This isn’t just a great speech. This is the speech that should have been given to the Muslim world by President John Kerry in 2005. In the time between then and now, Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has evidently had a lot of time to think about what a mature, balanced relationship between America and Islam looks like. It’s the rare speech — Cairo was one of them — that actually offers a synthesis of many of the seemingly intractable problems within that relationship and cleverly adjudicates a positive-sum path forward.
I could excerpt Kerry’s speech to the U.S.-Islamic World Forum all day and not do it justice, so I’m going to put the full text after the jump. For now, check out this section, about what won’t be solved by a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine:
I know that everyone here understands the urgent need for peace. But peace alone will not solve all the region’s problems. Ask yourselves: If peace were delivered tomorrow, would it meet the job needs of the entire region? How many more children would it send to school? Who really believes that Iran would suddenly abandon its nuclear ambitions? So we know that Israel/Palestine is central but we must develop a much more practical partnership that extends well beyond regional conflicts.
Saying those words to this audience takes both balls and brains. And the whole speech is like that. Not cheap, not oppositional, but frank and thoughtful and constructive and penetrating. It should be distributed widely, so, after the jump, the full text. I’ll close my remarks by saying that it’s a bit of a parlor game among progressives to quietly breathe a sigh of relief that Kerry lost the 2004 election, so that the horrors of the interceding four years avoided a potential decimation of the progressive agenda. After this speech, I think all that ends.
As salaam alaikum. Thank you for the kind introduction. I want to thank the Brookings Project for convening this important discussion. I’m grateful to His Excellency Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim, Strobe Talbott, Martin Indyk, and all those involved in putting this Forum together. And I am pleased to be here with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. There are an extraordinary number of thoughtful, experienced leaders from many different walks of life assembled here, and I am privileged to share my thoughts with you.
We gather at a time when many have serious doubts about whether real progress has been made since President Obama’s historic speech in Cairo. We can’t speak honestly at a Forum like this without recognizing the widespread frustration many people feel. Much of it is justified. Some of it is not.
But it is important to remember where we began. For a decade, our relationship was framed by trauma and terrorism, by two ongoing wars and political conflict—and the fallout only polarized us further. Many Muslims perceived the United States as an aggressor – projecting its power solely to protect its own security and economic interests, usually at the expense of Muslim countries. Too many in western societies implicitly, and at times explicitly, blamed an entire religion for the unholy violence of a few. This left many Muslims angry and alienated and complicated the task for leaders in the region.
At the same time, suicide bombers and extremists dominated the daily news. While credible and respected Muslim voices did publicly condemn the fanaticism and violence, their actions received little attention from the media and policymakers. Too often, the extremists defined an “us versus them” discourse, and all of us suffered for it.
Since President Obama took office, we have witnessed a dramatic shift. While expectations were perhaps too high that the world would change overnight, we know that his words and our subsequent actions were just the beginning of a long road.
Major challenges remain for all of us in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. We also have to collectively address poverty and stand up for democratic values and human rights. It is especially important that we remain united in preventing Iran’s nuclear program from setting off an arms race in the region. Make no mistake. Iran is not being singled out — it has chosen to defy an international nonproliferation regime that is in all of our interests to enforce. President Obama has joined many others in calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. Believe me, the road to zero does not run through a nuclear-armed Tehran.
Undoubtedly the most crucial and most vexing of all issues is how we can revitalize a Mideast peace process that delivers peace—not just process—because if we don’t do it now, the door may well shut forever. And no one can overstate the dangers of another generation growing up knowing only conflict.
The truth is we have in these past months taken some important steps. Today, we are in a fundamentally better place than we were a year ago. Quiet accomplishments and new attitudes and polices have put our partnerships on firmer footing.
Let me be specific. First, America is striving to think and talk differently about Islam. We reject—publicly and categorically—the demonization of a religion and recognize our need for deeper understanding. Our values and our history remind us constantly that religious bigotry – whether it is anti-Semitism or Islamophobia – has no place in our public life. America was founded by those seeking freedom of religion, and all Western countries need to recognize that banning burqas or minarets is contrary to our shared values. It builds unnecessary walls between Muslims and the rest of society. It’s insulting, and it only exacerbates tensions.
Second, we must acknowledge that a serious debate is now underway within Muslim communities over how best to address extremism and combat prejudice. This is an important development because ultimately, it is those communities that are best positioned to find solutions that resonate. I want to commend His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan for his signature work in promoting Muslim-Christian dialogue through “A Common Word” initiative, which attracts more signatories every day. I want to also recognize His Majesty King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for promoting interreligious dialogue. And of course, the Qataris deserve great credit for hosting forums like this one.
Third, the United States is reaching out to the next generation and cultivating people-to-people relationships. President Obama has created new science envoys and exchange programs. Our space program, NASA, is welcoming Muslim students from around the world and financing a research program in the Gulf. And Secretary of State Clinton has appointed a Special Representative to Muslim Communities who is focused on people-to-people engagement, Farah Pandith, who is here with us today. All of these initiatives add up to a different attitude and a different approach.
Let me share with you a story that embodies one important aspect of this new partnership. Before last year’s Hajj, there were warnings of a potential pandemic outbreak of H1N1 flu. So the United States sent Dr. Osama Ibrahim, an Egyptian-American public health expert at our Centers for Disease Control, and four other Muslim-American doctors to Mecca. His team worked with their Saudi hosts on a cutting-edge program to contain the flu using smart-phones for real-time disease mapping. And guess what? It worked. Defying the odds, there was no spike in H1N1 flu cases after the Hajj. Dr. Ibrahim’s hosts were so moved that they invited him and his colleagues to stand in the holy places and perform the Hajj themselves.
And this kind of outreach goes in both directions. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Islamic Relief charity delivered aid to 60,000 people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Just last month, the Red Crescent and other humanitarian groups from Muslim-majority countries again rushed to deliver aid to Haitians in desperate need. I want to extend a special thanks to Prime Minister Erdogan for sending Turkey’s excellent search and rescue teams to Haiti – a 7-year-old girl and many other Haitians owe their lives to those Turkish efforts.
So all of these are concrete actions, which individually may seem insignificant to some, when taken together, make a tangible difference. They point a way forward, and we need to create more partnerships just like them. I know in your working groups you will be doing just that.
For my part, I intend to work to create a new, long-term exchange program between the United States and Muslim-majority countries. This will involve public-private partnerships—funded jointly by governments and companies so that Americans and citizens from Muslim-majority countries can work together in fields like science, journalism, business, arts, and culture. This idea is in the early stages, and I welcome your expertise and support in defining it as we go forward.
That’s one small step in building bridges. But ultimately, and particularly if local leaders do the right thing, our relationship will not be defined in religious terms nor should it be. It will be defined by our success in tackling the traditional issues we all face – how to put people to work, how to provide healthcare, and how to educate our youth.
Nothing will be more crucial in this effort than addressing the demographic explosion of young people across the broader Middle East. This “youth bulge” will inevitably drive change in Muslim societies, and ought to drive our policy and partnership as well. When people see their governments fail to address their basic needs, when they see no hope for escaping from poverty and improving their lives, seemingly intractable problems will become truly insurmountable.
On the other hand, if we find ways to work together—to improve governance, to help create worthwhile jobs, and to do a better job of integrating youth socially, politically and economically—then a new generation can also be a new opportunity for both sides to redefine our relationship. That’s why we should commend the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations in partnership with the State of Qatar for launching Silatech, a creative initiative that addresses young people’s critical and growing need for jobs and economic opportunity.
But for societies to harness their full potential, we also need to address the aspirations of women. Countries cannot expect to be competitive if half the workforce is economically marginalized or denied rights and opportunities. While this effort sometimes runs hard up against cultures and traditions, as we in America learned with the election of our first African-American president, once a barrier has been broken, we wonder how it could ever have stood for so long.
To fundamentally change the dynamic, however, we must address the one issue that has been at the emotional core of America’s relations with the world’s Muslims throughout my public life. We all know what it is: The need for lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And we all know that a two-state solution remains the only workable solution, and the only just solution—and America cannot and will not stop fighting for it.
I recognize that many here are particularly frustrated with the lack of progress over the past year, as we are in America. I know the failure to achieve a complete settlement freeze in the last months has profoundly disappointed many in the Arab world. Let me make it clear: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. But we are where we are, and we simply cannot allow this issue to become an excuse to point fingers or derail final status negotiations. Because as elusive as significant progress sometimes seems, the truth is we all know where the finish line is. All that is needed is the will and the leadership to get there.
Remember that it was not so long ago, at the end of the Clinton Administration, when Israelis and Palestinians came closer than ever to defining a comprehensive peace agreement. Based on his intensive personal involvement, Bill Clinton set forth parameters that included tough sacrifices on both sides—and a compromise that was fair to all: A contiguous Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with land swaps; security guarantees for Israel; a capital for both states in Jerusalem; and significant compensation for refugees, with a right of return to Palestine and any resettlement in Israel subject to negotiation.
Then in 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative, since endorsed by every Arab country, provided another key piece to the final puzzle: The promise for Israel that a comprehensive peace agreement would bring normalized relations with the Arab world.
While new leaders have emerged, I believe the Clinton parameters and the Arab Peace Initiative still provide the only realistic basis for lasting peace and security – and I’m confident that deep down, most of the Israeli and Palestinian people understand this as well.Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must reach an agreement, and live with the results. But America has a vital role to play as an effective broker, and we must remain deeply involved with a sense of urgency. Israel is one of our closest allies and always will be, but Israel is most secure when America is actively engaged. And I commend Senator Mitchell and this Administration for staying committed and refusing to cede the initiative to the extremists.
To move forward, America must help the parties progress as rapidly as possible from proximity talks to direct negotiations with all of the issues on the table. Personally, I suspect that progress can be made most easily on the borders first, and significantly, this will help to resolve the issue of West Bank settlements and lay the groundwork for reaching agreement on other issues.
And while America’s role is vital, let’s be clear: We must all be partners in this effort.
First, Gulf states and the entire region must do more to support Palestinian state building. Prime Minister Fayyad has laid out a detailed plan for strengthening Palestinian institutions. This effort needs greater Arab support, and I urge you to find ways to deliver it.
Second, the Arab world cannot simply wait for Israeli-Palestinian peace before improving relations with Israel. Building trust must be a step-by-step process, and the region must recognize Israel’s desire for acceptance and its fundamental need for security. And perhaps most importantly, the leading voices in the Arab world have a vital role to play with their people in creating the atmosphere for lasting peace with Israel.
Finally, we must address the dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza. One year ago, I saw firsthand the devastation there – and it is a tragedy that so little has been rebuilt since then. In southern Israel, I also saw the toll that Hamas rockets had inflicted in a barrage that no country would endure interminably. But our grievance is not with the people of Gaza. We will all benefit by finding ways to allow them to rebuild their homes and their lives without empowering those who seek violence.
I know that everyone here understands the urgent need for peace. But peace alone will not solve all the region’s problems. Ask yourselves: If peace were delivered tomorrow, would it meet the job needs of the entire region? How many more children would it send to school? Who really believes that Iran would suddenly abandon its nuclear ambitions? So we know that Israel/Palestine is central but we must develop a much more practical partnership that extends well beyond regional conflicts.
Out of this conference must come a broader commitment to the day to day challenges of the region. That is how we are ultimately going to define our relationships, not by the distinctions between religions, but by our common humanity, not by the Osama Bin Ladens of the world who are seeking to destroy, but by the Osama Ibrahims who are working to heal.
Today we are all neighbors with more in common than could possibly separate us. We have a duty to engage with each other. The Abrahamic faiths—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam– have to find new meaning in the old notion of our shared descent. The good news I see is that, for all the challenges our differences present, all of the major religions do have a sense of universal values—a moral truth based on the dignity of all human beings.
Gandhi called the world’s religions “beautiful flowers from the same garden.” Every religion embraces a form of the Golden Rule, and the supreme importance of charity, compassion, and human improvement.
And if we remember those common principles, if we respect each other and work hard to bridge our differences then—inshallah, god willing—that is kind of partnership we can build.



86 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Excellent, Sen Kerry!
Spencer, is the text online anywhere other than here? Teh Googlez aren’t showing it.
(And if you typed this puppy in from a transcript, my hat’s off to you.)
John Kerry nullified his Statesman eligibility with his vote for the authorization of the Iraq war.
Kerry’s speech also ignores the 900 lb. gorilla in the room, Israel’s vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. If the United States ceased paying Egypt $3 billion each year so that they play nice with Israel, Old Hosni would probably be making nukes as well.
Nuclear technology is over 60 years old. The cat is out of the bag. America can not afford to bribe everyone to refrain from obtaining them. Nor can America afford to attack every state that tries to obtain nukes.
Best we can do is practice containment and employ a more humble foreign policy.
It should be on his website, or the SFRC website, no? I posted the transcript after it was emailed to me…
George Washington said it best:
– Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, November 4, 1796
the Beltway mindset must be so comforting, so cozy to those who accept all its premises.
but actually, Senator Kerry and Mr. Ackerman, it is perfectly clear that the United States does “accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements” because the United States is doing nothing significant in response to the blatant disregard for stated US policy coming from the tiny, dependent client state.
on the other hand, when it comes to Iran’s [alleged] nuclear ambitions, this is something the United States clearly has a problem with, and is acting constantly on all fronts, including unrelenting propaganda and now sanctions, covert ops in country, support for Iranian dissident and even terrorist groups like the MEK.
so we know what it looks like when the United States really doesn’t accept something. The blasé non-response to Israel’s continued settlement activity and house demolitions speaks for itself, and unfortunately that makes the words John Kerry utters appear to be lies.
to those outside of Beltway policy-wonk circles, that is.
Cudos Senator Kerry , a great speech , would like to hear more of the same
forget the other Senator ,douchebag is what comes to mind
Will you ever learn, Kerry had a run; he showed no ability, no smarts, no nothing. Get over him, we have many good people.
alright admittedly off-topic but are we hailing the same guy who BASHED our free choice in healthcare in deference to his union buddies and big business??? Sure Max Baucus will get his well deserved share of the blame (over the lack of a score) but why won’t John Kerry for his kissing up to his local defense contractor, Raytheon that asked him to vote it down??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORkY3mHGzAI
thanks for the attention to the speech.
Every single International student (now over a hundred) I ask (not in ear shot of one another) Is the I/P conflict were to be fairly resolved how quickly would things change” Tomorrow is the answer out of
As visions of “Don’t tase me, bro!” with Kerry looking on as a deer dazed in headlights dances in my mind.
He’s just another corporate/political hack with the ethics to match.
Another master of rhetoric without substance.
Come on now, Obama has only been in office for a year. He can do it if you give him some more time.
Is Turkey part of your brief? I would think the drafters took some care with “errors and omissions” given that Erdogan was there. Considering what Turkey, a NATO member, and ally, has been working on in Afghanistan, Iran, Azebaijan, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Iraq and many other places, and why they say they are doing it, the absence of any notice is, I would think, a notice of disapproval from quite a high-level. Maybe you could ask Kerry’s office.
John Kerry, Statesman? LOL
He has his moments…something Ive been reading including his post-VietNam “how many die for a mistake” speech. It certainly is still a stand-up speech….
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Stephen Hill’s Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age hosted by Dan Keleman
I can’t hear what Kerry’s saying because the disgusting beat on the Iran war drums drowns out any thing he could offer. I’m damn sick of the increasingly loud drum beat for the next grand excursion,Iran, fools. John when do you intend to renounce our disgusting not only nuclear ambitions but the juvenile deployment of the atomic weapons against Japan ,our now ally, and the indiscriminate contamination of Iraq with depleted uranium.
Peace indeed !
Well, I voted for him in 2004 and think he would have made a better president than Bush. And the speech is certainly an improvement over what we are accustomed to hearing from Bush’s henchmen.
