The Bush war party claim that their strategy is to end Iran's nuclear threat, but Iran does not posses a nuclear weapon and has never threatened to build one; even the CIA estimates that even given the political will Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. The other claim that Iran is involved in the cross border supply of weapons is after investigations by among others the New York times, the LA, times, British military officials, and even General Peter Pace chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, have all concluded that no such evidence exists, so just what is going on here? Iran has attacked no other country except to defend itself when invaded by Saddam Hussein in 1980 who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland, part of the axis of evil?
Are we planning to attack all the other NPT signatories who are also enriching uranium? Iran is within its rights to enrich uranium under the NPT and the ongoing inspections ensure that they are not using their centrifuges to produce highly enriched uranium. This is why all NPT countries have such inspections in the first place. It is the big 5 who are in actual violation of the NPT by refusing to disarm. The media should be reporting this issue much more than they are. We are under no threat from Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons but are very much under threat from the large nuclear stockpile of the US, the USSR, the UK et al. The statement from the French foreign minister is shocking in itself, and also represents a shocking shift of France's position.
The UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector yesterday warned against the use of force against Iran, in what UN officials said was an attempt to halt an "out of control" drift to war.
Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Council on Foreign Relations - Gary Hart's letter :
Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran
Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.
Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.
Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.
Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.
If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.
For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.
Post a Comment