Iran, the nuclear issue, the NPT

Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the UN, has a significant op-ed piece on the nuclear issue in todays NYT. Titled “We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program”, the piece says:

    There need not be a crisis. A solution to the situation is possible and eminently within reach.
    Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has been in the forefront of efforts to ensure the treaty’s universality. Iran’s reliance on the nonproliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
    Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security in the framework of regional and international cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for its development. We are party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation — as United Nations reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years.

Zarif makes a potent argument. One potential problem, though: the Bush administration has been running away from the NPT faster than a person could ever hope to run from the fallout from a nuclear weapon… Yesterday, Condi Rice was up on the Hill trying to drum up support for the deal the Prez reached with India recently, that would reward India in a major way for having bypassed the NPT completely and produced its own, now well-demonstrated and very robust nuclear weapons program.
Worse still, that WaPo report and the NYT report both said that Kerry and Biden said they were inclined to support the deal. Maybe we should write the obituary for the NPT and move on? No! That is ways too scary a prospect… I really think we all need to work together to find a way to save (and indeed strengthen) it. And we should fight for implementation of its Article 6, too.

37 thoughts on “Iran, the nuclear issue, the NPT”

  1. Helena,
    Do you have a suggestion for solving the NPT issue? If you do, please bring it forward as the world would be better, probably, without them.
    As I see the problem,
    1. There is no moral argument for one or two or three countries to have them while other countries cannot have them. So, unless you can convince all of the nuclear powers to give them up, I would not get to upset with India. What can we offer India which makes it better to be subject to non-Indian dictates than to have nuclear weapons? Nothing that I can imagine, which is why India has such weapons.
    2. Since we are in the too little too late circumstance, the issue is not whether countries have the weapons – it is, at this point, too late – but which countries are trying to get them. If, in fact, Iran is trying to obtain such weapons, that is bad for the Middle East and the entire world because Iran is run by religious fanatics who appear really to believe that we live near the end of days. And that makes Iran different from India.

  2. Neal,
    I’m wondering about this believing in the end of days thing — I thought the only folks who believed that were some of the evangelical Christians here who make up a large part of GWB’s bsae. I’ve only taken a couple of classes on Islam, but have never heard of such an idea in that religion. Can you point me to some resources?
    Thanks –
    Vivion

  3. It’s only lately that I came to understand the term “boilerplate”, thanks to Wikipedia, and the likes of Neal. I wonder, who do you talk to, Neal? Who wants to listen while you reel out this standard tosh? Do you regale strangers with your “area of expertise”?! You really are a specimen, to be sure. Reproduced in every generation, like a banal version of the stupid Highlander. Once you were Polonius. Another time you were “the man on the Clapham omnibus”. You were Pecksniff. You were Mrs Malaprop. Boring down the years like a terrible inevitable worm.

  4. Vivion,
    You need to read up on Shi’ism and the Mahdi. It is an end of the world sort of thing – and full of violence, by the way. I suggest you consult Patricia Crone on the matter.
    Dominic,
    I gather I said something you did not like. Unfortunately, you resort to ad hominem attack so I have no idea what you have in mind.
    Presumably you have a point other than to insult me.

  5. Vivion,
    Wikipedia reports as follows:

    The Mahdi, according to majority Sunni and Shi’ite tradition, will arise at some point before the day of judgement, institute a kingdom of justice, and will in the last days fight alongside the returned Jesus against the Dajjal, the false messiah.

  8. Dear Helena
    It is not about nuclear weapons (Indian or Iranian) – it’s about oil and gas. Did you notice when Condi admitted to Congress that our diplomacy is being driven by competition for energy supplies? (1) Does Bush’s offer of nuclear technology to India, despite its failure to sign the NPT, make more sense when considered in light of the major pipeline project currently being negotiated among India, Pakistan and Iran, which threatens to cut US companies out of this incredibly lucrative market? (2) When silly George Bush suggested he wasn’t all that concerned about this pipeline, he had to be corrected by his own National Security Council spokesman! (3) Why would the US rather have India be an unrestrained nuclear power than a customer of Iranian oil & gas? So that Exxon-Mobile can sell them more LNG; (4) and so that the Afghanistan pipeline project long desired by American companies with friends in high places would still have a chance of being built. (5) Why does the US keep threatening to attack Iran? So that it can credibly argue to India that Iran would be an “unstable” source of oil & gas supply. (6) In the Watergate era, we used to say “follow the money.” Now we can say “follow the oil & gas.”
    Now that I’ve stated the obvious, perhaps our friend Vadim would like to reprise his clever argument about how oil and gas are just commodities with market prices, so no one could possibly be interested in controlling supplies.
    1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/world/asia/05cnd-rice.html?hp&ex=1144296000&en=857ef2727723aba0&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    “Ms. Rice argued that the Senate needed to approve the deal President Bush signed with India to keep that country aligned with the United States in what she called ‘an all-out rush for energy supplies’ by rapidly developing nations. ‘Nothing has taken me more aback as secretary of state than the way energy is — I will use the word warping — international diplomacy,’ she said.
    “Ms. Rice described a world in which limited supplies of energy and competing demands from countries like India and China are giving countries that supply oil and natural gas undue influence, and called the agreement crucial to developing a ‘strategic partnership’ between the United States and India.”
    2. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/05/india.iran.rice/
    “Rice said the agreement would enhance energy security, noting India was now the world’s sixth largest consumer of energy. ‘Diversifying India’s energy sector will help it to meet its ever increasing needs and more importantly, ease its reliance on hydrocarbons and unstable sources like Iran. This is good for the United States,’ she said in testimony to the House committee.”
    http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05184135
    http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=79185&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28
    3. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1645005,00020008.htm
    4. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1479840.cms
    5. http://www.dawn.com/2006/04/06/top1.htm
    6. http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N05184135

  10. Vivion
    From a review of Juan Coles’s “Sacred Space and Holy War” on amazon.co.uk
    “This is a valuable, informative, and erudite book that provides the diligent reader with many useful insights.
    It is not however an introductory text to basic Shia Islam. Readers looking for one of these could try Moojan Momen “An Introduction to Shi’ite Islam”.
    The book is a collection of of essays covering different aspects of Shia faith, legitimacy of forms of government, historical experience mostly as minority populations, and eventual reestablishment of an autonomous state. There is a comprehensive introduction that bears rereading after completing the book.”

  11. Dominic, not so many metaphors for Neal; they’re mixing too wildly! Thanks to you and Shirin, I now have an image of him as a robot Polonius (kind of like Kryten on Red Dwarf) Japanese soldier emerging out of the jungle still fighting a long ago war. Was that in an episode?
    On the subject of the post, Neal, here is the NPT Article 6 Helena refers to: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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 is the main obligation of the nuclear states under the treaty, but they have not treated it with much respect; some consider the treaty dead because of this. Good faith in this regard seems to be Helena’s answer, anticipating your question. Your judgment concerning Iran is rather arguable – with an equally jaundiced eye, one can see the US, Israel and even India or Pakistan in the same way.

  12. Thanks to everyone who has listed references to more in-depth coverage of Shi’ism.
    Having said that, I wonder if attributing that mentality (re: end of days) to Ahmadenejad is similar to attributing a like mentality to Bush — which I’ve certainly seen hinted at in the American press. Both or neither may be valid — a little too speculative for me. (Mind you, I tend to think Mr. Bush’s claims to faith are a wee bit exaggerated. Mr. Ahmadenejad seems pretty genuine…)

  13. John R,
    The same applies for any country. My only reason for singling out Iran is that its leaders are religious fanatics. Even the sane ones – so to speak – are fanatics. By way of example, this is what Hashemi Rafsanjani – whom the media portrays as a moderate voice to counter Presidebt Ahmadinejad – stated in December of 2001:

    If, one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill, because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

    Moreover, Ahmadinejad’s spiritual advisers have, according to historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners), just recently issued a fatwa justifying the use of nuclear weapons. Maybe the fatwa is a bluff aimed at the US or Israel or Europe or India or Pakistan. Maybe not. What Rafsanjani said, by contrast, was not in the manner of a bluff. It was basically a threat.
    The point is that we need to distinguish basically sane countries from countries out of control. That is no guarentee of peace and understanding – since it is not such a good idea, all around, for countries to have nuclear weapons – , but it certainly helps to delay crises if known lunatics with delusional ideas are kept away from having such weapons.

  14. “The point is that we need to distinguish basically sane countries from countries out of control.”
    Here you go again with your discrimination. As usual you are unable to acknowledge the problems with Israel or U.S. possession of nuclear weapons. Unlike Iran, the U.S. and Israel are a real, tangible, nuclear menace now. Current U.S. policy, in violation of the NPT, is to use nuclear weapons in an offensive way against non-nuclear states. Israel has contemplated some pretty horrific scenarios as described in “Open Secrets” by Israel Shahak.
    Regardless of what kind of leadership Iran has they may seek WMD to deter U.S./Israeli aggression. Israel and the U.S. have made it clear moral considerations will not inhibit them.
    The biggest obsticles to abolishing nuclear weapons are the U.S and Israel; they are bullies fueling an arms race. After the cold war there was a period when WMD might have been reduced/abolished; Gorbachav had expressed an interest in arms reductions; the U.S. wasn’t interested. Another example is that before the Gulf war Iraq had proposed that it relinquish its WMD if Israel would abandon its nuclear weapons. “Sane” Israel and the U.S. reacted with scorn.
    I might add that “sane” America has shown absolutely no regard for Iraqi (or in general third world) lives. Remember Madeline Albright telling “60 Minutes” that killing 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth the price” of containing Iraq?

