Media Alert: Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions?

-

Tomorrow at noon Pacific Time, I will be on with Warren Olney of KCRW’s To The Point. I think that the show runs live at 3 pm in DC — and then is replayed at 9 or 10 pm.
I will be chatting with Olney Iran’s nuclear intentions and what we are trying to do about them.
On other fronts, I’ll be speaking with Ian Masters on his show, Background Briefing on Sunday — and then speaking at UCLA’s Hammer Museum in Los Angeles along with John Judis and others on Tuesday evening next week on “Foreign Policy After the Bush Administration” (though my name still does not appear on the program — soon to be fixed I think)
And Saturday, I’ll be on with Bill Scher’s new radio show, Liberal Oasis Radio, on the Iran bombing question.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

10 comments on “Media Alert: Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions?

  1. erichwwk says:

    sandy wrote: “I’ve said it before so here again-The psychological term is projection- Americans worry so much about others using nuclear weapons, while we are the only country to have actually used such weapons on people-twice!”
    It’s much worse than that. We are attempting to support India’s nuclear weapon program, despite it not being a signatory to the NPT, to counter China, and ignore Israel’s reported 250 nuclear weapons.
    But worse of all, There is some attempt to in the Senate (led by NM Senators Domenici and Bingaman)to start up a whole new Nuclear and Space Arms race, beginning with the Reliable Replacement Warhead (No, the existing warheads are NOT unreliable, but the program name was chosen explicitly to give that public perception). The House has overwhelmingly voted no, with NM Rep. Udall’s statement yesterday at the Santa FE Capital indicating that he now understands (and will support) the house vote in the reconciliation process. http://tinyurl.com/2ve2dw
    Heck if it’s fair to bomb others to eliminate nuclear weapons, Albuquerque NM would be a prime target, storing in the neighborhood of 3,000 nuclear warheads adjacent to an international airport and significant civilian population (Kirkland AFB).
    Bad as Hitler may have been, his death camps were at least humane in their execution. I venture that those supporting the US high tech version of Auschwitz being built at LANL, have never seen or talked to victims of the two US implementations of our civilian death camps in Japan.
    And a few asides: While Sarin gas was developed under Hitler’s watch, he did considered it too inhumane to use against civilian populations. Second, while my evidence is not conclusive, it does appear to me the Werner Heisenberg deliberately sabotaged Germany’s nuclear bomb effort. (Werner was married to Erich Schumacher’s sister (of “Small is Beautiful” fame).
    Finally, as Howard Zinn has written in the “Peoples’ History of the US”, the American view of history is the distorted view of the victor. Just as many Americans still associate Saddam with 9/11
    (the date, ironically that the USAF and the RAF acted similarly in the town I was living at the time, killing over 4 times as many civilians as died in the WTT), so too am I amazed at how many Americans still believe it was Japan that started WWII with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor. Since I am confident Steve knows much more about the prior US war acts against Japan, it might be useful for him to set the record straight here, in some future post, at the appropriate time.

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    karenk… exactly!!!!
    Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

    Reply

  3. karenk says:

    I’ve said it before so here again-The psychological term is projection- Americans worry so much about others using nuclear weapons, while we are the only country to have actually used such weapons on people-twice!

    Reply

  4. Sandy says:

    Thanks for that, ManagedChaos. Very interesting.
    And, it reminded me of this that I read recently:
    http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11640
    September 19, 2007
    The Iranian Conundrum
    by Peter Galbraith and Tom Engelhardt
    TomDispatch
    “Be careful what you wish for – that might be the catch phrase for American relations with Iran since the CIA helped overthrow the elected government of that country in 1953 and installed the young shah in power. Much of our present world – and many of our present problems in the Middle East and Central Asia – stem from that particular act of imperial hubris. The shah’s Iran was then regarded by successive American administrations not just as a potential regional power, but as our regional bulwark, our imperial outpost. The U.S. helped bulk up the shah’s military, as well as his fearsome secret police,
    and, under President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program,
    actually started Iran down the nuclear road that today leaves some administration figures threatening bloody murder, even while former Centcom commander John Abizaid claims that an Iranian bomb would not be the end of the universe.
    (“There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran. … Let’s face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with [other] nuclear powers as well.”)
    The White House has reportedly given secret approval for covert operations to “destabilize” Iran and, evidently, its backing to small-scale terror strikes inside that country, while Iranian influence inside Shi’ite Iraq remains (as it has long been) significant. Meanwhile, a war of words (and charges) only escalates. President Bush heightened the anti-Iranian rhetoric in his Sept. 13 post-Petraeus-hearings address, while an escalating campaign of charges against the activities of Iran and its Revolutionary Guards in Iraq continues to intensify, just as reports are coming out that the Pentagon is building a new base in Iraq, right up against the Iranian border. The Iranian nuclear situation remains at a boil.
    There are also regular, if shadowy, reports that Vice President Cheney’s office is pushing hard for a shock-and-awe air campaign against Iran….” (clip)

    Reply

  5. ManagedChaos says:

    I’ll give you a clue as to why reporting on this issue is so fucked up….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY

    Reply

  6. bakho says:

    I am appalled by the reporting on Iran. Iran is a sworn enemy of al Qaeda. Iran almost went to war with the Taliban before 9/11 when Iranian diplomats were killed. Iranians were sympathetic to the US after 911. There were no Iranians involved in the 911 attacks. Iran and Saudi Arabia are opposing interests. Some of the 911 attackers were Saudis. The reporting on Iran is mostly backward.

    Reply

  7. Sandy says:

    Me either.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I will be chatting with Olney Iran’s nuclear intentions and what we are trying to do about them.”
    And whats this “we” shit? There is NO WAY that these criminal sons of bitches in Washington represent “we” as in “the American people”. You think tankers might consider yourselves part of the collective “we” of the despicable Washington scum that are bringing this nation to its knees with lies, fear mongering, and murderous military campaigns based on propaganda and war profiteering, but don’t include us simple citizens in the cesspool of human excrement that passes for America’s modern “leaders”.
    “We”, my ass. I can think of no greater insult than to be placed in such company.

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I’ll bite, Steve. Just what the hell are “Iran’s nuclear intentions”? I don’t expect a straight answer from you, because you have been rattling the same swords Bush is, albeit a bit more vaquely.
    Now, I’m asking you straight out. What are Irans “nuclear intentions”, and so what?
    Tell ya what, I see the same fucking horseshit playing out about Iran that we saw playing out about Iraq. And these bastards that are feeding us this fear mongering crap are evil to their core.
    Where do YOU stand? SPECIFICALLY, without all the bullshit.

    Reply

  10. JohnH says:

    The real question is: why would Iran even need nuclear weapons if it can achieve the deterrence equivalent of Mutual Assured Destruction simply by having the conventional capability to wipe out the Persian Gulf’s oil infrastructure? IMHO the whole nuclear issue is just a red herring to avoid having to admit that US foreign policy is driven by oil and that the oil supply is really vulnerable.
    Why not admit the obvious so that we can get down to solving the real problem of our oil consumption gluttony?

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *