Kerry, Biden going weak-kneed on nuke deal-- write to/call them ASAP!!

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

We discussed Bush's atrocious proposed India nuclear deal in a previous thread on DU:
http://tinyurl.com/mzbl4 :nuke:

and now, Kerry and Biden appear to be going weak-kneed and inclining to vote in support of this atrocity: http://tinyurl.com/e5xz7

A bit of background to review: This proposed nuclear deal is by far the most foolish, irresponsible, dangerous policy idea that Bush has suggested (and this in the midst of a string of other disastrous policies), and quite possibly the worst foreign policy notion of the past 30 years. Bush would be unilaterally bypassing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-- which, based on international legal principles stretching back to the 1600's, would render the treaty effectively null and void (or, as my old International Studies professor said, "turn it into the diplomatic equivalent of a wad of used Kleenexes"). In the process, he would encourage the transfer of large quantities of nuclear isotopes and nuclear technology to India while blocking international inspections of India's 8 military breeder reactors *and* any reactors constructed in the future-- IOW, facilitating the rapid construction and incorporation of US nuclear fuel into Indian nuclear warheads, while snubbing Pakistan (not to mention Japan, the UK and Australia, who are also bitterly opposed) in the process. :wtf: Could Bush have possibly fouled up in more places at once? Oh, of course, this is Bush we're talking about-- unprecedented clusters of foul-ups on critical issues constitute his most consistent trademark.

A summary of the reprehensible and dangerous consequences that would ensue:

- Opening the door to the ultimate nuclear Pandora's Box by effectively nullifying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
- Gutting the legal means to confront Iran and North Korea and encouraging the initiation or restarting of nuclear arms programs in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, Libya, Chile, Argentina and many other nations (thereby freed from NPT constraints)
- Dangerously connecting international prestige with nuke acquisition and testing, thus fostering worldwide proliferation
- Sparking an arms race in South Asia that would lead irrevocably to an Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange within a few years (not enough time to evaluate a putative launch by the other side, so loose triggers in both countries)
- Snubbed Pakistan so blatantly that it is becoming almost impossible for the Pakistani authorities to cooperate with the US on al-Qaeda. (A very important and underconsidered consequence, discussed in one of the links below-- it was the Pakistanis who've captured the majority of the al-Qaeda leaders we have in custody, and this unbelievably overt insult to Pakistan, making it almost politically impossible for them to continue backing the US fight on al-Qaeda, would have a devastating effect and essentially give bin Laden a key to the US front door for more terrorist attacks.)
- Thwart nuclear arms reduction treaties between the US and Russia by spreading the nukes worldwide
- Foster a nuclear black market which would invariably allow nukes to enter into the waiting hands of terrorists, facilitating their detonation on our soil.

A few links:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0307-27.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0307-27.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/03/opinion/edpakistan.php
http://www.topplebush.com/oped2589.shtml
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5603449
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060406-085826-3823r.htm (a good and very critical piece by a conservative in the Washington Times, of all places)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801210.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/05/loose_nukes_for_india.php
http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=541 (please sign this petition)

In short-- with the possible exception of Bush's newly announced plans to nuke Iran-- this is Bush's most unfathomably stupid policy proposal, and it must be defeated. I do not want my kids to be growing up in a world that has nukes sprouting in every corner of the globe! What we need to do is to work out a comprehensive trade treaty with India that would boost our mutual ties and facilitate bilateral efforts in technology and raw materials-- that's the best way to improve bilateral ties and cement our relationship, but the nuclear deal is the wrong way to go about improving relations. It would be utterly disastrous, and it has to be unconditionally defeated. The rejection of this proposal is the responsibility of Congress.

Kerry and Biden to be fair did not offer unconditional support-- they basically said that they "had some misgivings but would probably vote in support of this atrocity, er, proposal anyhow." The problem is that their words resemble the same cowardly, chicken-crap cop-outs they used while voting for the Iraq War Resolution-- "oh, we really don't like this murderous, blood-soaked piece of legislation that will lead to a disastrous foreign policy blunder and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and make the US a pariah nation, but we'll vote for it anyway, so we can look tough on defense." They're basically thinking about pulling an IWR again-- what utter and absolute crap! If a proposal from Bush has potentially dangerous and even lethal consequences for societies (our own in particular), then you don't "support it with misgivings" or other such wishy-washy crap-- you work assiduously to defeat it.

