May 19, 2012

The U.S. Can Not "Grant Rights" To Iran

This administration spin piece in the New York Times on the upcoming negotiations with Iran has some revealing language:

For President Obama, the stakes are huge. A successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation over the nuclear program until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices, which fell again this week in part because of the decrease in tensions. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects.

Normal people would assume that successful negotiations would be those that lead to a peaceful solution of the issue. But the people talking to the NYT stenographer see success only in moving the day when the bombs start to fall. And as the oil issue lines explain the current negotiations are not at all about Iran's nuclear program but all about Obama's reelection. As soon as that is achieved new attempts for regime change in Iran, likely by force, will be back on top of the Obama agenda.

Then there is this:

Iranian officials have declared that the West has effectively endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a step they portrayed as a major strategic coup. American officials insist the United States has not done that and has been deliberately ambiguous about whether it would ever grant Iran the right to enrichment.

Which gods gave the U.S. the prerogative to "grant Iran" a right? Iran is a sovereign county. It does not need any rights "granted". As a member of the nonproliferation treaty its "inalienable right" to "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination" have already been acknowledged by the other NPT members which includes the United States.

Megalomaniac language like this shows that absurdity has taken over U.S. foreign policy.

Posted by b on May 19, 2012 at 12:14 UTC | Permalink

Comments