dagblog - Comments for "Iran wants a nuclear deal, not war"

First, some language

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:52:17 +0000

First, some language clarification. I did not accuse the Obama administration of war mongering. I reserve that term for those actively pushing for a war as a first choice, usually using exaggerated threats as an excuse. I do accuse him and his administration of threatening war with Iran.

Show me some examples of serious warmongering language on Iran from the Obama administration beyond "all options remain on the table," and I'll take your fears more seriously.

I will answer as if you had correctly said "threaten war" rather than "war mongering". You cannot legitimately say: Show me any example of serious war threats except for that serious example of threatening war that he repeats over and over.

I did not, do not, will not, make any pro-proliferation argument. I can see, and may say, why other countries could be expected to want a nuke of their own. Removing such incentives is the best way forward. Threatening war against nations which don't yet have them is a poor strategy. That said, do you seriously believe that any country which has nukes will, at any time,even in the Age of Aquarius, trust any other nuke nation's claim of getting clean enough to get rid of their own? I don't.

Show me some examples of

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:50:44 +0000

In reply to I often do a bit of research

Show me some examples of serious warmongering language on Iran from the Obama administration beyond "all options remain on the table," and I'll take your fears more seriously.

The historical record on the Bush adminstration has already shown that even George Bush wasn't going to do anything military about it. He wasn't listening to the warmongerers on it and any official warmongering language was merely diplomatic threat tactics. Even the leaks fed to Seymour Hersh proved to be purposeful counter-intel work to scare, not to do.

I would like to add a point about your "but Israel has nukes" argument. I see that as a pro-proliferation argument. That you don't think it's possible for the world to eventually walk back, step-by-step, from nuclear armaments, but that you think it would be better if everyone that wants them could have them, to compete with the others who already have them. It's a legitimate argument, but one that I don't happen to agree with. I'd like no one else to get them, and then after they've got that, I'd like the world to start getting rid of the ones that are out there. I believe Obama has similar opinions to mine, judging from the work he did at the UN shortly after he took office the first time.

I often do a bit of research

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:11:05 +0000

In reply to Guardian's author bio

I often do a bit of research into the source myself, especially when what is said can only be taken on faith. That is not the case with this piece. It can be, it seems to me, evaluated on its own merits and the correct takeaway should have nothing to do with the background of the author.

From one of your links:

However there are some fairly critical differences between our stances. Mousavian claims that Iran simply is not pursuing nuclear weapons; I believe they are (and more importantly, the IAEA and every serious expert today increasingly accept this as the lurking reality), and that this will endanger the stability of the entire Middle On this, I agree with MousavianEast. I also use demonstrative evidence to show just how the Iranians are deceiving the world while advancing their worryingly opaque nuclear program.

The author of this blog selectively agrees with Mousavian but offers his belief that Iran is developing nukes. His then asserts without support that "...the IAEA and every serious expert today increasingly accept this as the lurking reality."

My bold. If the author had substituted "possibility" for "reality" he would be a bit more credible, IMO.
By the way, who is the author? I have little time right now, maybe I missed it, but I couldn't see who it is so I don't know how to wiki-search for any possible political connections with which I might disparage his opinions.
Further, does the entirety of the IEA [who had a leader with plenty of his own prejudice installed by the U.S. because the IEA did not support the U.S. position sufficiently] as well as every "serious expert" believe that the reality is that Iran is, in fact, at this time pursuing a program with the intent of producing a nuclear weapon? No, that is distorted bs.

And then I thought, what are the clues in all of this about which side is being more warlike and which side is being more reasonable and trying to negotiate in good faith to avoid war? And which side is more likely to be attempting to get to the truth and which side is likely to be pushing more incendiary propaganda to cover up the truth? The West, who invites a Mousavian to be a visiting scholar and publishes his arguments in venues like the Guardian, is the one causing all the trouble? The West is the one that is unreasonable and intransigent and trying to go to war? Once again, I doubt that for the umpteenth time over a decade.

I don't expect to ever seriously argue that Iran's politicians don't play politics. I don't doubt for a second that they deliberately demonize America for their own political domestic purposes. But, seriously, you have thought for the last ten years that the U.S. has been reasonable in its wars and threats of war? We will just have to disagree on that point. Remember when the war-talker-uppers were all giddy about how "real men" went to Teheran? I believe that if Iraq had actually turned out to be a cake-walk that those 'real men' would have sent some 'real' real men as quickly as they could have. They have been delayed in their hoped for war, I hope permanently. If that turns out to be the case then you can claim once again and finally with some evidence on your side that there never was a danger of war in the first place and how I, and a whole lot of other people, were ridiculous to ever give the idea any credence to begin with. Of course that will be of small compensation to the families of any children who have died by our alternative form of starvation diplomacy.

Guardian's author bio

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:39:53 +0000

In reply to Iran wants a nuclear deal, not war

Guardian's author bio line:

Hossein Mousavian is the former spokesperson of Iran's nuclear negotiating team and author of the book Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir, published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

To find out more, I started with the Wikipedia entry on Hossein Mousavian. Then I followed the footnote link to this sentence there:

Since his arrival in the US, he has made many media appearances, acting as an unofficial spokesperson for the Iranian regime [1].

To this blog entry at "Iran Media Focus":

Slippery Seyed
Sept 20, 2012

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a complex character. He is pro-regime, but currently out of favor for his apparent lack of loyalty to ‘Supreme Leader’ Ali Khamenei. Mousavian has held a plethora of official positions: [....]

