How America Plays Favorites

[LnGrrrR]

Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html



Iran:

Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.
Israel

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.


Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?

[101A]

Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html



Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?


Because Israel doesn't want to wipe Iran out of existence; while ALL of its neighbors want it dusted. Nukes are its defense.

Not to say our position isn't hypocritical; but it is what it is.

Also, it can never be overstated how much influence $$$$ have in setting policy in Washington. It's a bigoted cliche, but it is true, there are a whole bunch of very wealthy Jews in this country.

[boutons_deux]

AIPAC is as powerful (aka $$$) as any corporation.

[MannyIsGod]

Because Israel doesn't want to wipe Iran out of existence; while ALL of its neighbors want it dusted. Nukes are its defense.

Not to say our position isn't hypocritical; but it is what it is.

Also, it can never be overstated how much influence $$$$ have in setting policy in Washington. It's a bigoted cliche, but it is true, there are a whole bunch of very wealthy Jews in this country.

Maybe not per se, but lets not act as though there aren't religious zealots in Israel pushing for war just like in Iran.

[hater]

please, you don't think Israel wants to wipe out the entire Arab middle East? of course they do, but they are smart, and play smart politics. Plus they are perfectly happy at their position now, a superpower that can toy with third world Arab countries.

Iran are some stupid idiots. They need to learn to play world politics. the first step would be to stop saying they wanna wipe out a country.

[DarrinS]

Israel having nukes allows them to exist.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/struggle_for_peace/land_maps/middle_east_region.jpg

[clambake]

when did israel use nukes, D?

[LnGrrrR]

Israel having nukes allows them to exist.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/struggle_for_peace/land_maps/middle_east_region.jpg

I'm fine with them having nukes. But why shouldn't their facilities be inspected as well?

[Mark in Austin]

Iran are some stupid idiots. They need to learn to play world politics. The first step would be to stop saying they wanna wipe out a country.

Actually they are desperate. There's a huge difference. Here is what a partially corrupt regime is looking at:

The majority of Iranians are under 30. They're so young they don't remember the revolution in the 70's. They are the first college educated generation since the revolution. (In the 70's many college educated Iranians chose to leave the country during / after the revolution - it created a serious lack of brainpower in the country and an even bigger generational divide. The majority of people in the country not only youger than 30, they are [much] better educated than their parents.) Since they are college educated, the vast majority are more liberal in their views than both the previous generation and the faction of clerics clinging to power.

And now, thanks to the blatant rigging of an election; all these young Iranians who are much more tolerant towards the west / liberal in their personal / religious views are also disenfranchised. Outside of Israel, Iran had the longest running and cleanest elections in the Middle East until this last election.


Expect the rhetoric of the hard liners to continue to get more strident - that faction of the government is trying to goad Israel / the US into attacking them in a way that will turn public opinion against western reconciliation and have the people rally around the government. This is the hardliners only shot to stay in power. Without it, simple demographics will force them to either become a fully authoritarian regime that has dropped all pretense of real elections, or they will be voted out of office and start to fade from dominance in the religious councils.


(I have my share of disagreements with some of President Obama's policies, but he played the election protest thing about as perfectly as it could have been been played. If you think the crackdown was bad as it was reported, it would have been ten times as brutal if he was openly supporting / encouraging the dissidents.)

[DarrinS]

I'm fine with them having nukes. But why shouldn't their facilities be inspected as well?


I don't really see the point. We already know they have nuclear weapons. What are they gonna do? Make them even more destructive?

[DarrinS]

Keep in mind, if it weren't for a few famous Jewish physicists, WE wouldn't even have nukes.

[Winehole23]

I don't really see the point. We already know they have nuclear weapons. What are they gonna do? Make them even more destructive?There's maybe nuclear proliferation to consider.

NB: I'm not aware that's an issue with Israel at all, but since they're not an NPT signatory, it's not checkable.

[Winehole23]

This was more notable in the OP IMO:


Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program. . . .

Under the tentative uranium deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined, to 19.75 percent purity. That is much less than the purity needed to fuel a nuclear bomb.


French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.


This too:



Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.
Iran was shown the tendency to drag its feet on previous pledges, so these must be taken cum grano salis, but the pledge to export its enriched uranium for conversion to fuel rods in particular would seem to be a mini-breakthrough.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't really see the point. We already know they have nuclear weapons. What are they gonna do? Make them even more destructive?

Yes, but we don't have the numbers. We just have to trust that Israel is taking care of their nukes, and not selling them to rogue countries.

I just think it looks bad to demand that Iran give in to nearly all demands while we turn a blind eye towards other countries. Of course, I guess one could legitimately argue that Israel hasn't made as many overt threats as Iran, but it's not like Israel is some peace-loving hippie nation.

[LnGrrrR]

Iran was shown the tendency to drag its feet on previous pledges, so these must be taken cum grano salis, but the pledge to export its enriched uranium for conversion to fuel rods in particular would seem to be a mini-breakthrough.

The reason I didn't include this was because I'm 99% sure that the majority of conservatives will state something along the lines of, "Sure, they SAY they'll send all of the uranium, but they're probably keeping some somewhere for weaponization!"

[Winehole23]

Of course, I guess one could legitimately argue that Israel hasn't made as many overt threats as IranLeaving aside Ahmadinejad's earnest and much ballyhooed wish that "the Israeli regime must vanish from from the page of history", what overt threats has Iran actually made?

That isn't to minimize Iran's surreptitious support of Shia nationalists and Hamas and other shady stuff.

For example, when was the last time Iran attacked a neighbor, before the Iran-Iraq war?


but it's not like Israel is some peace-loving hippie nation.The IDF's recent actions in Gaza and Lebanon showed energy, masculine resolve, and the unsentimental application of force.

BTW, was the blockade ever technically lifted in Gaza? I honestly don't know.

[Wild Cobra]

Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html



Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?
It's a matter of trust.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a matter of trust.

You're willing to wholeheartedly trust a country? One with nukes, no less?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm fine with them having nukes. But why shouldn't their facilities be inspected as well?
What would we inspect for? We wouldn't be worried about them making weapons grade material would we?

[hope4dopes]

Maybe not per se, but lets not act as though there aren't religious zealots in Israel pushing for war just like in Iran. After all the terror the islamic world had directed at hindus, jews, christians, animasts around the entire world let's not pretend you have a leg to stand on.

[LnGrrrR]

What would we inspect for? We wouldn't be worried about them making weapons grade material would we?

At the least, we could ensure how many they had. As well, it would look better on us internationally if we held countries to the same standard, I feel.

[hope4dopes]

[QUOTE=LnGrrrR;3718982]Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html



Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?[/QUOTE
Stupid thread ...lame ass apoligists

[Wild Cobra]

You're willing to wholeheartedly trust a country? One with nukes, no less?
No, but there are acceptable comfort levels. I can count on one hand the people I would trust with my life. Why would I trust a country?

[LnGrrrR]

Stupid thread ...lame ass apoligists

Thanks for this stirring analysis. I can always count on you to provide insightful rebuttal.

[hope4dopes]

Thanks for this stirring analysis. I can always count on you to provide insightful rebuttal. Insight you're not intrested in anything other than trying to legitamize a fucking lunatic and trying to pose as the voice of reason '"elavating the discussion" with a fucking nutjob.Your about as intrested in a sincere analysis as Jane Fonda or John Kerry you're a poser.

[LnGrrrR]

Insight you're not intrested in anything other than trying to legitamize a fucking lunatic and trying to pose as the voice of reason '"elavating the discussion" with a fucking nutjob.Your about as intrested in a sincere analysis as Jane Fonda or John Kerry you're a poser.

And here I thought WC, WH23, and others were having a decent conversation with me on whether we should allow some countries more privileges when it cames to nukes. Silly me.

[LnGrrrR]

And Jane Fonda? Really? How old are you?

[hope4dopes]

And here I thought WC, WH23, and others were having a decent conversation with me on whether we should allow some countries more privileges when it cames to nukes. Silly me.
silly is a fucking an understatement

[Winehole23]

We haven't even reached the conclusions you say are already settled, micca.

For example. I suspect I may differ with LnGrrR about the significance of the inconsistency of US policy. I think it makes sense not to be rulebound in all cases. For there to be special relationships that except important allies from the sharp edges of US policy. Israel is such a case.

Of course, there's something to the riposte that the inconsistency may lead some to question our reliability and sincerity. That's a real concern, but I don't think it's avoidable. Picking sides opens the door to special -- sometimes after the fact controversial -- deals.

Per contra, precisely this perceived snugness with Israel (e.g., hot-shotting armaments to Israel while it invades Lebanon) has botched our erstwhile cred as an impartial broker -- a role Nixon and Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, 41 and even Clinton worked very hard to maintain.

We broker the deal anyway, apparently. I've not heard much lately on this front.

What's the news on that, micca?

[LnGrrrR]

We haven't even reached the conclusions you say are already settled, micca.

For example. I suspect I may differ with LnGrrR about the significance of the inconsistency of US policy. I think it makes sense not to be rulebound in all cases. For there to be special relationships that except important allies from the sharp edges of US policy. Israel is such a case.

I MIGHT be onboard with something like this, if there were clearly defined rules for such exemptions. Something other than "Praise America and we'll look the other way." I also don't sit well with the idea that basically says, "Oh hey, we trust Israel unreservedly, so they're allowed nukes." That type of back-scratching is exactly, in my mind, what pisses off so many other countries.

Then again, while it's realpolitik for the US to pretty much be able to tell the world who does and does not get nukes, I see no strong moral/legal justification for it, or how we go about determining who gets entry into the elite club.

It's one of the reasons Washington warned against permanent enemies AND allies.

[Winehole23]

I MIGHT be onboard with something like this, if there were clearly defined rules for such exemptions. Something other than "Praise America and we'll look the other way." It does look like that. I'm not sure we're currently doing anything to dispel the impression.


I also don't sit well with the idea that basically says, "Oh hey, we trust Israel unreservedly, so they're allowed nukes." That type of back-scratching is exactly, in my mind, what pisses off so many other countries.It's unseemly to discuss in public, as if it were a family matter.

But I'd suspect the halls of power, like the people, do not actually trust any one country unreservedly apart from their own, even though they may not say so in public. Israel is a special case in the logomachy, as in real life, and commands significant gentile fealty in the USA, apart from the official support. Raw sentiment is an element of politics.


Then again, while it's realpolitik for the US to pretty much be able to tell the world who does and does not get nukes, I see no strong moral/legal justification for it, or how we go about determining who gets entry into the elite club.The justification is that's we're better, we deserve to win, and maybe we have the power and influence to make it happen. Besides, even if we lack the power and the influence to get it done decisively, we owe it to ourselves to at least try to manage the problem.

The justification is essentially managerial/technocratic, not moral.

[Winehole23]

It's one of the reasons Washington warned against permanent enemies AND allies.How can we ever untangle it?

[Winehole23]

Did the India nuke deal pass Congress?

[Winehole23]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/us/Nuke-deal-safe-NPT-resolution-not-aimed-at-India-US/articleshow/5060931.cms

[Cry Havoc]

Actually they are desperate. There's a huge difference. Here is what a partially corrupt regime is looking at:

The majority of Iranians are under 30. They're so young they don't remember the revolution in the 70's. They are the first college educated generation since the revolution. (In the 70's many college educated Iranians chose to leave the country during / after the revolution - it created a serious lack of brainpower in the country and an even bigger generational divide. The majority of people in the country not only youger than 30, they are [much] better educated than their parents.) Since they are college educated, the vast majority are more liberal in their views than both the previous generation and the faction of clerics clinging to power.

And now, thanks to the blatant rigging of an election; all these young Iranians who are much more tolerant towards the west / liberal in their personal / religious views are also disenfranchised. Outside of Israel, Iran had the longest running and cleanest elections in the Middle East until this last election.


Expect the rhetoric of the hard liners to continue to get more strident - that faction of the government is trying to goad Israel / the US into attacking them in a way that will turn public opinion against western reconciliation and have the people rally around the government. This is the hardliners only shot to stay in power. Without it, simple demographics will force them to either become a fully authoritarian regime that has dropped all pretense of real elections, or they will be voted out of office and start to fade from dominance in the religious councils.


(I have my share of disagreements with some of President Obama's policies, but he played the election protest thing about as perfectly as it could have been been played. If you think the crackdown was bad as it was reported, it would have been ten times as brutal if he was openly supporting / encouraging the dissidents.)

Fantastic post.

[LnGrrrR]

How can we ever untangle it?

I can only see two options. One, telling the world to piss off when they ask for our help. Two, screwing things up so badly that no one will ask us for help again.

Now, I know what you're going to say. Neither of those are very realistic options. However, I think Iraq and the worldwide economic collapse might give us a break from being the world's babysitter. :lol

[spursncowboys]

Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html

Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?
are we trying to be fair? should our foreign policy be about what is best for america?

[LnGrrrR]

are we trying to be fair? should our foreign policy be about what is best for america?

It's my belief that being "fair" is the same as being "just", and that by being just, America will set a better example and be viewed more favorably in the international community. By being impartial, America will show less favoritism, and (theoretically) reduce enmity towards us.

[boutons_deux]

America, like any country, has ONLY (self) interests, not principles or concepts like fair, just, true, morals, good, holy, Christian, unhypocritical.

Applying personal values, morals, principles to countries is fucking naive, as is applying personal values and morals to corporations. Neither has any. America's goal is to survive, corps goal is to profit. Nothing else matters.

While the US justifies nuking (non-white, non-Christian) countries, America will deny anybody else that right and ability. If US can't get that, then it tries to deny American's enemies from nuking, while not stopping friends from getting nukes.

[Winehole23]

Now, I know what you're going to say. Neither of those are very realistic options. However, I think continuing to screw things up for a very long time as the world's babysitter is a real possibility. I wouldn't rule it out.

[Winehole23]

"Full spectrum dominance", sang the sirens.

[Winehole23]

Resultant moral luck. We can't win if we don't play.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralluc/

[LnGrrrR]

However, I think continuing to screw things up for a very long time as the world's babysitter is a real possibility. I wouldn't rule it out.

Which would ultimately accomplish my preferred goal. Not the BEST means of doing so, of course... :lol

[mogrovejo]

Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/02/iran/index.html



Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?


“I am not in the slightest bit worried because somebody can say, ‘Well, you said so and so about Greece, why isn’t all this true about China?’ I will be polite. I will be patient, and I will try to explain why Greece is not China. But my heart will not be in the battle.”

Dean Acheson

[Mark in Austin]

Fantastic post.

Thanks. To circle back to the larger discussion in the thread:

I think one critical point that has been underreported thus far is the fact that Iran is teetering on the brink of a new revolution - not based on religious conviction like the one in the 70's or the remarkable opposition protests to the recent rigged election.

The real revolution is going on behind the scenes, where the Revolutionary Guard has aligned itself with hardline clerics in the religious council that selects the Supreme Leader, who is much more powerful than the President.

The RG has become more than anything else a huge economic power in the country with its own interests that extend far beyond military areas - similar to a large diversified corporation like GE. And just like GE or any corporation, the RG is now acting in its own best interests, not as an extention of government power or in the best interests of the country.

Those interests right now mean an alliance with the hardline clerics. Problem is the first real flaw in the clerics rule has been exposed - election fraud is clearly against the Iranian constitution and (duh) not exactly what a follower of Mohammed, much less a religious leader should do.

Once the hardliners were exposed as hypocrites, they began lose the religious true believers. The intersts aligning against the hardliners in the religious council include both more liberal clerics as well as those close to the first Supreme Leader Khomenei who helped start the revolution in the 70's.

And that brings us to the most remarkable part of the story - the supposed "reform" candidate in the election, Mousavi, was one of Khomenei's closest allies. What's really happening in Iran isn't some liberal backlash against the ideals of the 70's revolution. What's happening now is the realization that the government in power now is not in line with the ideals of that revolution. The demonstrators weren't demanding a new government, they were demanding the rights gauranteed to them in the current constitution.

The crossroads Iran is currently sitting at is critical - the revolution has been realized. There is a vibrant, young generation that benefitted from an emphasis on eduction; and the time has come to transition from a revolutionary state to a true Islamic Republic. If the alliance of "reform" and liberal clerics manages to overcome the current hardliners and elect a new Supreme Leader that allows for a new Presidential Election in keeping with the constition of the Islamic Republic, this will happen. The current existential discussion on any country's right to develop nuclear technology has bearing on this Iranian government.

However, if the hardliners and Revolutionary Guard tighten their grip on the government the Islamic Republic will esentially cease to exist. What will be left is a military dictatorship that wraps itself in enough trappings of Islamic vocabulary and gingoistic sloganeering ("death to Israel!", etc.) to satisfy the vocal minority in the country who can't think for themselves. Government assimilation / suppression of all press will continue. Access to higher education will be restricted. Rights will begin to disappear all in the name of the revolution.

The right of any country to determine its future - including developing nuclear technology - is predicated on its government's legitimacy. The lack of the fundamental right of citizens to choose their government makes a military dictatorship illegitimate. In my opinion, a military dictatorship that suppresses its own people demands the close scruitiny of the world and the application of as much pressure as possible to keep nuclear weapons from it or to force that government to give up nuclear weapons it already has (like N Korea).

[MiamiHeat]

Alpha Chimpanzees, when successfully hunting meat, play favorites and give the most meat to the other chimps who support them. Any rebellious chimps, or threats to the alpha male, gets barely/no meat at all.

What's new?

Israel furthers american policies in the region. Here's some nukes.

Iran, ooo no bad. no nukes for you

What's new?

[Winehole23]

http://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/250px-apeandessence.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

Winehole23,

when I saw your image of that book, I was immediately interested. Never even heard of it before. Quick glance on wikipedia to find out about it...

I just requested it online from my public library.

Thanks, much appreciated. Seems like a fun read

[Winehole23]

yw, MH. It is a fun read.