This video is from Fox Business's Freedom Watch broadcast Nov. 29, 2010.
By Stephen C. Webster
The Raw Story
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010 -- 12:09 pm
Reacting to Raw Story exclusive, Horton tells Fox that Americans 'oughtta be really upset'
By declaring they'd wage a war against Iran by themselves, the nation of Israel is effectively "blackmailing" the United States into combat operations, according to a radio host who appeared on Fox Business Monday night.
Scott Horton, the Los Angeles radio host behind Antiwar.com, told Fox Business host Judge Napolitano that revelations contained within the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables revealed Israel's aggressive strategy for regime change in Iran.
These revelations were first detailed in an exclusive investigative feature published Monday by Raw Story.
"I think what emerges most [from the leaks] is the arrogance of the American empire and the people who run it, whether it's the previous administration or this one," Horton said. "The way they look down on everyone in the world, it's certainly not the attitude you'd expect from a humble, commercial republic."
"There are some really outrageous things in these documents, " he continued. "Things that oughtta get the American people really upset. For example, the Israelis are shown to push, continually, to get the United States into a war with Iran. There's one State Department document from August of 2007, where Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, is telling Assistant Secretary of State [R. Nicholas] Burns that even though the CIA's assessment of Iran's nuclear program and our's, that is Israel's, are different -- and, we have our deadline. If you don't go ahead and attack, we will."
"That's really blackmail, right there. Of course, if the United States wanted to start a war with Iran, they could at least do it their way, but if Israel starts a war with Iran, America will be involved no matter what. We'll just -- he's basically threatening to drag us in, kicking and screaming."
"Of course, we have thousands of troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the fleet in the Persian Gulf that are greatly at risk in any real war with Iran."
Horton also noted that criticism of WikiLeaks -- saying they've endangered lives by releasing this information -- is transparently disingenuous.
"Secretary of Defense Gates admitted in a letter to Senator Levin that no one has died -- there's no evidence that there's any blood on WikiLeaks' hands. There's blood on the hands of the American Pentagon and the American State Department that are waging these wars around the world. It's not the truth that hurts, Judge. It's what the truth is about, the real story: that's what hurts them. They're not worried about blood. They're worried about pink slips."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has appeared on Napolitano's Fox show before. In the same episode, the host jeered Rep. Peter King, who recently called for the US to designate WikiLeaks a "foreign terrorist organization."
"They’re mad at Wikileaks?" Napolitano asked, appearing on Shepard Smith's Fox News show, Studio B. "That it’s a terrorist organization? What the hell? Come on."
David Edwards contributed to this report.
Showing posts with label Preventive War on Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Preventive War on Iran. Show all posts
Monday, December 6, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski on Wikileaks and Growing US Fascism
The Proper Response to WikiLeaks
By Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD
Lewrockwell.com HERE...
December 01, 2010 "LRW" -- -President Obama is wrong, and Secretary Clinton is wrong. Those remoras of state at CNN, FOXNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR and many Congressmen are all wet in their frantic response to Cablegate, and Wikileaks in general.
I’ll admit the U.S. government should have been a bit angry about the Wikileaks release over the summer of the 2007 gunship video and narration of a bloody massacre of unarmed Iraqis and reporters. There was nothing redeeming there, no points of light or lessons to be learned. That release fundamentally explained to Americans and others who supported the Iraq invasion and occupation exactly what democracy at the point of a gun looks like. Perhaps the US government wasn’t as upset as it might have been because no one affected by this crime was surprised. Similar massacres, according to soldiers involved in Iraq, were routine and conducted as ordered. The Iraqis, of course, knew this from the beginning.
The Wikileaked Afghanistan reports didn’t indicate much more than the antiwar and the pro-war crowds already knew, and as a result, again, there were no changes in the bleachers of American foreign policy. It’s likely that the Rolling Stone interview with General McCrystal around the same time was more embarrassing to Washington. One wonders why McChrystal has not yet been declared a domestic terrorist. He shared secrets and embarrassed the administration. A case could be made that his pussyfooting around the Afghans (a Special Forces nuance that our good Prussian Petraeus was quick to eliminate) was intentionally designed to help "lose the war" in Afghanistan. Well, give it time.
But Cablegate is different, and the reaction of the ruling class so far ranges from simply demanding Assange’s head on a platter to demanding the Internet be declared a terrorist entity, and destroyed.
Government propagandists proclaim that people will die from this latest release. Unless they mean die laughing, this is quite an overstatement. Government goons, soldiers and bureaucrats in foreign countries will not face a greater threat to their lives, most especially from these cables. What they will face is snickers, chuckles, and outright laughter.
And truly, this is as it should be. When one declares that his robes are the most beautiful, made of the finest silk, so glorious that they compete with the sun – sometimes a little blond-haired boy with a most serious look about him declares that it seems to him that the Emperor has no clothes! And we see, slowly at first, then an unstoppable surge of laughter and finger-pointing by the common people who, for all their ignorance and all their flaws, know enough to put on clothes before going out in public.
The US government shrieks, tone-deaf, of global democracy – but disparages the populist language of Italian officials and declares the elected and popular prime minister there to be unqualified. Yet, this same democracy-loving government enjoys very much its dealings with the evilest of dictators. This hypocrisy has long been a staple of both libertarian and Marxist critiques of US foreign policy, for well over a century. Now it’s out in the open – and it’s kind of funny.
Hillary Clinton approves a State Department-wide command to surreptitiously collect DNA and credit card numbers on UN representatives and other diplomats. This particular case is breathtakingly Nuremburgian. The order Hilary was transmitting was already government policy – the great Diplomat Herself was just following orders. And certainly, any of us common folk who watch enough CSI to be dangerous know that collection of DNA samples with chain of custody procedures that will stand up in court is not something we would automatically trust to a bunch of pinstripers at State. Beyond that, the rest of us who watch COPS know that taking people’s credit card numbers without their knowledge and permission is a crime.
Now that we know what they are trying to do, the proper reaction is to giggle and glance at each other while we check our pockets, handbags, backpacks and satchels for our wallets and watches whenever we find ourselves near a government representative. Of course, air travelers in this country have been doing just that for some time. But the sweet lesson here is that a government goon is a government goon, just following orders, no matter where they buy their suits. Our ability to quickly recognize that government goon is increasingly unifying average Americans, and strengthening us. As our government goonar continues to develop, the game becomes more fun, and funnier. Cablegate improves everyone’s goonar!
There is talk that the data released this week actually helps Israel’s case for a good old-fashioned pre-emptive attack on Iran. Why? Because Saudi Arabia supports it! Well, skyrocketing oil prices certainly would come in handy to the still dollar dependent House of Saud about now, but I digress. Now, if I were the little old US of A thinking about starting one more war with a country I didn’t like, especially given I was dead broke and already a military laughingstock based on past and present performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, listening to what the corrupt, US-dependent ruling class of Saudi Arabia had to say about it would be right up there on my go-to-war-decision-meter. Give the obvious and otherworldly stupidity of our politicians, generals, and diplomats, perhaps the Saudis do tell us what to do, and maybe Wikileaks hearts neocons. A better sense of where the US diplomatic head is at can be gained by reading reports of meetings in Tel Aviv, where the great US stumbles over itself to be inoffensive, seeking simultaneously to be both submissive and warlike when speaking to Israelis. Pathetic little weasels, the lot of them. But their pathetic weaselness cannot be blamed on Julian Assange, no matter how many neocons and other cons declare the problem to be facts in the open, rather than simply the facts.
On a more serious note, beyond the debate on whether to assassinate Assange, blow up the Internet, conduct an unwarranted attack on an NPT signatory that is following the rules, or to continue to ally ourselves with the crazies in Pakistan and Israel, it is important to recognize that fascism of one kind or another is currently embraced by a majority in Congress, and by a large minority across the country. An alert and informed citizenry, valued by presidents from Washington to Eisenhower, is now deemed by D.C. to be a nascent domestic terrorism threat. As the American wholesale subsidy of banks, bullets and butter metastasizes, devouring freedom and wrecking the system, the desperation of the ruling class and those in its employ is palpable. Americans ought to gratefully smile as we review these latest Wikileaks, and we should savor the hilarity. Seeing our government as theatrical stooge, as incompetent popinjay, as naked and embarrassed Emperor, sets the stage well for what comes next.
By Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD
Lewrockwell.com HERE...
December 01, 2010 "LRW" -- -President Obama is wrong, and Secretary Clinton is wrong. Those remoras of state at CNN, FOXNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR and many Congressmen are all wet in their frantic response to Cablegate, and Wikileaks in general.
I’ll admit the U.S. government should have been a bit angry about the Wikileaks release over the summer of the 2007 gunship video and narration of a bloody massacre of unarmed Iraqis and reporters. There was nothing redeeming there, no points of light or lessons to be learned. That release fundamentally explained to Americans and others who supported the Iraq invasion and occupation exactly what democracy at the point of a gun looks like. Perhaps the US government wasn’t as upset as it might have been because no one affected by this crime was surprised. Similar massacres, according to soldiers involved in Iraq, were routine and conducted as ordered. The Iraqis, of course, knew this from the beginning.
The Wikileaked Afghanistan reports didn’t indicate much more than the antiwar and the pro-war crowds already knew, and as a result, again, there were no changes in the bleachers of American foreign policy. It’s likely that the Rolling Stone interview with General McCrystal around the same time was more embarrassing to Washington. One wonders why McChrystal has not yet been declared a domestic terrorist. He shared secrets and embarrassed the administration. A case could be made that his pussyfooting around the Afghans (a Special Forces nuance that our good Prussian Petraeus was quick to eliminate) was intentionally designed to help "lose the war" in Afghanistan. Well, give it time.
But Cablegate is different, and the reaction of the ruling class so far ranges from simply demanding Assange’s head on a platter to demanding the Internet be declared a terrorist entity, and destroyed.
Government propagandists proclaim that people will die from this latest release. Unless they mean die laughing, this is quite an overstatement. Government goons, soldiers and bureaucrats in foreign countries will not face a greater threat to their lives, most especially from these cables. What they will face is snickers, chuckles, and outright laughter.
And truly, this is as it should be. When one declares that his robes are the most beautiful, made of the finest silk, so glorious that they compete with the sun – sometimes a little blond-haired boy with a most serious look about him declares that it seems to him that the Emperor has no clothes! And we see, slowly at first, then an unstoppable surge of laughter and finger-pointing by the common people who, for all their ignorance and all their flaws, know enough to put on clothes before going out in public.
The US government shrieks, tone-deaf, of global democracy – but disparages the populist language of Italian officials and declares the elected and popular prime minister there to be unqualified. Yet, this same democracy-loving government enjoys very much its dealings with the evilest of dictators. This hypocrisy has long been a staple of both libertarian and Marxist critiques of US foreign policy, for well over a century. Now it’s out in the open – and it’s kind of funny.
Hillary Clinton approves a State Department-wide command to surreptitiously collect DNA and credit card numbers on UN representatives and other diplomats. This particular case is breathtakingly Nuremburgian. The order Hilary was transmitting was already government policy – the great Diplomat Herself was just following orders. And certainly, any of us common folk who watch enough CSI to be dangerous know that collection of DNA samples with chain of custody procedures that will stand up in court is not something we would automatically trust to a bunch of pinstripers at State. Beyond that, the rest of us who watch COPS know that taking people’s credit card numbers without their knowledge and permission is a crime.
Now that we know what they are trying to do, the proper reaction is to giggle and glance at each other while we check our pockets, handbags, backpacks and satchels for our wallets and watches whenever we find ourselves near a government representative. Of course, air travelers in this country have been doing just that for some time. But the sweet lesson here is that a government goon is a government goon, just following orders, no matter where they buy their suits. Our ability to quickly recognize that government goon is increasingly unifying average Americans, and strengthening us. As our government goonar continues to develop, the game becomes more fun, and funnier. Cablegate improves everyone’s goonar!