Then went to a later entry on the same blog on Mousavian:

In an Iranian game of chess, Mousavian is the ultimate pawn
Dec 10, 2012

People are still falling for it. Slippery Seyed is back to his old tricks and apparently has some new fans. Seyed Mousavian, for those who do not remember, is a former Iranian nuclear negotiator and spokesman for Khatami’s nuclear team. I have discussed his sophisticated tactics on behalf of the Iranian regime in previous posts, to be found here and here).

In the National Interest, Mousavian recently penned a 10 point elucidation of why “Iran doesn’t want the bomb”. If it was written by someone else and entitled ‘Why Iran shouldn’t get the bomb’, it may have some practical use.

Unfortunately, slippery Seyed is playing games. How do we know? Well, because the action of the country he claims does not want the bomb… does not match his own misleading and tendentious analysis. [....]

So as has been the case for like a decade in this grand cat-and-mouse diplomatic game, (when BTW I constantly was told "we are going to war next month" and never believed it,) I don't know which argument to believe about what is really going on here with negotiations.

So I go look what else is on the The Guardian site on Iran right now, because I know they only recently asked the highly respected Tehran Bureau News Blog to become a part of their site, but I didn't find anything on topic at Tehran Bureau.

I did however find this interesting article elsewhere at The Guardian, my bold:

Iran's Obama billboard: what it really means
Tehran's latest propaganda offensive shows Barack Obama on a huge mural side by side with a seventh-century Shia villain
By Roland Elliott Brown, Shortcuts Blog @ The Guardian, 20 Jan 2013

For connoisseurs of political symbolism, Tehran – a city whose best billboard real estate is devoted to Islamist ideology – is a feast. Government-sanctioned murals [....]

The Tehran mural aims to invert this occult symbolism by recourse to Shia tradition. The villain Shemr belongs to the narrative of Hussein's martyrdom at the Battle of Karbala in 680, the trauma that split Muslims into Sunni and Shia denominations. The Shia, or "Party of Ali" (Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law) sought hereditary leadership of Islam. After the murder of the Caliph Ali, and the death of Ali's son and successor Hassan, Ali's younger son Hussein clashed for succession with the Umayyad Caliph Yazid, who sent Shemr's army to destroy Hussein and his followers. Shemr offered some of Hussein's supporters a "letter of protection" in exchange for betraying him, but they refused.

In the mural, Shemr extends a similar letter to the viewer, as he and Obama utter the words Ba ma bash – "be with us" – playing on the president's name, and insinuating that anyone who still likes Obama in the wake of tightening sanctions – or who advocates meeting American, EU, or International Atomic Energy Agency demands over Iran's nuclear programme to avoid conflict – is a traitor to the faith. Obama, the state insists, is a "Hussein" unworthy of loyalty.

And then I thought, what are the clues in all of this about which side is being more warlike and which side is being more reasonable and trying to negotiate in good faith to avoid war? And which side is more likely to be attempting to get to the truth and which side is likely to be pushing more incendiary propaganda to cover up the truth? The West, who invites a Mousavian to be a visiting scholar and offers venues like The Guardian's Comment is Free in which he can publish his opinion, is the one causing all the trouble? The West is the one that is unreasonable and intransigent and trying to go to war? Once again, I doubt that for the umpteenth time over a decade.

My bold: IAEA Mission to

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:47:02 +0000

In reply to Iran wants a nuclear deal, not war

My bold:

IAEA Mission to Iran Returns
IAEA website, Top Stories and Features, Jan 22, 2013 (UPDATE of 18 January 2013)

UPDATE: The date of the next meeting has been changed to 13 February 2013.

Returning from a two-day bilateral meeting with Iranian officials held in Tehran, Iran, IAEA Deputy Director General for the Department of Safeguards, Herman Nackaerts, delivered the following remarks to the press that gathered at Vienna International Airport on Friday morning, 18 January 2013:

"We had two days of intensive discussions.

" Differences remain, so we could not finalize the structured approach to resolve the outstanding issues regarding possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program.

" We have agreed with Iran that we will meet again on the 12th of February.

" What I can also say is that on this occasion no access was granted to Parchin."

(Note to Media: We encourage you to republish these stories and kindly request attribution to the IAEA)

No deal in Iran-IAEA talks
New meeting scheduled for February 12 after talks between Tehran and UN atomic agency falter.
Associated Press via Al Jazeera, Jan 17, 2012

Senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, have ended two days of talks with Iranian officials over allegations that Tehran may have carried out tests on triggers for atomic weapons, the Fars news agency reports.

Thursday's report went on to say that the two sides agreed to another round of negotiations scheduled for February 12.

A senior IAEA diplomat, demanding anonymity because he is not authorised to speak on the matter, said that the two-day talks were "not going very well", shortly before they came to an end.

Herman Nackaerts, head of the UN team, had hoped the IAEA would be able to "finalise the structured approach'' that would outline what the agency can and cannot do in its investigation.

The IAEA, whose mission is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, has been trying for a year to negotiate a so-called structured approach with Iran giving the inspectors access to sites, officials and documents for their long-stalled inquiry [....]

Everyone ?knows? that Israel

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:43:15 +0000

In reply to Iran wants a nuclear deal, not war

Everyone “knows” that Israel has many nuclear weapons yet that obvious truth will not be spoken by our President. I suspect that is for domestic political reasons. Am I wrong? Is there another credible reason? If saying that obvious truth would help to win an election what politician would not do so?
Would it actually endanger America or the world to allow Iran their rights under the NNPT or is it a case where winning this big dick contest makes maybe fifty thousand dead babies “worth it”? To us, I mean.