Home | About | Donate

Hardliners on All Sides Undermining Iran's Nuclear Talks


#1

Hardliners on All Sides Undermining Iran's Nuclear Talks

Stephen Zunes

Reaching an interim nuclear deal with Iran would have been difficult enough even without hardliners in both Iran and the United States seeking to undermine them.

Many U.S. critics of the draft treaty deny this, however, naively assuming Iran is as weak as it was several decades ago, when foreigner powers could impose policies and even replace governments at will. Not only have such imperialist intrigues become more difficult overall, the reality is that Iran has, for better or worse, reemerged as a major regional power—as it has been for much of the past two and half millennia.


#2

The Iranians note, however, that not only has the United States blocked enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions targeting Israel, Pakistan, and India—which, unlike Iran, already have nuclear weapons—the United States provides all three countries with nuclear-capable jet fighters and has recently expanded its nuclear cooperation with India.

I'm sure that Iran would buy those weapons if Israel would let them.

mcp


#3

Iran is one of the few countries that actually adheres to the non-proliferation provisions it signed to.

The Shah of Iran would have developed nuclear weapons if he had not been removed from power. He admitted same in a mid-1970's interview to still be found on YouTube. Search "shah iran nuclear weapon" and be amazed at how much the US/Europe was behind Iran's trajectory towards nuke-weapon creation. Like Saddam's "chemical weapons" Powell lied about at the UN, the US "KNOWS" Iran was headed towards nuke weapons BECAUSE THE US/EUROPE WAS BEHIND IT.

The US thought better of handing the repressive Saudi royals nuc/power weapons, but when Iran failed to materialize as a non-Christian counterweight to Israel's nukes and a nuke fence between the Middle East and China, Pakistan and India were allowed to fulfill the "push-me/pull-you" role to "stable instability".


#4

"Iranians also point out that the United States, Russia, Great Britain, China, and France, which—along with Germany—are leading the negotiations seeking to restrict its nuclear program are themselves in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, article VI of which obligates them “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

This runs parallel to the logic that has big banks--which require public bailouts as in spite of lending rates 18 to 1, their poor investment choices leave them in the red into the many trillions of dollars... while these same institutions are tasked with divvying out others' credit worthiness and respective credit ratings.

And that's but one of many examples during this era of Inversions.


#5

Michael Walzer, a political theorist, once wrote that to be a patriot we only need to choose our treason.


#6

The Author, Stephen Zunes states:

Hmmmm,

Hmmm, Mr. Zumes, Iran is still militarily weak, which is why they desperately want a civilian nuke program since it sets the stage for nuke weapons capability against Israel. Civilian nuclear and Military nuclear are never mutually exclusive. Having that curse to mankind producing Pu-239 for electricity always leaves the door open to modification into a breeder reactor later, meaning nuke bombs. Japan was possibly doing this at Fukushima, since Unit 4 exploded even though it supposedly was un-fueled. They were running MOX fuel (bomb material) in Unit 3 which exploded.

Even if you combine Russia, China and Iran together, you have a military much weaker than the United States. And combined NATO is much, much stronger than Iran and her allies, which is why NATO is invading/attacking countries all over the globe (e.g., Libya and Mali, Algiers and Ukraine by proxy.) No one can stop it, conventionally. So I don't agree that the US can't force terms because Iran has become such a great power in the region.

Iran is surrounded by dozens of US bases. So something else is afoot. The goal may be something else. Like maybe crashing the world price of oil, in which Russia's Rubble depends upon. Since the world's economy is actually failing, there's a glut of oil reserves all over the world and OPEC wouldn't even meet to discus it (for the first time in history, OPEC is uninterested in the global price of oil and breakneck production is ongoing.)

Iran has ten percent of the world's known oil, so if countries like Iran and Libya, for example, dump cheap oil and won't take petro-dollars for it, they are going to be in the crosshairs. That's what this is probably really about: BRICS Banking, imho.

I don't understand it completely, but for example, when Qatar announced they weren't going to accept US petro-dollars anymore, all hell broke loose in their country politically, with uprisings and putdowns and major turmoil. Same thing with Libya. Same thing with Iraq. Maybe a banking deal is going on with Iran? Where they don't ditch, what I call, "the Gunboat Dollar", since that's all that's holding it up anymore. I read that 70 percent of all 100-dollar-bills printed are exported out of the US, which also exports inflation. I live overseas and pay two to four times what I did in the states for everything (except health care and drugs and TPP is going to change that, I'm afraid.)

