp. One could hardly make a reasonable argument that these channels have been exhausted, and that sanctions and threats are the only recourse, since the US has so far not engaged Iran in direct diplomacy on the topic at all - not once, never - and will deign to negotiate only through vassal proxies who lack the power to credibly deliver any US concessions or considerations. This inconvenient fact seems to have escaped the cognizance of just about every reporter and pol who discusses the issue.
Of course, as has been widely reported and recounted, the administration has rebuffed Iranian overtures in the past that might have lead to such a negotiated settlement. That is because the administration's real goal here is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, which I frankly doubt the White House finds nearly as scary as they profess it to be, but to crush and eliminate the Iranian regime. If Iran suspended its entire nuclear program tomorrow, the US line would shift entirely to Iranian "meddling" in Iraq, to Hizbollah, or something else. By the way, many of the claims of Iranian "meddling" and intentional targeting of US soldiers in Iraq have also been revealed as administration fibs.
The US wants to send a message that if the US and any other country are in dispute about any matter whatsoever, that other country cannot expect to resolve the dispute through square dealing or diplomatic negotiation between sovereign equals, but must choose between either abject submission or compulsion under the application of military or economic power. Of course, since we are an inherently good country, might always makes right where it is the US laying down the might.
The reason the other candidates are not able to put forward a credible alternative to the administration's approach to Iran is that they have boxed themselves in by accepting so many the administration's stupid, made-up Halloween yarns about Iran. Now they are in the ridiculous position of arguing, "Yes, the Iranians are murdering our soldiers, arming al Qaeda, working with the Taliban, extending their "hegemony" all over the Middle East, plotting to nuke us, enslaving our womenfolk and draining our precious bodily fluids - but let's not be too hasty!"
Posted by: Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 at 05:02 PM
How can you simultaneously say that attacking Iran would be a disaster but we need to leave it on the table? Sometimes I think you VSPs aren't really serious at all.
Posted by: Bob Narus | October 31, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Dan, Iran refuses to stop uranium enrichment and has been sanctioned by the UN twice for these actions - so that's a pretty strong piece of evidence. In addition, the US view on Iran's nuclear program is shared by several other countries including England and France.
Posted by: Michael Cohen | October 31, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Michael,
There was no legal basis for the UN to sanction Iran, unlike the hundreds of UN censures against Israel which we're not supposed to remember. The sanctions are a political hatchet job by the US and they have no basis in fact or in law. Iran is a party to the NPT which allows nuclear enrichment--in fact its purpose is to encourage nuclear power.
I know that you're probably familiar witht he terms of the TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS but let's look at it anyhow:
-------------
In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,
Undertaking to cooperate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,
Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points, . .
Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, . . .
Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
-----------------
Iran has been in full compliance with the NPT as certified by the IAEA. There has been no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. President Bush, who is so fond of repeating what Osama bin Laden has said, and asks us to take it as gospel, has never mentioned that Iran's leadership has forsworn nuclear weapons.
One of the goals of the NPT was the destruction of all nuclear weapons. That has obviously not been done, and nuclear states have helped Israel, a non-signer of the NPT, to amass a nuclear weapon stockpile. How about the problem with Israel?
Posted by: Don Bacon | October 31, 2007 at 05:52 PM
Dan, Iran refuses to stop uranium enrichment and has been sanctioned by the UN twice for these actions - so that's a pretty strong piece of evidence. In addition, the US view on Iran's nuclear program is shared by several other countries including England and France.
Evidence of what, Michael? Only that Iran seems committed to continuing a nuclear program into which they have invested a lot of money and effort. What is the evidence that it is a nuclear weapons program?
And why did the UN sanction Iran anyway? Are they in violation of the NPT? Not as I understand it. Perhaps the Security Council is now just bought and sold like every other thing we've successfully Americanized, and is a forum for the usual legislative horsetrading and buncombe?
As for England and France, OK. What is it that they know that Baradei doesn't? Have they had the level of access he has? Or is this just more spy vs. spy "Curveball" stuff? As I said, I've heard this joke before. The age of superstitious myths of the omniscient western spy agency is over.
I want some actual evidence, not just more "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who ..." Why should I think this isn't just another case of western powers and top stakeholders looking after their various interests in the region, as they have for two centuries, and scamming their publics with all sorts of spook stories and fables, as they have for two centuries? Is there any really good reason to think this doesn't have more to do with Russia, China and other Great Game shenanigans than nuclear weapons? Or maybe its just more tawdry demagoguery to placate domestic pressure groups, donors and lobbies.
If the case against Iran is so strong, why doesn't the administration just lay it out in a clear fashion? And why do they all keep lying about stuff? Remember that assault in Iraq several months ago by that crew of mysteriously blond "Iranians". Whatever happened to that story, I wonder? Ground up and shoveled down the memory hole with the other piles of compost that gets dumped out of the occupation headquarters and the White House on a daily basis. Some of those EFP stories have been discredited, as have stories about Iranian assistance to the Taliban. I continue to suspect Washington is making it up as they go along - whatever it takes to keep Iran in the center of target, and in John Q. Public's nightmares.
I guess you think all these politicians and practitioners of "statecraft" are basically honest and perspicacious finders of truth and servants of the public, who have just made a few unfortunate mistakes. I don't. I think they're largely lying packs of jackals in nice suits, just doing what they do for a living: peddle influence, look after private interests, attend to their careers, trade favors and send suckers to perdition
Posted by: Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 at 07:21 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct 28, 2007: The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.
"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Sunday. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."
"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php
Posted by: Don Bacon | November 01, 2007 at 12:57 AM
"We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya." We used them with respect to Cuba and it worked like a charm!
On a more serious note, if Cohen is really worried about nuclear proliferation, how can he write such a voluminous piece without once mentioning Israel or Pakistan?
Did Cohen advocate the use or threat of military force against Israel or Pakistan or back then Brasil or South Africa? If not, why not?
How does Cohen interpret the NPT? Has Iran as a NPT-country the right to nuclear power, yes or no?
Does Coehn know that Iran when ruled by a dictator (we called him Shah) seeked nuclear power, aided by the west? Had Iran back then the right to do this? Why? Because the dicator back then was a good guy or because he was "our bastard"?
Posted by: IM | November 01, 2007 at 06:00 AM
American Invasion of Iraq, Israeli-American Front
It is well documented that Israeli-Americans, a segment of International Lobby for the government of Israel had advocated invasion of Iraq.
The same groups are using their highly placed influence on the government of the United States and along with the neoconservative fronts to attack Iran.
Israeli influence is fully integrated into the American government through its strong Lobby. Even with a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate of the United States, the Congress still is tied to the yoke of the Lobby. At a late night session in the Senate on Friday, September 14, 2007, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-VT) submitted an amendment to provide $75 million for “democracy promotion in Iran”. The amendment, which was cosponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mel Martinez (R-FL), David Vitter (R-LA), passed by voice vote in Senate bill State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (HR 2764). The Bush administration’s original request in the Fiscal Year 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for $75 million, which had been cut by two-thirds to $25 million by the Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs earlier this year. The Democratic Party leadership horse traded Lieberman’s vote for the Fiscal Year 2008 budget for the amendment.
Senator Lieberman, a front for the Israeli Lobby, called the program “loudly heard and appreciated within the Iranian dissident community.” The past experience of our government should have demonstrated that such interference in the affairs of another nation would create greater hostilities. One of the objectives of the Lobby has been to create greater hostility between Iran and our government. Also, it must be obvious that any Iranian accepting money from our American administration to create trouble for Iran would be considered a traitor, a spy and at least would be shunned by Iranians. Would we react differently if anyone of us would accept money from a foreign country for the purpose of creating unrest within the United States?
In the jargon of the present administration of the United States, any government friendly to Israel and subservient to our American foreign policy and providing us with cheap natural resources is a friend of the United States.
What is “democracy promotion in Iran”? One definition of democracy would be a country managed by a representative government elected under the principle of “one man one vote”. Under this definition, Iran is democratic country; the Iranian president and the representative of government are elected by the Iranian people. During the last elections more of the eligible Iranians voted than in our own elections.
Why are we so concern about Iran? We have too many problems at home to deal with, including education, healthcare and deteriorating infrastructures. We are spending our foreign aids to countries, such as Israel, rather than in our own hemisphere. What are we doing in Persian Gulf, 7500 miles away from home?
Posted by: St Michael Traveler | November 01, 2007 at 10:32 AM
We have to either take it off the table or be prepared to actually go to war with Iran. On one hand, you say it would be a disaster for us to attack Iran. So why is anything that would be a disaster for us on the table? It shouldn't even be used as a negotiating tactic if it would turn out badly for us. What are we going to say? "Don't develop nukes or we'll do something that will be really bad for us!"
I won't support military action against Iran for any reason and the American people are so war weary that I think I'm in the majority right now. We shouldn't threaten to do what the majority of Americans don't want to do in the first place.
Posted by: Mike M. | November 01, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Michael Cohen says: "there is a strong case to be made that Iran getting the bomb could spark a larger regional conflagration or a destabilizing regional nuclear arms race." This provokes me to ask two questions -- 1) Could the chances of a larger regional confrontation under those circumstances possibly be any greater than the chances of such an outcome following a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran?, and 2) How much more destabilizing an arms race could one have than that which has been taking place between Pakistan and India, off-and-on actively at war with one another, and both of whom we support and enable as they acquire and refine their weapons systems? Please, a little reality here would be a great help. And why was it necessary for the president to lie the other day, and assert that Iran's government has publicly declared its intention to obtain nuclear weapons? Everyone -- I mean EVERYONE -- knows that this is a false statement.
Posted by: Alex Patico | November 02, 2007 at 07:50 PM
There is a strong case to be made that Iran getting the bomb would stabilize the Middle East. The US has never attacked a country that had nukes, and Israel would be loath to do so.
We'll turn Michael yet. The man has potential.
Posted by: Don Bacon | November 03, 2007 at 10:47 AM
most of the time he will win the cheap priston tale Gold back.
Posted by: cheap priston tale Gold | January 07, 2009 at 01:58 AM
I hope i can get kamas in low price.
Ibuy dofus kamas for you.
Posted by: dofus kamas | January 20, 2009 at 02:27 AM
So I buy isk to troubleshoot the hearts of the suffering. And I think the eve isk give me the chance.
Posted by: buy isk | March 03, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I am so happy to get some aion kina from my friends. It makes me happy that I can still earn some cheap aion kina.
Posted by: cheap aion kina | March 19, 2009 at 08:40 PM
So I buy isk to troubleshoot the hearts of the suffering. And I think the eve isk give me the chance.
Posted by: Designer Christian Dior Handbags | April 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Comments
HRC says this, and you apparently agree:
Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
I say put up or shut up. We've seen this film before, and it takes more to get past the laugh test.
I have yet to see the actual evidence for this claim, only its mechanical repetition by drum-bangers. The people charged by the international community with investigating this allegation, the same people who have proven to have a better track record than the US government on getting these matters right, indicates that there is no evidence at this point that the Iranian nuclear program is anything but legal. So tell me what you know that they don't.
Any use of force or threat of force to compel Iran to halt its legally permitted program is a violation of international law and a threat to the peace. It would of course be legal to get Iran to pursue a different course by trading something in return.
You ask, what is the alternative to threats, escalation and sanctions? Achieving a reasonable and verifiable assurance of US security where Iran's nuclear program is concerned is easily within our diplomatic grasp. One could hardly make a reasonable argument that these channels have been exhausted, and that sanctions and threats are the only recourse, since the US has so far not engaged Iran in direct diplomacy on the topic at all - not once, never - and will deign to negotiate only through vassal proxies who lack the power to credibly deliver any US concessions or considerations. This inconvenient fact seems to have escaped the cognizance of just about every reporter and pol who discusses the issue.
Of course, as has been widely reported and recounted, the administration has rebuffed Iranian overtures in the past that might have lead to such a negotiated settlement. That is because the administration's real goal here is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, which I frankly doubt the White House finds nearly as scary as they profess it to be, but to crush and eliminate the Iranian regime. If Iran suspended its entire nuclear program tomorrow, the US line would shift entirely to Iranian "meddling" in Iraq, to Hizbollah, or something else. By the way, many of the claims of Iranian "meddling" and intentional targeting of US soldiers in Iraq have also been revealed as administration fibs.
The US wants to send a message that if the US and any other country are in dispute about any matter whatsoever, that other country cannot expect to resolve the dispute through square dealing or diplomatic negotiation between sovereign equals, but must choose between either abject submission or compulsion under the application of military or economic power. Of course, since we are an inherently good country, might always makes right where it is the US laying down the might.
The reason the other candidates are not able to put forward a credible alternative to the administration's approach to Iran is that they have boxed themselves in by accepting so many the administration's stupid, made-up Halloween yarns about Iran. Now they are in the ridiculous position of arguing, "Yes, the Iranians are murdering our soldiers, arming al Qaeda, working with the Taliban, extending their "hegemony" all over the Middle East, plotting to nuke us, enslaving our womenfolk and draining our precious bodily fluids - but let's not be too hasty!"
Posted by: Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 at 05:02 PM
How can you simultaneously say that attacking Iran would be a disaster but we need to leave it on the table? Sometimes I think you VSPs aren't really serious at all.
Posted by: Bob Narus | October 31, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Dan, Iran refuses to stop uranium enrichment and has been sanctioned by the UN twice for these actions - so that's a pretty strong piece of evidence. In addition, the US view on Iran's nuclear program is shared by several other countries including England and France.
Posted by: Michael Cohen | October 31, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Michael,
There was no legal basis for the UN to sanction Iran, unlike the hundreds of UN censures against Israel which we're not supposed to remember. The sanctions are a political hatchet job by the US and they have no basis in fact or in law. Iran is a party to the NPT which allows nuclear enrichment--in fact its purpose is to encourage nuclear power.
I know that you're probably familiar witht he terms of the TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS but let's look at it anyhow:
-------------
In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,
Undertaking to cooperate in facilitating the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,
Expressing their support for research, development and other efforts to further the application, within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and special fissionable materials by use of instruments and other techniques at certain strategic points, . .
Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, . . .
Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
-----------------
Iran has been in full compliance with the NPT as certified by the IAEA. There has been no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. President Bush, who is so fond of repeating what Osama bin Laden has said, and asks us to take it as gospel, has never mentioned that Iran's leadership has forsworn nuclear weapons.
One of the goals of the NPT was the destruction of all nuclear weapons. That has obviously not been done, and nuclear states have helped Israel, a non-signer of the NPT, to amass a nuclear weapon stockpile. How about the problem with Israel?
Posted by: Don Bacon | October 31, 2007 at 05:52 PM
Dan, Iran refuses to stop uranium enrichment and has been sanctioned by the UN twice for these actions - so that's a pretty strong piece of evidence. In addition, the US view on Iran's nuclear program is shared by several other countries including England and France.
Evidence of what, Michael? Only that Iran seems committed to continuing a nuclear program into which they have invested a lot of money and effort. What is the evidence that it is a nuclear weapons program?
And why did the UN sanction Iran anyway? Are they in violation of the NPT? Not as I understand it. Perhaps the Security Council is now just bought and sold like every other thing we've successfully Americanized, and is a forum for the usual legislative horsetrading and buncombe?
As for England and France, OK. What is it that they know that Baradei doesn't? Have they had the level of access he has? Or is this just more spy vs. spy "Curveball" stuff? As I said, I've heard this joke before. The age of superstitious myths of the omniscient western spy agency is over.
I want some actual evidence, not just more "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who ..." Why should I think this isn't just another case of western powers and top stakeholders looking after their various interests in the region, as they have for two centuries, and scamming their publics with all sorts of spook stories and fables, as they have for two centuries? Is there any really good reason to think this doesn't have more to do with Russia, China and other Great Game shenanigans than nuclear weapons? Or maybe its just more tawdry demagoguery to placate domestic pressure groups, donors and lobbies.
If the case against Iran is so strong, why doesn't the administration just lay it out in a clear fashion? And why do they all keep lying about stuff? Remember that assault in Iraq several months ago by that crew of mysteriously blond "Iranians". Whatever happened to that story, I wonder? Ground up and shoveled down the memory hole with the other piles of compost that gets dumped out of the occupation headquarters and the White House on a daily basis. Some of those EFP stories have been discredited, as have stories about Iranian assistance to the Taliban. I continue to suspect Washington is making it up as they go along - whatever it takes to keep Iran in the center of target, and in John Q. Public's nightmares.
I guess you think all these politicians and practitioners of "statecraft" are basically honest and perspicacious finders of truth and servants of the public, who have just made a few unfortunate mistakes. I don't. I think they're largely lying packs of jackals in nice suits, just doing what they do for a living: peddle influence, look after private interests, attend to their careers, trade favors and send suckers to perdition
Posted by: Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 at 07:21 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct 28, 2007: The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.
"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Sunday. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."
"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php
Posted by: Don Bacon | November 01, 2007 at 12:57 AM
"We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya." We used them with respect to Cuba and it worked like a charm!
On a more serious note, if Cohen is really worried about nuclear proliferation, how can he write such a voluminous piece without once mentioning Israel or Pakistan?
Did Cohen advocate the use or threat of military force against Israel or Pakistan or back then Brasil or South Africa? If not, why not?
How does Cohen interpret the NPT? Has Iran as a NPT-country the right to nuclear power, yes or no?
Does Coehn know that Iran when ruled by a dictator (we called him Shah) seeked nuclear power, aided by the west? Had Iran back then the right to do this? Why? Because the dicator back then was a good guy or because he was "our bastard"?
Posted by: IM | November 01, 2007 at 06:00 AM
American Invasion of Iraq, Israeli-American Front
It is well documented that Israeli-Americans, a segment of International Lobby for the government of Israel had advocated invasion of Iraq.
The same groups are using their highly placed influence on the government of the United States and along with the neoconservative fronts to attack Iran.
Israeli influence is fully integrated into the American government through its strong Lobby. Even with a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate of the United States, the Congress still is tied to the yoke of the Lobby. At a late night session in the Senate on Friday, September 14, 2007, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-VT) submitted an amendment to provide $75 million for “democracy promotion in Iran”. The amendment, which was cosponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mel Martinez (R-FL), David Vitter (R-LA), passed by voice vote in Senate bill State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (HR 2764). The Bush administration’s original request in the Fiscal Year 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for $75 million, which had been cut by two-thirds to $25 million by the Senate Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs earlier this year. The Democratic Party leadership horse traded Lieberman’s vote for the Fiscal Year 2008 budget for the amendment.
Senator Lieberman, a front for the Israeli Lobby, called the program “loudly heard and appreciated within the Iranian dissident community.” The past experience of our government should have demonstrated that such interference in the affairs of another nation would create greater hostilities. One of the objectives of the Lobby has been to create greater hostility between Iran and our government. Also, it must be obvious that any Iranian accepting money from our American administration to create trouble for Iran would be considered a traitor, a spy and at least would be shunned by Iranians. Would we react differently if anyone of us would accept money from a foreign country for the purpose of creating unrest within the United States?
