"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential
flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic
regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace,
The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never
been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred
of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration
from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's
"imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons
program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media
routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations,
like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations)
to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims
have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another
part of Washington's propaganda war.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei
the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous
investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up
with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings
of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should
be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned.
It is just that simple.
That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they
have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and
are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as
though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack.
Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted
by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related
activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans'
submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."
Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United
States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites
even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even
though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster"
bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.
The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike"
capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.
The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed
nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful
states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep
Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with
a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges
for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals
that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear
fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the
terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other
confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable
solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration,
the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the
So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations
as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members (England, Germany, and
France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and
Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog"
agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and
will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle
Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration
has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military
action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should
Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written
right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?
Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their
own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran
has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates
the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.
Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where
the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case
should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case
along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will
exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive
attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts.
Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush
administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking
reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Nevertheless, they have been unwavering
in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests
that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked
attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the
threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at
Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.
The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever
is their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their
right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of
course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or
not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr.
Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are
just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has
provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions
for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt.
We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy
for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge
American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable
enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold
back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the
terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the
US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian
Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried
out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely
to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more
recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran
can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.
Isn't that so?
If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will
proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological,
chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy
anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities.
Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that
they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional
rival in the future.
In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present,
there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and
most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the
administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's
oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case,
a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic
Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against
Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from
striking back and escalating the conflict.
It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much
It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable
men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior
We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that
would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence.
The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon
if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.
When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.
Go to Original Article >>>
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.