There is talk that the data released this week actually helps Israel’s case for a good old-fashioned pre-emptive attack on Iran. Why? Because Saudi Arabia supports it! Well, skyrocketing oil prices certainly would come in handy to the still dollar dependent House of Saud about now, but I digress. Now, if I were the little old US of A thinking about starting one more war with a country I didn’t like, especially given I was dead broke and already a military laughingstock based on past and present performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, listening to what the corrupt, US-dependent ruling class of Saudi Arabia had to say about it would be right up there on my go-to-war-decision-meter. Give the obvious and otherworldly stupidity of our politicians, generals, and diplomats, perhaps the Saudis do tell us what to do, and maybe Wikileaks hearts neocons. A better sense of where the US diplomatic head is at can be gained by reading reports of meetings in Tel Aviv, where the great US stumbles over itself to be inoffensive, seeking simultaneously to be both submissive and warlike when speaking to Israelis. Pathetic little weasels, the lot of them. But their pathetic weaselness cannot be blamed on Julian Assange, no matter how many neocons and other cons declare the problem to be facts in the open, rather than simply the facts.
On a more serious note, beyond the debate on whether to assassinate Assange, blow up the Internet, conduct an unwarranted attack on an NPT signatory that is following the rules, or to continue to ally ourselves with the crazies in Pakistan and Israel, it is important to recognize that fascism of one kind or another is currently embraced by a majority in Congress, and by a large minority across the country. An alert and informed citizenry, valued by presidents from Washington to Eisenhower, is now deemed by D.C. to be a nascent domestic terrorism threat. As the American wholesale subsidy of banks, bullets and butter metastasizes, devouring freedom and wrecking the system, the desperation of the ruling class and those in its employ is palpable. Americans ought to gratefully smile as we review these latest Wikileaks, and we should savor the hilarity. Seeing our government as theatrical stooge, as incompetent popinjay, as naked and embarrassed Emperor, sets the stage well for what comes next.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Iran, Nuclear Weapons and the Rush to War
U.S. Has Plan in Case Attack On Iran Needed, Says Army Chief
Both Israel and U.S. keeping military option on table; Iran envoy to UN: We'll set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel strikes us.
By The Associated Press
August 01, 2010 "Haaretz" -- Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday that the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran if necessary, but clarified that he considered such a strike to be a bad idea.
Mullen, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, has often warned that a military strike on Iran over its contentious nuclear program would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, he has called the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon unacceptable.
Mullen would not say which risk he thinks is worse, but told NBC television's Meet The Press that a military strike remains an option if need be. Should come to that, Mullen added, the military has a plan at hand. He did not elaborate.
Both the U.S. and Israel have declared that the option of attacking the Islamic Republic must remain on the table.
Iran's envoy to the United Nations earlier Sunday warned that the Islamic Republic would set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel dares attack it.
"If the Zionist regime commits the slightest aggression against Iranian soil, we will set the entire war front and Tel Aviv on fire," Mohammad Khazai said, Kashmar, the Farhang-e Ashti daily reported.
Last month, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said world leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders.
Iranian military officials said last week that the United States and Israel would not dare attempt a military strike of Iran's nuclear sites, adding that they were confident that Tehran would easily repel such an attempt.
The United States, the United Nations and the European Union have each imposed new restrictions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment activities.
____________
US Has Plan to Attack Iran, Mullen Admits: Insists Plan Is Only Meant to Be Used 'If Necessary'
by Jason Ditz,
Antiwar.com
August 1, 2010
Just weeks ahead of a planned P5+1 talk with Iran, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen announced on Meet the Press that the military has drawn up plans to attack Iran, though he insisted they would only do so ‘if necessary‘
Mullen said the prospect of attacking Iran is “well understood” and that it remains “an important option” for President Obama. Iranian officials warned they would retaliate if attacked by the US.
The US has been threatening to attack Iran for several years, but perhaps the most memorable was a comment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year, in which she threatened to attack Iran “the way that we did Iraq.”
The US invaded Iraq in 2003 on the basis of false claims regarding its nuclear program. The US threats against Iran are likewise based on allegations centering around their civilian nuclear program.
NOTE:
How absurd. There is absolutely no existential threat to the security of the United States posed by Iran--irrespective of whether it is in the process of producing a nuclear weapon--which to date has not been proven.
Recall that the last US NIE on Iran held that Iran abandoned any attempt at building a nuclear weapon years ago. The fact that a subsequent NIE has not been produced suggests that nothing has changed and that the saber rattling for war with Iran is all propaganda on the part of the war monger's.
What is truly sad is that a constant state of war has become the default position of those in power despite the fact that polls show a majority of American's oppose it.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
____________
Who’s afraid of Iran’s civilian nuclear programme?
by Thierry Meyssan
Non-Alligned Press Network
July 27, 2010
According to Thierry Meyssan, the debate around the possible existence of an Iranian military nuclear programme is nothing but a smokescreen. The great powers suspended all transfer of technology with the overthrow of the Shah and the Islamic Revolution repudiated the principle of the atomic bomb. The feigned suspicions of western countries are merely a ploy to isolate a state which calls into question the military and energy dominance of the nuclear powers and their veto rights at the Security Council.
Security Council chamber aisle during the vote on Resolution 1929. Clockwise: Ambassadors from Germany, the U.K., China, Russia, France and the USA. © UN Photo/Evan Schneider
The White House issued a press kit explaining the thrust of Security Council resolution 1929 [1]. Its content – as well as the widespread communication campaign behind it - were relayed by the mainstream media without, as usual, the slighest critical approach.
According to the Western media – parroting the White House – the resolution was adopted by a “large majority” and constitutes “a reponse to Iran’s constant refusal to comply with its internacional obligations related to its nuclear programme”. Let’s take a closer look.
Of the 15 Security Council members, 12 voted in favour of adopting the sanctions (including the five permanent members), 1 abstained and two voted against [2]. This “large majority” actually shrouds a new political divide: for the first time in the history of the Council, a bloc of emerging nations (Brazil and Turkey, supported by the non-aligned countries in unison) took a stand against the permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) and their vassals. Thus, in reality, this “unanimity minus two votes” reflects the chasm between the Directory of the Big Five and what one must again refer to as the Third World by analogy to the Thid Estate [3], or those whose voice doesn’t count.
Brazil played a key role in the framing of the Tlatelolco Treaty, establishing Latin America as a “nuclear-free zone”. Turkey is actively pursuing the same objective for the Middle East. The sincerity of these two countries’ opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons is beyond doubt. As is the fact that Turkey, which shares a common border with Iran, should be particularly concerned with preventing Tehran from acquiring the atomic bomb.
Why, then, did they vote against Resolution 1929? As we shall see, the problems conjured up by the big powers are but a smokescreen intended to stymie the deeper debate allowing Iran and the non-aligned bloc to denounce their privileges.
Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini (1902-1989) declared that weapons of mass destruction are incompatible with Islam.
The myth of the Iranian bomb
During the reign of Shah Reza Pahlevi, the United States and France implemented a wide programme to equip Tehran with the atomic bomb. In view of its history, it was generally accepted that Iran was not an expansionist State and that the great powers could safely provide it with such technology. MORE...
Both Israel and U.S. keeping military option on table; Iran envoy to UN: We'll set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel strikes us.
By The Associated Press
August 01, 2010 "Haaretz" -- Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday that the U.S. military has a plan to attack Iran if necessary, but clarified that he considered such a strike to be a bad idea.
Mullen, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, has often warned that a military strike on Iran over its contentious nuclear program would have serious and unpredictable ripple effects around the Middle East. At the same time, he has called the risk of Iran developing a nuclear weapon unacceptable.
Mullen would not say which risk he thinks is worse, but told NBC television's Meet The Press that a military strike remains an option if need be. Should come to that, Mullen added, the military has a plan at hand. He did not elaborate.
Both the U.S. and Israel have declared that the option of attacking the Islamic Republic must remain on the table.
Iran's envoy to the United Nations earlier Sunday warned that the Islamic Republic would set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel dares attack it.
"If the Zionist regime commits the slightest aggression against Iranian soil, we will set the entire war front and Tel Aviv on fire," Mohammad Khazai said, Kashmar, the Farhang-e Ashti daily reported.
Last month, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said world leaders "believe absolutely" that Israel may decide to take military action against Iran to prevent the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively,” Berlusconi told reporters following talks with other Group of Eight leaders.
Iranian military officials said last week that the United States and Israel would not dare attempt a military strike of Iran's nuclear sites, adding that they were confident that Tehran would easily repel such an attempt.
The United States, the United Nations and the European Union have each imposed new restrictions on Iran over its nuclear enrichment activities.
____________
US Has Plan to Attack Iran, Mullen Admits: Insists Plan Is Only Meant to Be Used 'If Necessary'
by Jason Ditz,
Antiwar.com
August 1, 2010
Just weeks ahead of a planned P5+1 talk with Iran, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen announced on Meet the Press that the military has drawn up plans to attack Iran, though he insisted they would only do so ‘if necessary‘
Mullen said the prospect of attacking Iran is “well understood” and that it remains “an important option” for President Obama. Iranian officials warned they would retaliate if attacked by the US.
The US has been threatening to attack Iran for several years, but perhaps the most memorable was a comment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last year, in which she threatened to attack Iran “the way that we did Iraq.”
The US invaded Iraq in 2003 on the basis of false claims regarding its nuclear program. The US threats against Iran are likewise based on allegations centering around their civilian nuclear program.
NOTE:
How absurd. There is absolutely no existential threat to the security of the United States posed by Iran--irrespective of whether it is in the process of producing a nuclear weapon--which to date has not been proven.
Recall that the last US NIE on Iran held that Iran abandoned any attempt at building a nuclear weapon years ago. The fact that a subsequent NIE has not been produced suggests that nothing has changed and that the saber rattling for war with Iran is all propaganda on the part of the war monger's.
What is truly sad is that a constant state of war has become the default position of those in power despite the fact that polls show a majority of American's oppose it.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
____________
Who’s afraid of Iran’s civilian nuclear programme?
by Thierry Meyssan
Non-Alligned Press Network
July 27, 2010
According to Thierry Meyssan, the debate around the possible existence of an Iranian military nuclear programme is nothing but a smokescreen. The great powers suspended all transfer of technology with the overthrow of the Shah and the Islamic Revolution repudiated the principle of the atomic bomb. The feigned suspicions of western countries are merely a ploy to isolate a state which calls into question the military and energy dominance of the nuclear powers and their veto rights at the Security Council.
Security Council chamber aisle during the vote on Resolution 1929. Clockwise: Ambassadors from Germany, the U.K., China, Russia, France and the USA. © UN Photo/Evan Schneider
The White House issued a press kit explaining the thrust of Security Council resolution 1929 [1]. Its content – as well as the widespread communication campaign behind it - were relayed by the mainstream media without, as usual, the slighest critical approach.
According to the Western media – parroting the White House – the resolution was adopted by a “large majority” and constitutes “a reponse to Iran’s constant refusal to comply with its internacional obligations related to its nuclear programme”. Let’s take a closer look.
Of the 15 Security Council members, 12 voted in favour of adopting the sanctions (including the five permanent members), 1 abstained and two voted against [2]. This “large majority” actually shrouds a new political divide: for the first time in the history of the Council, a bloc of emerging nations (Brazil and Turkey, supported by the non-aligned countries in unison) took a stand against the permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) and their vassals. Thus, in reality, this “unanimity minus two votes” reflects the chasm between the Directory of the Big Five and what one must again refer to as the Third World by analogy to the Thid Estate [3], or those whose voice doesn’t count.
Brazil played a key role in the framing of the Tlatelolco Treaty, establishing Latin America as a “nuclear-free zone”. Turkey is actively pursuing the same objective for the Middle East. The sincerity of these two countries’ opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons is beyond doubt. As is the fact that Turkey, which shares a common border with Iran, should be particularly concerned with preventing Tehran from acquiring the atomic bomb.
Why, then, did they vote against Resolution 1929? As we shall see, the problems conjured up by the big powers are but a smokescreen intended to stymie the deeper debate allowing Iran and the non-aligned bloc to denounce their privileges.
Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini (1902-1989) declared that weapons of mass destruction are incompatible with Islam.
The myth of the Iranian bomb
During the reign of Shah Reza Pahlevi, the United States and France implemented a wide programme to equip Tehran with the atomic bomb. In view of its history, it was generally accepted that Iran was not an expansionist State and that the great powers could safely provide it with such technology. MORE...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)