The real question is, Why is the deal being pursued? What exactly is the threat of Iran? That’s the fundamental question. The deal does constrain what’s called the Iranian Threat, but what exactly is the threat? It’s interesting that question is never raised. Actually, it is raised.
1. There is [the NPT] Iran is a party to. Many believe Iran has violated that.
Correct, Iran is
party to it, and Iran has lived up to it. There
are other countries that are not parties to it. Israel, for example, is not
party to it, and has a huge nuclear weapon system. The US protects it. Pakistan
is not a party to it. Its nuclear weapon system was developed through the
United States. India is not a part of it. – Right. – It has an enormous nuclear
3. But would you argue that Iran having a nuclear weapons being a good thing?
4. I don’t think anyone ought to have the nuclear weapons, including the United States, but that’s not the issue. If Iran’s alleged noncompliance with the NPT is the issue, and I add alleged, that certainly doesn’t require sanctions or treaty or any other actions.
5. I know you’ve said before the US had no right to sanction Iran in the first place, but why not? UN also imposed sanctions. And again, I know that you argued that Iran has not violated the NPT, but others argue that it did, that it’s gone too far with its enrichment.
6. If it did, fine. First of all, it’s primarily the United States, the others are rather mild. But if the countries are opposed to the violations of the NPT, then Fine, let’s turn to the major violators: Israel, Pakistan and India. I don’t think anyone ought to have nuclear weapons. But notice that the analysis of the US intelligence is pretty reasonable. There’s nothing Iran could do with nuclear weapon except as a deterrent. And there are two countries in the region that do not want Iran to have a deterrent; the two countries that freely use Force and Violence in the region: primarily the United Staes, and secondarily Israel.
8. I said these are the major ones, these are the major ones by far. There are plenty of countries that are ugly and do ugly things. But take a look at the scale. There are no countries that rampage like anything like to that extent. Furthermroe, the US is quite open about it. Just in the last few days, Ashton Carter, commentators like Thomas Friedman, our ambassador Samantha Power have stated quite openly that if we choose, we will use Force against Iran. There is something called the UN Charter, which bars the threat and use of Force in international affairs. But US political leaders and leading commentators across the board say we are not bound by that; if we decide to use Force, we’ll use Force.
9. But you’ve argued that the United States are the World’s leading terrorist threat.
10. I’m reporting World opinion.
11. I know you’re reporting the World opinion, but I think you’ve made that comment yourself.
12. I agree with it.
13. Exactly, you agree with it. You cite among other things, the global assassination campaign, referring to drone strikes. But what would you do if these people are plotting against the US in far-flung and difficult-to-access places?
14. If they’re plotting against the US. This happens to be the 800 th anniversary of Magna Carta, which in a limited way established what has become a major principle of Law, namely Presumption of Innocence. Until someone is charged in a Court of Law with a Jury of Peers in a criminal act, they’re innocent. If we feel free to attack people anywhere and kill them who we claim might harm us in the future. If anyone else did that, we’d nuke them. [Omitted.]