9/11 and Iran according to John Bolton

Remove all ads!

"Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat." That is what, apparently, John Bolton told ABC.
In a somewhat cynical way, it is rather amusing. Never mind that his country's president just came from a nuclear country that isn't an NPT member, and his country maintains cordial relationships with another islamic country that has nuclear weapons and never bothered to sign the lil' old NPT either. Let's go start talking about smoking guns and nuclear clouds, just like before Iraq. You know, this time there might actually be something to find later on. Yet considering what the opinions on the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster are among most other governments represented in the UN, I wonder if Mr. Bolton of all people should have joined the fearmongering train. Besides, I don't think he's such an influential figure, is he?

 

Well, concidering he represents the US, who is on the security council, and has full veto power, I'd say he has some influence.
Many here in the US feel the UN has lost all credibility with all the corruption and weak backbone. A huge chuck of the UN operating expenses are paid by the US. Where does it get that money, from the taxpayers. So, we have a right to voice an opinion. We needed someone with the balls to say "We are tired of the crap and we are not going to take it anymore!"
Yeah, Bolton doesn't have the best people or communication skills necessary for this post, but we needed a change from the old cowarding yes men and women of the past.

But all and all, no one in the world should care, the UN has no power without a military backing, so who cares what goes on there.

 

Yes, and many in the US can say the same for their own government in this respect.

 

Any country with nuclear weapons is a threat, of course, and to use the pun from above, Iran certainly isn't a "yes country" either. However, to basically insinuate that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, it would use them to attack a US city (if anyone else has another interpretation for the 9/11 comparison) is, to put it mildly, huge breach of protocol, and John Bolton, as an ambassador to the UN, is a diplomat first and public speaker... not even in the top ten. He is probably the one person in Washington who should not have said that. In addition to that, this is barely short of a conditional declaration of war, as it means that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be interpreted as a nuclear attack on an entire city. Well, given the welcoming tone that the entire administration kept throughout the entire process, it has certainly contributed to the diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Basically, there is little way of knowing whether Iran would have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons if the US had used another rhetoric - but the current hostility is a good reason to look for any means available to improve your security. Nuclear weapons are, I am sure you would agree, among the most powerful deterrents.
But I digress. Indeed, Blackthorne, the more I look at it, the less amusing it is, even with my somewhat cynical viewpoint on the interaction between Iran and the US. I don't think that if the US administration decides to go to war, it will bother checking if the Iranian centrifuges enrich fuel- or weapon-grade uranium and plutonium.
As for India and Pakistan, the fact that two countries did not sign the NPT, developed nuclear weapons, and had nothing at all bad happen to them - even a small economic sanction - does imo a whole lot more to make the NPT a total waste of good paper than any maneuvering Iran does or has done. With Israel at least everyone knew it had a special relation to the US, and it keeps quiet on the issue. India and Pakistan are object cases that if you do not abide by the rules in nuclear disarmament... nothing happens. As long as play nice on other fronts. Even a border skirmish every now and then does totally nothing to ruin your image as a civilized, responsible power. Yes, I do believe that when it comes to proliferation, Iran has done much less to make the world an unsafe place than Pakistan has, despite all the noise and saber-rattling.
We'll see how things go after the low-key negotiations about Iraq, at any rate. Right now, I think getting anything done there would count for almost as much as nuclear non-proliferation.

 

Well, not quite. Of course, a lot could be said and written about how the five nuclear powers adhere to their own side of the non-proliferation deal, and imo there is not one among them that hasn't violated what little promises it made to make it seem less of a one-sided deal for the non-nuclear countries (CTBT, ABM Treaty, you know well enough the US record. And it's not as if any other country of the "Grand Five" has done any better). India has iirc never been a NPT signatory and detonated a nuclear device in the Rajasthan deserts in the 70's, yet it has imported a lot of material and blueprints from Canada, the US, and elsewhere (http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/1987/stoppingindianbomb.htm). Given that this happened in a moment of unrivaled tensions between India and Pakistan, I am unsure if any deals already in place during the 1990's were cancelled.
As for the USSR/Russian part in this, don't let me started - it is enough to say that several of the reactors in the recent nuclear facilities are Russian VVERs (1000 MW turbines) and India has a treaty with MinAtom (Ministry of Atomic Energy).
As for Bolton what Bolton says and implies, perhaps you do know better but the use of 9/11 rhetorics seems to generally point towards very drastic actions from my point of view.

P.S.: A good article on the US-Pakistan nuclear connection is here: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?040119fr_archive02 . I would be interested in any articles detailing France or Britain's "missteps" in that field, as well as Russia's or China's (although the latter are rather better known).

[ March 17, 2006, 17:57: Message edited by: The Shaman ]