We're at a rare moment in which both the United States and Iran have unclenched their fists and appear ready for real talks.
Obama, thankfully, has taken the pro-war crowd to task. The P5+1 are finally setting new negotiations for April. And Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei took the rare step of publicly welcoming new talks.
These are very hopeful signs that a breakthrough may be achievable. But we've seen how opportunities have been sabotaged in the past by political opportunism, ultimatums and intransigence from each side that has demanded maximalist concessions and blocked compromise necessary for diplomatic progress.
So, the question is: which side's hardliners will screw things up this time?
Enter Senators Graham (R-SC), Casey (D-PA) and Lieberman (I-CT). They recently introduced a resolution in the Senate that effectively says the U.S. will go to war if Iran acquires an undefined "capability" to build a nuclear weapon. They defended their stance in the Wall Street Journal this morning:
"Some have asked why our resolution sets the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a "nuclear weapons capability," rather than "nuclear weapons." The reason is that all of the destabilizing consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will ensue as soon as Iranians have the components necessary for a weapon--and by then, it will be too late to stop them.
"When some say that our red line is a "nuclear weapon," it suggests that anything short of a working bomb is acceptable. This is exactly the wrong message to send."
The Senators should ask themselves how such a demand is read in Iran. As Eugene Robinson explains in his column this morning, "The truth is that every nation with sufficient wealth and scientific infrastructure has the capacity to build a bomb if it really wants to."
Does the Lieberman-Graham-Casey trifecta really think the Iranians will capitulate to an ultimatum that demands they never achieve economic or scientific progress? How do we sell that exactly?
"The United States and its allies," writes Robinson, "should seek to eliminate the Iranian government's will to make a bomb, not its capacity."
Robinson calls out Mitt Romney for hopping on the "capability" bandwagon in an attempt to out-hawk Obama. Robinson warns that the "capability" crowd is effectively calling their own bluff:
"U.S. policy under Obama -- and previous administrations -- has been that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The clear implication is that, while military force is an option that could be employed at any time, including the present, force will be employed if Iran tries to make a bomb.
"To say that Iran must never have "the capacity to make a bomb," as Romney does, is to draw a line that has already been crossed."
Though they still haven't explained what they really think "capability" means, presumably the Senators define preventing "capability" as getting Iran to forgo even a verifiably peaceful nuclear enrichment program and to waive its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is the precondition that the Bush Administration adopted, which yielded nothing but Iranian nuclear advances throughout his term.
Yes--a world in which Iran decides it doesn't want any nuclear enrichment program at all would be great. But it is certainly not a vital goal, nor is it a realistic one. We certainly shouldn't make it our ultimatum so that it blocks opportunities to achieve our real goal--preventing Iran from actually building a bomb.
This is an important example of the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. Military strikes on Iran would not stop Iran's nuclear program and would be a disaster for Iran's pro-democracy and human rights movement. But there are safeguard measures and mechanisms that can be implemented through negotiations and which can achieve our real goals. We shouldn't let non-essential demands get in the way. Otherwise, the opportunity for a peaceful breakthrough will be scuttled yet again and the pressure for war may well reach its breaking point.
Email your elected officials to stop the Lieberman-Graham-Casey "capability" resolution
Follow Jamal Abdi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jabdi
They use the talks to advance their program, as admitted by one of their *negotiators*.
"...An actual Iranian negotiator bluntly stated the Islamic Republic of Iran’s strategy right out loud a couple of years later: Negotiations are a double-game, the very best way to stall while getting what you really want. Hassan Rowhani said in a speech to colleagues: ”While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan, but we still had a long way to go to complete the project,” Rowhani said. ”In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work on Isfahan.”
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/01/16/in-their-own-words-for-iranians-negotiations-stalling/#ixzz1oZEGDAcH
"Levin Resurrects Iran Naval Blockade Non-Idea"
http://agonist.org/steve_hynd/20120310/levin_resurrects_iran_naval_blockade_non_idea
Bu no one can deny that there was a strong aspiration toward democracy in the Iranian revolution.
And in a significant sense there still exists despite everything some real degree of democratic life in Iran, where you have elections with surprises like the recent Presidential elections
To be sure it is a limited contest. After all even in the U.S. the contest is limited and in real terms there is very little difference between the Democratic President or the Republican President.
It may not be a full or real democracy as the west defines it,
But there is popular participation in official politics and so it happens that the same thing occurs Iran
That the Washington considers the quintessence of evil.
No matter how much democracy a Muslim nation has or can aspire to have, certain laws which are specifically given in the Quran such as laws of inheritance, marriage relations, laws on divorce, may be interpreted in a different way but can not be completed thrown out because Muslims consider the Quran as the basic constitution of a Muslim nation and the secular constitution of a Muslim nation is subservient to the Quran.
It is very difficult for non-Muslims to comprehend this. But unfortunately this is the reality
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-07-16/world/iran.poll_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-inspections-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad?_s=PM:WORLD
American democracy is as much subject to criticism as Iranian or Indian democracy
There are candidates producing organizations in the US.
For example in 2004, we had two men, both went to the same elite university,
both joined the same secret society (Ivy League secret societies) for training people
to be members of the ruling elite. Both were able to run because they were supported by the same Military Industrial Complex of the US.
They had an election in which issues were almost totally suppressed The elections were run by the public relations industry. There were more or less on the level of tooth paste advertisements. The idea is to delude people by imagery not by facts.
That is the way American election campaigns are conducted.
The voters are unaware of the stand of the candidates on the issues.
Voters are misinformed about candidates positions.
The election is diverted to topics that people who really run the country do not care
much about, the so called cultural issues.
But most issues of real concern to people are just off the agenda.
The American political system can not mention an issue supported by
a large majority of the population is a sign of serious deterioration of democracy.
The US has formal institutions but they are functioning.
There are real democratic deficiencies and we blame Iran with similar criticism as if
we ran the best system.
Just not in 2012...
Are we afraid that they will acquire one atomic bomb and it will somehow destroy our thousand atomic and hydrogen bombs??
Did we go to war when India achieved a bomb? Did we go to war when Pakistan achieved a bomb? did we go to war when North Korea achieved a bomb? Did we go to war when Israel achieved an atomic bomb?
Tell me why or how this is any different??? If one atomic bomb causes us to go to war we should have had a thousand wars with Russia.
Before you go to war you had better dream up a better reason than this.
We should go to war when the troops are at our border or the war planes are actually headed towards us, and NOT before.
All of you people wanting war had better get your uniforms pressed and ready and get some for your kids. I served my military time and I'll not let my son get killed for you.
Obama's diplomacy has fared no better. The problem with both policies is that they ignore the simple reality that Iran wants nuclear weapons and you can't convince them otherwise. There is no diplomatic way to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons. The time to load our warplanes with bunker busters and stop them ourselves was yesterday.
But most importantly, the reason Iran may want to pursue a weapon is simple: self-defense. Iran is surrounded by US bases and every inch of their country is within easy US range of American missiles and drones. We have overthrown previous governments when they challenged us(Mossadegh), encouraged our proxies to attack them at the cost of millions of Iranian lives(the Iran-Iraq war), conducted terrorist attacks against them(either the US or Israel or both; Stuxnet and through the proxy group the MEK. In addition, we shot down an Iranian civilian airline jet, Iran Air Flight 655 in '88, for which we never apologized) and threatened them with attacks in response to their peace overtures(post 9/11.) What country in that position wouldn't legitimately be frightened for its own safety? If you beat the war drums, war will come.
Heaven and earth, Congress and Israel, are illegal.
Religion, generally speaking vast majority of militant supporters are the ones without higher education (university graduates!), and this is true in all societies!
Time to draw a line in the sand.
If we go to war with Iran, that's what will happen. Neither Libermann, Casey, or Graham will take any responsibility for their attempts to undermine President Obama. Rather than blaming President Obama, let's blame the GOP and the Israel lobby.
What happened with the strategic reserve the last two gas hikes ? Nothing was touched.