28th, IAEA released its report on Iran. IAEA
reported that: "the Agency cannot make a judgment
about, or reach a conclusion on, future compliance or intentions." The report
came as no surprise to those who have been following the ongoing dispute between
Iran, United States
and the IAEA.
United States, for quite some
time now, has been accusing Iran of trying to develop Nuclear weapons and
Iran has been insisting that its
intentions are peaceful and that it is only interested in peaceful use of the
Nuclear energy. Iran, to
allay the international community's fear, froze its enrichment program and
started a series of negotiations with U.K., Germany, and France. However,
without the United States
these negotiations were not going to produce any results, since it was only the
States that could address the Iranian's
national security concerns. Iranian seeing themselves surrounded by American
forces wanted a security guarantee that United
States would not invade Iran, something that United States
was not prepared to give. So the negotiations with the European three failed and
Iran resumed its enrichment program.
Iran was threatened with Security
Council and even invasion without any effect. Now once again there is talk of
Security Council resolution under article 7 and continuous threats of invasion.
There have even been talks of tactical nuclear strike on suspected Iranian
these events are reminiscent of the negotiations and threats preceding the
invasion of Iraq. The unfolding events are so
similar that makes one wonder if the Iraq scenario is not being used as a template for
Iran. And with what has come to light
since the Iraq invasion, we
have to assume that like Iraq, the decision to invade Iran has already
been taken, and that the E.U. Three negotiations and IAEA are being used to
prepare the public for that event.
There are already reports of increased U.S. provocations along Iranian borders such as
flying unmanned surveillance flight over Iran, and insertion of commandos into
Iran for intelligence gathering and
other activities. The talk of invasion is also accompanied with war games. For
example on April 14th, 'USA Today' reported that "Amid rising
tensions between the United States and Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear
program, the Pentagon is planning a war game in July so officials can explore
options for a crisis involving Iran."
this war game is not the first of its kind. According to William M. Arkin of Washington Post, "In early 2003, even as
U.S. forces were on the brink
of war with Iraq, the Army
had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran.
The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theatre Iran near term,"
was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of
the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush
directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an
attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately
feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against
Iran that military sources confirm
now exists in draft form."
why did United States attack
Iraq and why is she so keen
on attacking Iran now? We now know that from the
beginning, this administration was looking for any excuse to invade
Iraq. Washington has, over time, given a number of different
reasons for invading Iraq:
starting with Iraq's
developing Nuclear weapons, to war on terror, to spreading democracy in the
Middle East. All these reasons have proven to
be false. Iraq did not possess any Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD); and did not have any link to Al Qaeda. And instead of
democracy, Iraqis have had to endure Abu Gharib, car bombs, shortage of basic
services such as electricity, clean water, and health care. None of the
ministries are functioning properly and in addition Iraq has to deal
with half a million displaced people. There is also talk of partitioning of
On top of all this, the Iraqis now face a possible bloody civil war.
spending over 320 Billion dollars for Iraq war (officially so far) and with no end in
sight, why is this administration insisting in starting another catastrophic war
in the Middle
have been a number of theories put forward by various groups and individuals.
- Crusade- Some
Muslims think that United
States has started a crusade against Islam
and is determined to vanquish any and all countries that stand in its way.
are other groups who think that with the oil reserves diminishing fast, United
States is trying to corner all the reserves and supplies for itself, thereby
ensuring its future dominant economic position in the world.
- China- There
are others who think that invasion of Iraq and targeting of Iran is part a
geo-political move by United States to block China's emergence as a world
power by restricting its access to oil.
- Israel- And
finally there are those that argue that United States doing the bidding of
Israel and getting rid-of those that may challenge Israel's hegemony in the
Middle East in the future.
answer probably contains some of all of the above.
living in Jakarta, Cairo, Karachi, London, or Detroit, every day, hear and sees things that
seem hostile, if not to them personally, then to other Muslims across the
They have seen the plight of Palestinians for years without anyone doing
anything about it. They are frustrated by the impotence of their leaders in the
face of the neo-colonialist encroachment of the west. They hear the West talk
about democracy and yet see the West support the very dictators that are
oppressing them. They see that when
in exceptional cases, like Palestine, where there has been a democratic
election, the West has stepped in to dismiss the results as not acceptable. They
look at their past colonial masters and fear their return in disguise. They see the wars like
Iraq and the war on terror as excuses
for new colonial ambition of the West. And above all they feel that their lives
and rights, in the eye of the West, are worth less than non-Muslims. They are appalled by extrajudicial
killings in Israel, torture of prisoners by Americans, the treatment of the
Guantanamo bay prisoners, and ongoing torture of people at the hand of Western
supported dictators as signs that the West in general and America (as the
leader) in particular is on a crusade to subjugate
for Oil Reserves
profits of five oil companies combined (American: ExxonMobil, Chevron, and
Conoco, British: Shell and British Petroleum) in 2005 was 111 billion
dollars. And these profits are
about to go through the roof. The reason? Production can not keep-up with
demand, and even if it could, there isn't enough oil to satisfy all, at present
prices. Oil companies' valuations are based on those companies' access to oil
reserves. Iraq and
Iran combined have over 20% of the
world's total proven oil reserves. Imagine what having access to those reserves
will do for the valuation of American oil companies, not to mention their
also the matter of consumption. United States consumes fully 25
percent of the world oil supplies. China and India are
growing rapidly and their economies consume more and more oil.
China currently consumes 8.2 percent
of the world's oil production. Soon it will increase to 10 or even 14 percent.
Where is that oil going to come from? Is United
States willing to reduce its share for China? It is
1 Oil consumption. Source:
British Petroleum (BP),
"Statistical Review of
World Energy 2005".
President Bush held a television conference where he assured the public that
Americans' dependence on Oil soon would be over. He spoke of great new
technologies and fuel sources that were just around the corner. What he forgot
to mention was that there are 600 million cars in the world today that run on
petrol, and it is estimated that if the present trend continues, by 2030, the
number of cars in the world will reach 1.2 billion.
change the engines of the existing 600 million cars will take years, not to
mention all the petrol stations and the support facilities that have to be
modified for this to work. There is also more in a barrel of oil than petrol for
our cars. We need such oil derivatives as jet fuel, Kerosene, lubricants,
feedstock, asphalt, etc., for our industries to function.
over 60% of the world's oil reserves are in Middle
East. Four countries in the region, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, have over half of the world's
proven oil reserves.
If we keep
the world's oil consumption at its current level then the Middle East can theoretically supply the world with oil,
at its current production rate, for another 80
2 World oil
Source"Statistical Review of World Energy
fact is that in 15 years the North American and Asia Pacific oil reserves will
be depleted. This will represent a marked reduction in oil supplies world wide.
In other words within 15 years if we do not increase oil production drastically
in the Middle East and elsewhere, world will face tremendous oil shortages.
Increasing oil production is not that easy either. Each Oil field has an optimum
production rate. If one tries to go beyond that rate and tries to sustain high
production rate, one damages the oil field and thereby substantially reducing
the amount of recoverable oil. This problem is well documented by the oil
about the new oil discoveries? Well there have been very little new discoveries;
the future doesn't seem that bright either. According to Energy Information
Administration's (EIA) analysis of the long term world oil supply we can expect
to discover only 10% more oil in the future. Even
this 10% is disputed. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO)
which closely follows the development in the oil industry, Foundation of
Economic Sustainability (FEASTA), and others see an alarming trend in the future
oil discovery and production.
looks at the amount of oil discovered in the years from 1930 to the present one
sees a clear downward trend in new discoveries; this in spite of using more
money and better technologies.
2005, HIS energy (an international oil consultancy firm) did a comprehensive
analysis of the world oil supply and demand and reached the following
conclusion: that even if one includes Natural Gas production and all other
liquid fuels in our total available supplies, there will be a shortage anytime
from 2011 to 2020.
1972 Richard Nixon went to China to secure an ally against the Soviet Union and thereby shift the balance of power
towards the West. Recently President Bush made a similar trip to
India to enlist it as an ally
against China. United
States sees China as its main strategic
competitor now and in the near future. United
States is concerned with losing its dominant position in
East Asia to China. This concern has been voiced
by both political and military authorise. In 2006 Quadrennial Defence Review
Report, China is identified as a major
the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete
militarily with the United
States and field disruptive military technologies that
could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages, absent
China is an emerging world
report goes on to point out that in United States should take all necessary
steps to (in case of hostilities) to deny China its strategic and operational
States will work to ensure that all major and
emerging powers are integrated as constructive actors and stakeholders into the
international system. It will also seek to ensure that no foreign power can
dictate the terms of regional or global security. It will attempt to dissuade
any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that
could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United States or
other friendly countries, and it will seek to deter aggression or coercion.
Should deterrence fail, the United States would deny a hostile
power its strategic and operational objectives."
this end United States is
restructuring and repositioning its bases to be better able to contain
China's growing power. It has also
revamped its alliance with Japan and other countries in Southeast Asia. In addition, United States is transforming Guam into a hub for long-range bombers and is planning to
add a sixth aircraft carrier to its pacific group.
these steps are taken to contain China and limit its ability to move
freely in the area. On top of all this, United
States is positioning itself to control China's access to China. If
United States can control the
oil reserves it will be able to determine not only the economic growth of
China but also limit its strategic
is no doubt that Israel has a
powerful lobby in the United
States. There are currently over 50 Jewish
organisations that directly or indirectly lobby for Israel. The
Israeli influence is well known, but few are willing to openly talk about it,
especially in the United
States and Europe. The
Israeli dimension is particularly difficult to mention, for if one dares to
state the obvious, one is branded as anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser. The
Jewish lobby also can make life very unpleasant for those who dare to mention
the extent of its influence in U.S. and other countries. There are
still a few brave soles such as John Mearsheimer (Professor of Political Science
and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the
University of Chicago)
and Stephen Walt (Belfer Professor of International Relations and
Academic Dean of Harvard University) in the U.S.
that are willing to speak-out. In
March 2006, they wrote an article titled "the Israel Lobby" in which they
question the United States
policies in the Middle East. Here is a section
of their article:
about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the
foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse
is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a
per capita income roughly equal to that of South
Korea or Spain.
recipients get their money in quarterly instalments, but Israel receives
its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn
interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required
to spend all of it in the US,
but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25
per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only
recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it
virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US
opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the
US has provided
Israel with nearly $3 billion to
develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as
Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its
Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear
provides Israel with consistent diplomatic
support. Since 1982, the US
has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more
than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.
It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel's nuclear
arsenal on the IAEA's agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes
Israel's side when negotiating peace.
The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and
resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the
negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy 'step-by-step'
process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that
preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional
friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently
supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000
later said: 'Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel's lawyer.' Finally, the Bush administration's ambition to
transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are not anti-Semites nor are they uninformed
individuals. What they are saying is that United
States' Middle Eastern policy is in the interest of
Israel and counterproductive
for the United
know that as soon as the Bush administration came to power, it started looking
for an excuse to invade Iraq. It used every possible
propaganda tool under the sun to get the UN to sanction the invasion of
Iraq, and when it didn't
succeed, it went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway. The people in
U.S. pushing for an invasion, the so
called Neo-Cons were at the forefront of disseminating misinformation in anyway
they could. But to understand part
of their agenda we have to go back to 1996.
the newly elected prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu commissioned a
study group called "Study Group on a New
Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" to craft a strategy for Israel in the coming
decades. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' which included Richard Perle, James Colbert,
Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav
Wurmser, created the Israel's strategy paper titled: "A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm".
