U.S. foreign policy is obsessed with demonizing Iran. It has been since the pro-American Shah was popularly overthrown in 1979. From instigating wars to military attacks and the present economic sanctions, the American government seems hell-bent on punishing a society who revolted against a pro-American despot. Our latest move — the economic sanctions — is ostensibly in direct response to Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear technology. However, given the very low likelihood of an Iranian preemptive attack, and other countries that pose more of a potential threat to international peace, the U.S. should be focusing its nonproliferation efforts elsewhere.
As with any country that is attempting to develop its nuclear technology, Iran should be monitored. But the current U.S. policies are completely unwarranted. Iran has not preemptively attacked another country in over a century, and has made no indications that it plans to change this pattern anytime soon. The Iranian government understands it is vastly outmatched by the U.S. and Israeli armed forces, which would pose an existential threat to Iran in any armed conflict. Much of the war mongering in the media, which as of late has switched from “if” to “when” Israel will attack Iran, points to the oft-quoted line by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he said Israel should be “wiped off the map.” However, what Ahmadinejad said in Persian was actually meant to imply that the Israeli regime should be dismantled, a far cry from all-out war.
Instead of focusing on Iran, the U.S. should pragmatically turn its eye to three nuclear powers that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT): Israel, India, and Pakistan. In contrast with Iran, Israel has started a number of wars, including two within the last six years. While it has been attacked, most notably during the October War of 1973, Israel is guilty of invading other countries on numerous occasions. During its last two wars alone, Israel killed around 2,000 civilians in Southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, not including its numerous isolated attacks on Gaza. And now, war drums are beating amongst the Israeli defense brass for its next offensive, targeting Iran. When one objectively looks at who will be more likely to use a nuclear device in the near future, Israel seems a more likely candidate.
Both India and Pakistan are also nuclear powers that are currently engaged in a bitter war of (mostly) words, mainly concerning the disputed territory of Kashmir. While there has not been serious conflict between these two countries in some time, they are two additional states with nuclear weapons that are not NPT signatories (the last is North Korea), and definitely warrant more concern and pressure from the U.S. government than does Iran.
If it wants to have a logically-consistent international policy in an effort to limit nuclear proliferation, it would make more sense for the U.S. to shift its focus towards the nuclear powers of Israel, India and Pakistan that have not signed the NPT, rather than Iran, which has signed the NPT, and whose nuclear weapons program is very much in doubt.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Iran and NNTP are two different case.
It is Idi Amin then and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is devil this is the point.
We must save peoples freedom in Iran. This should be focus.
Which Idiot advised Islam to move in Land of Jews were jews lived happily for centuries before Islam started.
Who told to spread Islamic culture in the land of Hindus, Protestants , Jains , Sikhs, Parcies , Shivisams and Sikhs? I think the Islamic revolution is cause of all war. Jihad is cause .
1 Replies
Pakistan wanted to nuke India in 1999 so India had to test Nuclear bomb.
no Idea about Iran but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is dangerous has he stated they would attack Israel and has support of china and Pakistan. They will convert all people to Islam, by killing all men of other religions , and get wifes.
This opinion piece is based on the assumption that the US is still some kind of policing force for good in the world, albeit misguided. Nothing is further from the truth. It is simply lip service, convincing only to those who look little further than a catchy headline and a one minute news story.
Its refreshing to see part of the conversation redirected towards the standing obligations on countries which haven't signed the global nuclear proliferation treaty (after all, this makes the most sense if nuclear conflict iswhat we're most concerned about.)
US has cunningly supported & never discussed the ISREALI NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM but it now is throwing every stone in IRANIAN path to hijack its nuclear program. Equally dangerous policy had been adopted to provide INDIA easy access to nuclear technology while depriving PAKISTAN from it.
I'd be careful of how you use the word, "despot." The Iranians exchanged one despot for another. It started immediately, including the cutting off women's lips for wearing lipstick; imprisonment and torture of those opposed to Khomeini; and public execution of women who violated the sexual mores of the new Iran. The despotism has continued to this date and is particularly targeted at women and the press. I wouldn't believe anything that comes out of the official channels of Iran. Regarding Iran's nuclear weapon program, again you are mistaken. We know that they have purchased weapon-only technology! Again you're wrong in Israel's nuc program and US thoughts--we never wanted Israel, Pak or India to get a nuc and our policies are consistent.
Spot-on... Consistency, what a novel concept! The U.S. and U.K. has consistently been a negative influence in the Middle East, but that doesn't count.
We need to ask ourselves, who is actually more likely to use a nuke? Probably India, Pakistan, Israel. Maybe the U.S. Or a terr'ist. North Korea is crazy enough to do it, but its doubtful. They and Iran are just using the tech. as a bargaining chip, even they know how dumb a first strike would be.
The Israel lobby in D.C. is probably more dangerous than the ayatollahs.
Again all y'all are off in the tactical weeds and not thinking strategically - the way the Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Pakistanis think. All of those cultures/countries trace their histories back for thousands of years and they can afford to wait; to dissemble; to throw out chaff; to say one thing for internal consumption and to play a long game internationally.
Use your little gray cells, fellahs.
Iran isn't a regional threat, it's a global reality, one of the many ascending world factors the US & Co. is going to have to evolve a more sophisticated, reasonable method of interacting with if it wants to maintain its present privileges of comfort and security for its citizens.
The fundamentalist, non-secular regime controlling Iran is no more alarming or threatening to peace than at least one of America's abounding two voting options.
Consistency across time and space is not what foreign policy is about. It's about advancing national interests. Israel and India possessing nukes is not currently perceived as a threat to American interests. Your article would benefit from spelling out how exactly these states might threaten those interests. You start to do it with the discussion of the Lebanon war but the connection could be clearer. As to the U.S. and NPT: obvi we apply that criterion selectively. Always have.
1 Replies
Karl, I was with you until the third paragraph. We part company when you start picking other nations who should be getting the same treatment instead of Iran.
Perhaps if the individuals who govern the U.S. were capable of at least maintaining or even improving the standard of living, quality of life and freedoms of the majority of those living under their jurisdiction instead of just the chosen few, there might be a case for believing they could do the same elsewhere. Instead we have a Congress that has all but opted out and an administration and military that virtually ignores national issues while it meddles uninvited, unwelcome and ineffectively in almost every corner of the globe.
I'll start with this: the Israeli people are our allies, but the Israeli government is making a mockery of the notion of "the only democracy in the middle east". They're nuts.
That being said, this story is way off. Why would we worry about Israel or India's nuclear weapons program......? What's your argument exactly? "Well....like...there's like other nuclear bombs and stuff. So there." Ok...
Is the Iran threat is exaggerated by neocons? Sure.
But this is a volatile and serious situation. I'm against a war in Iran or any war in that region. Every time someone makes a clownish Ron Paul-esque argument like "We're being mean to Iran!", you weaken the anti-war movement by association.
With friends like these...
11 Replies
10 Replies
7 Replies
1 Replies
One cannot conclude that because certain countries other then Iran have not signed the NPT and have present day conflicts that Iran is less a threat then it seems. Which is the greater threat? India and Pakistan arguing over Kashmir (still) or an extremist regime with nuclear weapons?
How many times are we going to read another story about how Iran is being abused by the U.S., Israel and the global community? Every story, it seems, recites the same justification about an Iranian nuclear weapon- it hasn't attacked anyone preemptively, it knows it will be destroyed if it uses a nuke, it was only kidding about its desire to obliterate Israel, a blockade of Hormuz was only a joke, its no big deal if Iran has a nuclear device and so on. Sorry, I don't buy it! The country is a menace to its neighbors, and they should continue to be treated like outcasts. For the one hundredth time, I'm not for an invasion but believe it should remain on the table. The global community should continue to ostracize and sanction Iran.
1 Replies
This article suffers from serious lack of research. Iran has funded terrorists that have hijacked the sovereignty of Lebanon, waged a war on international shipping in the Gulf, threatened to do so again, and bombed nations throughout the Gulf, including US troops in Saudi Arabia. And the original interpretation of Ahmadinijad's statement actually came from the English translation posted on his own website. Israel, on the other hand, has never launched an unprovoked attack or threatened nuclear use.
Moreover, it neglects the role of the NPT, which Israel, India, and Pakistan haven't signed- but Iran has. If you allow international nuclear monitoring to be undermined, you open up the door to rapid proliferation everywhere.
Why should India sign NPT? To legitimize discrimination? NPT deliberately grants specific countries more rights than others. India and China have a 1500-km disputed border, but NPT says that China has the right to possess nukes and aim them at India, while India can't do anything back. Forget that.
Excellent article. It is about time someone brought the threat of actual nuclear powers to the table. Good job!
This account has been disabled.
2 Replies
1 Replies
I disagree with the article's as written though some of its non-interventionism stances I completely agree with. I disagree on non signatories of the NPT. Rule of law in treaties are that if you sign you abide by its terms. Thus, we can't expect those who have not agreed to be bound by the NPT. To force signing is as it is in any contract - null and void when done so under duress.
Iran is the issue. Consistency in breaking their promises is the problem. We should not use first strike against a potential threat but be prepared to meet any such attempted attack with overwhelming force. That is deterrence in defense. Don't wage war to prevent war.
The issues are possible religious war, NPT compliance, & US interventionism in the ME.
Karl,
Your statements regarding Israel invading other nations and killing civilians in Lebanon and Gaza (which is not a country) are clearly off-base as you omit the circumstances namely Israel was being attacked by rockets from across its borders. You also state Israel has started "a number of wars" but don't name them.
Israel is the only country in the region who's right to exist as a nation is openly challenged. Rightfully so, they have a right to defend themselves. I am not saying Israel is blameless as I've made clear in other comments on PM.
25 Replies
2 Replies
21 Replies
1 Replies
5 Replies
12 Replies
Bilateral treaties can supplant the NPT where it doesn't work - it is possible to form a bridge to it in that way at a later stage.
But, I agree with yout article! I've got a very similar one to yours coming out soon.
I think equating the nuclear capabilities of volatile countries such as Pakistan and Iran with those of stable democracies such as India and Israel is a little unhelpful.
6 Replies
1 Replies
2 Replies
As we have pulled out of Afghanistan and are now shifting our focus towards the Pacific, it seems North Korea may be getting our attention after all. My libertarian views tells me that Iran has every right as their own sovereign nation to protect themselves with nuclear strike capability. Of course, the problem is that Ahmadinejad is a questionable leader of his own people and, at least from the media portrayals, seems to be a few screws loose.
But overall, I completely agree with your premise from an ideological standpoint. Our foreign policy has been one based in meddling and self-interest. While our government's intentions may, or may not, be directed towards the nation's greater good, from the other side of the fence, it's agression.
Dismantled is not a soft phrase either, they've threatened to close one of the world's most important waterways, and the Supreme Leader just said he'd support any group that wants to go after Israel, let's not pretend they're not bellicose either in this. As for the others, I don't know what you even mean by for pressure against Pakistan and India, two of the world's more important nations, or what should be the intended goal of said pressure. Regardless, the argument you are using is a legal double-sword. Any nation not in NPT is not bound to it, while Iran is, and if it is even building with the intent of possible future weaponization, is in violation of the NPT. That being said, when it comes to nukes, I think these treaties are moot