International Relations As Kabuki Theater
September 27, 2009 23 Comments
Iran would like to have nuclear weapons. This is obvious. Heck, if I were Iran, I would like to have nuclear weapons. But Iran has to pretend to only be seeking nuclear energy, to avoid serious (not phony/half-hearted, which she can deal with, and which is fine) international rebuke.
Of course, the international community, and in particular President Obama, and most of the left, doesn’t care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons. In some cases lefties would prefer Iran to have nuclear weapons than not (that would deter the evil United States from attacking her, you see). But they have to pretend to care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons, and pretend to be trying to stop it, so as not to appear weak and lose at the polls.
In some ways this is a fascinating little kabuki dance. Both sides believe and know and in a way even desire to arm the nation-state of Iran with nuclear weapons. Yet both sides put on a show designed to misdirect. Iran: “We’re not trying to get nukes!” UN/internationalists: “We’re trying really hard to stop Iran from getting nukes, and besides, she’s not even working on nukes in the first place.” Both sides winking at each other.
Who are they trying to misdirect? Regular American citizens.
Why does it so often seem like the focus of so much international relations is to pull the wool over the eyes of regular American citizens?
Of course, the international community, and in particular President Obama, and most of the left, doesn’t care whether Iran gets nuclear weapons. In some cases lefties would prefer Iran to have nuclear weapons than not
Wow – I leave you alone for a while and you go and post something like this?
I am curious where you get this idea – that we on the left would prefer Iran to have nukes. Is that just hyperbole, or do you really mean it?
– hippieprof
What I said was “in some cases”.
The converse of this would be “in no cases”. But I am sure you agree I could easily find examples with a few well-placed Google searches (just did in fact), I’ll spare you.
Fair enough…. I suspect those cases are very rare, thoough – and I doubt a goggle search will tell us much about relative frequencies….
I am curious what search terms you used, BTW – I found a couple of parody sites saying Iran should have nukes – such as this one…..
http://www.salient.org.nz/columns/reasons-why-iran-should-have-nuclear-weapons
But I didn’t find much else….. a couple of things about nuclear energy – but nothing about nuclear weapons (and yes – I know they are related).
– hp
What is your issue specifically. Do you deny that there are those on the left who would prefer Iran to have nukes, as a check against Israel and/or the U.S., or at least simply out of a sense of ‘fairness’ (i.e. ‘howcome they can’t have them if we can’)?
If you do deny it, why, and based on what?
If you don’t deny it, what are you arguing for?
Re: ‘relative frequency’, again, all I said was ‘in some cases’, I’m not sure what sort of stat you’d look for to disprove this. I will say the more widespread (still perhaps not majority, but widespread) lefty views may not involve ‘wanting’ Iran to have nukes but do involve everything short of that, to the point where the difference is academic.
For example, if a person states verbally ‘I don’t want Iran to have nukes, of course’ but devotes all their energy and arguments to trying to stop the United States or anyone else from doing anything meaningful whatsoever to prevent Iran from developing nukes, I’m entitled to conclude that their verbal assurance that they ‘don’t want’ Iran to have nukes is hollow. For example.
Iran, like all countries, has a right to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty” Under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Iran can expect international cooperation in exercising such rights.
However, there is no explicit right to possess uranium enrichment or plutonium separation technology, just as there is not a specific prohibition on possessing such technology. The rules to guide the international management of nuclear technology have evolved through negotiation and custom. In all cases, rights under the NPT are conditioned on the obligation “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons…; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.” (Article II)
Beginning in early 2003, International Atomic Energy Agency investigators – not the United States – found evidence that Iran was non-compliant with its safeguards obligations.
Because Iran has been found non-compliant with its obligations and has not enabled the IAEA to verify its compliance with the core Article II obligation that conditions all rights to nuclear energy, Iran has lost, at least temporarily, full enjoyment of its original nuclear rights.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18687
http://www.hiptics.com/2009/05/25/hugo-chavez-supplying-iran-with-uranium-for-nuclear-program/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/10/iran-noam-choms.html
SC –
What is my argument? You claim that “the international community, and in particular President Obama, and most of the left” don’t care if Iran has nukes – and some number even want Iran to have them. I think this is a gross exaggeration. Even Chomsky – who is probably a bit left of Lenin – doesn’t want Iran to have nuke weapons from Pastorius’ link.
Rather than pursue an analysis of just how much of the left is apparently crazy enough not to care – why don’t you tell us what you would rather see done. You say this is all Kabuki Theater. How might you stage it differently, if you ran the zoo?
– hippieprof
I have to spell it out for the Hippieprof. I didn’t think I’d have to write an essay connecting the dots. I thought it would be enough to leave a series of links, but here you go:
Chomsky says: He criticized Western media for characterizing Iran’s continued insistence on enriching uranium as a matter of concern for the entire world. “That’s a funny definition of the ‘world,’ ” he told the Islamic Republic News Agency. “The Non-Aligned Movement, for example, which is the majority of countries, endorses Iran’s right to enrich uranium.”
And yet the Carnegie Endowment says: ” …there is no explicit right to possess uranium enrichment or plutonium separation technology, just as there is not a specific prohibition on possessing such technology. The rules to guide the international management of nuclear technology have evolved through negotiation and custom. In all cases, rights under the NPT are conditioned on the obligation “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons…; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.” (Article II)
Beginning in early 2003, International Atomic Energy Agency investigators – not the United States – found evidence that Iran was non-compliant with its safeguards obligations.
Because Iran has been found non-compliant with its obligations and has not enabled the IAEA to verify its compliance with the core Article II obligation that conditions all rights to nuclear energy, Iran has lost, at least temporarily, full enjoyment of its original nuclear rights.”
So, you see, Hippieprof, when Chomsky supports Iran’s enrichment process, he is supporting something that is not implicitly necessary for nuclear energy, and besides, it is not a right they enjoy, according to international law, at this point anyway.
Do you understand?
I’m cool with Iran doing whatever they feel like … as long as it feels good … it’s all good.
You claim that “the international community, and in particular President Obama, and most of the left” don’t care if Iran has nukes – and some number even want Iran to have them. I think this is a gross exaggeration.
Okay. You think that the international community, and in particular President Obama, and most of the left, sincerely cares whether Iran gets nukes?
Howcome they’re not acting like it then?
Even Chomsky – who is probably a bit left of Lenin – doesn’t want Iran to have nuke weapons from Pastorius’ link.
Implicit in my point is the idea that certain folks conceal their true views, and for various political or PR reasons posture as ‘not wanting’ Iran to get nukes even though, in reality, they don’t care (or actually are in favor, deep down). Was that not clear?
What Chomsky actually says at that link is that ‘nobody’ thinks Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons. This sort of construction is typical of people trying to hide their views. Why didn’t Chomsky say what he thinks? Besides, it’s simply not true that ‘nobody’ thinks Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons. I can easily point to people who do. This obvious hyperbole is, once again, typical of someone trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes about what he believes.
You ask what I would like to see done. I would like to see Iran prevented from developing nuclear weapons, via military force as/when necessary. I do not believe anything short of military force (edit: or the credible threat of military force) will prevent it. The one thing I don’t know (which changes the calculus regarding the ‘when necessary’ part) is how close they are.
Sonic Charmer says: “You ask what I would like to see done. I would like to see Iran prevented from developing nuclear weapons, via military force as/when necessary. I do not believe anything short of military force (edit: or the credible threat of military force) will prevent it. The one thing I don’t know (which changes the calculus regarding the ‘when necessary’ part) is how close they are.”
Fair enough- I am curious how we are going to do this, though – our military capacity is already stretched from our involvement in two wars, and our ability to influence our allies has been substantially degraded. This is the situation Omaba inherited. I know you think Obama does not want to confront Iran – but I am curious what McCain (or any other conservative) would be able to do in practice given our current military situation and given our diplomatic weaknesses following the Iraq invasion.
I must admit I have always wondered if the entire strategic reason for going into Iraq was to provide a base for operations into Iran. In combination with Afghanistan that provides a relatively good strategic position.
– hippieprof
P.S. Could you please delete the post (#12) by the person attempting to impersonate me? That really does not add to the discussion in any way.
–
Hippieprof,
Sure it does, and I freely admit it was me.
You did not respond to my posts. You did not read the links, and then when you said the links I left added up and showed you Chomsky doesn’t want Iran to get nukes, I responded to that, and once again, you have not responded to the very obvious evidence I have given you that what Sonic Charmer is saying is true.
SC,
Please don’t take post #12 down, I freely admit Hippie-Prof is me parodying Hippieprof.
The above two comments were supposed to be from Pastorius, obviously.
That’s all cool with me. Leave them all up.
Me too.
Allow me to way in on this, if you wuold, my good man, for I have given this matter much thought over many years. And, over these many years we have been watching, appear on the horizon, as if a mirage, the spectre of a new Persian beast rising in the East. A beast so fierce, he has fire breathing from his nostrils, or so the Reputzi Relgio-Conservative Taliban would have us believe.
There is little threat from Iran, and for good reason, which I will illucidate here as fully as I am capable of doing so here at this time, in this place;
1) they tell they have no intention of building nuclear weapons, though they do point out occasionally that, if they so choose, then that would be ok too, because as everyone knows Israel is at the heart of all this and they DO have nuclear weapons by the truckload.
2) they have been trying for years now to assemble a nuclear weapon, and have not done so yet, so we can assume they simply can not master the technology
3) they don’t want to do so anyway
4) centrifuges are very complex technology and to get them all working together (thousands of them by their own admission) is like choreographing the Bolshoi Ballet to dance to the Rite of Spring
5) They have their reasons to be enriching Uranium with said centrifuges, and those reasons are none of our business,
6) even if they are in violation of any agreements, a fact which Sir Pastorius claims to have provided evidence for, they still have the God-given (note I am an avowed atheist, so this is just a convenient figure of speech) right to use their Centrifuges (after all, they belong to them), and there’s nothing we can do about it anyway it’s none of our business
7) We certainsly can be assured of the fact that we can trust everything Mohammed El-Baradei says, for he has been duly appointed by the UN.
8) And, in fact, it is evidence that we can trust el-Baradei’s words, it is this; that he changes his story every week or so, sometimes saying the Iranians are not cooperating and must be up to something, and other times saying they are cooperating fully. Why would he do this if he were not being absolutely honest.?
9) I have shown conclusively that there is no problem.
The Iranian nuclear program is for “Peaceful Means Only” (TM pending), there is no intention to enrich Uranium for anything but peaceful means, and even if there were, el-Baradei is on the job, and even if he were to have fallen asleep occasionally, he freely admits it, and besides, it’s all Israel’s fault ultimatey.
I rest my case.
Actually, I haven’t responded in any detail because I have been out of town for 2 days with very little internet access and haven’t had time to digest the various points yet. I am working through it – don’t worry.
As far as being bothered by the impersonation, my main concern is that a 3rd part reading the blog might not realize what was going on – and since the words you used were decidedly not what I would have said I was not wanting to have that mistake made.
I will respond in more detail later today.
– hp
Hmm. I don’t think that was the real Screaming Memes.
SC,
You can never be sure these days.