by Damozel | Iran has said that it tested missiles again and Condi rejoined that we would defend our allies, i.e., Israel, if they are attacked. (NYT) It's seemed quite clear to me all along that Israel is determined that if Iran doesn't capitulate --- which Iran says it will not --- that Israel is determined to strike.
So it seems a transparent piece of double-speak for Rice to talk about "defense." Isn't this what she's really saying: "If Iran doesn't either do what Israel and a number of other countries tell it to do, and Israel strikes, Iran must submit to the attack or we'll come in on Israel's side? "
Rice --- not, the rumor is, the most hawkish of Bush's gang by any stretch --- said, '“We take very, very strongly our obligations to defend our allies and no one should be confused of that.”' (NYT) She's on a three-day tour of eastern Europe, but took a break to draw this line in the sand.
Israel has 'vowed' not to let Iran become a nuclear power.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he favored diplomatic pressure and sanctions, but that, “Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past it is not afraid to take action when its vital security interests are at stake.”
Adding to tensions, this week the United States and the Czech Republic signed an accord to allow the Pentagon to deploy part of its contentious antiballistic missile shield, which Washington maintains is intended to protect in part against Iranian missiles.'...Meanwhile, American and British warships are engaged in maneuvers in the Persian Gulf. (NYT)
I have opinions about what is happening this which I do not intend to share, partly because I'm aware that there are factors in play I don't understand. But the constellation of data currently available to me as a citizen are not convincing as to the necessity of an attack, either by Israel or the US. What does seem clear is that certain members of the Bush administration have been floating the idea of an attack on Iran --- and for a multiplicity of changing reasons over time --- for the last two years.
And the following just adds to my doubt and consternation.
A private group of scientists in the United States interpreted the situation as a battle of exaggeration waged by both the Iranians and the Bush administration, Iran overstating the strength of its missiles and the United States overstating the need for missile defenses.
“Iran frequently exaggerates the capability of its missiles, and it appears it is continuing that tradition with this week’s tests,” said Dr. David Wright, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Meanwhile, the Bush administration is using Iran’s missile tests to promote the U.S. antimissile system in Eastern Europe that has never been shown to work in a real-world situation.”
Dr. Wright said that the range of Iran’s biggest missiles appeared to be significantly less than Tehran routinely claimed.(NYT)
And Charles P. Vick, an expert in Iranian rocket programs at an organization called Global Security.org thinks that Iran may be testing a few new systems, but mostly appears to be clearing out old inventory (NYT)
The Iranian state radio has announced, '“Deep in the Persian Gulf waters, the launch of different types of ground-to-sea, surface-to-surface, sea-to-air and the powerful launch of the Hoot missile successfully took place” and claimed that it had test-fired nine missiles, including one with sufficient range to strike Israel. (NYT) But it seems that this might well be bluster --- bluster in response to threats of an attack by Israel, one must bear in mind.
At any rate, it looks as if that confrontation that Bush is apparently longing to have is gearing up to take place. The armies have mustered and are facing off, the knights are feutring their spears, and it seems more and more certain that any preliminary parlay is just for the sake of form.
I hope I'm wrong.
Scarecrow at Firedoglake presents an alternative framing of current events from the Bush administration's --- or Israel's --- i.e., how it might look to the Iranians.
I am all looking at events through an alternative frame. It's stupid not to try to understand another nation's point of view before you make war on them. So here's Scarecrow:
Of course, Iran's President is a blustering, provocative fellow whose statements can't be ignored, but he doesn't control the country...
The US has leaned hard on foreign companies to cease investing in Iran as a way to pressure the Iranians to stop their nuclear program. Yesterday, this pressure convinced Total, France's huge energy firm, to withdraw from plans to help Iran develop its huge natural gas fields.
The Iranians claim they are developing nuclear technology not to acquire nuclear weapons but to supply nuclear electric power plants. They want to do that for the same reason France did decades ago; if they have lots of nuclear plants, they don't have to burn as much natural gas and oil to produce electricity.
Iran could then tap its vast oil/gas reserves -- larger than the US reserves Bush/McCain want to tap off our shores -- and sell these valuable fuels on world markets to support economic development at home. As a national energy strategy, it makes good sense (far more sense than US energy strategy), and it doesn't hurt the rest of the world.
We have a legitimate concern for nuclear weapons proliferation. But the Bush regime wants to stop Iran from developing the ability to produce nuclear fuel, even for power plants. For the Iranians, relying on imported nuclear fuel -- e.g., the Russians offered to supply them -- would mean their economy would be more vulnerable to politically motivated supply disruptions. Iran no doubt saw the Russians curtail natural gas supplies to Eastern Europe to extort higher prices....
Meanwhile, forcing Total and other foreign companies to cease developing Iran's gas fields means that less gas will be produced, which could then require the Iranians to burn more oil for electricity generation. To the Iranians, these actions must look like economic war against their own energy independence and economic future..
As for my post last week regarding Iran's rejection of the 'incentives package' offered by our European allies, plus Russia and China, Charles from Mercury Rising commented as follows:
So you can see there are other windows --- besides the Israel-fears-for-security window and the Bush-Administration--eliminate-axis-of-evil/get-oil? windows --- through which you can look at what's happening in Iran. I can't say which one gives the most accurate view because I don't know. It's possible to underestimate a threat or to be so set against military action that you turn into Neville Chamberlain.
But that's not really the case here, is it? Israel began gearing up to strike Iran's nuclear installation with the preemptive notion of eliminating a potential future threat. What if every nation did this? And it's not that I don't understand the arguments on Israel's side --- I do. Unfortunately, its current necessary alliance with the Bush administration makes me question even the data on which it is relying.
We know for a fact that the Bush administration manipulated data to get us into Iraq. We also know for a fact that it's been looking for a reason to pick a fight with Iran since Bush first used the phrase 'axis of evil.' And while you can never be certain that a habitual liar won't occasionally tell the truth, forgive me if I have trouble accepting the Bush administration's version of events now.
Memeorandum has blog reactions here.
RECENT RELATED POSTINGS
The Daily Show: One Less Pivot in the Axis of Evil; Magic Wands
Tracking the Course of the Bush-Cheney Juggernaut As It Lurches Toward Iran
Iran's Position Unchanged Despite Offered Incentives Package
Bush Administration's Covert Actions re: Iran
Is Israel Gearing Up for an Attack Against Iran?
I get the sense that you are missing a key point here. Under the Nonproliferation protocols, Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy in whatever manner it sees fit, as long as it allows reasonable inspections to ensure that material is not being diverted into weapons production. It has fully complied with these requirements. It is following the law.
The phrase "On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" is particularly laughable. Iran has the right under existing international law (and indeed was exercising it many decades ago under the Shah). Why would it negotiate to obtain it?
At one point, the IAEA thought they Iran was cheating, because they found traces of highly enriched uranium on the centrifuges. However, further investigation revealed that the uranium was from Pakistani enrichment. Pakistan had sold the centrifuges to Iran. So, no basis to think Iran was cheating.
Sorry to say, Iran is entirely in the right here. There's no doubt in my mind that they will eventually develop a nuclear weapon. After the recent belligerence of the US and Israel, who could blame them?