A deal between Iran, Brazil and Turkey to ship some of Iran’s uranium out of the country to be enriched in Turkey and returned for use in a Iranian medical reactor has elicited some elite media panic. An early New York Times Web headline read, “Iran Offers to Ship Uranium, Complicating Sanctions Talks.” The Wall Street Journal (5/17/10) went with “Iranian Nuclear Deal Raises Fears.”
The story in the print edition of the Times (5/18/10) focuses much of its attention on the U.S. reaction to the deal. This passage is especially meaningful:
Rejecting the new deal, however, could make President Obama appear to be blocking a potential compromise. And the deal shows how Brazil and Turkey, which for their own economic interests oppose sanctions, may derail a fragile international consensus to increase pressure on Iran.
Rejecting a deal doesn’t make one “appear” to be blocking compromise–that’s precisely what you’re doing.
More importantly, the idea that the “fragile international consensus” favors increasing sanctions on Iran makes sense only if you believe that that expression refers exclusively to certain major powers, which can force their will via the U.N. Security Council.
This is not the first time the New York Times has explained Iranian nuclear diplomacy in such terms. Here’s Noam Chomsky (ZNet, 2/16/08), reviewing an earlier, similar example:
To take another illustration of the depth of the imperial mentality, New York Times correspondent Elaine Sciolino writes that “Iran’s intransigence [about nuclear enrichment] appears to be defeating attempts by the rest of the world to curtail Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” The rest of the world happens to exclude the large majority of the world: the Non-Aligned Movement, which forcefully endorses Iran’s right to enrich Uranium, in accord with the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). But they are not part of the world, since they do not reflexively accept U.S. orders.
We might tarry for a moment to ask whether there is any solution to the U.S./Iran confrontation over nuclear weapons. Here is one idea: (1) Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy, but not weapons, in accord with the NPT. (2) A nuclear weapons-free zone should be established in the region, including Iran, Israel and U.S. forces deployed there. (3) The U.S. should accept the NPT. (4) The U.S. should end threats against Iran, and turn to diplomacy.
The proposals are not original. These are the preferences of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and also Iranians, in polls by World Public Opinion, which found that Americans and Iranians agree on basic issues. At a forum at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies when the polls were released a year ago, Joseph Cirincione, senior vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress, said the polls showed “the common sense of both the American people and the Iranian people, [who] seem to be able to rise above the rhetoric of their own leaders to find common sense solutions to some of the most crucial questions” facing the two nations, favoring pragmatic, diplomatic solutions to their differences. The results suggest that if the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies, this very dangerous confrontation could probably be resolved peaceably.
I’ve been wondering about this. The deal sounds great. If its not good enough why not build on the work that has already been done? What the &*%^$ does the State Department think its doing? I’m starting to get that “pre-Iraq” feeling here. What is the hidden agenda? Are we trying to deny Iran it’s NPT-endorsed right to nuclear power?
What always seems to get lost in this is the danger of nuclear power itself. Does any nation have a “right” to it? Don’t the citizens of any nation have a right not to be exposed to the deadly environmental hazards “normal” operation of nuke plants engender, much less the spectre of another Chernobyl?
It just seems to me that folks get so focused on the saber-rattling from the West and the potential for an attack that this vital issue is wholly ignored.
Can’t we condemn the imperial while not losing sight of the empirical? It’s not an either/or, is it?
Doug,
While I agree that Nuclear is not a desirable energy source, and I would demonstrate against it here in the US, we have to remember that Iran is (despite our leaders’ rhetoric) a sovereign nation. As such, they should be allowed to make their own decisions about power. Ironically, it was Dick Cheney working with the Reagan administration who first suggested to the Shaw that Iran should pursue nuclear power. I believe his reasoning was something like “sure you could generate energy with oil or gas, but that would cut into your GDP. Why not pursue nuclear energy with US blessing?” (I’m paraphrasing of course).