In the jargon of the present administration of the United States, any government friendly to Israel and subservient to our American foreign policy and providing us with cheap natural resources is a friend of the United States.
What is “democracy promotion in Iran”? One definition of democracy would be a country managed by a representative government elected under the principle of “one man one vote”. Under this definition, Iran is democratic country; the Iranian president and the representative of government are elected by the Iranian people. During the last elections more of the eligible Iranians voted than in our own elections.
Why are we so concern about Iran? We have too many problems at home to deal with, including education, healthcare and deteriorating infrastructures. We are spending our foreign aids to countries, such as Israel, rather than in our own hemisphere. What are we doing in Persian Gulf, 7500 miles away from home?
Posted by: St Michael Traveler | November 01, 2007 at 10:32 AM
We have to either take it off the table or be prepared to actually go to war with Iran. On one hand, you say it would be a disaster for us to attack Iran. So why is anything that would be a disaster for us on the table? It shouldn't even be used as a negotiating tactic if it would turn out badly for us. What are we going to say? "Don't develop nukes or we'll do something that will be really bad for us!"
I won't support military action against Iran for any reason and the American people are so war weary that I think I'm in the majority right now. We shouldn't threaten to do what the majority of Americans don't want to do in the first place.
Posted by: Mike M. | November 01, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Michael Cohen says: "there is a strong case to be made that Iran getting the bomb could spark a larger regional conflagration or a destabilizing regional nuclear arms race." This provokes me to ask two questions -- 1) Could the chances of a larger regional confrontation under those circumstances possibly be any greater than the chances of such an outcome following a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran?, and 2) How much more destabilizing an arms race could one have than that which has been taking place between Pakistan and India, off-and-on actively at war with one another, and both of whom we support and enable as they acquire and refine their weapons systems? Please, a little reality here would be a great help. And why was it necessary for the president to lie the other day, and assert that Iran's government has publicly declared its intention to obtain nuclear weapons? Everyone -- I mean EVERYONE -- knows that this is a false statement.
Posted by: Alex Patico | November 02, 2007 at 07:50 PM
There is a strong case to be made that Iran getting the bomb would stabilize the Middle East. The US has never attacked a country that had nukes, and Israel would be loath to do so.
We'll turn Michael yet. The man has potential.
Posted by: Don Bacon | November 03, 2007 at 10:47 AM
most of the time he will win the cheap priston tale Gold back.
Posted by: cheap priston tale Gold | January 07, 2009 at 01:58 AM
I hope i can get kamas in low price.
Ibuy dofus kamas for you.
Posted by: dofus kamas | January 20, 2009 at 02:27 AM
So I buy isk to troubleshoot the hearts of the suffering. And I think the eve isk give me the chance.
Posted by: buy isk | March 03, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I am so happy to get some aion kina from my friends. It makes me happy that I can still earn some cheap aion kina.
Posted by: cheap aion kina | March 19, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Posted by: replica Bvlgari Cuff Links | April 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch
Posted by: luxury watches | May 23, 2009 at 01:48 PM
The summer is coming,tiffany jewelry is your best choice.So you can choose a popular style tiffany jewelry for yourself.You will be more beautiful.
You may like 646-204 and 642-845,also you want to pass them.We can help you.
Posted by: asdasd | May 26, 2009 at 04:05 AM
UGG Boots is your best ugg boots sale online Outlet where you can buy the cheapest
Ugg Boots.
Posted by: ugg boots sale | June 09, 2009 at 03:51 AM
linksoflondon
Links Of London
Posted by: linksoflondon | June 12, 2009 at 06:38 AM
Thanks for sharing your article!
