Er, nothing whatsoever to do with Israel, of course not!

[ed_rex]

I see the demonization of Iran continues apace, as if Dick Cheney was still running the White House. Whether these drums of war are intended to stir up a genuine war fever in the States or is just meant to (a) keep the American people nervous and (b) keep the Iranians nervous (not to mention the rest of us) is unclear, but I couldn't help but by struck by just how bizarrely divorced from reality so-called "objective journalism" can be.

According to the CBC, Hilary Clinton is warning that "Iran could spark nuclear arms race".

Now, it's (presumably) true that Clinton said, and (equally presumably) true that Iran's president insisted that his country's nuclear program is one meant strictly for peaceful purposes — and who knows, I wouldn't be surprised if it is. God knows the Pentagon hasn't been exactly a paragon of truth-in-advertising when it comes to its "enemies" weapons of mass destruction.

Be that as it may, what's really fascinating about the article is what isn't mentioned, such as,

• the fact that Israel has a hundred or so nuclear weapons;


• that the United States — which continues to treat Iran as an enemy, even after Iran provided all sorts of help after 9/11 — has thousands of nuclear weapons and has never promised not to be the first to use them;
and,

• that the United states has invaded two countries, two of Iran's neighbours (three if you count Pakistan) in the past decade or so.

Maybe Iran is trying to develop the Bomb. I hope they're not, but frankly, if I were running that country, I'd give it serious consideration. Wouldn't you?

Comments

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Word or This or IAWTP or whatever people are saying these days to express agreeement. Glenn Greenwald, who I may be falling in love with, had a spate of blogs a few weeks back on Iran and noted some of the same inconsistencies you have, asking, among other things, how we might expect the US to be behaving had Iran just recently invaded both Canada and Mexico.

More generally, I still have trouble getting over the righteous indignation that nuclear powers summon up when other countries have the chutzpah to put into place just some of the preconditions for nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are a scourge on the planet, and we need to eliminate *all* of them.

[steelcaver.livejournal.com]

UN rules allow nukes for "deterrence" - and since Iran is likely to be attacked by a nuclear-armed nation, UN rules allow them to maintain nuclear warheads for use.

Sorry, America, but under international law, Iran has every right to pursue a nuclear arsenal as long as you talk of war with them.

And, realistically... if I were running a country which was being threatened (even just verbally) by a nuclear-armed nation, I'd be researching things far nastier than nukes.

Agree with your agreement

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Nuclear weapons are a scourge on the planet, and we need to eliminate *all* of them.

To treble the ugly irony, of course, is that the very laws the nuclear powers quote when upstarts like Iran (maybe) try to join the club also include the requirement that existing nuclear powers actually work towards eliminating them.

Of course, you and I are just being naive in getting upset that the world is run by dishonest cynics, aren't we?

Say what?!? Chapter and verse, if you please

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

UN rules allow nukes for "deterrence" ...

Actually, I don't think they do. As I understand, the non-proliferation treaty specifically disallows any but the "big five" from possessing them and also insists that those five work towards eliminating all nuclear weapons.