To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Noam Chomsky at Jan 02, 2006

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Ahmadinejad seems to be something of a loose cannon, and he's apparently making the religious conservatives who are the real power pretty nervous. They've stripped the presidency of some of its powers and transferred them to his main rival Rafsanjani. He appears to have limited experience beyond the local level, and appears not to comprehend how his statements will be exploited by hostile powers. [His] comments [that Israel should be "wiped off the map"] are doubtless deplorable, but would it be more acceptable for him to be announcing publicly that he is going to bomb Israel and the US, meanwhile demonstrating very openly that he is preparing the capacity to do so? That's after all what the US and Israel have been very openly proclaiming with regard to Iran, and preparing to execute, for years. No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons. However, it's hard to disagree with the conclusion of one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, that Iran would be insane not to develop them, surrounded by hostile and threatening nuclear powers, including the global superpower -- which ... has a history in Iran that Iranians are unlikely to sweep under the rug as is done here. Another part of that history is that as long as the tyrant it imposed was ruling Iran, the US was providing material and diplomatic support for the very same enrichment programs that it now demands that Iran terminate. Now the claim is that Iran doesn't need nuclear energy, so it must be developing weapons -- as could be true. In the 1970s, the claim was that Iran does need nuclear energy, so the US must help it develop means to enrich uranium. Asked about this, Henry Kissinger, then an advocate of Iranian nuclear energy programs (as Secretary of State and later), said with his usual honesty that the difference is: then Iran needed nuclear energy because it was an ally; now it doesn't need nuclear energy because it has abundant hydrocarbon resources, so it must be developing nuclear weapons capacity. Simple. Iranians may not be as willing to swallow it as Westerners do. The US concedes that Iran so far has kept to its Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments. The official argument is that Iran cannot be trusted -- doubtless true, but one can think of a few competitors in that race. Iranians are also less willing than commentators here to overlook the fact that the US is in radical violation of its NPT commitments, as are the nuclear powers generally though the Bush administration is far in the lead, the main cause for the collapse of the NPT 5-year review conference last May. The Bush administration is, for once, correct in my opinion in calling for a revision of Article IV of the NPT, which permits enrichment programs of the kind that Iran is now carrying out. With modern technology, the gap between these programs and nuclear weapons capacity is much narrower than it was in 1970, when the NPT was signed. There are ways to overcome that problem, including quite concrete proposals. But they have gotten nowhere because the US has blocked them, most recently in November 2004, when the UN voted 147-1 (guess who) for a treaty placing production of fissile materials under international supervision -- unreported here to my knowledge, though I presume Iranian intelligence is aware of this critically important vote. There's a lot more. The US is playing with fire in this case. Iran does have options. It might decide to give up on Europe, assuming that it is too much under the thumb of Washington, and turn to the East, joining the Asian Energy Security Grid based in Russia and China. That's part of a range of issues much too complex to discuss here, though it's worth mentioning that it's one of the reasons why the US greatly fears the danger of a sovereign and more or less democratic Iraq -- facts highly relevant to current withdrawal debates, which are almost meaningless if these factors are ignored, as they are.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (42)

Person

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

By Kissenger, Clark at Jun 28, 2006 07:19 AM

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a case for querying the Holocaust. His argument is that Nazi Germany simply didn't have the facility and technology to dispose of some six million corpses within the assumed time frame. Therefore, the Holocaust authorized version, although not entirely a fiction, was a huge exaggeration. Well fair enough, if you shut out the Jewish lobby and consider this notion pragmatically as a question to be addressed by historical research. Perhaps I should avoid Austria unless I want to chat this over with David Ivring in the exercise yard. Putting people in jail for calling into question the Holocaust: What's next? Slammer time for saying Bin Laden (well-known international terrorist and recluse) didn't mastermind 9/11.

The Holocaust was a pivotal historical event: The state of Israel was formed because of a collective European guilt complex and the need to establish a Western foothold in Arabia. Calling President Ahmadinejad an anti-Semite won't wash, because anti-Semitism is a Christian invention. Anti-Zionism is a different matter, and I suspect a lot of people could identify with that. Consider this, from WWII defector's reports and escapees, the Allies were aware of what was going on in the camps. If they weren't prepared to bomb the camps the least that could have done would have been to destroy the rail lines. But they didn't; the reasoning presumably being, "Hitler may be a blackguard, but at least he has the right idea about the Jews."

