[Peace-discuss] If Iran isn't developing a nuclear deterrent they're crazy

[C. G. Estabrook]

[An account of a talk by Noam Chomsky from the Harvard Law Record, the newspaper 
of Harvard Law School (hence the number after Obama's name: the year of his 
graduation). It's not a very good summary, I think - e.g., it misrepresents what 
Chomsky has said elsewhere about the 1960s.  I'll post the text when it becomes 
available. Meanwhile, it's an important corrective to the Obama administration's 
scaremongering about Iran.  --CGE]

	Noam Chomsky: Iran pursuing nuclear weapons out of fear
	Scholar assails U.S. for hypocritical application
	of Non-Proliferation Treaty. By Matthew W. Hutchins
	Published: Thursday, March 11, 2010

Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one 
thing.  “No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons.”  But 
to Chomsky, nonproliferation requires reciprocal action, rather than 
international condemnation.  Chomsky's reputation as a prolific author of books 
on subjects including linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, political 
science, and media might lead one to believe that his views stem from esoteric 
theoretical arguments, but Chomsky takes a pragmatic view of international 
relations.  His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a 
rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening 
posture of the United States and Israel.

Speaking at Harvard's Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued 
the foreign policy of President Obama '91 and explained the historical reasons 
that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons.  “If they're not 
developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy.” The problem, said Chomsky, is 
the defiant and hypocritical insistence of the United States on holding the 
constant threat of military action over Iran as a punishment for its 
noncompliance with United Nations mandates.  “Hostile actions of the United 
States and its Israeli client are a major factor in Iran's decisions of whether 
or not to develop a nuclear deterrent.”

In Chomsky's eyes, Security Council Resolution 1887, which was strongly endorsed 
by President Obama, calls upon all nations to peacefully participate in the 
international regimes for nonproliferation.  The resolution encourages nations 
to develop civilian nuclear technology, while  stressing the need for conformity 
to the IAEA's inspection system, and Chomsky said that the inclusion of language 
about peaceful action was primarily directed at the United States and its veiled 
threats that, “We must keep all options open.” Indeed, with its nuclear missile 
submarines positioned within striking distance of Iran, Chomsky estimates that 
there is effectively no chance that Iran would ever use a future nuclear weapon 
for offensive purposes.  But he warned, “The threats do have the effect of 
inducing Iran to develop a deterrent.”

The escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States is entirely absurd 
to Chomsky in light of the widespread acceptance of the rights of Iranians to 
develop civilian nuclear technology.  He sees the cult of American Empire in the 
government's condemnations of Iran for refusing to follow the demands of the 
international community, because the definition of “international community” 
used in such rhetoric amounts to little more than the opinion in Washington, 
D.C. and among its allies.  He cited to the hypocrisy of the U.S. position in 
its historical relationships with the three nations that did not ratify the 
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan.  These three 
nations, said Chomsky, have all received nuclear technology from the United 
States in violation of security council resolutions, but most Americans would 
not realize this, given the pro-government bias of the media.

Essentially, Chomsky believes that President Obama's foreign policy has embodied 
a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush's second term in office.  But 
he believes we are fortunate to be living in a time when the anti-war movement 
is much stronger than it was during the 1960's.  He recalled a demonstration he 
was involved in during 1965, when state police violently dispersed a crowd from 
Boston Common.  The next day, the Boston Globe, one of the most liberal 
newspapers in the country, denounced the protesters.  Just three years later, 
following the Tet Offensive, public sentiment had moved enough that protests 
became common, but he ascribed this to a growing sentiment on Wall Street that 
the country had paid too high a price in Vietnam.  Looking back at the lessons 
of that war, Chomsky said that the United States had essentially achieved its 
goal of “innoculating” the region from the domino-theory chain reaction by 1970 
by installing dictators in neighboring countries and helping Suharto come to 
power in Indonesia.

Prize-winning journalist Amy Goodman noted in her introduction of Chomsky that 
he had played a crucial role in bringing the attention of the world to the 
oppression of the people of East Timor by Indonesia.  She recounted the beatings 
and massacres she witnessed while traveling there as a journalist, as well as 
the elation when the nation achieved independence.  “This nation of survivors 
had prevailed.  They had resisted, and they had won.”  Chomsky, when speaking 
about activism and civil disobedience, stressed the need for determined 
persistence.  “You're not going to win tomorrow.  You are going to have a lot of 
defeats, but you have to keep at it.”

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/noam-chomsky-iran-pursuing-nuclear-weapons-out-of-fear-1.1265656

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.