May 7, 2006

Iran Threatens to Pull Out of Nuclear Treaty

Left: Iranian President Ahmadinejad

(Tehran, Iran) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said today that any resolutions passed by the UN Security Council that were contrary to Iran's interests would have "no value" to the country.

"If international bodies acted contrary to international laws and if their resolutions threatened our national interests, then such resolutions would have no value for us," Ahmadinejad said.

The Iranian parliament today also threatened to force the government to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the US and its allies kept pressuring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

In a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the Iranian legislators warned that the dispute over Iran's nuclear program must be resolved "peacefully, (or) there will be no option for the parliament but to ask the government to withdraw its signature" from treaty provisions.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, in predictable Boltonian fashion, downplayed the significance of the Iranian statements.

"This is a typical Iranian threat. It shows they remain desperate to conceal that their nuclear program is in fact a weapons program," he said. "I'm confident that these statements from Iran will not deter the sponsors of the draft resolution from proceeding in the Security Council."

The sponsors of the resolution - the US, France, and Britain - may proceed, but they must still convince Russia and China of the worthiness of the action. Both countries have repeatedly expressed reluctance to confront Iran at this stage.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi urged the UN Security Council to vote down any attempts to impose sanctions on Iran.

"Intervention by the UN Security Council would change the path of cooperation to confrontation. We recommend they do not do this," he said. "The UN Security Council should not take any action that it cannot later undo. We won't give up our rights and the issue of suspension (of uranium enrichment) is not on our agenda."

It is clear that Iran recognizes the difficulty in which the US finds itself. With troops tied down in Afghanistan and Iran, the US has no credible military threat beyond air strikes; the balloon that was floated last month of nuking Iran was met with widespread condemnation by the international community, and President Bush was forced to disavow the plan.

While "all options remain on the table," as President Bush said last month, the US must now attempt to save face since it appears that the American military bluff has been called by Iran.

Unless, of course, the military option has been the preferred path all along, in which case I may begin to invest in gold, canned goods, and a .30-06 Springfield.

Sorry. It's a cynical Sunday.


Anonymous said...

Nuke the bastards.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the other comment..... military action is probably the only way to stop the Iranian government's threatening actions, whether the rest of the world agrees or not. It is first and foremost President Bush's job to defend the US, and I think he's done a pretty good job of it so far. If he feels that military action is necessary, then I'm all for it, even if China does doesn't agree. And I'm in the military, so I'd be the one going over there anyways.

Dariush said...

A picture of the back of "Anonymous 1"'s truck.

Replace "Muslim" with "Christian" and "Arab" with "American" and then roll through Kentucky. You'd probably experience what it's like to drive from Baghdad International to the Green Zone.

historymike said...

"Nuke the bastards"?

THERE is some insightful geopolitical discourse. Thanks for weighing in, Genghis Khan.

historymike said...

Ir seems like both the US and the Iranians have engaged in saber-rattling, anonymous #2.

I doubt that placing all of the blame on the Iranians will get us very far.

I am not in agreement that a military strike, or series of strikes, will solve much, except to make American war hawks happy. Iran will just set up nuclear shop elsewhere, if they have not already done so.

The bigger question has been danced around here: Who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

historymike said...

(laughing - hollowly - at Daiush's link)

Dariush said...

A couple of excellent pieces on the subject of war with Iran.

Matthew Yglesias - "Don't Do It"

I wanted to pull some quotes from this, but it's too good to selectively dissect and pick apart and needs to be read in its entirety.

Martin Van Creveld - "Knowing Why Not To Bomb Iran Is Half the Battle":

"...Starting right after Hiroshima, each time a country was about to go nuclear Washington went out of its way to sound the alarm, warning of the dire consequences that would surely follow. From 1945 to 1949 it was the Soviet Union which, once it had succeeded in building nuclear weapons, was supposed to make an attempt at world conquest.

"In the 1950s it was America's own clients, Britain and France, who were regarded as the offenders and put under pressure. Between 1960 and 1993, first China, then Israel (albeit to a limited extent) and finally India and Pakistan were presented as the black sheep, lectured, put under pressure and occasionally subjected to sanctions. Since then, the main victim of America's peculiar belief that it alone is sufficiently good and sufficiently responsible to possess nuclear weapons has been North Korea.

"As the record shows, in none of these cases did the pessimists' visions come true. Neither Stalin, Mao nor any of the rest set out to conquer the world. It is true that, as one country after another joined the nuclear club, Washington's ability to threaten them or coerce them declined.

"However, nuclear proliferation did not make the world into a noticeably worse place than it had always been — and if anything, to the contrary. As Europe, the Middle East and South Asia demonstrate quite well, in one region after another the introduction of nuclear weapons led, if not to brotherhood and peace, then at any rate to the demise of large-scale warfare between states.

"Given the balance of forces, it cannot be argued that a nuclear Iran will threaten the United States. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fulminations to the contrary, the Islamic Republic will not even be a threat to Israel. The latter has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack.

"Should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert — a fact of which Iranians are fully aware. Iran's other neighbors, such as Russia, Pakistan and India, can look after themselves. As it is, they seem much less alarmed by developments in Iran than they do by those thousands of miles away in Washington."


"...Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

"For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

"The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

"If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."

M A F said...

Should Iran withdraw from the NPT (which is of course their right) this would create a whole host of complications for the Bush administration. The IAEA would lose its ability to craft reports that the Bush administration could use in future efforts at sanctioning Iran.

Bush would then need a whole other pretense for the Security Council to enact punitive damages against Iran. While withdrawing from the NPT might provide a stepping stone in favor of Bush it would expose the US to it obvious hypocrisy in its dealing with Israel. (Which is a violation of the NPT obligations.)

The best way to deal with Iran, is to to allow them the responsibility of having nuclear energy and the ability to make a nuclear weapon.

Clearly Iran wants to sit at the table with the other nations of the world that possess nuclear weapons. It defies logic for a nation to spend years, decades, to acquire a nuclear weapon and the international prestige (infamy?) and power only to throw it all away by giving a weapon to a terrorist group.

Brian said...

We, as a nation and as a world, would be wise to remember the faulty thinking of Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Kennedy.

You can never pacify terrorism. They only understand force, naked and merciless.

M A F said...

Pacify terrorism like Chamberlin and Kennedy? First, Iran is not Germany. Second, Iran has not invaded/attacked it neighbors in over a hundred years.

It could be a coincidence, (but I doubt it) that those people that were so quick to believe the propaganda and rhetoric of the Bush administration are also quick to believe in the propaganda and rhetoric of Ahmadinejad.

ToledoNative said...


Ever heard of PNAC?

Iran's future is already set. All the US needs is a pretext for putting it into motion.

And then God help us all.

Dariush said...

M A F: "Iran has not invaded/attacked it neighbors in over a hundred years."

And even then, it was only Afghanistan. The Qajars were merely wiping out terrorist cells in Tus and Herat. :)

Iran hasn't militarily threatened a Western nation since Xerxes duked it out with the Hellenes over control of Anatolia and the Balkans, well over 2000 years ago.

Toledonative: "Iran's future is already set. All the US needs is a pretext for putting it into motion."

Nothing is set in stone. Had Iraq already been "pacified", had the cost of operations there not already exceeded $500 billion (projected to run into the trillions before all is said and done), had the price of oil and gas not skyrockted to unheard of highs, I'd be a little more pessimistic myself.

As it is though there are two wild-cards at play, neither of which cares much for any sort of rational cost-benefit analysis.

1. The snake-handling, Tim LaHaye-worshipping, "Rapture ready" Armageddonite nutjob factor. And how much of an influence they actually wield with this administration and this president.

2. The Straussians/PNAC-ers themselves. They may already be past their expiration date but do they enough left for one more round of cruise missile liberation?

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Dariush said...

Brian: "We, as a nation and as a world, would be wise to remember the faulty thinking of Neville Chamberlain..."

His Master's Voice...

Comparing Iran's alleged push to gain a nuclear weapon to Adolf Hitler's 1936 march on the Rhineland, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called for undertaking "serious preparation for possible military action – including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes."

"[A] great nation has to be serious about its responsibilities," according to Kristol, a leading neoconservative champion of the Iraq war and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, "even if executing other responsibilities has been more difficult than one would have hoped."


...the hawks...have long depicted any move to engage Iran as equivalent to the appeasement policies toward Hitler of France and Britain in the run-up to World War II.

"Is the America of 2006 more willing to thwart the unacceptable than the France of 1936?" asked the title of Kristol's editorial, which, despite the reports of advanced Pentagon planning that included even the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against hardened Iranian targets, asserted that the administration's policy had been "all carrots and no sticks."

-- Jim Lobe

It makes sense for a man like Cheney, who decided on Bush's staff in late 2000, to seed the cabinet with strategically-placed neocons who have a vision of a new Middle East. Because (1) that vision fits in perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and (2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."

They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as "an answer to the Holocaust."

