I had to run some errands for work this morning, and so caught John Bolton making the case for bombing Iran on Thom Hartmann’s program.
But before we get to Bolton’s peculiar madness, the EU has, today, succumbed to Bush & Cheney’s warmongering illogic, demanding that Iran to submit to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696 requiring Iran to stop all processing of fissile material even though the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, clearly allows nations to develop civilian nuclear power.
So, the double standard holds once again: everyone but the U.S. and Israel must obey U.N. mandates:
Washington and Brussels promised to “fully and effectively” implement existing UN security council resolutions on Iran’s nuclear activities, warning also they were “ready to supplement those sanctions with additional measures”.
Later, the EU’s external relations commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, said these could include moves to freeze bank assets.
“We want to indeed show to Iranians that we mean it very seriously … [We are] particularly thinking of asset freezes of banks,” she told reporters.
Bush … said Tehran must transparently end uranium enrichment if it wanted closer ties.
“They can either face isolation, or they can have better relations with all of us,” he said, adding: “Now’s the time for all of us to work together to stop them.”
So, the U.S. and E.U. have weighed in; but what does the International Atomic Energy Agency say?
[T]he IAEA’s technical report and the interpretations of its findings are spinning into an overheated strategic standoff between Western nations, Israel, and Iran that, analysts say, may become reason for a military strike against Iran.
Even as Europeans expect to offer Iran an upgraded incentive package to suspend uranium enrichment in the coming weeks, analysts say that cherry-picking of quotes and Western spin, coupled with “breathless” media reporting about Iranian recalcitrance, could point in a nondiplomatic direction.
…
At issue in Vienna is the meaning of 18 documents that point to secret weaponization work, which the IAEA calls “alleged studies.” Most were provided by US intelligence but were only shown, not given, to the IAEA and to Iran, which dismisses them as fakes.Those studies “remain a matter of serious concern,” and Iran “has not yet agreed to implement all the transparency measures required to clarify this cluster of allegations,” IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the agency’s 35-member board of governors when they convened on Monday.
….The IAEA, he added, “has not seen indications of the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies.”
…
“Perhaps it’s like Iraq, where the intelligence wasn’t shared because the intelligence wasn’t there,” says [a Western diplomat in Vienna close to the IAEA]. “Certainly there are some people who say this is getting a bit like the pre-Iraq war. [When] finally the inspectors were there and investigated, of course none of the claims stood up.”
Anyone hungry for some Niger yellowcake?
So, back to the Mustachioed One. According to Bolton, the U.S. (and/or Israel) does not need proof of Iranian nuclear enrichment beyond the confines of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Neither does the U.S. (and/or Israel) need an overt threat to enrich weapons-grade uranium or pursue a nuclear weapon. The U.S. (and/or Israel) doesn’t even need the blessing of the U.N. to go beyond the sanctions outlined in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696.
Why?
Because all the U.S. (and/or Israel) needs to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran is the concern that Iran might be attempting to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Because that, to Bolton, is justifiable self-defense. The attenuated threat is there.
So, Mr. Bolton, you have just made a much less attenuated threat to attack a sovereign nation which has done nothing to provoke a military response under the internationally-recognized understanding of what constitutes self-defense.
By your own logic, why would Iran not preempt the U.S. from making such a first strike?
It may be suicidal, yes. But, under your own very broad definition of self-defense, that would not make it any less justifiable.
Unless, of course, your real justification is Might Makes Right, also known as “fuck the brown people, we need another election-year war.”