Now fast-forward: President Ahmadinejad could have said, "America is Israel's bitch", a charge wholly sustainable considering the influence of pro-Israel groups on US politics. The Jewish lobby has such an influence on US politics that it facilitates enactment of much legislation that is against America's own interest, but very much in Israel's interest. That's taking political lobbying and media propaganda to a new level. Wake up America: Your enemy is Israel. That's done it, my firewall will light up like a Christmas tree.

Reply this comment

Person

surpass

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 14, 2006 20:24 PM
Cyrano, you surpass even your usual self in sheer obtuseness. I realise English is not your first language, so I want to be charitable, but where do you think I said that Chomsky denies the Holocaust? As for your assertion that "only one cleric called for the execution of the cartoonist", you show yourself once again to have an insatiable penchant for making up facts that you wish to be true. You give a new twist to Kant's claim that "we construct the objective world". There unfortunately have been dozens of clerics making such calls (including even rewards offered for carrying out the fatwas), and in any case hundreds of thousands of others (if not millions) have called for the same in demos in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebabon, Gaza and the West Bank, London, and Paris. If you are "not the spokesman of NC" how is it that you are "sure" he will make a statement when the "time arrives"? (which apparently is after the whole thing blows over and it doesn't matter).

Reply this comment

Person

zubub circus of the mouth..

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 14, 2006 11:55 AM
Zubub, only one cleric called for the execution of the cartoonist..Chomsky does not deny the Holocaust, It is a fact known, the Nazis were using an IBM system of identification before sending Jews to the abattoir. Of course Faurisson had the right to publish his book. His right stop if he tells people that they should go kill our jewish brothers. I agree Holocaust denial is sick and it make me unconfortable but as long as he does not threatens anyone.. Today we are witnessing the greatest challenge to free speech in our times, and one wonders why the silence from Chomsky Get yourself a " baby pacifier" or something else like a lolipop to suck on (just to calm you) Chomsky is not kept to comment on your free speech crisis because you FEEL he should; I am very much sure he will when the time arrives for him to do so.. again, this said I am not the spoke person of NC..

Reply this comment

Person

Chomsky's hypocrisy

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 11, 2006 22:13 PM
While Muslim Imams around the world issue fatwas calling for the beheading of the Danish cartoonists, and editors of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons of Muhammed, where is the libertarian Chomsky? To recall, in 1980 Chomsky wrote a piece defending the right of a Nazi-sympathising Holocaust-denier, Faurisson, to publish his Holocaust-denial. Chomsky authorised Faurisson to use the piece as he wished, and Faurisson added the piece as a preface to his Holocaust-denying book. Despite various apologetic statements about Faurisson that Chomsky wrote in that piece that went beyond any “freedom-of-speech” issues (for instance denying that as far as he knew there was anything “anti-semitic per se” in the book), Chomsky and his clones take the official position that he was just taking a stand on free speech and against censorship. Today we are witnessing the greatest challenge to free speech in our times, and one wonders why the silence from Chomsky. Is it that, as Larissa MacFarquhar argued in a profile of Chomsky in the New Yorker, that Chomsky is a bully (she cites cases of him bullying students), hence prefers a cowardly “libertarian” defense of anti-semites since there are only 13 million Jews in the world, but 1.5 billion Muslims? Or is it just his craving for popularity that explains both his ostensible defense of Faurisson's free speech and his silence on Islamic fanaticism now?

Reply this comment

Person

Iranian Power

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 11, 2006 16:24 PM

Chomsky mentioned that the reports that labelled Iran as not in need of nuclear power are quite old. Surely, since the seventies, their need has developed. I think that maybe the importance of power, not nuclear power, is being overlooked in this issue. Does Iran have fields of wind turbines that we don't know about, and a hidden chunk of its economy manufacturing other alternative energy tools? Does Iran have a wealth of water for hydro electricity? Do they have solar panels en mass that we don't know about? I guess we can assume that Iranians have access to more than enough power than they need, right?

 Well, what if that's not true, and that energy is something that they are in need of, to be able to develop as a country?

 Let me paint a picture, perhaps ignorantly, of an Iran where 90% of the population could correctly spell l-i-t-e-r-a-c-y. How about computers? What if every household in Iran had a computer, and Iranians were able to step into discussions like this as equals, and effectively express themselves? What if all third world countries suddenly had the wealth and the power (electricity) to participate in discussions like these. Do you think that we'd all be bickering about the past, like Freudian psychologists, comparing and analyzing childhood events to try and explain present moods and motives?

 Most of you are educated and well-mannered people. I think you all know what would happen, and I think you'll agree with me that nuclear power doesn't necessarily mean nuclear war - as it tends to in our oh-so-tainted media.

 Who's with me?

Reply this comment

Person

Yawn

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 10, 2006 06:34 AM
What planet do you live on? True, Israel is the most democratic society in the Middle-East. And yet, it is the most aggressive state in the region. How you can deny that is beyond me. They are propped to the teeth with weapons, and are currently threatening Iran. Israel are killing palestinians almost on a daily basis. The US and Israel has been rejectionists of peace for decades, and are still standing on their hind legs. Preaching democracy, but when the "wrong" leaders are elected, they won't talk to them anymore. Democracy is fine as long as you elect who we want. True Hamas has been involved in terrorist attacks. But they have also unilaterally been at peace with Israel for about a year now. Israel have killed 7 people just the last few days. Israel are breaking more UN resolutions than even Saddam managed. Not an easy task given the vast number of resolutions aimed solely at Iraq, and the US defence in the form of vetos when it comes to resolutions towards Israeli aggression.

Reply this comment

Person

Pangaea shows his prejudice

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 10, 2006 00:18 AM
Pangaea thinks that the one state in the region that has democratic elections, a free press, perfectly legal parties of every sort, equality for women and gays, and that has offered every state in the region mutual recognition and a mutual non-aggression pact, is "the most aggressive country in the region" and the one that needs to be "brought under control", while every other state in the region, where there are no real democratic elections, where the press is government controlled, where women are oppressed and being gay is illegal, which have each been involved in countless wars with all their neighbours, that have been racked by civil wars, some of whom have killed many more Palestinians than Israel ever has (e.g. Jordan), nearly all of whom have refused to recognise Israel and some of whose leaders call for wiping Israel off the map, and run virulent anti-semitic articles and cartoons regularly in their press and even their textbooks, are the more benign countries who should even get nuclear arms. So Pangaea, does that saying anything about the Middle East, or does it rather tell us more about yourself and your prejudices? It took the PLO until 1989 to recognise Israel, immediately after which Israel entered into negotiations with it. The Palestinians' answer was to swing its support to Islamic terrorist organisations who surpassed even the old PLO in their rejectionist hatred and intransigeance. No matter, we know that for people like you no matter what happens, no matter what the facts, the fault of all the problems are Israel's.

Reply this comment

Person

Israel v Iran

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 09, 2006 21:51 PM
I am only stressing the fact that Iran has ( probably) enough conventional weapons to wipe out Israel
That may very well be true, and the same is true of Israel. They can probably wipe Iran off the map tens of times, if not much more. It's estimates Israel possesses about 200 nuclear war-heads. Israel is basically a US off-shore military base. A little strip of land armed to the teeth with the most dangerous weapons mankind has ever seen. Iran got plenty of reasons to not exactly shout out to the world their alleged ambitions of nuclear weapons. They've seen what happened to Iraq. The only rational thing to do is to arm themselves well. They've tried to work with the IAEA (which for instance Israel, India and Pakistan won't do), and the West still walks all over them. They got plenty of reasons to have shaky legs, and be quite upset with the West's double-standards. No-body wants nuclear weapons to spread. The only reasonable thing to do to prevent this is to strengthen the NPT, and heavily inspect all nuclear states, not just the ones the West doesn't like. Many western countries helped Israel gain nuclear weapons, we have plenty of blood on our hands. Yet another aggressive move in the Middle-East could blow up the whole region. The most aggressive country in the region is Israel (and various western countries in Iraq), the only rational thing to do if one are looking to bring stability and peace, is to get Israel under control. Stop selling/giving weapons/fighter-planes/gunships to them, and stop the socalled "aid". Bring them to the UN Security Council, and get them to stop the atrocious treatment of Palestinians. Make commited efforts to create a Palestinian state, and tear down the Land-grab Wall. This is the only way forward for peace in the region. Sorting out the Palestinian question won't "cure" all problems in the Middle-East, but it's the "mother of all problems" so it's reasonable to start with. Get that issue sorted out, and the rest will be easier to deal with.

Reply this comment

Person

some post disapeared here

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 07, 2006 19:50 PM
some post are missing here..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Dave, Davedubya at Jan 23, 2006 06:40 AM
Iraqi oil sales have returned are once again denominated in US dollars. I have not seen anyone make the conection between the targeting of Iran (http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html) and The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse ( http://energybulletin.net/12125.html)- "The history of empires,teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations." More required reading: Iran in World War II (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/iran.html) "Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 19, 2006 02:13 AM
ahh there is is other posting on iran-iraq on page 27-28 of this blog.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 18, 2006 02:30 AM
And who invented the nuclear bomb, last time i checked it didnt say "made by chomsky" it says MADE IN USA, and if you recall whom agressively used nuke? The US and apparently , it did not have too since Japan was already surrendering.. ( THE US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki just to scare the soviet, can you beleive?)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Malatesta, Errico at Jan 18, 2006 01:40 AM
"irrational aggressive" This could just as easily describe Israel and the US too...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 17, 2006 19:49 PM
That is already half the population in Israel, but in the US eyes this does not count because these are just 'arabs". More than another million + of Iraqis will die because "this" imposed war on Iraq in the next 10 years. There is reasons why Iraqis voted for the Ayatollahs, they are the equivalent of the Pope. Muslims will favor their popes againt a US whose murdering their children and bomb their cities. zubub, If Iran looked for nuclear weapons it is because it felt treatened by the actions of the US against muslims.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 17, 2006 15:58 PM
You don't always even need conventional missiles to wipe up a population,you can always starve them with sanctions; the effect is not as spectacular but it will cause death. If you look closer to Iran, they do have a right to protect themself from the US. Iran has been leaving under constant threat from the US since 1980 with the Iraq-Iran war. zubub , if a population choose to live under islamic law it is their right thus the Iran is not entirely undemocratic. As well if the US is suddenly so concerned about democracy in Iran why did the US replaced the democracy in Iran with the Shah (a dictatorship) ? As well I dont think its fair yo blame Chomsky for the middle east problems; by all means the US was instrumental with creating this mess. Just take Iraq as an example, it took down its only friend there ( saddam hussein) and it replaced it with a Shia Government exactly the Ayatollah Komeini wanted for Iraq 20 years ago. ( Komeini must be laughing in his tomb!) It resumes to this : over 800.000 deaths on the Iraq-Iran war, I dont know how many died at the Gulf war but it is anticipated that about 1 million died because of the sanction on Iraq. It is estimated about 100.000 Iraqi died with this war ( possibly more) add the count of countless afghans whom died because of US dreams of domination..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 17, 2006 08:48 AM
thanks zubub, but I am only stressing the fact that Iran has ( probably) enough conventional weapons to wipe out Israel, its not any different than having nukes, it does not exaclty mean that Iran would wipe up Israel because a prime minister thinks they "should". It just means that the prime minister is barking a bit. The hell how many time did I hear one of your US citizens saying the US should nuke Iraq,,err You have you pat paterson you know..! worst you also have a GWB.. no my dear zubub, I don't think Iran wants nukes to be used as a deterrent against Israel, I think it want to use is as deterrent against the US.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Sophphilo, Zubub at Jan 17, 2006 06:25 AM
Wonderful logic: since Iran has enough conventional missiles by now to wipe Israel off the map, and is probably deterred from using them only by Israel's nuclear arsenal, let's give them a nuclear arsenal as well so that they can then use the conventional weapons and really wipe Israel off the map. Since that's what you really want, Cyranoo, want don't you say it openly? An irrational aggressive and undemocratic government that calls for the wiping of its perceived religious' adversary's country off the face of the map must not be allowed nuclear arms. Chomsky's weasel-worded apologetics is predictable, and of course if Iran did execute its exterminationist plan we know who's fault it would be for Chomsky, namely, the Jews' (including American Jews). Is there ever a problem that they face in the wonderfully liberal Middle East that is not their fault?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 16, 2006 21:57 PM
<--- is portuguesé of frencho-communisto-manifesto's descent but speak to the gods and to the Ayatollah of tsunamis- does this count ? Vwood, I agree. In the case of Iran , ( I think) This country has probaly enough conventional missiles by now to " wipe out israel", without the need to use nuklear weapons. Another fact not to neglect; Israel is the 4th military power in the world.. If nukes are going to be the deterrent for war between these two countries, then let Iran have them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 16, 2006 20:15 PM
Until the current nuclear powers decide to destroy all nuclear war devices, I cannot argue with anyone who promotes the development of nuclear arms for their country. And what are Nuclear Proliferation Treaties worth? Nothing if their signatories don't abide by their terms.Possessing nuclear arms is not only a deterrent to others who have them, but is also an intimidation against those who do not. The United States or Israel might or might not actually use those weapons, but just the fact that they possess them must be cause for caution on the part of their enemies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 16, 2006 05:24 AM
http://tripoli-city.org/news/ Arms being smuggled into Lebanon by Palestinian and Pro-Syrian cohorts. NOT Hezbollah mind you...Tripoli isn't their area.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Moof1898, Wantagh55 at Jan 15, 2006 21:26 PM
Now they came out with this diplomacy diatribe... http://www.vitalperspective.com/thewestvsiranaminuteclosertomidnight.htm

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 14, 2006 06:51 AM
Until Cyranoo declares that he is Jewish or otherwise his statements need to be treated as propaganda originating from an unclear source. The way I see it anyways. A Shia state is not the same thing as a Sunni state. Period. And if one state possesses the right to bear arms then all should possess the same right. Rhetoric aimed at the state of Israel isn't helpful but lets face it, it is rhetoric not action. When and if Iran decides to wipe Israel off the map, please let me know because there are a few things I'd like to tie up in south Lebanon before the first wave of nuclear bombs hits us (launched from the Nuclear state Israel only 2 km south of my living room window). Iran hasn't attacked any of its neighbors...Saddam did and he is facing those consequences. Syria..well..we'll see. This past weekend in the south..in front of the diesel heater the talk was about civil war here. Jumblatt and his nonsense and is it any wonder they let Druze fight in the IDF?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Lgk, Lars at Jan 12, 2006 07:30 AM
Iran is surrounded by nuke powers, Israel, US-bases and navy, Pakistan, India and Russia. And as a centre piece in the central and south Asia geopolitics there is China near by. Loaded with attractive natural resources I'll guess they had felt a bit “safer” with some nukes in the arsenal. It is said that the environmental situation in the Iranian big city's is pretty dear due to the fossil fuel burning. They don't have all that huge export surplus, the more they can export the more they can import. Might very well make sense to produce electricity with nuclear power and export more gas and oil. Attacking Iran would for sure alarm Russia, China, Pakistan and India. How come Bush recently granted India access to nuclear technology that violated NPT. Wasn't US also in opposition of the planned pipeline from Iran to India? A huge gas tanker fleet is under construction in a joint venture between China and Iran, it will be 87 giant LNG tankers at the end of the decade. 10 million tons of gas per year for quarter of a century. I believe Iran already is the biggest oil exporter to china. And BTW so do US import Iranian gas to by third parties. Iran is probably an important energy player in any gathering of opposition to the US new unilateral hegemony from big eastern powers. Well as it is said we live in interesting times.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Malatesta, Errico at Jan 11, 2006 19:11 PM
I dont want anyone to have nuclear weapons but lets be honest here; the iranian desire to develop nuclear weapons is clearly a DEFENSIVE action.The iranian president would have to be pretty fucking insane to attack another nation with nuclear bombs. No, the reason why the US and Israel are so afraid of Iran getting these weapons is because that would weaken their position of power in the region. Remember that the only nation that has ever used the A-bomb is the US.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Moof1898, Wantagh55 at Jan 11, 2006 05:00 AM
I found some "good stuff" about Iran and the IAEA here: http://www.vitalperspective.com/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 08, 2006 09:03 AM
To come back to the original post' of course the "wipe out statement " will be used against Iran. We are far fetched from Yasser Arafat whom recognized Israel the right to exist. Strange but this sort of statement lead me to believe that Syria are more skilled at doing politics than Iran.. Israel right to exist should be recognized, this is primordial I say. Israel problems in part is that it always lived with the idea that with a palestinian state close to its border, and should other powers use palestine as a base to attack Israel, Israel would only have 2(two) hours to respond against trained guerillas ( or terrorists if you like) or to any surprise attack. This very short mainframe in time could be sufficient to gain control or anhililates Israel.. Now every time some cleric declares Jews as being Pigs or make anti-semitic statements such as the israeli minister, If you are a Jew , you will look above your shoulder with great paranoia.. personally, I think the greates wrong that ever happened is the withdrawal of the UN from the territories.. so many lives were shattered because of this conflict..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 05, 2006 04:09 AM
Israel never treatened to destroy a state or a nation, even of their most cruel enemies. If Israel has some nuke, the world didn't feel scared at all. And some say that Israel has nuclear bombs for the last 40 years!!! Really now? No they just attacked numerous individuals who were unarmed as they are armed. Saying and doing are two vastly different things. Hezbollah wasn't "created" dear, it emerged as a response. Much as the Shia emerged as a response to the initial hypocrisy in Islam. Alegro, what you post is not only empty calorie wise but obnoxious humanity wise. You use the same violent hidden agenda as the Iranian to explode fascist ideology that suits your need and that is obviously not one of learning what the underlying cause is but promoting your abstract and unrealistic pro Israel juggernaut.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Allegro_all, Allegro at Jan 05, 2006 03:31 AM