Although this is, indeed, a fine speech, I would hesitate to call it great. To be great, it should at least have admitted qualms about the so-called “two state” solution. Where else in the world to we endorse an apartheid solution to ethnic diversity? The Israeli policy is clear: slice and dice the Palestinian territories until nothing is left that can be independently governed, disable and immobilize Palestinian institutions to eliminate organized resistance, and herd the remaining Palestinians into smaller and increasingly unsustainable parcels of land. It is as if the Israelis have decided that the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian.
I used to be Pro-Israeli. As a grad student, I visited Occupied Jordan and lived for 4 months in an Arab village in Occupied Jordan (AKA the West Bank). But I also visited friends on the Israeli side, and went on a private tour into the Sinai peninsula and Gaza. The Lex Talionis has prevailed for too long in that small land, leading to a population with far too many eyeless and toothless people (at least metaphorically). The Lex Talionis is the way of death, in a land that has seen far too much death. A new way forward must be found.
Kerry’s speech helps, and represents a significant improvement over President Bushes eager pandering to Ariel Sharon, but fundamentally offers nothing new.
Bob in AZ
It wasn’t “post-Vietnam”.
I don’t see what the fuss is about. Kerry’s speech is really more of the standard BS. As pointed out by others, Israel’s nukes don’t rate a mention. Israel’s ransacking of Gaza is put on par with Hamas’ small rocket attacks just over the border in Israel. Kerry praises Clinton’s end of term peace initiative without really exploring why Arafat rejected it. He ignores Israel’s bantuization of the West Bank or its current fascist government. He praises too the KSA even though the Saudis run the most restrictive dictatorship in the Arab world. Indeed he ignores how unrepresentative most Arab governments are.
For just dissembling note
He does not say he rejects Israeli settlements, just continued ones. He doesn’t point out that this failure was Israel’s fault. Instead he says he shouldn’t get in the way, but how can it not? How can you have a final settlement if Israel is unwilling to do even this?
Finally, Kerry continues to back a two state approach. The problem is that the two state solution died with Rabin in 1995. With a few tweaks this is the Establishment hoohah we have heard coming out of various administrations for 15-20 years and we all know how well it all turned out.
“I know that everyone here understands the urgent need for peace. But peace alone will not solve all the region’s problems.”
Peace would be a damnably good start, and the Trillions spend on wars could instantly be used to create jobs in the region.
Turn off financial support to Israel, insist on dismantling all Jewish settlements, prosecute Israel’s war crimes. That would be meaningful.
This is nothing but same old BS.
What’s up with Ackerman?
Reminds me of someone else who makes “great” speeches, and then proceeds to either do nothing or distance himself from the message (take a guess). Please, no more “great” speeches. He voted against the Dorgan Reimportation Amendment (after he said he was for it). Remember those disgraceful days when seniors had to make those trips to Canada only to be shaken down and their meds confiscated by the US border security forces on their way back home. I do. Kerry is richer than any of us could dream of being but at the end of the day he folds just like the rest of his gang. Like the POTUS, he will pose and posture, but sadly offer nothing.
I agree with those who have criticized this speech as not anything but the same Beltway common wisdom that isn’t wise at all.
We are causing the suffering in Gaza. We are dismantling any hope of a two state solution based on a Palestinian West Bank. We are the power behind Zionism and have been since 1947 when Britain gave up that role. So we are responsible for what happens and any assertion by Kerry that it’s up to the Israelis and Palestinians to fix the problem is pure garbage.
why are we responsible for the actions of other groups of people?
involved isn’t different from responsible?
“statesman” my a##…
you applaud this crap?
How many lies does he include? Let me count them…
lie #1. “Make no mistake. Iran is not being singled out — it has chosen to defy an international nonproliferation regime that is in all of our interests to enforce.”
truth: Iran is being singled out. Israel and several other Middle Eastern countries have illegally and covertly accumulated vast numbers of nuclear weapons. Iran is not attempting to enrich uranium to the degree needed to make a nuke. In fact they just agreed to ship their uranium to Russia for enrichment to 20% for medical purposes as demanded by the White House in their first attempt to justify attacking Iran. They declaired, on time, as per the non-proliferation agreement, their intention to build a facility to enrich uranium.
Kerry, a chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee certainly knows this to be true. Therefore he is LYING.
lie #2. “The truth is we have in these past months taken some important steps. Today, we are in a fundamentally better place than we were a year ago. Quiet accomplishments and new attitudes and polices have put our partnerships on firmer footing.”
truth: This is a lie of ommission as much as anything else. Kerry knows full well that “we” are NOT in a “fundamentally better place” if the “we” he is talking about includes the people of Palestine. They are MUCH MUCH worse off. The blockade is still killing people in Gaza, Palestinians are loosing thier homes in East Jerusalem at a much faster rate, and the peace activists in Israel are being cracked down upon with a viciousness since the Goldstone report came out. In short, the situation in Palestine is deteriating at a tremendous rate.
The LAST thing we need is another “progressive” whitewashing the situation there to make the Obama administration look good.
Lie #3. “A contiguous Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with land swaps; security guarantees for Israel”
“with land swaps”… what does that mean? That means that Israel keeps the settlements they have created by force in the Palestinian territories, land that is the best to have with access to water rights and so forth, and Israel gives up some uninhabitable desert. And where exactly is the “security guarantees” for Palestine? Palestine just lost 1,400 souls to illegal and aggressive war crimes at the hands of the state of Israel and we are expected to applaud “statesman” Kerry for insisting on protections for the nation that committed these crimes?
That’s your “progressive” statesman?
Ahmadinejad, Statesman
“The American public has not been informed by the US news media about highly newsworthy statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday February 12.
He said the era of nuclear weapons is over, suggesting Iran has no plans to build “inhumane” A-bombs. Ahmadinejad called for a world free of nuclear arms in an interview with Russia’s NTV channel.
“We believe that not only the Middle East but also the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane,” he said.
“Today, no one can use a nuclear weapon and we believe that the US is taking a wrong move by stockpiling nuclear weapons,” he added. “Those who claim that they are against nuclear weapons should dismantle their nuclear weapons first to prove that they are honest.”
Israel and several other Middle Eastern countries have illegally and covertly acquired vast numbers of nuclear weapons
huh?
which other middle eastern countries?
why are they illegal?
and what’s the vast number?
I’m pretty certain that Israel has nuclear wealons, but what’s all this stuff?
damn right.
“Reminds me of someone else who makes “great” speeches, and then proceeds to either do nothing or distance himself from the message (take a guess). Please, no more “great” speeches.”
Kerry a globalist piece of sh@t. Look at the regimes he praises in this speech; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.
Saudi Arabia- “According to The Economist’s Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.” “Several international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have issued reports critical of the Saudi legal system and its human rights record in various political, legal, and social areas, especially its severe limitations on the rights of women.”
Jordan-
we should remember Mr Ackerman’s formative years at the New Republic, in the midst of the propaganda barrage about Saddam’s scary nukular weapons.
as we now all know, and as many knew at the time (though not at the New Republic, of course) , the scary weapons were the pretext, the policy was regime change, and the chosen method was war.
in the words of the contemporaneous Downing Street Memo, the intelligence (and the propaganda deriving from it) were being fixed around the policy.
this exact same strategy is being replayed now, simply changing the Iraq to Iran. not surprising that the same type of people who fell for it the first time will fall for it again. apparently if Lurch dolorously intones it young think-tanky wonks will swoon – but it is the exact same propaganda that Gee-Dubya and Snarlin’ Dick used to scare everybody with in 2002.
you never miss an opportunity to try and tow that party line, do you?
Let’s see…
Since Pakistan and India are not really considered Middle Eastern countries, I have to admit that Israel is the only one. But if you wish to include those two as “close enough” they are not signators of the NPT and they have aquired the weapons through various underhanded and backdoor avenues. Were Iran to have aquired a nuke the ways that Pakistan, India, and Israel have, then you and I both know we would already be at war.
They are illegal because they had to get them from nations that produced them and they are pretty much all signed onto the NPT. We in fact helped Israel build their stockpile. We did so under several different presidents who still to this day refuse to admit Israel has them specifically because it was ILLEGAL for us to provide them to Israel. according to the NPT we signed onto.
at last count… over 200 nuclear warheads were in the Israel’s stockpile.
That’s “all this stuff”… thank you.
“we should remember Mr Ackerman’s formative years at the New Republic, in the midst of the propaganda barrage about Saddam’s scary nukular weapons.”
ahhh. The old neoliberal “New Dem” kind of neocon working his propaganda magic here with all us stupid liberals, huh? nice.
So why does Jane keep him here if everyone knows what he is?
sez who that they got them from other nations? I’ve never come across anyone claiming that Israel didn’t roll their own.
well, supposedly he was against it after he was for it.
so Iran signs the NPT… and is not trying to build a nuke…
while Israel refuses to joing the rest of the civilized Middle Eastern community by signing the NPT and then secretly builds up a massive stockpile of nukes…
(if you don’t think that the US has helped them do that, then you are more naive than any Obama voter ever was, especially with all the Israeli spies that keep getting arrested with our nuclear secrets)
The point I was making is… Iran is being singled out. Now if you want to continue with this “Israel is innocent” line of debate, we should start a different thread.
is Spencer Ackerman the ex-neocon who said he would “skullf%ck a terrorist” and threatened to hit some editor with a baseball bat?
How long is it going to take progressives to figure out that “reformed” neocons are nothing of the sort. Haven’t we learned from Mr. Beck? How about the Clintons?
surely you don’t confuse “Israel is innocent” with pointing out that you’re biting off more than you can swallow.
I asked three questions.
I honestly thought that you were saying that there were other Middle Eastern countries with nukes. I’m happy that you merely misspoke.
I asked why illegal, and the answer is that you’re assuming that they are and that your position is based on little or nothing much.
Israel built their own nukes and there’s no basis for saying that Israel’s having them is illegal.
I asked about the vast number and you gave an answer that’s suitable.
If your point is that Iran is being singled out, I think that you have a bit of a point but it’s not all that much.
Iran has signed the NPT and has violated the thing again and again and again. They’ve signed addenda promising to abide and have violated the addenda.
There’s something unusual and different there, eh?
“ran has signed the NPT and has violated the thing again and again and again. They’ve signed addenda promising to abide and have violated the addenda.”
so has India and Pakistan – what’s the shaded point you are attempting to make?
Shaded???
Someone asks why Iran is being “singled out” and I answer as clearly as I did and you’re in the shade?
I was unaware of repeated violations of their NPT obligations committed by India and Pakistan. Could you supply some information.
August 10, 2004:
“Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things “very differently” from President Bush”
Kerry is a Flip-Flopper without any foreign policy cred to stand on.
That’s right. Pakistan and India don’t count because as we all know they are completely stable regimes and full of democratic promise.
This is true except for the fact that Israel will not admit having them and they won’t let inspectors anywhere near the Dimona site where they secretly enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
“Israel built their own nukes and there’s no basis for saying that Israel’s having them is illegal.”
True, except for that pesky “spying” thing
“The 84-year-old Kadish was to be charged with slipping classified documents about nuclear weapons, fighter jets and air defense missiles to an Israeli Consulate employee who also received information from convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, authorities said.
Kadish acknowledged his spying in FBI interviews, and said he acted out of a belief that he was helping Israel, court papers said “
“Iran has signed the NPT and has violated the thing again and again and again. They’ve signed addenda promising to abide and have violated the addenda.”
so says the propagandists who are eager for a regime change in Iran. Oh, how those neocons and neolibs just yearn for the good old days of the friendly Shah of Iran and his SAVAK death squads. Man, there was some good money to be made in Iran in those days, huh?
so now that we’re cleared up that there are no other ME states with nukes, and that there’s nothing “illegal” about Israel’s nukes, I still have to say that you have a point about being worried about Pakistan having nuclear weapons. They are pretty much a mess. Don’t know what problem you have with India or why you think that it’s not well on the way to being a stable and democratic nation.
Iran though, should worry anyone. Their regime is just lousy by any measure. Why would anyone want them to have nukes?
If we accept any hypocrisy on any issues from our elected officials, we will get screwed on all the issues that matter. All of the sudden, bankrupt thieves are made whole and touted as savvy businessmen by our dissembler in chief. Our leaders engage in illegal wars, in crimes against humanity human rights, to the benefit of their paymasters, and and they we speechify.
Some people, however cannot help themselves but continually eat up their crappy propaganda as thou it existed in a historical vacuum.
Fuckermen.
sorry, sonny. spinning it that way doesn’t work. Iran’s regime sucks and nothing those big bad conservatives say make it suck. trying to lessen their suckiness by pointing your silly finger at bad men here doesn’t make Iran’s regime suck any less.
They are what they are and they, darest I say, suck.
“Iran states it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT, and further says that it “has constantly complied with its obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency”.[62] Iran also states that its enrichment program is part of its civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under Article IV of the NPT. The Non-Aligned Movement has welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran’s right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.[63] UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed the continued dialogue between Iran and the IAEA, and has called for a peaceful resolution to the issue.[64]”
as close as wikipedia.
if ever Iran should make a bomb, it will be delivered to a major american city by rectal transport. – we should be panicked!
“so now that we’re cleared up that there are no other ME states with nukes, and that there’s nothing “illegal” about Israel’s nukes,”
wrong and wrong again.
As I have stated, Pakistan and India both have nukes and they are both troubled countries that haven’t signed the NPT. The fact that they are just a tad outside the “Middle East” doesn’t mean jack squat.
and you know it.
And yes, Israel’s program has benefited from ILLEGAL spying on the United States nuclear program from without and from within, which makes it illegal…
and until Israel allows inspectors to check out Dimona, we don’t know what they are doing with their enriched uranium or what they are doing with it.
Perhaps they should sign onto the NPT like other responsible nations have and then they could PROVE their program is above board rather than employing the “you can’t prove I did it” defense.
Just for the hell of it, let me ask again. What’s the problem with India?
Explain that and I’ll personally move them into the middle east if you want.
Nuclear earth-penetrating bunker busters.
Our own crazies are pretty keen on deploying them babies. I’d be much more worried about the greed of our own elites than the Iranian mullahs.
and stop the nonsense about Israel’s nukes somehow being illegal because of spying. That’s not how they got them and is a seperate matter.
You’re on better ground saying that Russia’s nukes are illegal because they did get lots of help by spying on our program.
Fallout?
California gets a nice dose of Chinese pollution and sand storm residuals, – no thank you.
nah. we’ve been busy developing insanely large and powerful non-nuke bunker-busters. we were well past 20,000 lbs of high-explosives five years ago.
and nah, again. be more afraid of the Iranian regime.
Have I mentioned that they suck?
I doubt that India is going to fall out of the non-middle east and land on California.
Our Presidents stroll around holding hands with Saudis, – there’s where real suck hit’s the nail.
maybe I should have just taken the same stance that the BBC did back in 2003 when they tried to run a special report on the subject…
“undeclared nuclear weapons” “undeclared biological and chemical capabilities” and “no outside inspectors”…
well, two out of three ain’t bad.
that’s only when they aren’t bowing to them or calling them “Bandar Bush”
(reply to 57 that is)
we’re getting closer to common ground on that one.
Once we get past calling them ‘illegal’, we can agree that Israel has ‘em,
and has had them for about forty years.
we might be able to agree about other things about Israel that we both don’t like.
but that really has nothing to do with it being a real bad idea for Iran to have the damned things.
Plain and simple
Why Does Israel deserve Nuclear weapons and Iran or, anybody else for that matter, doesn’t?
God chose ?
the only problem with your logic is that Iran isn’t trying to get them while Israel has been secretly stockpiling them and denying they have them for 4 decades.
Iran has signed the NPT while Israel refuses to do so because then their nukes WOULD be very illegal.
And… Iran hasn’t attacked a nation in hundreds of years whereas Israel can’t seem to go for a decade without bombing someone somewhere.