There is no excuse for their wavering on an issue of this magnitude. If they were to go soft on this, they would have so much blood on their hands that their cop-outs on Iraq would look like minor missteps at a cocktail party in comparison!

I do think that both of these Senators want to do the right thing and they will listen to their base, and that's where we have to act. Starting as soon as you can, please write letters to, and/or call both John Kerry and Joseph Biden, and let them know that you are bitterly opposed to this atrocious nuclear deal, and that they will both suffer adverse electoral consequences and lose our support if they continue to favor it. I voted and drummed up support for Kerry and I still respect him-- even Biden, despite his DLC links, I have a bit of grudging respect for (though I'm still furious at him for his sell-out on the bankruptcy bill). But this is an issue of such tremendous importance to us and especially for future generations, that we must apply intense political pressure on these two prominent Dems in the Senate to ensure that they work to reject the deal. On this, we cannot vacillate for a moment.

For that matter, please write to/call your representatives in both houses of Congress (if not Kerry or Biden already, even if one or both of your representatives are Republican), and state your unequivocal opposition to this deal, and make sure to do it several times over the coming period so it's not just a one-off thing-- our expressions of disapproval have to be concerted, unwavering, focused and prolonged. We have to inform Congress, repeatedly, that we are opposed and firmly so.

BTW, I should mention in the interest of fairness-- Hillary has pleasantly surprised me here, I thought she'd join Biden and go weak-kneed like him on this nuclear deal, especially considering her own DLC links. However, so far, she's refused to support it. Although she hasn't openly come out against it yet, she's not lamely kowtowing and pandering as in the IWR days. I've been infuriated by Hillary's capitulation to the hawks on Iraq, Iran and Syria over the past four years, and I'm still quite angry about those things, but I'm in wait-and-see mode at this point, and if Hillary comes out strongly against the proposed India nuclear deal, I for one will reconsider my appraisal of her.

PS, Happy Easter and Happy Passover, my friends! :toast: Chag Pesach Sameach and a hearty Mazel Tov to all. For those of you in college, please slip out to call your representatives when you can :) but in any case, whether you're sticking around on campus, visiting home or havin' a ball on South Padre or Cancun (or partying the sweet Mediterranean day and night away on Ibiza island, for all you adventurous DUers out there :beer: ), enjoy your Spring Break! You've definitely earned it.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

1. Another link to the Jimmy Carter editorial

Here's another link to the outstanding editorial by Jimmy Carter against the nuclear deal proposal, for those of you who can't access the pages on WaPo (which may be behind a firewall): http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12607.htm

[acmejack]

2. KnR!

Good analysis of this dangerous half-baked scheme. And a Happy Holiday (or not) of choice to you as well.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

25. Thanks for the holiday well-wishes Acmejack

Probably won't be much of a holiday for me in particular but the pace always seems to relax a bit when the young troopers head off for R&R I guess. I would say I miss those days, except-- well, with the exploits I hear about these days (aka the "You won't believe what Joey did to wind up in the calaboose in Tijuana" tales), I'm not so sure I do. :) In the Myspace era I guess, all the Spring Break lunacy that used to diffuse in semi-discreet urban legends now gets repeated online ad nauseum and taped and uploaded, perfect for water-cooler blackmailing in the office down the road.

[valerief]

3. So how does BushCo benefit from this? n/t

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

4. Bush has been bought and paid for-- 7+ years!

A very good question valerief. I suspect this may have something to do with it:

http://tinyurl.com/n6cx3

I dug this article up from 7 years ago back when Bush was Texas governor and before the Tragedy of 2000. (Oh, if only SCOTUS hadn't screwed Al in 2000-- I suspect historians may look back on Florida in 2000, looking back in the aftermath of the collapse of the US and show how if only Katharine Harris and her wretched Rethug operatives ... no, better not to think about that, can drive you mad.) Even back then, Bush was already firmly in the pocket of the nuclear industry, with their contributions lining his pockets.

This, I suspect, is at least one key to the riddle of Bush's latest fine mess (besides the fact that he seems to be missing a portion of his brain to begin with). Bush figures he is "returning favors" to his cronies in the nuclear industry. Whatever Bush's stands and strange behavior elsewhere, there is after all one thing about him that's been remarkably consistent-- he stays cozy with his cronies. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bush's Administration has become the most corrupt in at least a century. From the Katrina disaster, to Harriet Miers to Bush's latest acts-- selling out the very security of the world's societies if it'll help Bush to curry a bit of extra favor from his wealthy cronies-- this starts to make a lot of sense.