My burning question on this issue is, since Iran claims to be pursuing peaceful nuclear applications (such as medical and power applications), and the US claims that they are pursuing a bomb: Does the Turkish / Brazilian agreement limit Iran to peaceful applications or not? And if not, can the agreement be modified to satisfy this requirement?
If the US doesn’t want Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear development (as is their right under the NPT), then why don’t they just come out and say that?
I don’t think you caught my drift. I was talking about the insanity of any country pursuing nuclear power.
No nation has the right to put its people, and neighboring populations, at risk by doing so, do they?
Iran’s a sovereign nation. So’s the US. So’s France and India and every other nation engaged in this fool’s game. What may be legal is often not what’s moral, is it?
And that’s what gets lost in all this. I’m deeply concerned that intelligent and caring folks like Chomsky lose sight of that.
It’s not about punishing Iran for its decisions. It’s about an international ban on nuclear power. People are dying every day from its effects.
Maybe someone reading this.
That’s what I try to keep my focus on. And to be selfish about it, someday it could be me.
Or you.
I do agree with you. It is dangerous. Unfortunately that argument doesn’t pull the weight that it used to. Pro-nuclear propaganda is ubiquitous in the media and on the net. For every Harvey Wasserman willing to advance this argument there is a plethora of “information” designed to convince us that it is perfectly safe.
I have found that the more effective argument (as far as domestic Nukes) is that it is simply the most expensive form of power available. Plants have historically had huge cost over-runs and investors will not back such ventures. This sticks us (the taxpayers) with the check for this extravagance in the form of Government subsidies (not to mention inflated power prices). It just isn’t worth it. There is a lot of information including a study by MIT evaluating the economic viability which concludes that it is NOT viable without these subsidies.
Without nuclear power, and without (additional, expanded) starvation, thirst, displacement, ecological destruction, poverty and war, how do you both (Doug, TinFoil) think we will overcome the world’s fossil fuel addiction?
We need a transition energy, right now. Climate change and peak oil are both upon us. We need to ramp down fossil fuels _sooner_ than we can possibly ramp up green tech alone (even if there were a will). I prefer the risk of local/regional radiation events, over the coming global catastrophe, which is likely to result in the loss of half (or more) of the species on this planet.
This is all probably academic, now, anyway. I fear we are just too late.
You may be right – it may be too late. Human beings are the only species wilfully incapable of reason.
Our rulers have seen to that over the centuries, but it all can’t be laid at their feet, can it?
But I’d appreciate your telling me which localities and regions you’re willing to risk “events” occurring in?
Yours?
And are you willing to go to the localities and regions where “events” have already occurred, and continue as we speak, and explain to the victims there your reasoning?
I guess what I’m asking is, whose lives are worth sacrificing?
This is a collective problem, and any collective solution must value the lives of all.
That’s Humanity 101, isn’t it?
The point is taken, but the article isn’t about the dangers or promises of nuclear power. It’s about the dangers of going to war against Iran which is at least at this point in time a more immediate and pressing issue, since the Obama administration has to sanction Iran, since that’s the only way to get Netanyahu to do stupid little things like “ease Palestinian movement” in the West Bank or allow pasta into Gaza, some dumb ass things that show that the “peace process” is just a pr stunt covering over Israel’s expansion. The U.S. is stupid to follow this logic, because the risks are 1) no Palestinian state AND 2) sanctions against Iran which lead to air attacks on Tehran or some assinine thing like that.
It’s Iraq redux, only this time it’s Iran that’s the nuclear threat that must be sanctioned, attacked with eventual regime change, so that we can get someone in there who will agree to be another client dictator for rather than against the U.S. and it’s and Israel’s hegemonic interests.
Sanger, Broad & co. are bending over backwards to frame the entire issue as the Obama adminsitration wants. A recent NYT editorial dismissed any possibility that Israel’s nuclear weapons can be controlled by the “international community”, and its reporters are also doing their best to assure that.
“I am become death, destroyer of worlds.”
