When it comes to the Middle East, the former president never ceases to amaze.
In an interview published in Time, he was asked: "What do you think it means that Iran seems to have its first nuclear fuel rod?"
His complete answer:
Well, of course, the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons. If they are lying, then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military weapons. Israel probably has 300 or so.There you have it. In 51 words, Carter demonstrates convincingly why he should stay out of the business of Iran analysis.
Not that he was much better at it while in the White House.
Remember his famous expression of confidence in the Shah -- "an island of stability" -- when one year later the Iranian leader was ousted and had to flee the country?
And the catastrophic U.S. attempt, under Carter, to free the 52 American hostages taken by the Shah's successors, that failed for the lack of a working helicopter?
And the fact that those hostages languished in Iranian hands for 444 days, only to be released the very first day Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, took office?
Carter did not understand Iran then. Judging by the Time interview, he still doesn't.
First, how could any serious observer begin a response by mentioning that "the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons"?
Of what possible relevance is such a comment, other than to suggest that Carter may actually give it credence?
A regime that has been found to lie about everything else -- its leaders claimed there were no nuclear enrichment facilities, that there were no homosexuals in the country, that its women were the freest in the world, that the Holocaust never took place, and that its 2009 elections were transparent -- is actually given the benefit of the doubt by the former president.
He begins the next sentence with the phrase, "If they are lying."
Again, he himself isn't sure.
Perhaps he thinks, in contradistinction to the International Atomic Energy Agency, UN Security Council, Obama administration, European and Gulf leaders, and Israel, that all the Iranian leaders really want is peaceful nuclear energy, nothing more.
And then comes the clincher. Even if the Iranians by some chance are lying, he said, "then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military weapons."
How could anyone possibly know how many bombs Iran might build, if left unchecked? This year, it might be one or two; next year, ten or twenty; and so on.
Second, at the end of the day, the real issue is not how many bombs Iran would have, but the very fact that it possessed the weapon.
That would change everything in its relations with its neighbors and beyond.
Iran would derive incalculable power and confidence from the mere fact that it crossed the line. Going forward, all other countries would have to factor the nuclear element into their dealings with Tehran -- and, it should be added, with such allies as Syria, and such non-governmental partners as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Third, one of the most ominous changes could well be a new arms race in the region, already the most volatile in the world.
What countries might, in response, move towards nuclear-weapons programs of their own, driven by fear (think Saudi Arabia) or "prestige" (think Turkey)?
Then the risk of catastrophe by design, miscalculation, or accident goes up exponentially.
So, too, does the chance of a further spread of the weapons. Remember A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who ran the Walmart of nuclear-weapons technology?
Impossible to conceive of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez seeking nuclear help from his Iranian friends to achieve the same position in Latin America that Iran aspires to in its neighborhood? Not in my book.
Fourth, Carter should go back and read the words of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, who said: "[T]he use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel would destroy everything."
For Carter to imply that Israel is safe and secure from Iranian nuclear designs by dint of having more bombs is, well, naïve, all the more when Iran's defining eschatology is added to the picture. If religious fervor should trump rational behavior in Tehran, all bets are off.
And finally, Carter once again displays his misreading of Israel, something he has regrettably made a habit of in recent years and also, incidentally, on vivid display in the same Time interview.
Israel still lives with the shadow of the Holocaust. How could it not?
A leader set forth a plan to establish a 1,000-year Reich and destroy the Jewish people. Few took him seriously. Indeed, there were those at the time -- all titled, confident and credentialed -- who sounded very much like Carter in his assessment of present-day Iran.
They were dead wrong, and the world paid a horrific price for failing to grasp Hitler's intentions earlier.
Of one thing we can be certain: Israel will not place its trust in Carter's reading of Iran. Nor should anyone else.
For more information, visit ajc.org/iran.
Tom Engelhardt: Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico
As a former President of the United States- a successful author- a noble prize winner-he knows a lot more about these things than you- and is vastly interesting, who are you to say "he should keep his mouth shut?''
You are afraid of such a respectable person turning your Hasbara Propaganda on it's head.!
Former President Carter is wrong. That's why he ought to shut his mouth. And the more he spouts the less respectable he becomes.
Yes, President Carter did do and say some things that were not advisable or entirely correct, but the Presidency is about stewardship, and President Carter managed the U.S. role brilliantly. He has also been the most successful former President. Any person that has read anything he wrote on Israel and the Middle East would not imply that he does not feel the dire need to guarantee Israel's security. President Carter knew, and knows today, that a nuclear armed Iran would have one principle target, Tel Aviv.
The difference is that President Carter also knows that it is now, more than ever, a time to move toward peace, on whatever path is needed to achieve the kind of peace that we should seek, "not peace in our time, but peace in all times," to quote another former President.
Hes doing a great job. Every article condemning him gives his words more publicity and introduces him to a new audience.
More please!!
"Well, of course, the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons."
Yeh, right. Iran - the country that spent 3 years building a uranium enrichment factory inside a mountain (Fordow), but never told the IAEA about it. Yeh, we can trust them.
When the French announced they'd spotted the factory, the Iranian response was "We were just about to tell you about it." Ha-ha-ha !
Also, the IAEA has proof that Iran has worked on making nuclear triggers,which have only one function - to detonate a nuclear weapon.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
"[The IAEA] possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon."
It seems to me that if you have to lie than you know that you are wrong
you certainly do have a lot of conspiracy theories
But even if true. They still DID NOT violate the agreement which was to report the facility before adding nuclear material
And of course since then the site has been inspected and it can not produce weapons grade uranium
Like i said if you feel you have to lie then you must know you are wrong
Learn your Eschatology!
