Comments on: Michael Rubin Should Explain

By: TutuG

TutuG — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:46:11 +0000

Of course, no surprises here! The neo cons and the AIPAC lobby (how can you tell the difference?) are working overtime to change Obama’s policy on engaging Iran and in light of new White House-backed legislation in the US Congress that aims to impose “crippling sanctions” on Iran by targeting its energy imports, it looks like they are winning. Here we go again! Good luck with the Obama administration and the United States in Afghanistan then. It will be interesting to watch who wins the election in Lebanon. Obviously there is a tug of war going on within the administration while each side is trying to force the other side’s hands. One clear example of it can be found in the Undersecretary at the State Department, William Burns, telling a conference on the US-Saudi religions in Washington this week that the Saudi king has had a talk with the Israeli president Simon Peres at a UN conference on dialogue among world religions, which took place in New York last November. Understandably, as reported in the Arab News, King Abdullah is furious (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=122092&d=1&m=5&y=2009). Whatever was Mr Burns thinking of? Telling Obama that if the US now go and start bombing Iran, it will have the blessings of both Israel as well as Saudi Arabia?

By: scott

scott — Fri, 01 May 2009 09:45:56 +0000

Of course it is seldom noted that nukes first appeared in Iran under the Shah. These were given to him by the USA. I agree with the comments above. I think we should disarm Israel of Nukes. In 1967 before the Six Day War Israel had her nuclear armaments.

Israel is right Nuclear weapons have lead rogue states to commit blackmail. Israel and her nukes should indeed be stopped. Hell, I think this is all a fait-accompli, as the Gaza War will undo Israel.

With the demographic challenges Israel faces every Palestinian farm or life they take will be returned to the Palestinians with time from pre-67 Israel. I know there’s little evidence to make such statements, but me thinks Israel has exhausted international goodwill and yet doesn’t itself know this. How did Uri Averny put it, “a blood-thirsty monster?”

By: kooshy

kooshy — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:00:35 +0000

Fact 1- NPT allows member states to have enrichment therefore any country with an enrichment capability can have a nuclear deterrence just like Japan does.
Fact 2- According to all IAEA reports Iran has not diverted it’s enrichment to a nuclear capability so it has not birched its agreement.
Fact 3- If a NPT member state has a working enrichment program it already poses a nuclear deterrence.
Mr. Robin needs to prove his alleged what might be Iran’s future intentions without having a proof, just because so far all other activities Iran has been involved is legal for a NPT signatory state. Therefore to convince his targeted audience Mr. Robin resorts to any tool including taking quotes out of contents and if it happens to be cut he resorts to his translators being lost in translation. Or he blames the academic bias although admittedly he can not read or write Persian, that is convenient. Of course Mr. Robin doing Iraq has gained a tremendous experience at his game but fortunately this time around it isn’t working and he may need to change his tactics

By: American

American — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:35:28 +0000

“Now, granted, Iran may be seeking more than deterrence. But in the last analysis, what is that to Americans? We possess a deterrent power that forever will prevent Iran using nukes against us. So why the fuss over the Iranian program?
The fuss of course is on behalf of Israel. Why is my country entangled in this business, when no threat to it exists? Why does U.S. policy and the fate of the American people revolve around a small state in the Middle East? I understand why Israel is of special concern to many Jewish Americans, but should 1% of our population determine U.S. policy?
I think not. I am of English descent. Should I expect the U.S. to give the fate of England special attention, to the detriment of its own citizens’ interests? Of course not.”

Exactly.

By: Jon Harrison

Jon Harrison — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:27:58 +0000

While I’m as sure as I can be that Rubin was taking sentences out of context, let’s go a bit deeper into this issue.

Is Iran seeking a nuclear capability? It’s very hard to believe that it isn’t. We who think a certain way would like it if Iran’s program was purely for energy development, but common sense should tell us that the Iranians are after something more.

Israel is a nuclear power with, by most estimates, at least 200 weapons that it can deliver regionally. Given that, why wouldn’t Iran want weapons of its own? If Venezuala was a nuclear power and the United States wasn’t, wouldn’t we be working night and day to develop a deterrent against an obviously unfriendly neighbor?

Now, granted, Iran may be seeking more than deterrence. But in the last analysis, what is that to Americans? We possess a deterrent power that forever will prevent Iran using nukes against us. So why the fuss over the Iranian program? The fuss of course is on behalf of Israel. Why is my country entangled in this business, when no threat to it exists? Why does U.S. policy and the fate of the American people revolve around a small state in the Middle East? I understand why Israel is of special concern to many Jewish Americans, but should 1% of our population determine U.S. policy? I think not. I am of English descent. Should I expect the U.S. to give the fate of England special attention, to the detriment of its own citizens’ interests? Of course not.