LAT op-ed, Senator Dianne Feinstein, "Confronting Iran"

[DeepModem Mom]

Confronting Iran
Will we learn from our mistakes and apply tough diplomacy -- or rely once again on the failed doctrine of preemption?
By Dianne Feinstein, DIANNE FEINSTEIN is California's senior U.S. senator.
April 15, 2006

No one concerned about U.S. national security wants Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. It would be a destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world. That's exactly why we need strong American leadership, working toward a verifiable diplomatic solution.

Instead, the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned....So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.

We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.

At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-feinstein15apr15,0,7075952.story?coll=la-home-commentary

[saltpoint]

1. Yes. Yes. Bush won't like this much. I do, though. Yes. Yes.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Please tell your Senators,

no nuclear first strikes.

The US should only nuke a country if that country has nuked us.

http://contactcongress.blogspot.com/

[rodeodance]

5. i am not sure of this.

there must be other ways to retaliate.

.....The US should only nuke a country if that country has nuked us.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Do you want us to get rid of all our nuclear weapons? nt

nt

[rodeodance]

9. yes, but as we get rid of our, other countries do the same. I know this

is and would be difficult--but we each country verified other countries destruction, it is possible. This would involve all countries with nuke weapons. At the same time there would have to be efforts like Feinstein is talking about above.

We need the will to do it. It is not pie in the sky idealism.

[DrRang]

19. Beware of emphasizing the nuclear aspect.

Could be that the *ies are floating the nuke plan so people will see that as totally bloody evil and stupid, then they'll back off and "only" attack Iran with massive conventional weaponry, which people will then accept as on half bloody evil and stupid.

[rodeodance]

6. btw-thanks for the contact info.

[Hissyspit]

12. K&R

[rodeodance]

13. yes, dounble that. k and r.

[rodeodance]

14. done

[Starfury]

15. Off The Table agrees with you -

CAMPAIGN GOAL
Visit every member of Congress by April 28 and get an answer to the question "Will you take a nuclear first strike against Iran OFF THE TABLE."

http://www.offthetable.org/

[Clarkie1]

3. Excellent Piece!

This is in line with Clark's view and imo shows sound judgment, but unfortunately not all Dems are showing the same good judgment.

This Week with George Stephanopoulos
3/5/06

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

http://securingamerica.com/node/692

[rodeodance]

4. More. talks of US use of nuc. weapons! a big NO NO>

There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.

As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.

This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.

There is no question that in the post-9/11 era, a full range of policy options for dealing with new and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my view, nuclear options cannot be considered as an extension of conventional options.

[rodeodance]

8. "So what steps should the United States be taking?"

The U.S. should engage Iran diplomatically. So far, England, France and Germany have led the negotiated effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment, while Russia has explored other alternatives. It is time for the U.S. to lead such efforts, not stand by.

We must push for a complete halt to Iran's enrichment activities and full access to all nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran refuses, international sanctions should follow, and inspections with U.N. forces if necessary.

At the same time, the U.S. needs to build international alliances to create a unified front opposed to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

The United States should learn the lesson of Iraq. It should not make the same mistake twice. There is broad agreement that Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community. Now is the time for tough diplomacy, joined by our allies, not a premature military confrontation that could include nuclear devastation.

[Clarkie1]

10. Compare this to Hillary Clinton's statements...

Sen. Clinton Urges U.N. Sanctions Against Iran
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A06

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

The senator's statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903220.html

A rush to sanctions is the beginning of a rush to war. We need to play our cards slowly and deliberately in matters such as this. We have time. I DO NOT want someone who makes statements such as these to be our next Commander in Chief. If she were president she might actually act on her misguided, dangerous notions!

[rodeodance]

11. Do you think she meant nuk options also? I wonder. I do not think so.

[ShortnFiery]

16. How about IF her neighbors don't like it, they push for control ...

We don't even reside in THEIR region. Let's mop up and get the hell out of the M.E.?

BTW did you hear that Russia is going to give Hamas financial aid.

This INSANE chess-game of the Bush-Co. administration will not play from square one - especially since even his poodle, Tony Blair, has stated that the UK will NOT go along with ANY military strikes against Iran's facilities.

Let's get the white paddy wagons and the men in the white coats to take these IDIOTS away before all hell breaks loose? The World Views of our present Executive Branch has become ... UNSOUND, i.e., they're f**king nuts and if left unchecked, bring about the fruition of WWIII, The End. :nuke:

[Clarkie1]

23. I don't know. I doubt it. Still, she was off base. n/t

[Rose Siding]

17. Good for her

Spooky, too. DiFi wouldn't speak out against a new war unless there was more going on than bush's "wild speculation".

[Laughing Mirror]

18. Confronting Dianne Feinstein

How would Iran having nuclear be a "destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world"? The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East and the world is the United States.

Any country that has nuclear weapons and would deny another country those weapons to defend itself is a just a big fat hypocrite.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. On Tactics, RE: "Confronting Iran" by Senator Feinstein

For tactical reasons I welcome this statement by Senator Feinstein, although I have issues with a core opinion that she states in it: "Iran cannot be allowed to proceed with its nuclear programs and continue to flout the international community". Whether or not Iran is "flouting the international community" is at the least open to debate. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, India is not. Iran admittedly is building a Nuclear Power Program, Pakistan admittedly builds nuclear weapons. Still our relations with India and Pakistan are warm, our relations with Iran are decidedly not.

For various geo-political and security reasons it might be highly desirable, and even wise, for Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities, but that is a different standard to base diplomacy on. Iran by no means has a monopoly on a lack of wisdom in pursuing national objectives. How the United States under President Bush has chosen to pursue our stated national objective of halting Iran's nuclear program shows a dangerous lack of wisdom, and Senator Feinstein at least is calling President Bush out on that basis.

Right now I believe it is in the World's interests that Americans attempt to play out the electoral clock on the Bush Administration. We need a preventive defense, one that keeps the Bush Administration off of the offensive on Iran. We need a Democratic Congress in 2007, one that can provide a real check on Bush's Presidential Powers. We need the 2006 elections to be a referendum on Republican rule, and Republican priorities. We need the American people to reject Bush's costly and dangerous foreign fiascoes, both the one he mired us in inside Iraq, and the one he threatens to launch us into with Iran.

Senator Feinstein is spot on about the dangers of Bush's preemption doctrine. Senator Feinstein's statement now helps buy time for the American people and the world. She at least states the dangers inherent in Bush's current position toward Iran. She deemphasizes the threat of direct force against Iran, kicking it somewhere down the road, to be possibly looked at after efforts at diplomacy and a possible imposition of international sanctions against Iran. We can all live, literally, with Feinstein's position for the moment.

Here again is the link to Senator Feinstein's full Op-Ed piece:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-feinstein15apr15,0,7075952.story?coll=la-home-commentary

[no name no slogan]

21. We've already nuked Iraq, Bosnia, Serbia, countless others

The US has used Depleted Uranium weapons in its conflicts over the last 20 years. Unlike "normal" nuclear radiation, DU particles move around the planet with the winds and weather.

56% of Desert Storm vets have already applied for disability benefits with DU-poisoning symptoms, yet the government still refuses to acknowledge the effects of DU.

Iran is not the problem here. Our government is.

[cascadiance]

22. And we still have a lot of problems from Agent Orange in Vietnam...

The problems with dioxin-infested areas from Agent-Orange bombing still have toxic effects on children born today. We still even have many affected in Hiroshima and other areas in Japan with residual generational effects of radiation there. We didn't learn from thoes experiences and "evolved" our weapons program into the even more dangerous depleted uranium, and now are threatening to use real nuclear bombs as the next step! We need to say no! We need to not accept the continued efforts to coverup the insidious effects of these weapons, and insist that they be stopped and that we don't make matters even worse with a new generation of weaponry that could have even worse after effects. Areas of the former Soviet Union are also still permanently damaged from the effects of nuclear radiation from their testing as are parts of Nevada in our country. Those areas affected by depleted uranium will never be the same in ours or our children's lifetimes.

[UrbScotty]

24. You sure this is Dianne and not Barbara? (nt)