name: Yuram Abdullah Weiler
Comments and thoughts of an American Muslim on US Foreign policy in the Middle East and the so-called War on Terror,examining the contradictions from a perspective of justice, fairness and human rights.
Will Natanz be the next Nagasaki?
02 October, 2006
On 9 August 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan killing some 150,000 men, women and children. The blast leveled 6.7 million sq. meters of the city and destroyed over 12,000 homes.[1] Since then, the US has become a world leader in proliferating nuclear weapons; overtly by the sale of weapons and technology to other nations and covertly by forcing smaller nations to acquire nuclear arms in self-defense. Iran now faces the threat of a pre-emptive nuclear strike if it does not cave in to US pressure to halt its nuclear program. Regardless of intentions, it is understandable that any country finding itself surrounded by US nuclear forces and client states, as is Iran, would utilize every available option for self-defense.
The US believed that it could maintain peace with its nuclear arsenal by assuring the destruction of any country foolish enough to attack it. This philosophy, known as Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD for short,[2] resulted in an arms race not only between the US and the former Soviet Union, but also among smaller nations as each rushed to gain nuclear weapons in a futile race in pursuit of security and self-defense. This is the case today between Pakistan and India[3] and there is speculation that this doctrine has been implemented by the Zionist regime towards Iran.[4]
The official US nuclear arms policy is no longer Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) but rather is now Maintaining Ambiguity for Doubt and Deterrence Reinforcement (which is MADDER.) This revised and updated policy from the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is found in a publication entitled "Doctrine for Joint Military Operations[5]," and contains the following statement on page 9:
"The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. Maintaining US ambiguity about when it would use nuclear weapons helps create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries, deterring them from taking hostile action. This calculated ambiguity helps reinforce deterrence."
So now, the US policy regarding the conditions that would require the use of nuclear weapons is intentionally ambiguous. In other words, the official policy is that there is no clear policy on nuclear weapons use, however the cold war mentality persists with most US nuclear warheads targeted towards former USSR missile sites.[6]
The US has used nuclear weapons many times in the past and continues to use and stockpile them to this day. In World War II, the US dropped the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The US has used Depleted Uranium nuclear weapons in the Gulf War and most recently, in Iraq, despite the fact that it is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, (NNPT.) Technically, stockpiling of nuclear arms by the US or other signatories is a violation of the NNPT Article IV, which states clearly that:
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
However, with the demise of the former Soviet Union, there exists neither an organization with the power to enforce the provisions of the NNPT nor a counterbalancing nuclear nation to hold US nuclear ambitions in check.
Israel, Pakistan, North Korea (withdrew) and Cuba are not signatories to the NNPT. US policy toward Pakistan has been one of turning a blind eye toward its nuclear program in the early stages and later to give open assistance. Today, Pakistan, the reluctant ally that the US threatened to bomb back to the stone age unless it cooperated with the Bush regime’s war on terror[7], has 15 or more nuclear weapons and some 32 F-16 fighters to deliver them. [8]
Israel is suspected of possessing around 200 nuclear weapons although this is not acknowledged formally. Much of this became known as a result of testimony by former Dimona nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, who blew the whistle on Israel’s nuclear program in 1985.[9] Since Israel is not a signatory to the NNPT, it is not under scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)- the UN nuclear watchdog- nor is it subject to criticism, harsh rhetoric or threats from the US such as that which is directed towards Iran.[10] In addition, the Zionist state has attacked the nuclear facilities of another sovereign nation, namely the reactor at the Osirak power plant in Iraq in 1981.[11]
In contrast, Iran, a signatory of the NNPT as well as the supplemental safeguards agreement (the additional protocol,)[12] is building a fuel enrichment plant at Natanz, under the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA’s report to the UN states that the Natanz fuel enrichment plant has been subject to design information verification (DIV) a total of 33 times; 3 times in 2003, 3 times in 2004, 15 times in 2005 and 12 times in 2006 as of August. The IAEA also monitors the hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor, finding “There are no indications of ongoing reprocessing activities in Iran,” and additionally, the agency has carried out DIV of the heavy water reactor at Arak. The report acknowledges “Iran has been providing the Agency with access to nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required reports.” Then, as if bowing to US pressure, the report concludes “However, the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran's declarations with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.”[13] Is it not obvious to all that the former statement contradicts the latter?
There are several reasons why Israel would like the US to attack Iran:
Iran is the only counter force to Israeli domination in the Middle East.
Iran is the only supporter of the Palestinian cause in the region.
Israel perceives Iran to be a threat to its security by its alleged support of “terrorism.”
Zionists have a vision of greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates.
The following are US justifications for attacking Iran, put forth for public consumption:
Iran supports Hezbollah, which Israel has not been able to destroy.
Iran threatens Israeli security and therefore US hegemony) in the Middle East.
The US desires regime change for Iran in order to spread "democracy"
There are allegations human rights "abuses" by the current government.
