Nobel Prize Means No US or Israeli Attack on Iran

I continue to be delighted that the President won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, it was, in part, given not in recognition of past achievements but prospectively. The Nobel Committee wants him to be the kind of president who earns a peace prize. So do I.

And that pretty much means that the Iran nuclear issue is going to be resolved diplomatically. Either diplomacy will convince Iran to drop plans for a bomb -- if it has such plans. Or else we will accept Iran's right to a bomb under the same terms and restrictions as the other nuclear armed signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

President Obama was not inclined to attack Iran's facilities or to allow Israel to do so before winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The early awarding of this prize will only strengthen him in that resolve. The "bomb Iran" option is off the table.

That is one reason the neocons are is beside themselves over the awarding of this prize. They understand its implications. Those on the left who are not celebrating Obama's selection do not.

Comments

[BiBiJan]

Well, that sure puts a shine on an old penny.

Who would have thunk it?

It ain't manifestly detrimental to US interests.

It ain't Russia not wanting to see a massive aircraft carrier to the south of the Caspian.

It ain't the Chinese not wanting to see their investments and oil supplies be under Western boots.

It ain't the sheer impracticality of taking on a country and an insanely nationalistic population of that size, even if we had troops to spare.

It ain't world public opinion after the 3rd (or will it be fourth?) front opened in the Islamic world, paid for by a credit card against international law.

It ain't Iran's capacity to hit back and hit hard.

That is right MJ. It is the peace prize. OoooK.

[bluesmann]

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 13, 2009

President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

[leduck]

ok..., that came off as too fatalistic
i'm isolationist
not really that fatalistic
but..., i think we should mind our own business a little more

[leduck]

The problem is..., we are wasting time, energy and effort trying to prevent the enivitable. World ol production is on a plateau. It's been tha way since 2005. The worlds population continues to grow and the green revolution can no longer keep up. World grain production has peaked also. Regions of the world that are way over their carrying capacity are going to have trouble. There's nothing we can do about it. Allot of these regions also rely heavily on fossil water. I think these govt.s will stop at nothing to defend themselves from their envious neighbors, and their own populations.
It's going to get uglier, and uglier through time. it's enivitable.

We made our bed, and now we must lie in it.

[leduck]

why is there so much hype about Iran getting the bomb???
we're talking A-Bombs not Hydrogen Bombs
that means Kilotons not Megatons
it's the difference between Hirshoma and nagasaki vs. say most of L.A. or Chicago with one bomb!
it;'s the difference between killing maybe 100,000 people in one shot vs. 1,000,000 or more....

now I realize Israel is a small country. and it wouldn't take much firepower to do allot of damage...,
But Israel has hydrogen bombs like the U.S and U.S.S.R. They, no doubt, have the firepower to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth.

Iran would have to be suicidal to use it.
The real problem with Ira having the bomb, is that it makes them untouchable. and it gives them more power and influence in the middle east. Plus, it would make the arabs nervous for persians to have the bomb, which would lead to an arms race.

the real issue, is that we don't want people sitting on most the worlds oil supply having any kind of ability to say "no" and back that up with the ability to kill 100,000 to back up their point.

[blaster8]

Ledluck, you need to understand a few essential points.
1. Iran has publicly and repeatedly stated their intentions of destroying a recognized state - Israel.
2. Iran according to the EU and the US, sponsors terrorists. That means they supply them with assistance like weapons and money etc.
3. Saying that Israel is small is..... like saying Bush wasn't the best president we've ever had. You're understating the point...a little.
Two nuclear detonations annihilate Israel's population centers. It would leave over 90% of Israel uninhabitable from radiation for the foreseeable future.

When the Soviets attempted to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy was willing to go to war to protect our hemisphere.

Imagine just how much more ballistic we would have gotten had the Soviets announced their intentions, on numerous occasions, to bomb the US, using Cuba as it's launching pad!

The stakes were high then.

The stakes are higher now.

When it comes to nuclear warfare you don't have the luxury of sustaining a first hit and then using superior firepower in your retaliation. And Israel is simply too small.

How can we ask Israel to take a MUCH bigger risk than we were ever willing to take? No country would put itself at that kind of risk and neither should Israel.

[OliverTwist]

My guess is that Gates and Obama are smart enough to know that a change of game is necessary to get reasonable likely outcomes.

All the major parties co-exist with rogue factions who seek to be spoilers of agreements between the major parties.

It will be interesting to see how the rogue factions are handled.

[leduck]

WHO HANDS OUT A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE BASED ON HOW YOU WANT A CANDIDATE TO BEHAVE???

Maybe they just gave him the prize because he aint Bush
he won by default, for being the anti-Bush

[Json]

They did give the prize to Arafat. In his acceptance speech he acknowledged that it wasn't for what he had accomplished so far. He said

"I know, I know full well, Mr. Chairman, that this supreme and greatly significant prize was not awarded to me and to my partners: Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Mr. Shimon Peres, the Foreign Minister, to crown an achievement: but as an encouragement to pursue a route with greater steps and deeper awareness, with truer intentions so that we may transform the peace option, the peace of the brave, from words into practice and reality and for us to be worthy of carrying forward the message entrusted to us by our peoples, as well as humanity and a universal moral duty."

(Of course Arafat also wasn't Bush, so maybe you are right...)
(hmm...I'm not Bush either, I wonder if I'll get the prize. I could sure use the 1 million $)

[Rmeoses1122]

hmmmm sounds like another iraq coming to me .Just another repeat .only iran wow wonder how many solders will die in this one ?and for nothing once again .oh with its for the obama nobel peace prize .dont forget .clean up the air get rid of coal minining.save the native Americans .

[OliverTwist]

Because the United States and Israel both have significant factions who believe in the western authority to punish Iran at will both economically and militarily for insufficient subservience it is likely that a significant faction in Iran will think it necessary as contingency measure for Iranian security that they develop nuclear and biological deterent capabilities.

The logic for Iran is similar to the logic that led the UK and Israel to develop Israeli nuclear and other deterent capabilities.

Substantial changes in how nations see their priviledges and authorities and perrogatives would be necessary to change the expectations for the future.

Change is hard and - on our part - as well as everyone elses - virtually impossible.

Go ahead, convince the Republicans that the best course is to give peace a chance. When that happens then there will have been the necessary change for one party at least.

[WBMD]

Then Iran should not have signed the NPT. It is for that reason exactly, that Israel did not.

And it is not "subservience" that the U.S. or Israel seek. It is non-agression. If today, Canada, or Vietnam announced a nuclear weapon program, it would be strange, but would not provoke the same fearful response from other countries (except maybe China over Vietnam, but I digress) as that which results from the activites of North Korea, or Iran, both of whom have publicly announced wildly aggressive foreign policies.

Following your line of thinking, Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Queida should all be elligible. rationally, to develop a WMD "deterrent".

[OliverTwist]

Do not misrepresent the situation. On the one hand we have the image of victimization and in the other hand we have the sword of righteousness and together we use these to conquer.

Perhaps what you consider aggression is simply self defense.

A rebel captured in his home state during the US civil war was asked by a yankee why he was fighting. He replied "because you are here."

[OliverTwist]

Don't put words in my mouth or make up phoney rationals for me.

There is a big difference between governments which are recognized by their people and by the world as authorized to defend their people and their property and political parties and religious groups and renegade organizations of governments.

By the way, the entities you listed are very different except in the religious affiliation of the members. You should add some other group to the mix with a different religious orientation. Perhaps an Israeli religious and/or political faction associated with the settlers would be a good addition. Or some other group. After all, it is your list, not mine.

[leduck]

I do believe strongly, that Iran wants to build a bomb for defensive purposes

why wouldn't they fear us???
before the hostage crises..., we removed thier democratically elected president and replaced him with a dicttator
we like to conveniently forget those things. but the forigners we mess with..., DON'T!!!

[WBMD]

If they want the bomb for defence against the USA why are they not proclaiming that they will "wipe the Great Satan off the face of the earth?" Why the Little Satan?

[AngryOhioan]

"Those on the left who are not celebrating Obama's selection do not."

We are going to let Iran have nukes because the Nobel committee stroked Obama's ego. Why didn't I start celebrating earlier?

[RichardSharp]

This my fourth genuine attempt to get posted on Huffington on this subject of Mr. Obama's peace prize. I have edited my post to dissarm any and all alarmists I can think of:....

That Mr. Obama is still fighting two major wars, escalating one in fact, is not my idea of peace. His authorization of continuing missile (and special forces') attacks against another sovereign nation (nuclear-armed Pakistan) isn't either. Nor his window-dressing rollbacks of Bushco's reprehensible "war on terror" regime where we are now all open-season by the state and guilty until proven innocent to boot.

Not just in the USA. This failed neo-con stuff has been foisted on the whole "free" world!

[DahliaZ]

It's this kind of silly, childish vision of the world that makes things so difficult. Obama's policy towards Iran is exactly the reason it's MORE likely Israel will have to strike. As it continues to become clear that Israel is just another ally Obama is happy to throw under his large and proverbial bus - Israel will feel much more like it needs to act on its own.

The Israeli gov't is not going to be influenced by 5 Norwegian politicians when deciding what's in Israel's best interests. This silly award will have no impact and it's only a silly observer of the world who thinks it might.

[RichardSharp]

DhaliaZ, the Nobel Peace Prize is silly? So too, I guess, are the scores of award-winners who sought or brought peace over the past century, saving millions and millions of lives.

k. This isn't exactly like being a second-tier player on Wall Street and making the same amount of "prize money" in a few months' speculation on paper transactions that might best be described as flim-flam and fraud.

Ask yourself, to whom would Jesus award the money?

[scottyinphx]

"socres of award winners" who have "saved millions of lives"?

please, name one.

[JimR]

Can we throw the phrase "throwing under the bus" under the bus? Is there a more tired and hackneyed cliche?

Also, while Israel will always be an ally, since when does the U.S. have to always kiss their behinds and do their bidding?

[FebM]

If Israel is not ready for peace, the international community should go ahead and recognize Palestine along the 1967 borders. The settlers can then live as Israelis in Palestine, just like every other country in the world has minority populations including Israel with their Arab minority. Bibi and his Likud cannot hold the world hostage forever, in their colonial occupation.

[WBMD]

Recognizing Palestine within whatever borders won't work, if Palestine will not first recognize the Jewish state. This it has so far refused to do. The conflict would simply continue, with Israel at a much greater disadvantage, until the Palestinians had accomplished the goal of eradicating Israel.

But again, what has this to do with a nuclear Iran?

[leduck]

i have some jewish family members
Israel is not innocent in this matter. Both sides are behaving badly. If Israel is so innocent..., why do they insist on building more and more settlements in Palestine???

Palestine is like swiss cheese. That's ot my definition of innocent.

[S1m0n]

"Either diplomacy will convince Iran to drop plans for a bomb -- if it has such plans..."

~~

How would you know if they had, or not?

Just like Iraq, no amount of fruitless inspection will ever convince Israel or the the American hawks that Iran has no such program. For them, there's only one acceptable answer: an Iranian confession. Anything else will be ignored or cited as proof of Iranian intransigence and duplicity.

[DahliaZ]

Iran has already 'confessed.' It's made no secret that it wants nuclear weapons and is on the path developing them. Even just today, Iran said directly these current talks with Obama will have no impact on their decision to pursue nuclear weapons.

[RichardSharp]

DahliaZ, I'll call you. Liar. Prove it. Name your source

[S1m0n]

I'm with Richard and the IAEA. There is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

[kentah]

Exactly when and where have they stated this? I've not seen this on any news source. Under the NPT which the US signed with Iran along with Russia (who is adhering to their end of the bargain). As a treaty, the signing of which requires a nation to recognize the right of another to build nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes, the NPT also conveniently states under Article 4 that should the nuclear capable party (the US and Russia) decide to it can help build these nuclear facilities and therefore BE THERE. Russia is doing both of those, the US is doing neither. Iran allows all it's nuclear facilities to be inspected by the AIEA and has conceded to allowing Russia to help refine and audit the uranium in conjunction with the AIEA's own audit, this means no chance for diversionary tactics.

[econ1]

I doubt Israel will consult Obama if it thinks it needs to take out a military target in Iran.

[leduck]

If Isarel attacks Iran...,
expect a major spike in the price of gas
expect the resession to deepen
and possible collapse of the financial system.


thanx Israel..., great to have you as an ally!!!

[WBMD]

If the world allows Iran to achieve nuclear bomb status, it deserves the price of gas, and the recession you predict will follow. Unfortunately, it will most likely be much more than that.

Let's see this from the Israeli citizen's point of view. He is weighing the risk of him and his family, and his people being reduced to radioactive dust, versus a "spike in the price of gas". Tough decision!!