The real question is, Why is the
deal being pursued? What exactly is the threat of Iran? That’s the
fundamental question. The deal does constrain what’s called the Iranian Threat,
but what exactly is the threat? It’s interesting that question is never raised.
Actually, it is raised.
1.
There is [the NPT] Iran is a party to. Many
believe Iran has violated that.
2.
Correct, Iran is
party to it, and Iran has lived up to it. There
are other countries that are not parties to it. Israel, for example, is not
party to it, and has a huge nuclear weapon system. The US protects it. Pakistan
is not a party to it. Its nuclear weapon system was developed through the
United States. India is not a part of it. – Right. – It has an enormous nuclear
weapon system.
3.
But would you argue that Iran having a nuclear
weapons being a good thing?
4.
I don’t think anyone
ought to have the nuclear weapons, including the United States, but that’s not
the issue. If Iran’s alleged noncompliance with the NPT is the issue,
and I add alleged, that certainly doesn’t require sanctions or treaty or any
other actions.
5.
I know you’ve said before the US had no right to
sanction Iran in the first place, but why not? UN also imposed sanctions. And
again, I know that you argued that Iran has not violated the NPT, but others
argue that it did, that it’s gone too far with its enrichment.
6.
If it did, fine. First of all, it’s primarily the
United States, the others are rather mild. But if the countries are opposed to
the violations of the NPT, then Fine, let’s turn to the major violators:
Israel, Pakistan and India. I don’t think
anyone ought to have nuclear weapons. But notice
that the analysis of the US intelligence is pretty reasonable. There’s nothing
Iran could do with nuclear weapon except as a deterrent. And
there are two countries in the region that do not want Iran to have a
deterrent; the two countries that freely use Force and Violence in the region:
primarily the United Staes, and secondarily Israel.
7.
There are a lot more countries in the World that
don’t want Iran [to have, etc.]
8.
I said these are the major ones, these are the
major ones by far. There are plenty of countries that are ugly and do ugly things.
But take a look at the scale. There are no countries that rampage like anything
like to that extent. Furthermroe, the US is quite open about it. Just in the
last few days, Ashton Carter, commentators like Thomas Friedman, our ambassador
Samantha Power have stated quite openly that if we choose, we will use Force
against Iran. There is something called the UN Charter, which bars the threat and
use of Force in international affairs. But US political leaders and leading
commentators across the board say we are not bound by that; if we decide to use
Force, we’ll use Force.
9.
But you’ve argued that the United States are the
World’s leading terrorist threat.
10.
I’m reporting World opinion.
11.
I know you’re reporting the World opinion, but I
think you’ve made that comment yourself.
12.
I agree with it.
13.
Exactly, you agree with it. You cite among other
things, the global assassination campaign, referring to drone strikes. But what
would you do if these people are plotting against the US in far-flung and
difficult-to-access places?
14.
If they’re plotting against the US. This happens to be the 800 th anniversary of Magna Carta,
which in a limited way established what has become a major principle of Law,
namely Presumption of Innocence. Until someone is charged in a Court of Law
with a Jury of Peers in a criminal act, they’re innocent. If
we feel free to attack people anywhere and kill them who we claim might harm us
in the future. If anyone else did that, we’d nuke them. [Omitted.]
No comments:
Post a Comment