Iran News ...


5/2/06

Sanity must prevail over Bigotry

By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

It is not clear which is more perilous to society, bigotry or ignorance, but when an 'opinion' piece is pleading with the public to go to war applying both, spiced with deliberate misinformation, we must question the motive (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24393-2157918,00.html).

 

In spite of vigorous intrusive inspections by the IAEA, Iran has not been found to be weaponizing its nuclear program. Iran has only enriched uranium to a fuel grade, which is its "inalienable" right as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but Mr. Liddle would have the readers believe that the peaceful low grade enriched uranium was sufficient proof to attack Iran!

 

Mr. Liddle should be made aware of several facts before he trumpets nations to war.  He cannot persecute on 'intent' - which Iran has repeated stated they do not have.  In fact, they have called on the United Nations for a nuclear weapons free Middle East   However, other NPT member signatories who have acted on their intent and are in clear violation of the NPT, such as  S. Korea, Brazil and Egypt,  have been left unpunished.  Mr. Liddle may want to note that Egypt is also a Third World country, as is Brazil.  While India, Pakistan and Israel,  all nuclear-armed pariah states have been, and continue to be, handsomely rewarded. 

 

I would call on Mr. Liddle's expertise to explain what he means by "extremely enriched uranium at Natanz, the sort of stuff you need to make atomic bombs";  His usage of language, reflecting a lack of expertise in the nuclear field, would be comical were it not dangerously bent on scare-mongering to incite a war.   In fact, the IAEA had backed Iran's claims that  the enriched uranium was traced back to contaminated equipment purchased from Pakistan.

 

As for Iran's president, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, which is undoubtedly provocative -  Mr. Liddle once again shows his bigotry and ignorance.  Ahamadinejad does not make decisions in Iran's foreign policy.  Nor has Iran been an aggressor in over 250 years.  Furthermore, there are an estimated 50,000-80,000 Jews living in Iran. If Ahmadinejad wanted to harm Jews, he would harm the ones living in Iran. 

 

More importantly,  an attack on Israel would be suicide for Iran.  Given the fact that Israel has 200-300 missiles and the support of the world's only superpower, even if Iran did obtain a bomb, it would not risk self-annihilation by attacking Israel. 

 

Mr. Liddle outsmarts himself when he writes "[There is still a large tranche of the western world that believes with bovine obduracy that because we and the Americans and the French and the Israelis have nukes, why shouldn't poor old Third World Iran?" (notice the inclusion of non NPT Israel and the absence of Russia and China).    I wonder if Mr. Liddle had anything to say during the Apartheid years when Israel engaged in massive nuclear cooperation with S. Africa including trade in uranium, transfer of weapons technology and cooperation in staging at least one joint nuclear test.  What was his opinion at the time?  I would be curious to know what he has to say  about Israel's $500 million per year nuclear commerce with India?  Of course, it may be that since India and (Moslem) Pakistan are long time rivals, assisting them is the noble man's burden. 

 

The solution Mr. Liddle has for us - an attack on Iran - is an emotional call based on bigotry and hatred.  Such emotions rub one of logic and leave one blind to consequences.   The Iraq attack left the "coalition of the willing" in a quagmire and created a haven for terrorists, not foregoing the innumerable casualties and a civil war.   Iraq was the result of  lies, fear-mongering and warmongering of the likes of Mr. Liddle.   But what Mr. Liddle must recall is that Iraq was already militarily bankrupt at the time of the invasion - Iran is not.

 

Iran is equipped with the world's best cruise missiles - the Russian made supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."  If the US strikes Iran's nuclear facility Natanz, as he suggests, there will be retaliation that will be too costly for Mr. Liddle and I to contemplate.  Should the United States decide to exercise the nuclear option, a nightmare scenario with moral implications that would turn the world against it, especially Iran's neighbor Russia, then it would be launching on WWIII.  As Albert Einstein said:

 

"I don't know with what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones".

 

Maybe Mr. Liddle has his morbid wish,  but I am certain that the rest of humanity has no wish to go back to sticks and stones. Liddle ought to let cooler heads and saner voices lead us through these tiring times.       

 

... Payvand News - 5/2/06 ... --



comments powered by Disqus

Home | ArchiveContact | About |  Web Sites | Bookstore | Persian Calendar | twitter | facebook | RSS Feed


© Copyright 2006 NetNative (All Rights Reserved)