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. ”
J. Robert Oppenheimer
No one wants to talk about the spent fuel that has to be kept cool for the next umptine thousand years and the CME that is coming. When the power to keep the spent fuel cool disappears the meltdown in these facilities will make Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island look like a glass of spilt milk.
PHUCK Nuclear!
Should we fear Iran’s nuclear potential? Of course not. We oppose it only because Israel wants no one in the Middle East to compete with its stockpile of atomic bombs. If the U.S. does not choose to get out from under Israel’s thumb, we are headed for a devastating war caused by Israel. = George Beres
My God how trusting you are.Iran is awash in oil.But they need nuclear power to save their society from an energy dependent collapse?Lets wake up a little and smell the roses.They are developing nuclear power under the guise of needing the energy.Lets get down to brass tacks.Their leaders are probably legally insane.Both Religious and elected.They speak often and with force about their goal being the destruction of Israel by fire.The threat is so obvious of them passing nuclear materials to our enemies for use in the continental U.S that you would have to be a slack jawed moron to miss it.They have already lied so many times(it really is beyond count) to the agency’s that monitor these nuclear “games” that bargening with them is like talking your way past a mad dog..Treaties are worthless with them.They simply don’t abide unless it benefits them.And again forget calling America imperialist or Israel whatever names come to mind.Open your ears and listen.Not a day goes by that these tin horn insaniacs don’t threaten your very existence.They are not hiding their words at all.You just choose to ignore it, and as usual turn your blame inward.
I don’t think that’s really the point Doug. All states do indeed have the right (legally speaking) to develop nuclear energy. The debate about its efficacy and safety is entirely beyond this point, which is what Chomsky and others are arguing; if the US, France etc. get to develop nuclear energy, so does Iran. To be honest, the likely alternatives aren’t much better than nuclear power; while its risk is very high, our current fossil fuel usage *will* destroy us, sooner or later.
Michael: everything you say above is false. Iran is running out of oil, and has foreseen its eventual need for alternative energy sources since the ’70s, when the US sold reactor technology to the Shah. There is nothing new here. Casting aspersions about the sanity of the leaders of an “enemy” state is an old propaganda trick. The IAEA and US intelligence have assiduously monitored the development (or lack thereof) of any potential Iranian nuclear weapons program and have determined that none exists; even if Iran ever did come up with useable nuclear weapons, they would be for deterrence only, as using such weapons would guarantee its immediate destruction. Iran has not threatened to destroy Israel (by fire or otherwise), despite what you might have heard, and while its language has at times been aggressive and provocative, it is nothing compared to the actual aggressive and criminal *behaviour* of both Israel and the US in the region. Iran’s record on abiding by treaties is much stronger than, say, that of the US. Indeed, it was Iran that proposed creating a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the entire Middle East, only to be rebuffed by the US. Talk about “threatening your very existence.” “Imperialist” is an accurate apellation for such abuse of power. The US doesn’t hide its words; many such as yourself seem to ignore their clear meaning by reflexively blaming the “enemy other,” despite what the available evidence demands.
Just a note to bring things into perspective, for both ‘sides’ of this issue. The US is the only country to have used the atomic bomb on another country. And please don’t bore me with political rhetoric about the number of American lives that would have been lost if we had to invade Japan. Japan tried to surrender weeks before the bomb was dropped and Truman ignored the request. This silence by the US was based purely on the political power, money, technological advancement, and the need to ‘show the world’ who was ‘boss’. We have been showing the world who is ‘boss’ ever since. We created a stalemate in Korea, we lost in Vietnam, we invaded many countries in Latin America, and on goes the list, all for the sake of ‘our way of life’, meaning Corporate America.
Therefore, are ‘we’, and our allies, the only ones who will only use atomic power the ‘proper’ way, while our stockpiles, which will end all life as we know it, continue to exist? And our allies today will be our enemies tomorrow because everything changes, always has so far, anyway.
Bill
> I don’t think that’s really the point Doug. All states do indeed have the right (legally speaking) to develop nuclear energy.
