Untitled Document
It's a scam. Who would ever have thought after the Iraq tragedy that
the US and its client states would have had the chutzpah to repeat their dismal
performance?
When the rumblings from the White House and the Israeli Knesset first
began over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, I thought their accusations
would be laughed out of court. I was wrong.
I was wrong because I hadn't realised the depths to which some powerful nations
would sink, even to the point of binning international law along with empirical
justice, in furthering their own interests.
I was wrong because I failed to realise just how much other countries fear
the wrath of the superpower or wish to continue receiving the monetary scraps
that fall off its table.
And I was wrong because I had underestimated the lengths to which elements
of Western corporate media would go to spin the story in favour of the belligerents.
And neither did I fathom just how deep the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, would
bury facts to appease the political agendas of its more powerful masters when
it has been accused of doing the same over Iraq with such terrible consequences.
Let's get specific.
Under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran
is a signatory, Iran not only has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, nuclear powers have an obligation to assist it in furthering this
aim. Here's the applicable text:
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable
right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop, research, produce and use
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination . . ."
Iran has always maintained that its nuclear plants are for the purposes of
generating electricity. The US, however, has unilaterally decided that Iran
doesn't need nuclear energy because it has large oil reserves. In reality, Iran
has long been a target for regime change writ large on the neocon agenda.
But despite Iran having signed an IAEA Safeguards Agreement whereby it agrees
to accept invasive inspections and monitoring for the purpose of verifying that
nuclear materials are "not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices," it has recently been voted in breach of the treaty
by a majority of 22 IAEA member countries.
A year ago, the director-general of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, made this
statement as to Iran's compliance with its obligations under the Safeguards
Agreement: "All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted
for, and, therefore, such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."
Then after a concerted effort by the US to oust him from his job, this was
ElBaradei's wishy-washy statement 11 months on: The IAEA is "not yet in
a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities
in Iran".
The above is exactly the kind of inconclusive language, both he and former
UN chief inspector Hans Blix, were making before the UN Security Council in
the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which as we know was entirely WMD-free.
If the Iranian file goes before the UN Security Council, there is a likelihood
that Russia and China will use their vetoes to prevent sanctions. But this would
be playing right into the Bush administration's hands.
The White House isn't really interested in slapping Iran with a long-drawn
out sanction process, which would, in any case, boomerang as oil prices would
soar.
Bush doesn't want guarantees that Iran isn't seeking nuclear WMD either. America's
real goal is regime change in Iran, just as it was in Iraq, and in the absence
of a genuine casus belli, it is desperate for a pretext, even, if it has to
resort to that same worn-out canard he used to invade Iraq.
Should the Security Council throw out the Iranian case, the administration's
interests would be served when it would have the perfect opening to gather together
yet another "coalition of the bribed and the coerced" to launch a
preemptive war.
Rattling
Israel, which hasn't ratified the NPT and whose nuclear activities were off
the table during the recent IAEA meeting, is already rattling its sabres.
But sticking to its long drawn-up agenda vis-à-vis Iran is no easy task
for the Bush administration. Some 140,000 US troops are bogged down in Iraq,
there are clamours for the National Guard to remain at home to cope with natural
disasters, and recruitment levels are way down. So what can it have up its sleeve?
Writer Paul Craig Roberts, who served in the Reagan administration as assistant
secretary of the treasury, puts forward a worrying thesis.
He suggests the US might resort to using nuclear weapons against Iran and cites
a Pentagon document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,"
which "calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries
in order 'to ensure success of US and multi-national operations.'"
Just imagine! We have here a country that unilaterally withdrew from the ABM
Treaty and is openly developing smaller tactical nukes against the provisions
of the NPT teaming up with another which refuses to sign-up to the NPT at all
or even admit it has a nuclear weapons programme.
And they are both pointing fingers at Iran that has played by the rules.
Funny stuff, indeed, but, sadly, nobody's laughing.