Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Weather Extremes Will Be the Norm As World Warms




The Chain
Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
The Brothers Karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov

By Fyodor M. Dostoevsky; Constance Garnett (Translator)

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Iran Could Cause Mideast Cold War, U.K. Official Warns

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 18, 2012
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (CC-BY)

U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has warned that a nuclear-capable Iran could push countries in the Middle East into a cold war in which the world would see the greatest nuclear proliferation since the invention of the atom bomb. Iran has ignored economic sanctions that Western nations hoped would deter it from pursuing nuclear development. —ARK

The Guardian:

“[The Iranians] are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme,” Hague told the Daily Telegraph. “If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.

“And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms. That would be a disaster in world affairs.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By bob zimway, February 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

An intelligent people are being led toward ruin by the far right. If ever a revolution
was needed it is in Israel.

Report this

By gerard, February 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

“U.S. COULD CAUSE MIDEAST HOT WAR” every pipsqueak
foreign affairs” official in the world knows—and fears.

Report this

By gerard, February 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

“Science has known sin”—and still sleeps with it every night that nuclear weapons are retained, made, distributed to some and withheld from others, used as “threat enforcers” for bullying, and keeping the entire world paralyzed with fear for its very existence.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 20, 2012 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

The better question, IMAX is when will this country and it’s current political
leadership realize that there are over 200 other nations on this world.  And that
the rest of the world is not the USA’s back yard. To meddle in every other
government, by bribery, fomenting insurrection and rebellion, murder when it
suits us, extortion, torture, and anything that we see fit to do.   

There was a little thing called the Manhattan project, you may have heard about
it…

Report this

By bob zimway, February 19, 2012 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Nukes are for pukes

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 19, 2012 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

gerard, - “we (the U.S.) are the ones who invented” nukes.

-

If you could only take your focus off of the U.S. for a span of time you would grasp a Germany, a U.S.S.R., and a China researching and building nuclear weapons at the time the United States understood how to make it work.

When, gerard, when will you begin to realize there are over 200 nations on the planet?

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

Yes Gerard, i agree nuclear weapons could quite possibly end us. Apparently we as a
species are plagued by irrationality.  Unless we do something about ourseves there is no
doubt that we will create weapon systems that make nuclear bombs look like fire
crackers.

People can say and do all sorts of things that appear rational, yet inside they are stark
raving mad. This may be why poltical discussions end up dealing with extreme
viewpoints instead of finding a common ground.

Report this

By wildmanculebra, February 19, 2012 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

the best outcome would be for a non nuclear response that would remove the threat without anyone knowing what happend, space junk, asteroid,or other stuff that could be nuged in the right direction…

Report this

By gerard, February 19, 2012 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

PS:  Doesn’t it strike anybody else here but me that (as Krugman said in another context) “this doesn’t need to be happening.” ???

Report this

By gerard, February 19, 2012 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

No nation in the world wants ANY other nation to acquire nuclear weapons.  EVERY nation in the world wants those nations who have nuclear weapons to get rid of them and become “nuclear-free”.  NO nation that has nuclear weapons is willing to give them up and become “nuclear-free”.  So long as that is the situation, every nation in the world is going to want and try to get nuclear weapons, and the eventual result will be yet another nuclear war, and possibly the end of human beings—many instantly, many more slowly from radiation diseases, and still many, many more due to mutations with unknown and undesireable consequences.
  The U.S. has, beyond reasonable doubt, a special obligation to stop production and get rid of its nukes because we are the ones who invented and used nukes to create not one, but two previoius disasters.
(not counting diseases among children caused by our use of depleted uranium weaponry). All the heroic posturing we do in the world only makes that obligation more obvious. We will be lucky if Nature herself doesn’t suddenly decide to “take US off the table” at which we so pompously preside.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 19, 2012 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

The west endured a cold war for many decades, and there is no doubt that a cold
war was much better than a nuclear war.

So now we have a justification for a war, to avoid a cold war?

The cold war didn’t escalate into a Nuclear war because of mutual assured
destruction. The sure knowledge that there could be no winner.

The reason is inverted here, a war to avoid a cold war, because apparently a cold
war is much worse than a real war.

The reality is, that those who favor the War, have little to say about our destruction
of Iraq, that was based on a lies, and propaganda, that resultred in a calamity for
the Iraq people.They also don’t mention that we were asked to leave, partly due to
the Atrocities we committed there. What’s also not mentioned is our attempted
negotiation with the Taliban. Or the trillions made by corporate America, with
many billions unaccounted for as a result of that conflict.

No, despite all the false political justifications, of our puppet states, dependent on
our foreign aid, and dictators we prop up,  we are attacking Iran, because they
won’t play ball with us, and because they stand in the way of our attempts, at
extending our Global empire.