>
Please read what I’ve written, Graeme. Did I say otherwise?
The point is that no nation should have that right. It’s been proven to be an inherently dangerous technology, hasn’t it?
> The debate about its efficacy and safety is entirely beyond this point, which is what Chomsky and others are arguing; if the US, France etc. get to develop nuclear energy, so does Iran.
>
You might want to explain that reasoning to the Iranians who will die due to its use.
I’ve tried to be clear that this isn’t an either/or proposition. Can’t you condemn US aggression against Iran, while maintaining opposition to nuclear power?
My point is that my point gets lost when folks engage in the former. Do I have to mute criticism of the Iranian gummint’s human rights crimes because the US uses them to pursue its illegitimate ends?
So why would I have to fall silent about Iran’s nuclear policy in order to speak to the US’ crimes against the Iranian people?
There’s no mutual exclusion here, is there?
> To be honest, the likely alternatives aren’t much better than nuclear power; while its risk is very high, our current fossil fuel usage *will* destroy us, sooner or later.
>
That’s true, Graeme, but I don’t see how that impacts my position in any way. We have to make sea changes (as the seas indeed change for much the worse) in how we live on this rock. Screwing in a few flourescent bulbs and recycling copies of the San Francisco ChronicLiar (both of which I do) ain’t gonna cut it, is it?
Nukes aren’t part of the answer. Neither is “clean coal”, or carbon trading, or greenwashing marketing strategies.
The wars we pay for (which may include Iran in the not-too-distant future) are all about control of energy, aren’t they? Energy is power in more ways than one. Until we break this murderous cycle, and move toward a sustainable way of life, we’re on a road to nowhere, literally.
Trying to be an empiricist, I don’t see it happening, but whatcha gonna do? To give up is as insane as blithely maintaining the status quo, isn’t it?
Graeme, I’ve read some of your other comments, and I welcome your voice here. Please think about what I’m saying, and if you still disagree, so be it. I’ve tried to state my case as best I can.
>Graeme, I’ve read some of your other comments, and I welcome your voice here.
Doug, i know you’ve been hogging the comments section of this site for quite a while with your mostly trite, faux-folksy, condescending comments and your many self-important, touchy-defensive replies, but when you imply that it is somehow your place to ‘welcome’ someone (or not) to this site you go too far. i can’t be the only regular reader who tires of your attitude and ubiquity. this isn’t your blog, is it? nobody needs your sanction to post here, nor does anyone deserve to be subjected to your egotistical tone-deaf screeds whenever he comments on something you wrote. you seem to think you’re the moderator here. i don’t begrudge you your initial posts, but i suggest you make an effort to let others disagree with you – without incurring the strained, urgent self-protective responses with which you’ve filled this site.
michael e, perhaps you could favour us with a single actual quotation from the Iranian leadership that threatens to destroy Israel with fire? Certainly, some have said that the justice of God will ensure that one day the Zionist regime in Jerusalem will become history – but the Zionist regime is not Israel, and that is not a threat but an expression of hope. I have the same hope myself.
Iran’s rejection of nuclear weapons – unlike the so-called Christian nations of the US and Britain – is given credence by the too-little-known story of its rejection of chemical weapons during the bloody war with Iraq, which it could otherwise have won: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/16/when_the_ayatollah_said_no_to_nukes_iran_khomeini
One reason why the Iranians want to invest in nuclear energy, as I understand it, is that nuclear energy has been talked up by many in the West as a kind of technological virility symbol. Here is my alternative proposal: Iran has huge expanses of hot desert, and whereas nuclear power stations take decades to build and are forever thereafter a massive liability, solar farms can be built very quickly and are no liability at all. I suggest that, rather than waste a fortune on going to war with Iran, the West stumps up a few billion dollars to cover much of Iran’s deserts with solar panels or condensing solar power plant. Everyone would be a winner – oh, apart from the warmongers and the war profiteers. And I guess that there’s the rub.