War on Muslims: 62 years after Atom Bombs hit Japan, Nukes now target IRAN - Armageddon nears!
Posted on Friday, August 10 @ 03:52:10 EDT by qjaved
|
|
Anonymous writes "BY ABBAS EDALAT AND MEHRNAZ SHAHABI - 9 August 2007
IT
IS appalling, if unsurprising, to read the neoconservative cheerleader
Oliver Kamm arguing that the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and
Nagasaki 62 years ago saved lives and ended suffering. The subtext is
plain.
The
same camp whose vocal endorsement led to the present catastrophe in
Iraq are now hawkishly gazing at Iran. The same absurd and dangerous
logic that defends the nuclear atrocities of 1945 can now be used to
support the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran — the
threat of which in turn makes the idea of a conventional attack appear
more palatable. Now, more than ever, we should be unequivocal in our
moral position: as Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, has said, the mere possession of nuclear weapons
today should be viewed with the same condemnation and horror as we have
regarded slavery and genocide in our modern civilised world.
Astonishingly,
the calamity of Iraq has failed to dampen the belligerent clique within
the White House. The arrival of an IAEA team in Teheran to discuss
inspections is equally unlikely to dissuade advocates of a strike,
nuclear or conventional. Such an assault would be in flagrant breach of
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it would hardly be the first
time the US has disregarded the 1968 accord.
The
treaty obliges nuclear states to pursue negotiations in good faith
towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and on to disarmament. It
also guarantees non-nuclear states help with and access to peaceful
nuclear know-how and technology.
All
five original nuclear states are in violation of the treaty for failing
to take effective action towards disarmament.
The US systematically
contravened the treaty in the 1980s and 1990s by successfully bringing
pressure to bear on Western governments and companies, as well as China
and Russia, not to enter nuclear collaborations with Iran — which, as a
signatory of the treaty, has been entitled since 1970 to receive
material, technology and information for the peaceful use of nuclear
power.
This eventually drove Iran, after the bombing of Iraq's Osirak
nuclear plant by Israel in 1981, on to the black market in order to
pursue its nuclear programme. The subsequent partial concealment of
Iran's nuclear activities gave rise to Western suspicion of its nuclear
ambitions, but rarely does the media characterisation make reference to
the context in which the recourse to the black market took place. It is
rare, too, to see mention made of the fact that the IAEA has found no
evidence of a weapons programme after over 2,200 hours of snap
inspections of Iranian nuclear plants.
In
marked contrast to western suspicion of Iran, the real nuclear
programme in Israel has been eagerly sponsored by the governments of
France, Britain and the US. They have actively supported Israel's
development of an arsenal estimated to include more than 200 warheads.
It is a weapons programme Tel Aviv is determined to shroud in secrecy.
Mordechai Vanunu served an 18-year prison sentence, including 12 years
in solitary confinement, after speaking publicly of Israel's possession
of nuclear weapons in 1986. Last month he was sentenced to a further
six months in prison for speaking to foreigners .
Even
as Iran discusses renewed inspections with the IAEA, the risk of a
military attack on its nuclear facilities remains high.
Israel's threat
to deploy nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran's weapons potential is
in line with the US's national security strategy of 2006 and the
Pentagon's doctrine for joint nuclear operations which justifies use of
tactical nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states as a
"deterrent".
The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the
treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory,
Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear
limitation.
Last
year John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful and an advocate of
keeping the military option against Iran on the table, was asked what
the consequence of an attack on Iran would be. His response was only
one word: "Armageddon."
After three devastating wars driven by the US,
Britain and Israel since 9/11, the prospect of a catastrophic war
against Iran hangs over the region.
While the world remembers Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, an international statement endorsed by dozens of leading
peace, anti-nuclear and community organisations in the UK, US and
Israel, as well as five Nobel laureates, calls for a Middle East free
of weapons of mass destruction. Israel could do the region a great
service by announcing immediately that it is to disable its nuclear
arsenal.
source: The Guardian
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2007/August/opinion_August30.xml§ion=opinion&col=
Note:
"The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the
treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory,
Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear
limitation.""
|
| |
|
