Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 106 Editor's Choice: 20
-
friedman is a great disappointment
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Glenn,
Tom Friedman has been one of the great disappointments in punditry over the past 6 years. I think it was he who wrote that the US needs to "smash the Arab world in the face" for Sept. 11 and, even now, I am often amazed at how shallow his analyses are on most issues - not just Iraq and Iran, but his unremitting promotion of economic globalization, for example. Economic globalization is a complex phenomenon, but Friedman's description of the "golden straitjacket" idea is ridiculously simple-minded.
What is most disturbing about Friedman is that he is a representative of the American mainstream political class. The received wisdom of this class is that Iran must be humbled and controlled. The fact that the idea of an "Iranian threat" is so overblown that it barely makes sense is not something that these people can - or want - to accommodate. Friedman articulates what many believe - Iran must be coerced. Dealing with it as an equal, trying to understand that Iran wants regional respect and can be negotiated with, or even appreciating the real limits of US military power are - disturbingly - apparently beyond the political class' ability to comprehend.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
a statement of the pretty obvious
[Read the article: NIE: Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
The argument that Iran is building a nuclear weapon has always been pretty questionable. Iran's nuclear weapons program (started by the Shah) was restarted in the 1980s due to the fear that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was trying to develop his own nuclear weapons. The effort was allowed to slide after Saddam's overthrow, then restarted in the late 1990s after Pakistan got its bomb (and Pakistan, the sponsor of the Taliban and in real danger of being controlled by radical Sunni Muslims, is regarded as a potential threat to Shi'ite Iran). It is perfectly reasonable that Iran abandoned its most recent efforts at acquiring nukes in 2003. In all likelihood, what Iran wants - and what it has always wanted - is the knowledge of how to build a bomb in order to deter the US, Israel and other Western powers from attacking it.
The really interesting question is how the neocons will spin this. Already, they are saying that sanctions and pressure worked and so "we" should keep it up. But to what end? If Iran is not developing nuclear weapons then it has every right to develop nuclear power. And let's not forget that the US is the real nuclear threat here, given that the current US administration has destroyed or is in the process of violating every nuclear safeguard treaty ever signed by the US. The US is simply in no position to cast stones at any other country over its nuclear intentions.
The NIE indicates that negotiation with Iran is not only possible but likely to be successful. Of course, this won't happen. The current crop of "policymakers" in the White House are dedicated to humbling Iran, to making it pay because it has dared to defy American power and, more than 25 years ago, humiliated the one, true superpower. The real crazies are in the White House. Those who want another war would seem to have been dealt a significant defeat with this new report, but these people are master manipulators. Let's see how this all plays out.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
racial politics
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Joan,
I have not been following the American primaries too closely, but the breaking open of racial issues has caught my attention. I just read Glenn Greenwald's recent column, and I have to say that I completely agree with Glenn. Wherever and whoever started putting race into this campaign, Bill Clinton's most recent comments seem to indicate that he is running with the racial card. And that is just sad.
I do have a quick comment on your statement that most of the MSNBC panels are predominantly white and male: I see the dangers of this, but I also wonder about the catch-22 problem: Obama (and his supporters) don't want him to be seen as the "African-American candidate". Does putting African Americans on panels because one of the front-runners is of their race undermine this entire idea? Can we assume that Hispanic candidates require Hispanic commentators or a native
American candidate would require native commentators? I realize, of course, that pretending that race doesn't matter in the US is like pretending the sun won't come up tomorrow, but it does seem to me that Obama's candidacy has the chance to move beyond race - but it can only do that if race is not made into an issue.(Though it may well be too late for that) In other words, making too big a deal of it makes it too big a deal - and altering the content of panels of commentators may be a step in the wrong direction. It's an interesting conundrum.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine