open Democracy News Analysis - multilateralism - Comments

markwalters on "Obama's Afghan challenge"

markwalters — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:53:23 +0100

Perhaps Washington thought (or hoped) that the overthrow of the Taliban regime would lead, sooner rather than later, to stableness and prosperity in Afghanistan.

Mark From Greece

Paul Lookman on "Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex "

Paul Lookman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:54:41 +0000

Why is everyone focusing so much on Iran, if the real discussion should be to ban all nuclear arms? During the Cold War, the bomb did have a function: deterrence. The two powers kept each other in balance. But the world has changed. Anybody can acquire nuclear weapons. A terrorist group could get its hands on the technology, or even on a ready-made bomb. A threat that the atomic scientists of the Manhattan Project, who made the first bomb, already realised way back in 1945. Hence their proposal to ban nuclear weapons altogether, the so-called Lillienthal-Acheson Plan. What they feared then now becomes reality: North Korea is a nuclear power, and India, and a very instable Pakistan. Will the US take the lead to ban all nuclear weapons from the world? Including its own?

raghuvanshiramesh on "Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex "

raghuvanshiramesh — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:09:01 +0000

If most dangerious fundamentalist pakishan made newclear weapon, all major nations have atombomb, Why European and american are weepnig when Iran is making newclear energy? Only because they are afraid of Iran?Iran is tiny nation,U.S. can destroy it within few days.Are making Atombomb is only monopoly of rich nation?Really speaking All rich nation donot want another enemy.another compitator.. U.S. think himself policeinspector of world and every nation must obey his order. U.s. want new slavery in the world. Those who donot obey his order that nation is U.S. `s enemy.poor nation have no alternative.. Iran over through U.S. order so allrich nation are showig threat to Iran.

Marjan ZKK on "Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex "

Marjan ZKK — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:03:33 +0000

I do appreciate that this is about the US, Europe and Iran, but Russia and China have played very important roles. I just hope, that the neo-cons on both sides (US and Iran, although, I must say that even the theocratic regime of the Islamic republic of Iran seems almost moderate compared to US foreign policy), or what I would call fascists, will eventually have some sense and rationality. I also hope that the US is not going to try another avenue or excuse for military attack on Iran e.g. under the guise of humanitarian democracy etc.. I truly hate wars. We don't even hear about Afghanistan anymore and the genocide in Iraq is played down. Diplomacy and dialogue, please.

hari_1 on "Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex "

hari_1 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:26:26 +0000

In my view, the authour has fully disallowed or forgotten Moosad role in how GWB/NSC deals or dealt with the issue of a potential "Nuclear Holocaust". Not even in recent US foreign policy history has a NSC in the WH been so dependent on intelligence from Moosad in ISrael. That started when GWB made Sharon/PM of Israel a "peacer maker" in the Israeli-Palestinan issue. Declared Arafat as persona non-grata! The conclusion is that without Mossad intelligence on WH table, GWB could not have taken such a decisively pro-Israel position ever since 2003. The latest NIE assessment is an attempt by US Intelligence Services to re-establish their integrity and, in the process, a red line has been drawn.

nick_myst on "The so-called "war on terror""

nick_myst — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:43:13 +0000

I do hope this initiative gets the attention it deserves. Terrorism needs to be understood as a more complicated phenomenon. Hopefully, the commonwealth countries - since there are so many - can take it to heart... but how do you get a state to see like society? The state only wants society to see like the state.

Bartosz Wasilewski on "Turkey and the Kurds: everybody's problem"

Bartosz Wasilewski — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:42:46 +0000

Hello, I absolutely agree with you, there's a need of cooperate. But everybody knows, how difficult it is. Well we will see how things will go on :) www.ego.wot.pl a new Internet newspaper

patrickcummins on "The IAEA escape route"

patrickcummins — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:56:00 +0100

It would be surprising if Iran had zero interest in nuclear weapons. After all, Washington has made implicit threats of regime change and it rejected the 2003 Iranian offer to settle differences. Yet, it is also extremely difficult to see Iran moving straight ahead to build and test a nuclear device, particularly after all the disavowals that they've given to the world. They would lose all credibility and invite total isolation. It is however plausible that they are pursuing an intermediate path between a military and non-military program. The Iranians are clearly intent on mastering uranium enrichment, and all phases of nuclear fuel production. Once they achieve this they will be in the same position as many other countries in the world, e.g., Japan, Canada, Germany, etc. That is, they will not have nuclear weapons, but, if a decision is taken, they could acquire nuclear weapons within a short period of time. They would, in effect, be a virtual nuclear power. This path would give them some deterrent against a U.S. attack, but without the dangers presented by a full and open pursuit of a weapons program. It is my understanding that many people within the IAEA are of the opinion that Iran is pursuing this middle course.

hari_1 on "The IAEA escape route"

hari_1 — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:12:43 +0100

The comments above are ALL inline with current propaganda and misunderstanding of the historical antecedents of US foreign policy in the region and Iran, in particular. Under GWB and his neocons, US foreign policy in mideast has been devastated and perhaps also made irrelevant now! Sarkozy is also climbing on the zionist/israeli pulpit to eventually disenfranchise France and its historical legacy in Maghreb and Palestine, in particular. IAEA will not submit to dictate from GWB/Condi. That's for sure! Like in Iraq, IAEA will expose the duplicity surrounding US strategic calculations in the region with particular reference to Iran. Don't forget under Pres.Regan, Iran-Contra affair was managed by one Elliott Abrams - dealing with Israeli weapons for Contra support in CentralAmerica! Now, the same Elliott Abrams is NSC adviser to GWB on mideast and, in particular, Palestine and Iran. He also happens to be an active supporter/member of AIPAC. If Sharon became a "peacemaker" for GWB, thereby declaring Arafat perona-non-garata from any WhiteHouse meetings, the influence of Abrams is significant not only with "land for peace" strategy with the Palestinians, but specially with current saber rattling against so-called nuclear ambitions of Iran. There's no technical evidence from AIEA that Iran is capable of making nuclear weapons today! Tomorrow, I'm of the view, Iran will inevitably go nuclear for reasons explicity contained in not only current Israeli propaganda on CapitalHill (thru AIPAC!) but also based on US strategic thinking. There's no way US (France)is willing to accept Iran as a nuclear power in the region. More reason why Iran will go nuclear to deter any aggression against its sovereignty! Why did US accept nuclear Pakistan and India and China and Soviet Union? Would not deterrence be a better way to contain Iran in future - istead of an Israeli-inspired blunder of war? The battle ground for this strategic rhetorics will not be the SC - but IAEA Council - in which event India is now also unlikely to support US posture against Iran! [The US nuclear power agreement with India is also in the process of bringing down the centre-left coalition govt. in New Delhi]. Dr El Baradei of IAEA is a respected international layer (graduated from Columbia University/NY) and has been a diplomat in service to his native country Egypt before going to IAEA as an adviser. He took over the mantle from his Swedish predecessor - who was responsible for WMD inspection in Iraq. If US is bent on undermining IAEA and its legal/technical competence under NPT, there's no reason to believe EU and rest of the members will allow such a development in IAEA Council. Without the authority of IAEA, the rule of the junge will prevail! If that's what Israel/US/France want then they'll surely get it!

reza on "The IAEA escape route"

reza — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:03:31 +0100

blisslight It would be good to have some facts in your comments. Your comments just give your personal views without any evidence of its validity. I respect your views as long as it is accepted that they hold no real value in setting policies or supporting the existing US policy which is very much out of order and lacks credibility. The times of bullying are far gone and such policies will not help in international relationships. The US has to come to terms with the reality of the international law and stop using force in place of diplomacy! This is setting a bad example in the world where democracy has become very fragile entirely due to double standards set by the US and forced upon its allies! If this is an acceptable behaviour; then I am afraid this will be a prefix for other developing nations to follow suite.

ai_1 on "The IAEA escape route"

ai_1 — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:43:48 +0100

The author is a self-described "UK board member of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran". Nothing wrong with that: we live in a democracy and it is perfectly valid to make the case against sanctions and military intervention in Iran. However, anybody expecting this article to be anything but a piece of propaganda will be disappointed. It amasses every single piece of evidence to vindicate the Iranian government and the purity of its intentions, while either dismissing or doesn't even caring to mention any argument to the contrary. Propaganda is legitimate, as are advocacy and special pleading. But, to avoid misleading the unwary, they should be seen for what they are.

nick_myst on "The IAEA escape route"

nick_myst — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:20:48 +0100

This is a case of known unknowns and unknown knowns. We know that Iran has a government committed to keeping itself in power. We know it has a government that wants to shelter itself from international scrutiny and intervention. Ergo, nuclear weapons are very much a possibility, as they provide a deterrence and insulate the leadership. Just because there is "no evidence" (I think the case can be made that there is), doesn't mean that Iran doesn't aspire to have them. That can never be allowed.

Kuri on "The US foreign-policy future: a progressive-realist union? "

Kuri — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:09:21 +0100

Interesting discussion. I always find it odd when Kissenger is included in the canon of Realists. He's classically associated with them, yes, but his political career doesn't really accord very well with their prescriptions. I think the author's criticism of Realism is only partially founded. The chief problem is a seeming inability to recognize any kind of liberal imperialism. Lefty Realists recognize that this is possible.

Anthony Barnett on "One mistake too many"

Anthony Barnett — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:09:00 +0100

JackH: What could the author suggest? Take over the US Airforce? Suggest they make less of them? Make their movements open source and rely on the wisdom of crowds? :-)

nick_myst on "One mistake too many"

nick_myst — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:20:41 +0100

Shocking to read about these screw ups, but it would have been nice if the author gave us more concrete information about what should be done to prevent such mistakes.