|
|
|
|
The United States, Iran and the Nuclear Race to the Bottom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Mary Beaudoin, W A M M
|
The world's nuclear weapons powers need to disarm, rather than continue to lead a hypocritical race to the bottom of morality and potential end of the world. While the U.S., which maintains the largest nuclear arsenal on the earth, encourages nuclear development in some countries, it condemns others. Both cases promote nuclear proliferation.
North Korea and Iran considered by the Administration in Washington to be enemies may believe that the only way that they can defend themselves from a U.S. invasion is by acquiring nuclear weapons, themselves. Hence, Iran's President Ahmadinejad, is blustering about nuclear power (developed only for civilian purposes thus far), while the U.S. administration is creating an all too-familiar scenario, similar to the lead-up to war on Iraq, appearing to fulfill its neo-con plans for control of the Middle East oil, strategic location and world domination, without regard to international law.
The United States administration and much media portray President Ahmadinejad of Iran, as well as Kim Jong-il of North Korea, as off-their-rocker madmen, but in actuality their nuclear posturings are very rational, considering that they are a reaction to the belief that their respective countries could be destined for a U.S. invasion. Vultures are circling oil-rich Iran, sitting as it does between the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf with the narrow Strait of Hormuz--through which oil-tankers depart--not far from its shores. But Iran's leadership has pledged to have its own citizenry, rather than foreign interests, profit from its most valuable resource. At the same time, an acquiescent U.S. Congress passed appropriations that include propaganda to promote regime change within Iran, as well as the Freedom Support Act that encourages "democratic forces" in Iran. And, President Bush, who follows a doctrine of pre-emption, has vowed to make prohibiting Iran from having nuclear weapons his legacy.
Yet Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Its civilian nuclear power facilities are legal under international law, subject to International Atomic Agency inspections, as Iran is a signatory to the International Nonproliferation Treaty. Besides that, Iran is years away from possessing the ability to develop nuclear weaponry or the capacity to deliver it. So Washington and its apologists create rationales for a possible pre-emptive attack. They promote the idea that a regime change is necessary: to free its people from oppressive theocratic leadership; to establish western democracy; to free its women from head scarves; to protect Israel, which does, in fact, possess nuclear weapons; and to defend the security of Americans.
In actuality, an attack would accomplish none of above--rather, it would have a reverse effect on those populations. Outside attacks tend to make leadership within more autocratic; the U.S. doesn't want to establish democracy--it wants to establish economic colonialism so private corporations can rake in profits off another country's resources on the cheap or for nothing; women who are victims of war are not free with or without head scarves; and an attack in the region would make Israel less safe, not more. Israel's Gush Shalom has this to say about an increase in violence in the region, "The Americans don't care. They don't have to live here. We have to live here." In addition, bombing nuclear facilities won't make Americans safer either.
In fact, "targeted, precision bombing" with limited or no effect on civilians is a fantasy perpetuated by the war machine. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the nuclear bunker buster was used on Iran's nuclear facilities, it would result in the death of three million people, nuclear material would drift over Pakistan and India and more cancer would plague the world. Using nuclear weapons to destroy civilian nuclear facilities, which are legal under international law, has to be the ultimate hypocrisy. Conventional weapons, which contain depleted uranium penetrators, should also be unthinkable. Such an attack could initially kill 10,000 people, according to the Oxford Research Group. And an attack on Iran would further destabilize and inflame the Middle East and the entire world.
Signing and abiding by nonproliferation and other international treaties, employing authentic discussion and diplomacy, and conducting fair trade are the way that countries need to deal with each other, not through high-tech slaughter. If the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, approached relations other nations through peaceful means, and began dismantling its own weapons arsenal, no need to develop weapons would be perceived. Instead, the U.S. plans to conduct a nuclear test in the Southwest soon, thereby continuing to build momentum in the nuclear race--a race in which there may be a finish line, but there are no winners. If we are to survive on earth, it is imperative that we work to change this situation. |
|
|
Human Rights Resource
My Guantanamo Diary:
Face to Face With the War on Terrorism
by Mahvish Khan
Ms. Khan’s firsthand account of emotional encounters with Guantanamo detainees, where she served as an interpreter, is moving and insightful. It was published on Sunday, April 30,
in the Washington Post. Mahvish Khan attends the University of Miami, School of Law and works for the Miami public defender’s office. Online - click here
Word Up!
Look at what happened in the Middle East. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, what happened to Iraq demonstrates that over 100,000 civilians were killed. Iraq was destroyed. Also, American youth get killed in that war. The only beneficiaries of the war are people who sell arms.
As a Muslin Iranian, I state here that I do criticize the government of Iran. But this does not mean that America has the right to invade Iran. And if America has not learned its lesson from Iraq and thinks of invading Iran, notwithstanding all of the criticisms we have of our government, we will defend our country to the last drop of our blood. And we will not let an alien soldier set foot on the land of Iran.
—Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize for her work for democracy and human rights in Iran and elsewheree
|
|
|
|
|
© 2006 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete June 2006 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
