[Links in original]
http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/obama-and-iran.html
Informed Comment
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Obama and Iran
President-elect Barack Obama said Friday that "Iran's development of a
nuclear weapon, I believe is unacceptable. . . Iran's support of
terrorist organizations, I think is something that has to cease."
What I cannot understand is why American politicians who speak publicly
on this issue do not at least acknowledge that to the best information
of the American intelligence community, Iran has no nuclear weapons
research program,as opposed to a civilian enrichment research program.
A pdf of the National Intelligence Estimate on this issue is here. The
Bushies and "anonymous senior officials" vowed that the NIE would not
be allowed to enter the national debate on this issue and that they
would ignore it and go on insisting that Iran has a weapons program.
Since they lost, can't we lose the alarmist rhetoric on all this? Some
of the information in the NIE was based on information brought out of
Iran by defectors.
Also, if the only real reason Iran is accused of supporting
international terrorism is its arming of Hizbullah in south Lebanon,
that is a pretty problematic charge. The recent agreement among
political parties in Lebanon recognized Hizbullah as a kind of Lebanese
national guard charged with defending the Lebanese south against
Israeli aggression.The cabinet statement refered to "the right of
Lebanon's people, army, and resistance to liberate the Israeli-occupied
Shebaa Farms, Kafar Shuba Hills, and the Lebanese section of Ghajar
village, and defend the country using all legal and possible means."
The word "resistance" refers to Hizbullah. The European Union has
declined to designate Hizbuallah a terrorist group.
Usually the phrase "supporter of terrorism" conjures up the image of
shadowy groups plotting to blow things up in Vienna or something, not a
militia defending national territory against foreign incursions.
Hizbullah did commit terrorist acts in the 1980s and 1990s, but I'm not
sure what it has done that would technically deserve the name in the
past 10 years.
It would be nice if Washington would itself foreswear all deployment of
terrorist groups to obtain its goals.
Anyway, can't a new administration speak in a more nuanced way about
all this?
<end excerpt>
Michael