Wednesday, September 30, 2009

With or Without Ahmadinejad: Nuclear Technology is our RIGHT!

I am not going to repeat myself here!

I am appalled by Obama (one can hardly expect more from Sarkozy or Brown) for acting the way they did.

IRI is RIGHT: the West is better off not loosing this chance, and should negotiate with Iran respectfully.

IRI has not violated IAEA regulations, and the Western fear mongering is
  1. derailing Obama's peace process and taking the heat off of Netanyahu's bottom! (Juan Cole puts it best!)
  2. derailing Iran's green movement and diverting attention from the MAIN problem of IRI, which is Ahmadinejad (and his ilk)
If you don't want a nuclear race in the Middle East, NEGOTIATE with Iran AND disarm Israel! Press Iran on it's democratic problems; not because you give a damn about people's lives and freedom, but because you can entice the IRI to "enjoy" your capitalist investments and economic participation if they behave democratically--because when it comes to nuclear WMD, your buddy Israel strips you of legitimacy!

Use your carrots carefully and keep your stick at home!

IRGC cannot recruit enough soldiers to "go to fight" with any nation--and they have reiterated that "first strike" is NOT on IRI's agenda (as it has NEVER BEEN BEFORE, attested to by history). But should anyone act offensively, we WILL unite to defend Iran! Now, please don't force us to unite behind IRGC, okey?!

As fiercely as I hate Ahmadinejad, I shall hate you if you sanction Iran!


kellie said...

Hi Naj, I think it's important to note that Obama explicitly recognised Iran's right to nuclear technology. The question is purely one of weapons.

On the legal question of IAEA rules, I'm no lawyer, but the argument that Iran is in breach seems very strong:

On Iran's no first strike history, this limits the issue to conventional warfare and ignores Iranian clients and alleged covert/terrorist operations, and therefore doesn't fully address the fears of those whom the IRI identifies as enemies.

I have strong doubts on the efficacy of sanctions, particularly long term economic sanctions, but your argument might be more persuasive if you more fully recognised the reasons why non-Iranians as well as Iranians may be fearful of IRI actions.

Naj said...

Kellie, quoting from your own link:

The Subsidiary Arrangements specify when a state must report a new facility to the IAEA. "Code 3.1" of the 1976 version of the Subsidiary Arrangements requires states to report on new facilities “normally no later than 180 days before the facility is scheduled to receive nuclear material for the first time.”

It became clear that this requirement did not provide the IAEA with sufficient time to plan and prepare for safeguards. So, in the early 1990s the IAEA modified Code 3.1. The new version requires states to report on a new facility as soon as the decision to construct it is taken.

In February 2003, shortly after its original clandestine centrifuge plant—the one at Natanz—was discovered, Iran agreed to the modified Code 3.1.[1] As is usual, this was accomplished by an exchange of letters.

In March 2007, however, Iran announced to the IAEA that it was suspending the implementation of the modified Code 3.1 and reverting back to the original form. The United States has claimed that Iran started building the Qom facility before this date. If this claim is correct—and the IAEA should try and verify it—then Iran obviously breached its obligations.

Doesn't take a lawyer to recognize the evidence is NOT strong!

As for Iranian "clients" if you are referring to Lebanon and Palestine, you might remind yourself that they have been subject to Israeli aggression far before IRI became a player in the game!

German said...

Dear naj,

I can see your point in general, and also a comparison of the strange attitude of the Western nuclear powers as to Israel is not really out of the way. I also find your idea of the carrot and stick policy to try help cautiously influence a democratic development quite plausible. -

But on the other hand, basically, and discussed on a dstinctly general level:
I, subjectively, personally, think, this problem is a non-problem, at least is seems so for most European countries for instance. Here only GB and France seem to need this face-saving device, adhering to the idea that it would be nice if they were still the world powers (they had been, before they had to do twice with mad, mad Germaany in 1914/18 and 1939/45. The other European countries - in general often with burgeoning economies - (e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland - let's stop here, I would use up too much space) don't fortunately seem to need this prop for a possible impaired self-confidence and self-image. Given its ill-reputed history I am in particular happy that Germany is beyond being allowed to possess nuclear arms. -

So from my limited perspective the question arises: What the hell makes the one or the other [only few] countries, not being superpowers, believe they could not do without such a device. -

On a purely personal level:
I for one as a human being wouldn't know how to benefit from a possible personal, regional or national nuclear weapon in my/my region's/my country's possession. It would only serve some bigmouthed, immature German politician with an inferiority complex to compensate his lack of self-assurance.

Excuse my certainly European-centred view.
Nobody of course is expected to agree with this my opinion, I just asked (myself) some question, not expecting an answer really, and in particular not trying to persuade or convince anybody.
Those proselytizing times belong to a former past of mine and are definitely gone (for good) as far as I am concerned.

To conclude: Thanks for your patience.
I do apologize for having used up so much blogging space here and of course your time in addition.

Though getting again on your nerves,
I wish you
all the best from everything good -you definitely have deserved it and are deserving it

See you


Naj said...


I love this Given its ill-reputed history I am in particular happy that Germany is beyond being allowed to possess nuclear arms. and the you ask why other littler countries think they will not be better off without such device?

Very good question! And in fact IRan answers it CLEARLY:


Else, why would it be a signatory to NPT?

With these new pressures, though, they are likely to pull out of NPT! And no one wants that!

kellie said...

Well, I don't want to get into a chicken and egg argument on the Israeli-Arab conflict back to the lost opportunities of Resolution 181 and beyond. But if you're arguing about an Iranian first strike, then Lebanon and the occupied territories are obviously not Iranian territory, so Iranian actions there in response to Israeli actions there do surely amount to an Iranian first strike, albeit via proxies.

I think questions of fairness are of limited use here. More vital are issues of fear and trust.

On the IAEA, you'll note the Arms Control Wonk post also says that Iran can't unilaterally change the terms of agreements with the IAEA. But again, rather than legal hair-splitting, questions of fear and trust are more important.

Naj said...


since we are not going to hair-split, and since you have not established Iran's first-strike precedences, we'll let this drop!

Trust, yes, it is a big issue with the IRI. So, why not press them on their distrustful attitude toward PEOPLE and beat an irrelevant horse: Nuclear development--for which NO EVIDENCE of weaponization has ever existed?

kellie said...

Why? If you ask foreign governments, then because their primary responsibility is for the security and prosperity of their own populations, not Iran's population. Just as the Iranian Green movement wants a government that recognises the security and prosperity of Iran's population as its own primary responsibility.

As for no evidence, this seems wishful thinking to me, I'm afraid, unless you're defining your terms more narrowly than I would consider reasonable.

German said...

Dear Naj,

thanks for your patience, your kindness, and of course for your answer. I find your reference to that Juan Cole links highly relevant! Thank you!

I do hope one time in the not-too-distant future there will be an Isareli politician with some common sense and reaon - or - alternatively - an US-American President with the same qualities in joint action with influential European states plus that portion of American will-power to enforce this common sense and reason. Of course most well-known problems will remain but be considerably easier to tackle - as there will be no foreign policy excuse, no foreign policy raison d'etre for undemocratic regimes to continue.

I think that the world is still having quite a task at its hand to clean up Adolf-Hitler's long-term time-bomb-like revenge on humanity, to be more exact: the mess caused and produced by these insane (Nazi-)Germans.


Naj said...

Sorry Kellie, I have no idea what it is you are roping yourself in! If Iran needs to defend its security, then it will need a military might equal to that of its enemies--with which it is surrounded!

You keep pushing your proven-in-practive warmongering western governments --- and we find a way to stand up to you! Is that fair?

Naj said...


I fully agree with you taht hte Nazi menace has NEVR died .. it is very well and alive--and in fact, in all philosophical honesty, the foundation of the "New Workd Order"--which in mild terms is exercised in the name of globalization :)

I mean listen to Kelie: she thinks sanctions are ineffective and that means she wants what? military action against Iran?! Why? because she and her governments FEEL threatened by Iran? Very well! I grant her her fear! But I also feel THREATENED by America, Russia and Israel--so it is funny that she grants herself the right to fear, but not to me!


kellie said...

Naj, perhaps you misunderstood. I'm wholly in favour of Iran having a government which sees the security and welfare of its own population as its primary responsibility, and I think we agree that the current regime is not fulfilling that responsibility.

My position is not as far from yours as you think, but I feel you need to take a more realistic view of how the regime's actions are perceived outside Iran if you want to change anybody's mind.

But I genuinely don't understand your argument that "if Iran needs to defend its security, then it will need a military might equal to that of its enemies--with which it is surrounded." Do you mean Iran should have nuclear weapons?

Naj said...

Kellie, I think NO ONE should have nuclear weapons.

Especially Pakistan and Israel!

Since Iran hasn't got any, I won't have a hypothetical discussion about Iran's NON-EXISTENT nuclear weapons.

In the meantime, Iran has EXISTING threatening issues that need to be dealt with--and people inside Iran are doing a great job sorting that out! This is the time for the west to stay out of Iran-affairs!

And ignore (and snub) ahmadinejad--his nuclear revelations are part of his attention-seeking behavior. His attention-seeking behavior also seems to make Netanyahu look like a little saint ... don't they work in great symbiosis, them bastards?

Parvati said...

To Kellie: "if you're arguing about an Iranian first strike, then Lebanon and the occupied territories are obviously not Iranian territory, so Iranian actions there in response to Israeli actions there do surely amount to an Iranian first strike, albeit via proxies."

Meaning what???? If Israel kills Gazans and/or Lebanese and Palestinians and/or Lebanese retaliate as best they can on Israel for slaughtering their people you want to hold IRAN responsible??????!!!

Fyi, when Israel was warcrime-bombing a) Lebanon and b) Gaza killing hundreds of helpless civilians and leaving thousands maimed and homeless all Ahmadinejad did was... call solidarity prayer-meetings.

kellie said...

Parvati, I mean only that Iranian military involvement with Hamas and Hizbollah is not in defence of Iran.

While we're at it, rockets deliberately aimed at civilian areas are not defensive weapons.

As for Israeli actions, obviously Israel is responsible for its own actions, as Hamas and Hizbollah are responsible for theirs, and the IRI is responsible for its own actions. My only point is that it is disingenuous to pretend that all armed elements of the IRI are purely defensive.

Naj said...

My only point is that it is disingenuous to pretend that all armed elements of the IRI are purely defensive.

Sorry, until you have proven that IRI's armed forces have declared an attack on anyone, or have themselves attacked anyone, your argument remains speculative :)

Say, USA and Germany helped Iraq with chemical attacks on Iran; does it make then invaders of Iran?!

kellie said...

Naj, IRI supply of munitions fired at Israel is not my speculation, and IRI involvement in terrorism is not mine either. If you just want to ignore and deny everything you find inconvenient, fine, but it makes your case weaker. I would actually like to be convinced by your case, but you make it very difficult if you choose only to see the regime as dishonest and predatory at home, but paint whiter than white abroad. It doesn't add up.

Naj said...

Kellie, I don't portray them as "honest" abroad either--i am just saying that with these beasts sanction and war won't work--will only empower them!

Why is it so hard to understand?

Maybe you should read my post again :)

Parvati said...

Kellie, guess I better bite my tongue hard, eh? as there are way too many OBVIOUS double standards involved here also on UK's part (i.e. arming and hosting Chechen muj and playing around with MKO/PMOI and Jundullah does WHAT exactly for UK/US homeland security?? Plus I've heard some weird stories about how the Hariris - with Saudi assistance and US/UK blessing! -imported sunni-extremist jihadis into Lebanon, infiltrating them into palestinian refugee camps to "counterweight" Hizbullah - until the whole thing blew up into a massive shootin'-match and the Lebanese army had to fight for months to clean them out. And do you know whose "bright idea" Hamas was in the first place, and why?

But as the very last thing we "Green Wave" supporters should be doing on such a lovely blog is start screeching at each other I guess I better stop the pots-vs-kettles namecalling right here?

Anyway, all I really want to say is that the double standards being applied to Iran are scandalously blatant. Amongst other things Iran - which hasn't first-attacked any other country in over 200 years - voluntarily signed up to the NPT and has officially declared it thinks nuclear weapons are monstrous + anti-Islamic and there is absolutely NO honest evidence that it is pursuing a nuclear weaponry programme. But "strangely enough" it is some of the very same countries that have nuclear weapons pouring out their earholes and truly shocking recent bad-reputations for bellicosity that are standing "virtuously" in judgement on Iran, refusing to allow it the same NPT-rights to have its own solely CIVILIAN-USE nuclear programme as Brazil, Italy, Japan etc and acting shocked-shocked-shocked that it should have the audacity to want to test-fire even NON-NUCLEAR-WARHEADED missiles, well knowing that Iran is surrounded by deadly-enemy forces that threaten it with first-attack about twice a week on average... strange world, eh?

IMHO in Iran's case the real NPT issues should be a) about reaching agreement on adequate inspections, not about barring Iran from developing and using technology it has a perfect right to; and b) freeing up the entire ME - and the entire WORLD - from nuclear weaponry.

kellie said...

I do understand that, and I have sympathy for the argument. But you also argue that they pose no threat. Well, if they pose no threat, fine, no need for sanctions anyway. However it's those that DO believe they pose a threat that you need to convince of your argument, and ignoring or wishing away the reasons why people feel threatened isn't enough.

German said...

Dear naj,

The matter being discussed here is highly complex - as the reactions of all the Iran-sympathizers [I don't see any exception there ] discussing this topic here on your blog show.

Unfortunately the hidden power holders in Iran have imposed some miserably and poorly gifted politicians on an admirably sensible and highly intelligent Iranian electorate, whom this grand nation hasn't deserved.

I am certain that the politicians who under normal voting procedures - in the past and now - would be at the helm (e.g. Khatami in the past, Mousavi and/or Kairoubi now) would have got their priorities right - being democratically flexible - without renouncing any rights a nation is entitled to, and achieving this right, because enjoying at the same time the unrestricted respect and trust of the international community.

Things unfortunately for Iran and the outside world have turned out different now: politicians are occupying the seat of government who are neither inspiring confidence respectively conveying a trustworthy impression on their own nation nor on the non-Iranian outside world.

The resulting impression is that of a rather confusing an unreliable government:
are these "politicians" intent on creating and multiplying the number of - heretofore partly non-existing - enemies?

This reminds me as a German somehow of the German Empire ("Kaiserreich") on the threshold of starting the First World War, boasting on popular picture postcards with a caption under the photograph of Kaiser Wilhelm: "Viel Feind, viel Ehr", i.e. "[to have/make] many enemies - [means] much honour".

[Of course, I know, that Iran is not an "empire" with evil hegemonic intentions - the point here is only the degree of stupidity politicians are capable to convey]

It's so sad:

we all here "on your blog" having observed and knowing about the strong, majoritarian movement for
democracy in Iran - worthy of the highest degree of admiration - , being disgraced by the embarrassingly benighted incompetence and inflexibility of a non-elected governing leadership. -

Everybody disposing of some grey cells will not go wrong when guessing with a high degree of certainty, that this stratum of embarrassingly mediocre substandard politicians will definitely not be the last word of this grand nation - in the not-too-distant future.

We all keep our fingers crossed and wish the grand Iranian nation what it has deserved: good governance and the inevitably accruing respect on the part of the Iranian electorate and on the part of the international community! - in other words: aims and objectives which the Iranian democratic movement has already achieved in the eyes of the world!

Parvati said...

Afaik the only country declaring it/its people "feel threatened" by Iran's enrichment turbines is Israel? Which is somewhat disingenuous on its part, as Israel is known to have a "deterrent" force of somewhere between 50 and 400 nukes of its very-own always at the ready plus gazillions of missiles both short-range and long to threaten both Iran and its immediate neighbours with as well as much of European - if/when "in the mood": any country that seriously attacked Israel would immediately have large swathes of its cities and landscape reduced to a radioactive wasteland and everyone knows it - and NO country anywhere in the world would ever subject its people and future to such a fate UNLESS attacked first as not only Israel itself but all the hypocrisy-festival negotiators are perfectly well aware: that's how we all survived the "Cold War"! So afaik the "real" reason Israel is so adamant that the US and European countries must proxy-oblige Iran to cease enriching uranium is essentially that an Iran without actual nukes but WITH the material technological capability to build them fast "if needed" i.e. if under existential threat would/could affect the power-balance in the ME to Israel's disadvantage.

Parvati said...

Re German's fine statement:
"I am certain that the politicians who under normal voting procedures - in the past and now - would be at the helm (e.g. Khatami in the past, Mousavi and/or Kairoubi now) would have got their priorities right - being democratically flexible - without renouncing any rights a nation is entitled to, and achieving this right, because enjoying at the same time the unrestricted respect and trust of the international community."

That certainty is founded on a strong precedent - a tragically missed opportunity:

Result of having Ahmadinejad in power is instead a constant stream of pseudo-historical idiocies delight the "bomb bomb bomb Iran" crowd:

Naj said...

friends, we are all clearly in the same camp!

Check out my new post!

It's hot! I wish I understood hebrew though :)

German said...

Dear Naj,

Having pondered on and having scrutinized the different, differing, numerous contributions by your correspondents gathered here
referring to and endeavouring to grapple with the issue on the agenda here on your particular blog "With or Without..."
are - I am not able to help thinking, though strange to say and strange as it may seem sometimes [with a view to torturously long statements like mine e.g.] - a declaration of the high appreciation, of the deep sympathy and of the love

due to you,
due to your work and
of course
due to the nation of Iran.

All the best from everything good


Naj said...



Naj said...


even The Crown Prince has begun speaking green!!

This is the power of the people! They are rushing to be the first to stick themselves to the wave!

Ahmadinejad better start talking green too!

Parvati said...

P.S. to my previous comment: apologies for writing so hastily and passionately that I just slammed down those too-long links whole without taking the time to write code and preview the results to make sure they were clickable! A really stupid and lazy mistake.. sorry :-(

So to make up for it, here's the most important one again - it's from an article published in 2006 by US historian Gareth Porter about the great peace offer Khatami had proposed to the US when he was Iran's president (back in 2003) - which Bush shamefully failed to accept.

Plus 2 very "pertinent" links to another great blog, that of the Israeli peace-worker and civil rights activist "desertpeace" - I think she and Naj would get on very well! ;-)

Changing Focus

Irantoon of the Week

Naj said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Naj said...

Passion on, Parvati!

I take what you and German say very serious, because your history HAS SUFFERED fascism, and because you are sharp in detecting it unfold in Iran.

I don't think North American or British and French and Dutch and scandinavian people really grasp what fascism is.

Americans are the ones most prone to it, and they came to the brink of it with Bush, but so gloriously re-bounced from it, so they cannot even imagine how and why it comes about. It is not only an internal trait of some nations, it comes about because of interaction with the outside world.

One has to know the romanticist roots of fascism to get so romantically passionate against it.

kellie said...

Zionists and monarchists, Naj, where will it end?!!

Let me add to the disorientation by pointing to encouraging words in the Wall St Journal from someone who served in the Bush administration, Eliot A. Cohen.

The headline, There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran, is misleading. The author takes absolutely seriously fears about Iran's nuclear weapons program, but argues that sanctions have already proved ineffective, that Israeli military action would be of limited effect and lead to dire consequences, and that American military action would lead to worse consequences, and would in any case be politically impossible for Obama.

He sees the only remaining choice as encouraging democracy in Iran through 'soft power', but without giving any detail as to how to do that.

(Of course we're all aware of how 'soft power' can also be counter-productive.)

So it seems that even some people who take Iran very seriously as a regional threat, find that the logic of the situation points towards your position on what actions to take, and more clearly what actions to avoid.

Naj said...


Parvati said...

"It is not only an internal trait of some nations, it comes about because of interaction with the outside world.

One has to know the romanticist roots of fascism to get so romantically passionate against it."


Dear dear Naj, who else could have said that? - Yes indeed, I know exactly what you mean: two branches, one deeply scarred root. Deeper even than the tormented history of Italy's "Risorgimento" - but the shadow of Fascism's "possibility" is already present in the stirring words of our beloved national anthem - including these:

We were for centuries
Downtrodden and derided,
because we are not one people,
because we are divided.
Let one flag, one hope
gather us all.
The hour has struck
for us to join together...

Ah truly truly, ah yes indeed!!

Let us join in a cohort,
We are ready to die.
We are ready to die,
Italy has called.
Let us join in a cohort,
We are ready to die.
We are ready to die,
Italy has called!

Ah yes yes yes! Sound the trumpets, beat the drums, louder and louder now - aaaah!

Brothers of Italy,
Italy has awoken,
with Scipio's helmet
binding his head.
Where is Victory?
Let her bow down,
For God has made her
the slave of Rome.

Ooops.... ????


Ah well - awareness of fine-lines and pitfalls is half the battle??