Urging a Diplomatic Resolution to U.S./Iran Nuclear Dispute

An editorial in the Sunday, October 28, 2007, Toronto Star, Comment section, page 22, urges a diplomatic resolution of the American/Iranian showdown over Iran's nuclear capabilities:

PRESSING IRAN TO DISARM

Having branded Iran an "axis of evil" soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, U.S. President George Bush seems determined not to lave the White House without taking one last kick at his nemesis.

His recent dire warning that Iran might trigger "World War III" if it acquires nuclear weapons has many wondering whether the United States or a proxy is preparing to bomb Iran's reactors. And the economic sanctions Bush has just imposed on Iran's Revolutionary Guards, defence ministry and banks are being read by some as a ploy to give Washington political cover for such an attack.

Yet while Iran's two-decade-old nuclear ambitions, support for terror and hostility to Israel are hugely worrying, Bush cannot realistically expect to turn all this around before he quits office, with or without a military strike. Reining in Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and those who think like him is a huge challenge best tackled by the United Nations Security Council, acting collectively.

That's something Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to understand. Reacting to Bush's sanctions, an Ottawa official noted Canada has not followed the U.S. in designating the Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, and looks to the Security Council for its cues. That is a prudent approach, with Canada backing UN efforts to defuse tension.

Realistically, if Iran's nuclear ambitions are to be reined in, it will be through a complex grand bargain" involving the Security Council, the U.S. and Iran. Tehran will want guarantees that Washington will stop threatening military action and will lift sanctions that have been in place since the Islamic revolution of 1979. As well, Iran will seek approval to retain civilian reactors, if it suspends or scraps military ones.

Ottawa should support UN efforts, including progressively harsher sanctions, to prod Tehran to that bargain. We should also urge the U.S. to negotiate, not threaten. It will be hard to make much progress before Bush and Ahmadinejad bow out. But we needn't provoke a crisis.

Iraq, Now Iran? There is Another Option: Peace

There was an article in the World & Comment section of the Monday, November 5, 2007, Toronto Star, about how the U.S. administration is ratcheting up its rhetoric about Iran, as if there was no other choice in the world available to the U.S., but to lay siege to yet another country (which keeps arms manufacturers happy and the oil corporations happy, but not the families of those soldiers and civilians who are killed and wounded.

Why are Americans and the Democratic contenders standing behind yet another war, after the last and still current disaster - the war in Iraq. Another war, more human rights abuses - just what the U.S. needs. (See Amnesty International's Country Report on the U.S.: http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America.)

The Iraq war and all the other hundreds of military installations around the world are bankrupting the country. The gap between rich and poor is widening. The environmental legislation has been pushed back 30 years and nothing is being done about climate change and the Kyoto agreement. Corporations at home and abroad are doing whatever they like, because of massive campaign donations to each American party, and their lawyers and lobbyists and PR army are doing the rest. It is a great time to be a millionaire and billionaire and not very good to be a poor working stiff whose children are not covered for medical care.

Is Iran supposed to take the country's mind off the hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi's, many of them refugees?

Is it supposed to take everyone's mind off the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the several thousand deaths of American soldiers?

Why is everyone supporting the very administration that lied about having evidence to support the reason behind the Iraqi war. They knew very well before the war that there were no weapons of mass destruction. And yet they still sent American soldiers to die there in the thousands and other soldiers to kill thousands of civilians and displace tens of thousands more.

So how does it make sense to leave troops fighting there and starting a new war somewhere else?

Are the sanctions against the Iranian people going to take our minds off the terrible sanctions against the Iraqi people, which caused countless civilian deaths, most of whom were young children?

There is no requirement for the U.S. (except empire building, oil, supporting arms and rebuilding corporations)to feel it must intervene everywhere, making enemies of selective Middle East countries. Wasn't Osama a Saudi? And the U.S. protected the extended Bin Laden family in the U.S. in the days after September 11th, and sent the entire family out of the U.S. on an American military plane? The Saudi Royal princes are dictatorships and Saudi Arabia has a horrible record of human rights abuses - look up their Amnesty International country report. The U.S. is fast friends with the Saudis; therefore supporting an extremely repressive regime. http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Middle-East-and-North-Africa/Saudi-Arabia

Who died and made George W. king of the world? Or for that matter, who died and made previous presidents kings of the world? There is no need for an aggressive successor, someone else who can only see the way to peace through waging war. See the Amnesty International's report on the human rights abuses and the United States. There is no moral authority behind a country with such a human rights record.

What does the world need? Peace. Ethical and moral leaders who will deal with problems involving people and the environment - the most pressing problems the world faces. Developed countries need to provide at least the amount of foreign aid they have committed to but not paid, for poverty, AIDS, malaria, and the Millenium goals.
Developed countries need to show leadership where climate change is concerned not only at home, but in assisting developing nations to deal with the challenges of adapation and mitigation.

The world does not need any more wars right now. Instead of showing up for wars, how about withdrawing soldiers from all the military installations worldwide, and helping the United Nations deal with food collection and distribution to take care of the starving, getting drugs to those suffering from malaria and HIV/AIDs, and building or providing training for others to build infrastructure for clean drinking water, latrines, schools and providing small loans so the extreme poor can work their way out of poverty.

See Jeffrey D. Sach's book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Jeff Sachs is an American-born economist and internationally renowned for his work as economic advisor to governments around the world. He was a Special Advisor ton the Millenium Development Goals to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 2002 to 2006 and is a Special Advisor to the current Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. He is a professor and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also known for his work with international agencies on problems of poverty reduction, debt cancellation and disease control, especially HIV/AIDS, in the developing world.

It is not naive to turn from war to doing what is right in the world. It is the only thing to do. Thousands are dying every day from starvation and diseases that are easily curable. We don't need to arm soldiers to kill anybody else.

I hope, as most Americans in polls, want peace, that they will not be drawn in to yet another war. You cannot get peace and security by going to war (as Afghanistan and Iraq should demonstrate clearly).

As Gandhi said: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." Now, where is the American leader with enough independence, courage, conviction and true moral authority to choose peace for Americans and the rest of the world?

Keep U.S. From Attacking Iran

After Iraq, I can't credit why anyone in the U.S. would get behind the Bush administration's desire for war against Iran.

But, gee, there is still a year before the next election and that is plenty of time to get into another war, have more civilian and military casualties, further devalue the dollar against other currencies, spend billions and billions more on the military, causing a huge debt with nothing to show for it except death, destruction, and at the end, probably civil war (jus

.

Here is an article from the Tuesday, September 18, 2007, World section, Toronto Star, page AA3:

UN NUCLEAR CHIEF TELLS IRAN CRITICS TO COOL 'HYPE'

Vienna - The chief UN nuclear inspector urged Iran's harshest critics yesterday to learn from the Iraq invasion and refrain from "hype" about a possible military attack, saying force was an option of last resort.

Mohamed ElBaradei also called on nations critical of his last-ditch effort to entice Iran into revealing past nuclear activities that could be linked to a weapons program to wait until the end of the year - when the deadline for Iran to provide answers runs out.

"By November or December we will be able to know if Iran is acting in good faith or not," he said, suggesting that was the time to think of tougher diplomacy if needed - but not military action."

ElBaradei, speaking outside a 144-nation meeting of his International Atomic Energy Agency, invoked the example of Iraq in urging an end to the threats of force against Iran - most recently by France.

"I would not talk about any use of force," said ElBaradei, noting that only the Security Council can authorize such action.

"I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that require we go beyond diplomacy," ElBaradei said, adding that his agency had no information "the Iran program is being weaponized."

"We need not to hype the issue," he told reporters.

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

He said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.

Kouchner, on RTL radio, said that if "such a bomb is made ... we must prepare ourselves for the worst."

Associated Press