-- Gary Leupp

ToledoNative said...


I believe that the attack is 'set in stone'
In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
It's coming...and God help us all.

Dariush said...

I never miss Giraldi's intel column in The American Conservative -- both as an ex-CIA operative and as a current employee of Vince Cannistraro Assoc. he's definitely plugged into what's going on.

But things have not remained static in the nine months since this particular column was published.

Aside from what I mentioned in the previous post there's also the revolt of the generals to take into account.

Now since this particular column also stipulated that the casus belli for an attack on Iran would be another 9/11-type mass terror attack on American soil, this is something to worry about.

If such a "terrorist attack" were to happen prior to the November elections it would completely reverse the current ill-fortunes of the Cheney administration, the neocons and the Republicans.

And this time, unlike with Operation Northwoods, there's no one at the top who's likely to say "wait a minute guys, this is a really bad idea."

But bear this in mind: "The problem with all of this plotting is that some will certainly talk (leaks in Washington at the highest levels are a daily occurrence these days)... someone would blab and that would be the permanent end of Bush and his claque. But remember, while planning for such ruthless atrocities to maintain power is one thing, putting these plans into operation is quite another."

Darkness has not yet enveloped the world. There is still cause for optimism.

BrianMaxson said...

I wonder if the Government is willing to "buy back" those missle silos in the midwest they sold to all those hippies.

Or will they excersize emminent domain?

Hooda Thunkit said...

Does anyone seriously believe that Iran would be foolish enough to use nukes against a neighbor?

To do so would be suicide...

Iran is but a spolied child desperately seeking attention.

liberal_dem said...

military action is probably the only way to stop the Iranian government's threatening actions

juvenile, knee-jerk reactionary.

liberal_dem said...

Does anyone seriously believe that Iran would be foolish enough to use nukes against a neighbor?

Apparently, Hooda, you are out of the loop and clearly not one of those far-right conservative Christians. You haven't been in on 'the plan.'

Bush is Savior II. His actions will lead to Rapture. Simple plan: start a war in the middle East between Muslim and Jew. Israel nukes Iran, Pakistan nukes Israel...


Beam me up, Scotty. Rapture.

Rocket Morton said...

" The snake-handling, Tim LaHaye-worshipping, "Rapture ready" Armageddonite nutjob factor. And how much of an influence they actually wield with this administration and this president."--Dariush


Oh, as opposed to the Allah-worshipping, bomb detonating, suicide martyring, head decapitating, Jihad spewing, 12th Imamers of WTC 9/11 fame?

Fuck you, you little pustulent, two-faced, hypocritical ankle- biting filth bag. Either shut that vapid hole beneath your nostrils, or get over there to the "Land of Sand and Savagery" and sign up for your own Tour of Duty with the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade.


Dariush said...

"12th Imamers of WTC 9/11 fame?"

Have we been misled all this time? Could it be that the 9/11 hijackers were actually 12-Imami Shi'ites? Verily my head doth swoon.

"Land of Sand and Savagery"

Iran is a beautiful country, full of lovely people who show nothing but kindness, friendship and hospitality to outsiders. You should come with me in the Fall. Trust me, you'll love it.

"Either shut that vapid hole beneath your nostrils, or get over there ... and sign up for your own Tour of Duty"

Hey speaking of which, the U.S. military's having some serious recruitment problems. Tens of thousands of soldiers have already been mangled and mutilated for life, and therefore no longer of any use. No one's re-upping, no one's enlisting, no one wants to be thrown in the meatgrinder.

So whaddaya say, boy? Wanna put your money where your mouth is and do your part in the fight for Izrul, apple pie, ice cream and puppy dogs?

liberal_dem said...

I wonder if the Government is willing to "buy back" those missle silos in the midwest they sold to all those hippies.

Fact check, please.

-Sepp said...

Dariush, I thought your name was farsi. You from Iran?

Dariush said...


Anonymous said...

Iran has said it will give a response in August. Yeah... in the form of a mushroom cloud. What better opportunity for them to continue a secret nuclear weapons program. Pull out of the NPT and it won't be long before radical islamists have a nuclear weapon. Very dangerous! They consider a nuclear weapon the holiest of weapons which is why they will do anything to get it. They hid their program for 12 years, they're after something and we know what it is. Someone who considers a nuclear weapon a holy weapon doesn't quite see the proper light of things, they're a little crazy in the head especially if they want to use it. The problem is that if they get one they probably would use it.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon with it's regime still intact World War 3 is just around the corner and we are looking at a very very dangerous world to live in.