The commentariat and many politicians have been unhappy about the prospect of war with Iran, while almost universally they have repeated the mantra that "Of course there is a problem with Iran getting nuclear weapons," somewhat similar to the mantras about social security being "in crisis" that are also widely repeated. I have for some time denied that there was an Iranians nuclear weapons program, on this blog, on Maxspeak, and in comments elsewhere, often to derision and skepticism.
The reason for my argument I learned from Juan Cole, something barely reported on in the US media, and usually to immediately stated skeptical addenda. This was that on August 9, 2005, Head of State, Supreme Jurisprudent and leader of Iranian Shi'i Muslims, and Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military, Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, while supporting a civilian nuclear power program. People who claimed that President Ahmadinejad was in charge were warmongering hysterics, ignorant of their real relationship, and that Ahmadinejad's party got whomped in the last local elections. Although the US media and politicians did not do so, this fatwa was and is to be taken seriously, and it is now clear that it was issued in the wake of the late 2003 cessation of what had been an active nuclear weapons program, almost certainly to cement in that decision.
6 comments:
Re: Fatwa
See Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/08/081105.html
A supplementary point - many people suppose that since under the US constitution the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, the same must be true in Iran. It is not. Under Article 110 of the Iranian constituion, the vilayat e faqih (the religious leader, currently Khamene'i) is the head of the armed forces, appoints the military commanders, and has the power to declare war. The president has no power in this area. While constitutions can be violated, I know of no evidence suggesting Ahmadinejad has made, or even tried to make, any inroads in this area.
Actually what is curious about all this is that back when Iran's president was the more moderate Mohammed Khatami, we constantly heard about how he had limited to no power to do much because Khamene'i with his power over the military, the police, the spies, the judiciary, and so on was so great. When Khatami was replaced by the more radical Ahmadinejad, suddenly the focus came to be on him, him, him, and his various lunatic statements and public displays, which have been carried out to try to distract from the fact that he has utterly failed to come through on his promises to carry out a populist redistribution economic program, which was what he was largely elected on. This failure is why his party did so poorly in the most recent local elections.
Barkley
Yes Barkley it is astonishing what people claim to 'know'. I had an angry argument with a coworker prior to the war. He asked me if I thought Iraq had operable WMDs, when I said 'No' he practically had a stroke. I mean as in turning bright red and with blood vessels visibly pulsing. A series of incidents like this eventually drove me from the job in 2006. He simply 'knew' things. For example in March 2005 he insisted that we were going to bomb Iran in July of that year. When I expressed doubt he went off again and ended up filing a hostile workplace claim on the basis that disagreement with him was the equivalent of denying his free speech rights. That I had been consistently right on issues related to Iraq while he had been wrong never quite penetrated. That wasn't what he was hearing on the radio and from Fox.
Its why I tend to sit at my own table. There is a nice guy in the bar I go to that 'explained' that bacteria in your sink transform into fruit flies. Since this little piece of 'knowledge' was not going to kill anyone I let it go. But Iraq, Social Security, and now Iran are different, real world consequences and matters literally of life and death are in the balance. And it really helps to actual know things as opposed to thinking you 'know' things because you heard it on talk radio.
Bruce,
Get a grip. If you expect that your co-workers, relatives, neighbors, etc. are going to be knowledgeable about anything, you're in for continuous disappointment. Look at the situation this way. We define "normal" intellect as being that of the average individual. That is, when measured we describe normalicy as the mean score of all those measured as a sample of the population. Therefore, by definition approximately half of the population is below average and approximately 66% of the population is below one standard deviation above that mean score, generally described as 110-110. So in effect the vaste majority of people are pretty damn ignorant, and there is significant evidence that their ignorance is due to their innate stupidity.
Is that a harsh and cynical view of mankind? No, just reality rearing its ugly head.
I question whether a nuclear Iran is a problem in any case. Certainly we've stood by while Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have armed themselves (and South Africa, until they voluntarily "disassembled" their program if you believe it).
Ultimately I think that the permanent members of the security council have completely abrogated their obligations to prevent nuclear propagation, and at this point, I could care less if Switzerland or Monaco has the bomb.
Five or six more nukes in the hands of yet another unstable government is hardly a significant marginal risk compared to the thousands floating around unsecured already.
If the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is correct at all, then the further spread of nukes can only make us safer at this point.
Post a Comment