The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Iranian Nuclear Hysteria

The story dominating the news cycle right now is that Iran declared a nuclear site after it realized that the US already knew about it, and this means Iran wants nukes and is working on getting them.

The story is questionable at best. Under the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran believes it needs to only declare sites 180 days before it introduces nuclear materials to them. This has been Iran’s stand for years, and there is no evidence that the site has any nuclear materials in it.

Second: we don’t know why Iran declared the site now. Maybe it’s because they knew the US knew (what is this, n-dimensional chess), or maybe it’s because they were going to anyway. We don’t know. We do know that the last time the US accused a country of having a nuclear program, however, that the US lied.

At this point there is no firm evidence that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. Various intelligence services have claimed Iran is, but none of them have produced evidence to be evaluated in the light of day.

Nonetheless the call is out for “severe sanctions”. Now, I’m not entirely sure that I know what severe sanctions means, but I think a safe guess is that the US wants sanctions similar to those imposed on Iraq in the nineties.

Those sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of people, possibly as many as a million. They were as devastating to Iraq as an all-out war. In terms of lives lost, the substantive difference between the sanctions and the Iraq war is that in the Iraq war American soldiers were killed as well—a few thousand American soldiers, a number much smaller than the Iraqi deaths, but a number which matters much more to Americans.

However, if deaths of non-Americans matter to you, then you should oppose Iranian sanctions. Especially since there is so far no convincing evidence that Iran even has a military nuclear program.

But even if Iran did have a military nuclear program, severe sanctions, or a military strike might still be overkill. Like them or hate them, Iran’s leadership are not insane. Nuclear weapons come with return addresses. If Iran were foolish enough to use a nuke, the country would be reduced to a glowing glass lined parking lot. Iran’s leadership would have to be insane and suicidal to do so.

Screaming constantly about how dangerous a nuclear Iran would be is simply war-mongering intended to whip up hysteria. The sort of lies which are used to whip Westerners up before every action which kills large numbers of foreigners.

To recap:

There is no public convincing evidence that Iran has a military nuclear program.

Even if Iran has somehow successfully concealed such a program from the innumerable inspections it undergoes, and did somehow manage to get nukes, it would be no more likely to use them than any other nuclear armed nation.

Sanctions could kill as many people as a major war, and they are being sold without solid evidence and through a campaign which tries to claim that Iranian nukes would be a real threat to the US, which is simply untrue.

Although American soldiers won’t die due to sanctions on Iran, the effect of sanctions could well be equal to that of a major war on Iranians. As with war, the decision to kill that number of people requires the highest evidence and the most careful consideration: not accusations which aren’t backed up by proof or hysteria about America being endangered.

We’ve been down this road once. Let’s not go down it again, and let’s not be quiet just because the people trying to shove us down this road have a (D) by their name.

Previous

The West Drives Iran Into China’s Arms

Next

The Reason Insurance Company Execs aren’t Scared of the Public Option

11 Comments

  1. senecal

    I keep reading that Europe, particularly Germany and France, is even more interested in punitive actions against Iran than the US is. This doesn’t quite jibe for me with Europe’s more conservative positions on Iran and Af-Pak.

  2. Formerly T-Bear

    There is a neo-conservative cabal currently occupying most of the executive positions (Prime Minister of national Parliaments) in the EU, e.g. Brown/UK, Sarkozy/France, Merkle/Germany, Beliscone/Italy, for the major powers as well as Mendelev/Putin in Russia. These have all bought into the “New World Order” put out by IMF, World Bank, Chicago School of Economic Phrenology, Wall Street/Washington Axis of Evil. Washington has begun the propaganda war building up to the attack on Iran, same score as the attack on Iraq, based upon a fictitious weapon of mass destruction to frighten and scare those with weak and disabled minds into believing and supporting this agenda.

