President Obama, along with President Nicholas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, announced today that Iran has a secret nuclear facility in Qom, that "happens" to be near a historic holy site by the way, and has been secretly developing nuclear capacities, perhaps for destruction and not energy, nor for medicinal purposes. In a recent Newsweek article President Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to buy enriched uranium for "humanitarian" reasons from the United States.
"We simply don't have the capacity to enrich at 20 percent for medicinal purposes, of the sort that we have in mind, at this stage," Ahmadinejad said. "It's only at 3.5 percent." Hmm? I don't think he knew that the United States have known for many years about its secret facility. But, hey, what nation would give such a secret away? After all, it's a secret. Yes, I know and agree that every nation has to abide by international law, although we thumbed our noses in the face of the United Nations for the past eight years with John Bolton, the Ambassador to the UN, making harrowing disrespectful comments about the community of nations with noble ambitions that's on the soil of the United States.
Chancellor Merkel of Germany was not present during the announcement this morning but sent a word of affirmation with the other leaders. It is also believed that President Medvedev of Russia is in agreement with these world leaders. The challenge now seems to get China aboard for UN sanctions. Such sanctions have worked for North Korea, although, of course, it continues with its nuclear development. But we wink and nod when necessary. America does so with civil rights issues with China in exchange for our debt society. England does so with its relationship with Libya as 400% of its oil deriving from that country. (Yeah, we know that the release of the Lockerbie bomber had nothing to do with oil, right?) Germany with its large trade agreements with Iran. Each country does things that benefits its own interest.
There seems to be broad support from our allies and others as well, including Russia and possibly China. It is believed that if Russia agrees China will follow suit. But as I listened to President Obama, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown give their statements, I could not help but to wonder have they also insisted that other countries such as Israel not enriched uranium for destruction. Has Israel bought enriched uranium from us? Maybe this is simply what President Ahmadinejad wants. Silly man! I could not help but to wonder if such a stance has been taken with Israel and such scrutiny of facilities its facility investigated. Perhaps its President's Ahmadinejad's rhetoric or "serial deception" as Prime Minister Brown puts it that gets in the way.
It has been long believed that Israel has nuclear capacities for destruction. There are many justifiable reasons for this its allies might contend being in an area surrounded by enemies. But is this a secrecy not allowed by the community of nations? Is it the protection of America that allows a lesser stance and scrutiny? If so, how is this viewed in the world at large? The take of the west on this matter may be one thing, but the outlook on the world at large wholly another. Iran has a long rich proud history, which unfortunately includes the United States' invasion and installation of a leader, and it does not wish to be dictated to when it comes to their safety, especially if there is not a level playing field and one of the most powerful military nations is aligned with its enemy, real or assumed.
Does any of this make sense or am I just terribly naive on such matters?
Showing posts with label Mahmoud Ahamdinejad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mahmoud Ahamdinejad. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad III
President Obama was asked in his press conference last night about engaging Iran and I thought his answer was very thoughtful and respectful:
President Obama:
"I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world...My expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face with diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in the new direction...So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress."
Speaking to a rally in Freedom square today, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to welcome engagement with the U.S.
President Ahamdinejad:
"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect...The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to bring changes and follow the path of dialogue. It is very clear that changes have to be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear that the Iranian nation welcomes true changes."
This a good start towards normalized relations based on mutual respect.
Words matter.
President Obama:
"I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world...My expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face with diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in the new direction...So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there's the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress."
Speaking to a rally in Freedom square today, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to welcome engagement with the U.S.
President Ahamdinejad:
"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect...The new U.S. government has announced that it wants to bring changes and follow the path of dialogue. It is very clear that changes have to be fundamental and not tactical. It is clear that the Iranian nation welcomes true changes."
This a good start towards normalized relations based on mutual respect.
Words matter.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Being Mahmoud Ahmadinejad II
The Associated Foreign Press records this account after President-elect Obama indicated that while Iran "remained a threat" to America that we would be "willing to initiate diplomacy."
This was President Ahmadinejad's response in a press conference according to the AFP:
" 'If changes are fundamental, genuine and based on respect... we wait and see and do not make premature judgement,' Ahmadinejad said in a press conference, broadcast live on state television.
"He had been asked about Tehran's stance toward normalisation of ties with Washington.
"'The first change we expect is that the United States should limit its interference (to) within its borders,' he said. 'They have been oppressing our people for 58 years now... they must change their attitude toward us.
"The Iranian president also called the policy of carrot and stick an 'outdated' one. 'If it is the continuation of the wrong and arrogant policies, the result is predictable,' he added."
Are either responses unreasonable? Is this not a good start to diplomacy?
This was President Ahmadinejad's response in a press conference according to the AFP:
" 'If changes are fundamental, genuine and based on respect... we wait and see and do not make premature judgement,' Ahmadinejad said in a press conference, broadcast live on state television.
"He had been asked about Tehran's stance toward normalisation of ties with Washington.
"'The first change we expect is that the United States should limit its interference (to) within its borders,' he said. 'They have been oppressing our people for 58 years now... they must change their attitude toward us.
"The Iranian president also called the policy of carrot and stick an 'outdated' one. 'If it is the continuation of the wrong and arrogant policies, the result is predictable,' he added."
Are either responses unreasonable? Is this not a good start to diplomacy?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Being Mahmoud Ahamdinejad
Mahmoud Ahamdinejad delivered an "alternative" Christmas message on British TV yesterday where he praised the prophets of all faiths, including Jesus, for a message of peace. Some might say that such a message is indeed the antithesis of peace where there are accusations that Iranians who convert to Christianity are persecuted.
If one listened to the message with non-prejudiced ears, perhaps such is impossible when considering past rhetoric, one might find grains of truth upon which to find commonality. (What a great historical and cultural society Iran once was! Have religious factions hijacked a great country?) The message caused some backlash across the pond.
President Ahamdinejad has been labeled a tyrant. He has been criticized and labeled "evil" by many for his efforts to secure nuclear weapons and his rhetoric on Israel. (Would such rhetoric have been heard during the Cold War between Russia and the US in public and private?) Listening to his speech before the United Nations this year, I was not incredibly alarmed by President Ahamdinejad's words.
In fact, I must admit to being somewhat impressed with some of what was said. (Perhaps with all the hype and the absence of American officials during the speech I was expecting so much worse.) I must also admit to not being a foreign policy expert. My impression came simply from what appeared to be a message of peace and a rational humanistic belief in justice. (Maybe there was a bit too much emphasis on God as if his voice represented such to the exclusion of others. Dunno.) I had not heard President Ahamdinejad speak before then.
President Ahamdinejad has said that his rhetoric is in opposition to unjust policies. I am sure that he will see what happened today in Gaza as unjust. Today Israel responded to Hamas rockets and mortars with air strikes in Gaza killing some 364 Palestinians and wounding nearly 1,000. I am not a foreign policy expert but if a group is armed with fighter jets and weapons from the West and the others are fighting with rockets and mortars, would not others in the region seek to make the war even through both weapons and rhetoric? We can probably expect The People's Mujahideen and Hezbollah to react with support of Hamas.
"Hit every Zionist house in Israel" was Hamas' reply. Again, I am not a foreign expert, but maybe one need not be to understand basic human reactions. If Israel had not the military support of the West, would the fight be fair? Would suicide bombs lessen? If the West would withdrawal military support for Israel would the tension in the Middle East ease? Would tyranny and terrorism lessen?
Am I being terribly naive? Speak to me.
If one listened to the message with non-prejudiced ears, perhaps such is impossible when considering past rhetoric, one might find grains of truth upon which to find commonality. (What a great historical and cultural society Iran once was! Have religious factions hijacked a great country?) The message caused some backlash across the pond.
President Ahamdinejad has been labeled a tyrant. He has been criticized and labeled "evil" by many for his efforts to secure nuclear weapons and his rhetoric on Israel. (Would such rhetoric have been heard during the Cold War between Russia and the US in public and private?) Listening to his speech before the United Nations this year, I was not incredibly alarmed by President Ahamdinejad's words.
In fact, I must admit to being somewhat impressed with some of what was said. (Perhaps with all the hype and the absence of American officials during the speech I was expecting so much worse.) I must also admit to not being a foreign policy expert. My impression came simply from what appeared to be a message of peace and a rational humanistic belief in justice. (Maybe there was a bit too much emphasis on God as if his voice represented such to the exclusion of others. Dunno.) I had not heard President Ahamdinejad speak before then.
President Ahamdinejad has said that his rhetoric is in opposition to unjust policies. I am sure that he will see what happened today in Gaza as unjust. Today Israel responded to Hamas rockets and mortars with air strikes in Gaza killing some 364 Palestinians and wounding nearly 1,000. I am not a foreign policy expert but if a group is armed with fighter jets and weapons from the West and the others are fighting with rockets and mortars, would not others in the region seek to make the war even through both weapons and rhetoric? We can probably expect The People's Mujahideen and Hezbollah to react with support of Hamas.
"Hit every Zionist house in Israel" was Hamas' reply. Again, I am not a foreign expert, but maybe one need not be to understand basic human reactions. If Israel had not the military support of the West, would the fight be fair? Would suicide bombs lessen? If the West would withdrawal military support for Israel would the tension in the Middle East ease? Would tyranny and terrorism lessen?
Am I being terribly naive? Speak to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)