Iran Must Not Have Nuclear Weapons, Says US Official--GulfNews.com

[Gloria]

From the New World Media Watch up now at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical
Tomorrow at Buzzflash.com


2//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates 1/2/2005, 06:30

http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/NationNF.asp?ArticleID=150120



IRAN MUST NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, SAYS US OFFICIAL

By Chris Sands, Staff Reporter



Abu Dhabi: A senior adviser to US President George W. Bush met with top UAE officials yesterday to discuss Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.



John R. Bolton held talks with Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and UAE Minister of Defence, and Shaikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Information and Culture.


(snip)


"We really see Iran as very isolated in the world, with essentially no support other than maybe North Korea for the proposition that they should have nuclear weapons.



"All the countries that we have consulted with have agreed with what our fundamental bottom line is, which is that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons."



Bolton is widely regarded as one of the leading hawks within the US Government and is known to be a key ally of Bush. He was in the UAE as part of a regional tour that also included visits to Bahrain and Kuwait.



Bolton told Gulf News the United States could not rule out using military force against Tehran over its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.



"Our preference is to try and resolve this through peaceful and diplomatic means, but as President Bush said we never rule any option out. And that's important because our objective is to make sure that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and they need to understand how strongly we feel about that."



(snip)



"We favour a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction," he said.



At present Israel is the only country in the region known to have nuclear weapons, but Bolton told Gulf News the United States would not be calling for the Jewish state to give up its stockpile.



"I think the responsibility of the government of the United States is to protect its people first and foremost, and Israel is not a threat to the United States," he said.



(MORE)

[billbuckhead]

1. Israel is not a threat to the United States,

Really? More and more I wonder about that.

[hector459]

11. But Israel is a threat to everyone else in the ME. It already bombed Iraq

and it already bombed one our vessels, the USS Liberty. Israel should be forced to be do just as we are requiring other ME countries to do. Otherwise all the Arab nations should be permitted to arm themselves to defend agains the US and Israel, two "democracies" that have already proved they will attack another country UNPROVOKED.

[RockStar]

38. Israel is a threat the National Freedom of the United States. They have

hundreds of nukes at their disposal. I would never trust israel. They have agents in the USA stealing our secrets our technology. Long live the United States of America

[LynnTheDem]

42. They're also in violation of 96 UN resolutions and have a long history

of unprovoked invasions & occupations.

But like the human rights abuser and public beheader Saudi Arabia, they're bush's pals.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. George Bush shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Anybody else just a teensy bit nervous about the fact that El Chimpo has access to the nuclear launch codes?

[VegasWolf]

8. Damn Right! goergie with his little finger on a button. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

37. Yeah... no shit. That's a misunderstatement if ever there was one. eom

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. >>Israel is not a threat to the United States

a threat to the U.S. made little difference. NO ONE in the ME needs nuclear weapons. They have no reason to have them, unless of course they intend to use them aggressively and level some foreign country... which would in effect make them a terrorist state. So why have them in the first place? Oh that's right... so you don't get invaded by the U.S., silly me.

[Earth_First]

4. >> NO ONE in the ME needs nuclear weapons.

No one need nuclear weapons. PERIOD.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. You need them if you are going to run an empire by force. Tactical

nukes are the order of the day.... we need to "smoke" them there terrorists right out of their holes... their million dollar underground
bunker holes... their nuclear reactor holes... funny... I didn't think terrorists could afford nuclear reactors and underground bunkers... I thought they used plane tickets and box cutters. Curious.

Beaten down by Beck's...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0709-06.htm
At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. (The differences in the House and Senate bills still must be reconciled.)

America has built no nuclear weapons since 1990, while deactivating many. Nuclear testing stopped roughly a decade ago, as did development of tactical nukes. The tax money just appropriated for tactical nuclear weapons research is quite small in proportion to military spending. But the president's policies are a distinct reversal of prior administrations' slow, steady retreat from the nuclear brink. Bush has made clear his willingness to use nuclear weapons, even in so-called pre-emptive strikes against non-nuclear countries.

[Jim Sagle]

14. Chickenshit bullshit. Without nukes, Israel dies. End of story.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. by the same token

without nukes iraq dies
without nukes iran will die
without nukes syria will die
without nukes egypt will die
etc. etc. etc.

What exactly gives Israel the right to defend itself, but not everyone else?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

17. I have yet to see Israel defend herself with nukes. Mebbe I missed

something.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Let's add nuclear holocaust to Israel's crimes, shall we?

If Israel nukes anyone in the region, it will kill a lot of innocent people, Arabs and Jews alike. Is that what you advocate?

There are only two solutions to nukes in the Middle East: No one has them, or everyone has them! Take your pick!

The sad reality is the US invasion of Iraq has shown that nukes and other WMDs are the only deterrent to having one's country being destroyed by American bombs.

Bush has made the world more dangerous than ever!

[TomClash]

5. Iran can't have nuclear weapons but

Israel can have 100? Hmm.

[Disturbed]

7. It's OK for Pakistan too.

Only those nations that are allies of the U.S. can posses these weapons.

[TomClash]

13. And you'll notice Pakistan and North Korea were not invaded nt

[calimary]

31. And things in Pakistan aren't exactly stable, either. Things can turn

on a dime as far as who's our ally and who no longer is.

Seems to me that if there are to be no nukes in the Middle East, that applies ACROSS. THE. BOARD. Nobody gets 'em. NOBODY. I don't care WHO they are or whose side they're on. IF they're our ally, they can depend on US having nukes. And we keep OUR nukes on our own turf, and don't try to plant 'em all over elsewhere. Many, many people in Islamic regions cite the fact that Israel has nukes as one HUGE impediment to peace and lowering of tensions in that part of the world. It also aggravates their hatred for us, and our siding with Israel, that we don't pressure Israel to turn the heat down a couple of notches. It's GOT to be ACROSS THE BOARD. EVERYBODY. NO EXCEPTIONS. NOBODY HAS NUKES. If you're our ally, you know WE'VE got the nukes and we'll back you up. So you don't need 'em. Therefore Israel is still well-protected. End of story.

If Israel is in the Middle East, and last I looked at any map to which I have access, it was, then it HAS to be a player in the ratcheting-DOWN of hostilities. It HAS to be part of any peace talks, any disarmament, any lowering of any aggressions of ANY sort. ACROSS THE BOARD. SAME FOR EVERYBODY. NO EXCEPTIONS.

[sam sarrha]

6. Ben Forgotten attacked WTC because of our support of Israel in Lebanon

invasion.. where the bombed an unprotected building and killed ..what 280 soldiers and we pulled out.. the result was Alquida.

what is this fiasco going to start???

[lovuian]

10. Here we go again WMD and US will protect its people!!!

Unfreakingbelievable and the world will just watch!!!

[TomClash]

12. Who will believe our WMD excuse?

No one. I'm not so sure the world will sit by and watch the US invade Iran.

I believe the Iranian foreign minister when he says their response will be astonishing.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. who is going to step up to defend Iran?

I don't think Russia or China have come to the conclusion that the neoclowns do not intend to stop, that their goal really is world hegemony, and that they have no choice but to fight, not yet anyway. (Although all they have to do is read the PNAC docs that say 'our goal is world hegemony'.) The EU has no military capability to speak of. Pakistan is hopelessly compromised and all it could do is lob a nuke somewhere and then get the shit blown out of it in return. Ditto for NKorea. So how exactly is the world going to stop us?

Iran is on its own.

[TomClash]

18. 4 Points

1. Maybe Iran's current capability is enough - I don't think the foreign minster is bluffing.

2. You and I are guessing about Russian and Chinese intentions - so is the Administration.

3. China has already said it will block any resolution for any action against Iran in the Security Council.

4. What happens to China's oil and ng deals with Teheran if its nuclear facilities at Arak, Esfahan, Bushehr, Ardakan, Bandar Abbas and so on are destroyed? Teheran might have to renege on those deals because it is clear that they are processing uranium and building heavy water reactors for peaceful purposes as well. China is gasping for oil - will it really sit idly by while the US restricts its supply?

[Disturbed]

19. China and Japan

hold a LOT OF U.S. Debt.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

29. China/Russia need oil- They will not allow the U.S to monopolize control

it's just not going to happen.
These PNAC'ers are banking on everyone being shocked and awed into submission.
Russian roulette with every life on the planet.
all for the "shot" at ruling the world by controlling the oil.
Won't work.
We're in for a surprise when the shit hits the fan.

I predict they'll get Israel to nuke Iran and afterwards try and send "aid" there in the form of U.S. troops like theTsunami.
They are so stupid to not think alot of us see right through this. Invasion in the form of relief is still invasion and those left alive in Iran will not allow it, nor will China.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Good points.

I agree especially with point (2). The neoclowns are guessing that none of the big powers will step up, but this is a massively dangerous guess. They are playing, literally, with billions of lives. We are reaching one of those crisis points, like previous ones in 1914 and 1939, where folly and bluster are mistaken for wisdom. We are riding a tsunami of events, the gears are in motion, and those of us who are able to think independently are left watching in horror as it all unfolds.

The Chinese have a curse that goes something like: "may you live in interesting times".

[Supersedeas]

20. a nuclear free region with one GLARING exception...sorry no follow ups

So, is the implication that every country in the middle east is a direct threat to U.S. security??

Say, do we consider Pakistan a Mideast country?

Sorry, no follow-ups.

[Massachusetts]

21. Don't worry be happy,

We have The Condinator, diplomat exemplar on OUR side.

Her she comes to save the day
Condinator is on her way...:bounce:

[IndianaGreen]

22. Iran must get nuclear weapons!

Nukes are the only credible deterrent to US imperialism and aggression. No oil-rich nation is safe from US destruction unless it chooses to arm itself with WMD and the ability to deliver them to targets.

It is a sad reflection of our times that the United States has become the biggest threat to peace since Nazi Germany.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

30. simple balance of power encourages peaceful solutions-might makes fright

Lock everybody in a crowded room with limited food and water and give each person a baseball bat.
Then give 7 or 8 of them handguns and one an uzzi.
In a panic, when it comes time to negotaite who gets the last of the food and water, do you think the guy with the uzzi is going to let the others have a fair share?
Do you think he'd hesitate to mow down 30 people comming at him with baseball bats?
Hell no.

Domination has been,traditionaly a characteristic of human nature--

Since consciouness has not evolved proportionally with the progress of technology, we can only expect continued conflict to result in catastrophic primitive aggression using state of the art tools of destruction.


Such is our inevitable destiny.
We have not evolved to search for and find common ground with our neighbor nor have we grown to respect one anothers' differences.
We have been warned over and over through the lessons of history. We've had our chance to change.
It's probably too late to change now.

Might makes fright.

[Supersedeas]

40. common ground with our neighbor is trumped by nukular fussion card

[Delphinus]

23. Au contraire ...

EVERYONE must have nuclear weapons if the US has them.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcane1]

35. the Japanese didn't have much reason to trust us, either

the only country to EVER use nuclear weapons


personally, I don't think ANY country should have them

[Rex]

25. It is just a matter of time before we make pre-emptive strikes on Iran

Iran has been making deals with a lot of countries and Russia is going to sell them arms soon. Isolated from the rest of the world? Hardly. The BFEE is working hard on starting WW3. To bad we don't have anyone in power that has enought spine to do something about it.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enraged_Ape]

27. I agree, fascist theocracies should not have them...

particularly when they sponsor terrorism.

Heh heh heh. On second thought, it's just too easy...

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

32. The U.S. is a wannabe Theocracy-corporate controlled/fascism

"despite objections many might have to the current US administration"

Objections?

The religious Christian right has attempted to influence the foreign policy decisions in this administration.
Their intollerance of other religions and cultures distorts their perception.
These fanatic religious fundamentalists now have firm grip on this country's policy makers and indirectly influence our military actions.
The U.S. is much too dangerous to be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Solution:
Give everybody the same firepower.
Otherwise expect disaster.
Might makes
Fright

[daleo]

33. Do you think the mullahs would nuke Tehran?

Reform came in the Soviet Union even though they had nuclear weapons. There is no reason to think the possession of nuclear weapons is linked to domestic reform in any given country.

The days of nuclear monopoly (or oligopoly) seem to be coming to an end. It was unnatural to think they could be sustained forever. Time will tell whether the human race can survive nuclear weaponry. Our fate was sealed when the first one was built, whichever way it goes.

[Blue_Tires]

28. what no one ever explained to me was

why administration officials act like the U.S. is the ONLY country allowed to have nukes or chemical weapons

[oasis]

36. The article says PNACer John Bolton is playing a key role in the talks.

PNAC = Draft.

[Boswells_Johnson]

41. I can't see how the administration can justify a double standard

with Israel.

"I think the responsibility of the government of the United States is to protect its people first and foremost, and Israel is not a threat to the United States," he said.

Israel is in the middle east, and it doesn't get along with all countries there. Nuclear weapons, and the potential use of them adds to the instability. If the US wants stability, I really don't understand how any country in the region can have them. (Mind you, I find it hypocritical for any country posessing nuclear weapons to demand that others don't)