Iranian Nuclear Hysteria

by: Ian Welsh

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 13:30


The story dominating the news cycle right now is that Iran declared a nuclear site after it realized that the US already knew about it, and this means Iran wants nukes and is working on getting them.

The story is questionable at best.  Under the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran believes it needs to only declare sites 180 days before it introduces nuclear materials to them.  This has been Iran's stand for years, and there is no evidence that the site has any nuclear materials in it.  

Second: we don't know why Iran declared the site now.  Maybe it's because they knew the US knew (what is this, n-dimensional chess), or maybe it's because they were going to anyway.  We don't know.  We do know that the last time the US accused a country of having a nuclear program, however, that the US lied.

At this point there is no firm evidence that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons.  Various intelligence services have claimed Iran is, but none of them have produced evidence to be evaluated in the light of day.

Nonetheless the call is out for "severe sanctions".  Now, I'm not entirely sure that I know what severe sanctions means, but I think a safe guess is that the US wants sanctions similar to those imposed on Iraq in the nineties.

Those sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of people, possibly as many as a million.  They were as devastating to Iraq as an all-out war.  In terms of lives lost, the substantive difference between the sanctions and the Iraq war is that in the Iraq war American soldiers were killed as well-a few thousand American soldiers, a number much smaller than the Iraqi deaths, but a number which matters much more to Americans.

However, if deaths of non-Americans matter to you, then you should oppose Iranian sanctions.  Especially since there is so far no convincing evidence that Iran even has a military nuclear program.  

But even if Iran did have a military nuclear program, severe sanctions, or a military strike might still be overkill.  Like them or hate them, Iran's leadership are not insane.  Nuclear weapons come with return addresses.  If Iran were foolish enough to use a nuke, the country would be reduced to a glowing glass lined parking lot.  Iran's leadership would have to be insane and suicidal to do so.  

Screaming constantly about how dangerous a nuclear Iran would be is simply war-mongering intended to whip up hysteria.  The sort of lies which are used to whip Westerners up before every action which kills large numbers of foreigners.

To recap:

Ian Welsh :: Iranian Nuclear Hysteria
There is no public convincing evidence that Iran has a military nuclear program.

Even if Iran has somehow successfully concealed such a program from the innumerable inspections it undergoes, and did somehow manage to get nukes, it would be no more likely to use them than any other nuclear armed nation.

Sanctions could kill as many people as a major war, and they are being sold without solid evidence and through a campaign which tries to claim that Iranian nukes would be a real threat to the US, which is simply untrue.

Although American soldiers won't die due to sanctions on Iran, the effect of sanctions could well be equal to that of a major war on Iranians.  As with war, the decision to kill that number of people requires the highest evidence and the most careful consideration: not accusations which aren't backed up by proof or hysteria about America being endangered.

We've been down this road once.  Let's not go down it again, and let's not be quiet just because the people trying to shove us down this road have a (D) by their name.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good post (4.00 / 2)
We should also remember that this entire debate is sick with American-Israeli exceptionalism. The United States is occupying countries on either side of Iran, and Israel--which, unlike, Iran, has shown a willingness to invade other countries--already has nuclear weapons. Glenn Greenwald makes this point, and others in this dismantling of Arianna Huffington, who seems uncharacteristically stupid here. Perhaps she doesn't want to be "soft on Iran" for fear of losing "pro-Israel" donations to the Huffington Post.



Inspectors (0.00 / 0)
The sanctions are only to get UN inspectors in to make sure Iran is on the up and up.  

In Iraq, sanctions were supposed to only (4.00 / 1)
be to get Iraq to pull out of Kuwait. Those sanctions were ended almost two decades later.  Even if there were legitimate, limited reasons for imposing them, there is little reason to assume they will end once that reason is removed.

Also, sanctions don't work, which makes me wonder why they are imposed by people who ought to know that.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


[ Parent ]
Excellent diary (4.00 / 2)
Thank you for highlighting the horror of sanctions, which is widely overlooked in the progressive blogosphere. I've pointed out the hypocrisy before in progressives railing at Bush for the war but largely saying nothing about or even supporting the sanctions on Iraq that had the effect of a full-scale war, actually worse than some genocides. Clinton enthusiastically supported the sanctions (along with virtually the entire Democratic Party) but outside the "fringe" you never hear anything about it - other than how he successfully "contained" Iraq, of course. Likewise we see glowing praise for Obama among many progressives on his campaign to blockade Iran. This is one reason why I don't call myself a "progressive."

Progressive hero Madeleine Albright on the sanctions killing 500,000 Iraqi children: "We think the price was worth it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?...

http://www.democracynow.org/20...

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: In his comments, President Obama said, "Iran is breaking the rules that all nations must follow." You write that he's technically and legally wrong. Why?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, Iran is bound by its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. These agreements are between Iran and the IAEA. You cannot compare Iran's arrangement with the IAEA with any other nation, so it's an absurd argument to begin with.

Second of all, Iran's agreements with the IAEA are-you know, the current agreements go back to 2003 period, where Iran, in exchange for Europe and the United States recognizing the legitimacy of Iran's nuclear aspirations-that means to enrich uranium for peaceful energy uses-Iran would voluntarily agree to what's called the additional protocol of inspections, as well as what's known as the Subsidiary Agreement. The Subsidiary Agreement requires Iran to declare any facility at the time that it intends to produce it, create it, to build it, as opposed to the old agreement, which said Iran must declare this facility 180 days prior to the insertion of nuclear material. Iran said, "We will abide by this additional protocol of inspections and the Subsidiary Agreement on a voluntary basis, until which time the Parliament of Iran ratifies these new agreements." These have never been ratified, so this was a voluntary submission on the part of Iran.

In 2007, Iran withdrew from this voluntary arrangement, citing the noncompliance of its partners-Europe, the United States-in recognizing the legitimacy of Iran's nuclear program. Iran's not in violation of anything. Iran is in compliance, and the IAEA has stated this. The IAEA has said that the fact that Iran was in compliance with the old Code 3.1, the Subsidiary Agreement, the old Safeguards Agreements, means that you can't find them to be in noncompliance with this new set of arrangements.

The key here isn't the technicality of the legal documents; it's about the diversion of nuclear material. And the IAEA has a 100 percent accounting for the totality of Iran's nuclear material. So, even if Iran produces this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won't be in operation for over a year, no nuclear material has been diverted, there still is a full material balance, and the IAEA is in complete control of the situation. Iran is not in violation.

This is not a reason to panic. This is much ado about nothing. But again, we come back to the original premise: this is about political hype, the United States hyping up a capability in Iran which doesn't exist, and that is the capability to produce nuclear weapons.



Neo-liberal (4.00 / 2)
Some neo-liberals used this fact as a reason to support the war in Iraq.  The war did end the sanctions, though that is a bit of an "other than that, did you enjoy the play" kind of point.

But sanctions against South Africa worked very well.  I think that confuses many.  The difference, of course, is the South Africans we supported asked for sanctions against their own country.  They were able to use those sanctions to promote themselves in the power struggle.  Nothing similar existed in Iraq.

In theory, something like that could have happen in Iran after the elections, but it did not.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox