RSSUsing PayPal
Appetite for Nukes: Thoughts on Turkmenistan a Decade Ago and the Nuclear Club Today
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Apr 12 2006, 6:46PM
CLOSE 
SOCIAL WEBSITES
http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2006/04/the_need_for_nu/&title=Appetite for Nukes: Thoughts on Turkmenistan a Decade Ago and the Nuclear Club Today&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Newsvine
Stumble UponEMAIL THIS ARTICLE
When I moved to Washington in the fall of 1994, I got to know the then Ambassador from Turkmenistan to the United States.
Turkmenistan had been part of the former Soviet Union, and after it became its own country and set up its Embassy in Washington, few paid much attention to Turkmenistan or its Ambassador. This period preceded the so-called "new great game" for Caspian oil.
When I opened the office I was running and had an open house, the Ambassador brought a very large framed picture -- extremely nice, almost too nice. I was embarrassed because I really didn't want to accept gifts of that sort, but the Ambassador asked me to take it because he felt that I had been so decent to him.
He commented that "because we don't have nuclear weapons that we control, no one in this town pays attention to us. No one in the administration (the Clinton administration) wants to meet with me. You (Steve) have been generous with your time and interest and we want to support your efforts."
This has stuck in my mind ever since the episode in early 1995, over ten years ago.
I hope that America and Iran don't go down a road of hot conflict over Iran's nuclear ambitions, but no matter what happens -- those in the nuclear proliferation business, both pro and con, need to understand that nations that want to move up the power ladder in the world go after nukes not only because they want them for offensive purposes; not just because they want them for defense; but because they want "respect."
I have no doubt that if Turkmenistan had the ability to get nukes in early 1995, it might have -- not because it wanted to defend itself from a return of Soviet control or to control the Caspian territories it has -- but because it wanted the White House to return its phone calls.
America has helped create and instigate the appetite for nuclear weapons in nations that want to be powerful.
This is something we, as a nation, must fix.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Tuesday Morning Musings: A New Kind of Open Thread» Next Article - Getting America Back into the Arena of International Law
Iran has oil, which should get its phone calls returned.
Steve, do you think that interpreting administration foreign policy in Iran and Iraq in terms of a struggle for hegemony with China makes sense? I wonder if Cheney is willing to take quite drastic steps to keep China from getting a foothold in the region---up to and including allowing/fomenting civil war.
I just can't watch the developments of the last year and think that the administration is serious in the least about stopping civil war; on the contrary, it seems at best indifferent to the prospect, if not actually encouraging it behind the scenes.
I really don't have a fully coherent exposition of my thinking, but if you grant that oil is the primary consideration in the war, and that China will be a huge rival for oil in the near future, you have to wonder if there is an attempt to bollocks the states which were considering ties with China, intentionally.
I hope that America and Iran don't go down an idiotic road of hot conflict over Iran's nuclear ambitions, but no matter what happens -- those in the nuclear proliferation business, both pro and con, need to understand that nations that want to move up the power ladder in the world go after nukes not just because they want them for offense; not just because they want them for defense; but because they want respect.
This is so obvious a truth
it shouldn't need saying.
But then we are talking about Washington DC here.
A place controlled by
monster egos completely out of balance
and totally in the employ of the military-industrial complex.
Which means of course:
So long as war is
good for the local economy
of a well placed few...
the nation will continue to act like a rabid dog.
Yet even as I write
Yahoo is reporting:
Experts: Iran's nuclear boast may mean little.
Well duh...
But how do you reason with rabid dogs
made rich by the military-industrial complex?
You can't.
They've got this aresenal you see...
and they will be made wealthier for its dropping.
No matter who they kill
and for whatever lame reasons...
It is so easy to drop bombs,
and such a joyous thing
because it leads to:
Mo' betta military contracts!
and...
The people will rally around the flag
and...
The president's approval rating will go up.
That's what matters
inside Washington DC's
smokiest and foul inner rooms.
Bank on it.
"I have no doubt that if Turkmenistan had the ability to get nukes in early 1995, it might have -- not because it wanted to defend itself from a return of Soviet control or to control the Caspian territories it has -- but because it wanted the White House to return its phone calls.
This is something we, as a nation, must fix."
This is a very interesting and enigmatic conclusion. Could it mean that the White House is now operating so isolated that it dismisses any effort of deal making on the part of the Iranian government? Was the 19th century theater show the mullahs gave way - the holding of the tubes accompanied by an capella choir - a (last) attempt to show the world that they're ready to make a deal? A deal on mutual terms, that is. In Persian culture, symbolic gestures are often more telling than speech.
Let's hope that somewhere in the corridors of the White House there's just one good translator who can, at least for now, bring these two worlds together.
Nice follow up to the previous thread
This conclusion also fits that one
"...a culture of hiring children to do work that requires experience leads to childish results." - Robert Cahn
Im all for a unique change in direction on dialogue with Iran.
That said Steve, I think you have failed to take note in your analysis of the Iranian situation, that a large proportion of the Iranian regime was/still is in bed with Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, letting them get capabilities of nuclear weapons is not allowable.
We could all sit here and say how a large portion of Iran, moderate Iran wishes for a change in relations. But the problem is, they have no power, obviously much much less than they had growing 5-6 yrs ago to the literal spit in the bucket they can manage today. 85%, yes 85% of Iranians polled openly supported Irans nuclear ambitions regardless of its "peaceful" stated purpose or whether they are really for nuclear weapons. It could be respect Steve, and I understand that, all I ever want is just respect from people, but you have to look at all the cards on the table and the extenuating circumstances surrounding politics and bedfellows in Tehran. And for the US, Israel, and Western Europe, those circumstances spell significant trouble and sleeplessness.
JS, just write "2003, change "q" to "n"---sign me on" next time.
A telling anecdote, Steve. Thanks for sharing it with us.
JS, just change the words "Iran" to "America" in the following...
"We could all sit here and say how a large portion of Iran, moderate Iran wishes for a change in relations. But the problem is, they have no power, obviously much much less than they had growing 5-6 yrs ago to the literal spit in the bucket they can manage today."
...and you would be exactly right.
18% of the American public is beating the war drum as loudly as they can. The other, powerless 72%, know that this Iran thing is just more Iraq stupidity.
What our country needs right now is an election.
Desperately.
If we could have one:
Bush would be out of the White House faster than you (or he) could mutter more demented dreams of Iranian boogeymen.
Boo!
I haven't seen the full presentation by the Iranians but I did hear a revealing snippet that stated that they had success "in the laboratory." This is a very important distinction -- cold fusion anyone? It's one thing to carry out an experiment on a small scale, quite another to produce enough material to run a power plant to make the material needed to make an effective bomb. (If I'm wrong on that account I'd like to know).
But the really important statement came today when an Iranian official stated that they would be installng something like 50,000 centrifuges to bring this project fully on line. He even bragged that they are 16 days away from producing enough material.
WHICH COUNTRY IS SUPPLYING THE CENTRIFUGES?
The obvious guess would be the Soviet Union. However [pulling tin foil hat firmly around head], a more likely source is a country with a lot of nukuler power plants and the capacity for manufacturing centrifuges on a grand scale. Japan? France? America?
It is possible that Iran is producing their own centrifuges but somehow I doubt it. And if they are, is the quality of the equipment up to this kind of endeavor.
They have been perversely taunting about this whole thing. While it may be true that Mr. A is directing his actions to a domestic audience, it cannot have escaped their notice that there are more than a few nut cases in DC who are itching to drop them a nuke or two.
It's really much too dumb for even the most rabid fanatic to do such a thing. So to me there's only one answer: CIA. (But then that's my answer to everything :)
Wow...
500,000 centrifuges!
(or was that 50,000?)
(What's a factor of 10, or 100, or 1000 or 10,000
between war-drumming friends?)
At any rate I need to amend my Boo! by an equivalent power of 10:
Booooooooooooo!
[Aside: Tammy, you need to flush your mind clear of its neocon koolaid. Have you tried an enema lately? Seroiusly... you've got a lot of bugbears inside there speaking in tongues. Boo!]
JS, who's to say our bed fellows are any better, in particular, at this point, Israel vs. Palestine?
The Iranian people don't want war with us any more than Americans want war with them.
Hell, here in America we can turn our warhawks out at the ballot box without any violence, but we don't do it.
Nice post Steve. It is indeed a sad day when inclusion in discussion is contingent upon the ability to inflict horrendous harm. Josh Marshall's was equally on target today:
Thanks for sharing, Steve.
The Ambassador's remarks should be in this Sunday's edition of the Washington Post -- page 1 -- above the fold.
He said it all.
Has anyone considered/remembered the axis of evil and were we're at now?
As usual Steve, you get it. The first to bring that vein into the discussion and its worth talking about.
Had we accorded Iran a bit more respect by agreeing to hold talks with them when they first reached out to us when this admin first came into power, we might not be where we are now.
Chris Floyd shares a nice anecdote about Donald Rumsfeld's role in promoting "leaders are those most aggresive and willing to use military might" POV in the US, back to NSC68, when the US first ignored the founding fathers' admonition that standing armies are incompatible with democracy. From James Carroll's upcoming book, The House of War.
ttp://tinyurl.com/mraq7
"Iran has oil, which should get its phone calls returned."
No, as Steve pointed out, folks (the US post WWII) driven by "might makes right" see no point in negotiating with those unable to thwart might's will. Unfortunately they also perceive themselves not bound by Gandhi's observation : "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall, always."
" but because they want "respect.""
It's a very simplistic analysis, but it is right on the mark.
This is one of the most important reasons for the United Nations.
Iran is playing politics, DOMESTIC politics, and BushCo is too stupid to manage it. Every statement that comes out of the Cheney admin has a tone, a tone of "yeah bitch?- you talkin to ME?"
Iran isn't really talking to the USA. There is a power struggle there and we are being used as a foil. It's a very dangerous game they're playing, but since Bush has put our military and finances spreadeagle over a barrel, they know it would be suicide for the USA to do anything.
However, Bush is as stupid and political as they come, even more so than Mr A in Iran, and I think he views this as his last chance to make his 'legacy' something other than incompetence and profligacy.
If he pursues this I don't see how we ever recover our standing in the world, never mind our physical safety.
I will say one thing for the Iranian "stategy"- there will never be a better time for them to puff out their chests and defy Uncle Sam.
At any moment some random event could tip our hobbyhorse back towards an even keel, and any sort of rational discussion coming from the U.S. would have a great deal of weight. Iran has a lot of young people who want the same stuff American young people want, and a 'softly softly' approach by the U.S. could be very influential with the majority.
As Steve notes, the U.S., especially under Bush, has been a very bad role model indeed.
Our fixing skills seem singularly impaired and I start to question if "we," as a nation still exist.
Interesting post Steve - some points. Much to think about.
Was it a still life, landscape or portrait?
Reader Comments (23) - post a comment