Like, when you accused the victims of the Free Gaza flotilla massacre, in this press release.
"AJC Executive Director David Harris...."When Israeli commandos boarded the ships, they were met with violence from a supposedly non-violent group, including gunfire from automatic weapons and attacks with knives and axes. Several Israelis were wounded. As a result of the clash triggered by the pro-Hamas group, a number of them were killed or wounded in the confrontation."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ajc-condemns-free-gaza-flotilla-for-provoking-tragic-violence-95254969.html
Before attacking Mr. Carter, who brokered peace between Israel and Egypt, you should make a correction about your own statements.
How about, for example, this statement?
" First, how could any serious observer begin a response by mentioning that "the religious leaders of Iran have sworn on their word of honor that they're not going to manufacture nuclear weapons"? "
That's incorrect?? You think it's rational to just take their WORD for it? Iran spent 3 years building a uranium enrichment factory inside a mountain (Fordow), without declaring it to the IAEA.
And when the French announced that they'd spotted it, the Iranian reaction was "We were just about tell you".
And if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you ......
Carter is being what is called in the world of politics "diplomatic", because he, at various times, does diplomatic work for the US. Do you see how that operates? and If there was no doubt that they had them, He would probably not bother with the preface.
You and David Harris have your heads buried in the same patch of sand.
Please address the fact that Carter is simply echoing what the Israeli Minister of Defense and the head of the Mossad are saying, albeit slightly more diplomatically.
I know David won't. He already looks rather less than well informed at this point and I am sure he does not want to make it worse by delving into actual "facts" and "reality" and other such complicated things.
"If they are lying, then I don't see that as a major catastrophe because they'll only have one or two military weapons."
Huh? How does Carter know that Iran would stop at one or two? What a dumb thing to say. Also, just one or two nuclear bombs could totally devastate a country the size of Israel.
No Israeli official has ever said Iran would stop at one or two bombs. Carter is
definitely NOT "echoing" what the head of the Israeli Mossad or Defense Minister are saying.
You have not disproven anything David Harris said.
To be fair, you should make clear that every thing that you are saying about Carter should apply to the Israeli Minster of Defense, Ehud Barak, (who is aslo Israel's Deputy Prime Minster) and the head of the Israeli Mossad.
Barak said on Charlie Rose:
“I don’t delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel,” Barak explained.
The Iranians look around and see that their neighbors, Pakistan, India, Russia and China, all have nuclear weapons, he continued, “and they look westward and see that Saddam [Hussein] tried it, Gaddafi tried it… and Israel allegedly has it.”
He is also Quoted saying that even a Nuclear Iran poses no existential threat to Israel.
The Head of Israels Mossad recently was quoted as saying:
"A nuclear-armed Iran wouldn't necessarily constitute a threat to Israel's continued existence, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo reportedly hinted earlier this week.
the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel. "
I believe it is accurate To say that Carter Simply AGREES with the two men who are ultimately charged with running Israels Security and Defense.
So, David, Please tear into them as well. Oh, and neither of them lives on, or is trying to protect at all costs, a settlement, or any settlement.
F/F!
but rather to Saudi Arabia and possibly to Zimbabwe
You are, of course, talking about Israel.
It's perfectly clear that Mr Harris is talking about Iran.
Do you dispute anything that he says about Iran?
The start. The middle and the end.
Its full from start to end with lies, propaganda, speculation, irrelevance, non-sequitirs, talking points and false memes.
everything...
Oh we all remember that. Remember the deal Reagan cut to get them out? not so much. Remember smuggling arms to Iran? I cannot recall. Remember using drug money to do it? I cannot recall.
Carter for president.
However Barbara Honegger, a researcher with the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980, recalls being told then that "Dick cut a deal." i.e. Richard Allen.
Mansur Rafisadeh, former Chief of SAVAK (the Shah's secret police), and CIA informer, said CIA elements loyal to Reagan arranged a deal to keep the hostages in Iran until Reagan was in the White House.
Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, president of Iran at the time of the deal, said the meeting took place some time during the last two weeks in October 1980, and that Allen and McFarlane met with Hashimi Rafsanjani, speaker of the Iranian parliament, who was the main Iranian contact in subsequent secret arms trading revealed by the the Iran-Contra Scandal.
Regans runing mate, former head of the CIA George Bush was mysteriously absent in the last 2 weeks of the campaign. The CIA hated Carter, were for Regan/ Bush.
in the world of evergreen
In this case of Iranian nukes, he is clearly wrong. It is not a matter of Ayatollah Khameiny's word which has no value but of Iran's obvious drive to build nuclear weapons and, just as important, the capacity to deliver them accurately long distances, including not just Israel but large swaths of Europe!
But the main thing is not that Iran will threaten Israel. On that score, Carter is right since the Jewish state can more than defend itself! But the insufficiently discussed truth is that those nuclear arms will be used to intimidate Iran's Sunni Arab neighbors.
As such, the Arabs will react, thereby triggering a regional nuclear arms race, which we all really NEED… like we need a hole in the head!!
As such, the Arabs will react, thereby triggering a regional nuclear arms race, which we all really NEED… like we need a hole in the head!!"
True. Actually, considering Carter's close ties to the Saudis, it's surprising he has not acknowledged this threat to them, especially since they already are making noises about developing nuclear capabilities to counter Iran's.
Because he speaks the SIMPLE TRUTH - and he is not advancing the Israeli agenda?
Shame on him.
Yes - Shame on him!
As many of us have stated before all you have to do is follow the money!