Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Chomsky su Ahmadinejad

http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/ahmadinejad_iranian_nuclear_weapons/
Ahmadinejad seems to be something of a loose cannon, and he's
apparently making the religious conservatives who are the real power
pretty nervous. They've stripped the presidency of some of its powers
and transferred them to his main rival Rafsanjani. He appears to have
limited experience beyond the local level, and appears not to
comprehend how his statements will be exploited by hostile powers.
[His] comments [that Israel should be "wiped off the map"] are
doubtless deplorable, but would it be more acceptable for him to be
announcing publicly that he is going to bomb Israel and the US,
meanwhile demonstrating very openly that he is preparing the capacity
to do so? That's after all what the US and Israel have been very
openly proclaiming with regard to Iran, and preparing to execute, for
years.
No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons. However, it's
hard to disagree with the conclusion of one of Israel's leading
military historians, Martin van Creveld, that Iran would be insane not
to develop them, surrounded by hostile and threatening nuclear powers,
including the global superpower-which ... has a history in Iran that
Iranians are unlikely to sweep under the rug as is done here.
Another part of that history is that as long as the tyrant it imposed
was ruling Iran, the US was providing material and diplomatic support
for the very same enrichment programs that it now demands that Iran
terminate. Now the claim is that Iran doesn't need nuclear energy, so
it must be developing weapons-as could be true. In the 1970s, the
claim was that Iran does need nuclear energy, so the US must help it
develop means to enrich uranium. Asked about this, Henry Kissinger,
then an advocate of Iranian nuclear energy programs (as Secretary of
State and later), said with his usual honesty that the difference is:
then Iran needed nuclear energy because it was an ally; now it
doesn't need nuclear energy because it has abundant hydrocarbon
resources, so it must be developing nuclear weapons capacity. Simple.
Iranians may not be as willing to swallow it as Westerners do.
The US concedes that Iran so far has kept to its Non-proliferation
Treaty (NPT) commitments. The official argument is that Iran cannot be
trusted-doubtless true, but one can think of a few competitors in
that race.
Iranians are also less willing than commentators here to overlook the
fact that the US is in radical violation of its NPT commitments, as are
the nuclear powers generally though the Bush administration is far in
the lead, the main cause for the collapse of the NPT 5-year review
conference last May. The Bush administration is, for once, correct in
my opinion in calling for a revision of Article IV of the NPT, which
permits enrichment programs of the kind that Iran is now carrying out.
With modern technology, the gap between these programs and nuclear
weapons capacity is much narrower than it was in 1970, when the NPT was
signed. There are ways to overcome that problem, including quite
concrete proposals. But they have gotten nowhere because the US has
blocked them, most recently in November 2004, when the UN voted 147-1
(guess who) for a treaty placing production of fissile materials under
international supervision-unreported here to my knowledge, though I
presume Iranian intelligence is aware of this critically important
vote. There's a lot more.
The US is playing with fire in this case. Iran does have options. It
might decide to give up on Europe, assuming that it is too much under
the thumb of Washington, and turn to the East, joining the Asian Energy
Security Grid based in Russia and China. That's part of a range of
issues much too complex to discuss here, though it's worth mentioning
that it's one of the reasons why the US greatly fears the danger of a
sovereign and more or less democratic Iraq-facts highly relevant to
current withdrawal debates, which are almost meaningless if these
factors are ignored, as they are.

 Energy Security Grid based in Russia and China.
In effetti questo mi pare il nodo fondamentale della crisi attuale, e ben al 
di là dell'Iran.
rosalucsemburg

 di là dell'Iran.
Finalmente un parere sensato. E sensatamente preoccupato. Il mondo rischia
una ri-polarizzazione (che ha molti padri, e che non sarà indolore). Hai
colto qualcosa di profondo, credo. Come vedi, tu, le possibilità
*ideologiche* della Cina, in questo senso (prescindendo dal fantomatico
"comunismo" cinese: intendo parlare di gestione autoritaria - e non
"pianificata" - del mercato)? Shalom.
Namib

 Come vedi, tu, le possibilità *ideologiche* della Cina, 
IMHO l'ideologia che puo' esportare la Cina e' riassumibile in "Lavorate,
obbedite, non scassate la michia al manovratore e avrete pace e
benessere". Roba che ha sempre molto appeal se non fosse che il
manovratore risiede a Pechino e che la ricetta cinese la vedo
difficilemtne esportabile.
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it