19 June 2003
WMDs Iranian style? Let me quote from the UN press release on the issue of Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons programme:
‘‘Mr. ElBaradei noted that the report points out that corrective actions are being taken in cooperation with the Iranian authorities. But he added: ‘I continue to call on Iran, as with all States with significant nuclear programmes, to conclude and bring into force an additional protocol at an early date, in order to enhance the Agency’s ability to provide credible assurances regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear activities.’
Calling on Iran in the meantime to permit the IAEA to take environmental samples at the particular location where allegations about enrichment activities exist, he said: ‘This is clearly in the interest of both the Agency and Iran.’’
The report says work is still continuing on the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declaration to ensure that all its nuclear material has been declared and is under safeguards. ‘In this respect, we are continuing our efforts through technical discussions, inspection and environmental sample analysis to understand all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, including: the research and development work relevant to its uranium conversion and enrichment programme; and its programme for the use of heavy water,’ Mr. ElBaradei said.’’
Note that Mr. ElBaradei says that corrective actions are being taken in cooperation with Iranian authorities. Nowhere in the UN’s reports on Iran’s nuclear programme is there any mention of nuclear weapons development. ‘All states?’ For example, what of Israel, which was only forced to acknowledge that it actually had nuclear weapons fairly recently. Is it any wonder, that countries such as Iraq and Iran even contemplated the idea of developing nuclear weapons of their own when threatened by an expansionist, nuclear-armed Israeli imperialism?
And by what bizarre logic does the US exclude itself from the demand to rid itself of its own nuclear weapons programme when, hypocritically, it demands that everyone else (except Israel) does? If there is a single, destabilising source in the world today, it’s the US’s arrogant position, that it alone has the ‘right’ not only to possess WMDs but to determine under what conditions to use them. Is it any wonder, that countries such as North Korea see possession of their own nuclear weapons (assuming that they are, in fact, developing them) as the only (limited) guarantee that they won’t be invaded by the US?
Ever since the beginning of the nuclear age, the solution is still the same; only global nuclear disarmament will remove the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by anyone. It’s irrational to say that possession of nuclear weapons is a guarantee that ‘rogue’ states won’t be tempted to develop or use them, when in fact, the opposite holds true. When the US strategic policy includes the use of nuclear weapons as part of its ‘conventional’ warfare scenario, it actually invites other countries to do the same and to do it before the US does it to them! Far from guaranteeing the safety of the US from attack, it actually increases the possibility.
Only the logic of the insane asylum can propose that threatening their use under conditions determined solely by the US is a ‘guarantee’ that they won’t be used by someone else. This is blatant, nuclear blackmail. It is moreover, indicative of the thinking of the US elite, who, desperate to hold onto to their hegemonic position, have erased the history of the last fifty years of living with a nuclear nightmare. The very fact that we have a government that now sees the use of nuclear weapons as ‘normal’, surely has to keep you awake at night. It also informs us just how disconnected from reality the ruling elite in Washington DC really is. Do they really think that even the ‘limited’ use of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons that they are busily developing contributes to a more stable and peaceful world? What kind of madness is it that drives these Strangeloves that can actually plan their use against another country merely on the basis that a ‘threat’ exists?
If anyone had any doubts about US intentions surely this must convince them that the biggest threat to the future of our planet comes, not from some elusive, ‘terrorist’ group, but from the number 1 terrorist organisation, the US government and its corporate paymasters.
As the war drums beat with ever greater insistence in Washington DC, once more we see the UN being used as a pawn in the USUK’s grand imperialist strategies to commandeer the key resources of the planet and to crush any and all opposition to its rule. We cannot allow an ‘instant replay’ of Iraq with more terror and suffering heaped onto the oppressed of the world. Where does it end?”