[valerief]

6. Thanks. Well, if you want to curry favors, India's the one to do it with.

(Pun intended.) Bush and his minions are the latest in a history full of very bad people. They're like ants. You can never get rid of them completely, and you can expect them to come back the following spring. The trick is to not get infested with them.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

20. Heh, good analogy except that

I'm loath to cast disparage hard-working ants so much. At least the colonies of ants are reasonably productive and tend not to screw up their jobs on a grand scale. Bushco., on the other hand, is remarkably consistent at royally screwing up just about everything they handle. I'm half-surprised Bush hasn't burned down the Oval Office yet, or trashed the White House Garden. (Hey, wait-- that means he still has things to aspire toward.)

I've had a hard time putting my finger on what, specifically, angers me so much about Bushco. in particular in comparison to other GOP clods of the past few decades. But the essence IMHO, is this truly incredible combination of absolutist religious certainty, with unparalleled power-mad arrogance (refusing to even hear out arguments with the contrary) and incompetence on a spectacular scale. As I was indicating before, I'm actually starting to fret that historians will look back at the close 2000 election and see it as being of tremendous historical significance. I can't begin to tick off the ways our country would be stronger with 8 (or even just 4) years of President Gore-- 9/11 may well have been prevented (it was Bush who took our eyes off the al-Qaeda ball), Iraq would not have been invaded, Gore had a smart tax and budgetary plan that would have prolonged our surpluses, he was going to reform the military to cut wasteful handouts to the defense contractors and this idiotic focus on nuclear arms, he was interested in funding scientific research and renewable energy. I almost get chest pains of frustration at the way our country has suffered irretrievable damage due to this idiot we currently have in the Oval Office, and how much stronger we'd be with a leader like Gore.

The problem is, the Founders gave us the tools to select the right government to lead us. Unfortunately, not even they were able to guarantee we wouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot on Election Day-- which in this case, our country has done twice.

[valerief]

9. Bush is so close to the nuclear industry that when you turn off the

lights he glows in the dark,'' Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., said.

Love that line.

[KoKo]

5. Liberal Oasis had this up on their site today.

They were saying it didn't look good for Kerry and Biden to cut against the Party on this. That we needed to stand together and this kind of backing off could open the door for Iran to feel they can continue with nukes making it harder for us to stop Bush's plans.

I have no idea why they would do this....except both are running for President and they want to look "TOUGH." Haven't we already been through this "Look Tough and Vote for Iraq" deal before. But, now it will be Iran.

I hope that Biden and Kerry aren't giving a sign off to Bush on this.

[KoKo]

7. Here's what "Liberal Oasis" says about it:

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/040206.htm#040606

LiberalOasis offered an Iran strategy earlier this month.

A small part of that plan called for standing firm against Bush’s nuclear proliferation deal with India, because we need to remove incentives for Iran to go nuclear, not create more.

Momentum had been building against the deal, thanks to key Republicans and former Dem Senator Sam Nunn.

But Dem Senators John Kerry and Joe Biden gave the deal a shot in the arm yesterday, indicating that while they have reservations, they’ll probably vote for it anyway.

If Dems had an Iran plan, a strategy on nuclear proliferation, and a broader vision on how to best engage the Arab/Muslim, individual Senators would be far less likely to nonsensically cave on such matters.

Because they’d be reinforced by a party-wide effort to clearly articulate a Democratic foreign policy alternative, and do whatever a minority party can to hem in the reckless White House global agenda.

India’s just a piece of puzzle, but yesterday’s cave-in was an ominous sign of things to come.

If Dems don’t want to repeat the humiliation of 2002, and the following four years of contorted excuses and rationalizations, they best get over worrying about the short-term political risks, and start getting ahead of the curve.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/040206.htm#040606

[Mass]

11. This has nothing to do with Iran - This is about controlling India's civil

nuclear power plant. What Kerry actually said in the meeting is that he had issues with the treaty but he felt inclined to do something BECAUSE HE WOULD IMPROVE the controls by international authorities in India.

The treaty is very far from being signed, so, people should be careful, but the last thing we need is another series of hysteria. Bull Scherr is entitled to his own opinion on what the Dems should do, but dont forget he also wants the Dems to refrain for asking a firm withdrawal in Iraq.



What does helping and controlling India's nuclear power plant have to do with being tough .

[valerief]

8. Any time any of them talk about looking toughing or standing

together or anything else that supposed to symbolize *strength*, I see it as just a smokescreen. Just media posturing to mask their real reasons. Maybe their real reasons are practical and useful, but I would prefer they just say nothing than that *tough* crap.

[Mass]

12. Kerry never spoke about toughing on Iran. This is purely stupid.

I dont know where this crap comes from. Scherr is the one who wants to tough up on Iran. F* him!

[Mass]

14. They dont cut against the party on that - The party has no position

LO says the party SHOULD have a position and that it would avoid that people take their own position on one issue.

[Imagevision]

10. Kerry, Biden? - yak-yak-yak! all talk no actions!

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kerry CALLS FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR:

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05kerry.html&OQ=_rQ3D2Q26hpQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=4ca360c0Q2FeQ5DpEeiZ9oSZZ_1e155He5Q20e5geZhPqPZqe5gBpSSQ7DQ25@_Q3CY

Kerry SUBMITS BILL TO CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ: SIGN THE PETITION:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=862601&mesg_id=862601

Kerry EXPOSES MORE CORRUPTION THAN ANY MODERN LAWMAKER - BCCI/IRAN-CONTRA:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

AHEM.... flibustering Alito???

AND.... here's a WHOLE PASSEL of other things Kerry has been DOING SINCE THE ELECTION:

http://www.returningsoldiers.us/whatskerrydoing.htm

"All talk no action"? PLEASE!!!!!

:crazy:

[Mass]

13. The issue is IMPORTANT, but far from being finished.

Bashing Kerry and Biden on that (particularly as it is not really what Kerry said, whatever the newsmedia told us) is not going to help us. May be if you care so much, you can think about an action against ALL senators (Feingold and Boxer did not say they would vote against it either, as far as I know. They just expressed reservations, as did Kerry).

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

21. This is why I phrased my criticism carefully

I'm aware that both Kerry and Biden expressed reservations, Mass, as I said in the original post. The problem is the coda that they added after that favorite politicians' conjunction, "but": "we'll probably vote for it anyway." Uh-uh. Feingold and Boxer didn't make a firm statement, but they definitely didn't say "they'd probably support it anyway" and it's clear from their other communications that they are strongly against the treaty as it currently stands (i.e., the one that Bush and Rice are trying to shove down the country's throat).

C'mon, we're all wise to the code words that politicians use-- they don't just toss out by-the-way type statements when they talk to the press. If their reservations about the treaty were their dominant concern, then Biden and Kerry would have stated that and left it at that. However, saying "but we'll probably support it anyway" (that is, the treaty in its current form) is a cop-out just like the IWR-- it's crap, it's basically politician-speak for "we're going to vote in favor of this obviously reprehensible piece of legislation since it might boost our tough-guy bona fides, but we'll say 'we have reservations' to look like we're reluctant and so at least garner some thinking-it-through Brownie points."

I'm sorry, but when I see something like this I call bullshit. Kerry and Biden are relying on us to act like sheep, and to bleat and complacently wink and nod as they parade their thinly-veiled hypocrisy. It's our job in places like DU to call them on their crap and make sure they know that there will be a severe political price for it, and to let their offices know loudly and clearly that they're making a very severe mistake. If anything, we're doing a service to both of them by communicating this in such unequivocal terms. I've spoken to several dozen people familiar with the international relations and diplomacy field, and every single one (quite a few conservatives and Republicans among their number) agrees that this treaty is just immeasurably stupid and dangerous, for the reasons listed above and others, and it seems that Kerry and Biden just don't get it. It's our job in this democracy to communicate this urgency to them and make sure that they do get it.

[roody]

15. These Democrats are chasing me

into the arms of the Green Party.

[sandnsea]

18. That's exactly what the writer wants

Stir up shit when nothing has even been finalized yet. It's always easy to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks when you aren't the one who has to negotiate these matters. I can't figure out whether it's okay for everybody to have nukes, or nobody to have nukes, or exactly what the left wants because it changes every week depending on who they want to bash now. Bunch a friggin' idiots.

[sandnsea]

16. The deal isn't even final yet

There will be changes to the deal that will make it more stringent thant the Test Ban treaty. It isn't finished, so there's no point in getting in a twirl about it. Geesh.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060409/asp/nation/story_6076547.asp

I thought it was okay for everybody in the world to have nukes anyway, that's what I always hear about Iran.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

22. "There will be changes to the deal"???

Sandnsea, Bushco's whole angle is that they wouldn't accept any changes to the deal whatsoever, especially changes making it "more stringent than the Test Ban Treaty." That's the crux of this whole debate in the Senate-- the members of Congress clearly do want to make significant changes to which the Bush Administration is stringently objecting, so what's on the table at present is a deal which the Bush Admin wants to push through without any changes at all, clearly unacceptable in its current form, and which Kerry and Biden both said "they would probably support anyway" (i.e., in its current form).

"I thought it was okay for everybody in the world to have nukes anyway, that's what I always hear about Iran. "

Totally misses the point. First of all, I suspect that most people don't want Iran to have nukes (we just favor diplomatic pressure rather than military strikes to bring that about), and second, even if Iran gets them, you wouldn't find the US or other countries actively providing them with nuclear material and expertise on a substantial scale to help them start pumping out dozens or even hundreds of nukes. We all recognize that India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, but at the very least, the world can minimize the degree to which those nuclear programs are assisted and thus help thwart a nuclear arms race. I for one, am not particularly happy about the nukes that the US or Russia or other countries possess either, I don't for a moment think that "our nukes are good and theirs bad" and agree that we also need to make reforms and way cut down on our own arsenals, but in the interest of preventing a dangerous arms race in South Asia (among other reasons), it's advisable not to encourage proliferation there either.

[Krist]

19. Some of you got this one wrong..

Some harsh truths about nuke history and why Kerry is right:

1. Lets face it, NPT is an oxymoron and has been an utter failure for the past 20-30 years inspite of purists claiming otherwise.

2. During the past few decades, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea were able to develop nuke weapons inspite of supposed ban on sale of nuke materials and technology.

3. Its a well known fact that US, UK & France aided Israel's nuke weapons, while China aided Pakistan's and former USSR might've aided India's. Pakistan proliferated nukes to north korea and even helped Iran, before heat was turned on and AQ Khan got caught. In brief, all nuke powers who initially signed the NPT, have a history of nuke proliferation in order to influence their allies.

4. Reagan was aware of what has been going on in 1980s, when Chinese were helping Pakistanis develop the "Islamic bomb", but agreed to "overlook" it provided Pakistan co-operated in raising "mujahideen" (aka Osama and Talibaan) to fight the soviets.

5. Israel already receives its nuke fuel from US and other countries even though its not an NPT signatory and isnt supposed to have any nuke weapons. Pakistan already receives its nuke fuel from China while India receives its fuel from Russia. All these things happen illicitly and all the countries who are proliferating nuke materials are NPT signatories.

6. US, UK, Israel, France, China, Australia (they intially said no, but changed their stance) and even IAEA support this deal. Thats because India will continue to receive its nuke fuel from Russia, with or without this deal. And will never allow its nuke reactors to be placed under international inspections, as it refuses to sign NPT. Through this deal, atleast a majority of Indian nuke reactors would be open for international inspections, and US will get a chunk of Indian orders for nuke fuel.

7. Chirac has already signed a similar nuke agreement with India exactly 2 weeks before Bush has. He wants France to have a share of Indian market.

8. Pakistan can also be given a similar deal, but they are more interested in securing American nuke technology and not fissile material (which they can easily obtain illicitly from China all the time). So, that kinda rules them out. Having more nukes in a dictatorial Islamic country that heavily anti-American is not a good policy.

9. Iran doesnt compare with Pakistan or India. Its zany leader has already called for "wiping out" Israel from the world map, which neither Indian or Pakistani leaders have done till now. On a degree of stability, we all know that India will always be a democracy, Pakistan is a potential democracy and Iran is a die hard theocracy. So that kinda rules out any equal treatment for all three of them.

10. If I were the Prez, I'd ask Pakistan to deliver Binny's head on a silver platter, in exchange for a nuke deal ;) Pakistan has to deliver on WoT or its economic aid (which is to the tune of billions of dollars each year) will be pruned off. Being a very poor country, their economy is in tatters. They need us more than we need them. To catch Binny, we always got Afghanistan and if I know my geography correctly, they share a porous border along the south, which is where he is supposed to be hiding.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

23. Some other harsh truths that have to be raised here

1. While Pakistan's government is objectionable in more ways than one, Musharraf is our most direct partner in rounding up the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which poses the single most direct threat to our country. (It was al-Qaeda that attacked the USA, something that hasn't happened for almost 2 centuries-- they are the only organization that is still working to hit us directly, and we need allies.) I agree that Pakistan could be doing more to "catch Binny" (not sure about the head on the platter part, that could get messy :)) but it's not very easy-- as you say yourself, Pakistan's a very poor country and it's easy to hide in a place like that. Furthermore, you imply that Pakistan is not delivering in the WoT in general but that's not true-- it was the Pakistani security forces who cornered and captured the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, while also capturing Abu Zubaidah and a host of other al-Qaeda higher-ups. Especially considering Musharraf's domestic pressure, it's amazing how much they *have* substantively contributed to the WoT. The Pakistani people (let alone the cabinet and military), however, would never allow continued support of the US-led WoT if it's perceived that the US is spitting in their face despite their contributions, and a perceived double standard (one rival getting a sweetheart nuke deal but not the other) is a pretty surefire way to spit in their faces. That was Michael Scheuer's point in the Wash Times article above. While I among many others wish we could be dealing with a different government in Pakistan to assist us in the WoT, Musharraf is what we've got and thus far, they've been delivering quite a few goods, if not quite the biggest fishes we'd like. It would be a very bad time to alienate them, especially when al-Qaeda may well be on the rise again with the Iraq fiasco.

2. You say that "Iran is a die hard theocracy," but most Middle Eastern specialists would strongly disagree with this assessment. I agree that Ahmedinejad is a nutjob, an Armageddon-seeking wacko who's dangerous in more ways than one, but Iran is actually the one country in the region that has long had a semblance of democratic elections, however corrupt the candidate selection process (or the power of the mullahs) is. Mohammed Khatami was a reformer very much disliked by the mullahs, for example, but he was elected by the people and even managed to push through some changes that made the ayatollahs quite angry. Remember, also, that Iran actually did have a Parliamentary democracy back in the 1950's, but the US and Britain collaborated to overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadegh and replace him with a dictator, the shah. We're reaping what we ourselves sowed here. Still, the point is that Iran actually does have a Parliamentary democratic tradition dating back all the way to the 1940's and 1950's, interrupted by the US and Britain of all countries, and they very much possess the potential to continue in a democratic direction-- the younger generation especially is irritated by the mullahs. Mind you, I'm still nervous about the idea of Iran getting nukes (most of us here favor diplomatic pressure rather than military strikes), but Iran very much does have the potential to evolve into a reasonably stable democratic state.

3. You're right in pointing out that each of the NPT powers has a history of promoting proliferation elsewhere to one degree or another-- and this practice deserves criticism on all sides and steady discouragement. As I said in my post above, I'm not one of the folks who believes that e.g. "nukes by US, Russia, Britain and Israel or good, nukes by India and Pakistan are bad". Nukes are criminal weapons in general, whoever possesses them. The current signatories at the very least have been moving away from both testing and further enrichment of their current arsenals, but we should also be moving to very sharply reduce our current stockpiles. In general it's helpful to simultaneously discourage nuke proliferation in other places as well, but an unstated omission in the current debate is the need for us to be reducing our current nuke levels even while hectoring India and Pakistan against them. The problem with the current US policy and strategic focus, is the way nukes are so firmly associated with prestige, both for us and for nations considering them-- that's a recipe for proliferation.

4. This one's pretty basic-- but the timing is horrendous. The US is on the verge of starting a war against Iran over that country's perceived nuclear program (which is probably a decade away from producing a nuke), and even without a war, Iran is the focus of US-led diplomacy precisely b/c of its supposed nuke program. It just stinks too much of hypocrisy to be preparing a bloody attack on a country for a nuke program that's probably a decade away from producing a warhead, yet simultaneously provide technology and nuclear material to another. I'm sorry, but all the "but, but, buts" in the world won't change that, and that includes the statement that "we're a democracy, they're not." Democracies are not automatically less warlike or capable of foolhardy action on the foreign policy front-- it's the US after all, the world's major democracy, that initiated an incredibly foolish war on Iraq, and whose leaders are openly contemplating a nuclear strike on a non-nuclear country. Non-proliferation has got to be pretty much a uniform policy across the board for everyone, or it breaks down at its essence.

5. Again, while the NPT is far from ideal, it's about the only international legal bludgeon we have against Iran and N. Korea right now. The Bush Administration has tended to walk all over the concept of international law, but as any of us in an international studies course quickly learn, the rest of the world takes international treaties and statutes very, very seriously. In fact, it's only through those treaties that other countries are able to convince their own electorates to e.g. support criticism and diplomatic action against Iran and North Korea. Without solid treaties backing them up, they don't have the political capacity to take such actions, and they lack the ability to take unified action, since it's only such treaties that provide a realistic framework for many countries with disparate interests to act together and stay together. You can't just go around carving exceptions to long-established international treaties, since doing so would effectively nullify them based on very ancient principles of international law. If the NNPT were to fall apart for South Asia, then it would fall apart for Iran and North Korea as well, and for everyone else-- including countries like Egypt, Brazil and Saudi Arabia which have been aspiring or at least considering going nuclear for quite a while. I'm very strongly in favor of a good solid trade treaty with both India and Pakistan (especially with India, since that country with its growing economy has so much to offer the world), but this nuclear deal is the wrong way to go about negotiations.

[Krist]

24. Agree on some..

Good to see someone with a wide range of know-how in international politics, thought I was the only one around ;) :

1. Musharraf is indeed an indispensable ally and currently our best bet. No doubt. But signing a long-term nuke deal with India in the civilian sector is NOT aimed against Pakistan. Infact, we gave the Pakistanis nuke-capable F-16 fighter jets inspite of strong protests from India. The long term idea with respect to nukes, is to build up an alternative powerhouse to CHINA in Asia, since Japan, south korea and many of the ASEAN countries can never match China in military numbers. Another important deal here is the long term energy needs of India, which are directly linked to Iran. If Indian economy wants to grow at the rate Chinese economy is growing, they need uninterrupted sources of energy. Iran is currently offering them a lucrative deal. If they take it, it'll be hard for them join against any action against Iran. By asking them to switch over to Nuke power, US and the western world are trying to disrupt any OIL alliance between Iran and India. So, in that context, Pakistan doesnt come into picture.

2. Bush has delivered over $4 billion in financial aid to Musharraf in the past few years, apart from multi-role nuclear weapon capable fighter jets like F-16s along with advanced RADAR equipment, that we usually dont even sell to our own NATO allies. And as far common logic dictates, those equipment are NOT necessary for fighting terrorists. He did so inspite of protests from India, which feels directly threatened by Pakistani nukes and missiles. Now, Russia and China are BIG players in Asia and its no secret that they want to counter American influence in middle east by arming Iran with nukes, and controlling it to. The last thing US needs is a rapidly growing democracy, India, to join the Sino-Russian bandwagon and form a strong anti-American axis. If we want to alienate India by arming Pakistan, we could as well kiss our hopes good bye when it comes to taking punitive action against Iran in future.

3. I was probably wrong in my shallow assessment of Iran, I read somewhere today that Iranians, especially students are more pro-American than their Pakistani or Arab counterparts. Many of them want friendly ties with the west, but their rural side is still in the death grip of Mullahs, who have propped up the loony-bin Ahmedinejaad. But Iran NEEDS a regime change, though it doesnt have to be a violent one through invasion. I just hope the Iranian people decide they'd enough of theocratic mullahs and have another revolution.

4. You are right. Bush is being extremely naive when he says "democracies dont go to wars", etc etc. Nazi Germany was democratic. And even Hamas, which vowed the destruction of Israel, also came to power democratically. Democracy never implies a lack of intention to wage wars.

5. NPT is just an international clause that people use to root out certain countries against which they feel threatened. But it wont work, even in a revised form because all countries in the world are using nuke material to develop potential alliances. And lets not talk about North Korea, BUSH has miserably failed in bringing them to book with his ridiculous idea of tri-partite talks and what not. And he let the Pakistanis get away with their nuke proliferation to North Korea, as well. He gave them the slip and they are now a nuke power and we can do nothing about it.

6. Finally, if US doesnt want to give India a civilian nuke deal, India wont miss out much, only we'll miss out on a potential strategic alliance. Russia and China will entice it with nuke materials, and draw it into their anti-American alliance, which will be far more potent than the entire Islamic and European world's put together. Would you rather have India, with the second largest army in the world and all, in our camp or in our potential enemies' ?