Meanwhile over in Pakistan, it seems that we must apologize daily for the killing
of children with our drones.  Another country fed up with our corruption, and our
continued messing with other governments.

It’s not only in America that people oppose a war in Iran, there have been
demonstrations, in other countries as well, England for one. To say that America is
the only country where opposition to a war against Iran can be found is a lie.

Another lie is that every Arab country is begging us to intervene in Iran , that is a
lie, as well. I seriously doubt if Syria is. You have a habit of making sweeping
generalizations, and trying to pass them off as fact. But they are only your
opinion. 

This country does not have the moral right to attack another country, because we
would rather have a War full of death and destruction, than a cold war.

Is it a surprise that Arab nations, aren’t that thrilled with Israel, due to their
treatment of the Palestinians? I have also heard that there is a peace movement in
Israel, as well.

You are not an authority on the Iranian problem, no matter what you think, you
can only offer your opinion, as all of us here do.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

berniem, - “maybe if Israel agreed to forgo its nukes, Iran wouldn’t have as much incentive to create its own.”

-

Yes.  It’s a shame Israel is surrounded by nations which have vowed to end It’s existence.

Here’s an interesting phenomena.  No regional Arab nation has voiced a fear of an nuclear arms race in the Middle East until Iraq, Syria and Iran were thought to be nearing nuclear status.  Also, interestingly enough, no Arab nation has voiced a concern of being attacked by Israel using nuclear weapons.  But here we have every Arab nation on earth begging the United Nations to stop, what they appear to believe to be, Iran’s nuclear weapons programs.  Each of Iran’s closest neighbors have promised to pursue their own nuclear weapons of Iran is successful.

Question.  Why, when the subject is Iran against nearly every nation on the planet, does no one care to look at and discuss Iran?  Once again, oddly enough, the subject remains the United States and Israel.  Only in the United States have I found this to be the case.

Report this
moonraven's avatar

By moonraven, February 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

berniem:  Very good observations.

Report this

By berniem, February 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment

Gee, maybe if Israel agreed to forego its nukes, Iran wouldn’t have as much incentive to create its own. And really, wouldn’t a “cold” war in the ME be a little less deadly than the current “warm” version being observed? FREE BRADLEY MANNING

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 19, 2012 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

vector56,

So, with the exception of one, the entire world is attempting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capabilities - this would include Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain, Australia, Austria, Turkey, Poland, Denmark, Japan, Indonesia, Egypt, Georgia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, along with well over 150 more of the world’s nations all so that the United States can start WWIII?

We’ll have to agree to disagree.  I see nether to logic nor the rationale in that narrative.

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, February 19, 2012 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

“The reason for destabilizing Syria is to isolate Iran in preparatiom for World War Three.”

I agree with prisnersdilema; and Obama’s expansion into the Pacific region (military build up in the Philippines and Australia)supports the idea of setting the stage for WWIII. China and Russia’s veto at the UN signals the Neo-Cons and Neo-Liberals in Washington that world domination of natural resources will not happen without a fight!

“I’ll pose the same question.  Why has Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE begged Russia, China, the United States and the U.N. Security Council to take action before Iran reaches nuclear weapon status? “

IMax:

When Sadam attacked Kuwait for “slant drilling” America rode in and Liberated these rich bastards from Iraq. I remember watching the so-called Kuwaiti refugees on TV fleeing in to Saudi Arabia.  In most cases Refugees would be people fleeing for their lives and carrying their belonging (on their head). Kuwaiti refugees where driving Mercedes-Benz (music blasting), stopping to make a statement or two on how America would liberate them. At that point I realized that we (USA) were nothing more than “Global Mercenaries!” Killers for hire who serve the rich and powerful. When we drove Sadam out of Kuwait, at no point did we demand that Kuwait hold Democratic elections?

As Chomsky has said many times, the Arab League does not and has never represented the Arabs on the street. None of the countries allow their people to vote! The Arab League is no more real than the Justice League; just something we pulled out of our rear ends and prop-up!

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 18, 2012 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment

Dream on, Putin said the other day that The United States is trying to conquer Russia by
destabilizing Syria. He also said that Russia is not in a cold war with The United States
but a hot one.

The reason for destabilizing Syria is to isolate Iran in preparatiom for World War Three.

I think a better course of action would be to beg China to stop financing our debt. Then
there would not be any war.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 18, 2012 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

vector56, - “You do realize that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait are not ‘real’ states..”

-

No, I do not.  Each of the above are very proud and independent states with their own best interests in mind.  And while each are allies of the United States, each have displayed their independence on numerous occasions.  Excuse me for saying; to believe these nations mere puppets is the epitome of American arrogance.

I’ll pose the same question.  Why has Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE begged Russia, China, the United States and the U.N. Security Council to take action before Iran reaches nuclear weapon status?