The US wants to prevent "Islamic terrorists" from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The following are the underlying reasons that the US really wants to attack Iran:
To force Iran to become a client state of the US in the region as is Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Jordan.
To open Iranian oil reserves and its economy to exploitation by US corporations.
To prevent currency competition to the US Dollar through oil transactions in other currencies such as the Euro.
To settle the score with Iran, remaining from the takeover of the US Embassy by students on November 4, 1979 after the Islamic Revolution.
The attack on Iran seems inevitable, as it will be the culmination of Washington’s numerous attempts at overthrowing the Tehran government since the time of the Islamic Revolution in February of 1979. The US policy towards Iran has been essentially the same for the entire period since the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi; overthrow the Iranian government by CIA-engineered coup or by military force. Recall the direct intervention by the US in the 8 year long Iran Iraq War, when the US Navy ship USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner killing all 290 passengers. . The revolution in Iran also symbolizes a potent threat to US economic and political domination of client states in the Middle East as well, since it demonstrates an alternative to Western style capitalism and “democracy,” as well as demonstrating the ability of an Islamic state to confront a super power.[14]
To speculate on the possible time of the attack, certainly the next US presidential election in November 2008 is an upper bound, but most analysts seem to feel the timeframe is within the next few months, perhaps even late October or November. There are those feel the attack will occur some time after the 2006 November mid-term elections and before the 2008 presidential elections in order to remove Americans focus from important issues such as the economy and the assault by the Bush junta on constitutional rights. Others disagree and say that the "pre-emptive" attack will take place in October.[15]
It would appear that one could predict that either
1. Mr. Bush would not launch an attack before the November elections for fear of losing popular support and even more Republican seats in the US Congress, or
2. Knowing that the loss of seats is almost inevitable, he will launch the attack now, before the Republican control may be lost.
As popular and Congressional support for the war in Iraq is falling[16], it would seem logical for the administration to start the war on Iran sooner rather than later so as to maximize all that remains. An attack in October would also be consistent with maximizing the fear factor and minimizing time for American voters to think rationally before the elections.
Similarly, one could reason that
1. No one, not even Mr. Bush and his neocon war hawks, would attack a leading Islamic nation during the holy month of Ramadan, or
2. If this US administration is really out of control, it will start the Iranian edition of “Shock and Awe” now, to further humiliate the Muslim World and show them that they had better submit to American will or risk total annihilation.[17]
My own personal feeling is that the attack will begin towards the end of October, perhaps at the end of the holy month of Ramadan. In any case, I fear that the attack on Iran is inevitable, has already been approved and is in the early stages of execution, as evidenced by the naval build-up in the Persian Gulf.[18] Once again, a sovereign nation and its citizens will be the victims of a brutal and devastating attack by the US administration that is out of control and all of humanity will be the losers.
Yuram
2006-10-2
Comments
Captain Spaulding,
Thank you for your reply. If I can find the time, I will read that which you recommend. The death and destruction that occured at Nagasaki is undeniable, as the remaining Japanese survivors testify.
My objective is to prevent war with Iran and the loss of life. If you feel that is dishonest, what can I say?
Yuram | 10/02/2007, 10:25
There is a correction. The book is entitled What If 2...not What If. The essay in question "No Bomb, No End...relates the story of a high ranking Japanese goverment offical that stated that it was the bomb that convinced the Japanese goverment to surrender. If not for the bomb, the war would have continued to long, bitter and horrific end. In a way, I agree that I hope a potential war with Iran can be averted...but after seeing some clips via Memri on the net and one in particular where there was performance before the leader of Iran and others...people holding small containers of radioactive Isotope's and chanting "Allah Akbar" over and over again...for me is not encouraging and I fear the worst.
Captain Spaulding | 18/02/2007, 09:34
Yuram...read the essay "No Bomb, No End" by Richard B. Frank in the book entitled "What If". Dropping the bomb was not an easy decision on the part of the Americans. The projected casuality rate of both Americans and the Japanese were very high. The Americans knew how tenacious the Japanese would be on there homeland and if you do not believe me...read William Manchester's book "Goodbye Darkness". An invasion would have destroyed the Japanese culture. Added to this, the Soviets had their own plans for an invasion and would have less charitable to the Japanese. By the way, the Russians did conquer some islands north of Japan which were Japanese lands and yet do you not cry for the Russians to leave. Also, did you realize that the ancient capitial of Japan, Kyoto was a target city...but dropped because of its cultural and historical value. Nagasaki was a Military target, a marshalling area for the Ketsu Go defense plan of the home islands. Natanz is a military target and using tactical nuclear weapons is prudent. America did not have TacNukes in 1945...if they did, they would have used them instead of the bomb they dropped. Yuram your whole article is leftist rehortic and intellectually dishonest.
Capt Spaulding | 07/02/2007, 12:24 [ Reply ]