Posted by: links london | July 12, 2009 at 08:48 PM
Authentic Products uggsline.co.uk provides all kinds of UGG Boots in high quality but lowest prices possible from UK. We frequently update the styles of uggsline Boots so please check back to choose your favourite Boots.
UGG boots sale
Posted by: zhouhailei | September 14, 2009 at 04:43 AM
In the game the ffxi gil is very useful,
Posted by: ffxi gil for sale | January 20, 2010 at 02:37 AM
Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!
Posted by: cheap coach handbags | January 29, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Chanel Handbags are woman’s dream come true.
Chanel, a fashion name that has become synonymous with femininity since 100 years, is on the must-have list of every fashion-conscious woman.? And we bring these must-have Chanel Handbags at never before discounts, just for you.
It is only when you come across an Chanel New Arrivals, do you realize the power of her words.? Chanel handbags are crafted not just to be trendy, but trend-setting.? Hardly has lived a celebrity who has not been seen carrying a Chanel handbag under her arm; such has the influence of Chanel handbags as a fashion statement.
Chanel handbags have been so popular in the elite classes of the society, that their pricing is usually prohibitive for everyone else.? Discount Chanel handbags are really difficult to come across, but today should be your lucky day.? We bring you a superb unbeatable range of Chanel Flap bags, all at fantastic discounts.? With us, you have an incredible chance to buy your favorite Chanel handbags at rock bottom prices!
Chanel Handbags have always been at the forefront of luxury and style.? The Chanel classic quilted leather handbags and its reinventions have ruled fashion since forever.? Chanel handbags have remained extremely popular as they continue to merge evolving modern trends with the class and simplicity of its original avatar.
An Chanel 2008 Collection and Chanel 2009 Collection single handedly enhances the look you are carrying.? The reason you would buy a Chanel handbag is own a bag that mingles with your charm and intensifies it with its inherent simplicity.? If you have owned an authentic Chanel handbag before, you know what we are talking about.? If you are one of the unlucky people who haven’t yet gotten a chance to own an Chanel Cambon, now is your chance to shop for an authentic Chanel handbag and discover its ability to transform your look completely.
Buy Chanel handbags with us, and get fabulous discounts which you will never get at your favorite store.? We offer cheap authentic Chanel handbags and they are all up for grabs!
Posted by: chanel handbags | April 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Accounted for three prosecutions difficult in spite of all the green dry.
Posted by: jordan shoes | May 27, 2010 at 03:02 AM
Last year, I know the game mixmaster by chance; I try to play it to pass the time. To my surprise, I get some Sword of the New World Vis , later, my friend told me that how to get more Sword of the New World Gold is very important. He taught me how to play the game well, and through buy Snw Gold
Posted by: Snw Gold | June 26, 2010 at 03:15 AM
it looks nice and I want to give my opinion
timberland boots uk is the classic American success story of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps - literally. In 1918, Nathan Swartz began a boot-making career as an apprentice stitcher at The Abington Shoe Company in Massachusetts. He started on the lowest rung on the ladder, learned his trade, and through hard work and determination eventually became the owner of the company.timberland sale Swartz and his sons continued to make shoes and boots for many manufacturers, and in the 1960s they produced the first truly waterproof boots. The innovation came by fusing soles to leather uppers without stitching.Comfortable enough to wear all day and rugged enough for all year round.waterproof bootstimberland boots sale are equipped to help people make a difference in their world, whatever your definition of that may be. Whether a true hiker or just hiking to work, from boots to chukkas to boat shoes to dress casual oxfords, ShoeMall has men's Timberland shoes of all styles. Our women's timberland boots sale range from rugged boots to delicate ballet flats, for however you want to walk through your day. We also have a brand new selection of kids' Timberland shoes. They're the perfect way to start your little adventurer's day off right! And, as always, we offer free shipping on all cheap timberland boots
Posted by: Timberland boots uk | July 10, 2010 at 02:47 AM