Part 3 (last) The last row of AhmadinJad's decleration showed to us all, what the Iranian leadership realy planning to do to Israel, within their long run plan. Totalitarian states don't play games with those declerations. We hear it quite enough for years, but then they didn't have the "Weapon" at all. Now we stant infront of turning point in history. At the first time a mongering terror export state threats other democracy to ruin and demolish it in the middle of the last step to achieve the "Bomb". Wise people don't take risks. Sure not in the case that your extreme unresponsible enemy is the one to get it. Nuclear bomb is not a bullet, rockeet or missile, it is tottaly yes or no situation, and if it activated by the enemy the result is total lose, with no chense to fix it. So, Israel doesn't have the privillage to let the Iranian fanatic leadership to act first, but to stop them in advance, even at the cost of great harm to Iran.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Allegro_all, Allegro at Jan 05, 2006 02:59 AM
Part 2 The Iranian phenomena is starnge and unique. Very unique. Iran, since 1979, is a very extreme state towards the outer world, mainly the democracies. The Islamic revolution ideology sees the world through polar view which says that "we the Muslims are the main moral power in the world. And you the others are ruled to eccept it or vanish". Israel is steaks right in the throat of the" Muslim Empire" and is considered to be a permanent and first enemy to tacle. After Israel, the reast to be achieved. Iran activating terror undergroung units to act through out the world. They built Hizbullah in Lebanon, prior the the Isreali invasion into this state. Hizbullah was launched in 1980-1 immidiately after the revolution. They have, or at least had, some forces in Kosovo and quite a wide net of cells in Southern America (Buenos Aires). For the last 3 years they assist the Arab Palestinain terror in their strike to enihilate Israel. On the other hand, Israel didn't execute any anti Iranian military action to confront the Iranian long-hand attacks and threat. Part 3 to come....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Allegro_all, Allegro at Jan 05, 2006 02:22 AM
Part 1 May be Noam Chomsky understand some thing in English literature. I give him the credit. But sure he doesn't know well-above the averagde person about tne nuclear strategy of states nor about Israel or Iran. All his assumptions regarding Iran and Israel can be dleted easily by any political oponant, and I gess he has some. Nuclear weapons are dangerous to the world and I hope to see some day all countries disarmed by friendly agreements. We ought to have safer world. But unfortunately our world in not safe. Surely not because Israel has nuclear arms, as some say. Nor because the US, France, England have some. Even not because Russia and China have, at least for the last 20 years of breaking the baracks of totalitarism. Israel never treatened to destroy a state or a nation, even of their most cruel enemies. If Israel has some nuke, the world didn't feel scared at all. And some say that Israel has nuclear bombs for the last 40 years!!! That patern of states shows us that even if democracies and open societies, as Russia and China already are, do not produce a threat upon others. Nor total destruction of nation and state.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 04, 2006 06:59 AM
The fair fight: Ancient war of HYPOCRISY between the initiates of Shia Islam (labelled later as such) and the Ottoman oppressors (Sunni Islam by DEFAULT). The underlying story however is agreed upon because of scholarship. Pan Arabism is now called the Islamic state..it always was the underlying principle only the US denied muslims their rights of unification and helped split them apart. The unfair Palestinian fight (Intifada excluded i.e. rock throwing) in which mostly SUNNI Pals killed innocent civilians. The fair fight AND victory of Nasrallah (Shia) in south Lebanon which was soldier to soldier (on the Shia side) and Israel practiced the UNFAIR fight (killing thousands of innocents in a cross border killing spree). The fair fight of Khomeini (Shia) against the unfair fight of US backed Saddam which ended in victory for the Shia Iranians. The ongoing battle now in which Iran is threatened with a complete outflanking by modern "US style" diplomacy and puppetry which vacsillates depending on the weather in the US. Shia Islam NEVER vascillates...by nature of the orignal conflict. Never. An impossible battle to win but possibly a battle which can finally be understood in the CONTEXT demanded of it and MADE useful. Shi'ism is winning because it refrains from violent revenge on Sunnis....but for how long? Israel is there to stay. Was there ever any doubt?I think they deserve their own state but also believe a person should be careful what they wish for.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Barkdog_sa, Calico at Jan 04, 2006 06:33 AM
Unfortunately Chomsky has a limited access to the type of Islam professed by Iran and how that connotes a different type of resolution to fight the fair fight. I don't agree (as a Shia) with the statement 'wipe Israel off the map' but failing to address that (Chomsky) doesn't mean anything other than what it means...he fails to understand it. When Islamic states begin to refrain from such caustic rhetoric without abandoning their principles in the fair fight (as opposed to the Sunni unfair fight)...then the debate can actually have some meaning. Unfortunately US failure to address the basic underlying friction between Sunni/Shia will paralyze their efforts to avoid pissing off an already angry dog that was the victim of US Foreign policy and remains so to this day (sanctioning)...planes falling due to lack of spare parts only a fraction of the damage these sanctions continue to cause.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 03, 2006 12:05 PM
Rudy, I am not even sure you could label insurgents as "terrorists" specially the palestinians insurgents in the occupied territories. For at least 20 years , I believed that palestinians were terrorists, this, til 9/11. now what I believ is disgust.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 03, 2006 11:22 AM
Rudy, prior to the Islamic revolution, the Shah of Iran was the rUS sponsored Dictator of Iran , you must recall the US overtwrew a democracy there to rule Iran. As well its very doubful that islamic fundamentalism has any part to do with of terrorism whatsover.. What you see in the the muslim world is a general insurgency and I am not sure an invasion of Iran is goiung to make Iranians or Muslim love the US at all.. I do agree, there is a lot of extremists who made anti-semitic speeches; it is a scary though know a person have one known enemy but you have to realizes that its not all muslims that are hateful, I tend to believ the majority are probably better than the majority of people who voted for Bush.. To tell you the truth , I would not hesitated to replace all the states that voted BUSH with good muslim people from Iran, Id feel more safe and at peace that way.. If you want to speak about WWIII consider this... WWII does not appear to have ended at all and the main participant, The US, seem to have kept fighting overted and coverted (terrorisms) wars globally in almost every country.. and this war was aimed aginst the poor. You never seen Iranian soldiers or terrorists in Vietnam, Cambodgia, South America etc..I never heard Iranians using napalm or torturing south americans.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Paymane, Paymun at Jan 03, 2006 03:21 AM
As for Iranian government (always becareful to distinguish between the people and the government) sponsoring terrorism, well that's probably true. After all They have terrorised the entire nation of Iran. they will keep sponsoring terrorism as an extension of their foreigne policy, just like USA and Israel have rouinely done it and are still doing it, both in wholesale and retail scale.An attack from Israel/US will be a gigantic mistake not the least because ANY AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAN WILL CAUSE THE IRANIAN PEOPLE TO RALLY BEHIND THEIR LEADERS IN DEFIANCE OF THE FOREIGNE THREAT AGAINST THE NATIONAL SOVEIGNTY OF IRAN, hence contributing to the further survival of the Islamic regime.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Amicusforlife, Gladiator777 at Jan 03, 2006 02:53 AM
Now that Saddam's head has been put on a plaque and Iraq destablized sothat we can plunder it's resources expect the creation of the next boogey-man. That will be! IRAN! Do expect another 9/11 with the trail of evidence leading to Iran. This will be the final act, attack on Iran and maybe add Syria for good measure. What will be the result? Sixty percent of the worlds oil in the dominion of the US/Israel real coalition. Imagine all the money and power! The sad part is, this is just a prelude to WWIII.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Paymane, Paymun at Jan 03, 2006 02:39 AM
Rudy is equating Jews everywhere with Israel. Of course that's a classic technic. If one objects against the Israelli government policies, one must be anti-jewish. Rudy forgets that jews have been living in Iran, ever since Cyrus the great emancipated them and allowed them to travel any where they want.(e.g. Shaul Mofaz the Israeli DM is one of them) Neither Iranian government nor Iranian people have ever been anti-jews. The call for destruction of Israel is nothing new. There have been such calls from Iranian authorities since the beginning of Islamic Revolution.(after all that's what you get when you see to it that a nationalistic secular government fail and be overthrown by a CIA-backed coup)They have called for disappearance of Israel as a geopolitical entity, Not destruction of people and property residing in Israel. Just like USSR as a geopolitical entity does not exist any more, Israel can in principle cease to exist as an APARTHIED REGIME that pursues-as a matter of policy-the exclusion of the majority of the inhabitants of the land from having any right whatsoever.Still They are insane to suggest that. Mostly because their call has given Ariel Sharon (the same general who presided over the massacre of 1300 palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and also the Jenin events)the excuse he needs to further destabilize the middle east.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Sophphilo, Zubub at Jan 03, 2006 02:27 AM
provocative

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Sophphilo, Zubub at Jan 03, 2006 01:33 AM
Actually the "Israeli expert", Martin van Creveld, is a highly provacative critic of Israel who causes a nation-wide stir every few months by mouthing off with comparisons between Israeli settlers and Nazis and so forth. People familiar with Chomsky's technique know how he uses quotations from "experts", but there is always a mass of undergraduate students out there who is very impressed. To reply to Chomsky's rhetorical question, Yes, Professor Chomsky, there is a world of a difference between saying you want to wipe a nation off the map and saying you are prepared to bomb a country to defend yourself precisely against this aggressive posture. Your analogy is as morally absurd as using quotations from the Allies about bombing Germany and equating them to Nazi aggressive intentions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Kingcammi, Cameron at Jan 03, 2006 00:22 AM
"First, the nuclear plant Iran seeks to build will produce LESS energy than the amount of natural gas it burns off more as waste per day." That's interesting, where did you find that information? "From an energy perspective, the nuclear plant is not necessary." Chomsky wasn't suggesting that it *was* necessary. Further, he paraphrased an Israeli expert who effectivly stated that Iran was quite justified in using uranium to arm itself. -I think almost everyone agrees, nuclear weapons are a bad thing for everyone. "Third, Israel and the U.S. are not blindly planning to attack Iran." I agree, the Israeli/U.S attack will be well planned. "Iran has continuously called for the destruction of Jews" I don't think Iran are concerned with Jews generally, I think they're primary concern is an aggressive Israeli state, backed by a proven aggressor in the region, the U.S.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Brothernumbertwo, Rudy at Jan 02, 2006 23:44 PM
Oops... Second, he fails to recognize the reason for the U.S. policy change. Iran, prior to the Islamic revolution was not a regional, and through the export of Islamic fundamentialism (e.g. terrorist funding), or global threat. Of course it makes sense to not want today's Iran to have nuclear capabilities. Third, Israel and the U.S. are not blindly planning to attack Iran. Since 1979, Iran has continuously called for the destruction of Jews (hence Iran's alledged funding of the Aregentinian Israeli embassy bombing). Blunty, as Rambo said "They drew first blood." If Iran didn't persist in its anti-Jewish fervor, Israel would never have plans to attack it. And, it is only if Iran gains the capability to attack Israel that Israel reserves the right to defend itself. Unfortunately, Chomsky's failure to include these key facts will be used by people who don't know or understand history, will sound anti-semetic (Yes, I know Chomsky is Jewish), and will further distort the Arab/muslim/Jewish war.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Ahmadinejad & Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By Brothernumbertwo, Rudy at Jan 02, 2006 23:10 PM
Prof. Chomsky forgot to include some essential facts. First, the nuclear plant Iran seeks to build will produce LESS energy than the amount of natural gas it burns off more as waste per day. From an energy perspective, the nuclear plant is not necessary.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (42)

Loading_border