Anyway, Iran has zero nuke subs to our 70, so they have to surface with their old diesels to charge the batteries and blamo. Iran's 400 combat aircraft include 40 year old F-14's with no parts sitting on the ramp with flat tires (I've seen pictures on an Iranian aviation site.) F-14's didn't get airborne over 75 percent of the time when they were brand new (they're just too complicated). Iran has zero aircraft carriers anyway, so just like in my war, Desert Storm, their entire air force will be wiped out in a few hours or days.

No, Iran is not a powerful force in the region, imho. It is more likely, that with all the troops Obama put into 145 countries the military is just spread too thin to start another ground war right now. I'm guessing that just like the bushmonkey, the Brass at Pentagram rebelled, telling Obomber, no way.

Anyway, who wants to find out? Nothing heats up the globe like War, so each one pushes Homo sapien closer to extinction.


#7

Comparing Iran's military to the US or Russia is a false premise. Compared to other countries of similar GDP/population/geographic size, Iran only trails countries which benefit from US gov't arms largesse. Add in the US-driven decades of illegal sanctions and OF COURSE Iran is struggling with military infrastructure.

The US deliberately picks on such "weaker" countries, as it is too cowardly to go toe to toe with China and Russia. With these regional side-shows, the US is buying time, scrambling to regain real military superiority before starting the WW3 gamble, before the corrupted and bankrupt Bretton Woods/IMF/WTO/World Bank/US$-reserve-currency system collapses.

The BRICS+ are steadily moving forward militarily and economically to ensure they will not be consumed in that inevitable collapse.

Unfortunately the US-centric 0.01% and their Washington/Wall Street sycophants think they and theirs will survive WW3 and/or ecological disaster. Both Russia and China have made it clear that if the US instigates WW3, IT WILL be waged in North America. The sooner the US public realizes their "leaders" are gambling it all on a flawed and dangerous economic and military "first strike" strategy, the sooner charades like the Iran nuclear "negotiations", and regional insanities like Ukraine, Syria, Libya and Yemen will end.


#8

War is not about what is right or fair. It's strictly about who can kill the most effectively. Just one ship, The USS North Carolina can destroy Iran entirely in a few minutes.

Just one ship. So it's meaningless to talk about "courage" and military per GDP and other such nonsense, when one ship can rain hell fire on everyone upon command. The only reason they don't ever do it that way is that it's not nearly as profitable as stringing the taxpayer along for ten years or more.

Instead, they'll do what the bushmonkey did: Send troops over with defective hummers without any armor in them and flak jackets with no kevlar in them and make them run over roads they know the locals mine with IED's.... and leave pallets of guns and hundred dollar bills laying all over the place like they did in Iraq.... and that will require an expensive "surge."

War is not about courage. It's about making money. KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) and Halliburton did it in nam and they did it in Iraq and Afghanistan and a dozen other countries, I'm sure.

Fortunately, someone has intervened and forced Obama to negotiate peace. That scumbag would never initiate peace on his own.


#9

Ya, war is a racket. That the US even THREATENS smaller countries for profit or geopolitical gain is the problem. Obama has NOT "negotiated peace". He has been stymied in his attempt to subjugate Iran by sanctions and threats, and knows he dare not risk a direct attack like in Iraq or Yemen. Even if Iran is not "strong" by comparison, it has far more military bite than the US's last "successful" invasion... Grenada.

The armed-to-the-teeth by the US, Saudis are having a hard time invading next-door Yemen, so unlikely the Saudis would be capable of leap-frogging over Iraq/Persian Gulf to serve as US-proxy invading Iran. To think for one second the US could DIRECTLY attack any major strategic partner of China or Russia without serious, possibly nuclear, consequences is folly of the highest order. That is why all current US military wars are proxy wars. Iran is BIGGER THAN IRAQ, so your "one ship can do it" premise is BS sabre-rattling if conventional weapons are concerned, and if the US OR ISRAEL used nukes on Iran, that WOULD rain Russian and Chinese nukes on the US mainland. And even the dimmest of the US MICC acolytes know it.

The monetary/economic/resource underpinnings of the US/NATO Empire are quickly disintegrating, so cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.