Preemption, NPT, Iran: it is 2002 all over again.

The argument has been made both here on DU and more generally in the public political discourse that strong measures including the use of military force need to be considered to prevent the emergence of a nuclear Iran.

Disturbingly, almost as if the disaster in Iraq never happened, we are witnessing once again Democratic leaders, and in particular leading candidates for the presidential nomination beating the neocon war drums on Iran.

For example, here is John Edwards presenting the justification for war against Iran:

"At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

Similarly Senator Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table." At the AIPAC dinner in New York recently. Clinton's website does not appear to contain a transcript of this speech, nor does google produce one, saw rawstory will have to do as one of the many accounts of her stated position.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

Senator Barak Obama has made no recent clear statements about Iran. In 2004 during his senate campaign he was quoted as being in favor of a surgical strike against Iran:

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.""
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

This position may have in fact evolved to a more nuanced position, as evidenced by his statements recently to the senate foreign relations committee:

""What I think many of us are concerned about is that we stumble into active hostilities with Iran without having aggressively pursued diplomatic approaches, without the American people understanding exactly what's taking place," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told John Negroponte, who is in line to become the nation's No. 2 diplomat as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's deputy."
http://www.examiner.com/a-537651~Senators_Warn_Against_War_With_Iran.html

However, the underlying assumption that we should act militarily to eliminate nuclear weapons from Iran appears to be intact.

These three are not alone. The Washington Consensus (cf Tariq Ali Pirates of the Caribbean) is that Iran must not have nuclear weapons and that military force is appropriate to prevent that from happening.

We should not accept the Washington Consensus on this issue uncritically (nor on any other issue for that matter.) Instead we should examine this position, understand its underlying assumptions, and decide for ourselves if this new call for war is appropriate, is just, is honest, and is in the best interests of the people of the planet.

The underlying assumption of the 'bomb Iran' consensus is that the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT for short)must be enforced. We (the USA) should enforce the NPT, and if that requires the threat of or actual use of military force, then that is what must be done.

Now of course nuclear weapons are horrible. Nobody is in favor of other nations having such weapons, although quite a few people are in favor of their own nation having nuclear weapons. Each nuclear nation believes that it will use its weapons responsibly and only as a deterrent against other nation's bad behavior. So far in the history of human civilization, with the sole exception of the USA at the end of WWII, nuclear weapons have in fact not been put to military use. That fact by itself is small comfort. The thousands of weapons controlled by Russia and the United States remain ready to launch, and slowly over time the nuclear club membership has expanded despite the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Surely complete and total nuclear disarmament would be a good thing.

The NPT is dead. It was killed by the Bush/Neocon/PNAC proclamation of American hegemony and the derived right to preemptively beat down any perceived threat to that hegemony. For example the post 9-11 proclamation by Dumbass of an 'axis of evil', none of which were actually involved in the 9-11 disaster, but all of which were slated for regime change, put those nations (Iraq Iran and North Korea) on notice that they were to be subjected to the new American Imperial authority. That we then set out and toppled the Iraqi regime made it clear that this new policy was not just bluster, we intended to act militarily.

The NPT was based on a prior theory of a planet composed of co-equal nations, some of which were 'in the nuclear club' and some of which were not. The nuclear club nations pledged two things: they would not use their nuclear forces to have their way with the non nuclear nations, and they would proceed in good faith toward nuclear disarmament. In exchange the non nuclear nations pledged to not seek to become members of the club. The premises for the NPT are gone. Disarmament efforts have stopped and one of the club - our own USA - has decided that the world is no longer composed of co-equal nations but is instead the exclusive provenance of one superior nation, itself, and all other nations must submit to our superior authority.

North Korea and Iran, having been placed on the short list for abuse and having seen what happened to Iraq, have every right to arm themselves such that they can deter military attack from the imperial forces of the USA. The is one of the unpleasant blow-backs of the idiotic and criminal neocon agenda.

The use of the NPT as justification for initiating a war against Iran, despite being the consensus position, is wrong headed and hypocritical. We broke the NPT when we declared our Hegemony overtly after 9-11. If our politicians are truly interested in reducing the threat of nuclear war they need to start first with undoing the damage done by the Bush administration and its predecessors who unfortunately looked at the end of the cold war not as an opportunity to establish a just and long lasting era of global peace and prosperity, but as an opportunity for American Triumphalism to control the planet for the benefit of one nation and its rulers.

It is 2002 all over again. The drums of war are beating along the Potomac. The media propaganda barrages are being launched. We are being set up for the next phase of their criminal war. Do not be fooled again.

It took the Cuban missile crisis to make US/Russia arms limitation talks a political reality. Seems it will take a Middle East nuclear disaster to make it possible to discuss such talks.

and in fact has moved forward with new weapons programs, stepped away from the ABM treaty, and revised military doctrine to include the first strike use of nuclear weapons. We have moved toward re-armament.

That's the root of nuclear arms race evil: "God says I can be trusted."

Isn't this just great and inovative too ?

One step forward , ten steps back and they won't be happy until they see the results of their wonderful WMD's all over the globe .

The end of the cold war and right into a real HOT one . I always wondered what it would be like to be vaporized . I wondered if shutting the windows and drawing the drapes while quickly ducking under my desk in 1962 would do much at all , did'nt seem to hopeful to me .

Now here we are 40 some years later wondering not if but when .

when they KNOW what is coming. when it does, they'll magically transform into nay-sayers.