Well... besides my opinion that all possibilities of the manufacturing of nuclear bombs should be banned, it seems hypocritical for America to produce nuclear bombs, having used it in the past, and demand for Iran to stop its nuclear production in fear of production of bombs. It was an interesting when amir/keyan (...or amiyan shall i say) pointed out that America is a strong activist in preventing Iran from creating nuclear bombs when America has been the most violent, in terms of bomb usage, in history.
It is obvious nuclear energy is a growing source of energy in the world today, but I'm a little weary of the fact that Iran's oil is headed for depletion, or extensive exhaustion by 2015 (i think that was said in class). Just on a casual conversation with a geophysics student, he claims oil is extremely more plentiful than what the media and politics are claiming. IF this is true, then I would find it plausible to fear Iran's want to produce more nuclear energy. And if not.... then more nuclear production is justified.
I think the video points out what was touched on in class, namely that Iran is being pressured to halt its nuclear program by the U.S who itself has a considerable history of nuclear bomb use. The current stance against Iran's nuclear development, whether peaceful or otherwise, seems particularly hypocritical given the fact that other countries- either signatories to the NPT (i.e. North Korea) or those who never signed the treaty to begin with (i.e. Israel, India, Pakistan)- have clearly violated the terms of the treaty, yet have not come under the same scrutiny as Iran. Moreover, as one of Iran's loudest critics at the moment, the U.S has itself failed to live up to conditions specified in the treaty. As one of the nuclear powers at the time of ratification the U.S agreed to the second pillar of the treaty- eventual disarmament. It, along with other signatories, have failed to do so and in my opinion have undermined the value of the treaty by signaling to the international community that actual compliance is not terribly important. Given this, I find it difficult to justify the torrent of criticism and blame directed at Iran when the U.S itself has itself failed to abide by the treaty. Moreover, I believe Iran's repeated attempts at transparency and concessions only serve to portray it in a more favorable light because it has shown a history of cooperation in face of heavy criticism. Considerably less can be said of other nuclear developers/countries.
The outlook is relative. Both sides can claim that they are going nuclear for civil use but that is said with a wink wink and a nod nod. Name one world power that went around hugging and giving away there riches. It’s not happening dude! Business is sadly business to elitists.
Nuclear arsenal not only is a deterrent, it is a bargaining chip with weaker nations for resources. The USA is in dire need of oil to maintain its current rate of consumption. They have also already established a military presence in oil rich regions and will continue to look for ehem “options.”
If Iran does not go nuclear they will eventually be pushed into compliance. Also, they will not make a world power presence for some time or should say ages. Legitimizing its use for civilian consumption is a great tactic but they are running out of time. They need missiles and they need them quick.
The U.S. does not have the right to decide which nations are allowed to have nuclear power. Who are we to decide who is right and who wrong?
As discussed Iran is not efficiently processing its own oil and does not have a productive economy, therefore it will need nuclear power in the next few decades. Whether or not Iran will use this nuclear technology to make weapons is significant, but Iran has shown to be rational. In addition, many of Iran's neighboring countries have nuclear weapons and it is unimaginable that Iran would ever use the weapons on another country.
Let Iran bake its yellow cake as long as Iran follows the guidelines and agrees to check ups and such. We should help nations grow and modernize.
In todays world it is imperative for countries which produce such valued amenities such as oil to have a form of defense against the tyranny of other nations. In this case specifically, Iran should be allowed to continue its plans for producing nuclear energy for both economic and security purposes.
As an economic resource, nuclear energy is a right which all growing nations should be entitled to. As a form of security, nuclearenergy will act as a deterrent to any adversaries in the region.
Many countries in the world already yield such nuclear capabilities, it would be unfair to deny such facilities to a growing country in a nuclear world. Furthermore, it is very hypocritical for a country with nuclear power to reject another countries attempt to be as advanced.
Whatjoedoing: “The U.S. does not have the right to decide which nations are allowed to have nuclear power. Who are we to decide who is right and who wrong?”
This was spoken about in class. The problem with this argument is that for a country to stay dominant other countries have to suffer. Kind of like our school system in the US. In order for an A+ to be significant, someone has to get an F. The military gives us the right to enforce rule over others. Why do you follow the law in a country? You do so because of coercive compliance. This form of rule has been around since man became “civil,” and always ends at some point with the fall of a state. Coercive compliance is extremely costly hence the need to take more resources to keep the imperialistic machine running.
Ethics is the main point you are arguing. The problem is that ethics is relative. Common law is also relative. Some people believe that they know what is right and wrong because God told them, but what happens when each others Gods have a different opinion. Some reporter asked GWB how he knew that his view about abortion was the right one. He said because God told him. If I could speak farsi, I’m pretty sure I would hear the Supreme leader talk about God’s influence on policy as well. Stalemate…
When people's livelihood is on the line people trample over ethics, ideology and “good” will. It is no mystery that the US needs more oil and sadly they don’t want to purchase it. The game is nothing new (just the players) as far as history is concerned, but, in my opinion monopolistic aristocracy uses common (peasant) people as pawns for the gain of power and it is wrong. That’s it, I’m moving to Amsterdam!
Whatjoedoing: “As discussed Iran is not efficiently processing its own oil and does not have a productive economy, therefore it will need nuclear power in the next few decades”
Before Iran can think about energy, they need to be able to survive the oil rush. This is why the argument about how it is for civilian use is farce. The story is needed to gain support amongst the nation. Imagine the supreme leader coming out and saying that Iran needs nuclear weapons. There would be an outcry. The majority of people hate weapons except those that use them to obtain resources. There is no ethics in capitalism. It is about gains for its leadership and stock (stake) holders period. How countries will legitimize the stealing of oil is what is going to be the climactic point to this whole ordeal. Again, my opinion is that this whole fiasco is wrong and in no way do I condone the suffering of innocent people.
Tony Montana: “Furthermore, it is very hypocritical for a country with nuclear power to reject another countries attempt to be as advanced”
I think you saying that because you believe the US wants an even playing field in its business ventures. Mc Donald’s does not willingly walk over to Burger King and give them the recipe for the Big Mac Sandwich’s special sauce. Follow the money and you will find the answer.
As a country that is struggling to modernize, has a high unemployment rate, risks losing its main export--oil--through depletion, Iran should be doing everything possible to diversify its energy resources, which includes investing in nuclear energy. There is nothing wrong with Iran's desire for nuclear energy considering its precarious situation. However, the president's fiery and warmongering talks towards Israel does not inspire confidence in the world, and makes Iran's case for energy--for civilian or military use--less reasuring for world powers. The Iranian government needs to take a more diplomatic approach towards Israel, considering it shares a special relationship with the US, if it wants to have less conflict with Europe and the US over its nuclear ambitions. Everyone keeps saying that America is hypocrotical since it has weapons, but doesn't want Iran to have them. I don't know any country that is a world power or has been at some point in history that isn't or wasn't hypocritical; it has to be in order to preserve its dominance.
xXTowardTheLightXx: "I think you saying that because you believe the US wants an even playing field in its business ventures. Mc Donald’s does not willingly walk over to Burger King and give them the recipe for the Big Mac Sandwich’s special sauce. Follow the money and you will find the answer."
I think you missed the point; The US DOES NOT want an even playing field and is tryin to prevent Iran from being as technologically advanced in terms of nuclear power. Or, using the anology you provided; Mc Donald's is not only not sharing their special sauce recipe with Burger King, but also preventing Burger King from having their own sauce.
Right now I believe that the concern that the US has regarding Iran's Nuclear Energy program is one of fear. While Iran maintains that it would be a peaceful energy program, the US will always be afraid of any nation that is not an always on America's side and has any sort of power. The United States have had an inconsistent foreign policy for decades, and if nuclear power, beyond that used for civil purposes, were in the hands of any nation, that would become frightening to the US because they might actually have to start being consistent and using some kind of logic in their foreign policy beyond helping those only when it's helpful for the US.
I think that Iran should be allowed to have a civil nuclear energy program, and I think that no nation should have nuclear weapons. I also believe that it is totally hypocritical for any nation with nuclear capabilities to tell another nation that they cannot have those same capabilities. As long as a system of checks is in place, to make sure that everyone is being peaceful, then everyone should be allowed the benefits of nuclear technology. All technology is dangerous, but it is also helpful too. It is important to police ourselves and each other, to make sure that we use all technology in positive ways only.
The United States has a long history of intervention and involvement that began early in the Theodore Roosevelt administration. Even today, the United States continues to employ the "big stick" foreign policy that was used a century ago. Whether or not Iran's nuclear development is for peaceful purposes, the United States was destined to be involved. Looking at this nation's history, it has used various instances to obtain a justification for involvement in foreign nations. Just as Iraq “had” WMD's, Iran's nuclear program is assumed to be hostile. The US government does not invade these countries for the reasons that they state, but those reasons provide an acceptable justification for intervention. The true reason for intervention is that these nations have resources that the United States needs.
I was speaking with my father on this very topic recently. His having been born in Iran I was very interested to hear his opinion on Iran's nuclear energy program. I was surprised when he told me that he was in support of the US attempts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear bombs. And as Khamenei mentions in his speech, that civilnuclear energy and the people have the right to such technology, I completely agree. But I worry that Iran's current governmental regime is not to be trusted with such technology. After speaking with my father on the subject, and seeing the issue from a native's opinion, it was eye opening to me that he too would like to see the program halted. In my mind, it is not a question of whether the IRANIAN PEOPLE should have the right to such advancements and scientific technology, but more so, whether or not the current regime/dictatorship should have access as well.
I think the Khamenei makes some very interesting points here. I do agree with the opinion that sometimes the United States makes policy and decisions based off of incomplete information. I also agree that in many cases the United States takes actions and claims that they have the backing of the "world" when in fact it is only a few countries. However, I am wary that Iran will only use nuclear technology for energy purposes. It just seems so easy to go from energy to creating weapons. The U.S. is hypocritical for trying to prevent other countries from developing nuclear energy and until the U.S. dismantles their nuclear program they have no right to use their big stick policy to push anyone around.
Personally, I felt the video clip of Khamenei on nuclear technology was rather uninformative. However, he does point to the blatant hypocrisy that governs official U.S. policy on Iran's acquisition of nuclear energy. As many have commented thus far, it seems ridiculous that the United States continues to position itself as the global arbiter of all things nuclear. We certainly have been less than careful when it comes to nuclear weapons technology (think: radiation testing on unknowing human subjects, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Nevada Test Site, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, and recent suggestions that low impact bunker busters armed with nuclear weaponry might be an "acceptable" form of nuclear warfare...just to name a few).
However, Khamenei's suggestion that the majority of world opinion is in favor of Iran's nuclear program seems a bit sketchy. While I don't believe that Iran will bomb Israel or give nuclear technology to terrorists (whatever that means), I do think that a Middle East arms race is something to be concerned about. Having said that, over the past two decades, Iran has witnessed repeated invasions of its neighbors by the United States (Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and a growing U.S. presence in places like Central Asia. As such, it makes sense that the Islamic Republic would want to use nuclear capabilities as a deterrent from any future invasion. Further, as discussed in class, Iran's national interests are served by both a strong military and an active nuclear energy program. If oil is Iran's only major export, then the government must rely on oil revenues to survive, regardless of its political positioning vis-a-vis nuclear technology. It's a complicated situation at best and a life threatening one at worst. Cool heads and open dialogue on all sides seem the best approach at the moment.
this video represents the other side of nuclear proliferation that the american media is reluctant to present. with the current state of the united states being the world hegemon, it has a tremendously influential position in world politics. with its reluctance to accept nuclear capabilities in iran, america is seen as the enemy in iran.
this basic issue was discussed in class, specifically regarding the nuclear history of the united states relative to its foreign policy. as the only country that has utilized nuclear weapons, it is now preventing other nations from gaining that power in order to preserve its strategic position in the world economy.
the rhetoric of the video is correct in its stating there is support for nulcear proliferation in iran. there are now nations that see the united states as an ideological and militaristic threat, especially since it is now entrenched in iraq.
it is correct when it is stated that america has been the aggressor in the past, as it has used nuclears bomb.
the debate of international nuclear proliferation is a complex issue. since security is relative, it is difficult to gain a concrete agreement that would guarantee security for all. for now, the current hegemon is attempting to ensure its survival in a rapidly changing world; and there is plenty of blowback.
Most of the things that I want to say about the Iranian nuclear program have already been said. America is afraid of Iran's nuclear program even though they repeatedly say that they are only pursuing a civil program, not a military one. They have every right to pursue nuclear energy according to the NPT. I think they even have the right to develop nuclear weapons, even though it would violate the NPT, because right now they are at a disadvantage to their primary enemy (Israel). America is hypocritical for preventing Iran from developing this technology. America has no right to be an international dictator. We have no sovereignty over Iran, although Dubya would like to think that we do. Etc, etc, etc.
The main point that I would like to make that I don't think anyone else has made yet is that it seems to me as though, while Iran has demonstrated perfect adherence to the NPT, the US has not. I have read the text of the NPT, but if I'm wrong in interpreting it, I would love to be corrected. Yes, the NPT forbids the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the countries that signed it. But Iran is not aiming to develop nuclear weapons. However, the NPT does say that every country has the "inalienable right" to develop civil nuclear technology. Therefore, it seems to me that right now, the international demands that Iran completely halt its enrichment program are in violation of the NPT, but the the Iranian program is NOT. But I suppose that international law doesn't really matter anyway; it's really there just because its fun to look at.
While i view nuclear energy as a good source of clean energy, I am skeptical of it regradless of whose hands it is in. However, Iran seemingly has made some claims suggesting that they would be willing to use equipment that could not possibly support the manufacture of nuclear weapons. I suppose that if the UN could verify this and closely monitor it, then perhaps nuclear energy would be appropriate for Iran.
I found Khamenei's speech to be legitimate. His views on the arrogance of America most likely are accurate, but I think other meanings are carried with it as well. The United States still must look out for its own interests, and a nuclear Iran does not fit the US's current agenda. Whether or not the US should extend its hand into these faraway regions is another subject.
I think significant mistakes have been made in the preceding analysis. First, there is no inalienable right to nuclear power – it depends upon the circumstances. Although using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is absolutely acceptable, one has to be concerned with the potential development of a nuclear weapon. In the case of Iran, you would be creating the opportunity for the latter in 1) a regime that is 28 years old 2) a system that is theocratic with very limited democratic elements 3) a region that is highly volatile and unstable. People have been treating Iran as if it is some static concept that is not subject to change. Even if the present Ayatollah has expressed religious disapproval of nuclear weapons, that will not necessarily have bearing on future decisions by the government – especially since the Koran obviously does not address the issue explicitly. Also, it is true that Iran has not been an aggressor country, but it is difficult to know what the future may hold; projections are difficult due to the three previously mentioned facts. My underlying point is that you have to consider the conditions of domestic Iran and the area at large. I think there is a huge risk in enabling the development of a nuclear weapon there. And, as we discussed in class, Iran, for a variety of reasons, has tremendous incentive to create a bomb.
Also, with respect to the “need” for nuclear power, you have to look at Iran’s oil supply compared to other countries. Although its supply is not indefinite, its potential extraction probably exceeds that of almost any other state. Relatively speaking, they have a huge supply of oil. Even if its infrastructure is not adequate, measures can be taken to remedy this problem. Also, for the production of energy, there are many other methods than just nuclear. Nuclear power is not an exclusive option or an absolutely imminent necessity.
Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the argument that the United States, because it has nuclear weapons, cannot attempt to regulate the procurement of them by other groups or countries. The ascendance of the United States as a nuclear power is now a historical fact. It was the first nuclear power and, given the WW2 scenario, such weapons were required; the US used nuclear weapons in order to avoid an invasion of mainland Japan. (Since it killed about 30,000 US troops and 20,000 Japanese troops to take over Iwo Jima – a tiny rock island – one can imagine the death toll of a full invasion of Japan). It is not as if the US has been recklessly using its nuclear weapons over the past half-century. Granted, its foreign policy is quite terrible otherwise. Anyway, the US (as well as the rest of the world) has legitimate reason for alarm about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Restricting access to nuclear energy is the best method of curbing it. Call it hypocrisy, but there are real global interests involved here – not just parochial US concerns.
The right to acquire technology is not a god given or divine right. The fact is that the acquisition of nuclear technology that could assist the production of an atomic weapon is not free for all to pursue. As a quick caveat to the posting- I think Iran should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology "as long as its peaceful." The same story you hear from most political diplomats when the topic is brought up. The argument here is inspired by political realism. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will be checked by the hegemonic nation of the world. The United States will stick their nose in others business because they make it their business. Regardless of if it is "right" or "wrong"/ "good" or "bad" the United States will attempt to regulate Iran's nuclear program. For Iran the realistic argument is not to persuade its own people or the United States stubborn politicians. Instead the objective should be coalition building and campaign strategies to show the world Their pursuit of nuclear ambitions is peaceful. I think the best way to do this is to refrain from the aggressive rhetoric coming from the president, and appealing to other nations for their support.
Well I am little torned with the idea of allowing Iran to continue its pursuit of Nuclear energy. The thing that bothers me the most is that it is the US that is the biggest power campaigning to stop Iran. Are we against them just because Iran refuses to cave into the American definition of right and wrong and refuses to bow down to the Americans and give up all that they believe in. After learning some of the history of Iran and especially the role that the US has played in their history, I can't help but wonder how would they have developed without our intervention. If we as Americans believe that everyone is created equal then should we not allow these people to be equal in all aspects that the US is and therefor allow for them to have access to the science and even military knowledge and power? Maybe we don't want them to have the weapons that we have because if they did we would actually have sit down and deal with them as equals instead of the barbaric "evil" people that US considers them now.
I think Khamenei--whether or not I agree with his entire political agenda/stance on the governance of Iran overall--nonetheless brings about an interesting point: is there substantial evidence that the majority of the world also opposes the development of Iran's nuclear energy program(without any incidence of bribery of course). It makes me wonder whether US officials merely fear the threat of losing their global adjudication in light of the possibility that they too could be brought into justice. It only seems apparent that this be the case considering Iran's overwhelming ability to demonstrate moral consideration in even the most dire situations despite prior US deterrents used to dismantle it's economy. Perhaps the US fears that Iran may also have its own political agenda of enforcing intolerance of "injustices" around the globe. After-all, once Iran acquires its own gavel of proclaimed justice, it would certainly present a far greater challenge for a US imperialist to continue bullying other countries around into total submission/total control.
I think that what Khamenei is saying in this video is a skewed version of the facts. The world is not against letting Iranians develop nuclear energy; the main concern is over nuclear weapons. There have been attempts to let Iran have nuclear power, as long as the uranium and/or plutonium were enriched in a different country. It seems to me that Iran is not putting nuclear power on the top of their priorities, but rather nuclear enrichment. I think if Iran was truly committed to having nuclear power, they would abide by the rules set by other countries and not enrich their own fuel until the international community trusted them enough to let the Iranians do it themselves. All Khamenei is doing in his speech is spreading propaganda and stirring up trouble.
Ok, nuke tech is a threat, yes, but why target Iran? N.Korea has failed to abide by NATOs laws, and numerous others to name. The reason is oil, number one resource to humans that can be profited. I wouldnt be surprised if one day some extreme capitalists began profiting off drinking water when our water system fails or inevitably destroyed.
In the end, it is best to ban the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons supports violence, supports superiority, and is only used as a threat. Why is it fair for only certain countries to have nuclear weapons? Why are we focusing on the production of nuclear weapons when we should be focusing on education, health care, and peace? Why should violence be the number one topic on the news? Yes, it is important to stop the production of nuclear weapons but it should be done in a non-violent manner. The world needs to unite. We need to focus on making friends, coming together, and helping one another. Violence is not the answer, unity is.
It is refreshing to see Iranians saying something other than "death to America!!" Of course Khamenei is right on the issue. I sure wish the US would stop being so silly and actually have diplomatic relations with such an important country as Iran that poses no threat to the national interest here. I think if people mustered some insight into the degree of insanity now prevailing the entire congress and university in fact, which tolerates this administration, removes impeachment, which alone could halt the threat of waking up in the morning to find ourselves at war with Iran, if we thought a bit more of the extent we tolerate this attempt to attach the US to permanent imperialism to its destruction as a nation, we would certainly organize our pursuits around whatever it takes to get an impeachment. I have yet to hear a good excuse to forego impeachment, finals notwithstanding.
A reason that the US should continue their fight against Iran's nuclear program is that the American government is obligated to appear to be protecting the US as well as other countries from harm. By protesting the nuclear program, the US sends a clear message that it seeks a more cooperative and peaceful world. HOWEVER, Iran has all the right to deny any control by the US, especially because the US is being hypocritical in denying Iran's nuclear proliferation when America itself is the leader in weaponry. Furthermore, Iran has stated that the intentions of the nuclear power is not for warfare. The country has a right to protect its own and to find alternative fuels to oil to be able to support its people. Iran's possession of nuclear power decreases the economic and political disparity between countries and allows the country to rightfully protect its people.
Nuclear energy for peaceful use is one thing, but nuclear weapons is a very different issue. I don't think that Iran should be allowed (even if it wanted to) to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because the Iranian government is a corrupt and dishonest. It does not give to its citizens the most basic freedoms. This is not my western ideology that I am imposing on Iran (in fact, I'm Iranian myself). Killing opponents to the regime is not a religious or cultural difference, it is simply a criminal government that wants to stay in power no matter what!
Regarding the repetitive statement "the US (that has a history of dropping nuclear bombs) should not tell Iran what it can do with its nuclear program". I answer, it is not just the United States that is opposed to it. It is the majority of the developed world. When Iranians themselves hate their government, why give that government more rights than it gives its people?
To me it seems quite outrageous to start off any feedback with the talk of nuclear weapons as well as the mere assumption that all Iranian intentions are geared towards the nuclear bomb. Instead, I will approach my feedback response by actually responding to what Ayatollah Khamenei broadly addressed by analyzing some of his statements and to ignore the issues that our current administration may have possibly fabricated within the media with regards to Iran's supposed military nuclear capacity. First, Khamenei speaks about how, specifically, the Americans do not necessarily think before they speak. And by Americans he is generally referring to those within the US administration who constantly make assumptions along with warmongering statements towards Iran. Everyday you hear--as I also heard in class--that "the world is against Iran acquiring nuclear energy." This, on closer scrutiny, is an untenable claim. First of all, there is absolutely no proof of Iran pursuing any nuclear weapons and secondly, as Khamenei goes on to address, who makes up this world that is possibly against Iran's supposed nuclear future? He mentions that "more than 100 countries in the NAM movement" and "about 50 Islamic countries in OIC and in NPT…which belong to the majority of the world" are all "of the view that civil and nuclear energy" is Iran's peaceful right. I think it is actually fair to say that most of the world, by these standards, is okay with Iran obtaining civil and nuclear energy for the benefit of their country. These are the people of the world to which Khamenei refers and not just a few Western Allies or for that matter Israel, which has been quick to beat the war drums, despite Iran's recent claims being vindicated that they do not have military nuclear ambitions. I think the most important issue with regards to Khamenei's speech is that people sit back and listen respectfully to what he, as well as others within the Iranian government, say. The dirty secret at the center of all of this fuss is that we are looking for the slightest reason to go in. Look at Seymour Hersh's recent remarks that the administration has known Iran has not Military nuclear capacity all year. This is about our corrupt agenda, our fears and little else.
29 comments:
Well... besides my opinion that all possibilities of the manufacturing of nuclear bombs should be banned, it seems hypocritical for America to produce nuclear bombs, having used it in the past, and demand for Iran to stop its nuclear production in fear of production of bombs.
It was an interesting when amir/keyan (...or amiyan shall i say) pointed out that America is a strong activist in preventing Iran from creating nuclear bombs when America has been the most violent, in terms of bomb usage, in history.
It is obvious nuclear energy is a growing source of energy in the world today, but I'm a little weary of the fact that Iran's oil is headed for depletion, or extensive exhaustion by 2015 (i think that was said in class). Just on a casual conversation with a geophysics student, he claims oil is extremely more plentiful than what the media and politics are claiming. IF this is true, then I would find it plausible to fear Iran's want to produce more nuclear energy.
And if not.... then more nuclear production is justified.
but bombs, too much of a touchy subject for me.
I think the video points out what was touched on in class, namely that Iran is being pressured to halt its nuclear program by the U.S who itself has a considerable history of nuclear bomb use. The current stance against Iran's nuclear development, whether peaceful or otherwise, seems particularly hypocritical given the fact that other countries- either signatories to the NPT (i.e. North Korea) or those who never signed the treaty to begin with (i.e. Israel, India, Pakistan)- have clearly violated the terms of the treaty, yet have not come under the same scrutiny as Iran. Moreover, as one of Iran's loudest critics at the moment, the U.S has itself failed to live up to conditions specified in the treaty. As one of the nuclear powers at the time of ratification the U.S agreed to the second pillar of the treaty- eventual disarmament. It, along with other signatories, have failed to do so and in my opinion have undermined the value of the treaty by signaling to the international community that actual compliance is not terribly important. Given this, I find it difficult to justify the torrent of criticism and blame directed at Iran when the U.S itself has itself failed to abide by the treaty. Moreover, I believe Iran's repeated attempts at transparency and concessions only serve to portray it in a more favorable light because it has shown a history of cooperation in face of heavy criticism. Considerably less can be said of other nuclear developers/countries.
The outlook is relative. Both sides can claim that they are going nuclear for civil use but that is said with a wink wink and a nod nod. Name one world power that went around hugging and giving away there riches. It’s not happening dude! Business is sadly business to elitists.
Nuclear arsenal not only is a deterrent, it is a bargaining chip with weaker nations for resources. The USA is in dire need of oil to maintain its current rate of consumption. They have also already established a military presence in oil rich regions and will continue to look for ehem “options.”
If Iran does not go nuclear they will eventually be pushed into compliance. Also, they will not make a world power presence for some time or should say ages. Legitimizing its use for civilian consumption is a great tactic but they are running out of time. They need missiles and they need them quick.
Ethics: No world power has them.
The U.S. does not have the right to decide which nations are allowed to have nuclear power. Who are we to decide who is right and who wrong?
As discussed Iran is not efficiently processing its own oil and does not have a productive economy, therefore it will need nuclear power in the next few decades. Whether or not Iran will use this nuclear technology to make weapons is significant, but Iran has shown to be rational. In addition, many of Iran's neighboring countries have nuclear weapons and it is unimaginable that Iran would ever use the weapons on another country.
Let Iran bake its yellow cake as long as Iran follows the guidelines and agrees to check ups and such. We should help nations grow and modernize.
In todays world it is imperative for countries which produce such valued amenities such as oil to have a form of defense against the tyranny of other nations. In this case specifically, Iran should be allowed to continue its plans for producing nuclear energy for both economic and security purposes.
As an economic resource, nuclear energy is a right which all growing nations should be entitled to. As a form of security, nuclearenergy will act as a deterrent to any adversaries in the region.
Many countries in the world already yield such nuclear capabilities, it would be unfair to deny such facilities to a growing country in a nuclear world. Furthermore, it is very hypocritical for a country with nuclear power to reject another countries attempt to be as advanced.
Whatjoedoing:
“The U.S. does not have the right to decide which nations are allowed to have nuclear power. Who are we to decide who is right and who wrong?”
This was spoken about in class. The problem with this argument is that for a country to stay dominant other countries have to suffer. Kind of like our school system in the US. In order for an A+ to be significant, someone has to get an F. The military gives us the right to enforce rule over others. Why do you follow the law in a country? You do so because of coercive compliance. This form of rule has been around since man became “civil,” and always ends at some point with the fall of a state. Coercive compliance is extremely costly hence the need to take more resources to keep the imperialistic machine running.
Ethics is the main point you are arguing. The problem is that ethics is relative. Common law is also relative. Some people believe that they know what is right and wrong because God told them, but what happens when each others Gods have a different opinion. Some reporter asked GWB how he knew that his view about abortion was the right one. He said because God told him. If I could speak farsi, I’m pretty sure I would hear the Supreme leader talk about God’s influence on policy as well. Stalemate…
When people's livelihood is on the line people trample over ethics, ideology and “good” will. It is no mystery that the US needs more oil and sadly they don’t want to purchase it. The game is nothing new (just the players) as far as history is concerned, but, in my opinion monopolistic aristocracy uses common (peasant) people as pawns for the gain of power and it is wrong. That’s it, I’m moving to Amsterdam!
Whatjoedoing:
“As discussed Iran is not efficiently processing its own oil and does not have a productive economy, therefore it will need nuclear power in the next few decades”
Before Iran can think about energy, they need to be able to survive the oil rush. This is why the argument about how it is for civilian use is farce. The story is needed to gain support amongst the nation. Imagine the supreme leader coming out and saying that Iran needs nuclear weapons. There would be an outcry. The majority of people hate weapons except those that use them to obtain resources. There is no ethics in capitalism. It is about gains for its leadership and stock (stake) holders period. How countries will legitimize the stealing of oil is what is going to be the climactic point to this whole ordeal. Again, my opinion is that this whole fiasco is wrong and in no way do I condone the suffering of innocent people.
Tony Montana:
“Furthermore, it is very hypocritical for a country with nuclear power to reject another countries attempt to be as advanced”
I think you saying that because you believe the US wants an even playing field in its business ventures. Mc Donald’s does not willingly walk over to Burger King and give them the recipe for the Big Mac Sandwich’s special sauce. Follow the money and you will find the answer.
As a country that is struggling to modernize, has a high unemployment rate, risks losing its main export--oil--through depletion, Iran should be doing everything possible to diversify its energy resources, which includes investing in nuclear energy. There is nothing wrong with Iran's desire for nuclear energy considering its precarious situation. However, the president's fiery and warmongering talks towards Israel does not inspire confidence in the world, and makes Iran's case for energy--for civilian or military use--less reasuring for world powers. The Iranian government needs to take a more diplomatic approach towards Israel, considering it shares a special relationship with the US, if it wants to have less conflict with Europe and the US over its nuclear ambitions.
Everyone keeps saying that America is hypocrotical since it has weapons, but doesn't want Iran to have them. I don't know any country that is a world power or has been at some point in history that isn't or wasn't hypocritical; it has to be in order to preserve its dominance.
xXTowardTheLightXx:
"I think you saying that because you believe the US wants an even playing field in its business ventures. Mc Donald’s does not willingly walk over to Burger King and give them the recipe for the Big Mac Sandwich’s special sauce. Follow the money and you will find the answer."
I think you missed the point; The US DOES NOT want an even playing field and is tryin to prevent Iran from being as technologically advanced in terms of nuclear power. Or, using the anology you provided; Mc Donald's is not only not sharing their special sauce recipe with Burger King, but also preventing Burger King from having their own sauce.
Right now I believe that the concern that the US has regarding Iran's Nuclear Energy program is one of fear. While Iran maintains that it would be a peaceful energy program, the US will always be afraid of any nation that is not an always on America's side and has any sort of power. The United States have had an inconsistent foreign policy for decades, and if nuclear power, beyond that used for civil purposes, were in the hands of any nation, that would become frightening to the US because they might actually have to start being consistent and using some kind of logic in their foreign policy beyond helping those only when it's helpful for the US.
I think that Iran should be allowed to have a civil nuclear energy program, and I think that no nation should have nuclear weapons. I also believe that it is totally hypocritical for any nation with nuclear capabilities to tell another nation that they cannot have those same capabilities. As long as a system of checks is in place, to make sure that everyone is being peaceful, then everyone should be allowed the benefits of nuclear technology. All technology is dangerous, but it is also helpful too. It is important to police ourselves and each other, to make sure that we use all technology in positive ways only.
The United States has a long history of intervention and involvement that began early in the Theodore Roosevelt administration. Even today, the United States continues to employ the "big stick" foreign policy that was used a century ago. Whether or not Iran's nuclear development is for peaceful purposes, the United States was destined to be involved. Looking at this nation's history, it has used various instances to obtain a justification for involvement in foreign nations. Just as Iraq “had” WMD's, Iran's nuclear program is assumed to be hostile. The US government does not invade these countries for the reasons that they state, but those reasons provide an acceptable justification for intervention. The true reason for intervention is that these nations have resources that the United States needs.
I was speaking with my father on this very topic recently. His having been born in Iran I was very interested to hear his opinion on Iran's nuclear energy program.
I was surprised when he told me that he was in support of the US attempts to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear bombs. And as Khamenei mentions in his speech, that civilnuclear energy and the people have the right to such technology, I completely agree. But I worry that Iran's current governmental regime is not to be trusted with such technology.
After speaking with my father on the subject, and seeing the issue from a native's opinion, it was eye opening to me that he too would like to see the program halted.
In my mind, it is not a question of whether the IRANIAN PEOPLE should have the right to such advancements and scientific technology, but more so, whether or not the current regime/dictatorship should have access as well.
I think the Khamenei makes some very interesting points here. I do agree with the opinion that sometimes the United States makes policy and decisions based off of incomplete information. I also agree that in many cases the United States takes actions and claims that they have the backing of the "world" when in fact it is only a few countries. However, I am wary that Iran will only use nuclear technology for energy purposes. It just seems so easy to go from energy to creating weapons. The U.S. is hypocritical for trying to prevent other countries from developing nuclear energy and until the U.S. dismantles their nuclear program they have no right to use their big stick policy to push anyone around.
Personally, I felt the video clip of Khamenei on nuclear technology was rather uninformative. However, he does point to the blatant hypocrisy that governs official U.S. policy on Iran's acquisition of nuclear energy. As many have commented thus far, it seems ridiculous that the United States continues to position itself as the global arbiter of all things nuclear. We certainly have been less than careful when it comes to nuclear weapons technology (think: radiation testing on unknowing human subjects, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Nevada Test Site, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, and recent suggestions that low impact bunker busters armed with nuclear weaponry might be an "acceptable" form of nuclear warfare...just to name a few).
However, Khamenei's suggestion that the majority of world opinion is in favor of Iran's nuclear program seems a bit sketchy. While I don't believe that Iran will bomb Israel or give nuclear technology to terrorists (whatever that means), I do think that a Middle East arms race is something to be concerned about. Having said that, over the past two decades, Iran has witnessed repeated invasions of its neighbors by the United States (Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, and Iraq) and a growing U.S. presence in places like Central Asia. As such, it makes sense that the Islamic Republic would want to use nuclear capabilities as a deterrent from any future invasion. Further, as discussed in class, Iran's national interests are served by both a strong military and an active nuclear energy program. If oil is Iran's only major export, then the government must rely on oil revenues to survive, regardless of its political positioning vis-a-vis nuclear technology. It's a complicated situation at best and a life threatening one at worst. Cool heads and open dialogue on all sides seem the best approach at the moment.
this video represents the other side of nuclear proliferation that the american media is reluctant to present. with the current state of the united states being the world hegemon, it has a tremendously influential position in world politics. with its reluctance to accept nuclear capabilities in iran, america is seen as the enemy in iran.
this basic issue was discussed in class, specifically regarding the nuclear history of the united states relative to its foreign policy. as the only country that has utilized nuclear weapons, it is now preventing other nations from gaining that power in order to preserve its strategic position in the world economy.
the rhetoric of the video is correct in its stating there is support for nulcear proliferation in iran. there are now nations that see the united states as an ideological and militaristic threat, especially since it is now entrenched in iraq.
it is correct when it is stated that america has been the aggressor in the past, as it has used nuclears bomb.
the debate of international nuclear proliferation is a complex issue. since security is relative, it is difficult to gain a concrete agreement that would guarantee security for all. for now, the current hegemon is attempting to ensure its survival in a rapidly changing world; and there is plenty of blowback.
Most of the things that I want to say about the Iranian nuclear program have already been said. America is afraid of Iran's nuclear program even though they repeatedly say that they are only pursuing a civil program, not a military one. They have every right to pursue nuclear energy according to the NPT. I think they even have the right to develop nuclear weapons, even though it would violate the NPT, because right now they are at a disadvantage to their primary enemy (Israel). America is hypocritical for preventing Iran from developing this technology. America has no right to be an international dictator. We have no sovereignty over Iran, although Dubya would like to think that we do. Etc, etc, etc.
The main point that I would like to make that I don't think anyone else has made yet is that it seems to me as though, while Iran has demonstrated perfect adherence to the NPT, the US has not. I have read the text of the NPT, but if I'm wrong in interpreting it, I would love to be corrected. Yes, the NPT forbids the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the countries that signed it. But Iran is not aiming to develop nuclear weapons. However, the NPT does say that every country has the "inalienable right" to develop civil nuclear technology. Therefore, it seems to me that right now, the international demands that Iran completely halt its enrichment program are in violation of the NPT, but the the Iranian program is NOT. But I suppose that international law doesn't really matter anyway; it's really there just because its fun to look at.
While i view nuclear energy as a good source of clean energy, I am skeptical of it regradless of whose hands it is in. However, Iran seemingly has made some claims suggesting that they would be willing to use equipment that could not possibly support the manufacture of nuclear weapons. I suppose that if the UN could verify this and closely monitor it, then perhaps nuclear energy would be appropriate for Iran.
I found Khamenei's speech to be legitimate. His views on the arrogance of America most likely are accurate, but I think other meanings are carried with it as well. The United States still must look out for its own interests, and a nuclear Iran does not fit the US's current agenda. Whether or not the US should extend its hand into these faraway regions is another subject.
I think significant mistakes have been made in the preceding analysis. First, there is no inalienable right to nuclear power – it depends upon the circumstances. Although using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is absolutely acceptable, one has to be concerned with the potential development of a nuclear weapon. In the case of Iran, you would be creating the opportunity for the latter in 1) a regime that is 28 years old 2) a system that is theocratic with very limited democratic elements 3) a region that is highly volatile and unstable. People have been treating Iran as if it is some static concept that is not subject to change. Even if the present Ayatollah has expressed religious disapproval of nuclear weapons, that will not necessarily have bearing on future decisions by the government – especially since the Koran obviously does not address the issue explicitly. Also, it is true that Iran has not been an aggressor country, but it is difficult to know what the future may hold; projections are difficult due to the three previously mentioned facts. My underlying point is that you have to consider the conditions of domestic Iran and the area at large. I think there is a huge risk in enabling the development of a nuclear weapon there. And, as we discussed in class, Iran, for a variety of reasons, has tremendous incentive to create a bomb.
Also, with respect to the “need” for nuclear power, you have to look at Iran’s oil supply compared to other countries. Although its supply is not indefinite, its potential extraction probably exceeds that of almost any other state. Relatively speaking, they have a huge supply of oil. Even if its infrastructure is not adequate, measures can be taken to remedy this problem. Also, for the production of energy, there are many other methods than just nuclear. Nuclear power is not an exclusive option or an absolutely imminent necessity.
Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the argument that the United States, because it has nuclear weapons, cannot attempt to regulate the procurement of them by other groups or countries. The ascendance of the United States as a nuclear power is now a historical fact. It was the first nuclear power and, given the WW2 scenario, such weapons were required; the US used nuclear weapons in order to avoid an invasion of mainland Japan. (Since it killed about 30,000 US troops and 20,000 Japanese troops to take over Iwo Jima – a tiny rock island – one can imagine the death toll of a full invasion of Japan). It is not as if the US has been recklessly using its nuclear weapons over the past half-century. Granted, its foreign policy is quite terrible otherwise. Anyway, the US (as well as the rest of the world) has legitimate reason for alarm about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Restricting access to nuclear energy is the best method of curbing it. Call it hypocrisy, but there are real global interests involved here – not just parochial US concerns.
The right to acquire technology is not a god given or divine right. The fact is that the acquisition of nuclear technology that could assist the production of an atomic weapon is not free for all to pursue.
As a quick caveat to the posting- I think Iran should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology "as long as its peaceful." The same story you hear from most political diplomats when the topic is brought up.
The argument here is inspired by political realism. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will be checked by the hegemonic nation of the world. The United States will stick their nose in others business because they make it their business. Regardless of if it is "right" or "wrong"/ "good" or "bad" the United States will attempt to regulate Iran's nuclear program. For Iran the realistic argument is not to persuade its own people or the United States stubborn politicians. Instead the objective should be coalition building and campaign strategies to show the world Their pursuit of nuclear ambitions is peaceful. I think the best way to do this is to refrain from the aggressive rhetoric coming from the president, and appealing to other nations for their support.
Well I am little torned with the idea of allowing Iran to continue its pursuit of Nuclear energy. The thing that bothers me the most is that it is the US that is the biggest power campaigning to stop Iran. Are we against them just because Iran refuses to cave into the American definition of right and wrong and refuses to bow down to the Americans and give up all that they believe in.
After learning some of the history of Iran and especially the role that the US has played in their history, I can't help but wonder how would they have developed without our intervention.
If we as Americans believe that everyone is created equal then should we not allow these people to be equal in all aspects that the US is and therefor allow for them to have access to the science and even military knowledge and power? Maybe we don't want them to have the weapons that we have because if they did we would actually have sit down and deal with them as equals instead of the barbaric "evil" people that US considers them now.
I think Khamenei--whether or not I agree with his entire political agenda/stance on the governance of Iran overall--nonetheless brings about an interesting point: is there substantial evidence that the majority of the world also opposes the development of Iran's nuclear energy program(without any incidence of bribery of course). It makes me wonder whether US officials merely fear the threat of losing their global adjudication in light of the possibility that they too could be brought into justice. It only seems apparent that this be the case considering Iran's overwhelming ability to demonstrate moral consideration in even the most dire situations despite prior US deterrents used to dismantle it's economy. Perhaps the US fears that Iran may also have its own political agenda of enforcing intolerance of "injustices" around the globe. After-all, once Iran acquires its own gavel of proclaimed justice, it would certainly present a far greater challenge for a US imperialist to continue bullying other countries around into total submission/total control.
I think that what Khamenei is saying in this video is a skewed version of the facts. The world is not against letting Iranians develop nuclear energy; the main concern is over nuclear weapons. There have been attempts to let Iran have nuclear power, as long as the uranium and/or plutonium were enriched in a different country. It seems to me that Iran is not putting nuclear power on the top of their priorities, but rather nuclear enrichment. I think if Iran was truly committed to having nuclear power, they would abide by the rules set by other countries and not enrich their own fuel until the international community trusted them enough to let the Iranians do it themselves. All Khamenei is doing in his speech is spreading propaganda and stirring up trouble.
Ok, nuke tech is a threat, yes, but why target Iran? N.Korea has failed to abide by NATOs laws, and numerous others to name. The reason is oil, number one resource to humans that can be profited. I wouldnt be surprised if one day some extreme capitalists began profiting off drinking water when our water system fails or inevitably destroyed.
In the end, it is best to ban the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons supports violence, supports superiority, and is only used as a threat. Why is it fair for only certain countries to have nuclear weapons? Why are we focusing on the production of nuclear weapons when we should be focusing on education, health care, and peace? Why should violence be the number one topic on the news? Yes, it is important to stop the production of nuclear weapons but it should be done in a non-violent manner. The world needs to unite. We need to focus on making friends, coming together, and helping one another. Violence is not the answer, unity is.
It is refreshing to see Iranians saying something other than "death to America!!" Of course Khamenei is right on the issue. I sure wish the US would stop being so silly and actually have diplomatic relations with such an important country as Iran that poses no threat to the national interest here. I think if people mustered some insight into the degree of insanity now prevailing the entire congress and university in fact, which tolerates this administration, removes impeachment, which alone could halt the threat of waking up in the morning to find ourselves at war with Iran, if we thought a bit more of the extent we tolerate this attempt to attach the US to permanent imperialism to its destruction as a nation, we would certainly organize our pursuits around whatever it takes to get an impeachment. I have yet to hear a good excuse to forego impeachment, finals notwithstanding.
A reason that the US should continue their fight against Iran's nuclear program is that the American government is obligated to appear to be protecting the US as well as other countries from harm. By protesting the nuclear program, the US sends a clear message that it seeks a more cooperative and peaceful world. HOWEVER, Iran has all the right to deny any control by the US, especially because the US is being hypocritical in denying Iran's nuclear proliferation when America itself is the leader in weaponry. Furthermore, Iran has stated that the intentions of the nuclear power is not for warfare. The country has a right to protect its own and to find alternative fuels to oil to be able to support its people. Iran's possession of nuclear power decreases the economic and political disparity between countries and allows the country to rightfully protect its people.
Nuclear energy for peaceful use is one thing, but nuclear weapons is a very different issue. I don't think that Iran should be allowed (even if it wanted to) to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because the Iranian government is a corrupt and dishonest. It does not give to its citizens the most basic freedoms. This is not my western ideology that I am imposing on Iran (in fact, I'm Iranian myself). Killing opponents to the regime is not a religious or cultural difference, it is simply a criminal government that wants to stay in power no matter what!
Regarding the repetitive statement "the US (that has a history of dropping nuclear bombs) should not tell Iran what it can do with its nuclear program". I answer, it is not just the United States that is opposed to it. It is the majority of the developed world. When Iranians themselves hate their government, why give that government more rights than it gives its people?
To me it seems quite outrageous to start off any feedback with the talk of nuclear weapons as well as the mere assumption that all Iranian intentions are geared towards the nuclear bomb. Instead, I will approach my feedback response by actually responding to what Ayatollah Khamenei broadly addressed by analyzing some of his statements and to ignore the issues that our current administration may have possibly fabricated within the media with regards to Iran's supposed military nuclear capacity. First, Khamenei speaks about how, specifically, the Americans do not necessarily think before they speak. And by Americans he is generally referring to those within the US administration who constantly make assumptions along with warmongering statements towards Iran. Everyday you hear--as I also heard in class--that "the world is against Iran acquiring nuclear energy." This, on closer scrutiny, is an untenable claim. First of all, there is absolutely no proof of Iran pursuing any nuclear weapons and secondly, as Khamenei goes on to address, who makes up this world that is possibly against Iran's supposed nuclear future? He mentions that "more than 100 countries in the NAM movement" and "about 50 Islamic countries in OIC and in NPT…which belong to the majority of the world" are all "of the view that civil and nuclear energy" is Iran's peaceful right. I think it is actually fair to say that most of the world, by these standards, is okay with Iran obtaining civil and nuclear energy for the benefit of their country. These are the people of the world to which Khamenei refers and not just a few Western Allies or for that matter Israel, which has been quick to beat the war drums, despite Iran's recent claims being vindicated that they do not have military nuclear ambitions. I think the most important issue with regards to Khamenei's speech is that people sit back and listen respectfully to what he, as well as others within the Iranian government, say. The dirty secret at the center of all of this fuss is that we are looking for the slightest reason to go in. Look at Seymour Hersh's recent remarks that the administration has known Iran has not Military nuclear capacity all year. This is about our corrupt agenda, our fears and little else.
Post a Comment