![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
I recently participated in a discussion with some friends of mine in which it was suggested that the perceptions of the U.S. with regards to Iran and to the current nuclear proliferation issue are seriously out of synch with those of the rest of the Western countries.
The following three articles present this point of view rather persuasively:
Basically, this paradigm is:
After further investigation, here is what I do and don't buy:
Iran is significantly more peaceful and moderate and modern than is thought of in the U.S., but it's not quite as lovable as a modern Western country. There seems to be a fair amount of domestic repression.
I wouldn't say it is exactly peaceful. But I don't think it is any more warlike than the U.S. It is willing to use its force in not entirely nice ways to serve its interests, and it is willing to initiate the use of violence, not just to defend itself. However, the same is true of the U.S.
Europe is more friendly towards Iran than the U.S., but I am not convinced that everyone is "friends" with Iran. It seems more likely that most nations are on cordial terms with Iran, for the sake of trade and communication and peace, even though they don't quite approve of everything it does (such as the domestic political repression).
However, I didn't quite gather enough information to be sure of this. Arguing towards more friendliness are:
I don't think that this is accurate. The following survey shows that opinion is split all over the world, and that significant minorities favor sanctions against Iran if it doesn't comply:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/247.php?nid=&id=&pnt=247&lb=hmpg1
However it is also worth noting that in most of the Western countries, pluralities (and in some, majorities) favor no sanctions.
Furthermore, the British news media I consulted seemed to word things much like the U.S., in terms of "Iran is refusing the West's demands", "The West is scared of Iran getting nuclear weapons", etc. Examples:
This Asian time articles also says that others are concerned:
However this Asian Times article somewhat supports the original contention that the U.S. is the only government concerned, although it also implies that perhaps Britian is also concerned:
I think a more accurate statement is that many people are in fact concerned about Iran's intentions, and would like to do something about the situation if possible; but that they don't consider it important enough to make as big a fuss over it as the U.S. is making.
I note once more though that opinions seem to be split in most countries, though. So perhaps this is one of those cases where there is insufficient consensus for one to speak of "THE opinion" of the world or of Western countries.
I don't think this is the case. Consider this quote from IAEA from September 18:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n014.html#iran
" ...nor was the Agency able to make progress on resolving the outstanding issues, due to the absence of the necessary transparency on the part of Iran.
As I have indicated in the past, all the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency has been accounted for - and, apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, there have been no further findings of undeclared nuclear material in Iran.
But as I have just stated, because of the inability of the Agency to make progress in resolving the outstanding issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s current and past centrifuge enrichment programme, the Agency cannot make any further progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. This continues to be a matter of serious concern. "
However, it is worth noting that the quote was directly followed by:
" In addition to the Agency´s current verification activities in Iran, I remain hopeful that, through the ongoing dialogue between Iran and its European and other partners, the conditions will be created to engage in a long overdue negotiation that aims to achieve a comprehensive settlement that, on the one hand, would address the international community´s concerns about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, while on the other hand addressing Iran´s economic, political and security concerns. "
So, the IAEA is clearly saying that Iran is not being as transparent as possible, and that it is a matter of "serious concern". But they don't seem to be advocating starting a war or anything like that; rather, they seem to think that continued negotiating might eventually gain the necessary increase in transparency.
This topic is beyond the scope of the webpage and will be treated more thoroughly elsewhere on this site.
Well, this is partially true and partially false. The U.S. people's intentions are certainly not to build an empire; the U.S. people don't even like to hear foreign news, much less get involved. Certain U.S. government administrations have felt differently, however by and large I think most of them haven't wanted to build an empire either.
However, despite good intentions, the actual __behavior__ of the U.S. has left a lot to be desired. The U.S.
