Pasban
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 0
The US nuclear obsession with Iran
By Marwan Bishara in
As the Non-Proliferation Review Conference convenes in New York, Marwan Bishara says the world cannot afford a repeat of the conference's 2005 fiasco.
As the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference convenes here in New York this week to assess compliance and to agree on steps to achieve its goals, the world cannot afford a repeat of its 2005 fiasco.
There is a general perception that the NPT regime is in bad shape. In reality, it is worse.
Behind its failures lie double standards and narrow strategic thinking by its five certified nuclear powers, which hampers implementation of its decisions and erodes its credibility.
At the heart of the NPT crisis are three failures relating to the treaty's three main pillars: Disarmament, non-proliferation and access to civilian nuclear energy.
How significant is a "significant" reduction? How new is a "new weapon"?
A central goal of the NPT, which has 189 signatories, is the disarmament of its nuclear powers. Only such a process could entice other states to join the NPT and commit to not developing nuclear weapons.
The five official nuclear powers who are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council have the capacity to destroy earth. This is especially the case for the US and Russia.
But since the end of the Cold War, Washington and Moscow have dragged their feet on reversing their nuclear deployment, which could lead to Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD strategy as it was know during the Cold War.
In fact, the post Cold War strategic and economic coordination and cooperation between Russia and the US render their nuclear deployment sheer madness.
By signing a new START agreement in April they may have saved face and even strengthened the disarmament regime, but they have fallen far short of what is desirable or needed.
While Russian and American officials boast of a significant reduction in deployed strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (no more than 700) and deployed strategic warheads (no more than 1550), these can, nonetheless, cause massive destruction.
And what about all the other types of warheads - deployed or not deployed, strategic or not strategic?
While nuclear weapons are credited by some with having preserved the peace in Europe during the Cold War, no such justification exists today.
Making bombastic statements about "significant" reductions is true relative to past foot-dragging, but it is far from a serious fulfillment of their obligations under the NPT.
Obama's nuclear doctrine
Barack Obama, the US president, who last year provided an ambitious vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and said he would not support introducing "new" nuclear weapons, might be backtracking on his pledge.
Whether, for example, it is parts replacement for old warheads with new ones, or installing new components that improve their safety against "terrorism", the modernization and upgrading of warheads could be interpreted as introducing new ones.
Obama's new nuclear doctrine, revealed in April, deemphasises US use of nuclear weapons as part of its overall strategic posture, but does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea which is hardly confidence building.
Double standard ...
When it comes to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the words that trump all others are double standard.
While certain states have pursued nuclear weapons programmes to fulfill national ambition or to achieve hegemony, generally their pursuit was possible thanks to a double standard on the part of the world's five nuclear powers.
Take the countries that did not sign and/or violated the non-proliferation regime in one way or another: Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
They are listed above according to the potency of their nuclear weaponisation and deployment. But in terms of Western-led reaction, Iran tops the list with Israel last on the Western agenda.
Iran then North Korea, and on to Pakistan with India and notably Israel accepted as de facto as nuclear powers with little or no comment.
And the reason for this correlation relates to Washington. The closer countries are to the US, the greater their violations and the less the West focuses on them.
In fact, the US, which ignores Israel's nuclear weapon programme which consists of an estimated 100-200 nuclear warheads, has also normalised its nuclear cooperation with India, despite its nuclear weapon programme and paved the way for the 40-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift its sanctions against India.
When Pakistan requested the same treatment, the US answer was: "It's complicated", or at best, "premature" for Pakistan to have any such expectation.
As for the US nemesis North Korea and Iran - a member of the NPT which has yet to develop nuclear weapons - they are seen as being somewhere between the most urgent and most dangerous threat to international peace and stability.
Such double standards have compromised non-proliferation efforts among those outcast by Washington.
This has also led global powers to take advantage of and to exploit the nuclear question to underline their own strategic role, such as with Russia's relationship with Iran and China's with North Korea.
In this context, the announcement by Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, last month, that the first Russian-built nuclear plant in Iran will be functioning this summer has raised eyebrows in Washington and European capitals, where politicians are trying to tighten international sanctions against Iran.
As the world's powers use nuclear proliferation for geopolitical bargaining, we must expect nuclear proliferation to worsen in the future, specifically in the greater Middle East.
Focus on Iran, ignore Israel
The non-aligned nations - a block of 119 counties chaired by Egypt and with Iran as a member - has issued an "action plan" that calls for the scrapping of nuclear weapons in the Middle East (hence Israel) and further disarmament by the NPT's five nuclear powers.
For their part, Western powers are reportedly contemplating replacing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the UN Security Council to allow for tougher responses to violators of the treaty.
Unless there is some serious arm twisting, it is hard to see why states would surrender their powers to the Security Council.
Worried by Iran and other opposition to its agenda, the Obama administration has downplayed the urgency of a successful conclusion of the Review Conference and reaching a final declaration. They reckon there are shorter more practical paths to non-proliferation.
Such an approach undermines Obama's own vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and compromises international attempts to better safeguard nuclear materials, which the Obama administration tried hard to achieve during its April Washington Nuclear summit.
Despite Tehran's denial that it is developing a nuclear weapons programme and its insistence that it is developing a peaceful nuclear programme, Western countries are demanding that Iran come clean or face tougher sanctions.
Diplomatically, under the snappy banner 'Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none', Tehran has recently convened an alternative nuclear conference to underline its NPT credentials and to discredit Washington's allegations, but to no avail.
Strategically, Iran has responded to Western pressures and ultimatums by accelerating its nuclear programme and calling for disarming the world's nuclear powers first, while allowing all NPT members access to civilian technology and materials.
The NPT members agreed in their 1995 and 2000 meeting on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, but Iran remains the West's main preoccupation and the focus of a new round of sanctions.
With no clear mechanism in the NPT treaty for violators, Washington and its allies are improvising.
Alas, the US/Western obsession with Iran has been devoid of geopolitical consideration, and the need to emphasize the importance of a world, or at least a Middle East region, free of nuclear weapons.
When the new round of sanctions fail to force Iran to back track on its nuclear programme, as other sanctions have failed before, the non-proliferation efforts will have been damaged, leaving the region at the mercy of less diplomatic means.
The US nuclear obsession with Iran | Al Jazeera Blogs
-----------------------------------------
It is sad how politics and justice are almost always at odds and people (especially in the western nations) are taught to justify double standards against Asia [especially Muslims] and avoid logical thinking. With the heavy censorship (even under guise) and indoctrination going in those nations, such news will only reach those who already disagree with the current hypocritical approach.
Perhaps, all of it is really because for one to keep power, one needs to keep others down. A world of the consumers and the developers would be more fitting to them.
By Marwan Bishara in
As the Non-Proliferation Review Conference convenes in New York, Marwan Bishara says the world cannot afford a repeat of the conference's 2005 fiasco.
As the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference convenes here in New York this week to assess compliance and to agree on steps to achieve its goals, the world cannot afford a repeat of its 2005 fiasco.
There is a general perception that the NPT regime is in bad shape. In reality, it is worse.
Behind its failures lie double standards and narrow strategic thinking by its five certified nuclear powers, which hampers implementation of its decisions and erodes its credibility.
At the heart of the NPT crisis are three failures relating to the treaty's three main pillars: Disarmament, non-proliferation and access to civilian nuclear energy.
How significant is a "significant" reduction? How new is a "new weapon"?
A central goal of the NPT, which has 189 signatories, is the disarmament of its nuclear powers. Only such a process could entice other states to join the NPT and commit to not developing nuclear weapons.
The five official nuclear powers who are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council have the capacity to destroy earth. This is especially the case for the US and Russia.
But since the end of the Cold War, Washington and Moscow have dragged their feet on reversing their nuclear deployment, which could lead to Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD strategy as it was know during the Cold War.
In fact, the post Cold War strategic and economic coordination and cooperation between Russia and the US render their nuclear deployment sheer madness.
By signing a new START agreement in April they may have saved face and even strengthened the disarmament regime, but they have fallen far short of what is desirable or needed.
While Russian and American officials boast of a significant reduction in deployed strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (no more than 700) and deployed strategic warheads (no more than 1550), these can, nonetheless, cause massive destruction.
And what about all the other types of warheads - deployed or not deployed, strategic or not strategic?
While nuclear weapons are credited by some with having preserved the peace in Europe during the Cold War, no such justification exists today.
Making bombastic statements about "significant" reductions is true relative to past foot-dragging, but it is far from a serious fulfillment of their obligations under the NPT.
Obama's nuclear doctrine
Barack Obama, the US president, who last year provided an ambitious vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and said he would not support introducing "new" nuclear weapons, might be backtracking on his pledge.
Whether, for example, it is parts replacement for old warheads with new ones, or installing new components that improve their safety against "terrorism", the modernization and upgrading of warheads could be interpreted as introducing new ones.
Obama's new nuclear doctrine, revealed in April, deemphasises US use of nuclear weapons as part of its overall strategic posture, but does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea which is hardly confidence building.
Double standard ...
When it comes to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the words that trump all others are double standard.
While certain states have pursued nuclear weapons programmes to fulfill national ambition or to achieve hegemony, generally their pursuit was possible thanks to a double standard on the part of the world's five nuclear powers.
Take the countries that did not sign and/or violated the non-proliferation regime in one way or another: Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
They are listed above according to the potency of their nuclear weaponisation and deployment. But in terms of Western-led reaction, Iran tops the list with Israel last on the Western agenda.
Iran then North Korea, and on to Pakistan with India and notably Israel accepted as de facto as nuclear powers with little or no comment.
And the reason for this correlation relates to Washington. The closer countries are to the US, the greater their violations and the less the West focuses on them.
In fact, the US, which ignores Israel's nuclear weapon programme which consists of an estimated 100-200 nuclear warheads, has also normalised its nuclear cooperation with India, despite its nuclear weapon programme and paved the way for the 40-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift its sanctions against India.
When Pakistan requested the same treatment, the US answer was: "It's complicated", or at best, "premature" for Pakistan to have any such expectation.
As for the US nemesis North Korea and Iran - a member of the NPT which has yet to develop nuclear weapons - they are seen as being somewhere between the most urgent and most dangerous threat to international peace and stability.
Such double standards have compromised non-proliferation efforts among those outcast by Washington.
This has also led global powers to take advantage of and to exploit the nuclear question to underline their own strategic role, such as with Russia's relationship with Iran and China's with North Korea.
In this context, the announcement by Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, last month, that the first Russian-built nuclear plant in Iran will be functioning this summer has raised eyebrows in Washington and European capitals, where politicians are trying to tighten international sanctions against Iran.
As the world's powers use nuclear proliferation for geopolitical bargaining, we must expect nuclear proliferation to worsen in the future, specifically in the greater Middle East.
Focus on Iran, ignore Israel
The non-aligned nations - a block of 119 counties chaired by Egypt and with Iran as a member - has issued an "action plan" that calls for the scrapping of nuclear weapons in the Middle East (hence Israel) and further disarmament by the NPT's five nuclear powers.
For their part, Western powers are reportedly contemplating replacing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the UN Security Council to allow for tougher responses to violators of the treaty.
Unless there is some serious arm twisting, it is hard to see why states would surrender their powers to the Security Council.
Worried by Iran and other opposition to its agenda, the Obama administration has downplayed the urgency of a successful conclusion of the Review Conference and reaching a final declaration. They reckon there are shorter more practical paths to non-proliferation.
Such an approach undermines Obama's own vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and compromises international attempts to better safeguard nuclear materials, which the Obama administration tried hard to achieve during its April Washington Nuclear summit.
Despite Tehran's denial that it is developing a nuclear weapons programme and its insistence that it is developing a peaceful nuclear programme, Western countries are demanding that Iran come clean or face tougher sanctions.
Diplomatically, under the snappy banner 'Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none', Tehran has recently convened an alternative nuclear conference to underline its NPT credentials and to discredit Washington's allegations, but to no avail.
Strategically, Iran has responded to Western pressures and ultimatums by accelerating its nuclear programme and calling for disarming the world's nuclear powers first, while allowing all NPT members access to civilian technology and materials.
The NPT members agreed in their 1995 and 2000 meeting on a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, but Iran remains the West's main preoccupation and the focus of a new round of sanctions.
With no clear mechanism in the NPT treaty for violators, Washington and its allies are improvising.
Alas, the US/Western obsession with Iran has been devoid of geopolitical consideration, and the need to emphasize the importance of a world, or at least a Middle East region, free of nuclear weapons.
When the new round of sanctions fail to force Iran to back track on its nuclear programme, as other sanctions have failed before, the non-proliferation efforts will have been damaged, leaving the region at the mercy of less diplomatic means.
The US nuclear obsession with Iran | Al Jazeera Blogs
-----------------------------------------
It is sad how politics and justice are almost always at odds and people (especially in the western nations) are taught to justify double standards against Asia [especially Muslims] and avoid logical thinking. With the heavy censorship (even under guise) and indoctrination going in those nations, such news will only reach those who already disagree with the current hypocritical approach.
Perhaps, all of it is really because for one to keep power, one needs to keep others down. A world of the consumers and the developers would be more fitting to them.