  15. edq,
    Israel Shahak? Get real. He is not a source for anything.
    Israel has never suggested it would use nuclear weapons. It did not use them in the Six Day War or in the Yom Kippur War. It does not even claim to have such weapons.
    Iran, as noted above, actually threatens to use them.

  16. Neal,
    I find it ironic you question Shahak’s validity given how often zionist/orientalist claims have proven false. Anyway, Shahak bases his discussion on what has been published in Israel; hence the book’s title, “Open Secrets”.
    Israel obviously did not need nuclear weapons in the 1967 war.
    As I recall, during the 1973 war Israel threatened to nuke Egypt if their army entered Israeli territory. I think Seymour Hersh also reported that Israel was preparing to nuke Iraq during the Gulf war but was prevented by the U.S..
    Given Israel’s track record of ethnic cleansing everyone should be worried about its nuclear weapons.

  17. Iran, as noted above, actually threatens to use them.
    But since the Iranians don’t have them the weapons they use to threaten the universe with are cartoon-weapons. Such weapons don’t produce mushroom clouds, but text balloons.

  18. John C., developing the civilian nuclear industry in India undercuts opportunities for Exxon (via its minority share in Qatar’s Rasgas) to market natural gas in India. more nuclear energy means less generation-driven demand & lower gas prices. Exxon isn’t in the nuclear business. consider too that Iran is selling its gas at a fraction of the prevailing global price (RasGas ‘ 5-yr old sales to India’s Petronet are also fixed well below world rates.) india’s Petronet and Rasgas own stakes in one another, and their long term take-or-pay commitments aren’t threatened by Iran.
    The US has an interest in fostering Indian independence from Iranian energy sources, but this has nothing to do with ExxonMobil, and lots to do with Iran’s politics, including the unusual theology of its quasi-elected leadership.

  21. Neal, that latest response of yours is truly bizaare, and such as to leave me worried about your mental status… Are you saying that “maybe” Iran does already have nuclear weapons? What have you been smoking, man?
    Everyone else: I think I may have figured out why “Neal” is spending so much time over here trying to hog the discourse with his frequently diversionary and/or hostile comments…. If, Neal, you are indeed Neal Kozodoy, the editor of the well-known neocon mag Commentary, then it appears from this listing on Political Friendster that you don’t have any friends.
    I am so sorry.
    Anyway, whether you’re that Neal, someone impersonating him, or someone completely different, be aware you’ve now posted 6 out of the 20 comments here and thus qualify as a first-class discourse-hogger.

  22. Hi there,
    reading through the text and comments, I saw that “Maybe” preceedes any statement about Irans Nuc programm. today , at the age of machine perception and intelligence, it is not a good idea to decide on “maybes”.
    I’d like to ask the following question from all you belive that Iran goes to build Nuc weapons:
    Up to now , how many people all over the world killed by Iranian? pleae take care , Exactly by Iranian. you may say that Hamas gets support from Iran,… without giving any idea about the acts of these groups, Irans support for them is itself imaginary!
    To my memory, It was U.S. that had fallen our AirBUS!!! with 300 people in it!
    To my memory , It was U.S. that armed Saddam against us. I’ll never forgett pictures of donald ramsfeld on TV shaking Saddams hand during the 8 years of imposed war.
    I dont know who decides and theorizes American gov actions and dont like to know. Talking to all americans like me, a simple student who has not any political and govermental role, I’d like to say that Iran never wants to be part of any human killing program and it had never been!
    Excuse for my poor english!

  23. The irony in this situation is that I think most Americans support the NPT, although they may want the U.S. to retain its nukes. However, in the so-called democratic system in the U.S., that does not translate into a policy.
    This is a critical issue, like global warming, about which there is much denial. I should mention that there was a major crisis in 1984 which has received virtually no attention in America. Ronald Reagan, in his wisdom, had ordered U.S. fighter planes to buzz Soviet bases in Europe. In response the Soviets decided to launch a full scale nuclear strike in 6 hours if this did not end. The only reason we are alive today is that a KGB agent in Britain alerted Thatcher to the Soviet plans. She conveyed this information to Reagan and the buzzing stopped.
    This was a major event where humanity could have ended. This history received some attention in Britain but has been ignored by the U.S. press. One would think a close call like this would lead to some reflection.
    I guess there are many vested interests which benefit from the nuclear/military-industrial complex. U.S. elites also seem to want to lord it over everybody. Maybe when America is ready to live with everyone as equals they can pursue disarmament. This military certainly isn’t about defense.

  24. “The US has an interest in fostering Indian independence from Iranian energy sources, but this has nothing to do with ExxonMobil, and lots to do with Iran’s politics, including the unusual theology of its quasi-elected leadership.”
    There you have it folks. Who are you gonna believe, Vadim or your lyin’ eyes?
    The two basic themes underlying the US government’s adventures in the greater Middle East, at least since the beginning of the Cold War, are (1) the desire to keep oil and gas resources in “friendly” hands, and (2) a protective affinity for the State of Israel.
    Throughout his participation here at JWN, Vadim has relentlessly championed the interests of Israel and the US oil & gas industry, while denying that these things are important drivers of US foreign policy.
    Vadim, I suspect you know very well that nuclear power is not exactly a threat to oil & gas interests. The particular terms of the current take-or-pay arrangement between Petronet and Rasgas might be interesting to industry insiders (like yourself?), but are not material to the course of US diplomacy. Finally, if you really believe that US government policy is being driven by theological concerns, then you should be making plans for a quick exit.

  25. but are not material to the course of US diplomacy.
    I agree, the particulars of the largest LNG deal in history (& the only one involving an exxon affiliate and india) are immaterial to the course of US diplomacy. I wonder why it even came up? (???!!!)
    Speaking of oil resources in unfriendly hands, watch this wild video of Chavez denouncing Bush (careful, it’s a big file):
    http://www.11abril.com/index/videos/ChavezHitBush20060319.wmv
    what statesmanlike behavior. (Maybe someone here can explain the farm animals in the background?) Apologies Helena, I know it’s OT, but is slamming Bush ever truly OT?

  26. “the largest LNG deal in history”
    History ain’t over yet. In the corporate world, as I’m sure you know Vadim, no matter how much you made last year, you have to make more next year or you’re toast.
    I enjoyed the video, thanks!

  27. Hmm….fanatics versus logic.
    Nice article…right up my alley, my cup o tea, etc.
    As a Shia I say, We are way misunderstood.

  28. Muharram Mansoorizadeh
    محرم منصور زاده
    Hamas gets support from Iran,… without giving any idea about the acts of these groups, Irans support for them is itself imaginary!
    Why you Jump to Hamms, what about Hezbollah? Is Hezbollah is an Iranian body from its top leadership down?
    To refresh your memory if you may be forgot Iranian support the Kurds for years in North Iraq against central governments from late 1950 til the invasion?
    What about Iranian occupation of the three islands belonging to the State of the UAE?
    I think your memory so short and you build your statement on truthless bases.
    it was U.S. that armed Saddam against us. I’ll never forgett pictures of donald ramsfeld on TV shaking Saddams hand during the 8 years of imposed war.
    What about US/Iran-Contra affair. Is US/Iranian weapon supplies?
    Do you know these many Iranian in UK and Paris US like
    Alkhumayni Foundation,
    Al-Khoei Foundation
    AhlulBayt Islamic Mission
    Imam Ali Foundation
    All these are Iranian agent working closely with UK and US, so its good try from you to distance Iran from its back door relation with the west, also the recent talk about negotiations between Iran and US in Iraq what’s that’s mean ? Can you tell us?
    I’d like to say that Iran never wants to be part of any human killing program and it had never been!
    Yah what we see in Iraq today, the Baseej force doing the massacres with Iraqis this is not Iran made things,Yah?
    Remind you how the Iranians leaded by Kumaini using Iraqi Prisoner of War (POW) during Iraq/Iran War, put them in a military trucks undressed and they toured around the streets in Tehran while the Iranians people thorough them with stones, shoes, spit on them and swearing on them…..!!!! Under freezing weather, is this an Islamic believe of Kumaini and his orthotic regime and Iranians? Is this your believe tells you to treat humans? How you forget these pictures?

  29. Salah, friend, I am sure that many of the images broadcast on Iraq’s state media during the 8-year war between your country and Iran were very disturbing to you, and I empathize with your pain.
    The Iranian people also suffered a huge amount of pain during that war. I believe that many, many more of them were killed and maimed during that war than were Iraqis. Also, many Iranians and even Shiite citizens of Iraq were tortured and treaed extremely inhumanely.
    That is what war does to human societies. It breaks down all the normal human morality and the normal human reluctance to kill and torture other people. This is why I say the “enemy” is not other people but it is war (and the war mentality) itself.
    So I empathize with your evident pain, but I urge you not to turn it into hatred, generalized fear, and incitement to further violence against a whole group of people you appear to blame for those horrible violations.
    War harms everyone. Let’s take some giant steps back from it. In particular, in the Muslim world, who benefits when Muslims fight Muslims? It sure ain’t the Muslim communities themselves; and such fighting surely can’t be the will of God/Allah?

  30. Helena,
    but I urge you not to turn it into hatred
    With due respect, I think putting me in position of hatred mouth/posting, it’s disappointing and I refuse this. However I might be generalising my blame which I admitting it’s wrong.
    My attentions and my key point in my post regarding Muharram Mansoorizadeh is to correct some missing facts as she is Iranian as I believe, make me responding to highlight some facts by using last events to bring her memory back.
    God Bless,

  31. Hamas is a Sunni organization. It has nothing at all in common with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a local organization which has never really refused the mingling of Syrian intelligence because..well NO ONE did. That they are accused of not ousting the Syrian regime…well no one ousted anyone until Hariri was killed. What is forgotten in all of that is Hobeika.
    Iran’s influence on Hezbollah can be likened to Islam itself…the state does not use the religion but the religion does utilize the state and all the state provides including external support which really, isn’t external at all considering those that are represented may be divided by kilometers of land but not divided at all by belief. So…technically…Hezbollah IS a state within a state but it is also a Pan Islamic state and is/will be responsible in my estimation, for a total Islamic Reformation…if the US leaves them alone. And who better to leave alone? Who has languished for centuries being murdered, raped and massacred with nary a yelp and only a few rituals like flagellations which are feared almost as much in the west as a good case of the clap. Huh?
    Yes….the US supported the FIRST Gulf War (now that we are in the THIRD Gulf War although moderaters continually call it the SECOND). They misled the Shia during the SECOND (Kuwait) and now they are leading them into a complete and absolute no-man’s land of civil war…which is most likely…the plan all along. Wasn’t it?
    Weren’t we Shia once again duped? By the US whose track record has been nothing but absolute support of the police states of the Gulf WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE for the single largest attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor? I mean come on already…the Shia are though one rabid dog at this point and I feel sorry for the US soldiers present in Iraq right now. If they don’t exit soon…well…they’ll exit in body bags later. As for the miserable chaps called Iraqis…well who ever cared about a dark person’s blood anyway…that is just a big fat WESTERN sham…and you can call me whitey.
    Sad. It is all very sad but then again…isn’t it in Allah’s plan afterall? I think it is and so do most muslims see this as a very big Fitna…if not the last one then one leading to the last one eventually whether it be in fifty years time or two hundred.

  32. At least in the US there is separation of Church & State as well as a Corporation & State. Sure, there are scandals from time to time and people break the law because that’s what people do.
    But you can’t tell me the situation isn’t 1000X worse in countries like Iran or Venezuela where the Corporations ARE the State. Where the Church IS the State. At least the oil industry in our country pays taxes, invests in alternative energy R&D, and faces the consequences of its environmental missteps. Most of the time.
    I’m with Vadim on this one. Venezuela is very scary for what it might do to both international political and economic stability. Iran could be worse if it gets nukes. If they riot and kill over some dumb cartoons what are they going to do the next time they feel “insulted” and have nukes to play with?

  33. At least in the US there is separation of Church & State as well as a Corporation & State. Sure, there are scandals from time to time and people break the law because that’s what people do.
    But you can’t tell me the situation isn’t 1000X worse in countries like Iran or Venezuela where the Corporations ARE the State. Where the Church IS the State. At least the oil industry in our country pays taxes, invests in alternative energy R&D, and faces the consequences of its environmental missteps. Most of the time.
    I’m with Vadim on this one. Venezuela is very scary for what it might do to both international political and economic stability. Iran could be worse if it gets nukes. If they riot and kill over some dumb cartoons what are they going to do the next time they feel “insulted” and have nukes to play with?

  35. Vadim – How much do you figure your oil company pals are willing to spend on mercenaries to defend their “contract rights” in Venezuela? Lawyers ain’t gonna cut it. I think most of the regular army grunts that know how to fight have caught on to the “contractor” game by now. You’re not going to be able to do another country on the cheap.

  36. John C., I’d ask but I have no pals working for either company (Total / Eni.) & somehow I can’t see the French foreign legion sacking Caracas so Chavez appears safe.

Comments are closed.