 |
| Benjamin Netanyahu should be more worried about Pakistan's Nuclear weapons. |
There no reason why Iran can't have nuclear energy . Why there is such an American Hypocrisy towards (1)> Iran seems beyond what is logical . Six world powers want Iran to curb its nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions.While our news media continues to report about sanctions, for decades as much as we know nuclear nonproliferation with Pakistan and India came by two very different measures. Despite warnings from the US intelligence community, the US has to take principal credit for these nations having nuclear weapons. . Iran, a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been threatened with sanctions, if not actual violence, for its pursuit of uranium enrichment, although there is no clear evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. So who is benefiting from this? I have wondered just why there was (2)> "favoritism" for Pakistan , and India for the enrichment of uranium 3, knowing that Pakistan harbors a dangerous element of Islamic terrorism ? There is also a great hypocrisy knowing that In 1974 in the Rajasthan Desert, India announced it had tested three different nuclear devices underground. The difference between then and now is that India is finally admitting that it has a stockpile of nuclear weapons (currently estimated at about 60 for India and 25 or fewer for Pakistan as compared to over 15,000 for the US). Up until 1993, the CIA claimed India was not assembling nuclear weapons . The United States and Israel jump respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, Of course, it is easy to understand why Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the region and why it is willing to use force to secure that status. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran. The White House is negotiating with Iran on its nuclear program and has rejected calls for additional sanctions on the regime. US Secretary of State John Kerry rebuffed Mr Netanyahu, saying: "He may have a judgment that just may not be correct here." . Remember there was no American government sanctions against India and Pakistan . Pakistan harbors extremists , terrorists . Why this was overlooked amazes me. As far as I am concerned, justice should be equal to all. Every body knows that Israel seeing Iran as enemy and threat to her, Iran seeing Israel as threat to her too, they also belong in one region (Middle East).If Israel and Big for nothing superpower Nations should have a nuclear weapon, just to protect them self from enemies (e.g Iran and other Nations), those who doesn't have it, are seen it as threat to them too.While Obama's pursuit (meaning, something beyond pretty words) of nuclear disarmament would be noble, there are other problems with the U.S.'s nuclear philosophy that needs his attention. Double standards, favoritism, and fear-mongering are cancerous elements that rob the U.S. of respect and leverage in the nuclear debate. (3)> With all do respect Netanyahu's approach over the years has been counter productive . We all want to see peace in the Middle-east . President Obama was too angry about the unexpected Netanyahu visit. He should have met with him . The administration claims Boehner violated “protocol” by extending the invitation on his own initiative instead of sending a request for the executive branch to extend an invitation. The bickering on Capitol Hill is at best . Bibi goes to Washington D.C. to give a speech that he should give to the United Nations . Addressing Congress to ban a treaty ( or attempt) with Iran might not be a good thing strategically . Netanyahu misses the point. The Israeli scheme now has been to further divide our government , the leaks about the nuclear talks that have surfaced, with the Times of Israel reporting an unnamed senior Israeli official who said that the United States had "agreed to 80 percent of Iran’s demands." I think its part of a "disinformation" plan for sure , even if 'true'. (4)> Either case I see the Obama administration measure with Iran, it's pretty much to win them over as a ally in the war against the Islamic State group.
NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)> Iran is going to be a nuclear power eventually. Would you rather they were an active participant in the international community when that happens, or would you rather they were a pariah state (Pakistan) that felt like they were being backed into a corner? The notion that we can prevent a country from obtaining nuclear weapons in an age of proliferation and unstable nuclear countries such as Pakistan is the stuff of delusions. (2)> In 1991, the historical rivals India and Pakistan signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other's nuclear facilities. They realized that far more worrisome than their adversary's nuclear deterrent was the instability produced by challenges to it. (3)> Obama offered a flimsy excuse for his refusal to meet with Netanyahu on the upcoming visit. “We don’t meet with any world leader two weeks before their election,” said the president. “I think that’s inappropriate.”(4)> Israel remains the least concerned and least directly threatened country in a region increasingly rocked by Islamic State’s advance. It certainly does not see the group as an external threat. Shocking though the events in Syria and Iraq are, Israel is far beyond the range of even the most sophisticated of Islamic State’s weapons. The group’s immediate territorial interests do not extend to anywhere near Israeli borders, and its support in areas adjacent to Israel is still negligible. What’s more, unlike many militant groups and states in the region, Islamic State has declared itself emphatically disinterested in intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preferring instead to draw its support from Sunni revanchism and introducing a semblance of order into war-torn regions of Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment