Home | About | Donate

Media Refs Should Call Foul on Bogus Arguments Against Iran Deal


#1


#2

You could almost just substitute "Israel" for "Iran" in this document, and you'd have a good start toward holding Israel accountable for it's illegal "secret" nuclear weapons:

  • Inspectors must be permitted unimpeded access to suspect sites.
  • Israel must fully explain its prior weaponization efforts.
  • Sanctions relief must commence only after Israel complies with its commitments.
  • Israel’s nuclear weapons quest must be blocked for decades.
  • Israel must dismantle its nuclear infrastructure so it has no path to a nuclear weapon.

From Naiman's link, here's AIPAC's list of criteria:

  1. INSPECTIONS AND VERIFICATION
    Inspectors must be permitted unimpeded access to suspect sites.
    A good deal must support “anytime, anywhere” inspections – including all military facilities – to verify Iranian compliance. Iran’s decades-long history of cheating on international obligations suggests it will secretly attempt to continue its nuclear weapons program. Iran cannot be permitted any safe havens where it could pursue this ambition.

  2. POSSIBLE MILITARY DIMENSIONS
    Iran must fully explain its prior weaponization efforts.
    A good deal must require Iran to come clean on all of its prior nuclear work, such as developing triggers for a nuclear weapon, as required by six United Nations Security Council resolutions. The entire scope of Iran’s nuclear activities must be known to establish a baseline against which to measure future actions. Iran must also be made to comply with prior commitments; allowing Iran to shirk them will only tempt it to defy commitments made under a new deal.

  3. SANCTIONS
    Sanctions relief must commence only after Iran complies with its commitments.
    A good deal must lift sanctions gradually as Iran meets its obligations under the agreement. Further, any deal should specify clear and immediate consequences for Iranian violations. The international community must retain significant leverage while Iran demonstrates compliance; it must not provide immediate sanctions relief or unfreeze a significant portion of Tehran’s assets so Iran can “take the money and run.”

  4. DURATION
    Iran’s nuclear weapons quest must be blocked for decades.
    A good deal must prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state. The announced framework would lift nuclear restrictions in 10 to 15 years and grant Iran virtually instant breakout time after 12 or 13 years. A deal must restrict Iran’s nuclear capabilities until it demonstrates conclusively, over time, that it no longer seeks a nuclear weapons capability.

  5. DISMANTLEMENT
    Iran must dismantle its nuclear infrastructure so it has no path to a nuclear weapon.
    A good deal must require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and relinquish its uranium stockpile such that it has neither a uranium nor plutonium pathway to nuclear weapons.


#3

With respect to fairness, the same could ALSO be applied to the U.S.---carrying the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world; and then go on to apply to India, Pakistan, North Korea, and NATO's allies.

Israel hardly has a monopoly on this technology.

It really comes down to "he without sin may cast the first stone." All this blaming Israel FIRST leaves out the FACT that no nation more than our own is guilty of massive Crimes Against Humanity. Israel is certainly an aggressor in its own Middle East neighborhood, and it's guilty of crimes against the Palestinians via an infrastructure of cruel Apartheid. But let's stop making Israel into the central enemy of the world... since that particular scapegoating ignites some very old cords that really open serious wounds. (And stating this in NO way is intended as an apologia for what Israel does do. I am speaking on behalf of what is proportionate to any argument about actual world events.)

Since I am very keen on synchronous events: It's really glaring that the U.S. would lecture Iran on its nuclear program, parameters and possibilities. This is the ONLY nation that's ever used nuclear weapons lecturing "the new kid on the block."

Note the parallels with Europe's central bankers (the ones who were up to their knees in all the fraudulent weapons of financial mass destruction that sank the global economy 7 years ago) lecturing Greece on its reprobate behaviors!

This is like a serial killer being invited to a grammar school to lecture the students on behavior and decorum.

It's also emblematic of what happens when absolute power corrupts absolutely... yet having used its military might and financial muscle to "hold onto titled positions of entitlement," it then tells the rest of us how we might live, what pay scales we will work for, how dirty our air/soil/water will be, what "foods" will be forced into our guts without knowledge of their ingredients, and what growing sets of fees and taxes we will pay... since, gee boys and girls... all of THAT makes us so very "free," the envy of all those bludgeoned-back-to-the-Stone-Age Middle Eastern (former) nations.


#4

"With respect to fairness, the same could ALSO be applied to the U.S.---carrying the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world; and then go on to apply to India, Pakistan, North Korea, and NATO's allies. Israel hardly has a monopoly on this technology. "

Absolutely true. i've worked for years against US nuclear arms.


#6

Indeed. This would be a cute argument if only there was such a thing as a media referee in the first place. But hey, it's Naiman. What can you do. Eagerly await the next essay on "What Fairies in my Elven Reality Should Do Next".


#7

Considering the import of yesterday's news, I played "news junkie" and went outside my viewing habits.

I watched the story on CBC, BBC America, and PBS. The shift to PBS Newshour (not my usual) was big. Journalists with CBC and BBC put challenging questions in front of newsmakers. American journalists--- as we who read here know-- practice "stenography" and "dual headbanging."

PBS could look more like CBC and BBC but won't because Ronald Reagan reset its rules many years back, defanging public broadcasting by introducing "donors". Newshour news consequentially becomes a "balance" between big donors' interests. I'm not sure we have anyone in TV news anymore who could reach the integrity the likes of Lawrence Spivak or Ed Murrow even it they WANTED to.