"A grave threat"
More news on Iran, from this morning's Washington Post. I'm struck, as I was in my post earlier today, by the pejorative language President Bush insists on peddling to the American public, in statements like:
And they're once again creating a dangerous misperception about an Islamic country, and a so-called "threat" that simply doesn't exist.
Mr. Bush's bluster, if allowed to continue unchecked, will only make the situation worse - a dubious talent he has displayed on a variety of issues throughout his Presidency. As the Post notes:
Yet our President insists on overstating the "danger" posed by Iran, and in so doing, promises only to further destabilize the situation. To create a barrier to continued IAEA access and inspection. To inflame the passions of Iran's already erratic President, and perhaps forcibly set him on a course which has never truly been his intention.
So tell me again - who is in actuality "a grave threat to the security of the world"? In my opinion, the answer is crystal clear.
"Iran, armed with a nuclear weapon, poses a grave threat to the security of the world."And, referring to the Iranian President's previous statements about wiping Israel from the map:
"The development of a nuclear weapon, seems like to me, would make them a step closer to achieving that objective."This hyperbole from Mr. Bush is clearly designed to mislead U.S. citizens into believing that Tehran is just a heartbeat away from launching some sort of nuclear attack. Scary stuff - if it were true. But since most experts agree that Iran is, at minimum, 5 to 10 years away from having the technology and materials necessary for an atomic bomb, these statements by our Fearmonger in Chief are an insult to our collective intelligence.
And they're once again creating a dangerous misperception about an Islamic country, and a so-called "threat" that simply doesn't exist.
Mr. Bush's bluster, if allowed to continue unchecked, will only make the situation worse - a dubious talent he has displayed on a variety of issues throughout his Presidency. As the Post notes:
Iran bristled at the pressure. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that if it is taken to the Security Council, "the Iranian government will have to stop all its voluntary cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.So let's see if I have this straight. Iran is allowing IAEA inspections. It has not begun building power plants, let alone a weapons development program. Even if Tehran started today on a secret bomb project, the nation is probably a decade away from creating a nuclear weapon. And it is being monitored by China, Russia, and, to a lesser extent, India, all of whom still oppose belligerent action against Iran, since such action would only "complicate the issue."
Iran has been voluntarily allowing inspections since the International Atomic Energy Agency began investigating the country's nuclear program in 2003, but the country is not bound by any international law to continue the arrangement. Despite the rhetoric, Iran has not started assembling centrifuges or enriching uranium, according to officials in contact with IAEA inspectors.
Yet our President insists on overstating the "danger" posed by Iran, and in so doing, promises only to further destabilize the situation. To create a barrier to continued IAEA access and inspection. To inflame the passions of Iran's already erratic President, and perhaps forcibly set him on a course which has never truly been his intention.
So tell me again - who is in actuality "a grave threat to the security of the world"? In my opinion, the answer is crystal clear.
posted by Bob P @ 1:35 PM
3 Comments:
Dick Cheney has said in the past that Iran would be hit if something else goes boom in the US, even if they weren't behind it. That alone is scary. Ariel Sharon, before his stroke, has been calling for Iran to be hit next for years. The (we have 400 nukes but are still paranoid) Israeli government usually seems to be able to call the shots as to what the monkeys in DC do. They wanted Iraq destroyed and they got it. Now they're looking at Iran. Doesn't matter the facts. And quite frankly, after seeing what happened to Iraq, with no nukes, I'm not surprised more countries aren't racing to get a stash. That fool in North Korea flaunts his nukes and his people actually COULD use some intervention and might even welcome it (more than the Iraqi's did anyway), but they get ignored or are put on the "lets try to work out something diplomatic" list. The most scary thing is how Russia now backs Iran and seems to have some agreement with them. If this continues, it's going to be US/Israel vs. Russia/Iran/damn near all of the oil rich countries pissed off that Wallstreet is raping them of their natural resources and killing their people. Maybe China might even jump in, and not on our side from the way things are looking, even though damn near everything in Walmart is made there. World War 3, as the people who start it are safe in their underground bunkers. There is a documentary out called Loose Change. I think it's worth a looksee for everyone who does not like what is happening to this country.
The Iran situation is scary and the American media is only making it scarier. The sound bites that are being heard in the media are scarily reminiscent of how the Bush administration demonized Iraq in the lead up to war. The American public couldn't locate Iraq on a map if they tried, 9/11 happened, Bush said Iraq did it, the American people therefore thought hey they must be evil. The American media stepped aside and let half truths and sensationalism run rampant. Now its starting again with Iran. I've read articles on the AP wire on various website talking about Iran and their Nukes or nuclear weapons and nuclear program giving me and probably the majority of Americans an idea that Iran has nukes or definitely want them, Iran's leader is crazy and wants to nuke Israel, and they have absolutely to logical justification for wanting to do nuclear research.
Just because the United States my want to keep the American public in the dark age concering the coming energy crisis due to a increasing demand of fossil fuels in the face of dwindling supplies of it, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and wait to see what the United States tells them it's ok to do. The U.S. has no right to dictate other countries energy policies. Sanctions nor millitary action are not justified when according to the Nuclear Profileration Treaty, Iran has the right to develop peaceful nuclear technology.
If we were not swamped in Iraq, the US would try to attack Iran, and that's the scary simple truth. We cannot go around starting wars with countries in the Middle East who hold the key to our energy and economic security in the palm of their hands, as they have the 40-60% of the world remaining proved oil reserves. I'm so sick and tired of the US bullying other countries when it suits our interest.
http://kicktheoilhabit.blogspot.com/2006/01/do-you-think-its-time-to-get-tougher.html
http://kicktheoilhabit.blogspot.com/2006/01/those-crazy-iranians-their-nukes.html
Blue chip - I agree that the media is contributing to the paranoia. Stories I've seen talk about Iran's 'nuclear ambitions' and similar terms, and downplay the fact that they're talking about power plants, not bombs.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home