UN sanctions Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/23/un.iran.ap/index.html

Because Iran has failed to comply with the demands of the IAEA for transparency in its nuclear program, the UN has enacted its first salvo of sanctions against the nation, prohibiting the sale of nuclear technology and material to Iran.  Iran, obviously, is pissed off, claiming the US and the UN are using a double standard, as they have entirely ignored Israel's confirmed possession of at least 200 nuclear warheads.  Nevertheless, these sanctions are a reminder from the UN that Iran is a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and should abide by it.

Let us all speculate about the shitstorm that will come in the following months and years.

>>1

I don't understand why it is wrong for Iran to have nuclear weaponry. All of their competeting countries have it, so sitting here and expecting them to ditch the programs so late in the game is unrealistic. Why do we, as americans, have to protect Isreal?

Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

 

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

 

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.

 

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.

>>3

Ayn Rand's "Jewy" philosophy failed the moment she dared to get political. You can't listen to a womon who thinks so highly of a fool like Aristotle.

Secondly: This isn't 1973, anymore. We aren't at war with Russia and "The Arabs" aren't "one culture of underdeveloped people" but several different cultures, some of which are actually quite highly developed.

Thirdly, Isreal's creation was far, FAR from civilized as I'm sure you know well. There's nothing civilized about subversive land grabs. "The power of the mind"? Insane. More like "The power of the dollar" or the "The power of fossil fuels."

If we, as Americans, are going to be forced into helping ungratful and frankly untrustworthy jews who are still under the theocratic control of fundie-zionists, then stop feeding us this outdated and obsolete tripe about protecting civilization. In the end, the ultimate truth is that we are just like Russia in this game. 

Anyone who truly believes otherwise is a simple-minded sheep.

>>4
We don’t, and shouldn’t HAVE to protect Israel. However Ayns statement wasn’t about that, and neither was the post it was directed at. It was simply answering WHY we should but not should we HAVE to.

The arguments used to defend Israel from the whole of middle-east aggression in 1973 can't be applied in the same way today, your correct on that point (in the broad since and to the whole of the middle-east). However you did make one mistake, you presupposed that Iran then must be different in terms of ideological beliefs then that the middle-east in 1973, which is not the case. If you view the same argument from this angle you will see it still applies, and if you agreed with it then you must agree with it now.

I won’t answer the rest of your post as it’s not related to this topic and you decided to package it following strict polemicist guidelines.

>>5

I don't want to get into another drawn out debate, but I'm going to have to insist that Ayn Rand's advice didn't work then and definately doesn't work now. The Arabs are civilized and anything said to the contrary is drum-beating propaganda.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that foreign policy IN GENERAL hasn't changed since 1973 and that's part of the problem. You say Iran hasn't changed? Well, neither has Israel. America still wonders around in the 21st century as if it's the cold war.

Not sure what that third paragraph means...well, I know what it means. But, I don't see how this isn't related to the topic and it's not wrong for me to reply to any matter concerning the middle east with polemic statements.

All I know is there are tons of hot girls living in Iran, and they need my freedom badly.

Since Israel isn't as bad on human rights as muslim countries and have more and better capitalism, it is imperative that they are allowed any liberties against palestinians, even if these breaches are of no strategic value to its survival.

If you do not let Israel destroy and contaminate the Jordan river to water flowers, then you want all Israeli women to have their clits cut off.

This is the reality of Rand's argument. If there is a hell she is in the same circle of Kirkpatrick, Marx and Raygun - the circle of the absolute, pragmatic moralists.

>>1
>>Because Iran has failed to comply with the demands of the IAEA for transparency in its nuclear program

I think this is just a plausible pretext, but completely untrue or unrelated to the reason why certain consequences (sanctions & probably some covert shit we'll never hear about) are following it. I think it's much more plausible (to the point where I'd assert that it's a given truth) that the real reason is because they are the emerging competitor to the United States in the middle east.

Who should we support? An overpowered empire that has built such a subtle but powerful network of corporations, think tanks, and government agencies that their own people usually fail to realize how badly they are being misled and lied to and virtually robbed of their collective wealth?

It seems like everything Iran is accused of, America has already been an offender of and then some. Suppressing dissidents? Not as violently as Iran, but suppressing them nonetheless. Spreading propoganda? Much more effectively than Iran, that's for sure. Enriching uranium? The U.S. is closing the gap between bulky nuclear weapons and more mobile conventional weapons- they've been hard at work to develop different kinds of tactical nuclear weapons. Their current nuclear weapon policy is for using nukes pre-emptively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations
Putting the world in danger? Iran doesn't even compare to the U.S. in that respect.

Getting past the fact that the regimes in both countries are undesirable, the shitstorm that will ensue is probably an open military campaign (war) in Iran by the United States. I think the difference would be, if the neocons back out- the democrats will just do the same thing anyway through a UN-approved coalition. Kinda like what John Kerry proposed in Iraq. We'll have to see.