‘U.S. policy is nuclear narcissism’

[bananas]

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=218640

May 2, 2010

‘U.S. policy is nuclear narcissism’
Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN - Political activist Marcy Winograd says the current U.S. policy on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament is actually nuclear narcissism.

Ms. Winograd, who is a candidate for a seat in the U.S. Congress, made the remarks in an interview with the Mehr News Agency last week.

She will be on the ballot in the Democratic party primary in the 36th District of California, which is being held on June 8.

Winograd is challenging incumbent Jane Harman in the primary for the second time. In 2006 she got 38 percent of the vote.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q. U.S. President Barack Obama has said that he would retain the option to use nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea. How have U.S. citizens responded to this?

A: I am not sure that most Americans either know the president’s position on a first-strike or understand the ramifications for world annihilation. Of course, some are aware -- and believe the threat will never be carried out or think it’s important to be tough in the face of nuclear proliferation. During the Bush years a lot of propaganda was used to frighten the American people -- and unfortunately that propaganda continues as the fear reverberates. Americans fear a nuclear-armed Iran and do not understand why Iran persists in developing a nuclear program. They do not believe the program is solely for the purpose of providing energy to the nation of Iran. My position is that we cannot dictate nuclear abolition to the world while we pursue research on new nuclear weapons; this is called nuclear narcissism. Given the lethal history of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it’s understandable that Iran would feel threatened and want to protect itself. Many Americans do not understand this, however -- the feeling of being threatened because of invasions and occupations next door -- and simply feel the world cannot tolerate another nuclear-armed nation, particularly in the volatile Middle East.

Personally, I would urge the people of Iran and the United States to embrace the pursuit of green technology, not nuclear technology, because nuclear energy is fraught with problems: radioactive waste that lives forever, nuclear plants that can become targets for attack, as well as the threat that nuclear materials can be stolen and used for terrorism.

Q: When Obama took office in January 2009 his stances were so moderate that he was actually considered to be a realistic politician, but now we see that his political stances are getting harder and harder. Why is that the case?

A: I agree there has been a shift to the right, though the president was clear on Afghanistan from the beginning, advocating for a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. In the words of one of my students, “Obama didn’t lie to us. We just weren’t listening.” I do not excuse the madness of militarism, only acknowledge that the American people, after so many years of the much-reviled Bush, wanted desperately to believe in change, real change -- and so we closed our eyes and hoped that Obama was parroting hawkish positions simply to get elected, and that once elected he would realize there was no military solution in Afghanistan. He may come to that realization later rather than sooner, while our economy crumbles and needs for jobs, housing, and education become secondary to a bloated military budget. You have to understand there is so much hatred towards Obama on the right -- with gun-toting threats and Nazi caricatures and burgeoning militias -- that the left is reluctant to criticize him for fear of amplifying the right. It’s a delicate balance because if the left remains silent then the right assumes the mantle of populism and runs off with the microphone. Our country is deeply polarized. I wish our president had immediately used his victory, his political capital, to fight for transformative change: a transition from a permanent war economy to a new green economy. In the end, one man cannot make change all by himself; there needs to be a movement in the streets.

<snip>

[robinblue]

1. ..I wish our president had immediately used his victory, his political capital, to fight for transfo

well said. I wish we had more like her.


.....................I wish our president had immediately used his victory, his political capital, to fight for transformative change: a transition from a permanent war economy to a new green economy. In the end, one man cannot make change all by himself; there needs to be a movement in the streets.

[madokie]

2. Thats why he said that the changes we seek is in us

We need to be standing up to the special interest who are responsible for the status quo. We have among us a good leader who just needs to have us get his back. If we don't do that this opportunity will be lost.