U.S./Iran Nuclear Deal

w-Iran1125_promoThe Iranians and the Obama administration have reached a historic deal that allows the lifting of sanctions against the Persian nation ($7-$8 billion dollars worth) in return for a nuclear freeze. But U.S. critics are already tearing down this promising diplomatic achievement because it doesn’t require any dismantling of Iranian nuclear reactors or other research facilities. So here’s my problem with these arguments against these agreements detractors.

First, we should all be pleased with the fact that the U.S. and the Iranians have diplomatically spoken to one another for the first time in 34 years. This is a nearly unbelievable development that should be heralded in and of itself disregarding what type of agreement is reached.

Secondly, the agreement requires the Iranians to conduct a nuclear freeze and not a complete dismantling of all their nuclear-research facilities. But what we have to remember is that this current agreement is just a test of good faith and not a final deal. We still have the bulk of sanctions on Iran’s economy and they still have their reactors. This freeze is just a preliminary deal that sets the table for more significant future talks.

The Soviets and U.S. use to work out deals to freeze nuclear weapon development on occasion and that was seen as a diplomatic achievement. Why not this?

Thirdly, if not diplomatic talks, what is the other option for stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? It is clear by the recent comments by Israeli PM Netanyahu, who has openly condemned the agreement, that they want violence to be used against Iran for that is the only other option. The sanctions are not enough to stop Iran from enriching nuclear components for a nuclear bomb. War is the only other option to stopping Iran’s development of a bomb, and I feel that diplomacy is a much better choice.

And lastly, as I’ve stated before a million times, the most promising tactic that we could use with Iran is making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. Israel has 250 nuclear bombs and this is a major reason why Iran is trying to maintain some sort of military pariy with the Jewish state. We should make the most volatile region of the world (well, the only one with mass oil reserves) free of all nuclear weapons.

//

//

Patience Key to Iranian Talks

09nuclear_span-thumbWide-v3A new report came out of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) yesterday showing a slowdown in nuclear enrichment in Iran which may be due to recent talks regarding the lifting of economic sanctions there in return for the slowdown and future halting of bomb-making materials.

All a part of a larger plan to stop Iran’s nuclear capability, this program being ran by the Obama White House has been criticized by Israel, Republicans, and even some Democrats due to the addition of lifting some sanctions. But read below:

“Mr. Obama said an interim deal would halt Iran’s program; dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which can be quickly converted to weapons-grade fuel; and subject Iran’s facilities to more vigorous inspections. That would give both sides the breathing space to conduct talks on a comprehensive deal.

And if those talks fail, the president said, Congress can easily ramp up the sanctions again.”

//

Latest ON Iran-Nukes Talks

11nuclear_cnd-articleInlineJust a report in the NYT on the progress, and lack there of, regarding talks in Geneva between the U.S. and Iran on stopping Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for removing heavy sanctions.

It covers not only the exchanges between America and Iran but also those other countries who want to be fully informed about the talks, such as Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

I know I’ve said this over and over again, but the solution to these problems would be for Israel to give up it’s 250 nuclear weapons and make the Middle East a nuke-free region.

Read Here.

//

Netanyahu: A Character Study

12netanyahu_337-articleLargeA good character study in the NYT on Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu with a concentration of his near obsession with preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Notice there is no mention of his policies on the Palestinians and the growth of settlements in the Palestinian territories. Excellent read.

Read Here.

//

Iran’s Rouhani: New Hope for Negotiations?

indexThe article I’m about to link focuses on Obama reaching out to Iran’s new President, Hassan Rouhani, due to a NBC interview earlier this week where he made a shift in some of Iran’s political stances.

Mr. Rouhani, unlike his predecessor, Ahmed Ahmadinejad, has a more liberal view on Iran’s political troubles, such as the crippling sanctions by the West in response to Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Also, he even stepped back from Iran’s long term stance regarding wiping Israel off the map moving to a more moderate position of pursuing peace in the region. So in light of this shift in posture the White House has opened communications with Tehran hoping to start a dialogue focusing on lifting the sanctions in return for Iran abandoning it’s nuclear program.

But what the article really focuses on though are the criminals in Israel and Jerusalem’s views on this whole matter. Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu says this is all farce and an attempt by Rouhani to lighten the sanctions upon Iran’s economy while the nuclear program secretly continues.

Now, let’s get back into the same old argument here that I have addressed many times before. Even though the NYT article states that the Israeli nuclear arsenal is kept foggy regarding how many bombs they have if they even have any at all. But outside sources places the number at 250 nuclear weapons. And this does not include the American arsenal that would surely be fired upon Iran if they lobbed their single bomb into Tel Aviv or somewhere else not holy to Muslims.

Now Iran, unlike other Middle Eastern nations, is not filled with extremists that are known for suicide attacks. The reason why, amongst others, is that they are a Shia nation and 90% of suicide bombers are Sunni Muslims, e.g., Osama bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and every 9/11 hijacker. Also on this point you never here of Iranian suicide bombers. Iran prefers to financially and materially support these groups. Suicide bombers are all from Arab states too, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinians. Iran isn’t even Arab, they’re Persian.

So what I am trying to get to here is this: Iran is not full of extremists in the violent/terrorist sense of the word. So why would they take the risk of being wiped off the map by Israel/U.S. by starting a nuclear war with their single bomb or a few more thereafter? It’s a simple argument of M.A.D., i.e., Mutually Assured Destruction. Iran is smart and calculating. They put politics above extremism. They are a rational nation that prefers political action rather than martyrdom.

So why is Israel so nervous?

If the West has any bravery or fortitude in them the real answer for a safe and anti-nuclear Middle Eastern region is to make it a Weapons of Mass Destruction-free zone. Collect all the nuclear bombs with the IAEA and collect all the sarin gas warheads and anthrax from nations like Syria.

But, unfortunately, the U.S. will never allow that to happen due our outdated interests in Israel, which is way out of view now that the Cold War is over. We need to rethink our policies in that region.

Read Here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

//

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Hypocrisy

South_Korea_North_Korea-0d7eeAround noon today local time, North Korea conducted a third nuclear test. The underground explosion registered on the seismic scale  showing that it was the most powerful explosion of the three so far. Now on April 10th, 2003, North Korea backed out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) agreement to resume its nuclear program which it signed on to in 1985. The North Koreans sees these weapons as essential to their own national security and an opportunity to flex it’s military muscle internationally.

Now, does it not seem that the NPT is one of the most hypocritical international treatise on the books? Why should the superpowers who first developed nuclear weapons get to say, “That’s it. Whoever hasn’t developed a nuclear device yet cannot develop one.” Shouldn’t the aim of treatise of this sort be to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide, not just limit them to certain leading actors in the international community? No one wants certain rogue countries like Iran and North Korea to have them but I also don’t want the U.S., Russia, and China to have them also. It seems that the NPT is missing the point of what should be done by the U.N. and the IAEA in general, i.e., pressure nations worldwide to abandon or dissolve all nuclear programs.

Read Here.

Danger Level Rising in Persian Gulf

According to this article in the NYT, the U.S. is increasing it’s military presence in the Persian Gulf mainly in an effort to deter the Iranians from closing (i.e., mining) the Strait of Hormuz.

This is a very risky action in the Gulf and hopefully it will amount to nothing. But this military build-up, like the article states, could be misinterpreted by the Iranian government and military, and set off a clash between the two forces.

Another issue at stake, as the article states, is that this movement of our Navy is also a sign to the Israelis that we are prepared to make a military strike if sanctions do not deter Iranians from enriching uranium.

But what underlines the Israel issue are two things: Israel military actions are always an overkill and also how can we expect Iranians not to develop nuclear weapons when their main rival, Israel, possesses over 250.

We have seen in the past overkill by the Israelis in their military actions in the occupied territories, e.g., killing civilians in Gaza in efforts to kill Hamas leaders; and through the actions of Moussad, e.g., murdering political party members and Iranian nuclear scientists internationally with no regard to the countries where these assassinations took place.

They have no limits to their actions for they know they have the U.S. in their back pockets. The U.S. supports Israel unconditionally because they are so important to our military interests in the Middle East region, i.e., if something occurs in the Middle East militarily, we can use Israel as a staging ground in the interest of maintaining our need for oil.

So what we have now is a metaphor that I came up with. Israel is like the little brother of the baddest kid on the block. The little brother can do whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous, for he knows that his big brother will beat-up whoever attacks him. So the rest of the kids on the block can do nothing to stop his actions no matter how egregious.

I, like nearly every American, am worried about Iranians having nuclear weapons due to the fact they are so anti-American. But yet it seems so hypocritical to say that one nation in the region can have atom bombs while another cannot. So, in a perfect world, we should rid Israel of their nuclear missiles and make the Middle East nuclear bomb-free.