    The Presidents first words out of his mouth about the Iranian disclosure to IAEA were complete lies, falshoods of the highest order. Yes that man in the White House is an accomplished lier, every bit as well as any white man. It is no surprise to most of the people of Europe that their governments are slavishly following Washington’s lead. Unfortunately most governments in Europe have bought into NATO (OTAN) and are obligated to support that treaty, all too often with a relish not shared with the citizens of their country, a bird that some day will return to roost.

  3. The agenda is being driven by the neocons. Here, “neocon” doesn’t mean neo-conservative but neo-colonial. This is part and parcel of shaping the “New World Order” as a financial oligarchy imposed on the global economy by the West in the name of promoting freedom, extending democracy, and increasing prosperity. “Democracy” is equated with neoliberal capitalism as a socio-economic system controlled by financial oligarchs.

    These are not “evil” people trying to take over the world, in the sense that many of them seem to believe that the system they seek to impose is the hope for global “prosperity.” However,, they measure prosperity by growth irrespective of wealth distribution and indebtedness.

    They are the real “government” because they get to create and allocate capital, thereby determining the direction of global economy. Their reward for this “largesse” is collecting “taxes” globally through rents. Their idea of global prosperity is creating a world filled with consumers who are effectively enslaved through debt peonage but don’t realize it because they are co-opted with subsistence and given just enough toys not to notice their condition.

  4. John B.

    Excellent post Ian and a timely reminder to us all regarding the huge human toll that sanctions cause to a people, not just to their government.

  5. paul lukasiak

    Although American soldiers won’t die due to sanctions on Iran
    _
    given that Iran shares borders with both Iraq and Afghanistan, I suspect that a US lead sanctions regime against Iran could easily lead to more dead American soldiers….

  6. frang

    Scott Ritter appeared on Democracy Now yesterday and discussed his views on the current controversy regarding Iran. Ritter stated that, as part of a 2003 agreement that allowed Iran to seek nuclear power, Iran agreed to an “additional protocal of inspections”. This agreement required “Iran to declare any facility at the time that it intends to produce it, create it, to build it, as opposed to the old agreement, which said Iran must declare this facility 180 days prior to the insertion of nuclear material.” However, in 2007, Iran withdrew from this agreement, stating that Western powers did not recognize “the legitimacy of its nuclear program”. So, “Iran’s not in violation of anything.”

    Ritter then went on to state, “And the IAEA has a 100 percent accounting for the totality of Iran’s nuclear material. So, even if Iran produces this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won’t be in operation for over a year, no nuclear material has been diverted, there still is a full material balance, and the IAEA is in complete control of the situation. Iran is not in violation.”

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/29/fmr_un_weapons_inspector_scott_ritter

  7. Maggie's farmer

    Rahm = Israel.
    Rahm is the de facto president, kids, just like Shotgun Dick was for Bush.
    You take it from there.

  8. Suspenders

    Forgive me if I’m wrong Ian, but from your writings, it appears that you don’t have much of a concern over nuclear proliferation. Is this because you’re a believer in the efficacy of retaliation, or maybe the hypocrisy of “I have nukes, you can’t, sorry”?

  9. Ian Welsh

    I tend to believe MAD will work. I would prefer less nukes in the world, and less countries with nukes, due to what happens if MAD fails, but…

    The thing is, Iraq was the object lesson: Iraq wasn’t invaded because it had nukes, Iraq was invaded because it didn’t have nukes. Maybe more countries with nukes will make the world a more civilized place.

    The only countries that have nukes which really concern me are N. Korea and Israel. I actually trust Israel less with nukes than I would Iran because the leadership there is far more delusional, imo.

  10. Ian Welsh

    I should add that the real scary nukes are failed state nukes. So the question of whether all ex-USSR nukes are accounted for, or what happens if Pakistan disintegrates…

  11. John B.

    well, and I think it must be mentioned that the good ole US of A is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on a country and it’s people and if there was any truth to the story of the loose nukes that made their way to an Air Force base in Louisiana on Darth Cheney’s watch, then I think one has to in good conscience add the USofA to the countries one might be concerned about…Pakistan, Israel, N.Korea,

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén