With breathtaking moral relativism, the media reports that Australia is considering selling uranium to China with one breath, whilst condemning possible nuclear-weapons stirrings in Iran. This is the type of analysis only the corporate media could undertake. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it’s worth noting again how consistently issues are decontextualised.
It would be far from surprising if Iran is considering the development of nuclear weapons. The most obvious explanation for this, from the perspective of the mainstream narrative at least, is the fact that Iran’s new President has strong support from Iran’s hardliners. And, of course, Iran’s hardliners favour the development of the bomb.
But that is far from the end of the story. Over the past few days, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been a headline news item. Yet none of the reports have considered these ambitions in light of the actions of outside antagonists. For instance, no mention of well publicized allegations that American war planners are considering an invasion of Iran (see also this excellent post on Antony Loewenstein’s blog). Whether these allegations are correct, surely they bear more than fleeting relevance to the present situation?
There isn’t even a mention of the fact that Israel, a nation that has the most robust record of belligerency in the region, has nuclear weapons. Based on information leaked by Mordechai Vanunu in the 1980s, experts estimated that Israel had around 200 nukes. That was 20 years ago. There is a very good chance the arsenal is even bigger now.
Apart from its nuclear arsenal, the Israeli Defence Force has considered military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The IDF may never actually do that, but Iran’s leaders have to take the threat seriously.
None of these factors are reckoned in the analysis of present Iranian interest in nuclear weapons.
No sane individual can doubt the importance of refraining from developing nuclear weapons, regardless of whether other nations also possess them. In short, there is no excuse for Iran to be embarking down the road towards nuclear weaponry. Notwithstanding that, serious analysis of Iran’s nuclear ambitions is impossible without an equally serious appraisal of the external influences on that country. Otherwise, Iran’s contemplation of nuclear weapons comes across as the actions of a gratuitously belligerent nation.
4 Comments:
Excellent blog. Interesting point about the external influences on Iran. Things have to be looked at from the viewpoint that everything is relative to one another.
Speaking recently to a friend over dinner I actually had a conversation about the recent commotion over Iran's nuke reactor. He made a point that I want to put forward for some opinions.
He mentioned that although Israel's got some nukes, the threat level between the two countries is different. He said that Israel is not making plans to invade and occupy land in Iran. Iran has only a threat if it makes a nuke to threaten Israel. But Israel has a continuing threat of existence from countries (like Iran) that refuse to recognise it as a state and would want to kick Israel out of the ME if they had the chance. Iran has no such prob. There is nobody threatening to invade Iran if it didn't want to create a nuke.
"With breathtaking moral relativism, the media reports that Australia is considering selling uranium to China with one breath, whilst condemning possible nuclear-weapons stirrings in Iran."
HaHa! Moral relativism indeed.
Man's capacity to make such contradicting statements and be unable to see the irony in it, never ceases to amaze me. I'm always like, How? How can you not see it?
And I believe you're right to worry about Iran in light of their renewed nuclear program. Based on what I've read and heard from people who deal with American foreign policy. United States will not let another Pakistan and India happen on its watch. No matter what the cost may be. US is still regretting not doing anthing while Pakistan and India went nuclear. The same goes with Israel. There is no way, Israel will sit by and let an antagonist neighbour acheive nuclear capability and threaten its existence.
On the other hand, I think, Iran can not but, go on to pursue their nuclear ambitions. Iran feels beseiged from all sides. Iran's got US run Iraq and Afghanistan in the east and west, and unfriendly Arab countries in the south. I bet they feel suffocated in the middle right now.
The stakes are just too high for every party involved to do nothing. I think, Iran is heading for an unavoidable face off with the US. And sadly, Iran will find itself all alone on the world arena. Nobody thinks Iran should have nuclear weapons.
Thanks Anonymous. Wish you posted your name though, no need to hide! Well where to begin with those points. Re Arab states threatening Israel, where precisely is the evidence for this, especially over the past few decades? Also, assuming there was a threat, does this justify Israel being armed to the teeth? Every few years, for eg, the Arab League offers formal recognition of the State of Israel in return for the end of the occupation along the lines of the famous Security Council resolution 242 of 1967. This offer is always rejected. There’s also Sadat’s famous peace offer to Israel, which didn’t even refer to the Occupation or the Palestinians. This offer was rejected by Israel. De facto many of the Arab/Muslim states have strong ties with Israel. Turkey for one allows Israeli jets to fly sorties over its airspace. The two countries also have strong military and economic ties.
As to an attack or invasion of Iran being justified merely on the basis of that country possessing nuclear weapons, I find it hard to see what further arguments one could make against that statement because it seems to me to be self-evidently absurd. All very Orwellian. Think about it this way. What would people say if Israel’s neighbours decided to bomb Israel for possessing over 200 nuclear weapons? After all, Israel has launched attacks on neighbouring states, even distant ones (Tunisia), has flown fighters over Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, has occupied southern Lebanon, continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, and has even sunk an American navy ship. I haven’t even mentioned the more generic arguments against nuclear weaponry which could be applied to any real or aspiring nuclear power, not just Israel. Not to mention, either, the hand that feeds all this hunger for weaponry. The Israel, along with the Arab nations, could not satisfy its hunger for more and more weapons without billions of dollars in American subsidies annually.
Hi Abdusalam. I agree, the hypocrisy of the international community’s stance(s) on Iran is creating an environment in which those who favour Iran going nuclear seem more sensible. Still, I don’t think this justifies Iran developing nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons. Their mere existence is a threat to international peace and security.
America, in choosing to have nukes, thereby foregoes any legitimate role in determining whether others can have them or not.
They can't have it both ways. Virtually every problem America experinces seems to come down to a childish inability to accept this simple fact.
.
Post a Comment
<< Home