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, February 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

“Look into why Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE would beg the United States, Russia and China to act against Iranian aggression and prevent, what they all agree to be, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons?  What, precisely, are the concerns of Iran’s closest neighbors and the region? “

IMax:

You do realize that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait are not “real” states and the people in these countries do not vote (Egypt is still a military dictatorship). The so-called Arab League is nothing more than a collections of the “puppet governments we prop up with our killing machine.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 18, 2012 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Really where were those same countries when Nort Korea developed nuclear weapons
and the means to incinerate Seattle? What did they say when Kim Il Jong threatened to
do just that?

I haven’t heard Russia begging Us to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear
weapons, which is still a long way off.

On the contrary I have heard Russian generals saying that an attack on Iran could lead
to Worlld War Three.

Maybe we could start a letter writing campaign to the permier of China begging them
not to loan us any more money to finance our debt so we can’t afford to go to war. Just
think of all the lives we could save.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 18, 2012 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

Migs,

It’s difficult for many Americans to think outside of the United States.  Even now you acknowledge a near global consensus regarding Iran, yet can’t resist framing the the issue almost entirely around the actions or motives of the United States. 

Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state is a global issue.  It’s also very much a Middle and Far Eastern issue.  Would you be willing to discuss just one of the many issues involved? 

For example: Forget the United States for a few days.  Look into why Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and the UAE would beg the United States, Russia and China to act against Iranian aggression and prevent, what they all agree to be, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons?  What, precisely, are the concerns of Iran’s closest neighbors and the region?

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, February 18, 2012 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

No, obtaining nuclear weapons is not a popularity contest.

North Korea already has them and the means to deliver them to the west coast by
ICBM.

So why don’t we massively attack North Korea?  Because they don’t stand in the way of
our fourth reich, at this point.

Attacking Iran, when they have not attacked anyone, is an act of aggression, against a
soverign nation. Rather than an imaginary cold war, it has the potential of creating a real
third World War, and killing at the very least hundreds of thousands of innoscents.

But since our ruling criminally insane elite believe they have the divine eight of kings to
kill, on a whim, the lives of the dead mean very little to them.

Report this

By Revere Paul, February 18, 2012 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

lies and more lies…

notice the parsing and playing on words…

“nuclear-capable Iran”, “if they obtain nuclear weapons capability”, etc…

Iran’s crime is no longer to actually develop nukes (panetta and many others including barak, the crime against humanity warmonger, both unequivocally state that it is not), the crime is no longer to have nukes but to be “nuclear capable”, whatever that means.

The real issue is the double standard of the imperial hegemon which is nuke EQUIPED (about 300 of them) (not just merely “capable”), the illegal fascist regime and racist occupier of Palestine, and how israel has bullied everybody in the region because it alone possesses these weapon (even though it is not a signatory to any non proliferation or the like).

The problem is not Iran.  How many wars has it started lately?

The problem is israel and its vassals: uSSa, europe, global finance, hollywood and western media, even thruthdig here which poses as a moderate but in fact is another facet of the dual citizen fifth column within our nations (is scheer a jew and dual citizen?) always pushing zionist agenda items ever so stealthily.

Report this
Migs's avatar

By Migs, February 18, 2012 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Imax,

So there’s consensus but I’m yet to hear why. It seems to me that a nuclear Iran would be the one thing standing between corporate America and its complete domination of the region and that’s probably the real reason they don’t want Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. But you might be able to provide a better explanation.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, February 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

Migs,

You ask a common question.  I believe you already have your answer.

Consider: There are over 200 nations on earth.  There are presently 192 member States of the United Nations.  Would you be able to point toward one nation, aside from Syria, which supports Iran becoming a nuclear weapons power?

Report this

By Amitola, February 18, 2012 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I kinda have the notion that the Powers that Be, you know the folks who own/run the MIC in the US and other western nations, would be delighted with the profits they could glean from a never-ending up-tick in the arms race.  And, they could still have fun pooping off a few hundred or thousands of civilians in various places where they foment a ruckus now and then,,,just to stay busy.

We live on a crazy planet…...

Report this
Migs's avatar

By Migs, February 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

I still don’t know why America and its allies like the UK think they have the moral authority to tell Iran they can’t have nuclear weapons. But what’s even more perplexing is that large sections of the media and the general public seem to just go along with this assumption without challenging it.

Report this

By Big C, February 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Isn’t nuclear Israel the true cause of a cold war in
the Middle East? 

When your neighbors have nukes, it seems only natural
to want to balance the threat by having your own
nukes.

If I were in Iran, I’d sure as hell want to have some
nukes.  In fact, if I were anywhere that didn’t have
nukes, I’d want nukes.

It goes back to that thing about bringing a knife to
a gun fight.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook