WHY IRAN WILL LEAD TO WORLD WAR THREE
AUG 13 2005
"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, FOX News
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.
Sound familiar?
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 the peace.
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 treaty
itself.
No way.
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 process.
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 is
certain.
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 of extremists.
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.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com
 |
||
|
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD THESE FREE ADVERTISERS TO YOUR SITE |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Spirit and Truth |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Please rate this site at Just4Christ Top 50 Christian Sites |
 |
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