contains six pages of recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu and some of the
more relevant suggestions are presented bellow:
- We have
for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle
East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad
in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behaviour
of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighbourhood, with fragile states and
bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a
Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will
not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land -to which we have clung for hope
for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no
matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the
unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their
territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the
challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An
effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if
Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging
Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in
Lebanon, including by:
Syria's drug-money and
counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on
Syria's behaviour by
establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks
emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient,
striking at select targets in Syria
closely with Turkey and
Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This
implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional
concept of strategy based on balance of power.
the nature of its relations with the Palestinians,
including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defence into all
Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat's exclusive grip on
the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is
both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace"
and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling
Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by
suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has
triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping
up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations.
Syria recently signalled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely
surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its
efforts to remove Saddam.
interesting to note that many of the co-authors of this strategy paper are
Jewish Americans and not Israelis. Below you will find a very short description
of a few co-authors.
Perle has served in important government posts under various
administrations. He was Secretary
of Defence under Reagan administration and Chairman of the Defence policy
Advisory Committee (2001-2003) under Bush Administration. He is also the signatory of Project for
the New American Century, a think-tank institute and one of the main
organisations pushing for invasion of Iran. Perle is currently a resident
fellow at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research. He sits also on the board of advisors of Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Faith served at Defense Department as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy,
under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Feith had previously served in the Reagan administration, starting off as
Middle East specialist at the National Security
Council (1981-82) and then transferring to the Defense Department where he spent
two years as staff lawyer for Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle. He is
the director of Foundation for Jewish Studies, and former advisor to Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Wurmser, Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser, was
the Special Adviser to Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security (2001-2003). He is also member of Board of Directors of
U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon.
produce a very long list of influential people in United States (e.g., Paul
Wolfowitz -current World Bank President and Undersecretary of Defence for Policy
from1989-93) that work very hard to safeguard Israel's interests.
Implementing the Israel's
election of George Bush to power we see that this Israeli strategy paper has
served as a template for U.S.
foreign policy in Middle East. Now let us
examine each suggestion in the paper and the events in the Middle East.
unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial
dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the
During Mr. Bush's presidency,
Israel has abandoned the
concept of "Land for Peace" and concentrated instead on unilaterally drawing the
borders of a future Palestine. This is being done by first
constructing a so called "security wall" separating Israel from Palestine, and then declaring that wall as the
international border separating the two states. The "Peace for Peace" means that
Israel will increase the
pressure on Palestinians by such a degree that Palestinians will come to
Israel, hat in hand, begging not for
land but for peace. In this way Israel will determine the size and
shape of the future Palestinian state. This has been and is supported by
The current strangulation of the Palestinian Economy is part of that
effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if
Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging
Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in
been done through news media and United Nations where United States has tried hard to isolate
Syria and even have put sanctions on
the country. United
States has also tried, by pressuring the
Lebanese government, to isolate Hezbollah and reduce its power within the
Lebanese society. Syria has
claimed that former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Harriri was assassinated by
Israeli agents to damage its reputation in Lebanon. It is
interesting to note that this assassination was one of the main reasons that
Syria was forced to leave
Lebanon. It was also used to try to
impose U.N. sanctions on Syria.
closely with Turkey and
Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the
slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on
balance of power.
Israel's relationship with
Turkey prior to the Iraqi invasion
was improving rapidly. Turkey
knows that it needs United
States backing in its negotiations with the
European Union. It also needs United States' help in restructuring
its 200+ billion dollar loans. Therefore for Turkey it was a good idea to accept a close
partnership with Israel. Currently Israeli pilots
carryout air exercises in Turkey and rumours have it that they even spy on
Iran from Turkey.
the scene) has traditionally had a good relationship with Jordan.
Israel hoped that after
invasion of Iraq, the former crown prince Hassan
of Jordan would become King of Iraq. The Jewish Daily Forward of New York
reported on August 9 2002, the following:
observers said some Bush administration officials are indeed rooting for Hassan
at a time when Washington is struggling to find a consensus
leader to succeed Saddam. After the London
meeting, the London-based Guardian newspaper reported that Hassan had the
backing of Pentagon hawks and that he met in April in Washington with one of
their most prominent figures, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own
see that Israel's strategy as presented in the
document is the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Israel could not
do this on its own. But again Israel didn't have to.
United States achieved the
strategic objective of Israel, without Israel spending
a single dollar.
Israel has achieved most of
its main objective except completely neutralising Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Israel has been partly successful in weakening
and isolating Syria, however, Syrian government
remains in place and still supports the Palestinians. The Iranian government is
still there, supporting Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinians. The main point
of problem for the Israelis then is Iran. If Iran is neutralised, then no-one is left to back
Hezbollah, and Syria is left
totally at the mercy of Israel. Then Israel can play the "Peace for Peace" game with
occupying and breaking large centres of power in the Middle East such as
Iraq and Iran, Israel will be left the dominating
power for a very long time. Iraq is now fractured into many pieces and in
near future will not be able to support Palestinians in any meaningful way or
cause Israel any problem. If
Iran is also occupied and
made into a federation, like Iraq, the internal strife will be such that it
(Iran) too will not be able to do
for Israel and Something for
architects of these wars have to, at the end of the day, have something tangible
to show the American people for all the blood and money that United States
has spent in these ventures. The answer of course is Oil. Now that the war in
Iraq has gone badly wrong,
and the threat to Iran has
pushed oil prices to above 70 dollars per barrel, people are thinking that maybe
it will not be a bad idea for the U.S. to do something to bring the
United States can occupy
Iran, or at least change the
regime in Iran to something
that is subservient to the American interests, then U.S. can have
over half of the world's oil reserves under its control. There are four
countries in the Middle East, that combined, have over 50% of the world's proven
oil reserves. These countries are: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi
States directly or indirectly controls 3 of the
4 countries, and if it can get the fourth then it has its cake and can eat it
too. But to control means to be close enough to be able to protect or threaten
the governments in those countries. This necessitates the presence of American
bases on those territories or close by.
States has bases
in most of the Persian Gulf countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and now is planning permanent bases in
Iraq. With regard to
Iraq, United State is trying to give the impression
that it is interested to leave as soon as possible, but all evidence points to
to United States' House
Appropriations subcommittee, U.S. foreign Secretary Gondleza Rice said, "The
presence in Iraq is for a very clear purpose, and
that's to enable Iraqis to be able to govern themselves." She added, "I don't think that anybody
believes that we really want to be there longer than we have to."
Her comments were echoed by US ambassador
to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.
US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said Saturday that his
country did not want permanent military bases in Iraq and that he was willing to talk to
Iran about the war-torn country's
Iraq to stand on its own
feet, we have no goal of establishing permanent bases here," he said in an
interview with Iraq's Ash-Sharqiya television,
according to a transcript obtained by AFP. .
statements are pure lies. There are a number of reports indicating that
United States is building
large permanent military bases across Iraq.
in Newsweek said that the 38 square kilometres mini-city and airport in Balad
was the evidence that American forces were preparing for to stay in
Iraq for a long time. Michael Hirsh
of Newsweek wrote:
want an image of what America's long-term plans for Iraq look like,
it's right here at Balad. Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of
Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of
thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four "super bases" where the
Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front
lines of the Iraq war."
At a White
House press conference on 21st of March 2006 when President George W.
Bush was asked if there would be a day when there were no more American forces
in Iraq, he replied that that would be "decided by future presidents and future
governments of Iraq.", suggesting that the US would continue the occupation
of Iraq for years, if not decades, to come.
2nd of April this year, the Independent
Pentagon has revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of dollars
establishing at least six "enduring" bases in Iraq - raising the prospect that
U.S. and U.K. forces
could be involved in a long-term deployment in the country. It said it assumed
British troops would operate one of the bases."
addition to the bases, the U.S. is building the world's largest embassy in
Let us be
clear about this: Iran does not posses Nuclear weapons.