Now, you think Iran is the problem? not hardly.
and based on recent history I would sooner trust the average Iranian with a nuke before I would trust an Israeli settler in the West Bank with one, that is for damn sure.
I think that Iran is a problem, not the problem.
And everything that Iran is doing is perfectly consistent with building nukes and having a missile delivery system to mount them on.
I haven’t seen anything to indicate that they’re not building them.
Nothing has yet indicated that they definitely are, but the best bet is that they’ll continue the effort to have the capability unless something changes.
plain and simple, your question sucks. nobody deserves to have nuclear weapons.
Go figure out why more countries having nukes isn’t a good idea.
Well, if the US intel report that said they weren’t persuing nukes isn’t enough, and if the UN inspectors aren’t enough, and if the fact that they can’t enrich beyond 20% in the first place isn’t enough, and if the fact that they agreed to send their material out to be enriched like the Obama administration asked isn’t enough…
then NOTHING is going to be enough, and the whole point is, regime change… and nothing else.
The intel report was wrong (I assume that you meant the NIE of 2007) and contradicted all our others and those of the Europeans.
The UN inspectors think that the Iranians are hiding things and lying about other things.
You fail to understand that they certainly can enrich past 20% and if they’re configuring centrifuges to enrich, it just makes it easier to continue enrichment. here’s a link.
http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/irans-gas-centrifuge-program-taking-stock/#10
Beyond the fact that Ahmedinejad is usually full of shit, it still isn’t his call, even slightly, about the nuclear program. that’s way above his pay grade.
Completely agreee. What exactly is all this hoopla about?
You will not hear a single word from Kerry about the strategic interest in MidEast oil which has always driven US policy in this region. And it is precisely for this reason above all else that the US values its alliance with Israel and uses it as a military outpost from which to exert its military force.
It is for this reason alone that the US will not countenance any perceived challenge from Iran or anyone else in the region. Were it not for the importance of Mid East oil the US could care less about the fate of Israel and care nothing about the virtual state of seige under which the Palestinians continue to live.
To quote Eliza Doolittle in reference to Kerry “I’m so sick of words”.
the point is regime change, the pretext is scary nukular weapons, identical setup to the propaganda campaign leading up to the Bush/PNAC invasion and occupation of Iraq.
debating shifting pretexts may be fun, especially when the pretext is transparently phony, but the real point is that the US, under both Donkey and Elephant leadership, is imposing a policy of regime change on a country that will not submit to US imperial designs in the middle east.
and, Senator John Kerry’s miniscule doctrinal, tactical, or stylistic variants on this imperial policy have even leftish, ‘punk-rock’ policy wonks swooning with admiration over Lurch’s “balls and brains.” get a room, you two!
get a grip on yourself there.
a non-nuclear Iran isn’t getting overthrown by us.
Nukes are a difficult issue. America is STILL trying to solve in our relationship with Russia and many other countries.
It probably has to be ignored for the purpose of peace conversations. If it’s considered at all it overwhelms everything.
It’s better to deal with the world as if that’s not even in the room.
Deal with details take time to ensure everyone is comfortable with those.
Deal with various levels of abstraction, from ‘the big picture’ to processes of life within a new arrangement, on down to picky details of the border, voting, policing and so on.
What are you going to do kerry him off the stage? Heh.
At least he has a good heart and hopes to help. Sometimes a little inspiration, however imperfect, can help keep people going.
We Americans know the experience of slavery and slaughter of Indians AND slaughter of one another during the (not so) Civil War.
I think none of us would wish such things on another country and we would advise anyone to avoid inflicting such horrors on anyone. In the long-run it’s just not worth it.
However, finding the right line to avoid stagnation (lack of progress) on the other hand isn’t easy.
Ahmadinejad often says ridiculous things. I wonder if the real leaders of the country encourage it to see how we’ll respond or if they just let him make up garbage.
Honest people abide by laws and their own promises and often some Higher goals. And, in return they are usually trusted & followed & supported. Does anyone trust Iran’s leadership today?
Political change is often as hard as warfare. At least in warfare there is a certain clarifying through blood-letting and the finality of death. In politics the differences and hard-feelings linger. But, there are places in this world where political change is needed in order to improve their nation and their people’s lives. Iran, I believe, is one of those places. I’m not saying they MUST have a change of leadership views & policies or that anyone should force changes on them. Their current leaders may be legitimate. I’m saying they need to have a leader who speaks to the world and is believed to be the true leader. Today they have a cartoon figure who says naughty words and then snickers. He’s a joke. Nobody really knows what the real leaders of Iran want and we don’t know for certain what they’re doing with regard to nuclear power. This secrecy worries people.
If Iran wants to keep secrets they can do so, but there is an inevitable cost in terms of uncertainty and lack of trust. Those are valuable political commodities Iran does not have today.
I wouldn’t say they’re ‘completely stable’, but I do think they’re currently in a good place and the dynamic is pretty good and America’s relationships there are good. What the future holds is always hard to foretell.
Unless you buy insurance from CitiGroup you have to pray a lot. /s
Recently a lot of people think Iran has been assisting Hezbollah and/or Hamas and in so doing making themselves a pain in the ass.
Why are they doing that except because of radical religion? Maybe it doesn’t matter why they’re doing it.
Are the current leaders just bullies who just need to be smacked down?
Perhaps they’re becoming a parody of N. Korea where their militarism is going to run rampant and we’ll only hear bizarre stories through third parties. That would not be a good way for them to go.
Knowing the truth makes everything easier. At least for us. Maybe Iran has problems we haven’t even considered. Who knows.
Iran has plenty of problems, but those problems are nowhere near to being as bad as those of North Korea.
thats all you got? willy loman is perfectly correct: “Iran hasn’t attacked a nation in hundreds of years”
recently the United States has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada and is conducting military activities in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Colombia and has 700 military bases around the world.
the United States covertly armed and funded the Contras, and backed the ruthless paramilitary death squads throughout central and south america. Backed the overthrow of democratically elected regimes in Chile and in Iran, implanting brutal dictators with sadistic secret police.
tiny dependent client state Israel has invaded and attacked Lebanon numerous times, and has warred with all of its neighbors over the last 40 years, and is in violation of countless UN resolutions.
but “a lot of people think Iran has been assisting Hezbollah and/or Hamas” and so they are a candidate for invasion and unprovoked attack and sanctions?
dude, man, according to Judge Robert Jackson aggressive war is the supreme war crime, because it contains within it the seeds of all the others.
and, btw, Hezbollah and or Hamas have no operational capabilities against Kansas City, the are not America’s problem, we have plenty of problems of our own, and nationalist resistance movements halfway across the world are not amongst them.
otoh, if someone has passionate attachments to a country other than the USA, then sure, you can feel emotional about alleged Iranian support for nationalist resistance movements halfway across the world, but that has nothing to do with realistic assessments of American self-interest.
you might think that a very realistic assessment of our interests involves keeping Iran from dominating the Gulf States and/or closing the Gulf to shipping
The fact of the matter at heart is religion, almost all abrahamic religions are deadly! 1. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear capability, because it would be only make the situation worse. Israel and Iran would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons, fire on fire does not help.
2. Usa might be looked at as war-faring and nation building republic,but it still is the only country in the world, that allows you to immigrate and become a prosperous and “free” citizen. Clearly the citizens did not agree with bush policy, which facilitated obama to be president.
3. Yes the war in Iraq was wrong, but the Iraqis are better off now? Again not a justification, but 50 years from now, where will Iraq be compared to other middle eastern countries?
4. Now everybody talks about how unfairly united states supports Israel, the reason being is the massive financial support of american government, media by the minority jewish population in america. I admire the jews for their tenacious come back from the brink of such hardship! If the muslims(arabs) want equality, stop infighting and come to the table as one for Palestine!
5. Education(science,math,arts) is the most important for all these middle eastern countries. Israel has contributed much to science, while countries such as Egypt lag behind, why is that? Both countries receive enormous aid from usa! Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc, rich countries where the local population is kept uneducated. Is it not terrible when a child is taught, it is better to be a martyr than a prosperous citizen. Even with education, there must be a bright future for those educated citizens.
6.Last but not least, religion must be used as a tool of peace!
.
That is your first mistake. The “people” you refer to wouldn’t happen to be the warmonger neocons, neolibs, New Dems, or the right wing Likud Party of Israel would they? The same kinds of warmongers who collectively stated that Iraq had WMDs and connections with bin laden? Yes, that is exactly who “a lot of people” are.
Bullies that need to be smacked down? Really? Does the US qualify for that? How about Israel?
It’s not just “knowing the truth” but when you know and accept the truth that makes a difference. And in some cases that difference is the difference between life and death.
We now “know the truth” about Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Chile… ect. ect.
But some of us have been trying to tell others “the truth” about these things, as they happened. Kinda like Phil Donahue did back in 2003 before the invasion. What did he get? Fired and blacklisted by a “progressive” media outlet MSNBC.
The “truth” is what I have been trying to tell you. You just don’t want to listen. This is not about Iran’s religion or their Republican Guard or even the phony “Green Revolution”… this is about Empire and it’s about what Condi Rice called “the New Middle East”.
Iran is the untimate prize in that imperial task. And they will say anything, and infiltrate any website they need to in order to gin up public support for an invasion.
That is “the truth”. Now the question is, what are you going to do with it?
same was said about Iraq, that if they would just give up WMD’s (or let the inspectors in, etc) – that they would have nothing to “fear”.
Either a dellusion, or failure to accept that we already have boots & money on the ground working on regime change, and the propaganda keeps heating up. All options of course are on the table. Well if its war they must have I hope its cold.
A debate about the merits of regime change, or “all out” war would seem to be more appropriate. The policy and desires are pretty clear.
How many people trust their own leaders, nevermind the “other” human beings leaders.
I do agree that Iran is a terrible mess, so are lots of places.
Not so sure they are are #1 or for that matter in the top 10 dangers we face, perhaps in the top 5 external dangers.
I can think of a place closer than Iran, not that the place is not “better” (or perhaps even more Godly) than Iran.
I think you hit reply on the wrong comment (77), your comment has nothing to do with 77.
Iran’s policies and intentions aren’t quite clear and ours provide a good deal less of clarity. You may think that you understand our intentions,but perhaps you should factor in our capacities and rational interests.
But let me be clear, should the Iranian people opt for regime change, they should expect nothing but help and approval. The present Iranian government is a repressive indecency.
“why are we responsible for the actions of other groups of people?
“involved isn’t different from responsible?”
Because we fund all Israel has done since 1948. If we pulled our funding, Israel would collapse. That means we could make our funding conditional, but we haven’t. So we are responsible.