Domestic and international pressures build on Iran
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-06-14/domestic-and-international-pressures-build-iran
June 2009 solidarity protests in San Francisco surrounding the disputed Iranian election result
Flickr user Steve Rhodes
New U.N. Security council sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program intensify tensions between Tehran and other nations. Iran’s relationship with the world, and its internal conflicts one year after disputed presidential elections.
Guests
Nicholas Burns
Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School and former Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the U.S. Department of State
Robin Wright
journalist, author and foreign policy analyst at the United States Institute of Peace. Her most recent book is "Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East."
Karim Sadjadpour
Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
When have economic sanctions ever produced the desired result?? Gaza, Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China. etc. etc.
Sanctions are counter productive because they seem to further entrench the oppressive regime because they only hurt the people not the regime and at the same time they reinforce the regimes power because they provide an easy scapegoat (the US) to blame the country's problems on.
It seems to me that the opposite tactic, of allowing unrestricted trade, often produces a far greater movement to overthrow a particular government over time.
if the USA help the people of iran last year the picture was deferent today .... we have a weak president .that let the dark forces a chance to rise.
if the USA help the people of iran last year the picture was deferent today .... we have a weak president .that let the dark forces a chance to rise.
if the USA help the people of iran last year the picture was deferent today .... we have a weak president .that let the dark forces a chance to rise.
This morning’s show confirms my belief that the focus on Iran is a cover for U.S domination of the region. There is no way that you can discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions without discussing Israel’s. There is no way that you can discuss Iran's human rights without discussing Israel’s treatment of Gaza. The failure to see the relationship is disingenuous at best and makes any discussion of Iran meaningless.
As for nonproliferation debate, if the situation were reversed, and other natiions had nuclear weopons and we did not, we would be doing absolutely everything possible to obtain them. By any means at any cost. Why? Because it would be in our best interests as a nation. Don't even pretend that it is not true because it is true. That is the ultimate double standard and that is exactly why other nations persue these weopons, because they believe it is in their best interests to do so.
I was born and raised in Iran and moved here 12 years ago when I was 15 years old. For the past 12 years y'all have been saying " Iran will have nuclear weapon capabilities in 2-3 years". It bothers me the most when so called honest educated people like y'all analysts NEVER mention the FACTS. It is all about back door deals between governments, as long as Iran is within reach of nuclear weapons US and Europe can sell their weapons to the Arabs. Conflict is a necessary ingredient of life. So please stop bsing the people about spreading democracy, for it was the WEST and Israel who plotted the revolution in Iran 30+ years ago.
Once again, I have to remind you, your guests, and your listeners, that Israel, India and Pakistan are allowed to have nuclear weapons because they DID NOT sign the NPT. That alone is what gives Israel (and India and Pakistan) to have them. The majority of countries that chose not to sign the treaty did so because they had no nuclear technology when the treaty was drafted, and had no other way to get legal access to reactors and the like without signing the treaty. Israel, India and Pakistan acquired their basic nuclear capability years before the treaty came into existence.
Nick Burns’ comments were either pointlessly fatuous or deliberately disingenuous. His agenda was obviously to support the status quo, regardless of the overwhelming cognitive dissonance this produced. His knee-jerk defense of American policies, even the dismal policies of the Bush Administration, was agonizingly chauvinistic and transparently specious. His clumsy attempt to disguise our unsupportable double standard with regards to nuclear proliferation only highlighted its inherent lameness.
Not one of the commentators dared bring to task past policies, such as uncritical support for Israel’s endless succession of rightwing governments, the tolerance of tyrannical leaders in other oil rich countries for corporate profits, or the willingness to use military force at the drop of a hat as the source of the uncomfortable karma we are now experiencing in the Middle East. You could certainly do better that promoting hacks likes these on your program.
I was delighted to hear the question as to why there are only 2 countries that can have the nuclear arms. I always wondered. I was grateful for the caller to have asked!
It did seem to me to be unfair, however I now understand and see the point. Thanks, Diane and Caller!