Everyone, even in Washington, agree on this. Even Director of
United States National Intelligence John Negroponte estimates that in spite of
Iran's declaration that it
has managed to enrich uranium, Iran will not have a bomb within four
to nine years from now.
argument against Iran is that
Iran is enriching Uranium. Under
"Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons"
(NPT), all members are guaranteed the right to enrich Uranium. Article four of
the treaty states that:
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted
as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop
research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this
clearly gives Iran and other member states the
right to do research and enrich uranium. So what Iran does is
totally legal. In contrast we see
that all the nuclear states such as England, Russia, China, France, and United States
are in violation of this treaty. The treaty clearly states that Nuclear powers
have to disarm.
to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust
between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of
nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the
elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their
delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict
and effective international control."
Nuclear powers have not reduced their nuclear weapon research and development
activities but some openly threaten non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons.
Bush constantly reminds us that he considers using Nuclear weapons against
Iran. For example on 12th
April 2006 Reuters reported that President George W. Bush once again had refused
to rule out nuclear strikes on Iran.
"President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule
out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the
Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.....
about a U.S. attack has
mounted since a report in New Yorker magazine said this month that Washington was mulling the option of using tactical
nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean nuclear sites."
president of France has stated that his country
will use Nuclear weapons to "safeguard" French "interests". In an address to the
strategic submarine forces (FOST) at the Ile Longue nuclear submarine base in
19, Chirac said the "perception" of the country's "vital interests" had changed
with the world's growing interdependence. "For example, the guarantee of our
strategic supplies or the defence of our allies are, among others, interests
that are to be protected," he said. Chirac said it is up to the president of the
Republic-himself, until at least next year to determine whether a given
"aggression, threat, or unacceptable blackmail" has consequences that bring it
within France's "vital interests" and thus
could unleash the nuclear deterrent.
very interesting since none of these countries are threatened and they state
very clearly that they want to use Nuclear weapons to protect their
Iran is being threatened with
sanctions, military invasion and nuclear attack, others are rewarded for going
Nuclear. India which has not even signed the
NPT and has tested nuclear weapons is rewarded with access to new nuclear
technologies, weapons and even lucrative trade deals.
creator of Taliban and home of the famous Dr. A.Q. Khan - black market nuclear
technology salesman- is similarly
rewarded with brand new F16s (capable of delivering Nuclear weapons) and
nuclear bombs are the best known secret in the world. On 12th of
October 2003 Guardian newspaper reported that Israeli and American officials
have admitted deploying U.S.-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear
warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class
"Israeli and American officials have admitted
collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles armed with nuclear
warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, giving the Middle East's
only nuclear power the ability to strike at any of its Arab neighbours.
unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states 'harbouring
terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's declaration of its
right to self-defence should Israel bomb its territory again."
know that US, UK, France and
even peaceful Norway helped
Israel to develop nuclear
we have the Brazilian nuclear activities to consider. Associated press reported
on 22nd of April that: "The
government-run Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S A has been conducting final
tests at the enrichment plant, built on a former coffee plantation in Resende,
145 km west of Rio de Janeiro. When it opens this year, Brazil will join
the world's nuclear elite."
So where are the IAEA, and Security Council? Brazil is doing exactly the same thing that
face the truth, Just like Iraq, all the talk about Iranian
nuclear activities is a smoke screen for something else. The most likely answer
is a combination of the United
States strategic interest in oil, containment of
China and Israeli interest. But in
2006 governments are understandably shy about mentioning neo-colonialism and
greed as the reasons for invading other countries.
Energy, "Global oil supply issues: recent trends and future possibilities",
Review Report, Page 29, February 6,
Review Report, Page 30, February 6,
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies ^ | 8 July 1996 | Richard Perle et
Energy Agency, "TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS", Information
Circular, 22 April
Associated Press, "Brazil
follows Iran's nuclear path, but without the
fuss", Saturday, April 22,