The Rightwing blogosphere is throwing a fit over the fact that Obama has apparently said that Iran has a legitimate interest in nuclear power:
President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
One far right blog for example spins it thusly:
In other words, he's legitimizing Iran's excuse for developing nuclear weapons, Obama's naivety never ceases to amaze me....
Well the problem is that Bush said essentially the same thing in a2002 ABC interview with Charles Gibson:
Matter of fact, I said this in a press conference, that it's the sovereign right of Iran to have civilian nuclear power, and I agree, and I believe that.
Arguably, Bush's statement is more sweeping that Obamas too --- compare "may have some right" to "has a sovereign right".
In any case, Iran's absolute and unqualified and unquestionable right to access the full nuclear fuel cycle is based on international law and not for Obama or Bush to decide. Iran has the same rights to nuclear technology (or any other technology) as Japan, Argentina, Brazil, the USA...
Nor is it up to Iran to "prove that its aspirations are peaceful" (code words for "must give up enrichment and forever rely on us to power their economy".) Iran has signed the NPT and after years of inspections, no evidence has been found of any weapons program. The burden is therefore on Iran's accusers to prove their allegations, and not vice versa.
Comments