Open Letter to Senator Schumer

Dear Senator Schumer, I was more than dismayed to read that you intended to vote against the Iran treaty.

I understand that you did much research, and spoke to many people in the Administration, as well as opponents of the treaty; I understand that you considered the position of the Israeli government, as well as our own. I even understand that you considered the concerns of your New York constituents, of which I am one.

However, your position on the treaty is extremely short-sighted. It is making the perfect enemy of the good.

Without American participation in the treaty’s enforcement, we will have the worst of alternatives: the treaty will likely still be ratified by our partners (the P4 + 1), we will still have United Nations approval; the sanctions of our partners will be lifted; the US and Israel will stand alone against it.

Or, the treaty will not pass internationally, and we will inevitably have war.

We will not get a “better” treaty. The kind of inspections regime that opponents appear to be proposing would only be agreed to by a nation that has been militarily destroyed, as was Germany and Japan in WWII.

Since we are already over-extended militarily, since we will NOT have international support if we unilaterally attack Iran, any military attempt to stop Iran from going nuclear will inevitably be counter-productive: it will push Iran into building nuclear weapons as fast as they can; it will not do more than delay nuclearization.

By contrast, the treaty would at least delay possible nuclear weapons for ten to fifteen years, and in that time Iran could become a more responsible and moderate nation, since it would have more interchange with the rest of the world. Like many other nations, it could forego developing nuclear weapons (as it claims to have done already).

Further, war with Iran would be many times worse than our ill-advised adventures into Vietnam and Iraq. Iran is several times the size of Iraq; it has an effective political system that would mobilize its population in a way that Iraq was unable to do; war with Iran would probably enable Islamic State to make greater conquests, since Iran is one of its main opponents in the region. War would radically increase the chaos in the Middle East—chaos for which we are already responsible for a good part. The US could bankrupt itself in such a war.

War would also eliminate any chance for the kind of progressive domestic policies that you and I both favor.

To oppose the treaty will ultimately not help Israel, either. It will weaken the US, and drive Iran into a much more belligerent policy towards Israel; it is now rhetorically hostile, but has been tacitly supportive of US actions against Islamic State and could become more cooperative, not less, if the US supports the treaty. Further, the unhinged ravings of former Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, do not represent current Iranian policy, nor the majority of the Iranian people, as witnessed by its more moderate current government. To oppose the treaty would strengthen, not weaken those elements in Iran most inimical to Israel and the US.

To oppose any reasonable treaty on the grounds that peace with Iran will benefit it economically, is to advocate the pauperization of a nation that could play a positive role in the region if it were welcomed and if it benefitted from full participation on the world stage.

It may be true that the treaty will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in 15 years, but it is our best chance at prevention, especially if Iran, as a full participant in regional and world affairs is led to realize that nuclear weapons would not be in its interest.

If you vote against the treaty, I for one will do all I can to oppose your re-election to the Senate, since, to me, such a position is antithetical to the progressive politics that you claim to stand for.

Sincerely



Douglas C. Smyth

Iran Is Not Recalcitrant

Even if Iran were secretly trying to develop the bomb, they would be acquiring it for defense. To fear they would drop it on Israel is to think the Iranians are less rational than even the North Koreans. The most they could do is threaten their non-nuclear neighbors, but even that's unlikely, with the US threatening them if they try. Meanwhile, Israel has several hundred bombs and the missiles and bombers to deliver them.

Even if the Iranians built the bomb, it would be for defense: to prevent the US from trying to force "regime change."

But it's pretty much agreed, by the world's best intelligence agencies, the American and Israeli, that Iran abandoned nuclear weapon development in 2004, and hasn't decided whether to resume it. On the other hand, many analysts believe that Iran has the technological and knowledge capability to build a nuclear weapon, and one of the policy points of contention was that very word, 'capability.' If Iran is to be denied nuclear 'capability,' then there are already grounds for attacking it--and scores of other countries.

What is almost never admitted is this: Iran, as a member of the IAEA, has the international treaty right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, as long as it allows inspections to insure that's what it's doing. Enriching uranium to 20% is for medical use, and as someone with prostate cancer treated by radiation, I believe modern nations should be able to supply their own, and Iran is modernizing.

It is possible that a gold bug's theory, explains why the US is acting this way. Iran has been leading an international movement away from the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. If the movement prevails (it will, eventually, even without Iran), the US would owe debt it couldn't pay, and its strength would be checkmated, because it couldn't credibly borrow the huge sums we now depend on monthly, especially to finance our imperial military.

So, the pressure against Iran may not be what it seems. The conflict isn't really about a few nuclear bombs that do not exist. It's about whether the US remains a viable economic superpower.

It is clear that Iran's leaders don't like us, but then we've been helping Israel and the MEK covertly attack the regime for years. Iran's promotion of a post-dollar international economy fits in with their hostility--and with their experience of the US as a malign international entity, consistently hostile--even when the Iranian regime was more liberal, and inclined to view reconciliation favorably.

Iran is 3.7 times larger than Iraq territorially, is 2.3 times larger in population, and has an effective government not based on one dictator. If bluff and sanctions don't work, war with Iran could be the straw that broke the American camel's back: it could bankrupt the US empire; we'd be facing a replay of Rome's fall in 476.

Israel Is Always Right

I've been having a "dialogue" with an old friend of mine, who accepts everything the Israeli government claims, about the flotilla assault, the Gaza blockade, etc.

He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.

Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.

But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.

That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.

Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.

Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.

There is bluster and threats on all sides.

How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.

They're playing it all over the world.

The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.