NO NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN!

Nations and People Worldwide Oppose the Horror of War

By Gisbert Otto, Stuttgart

[This call published in: Zeit-Fragen, April 2006 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, www.zeit-fragen.ch/index.php.]

In the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, the Bush administration’s argument – as with the Iraq war – was built on lies. According to US doctrine, preventing Iran from gaining possession of weapons of mass destruction on time – preemptively – is vital. On its side, Iran insists on continuing to work independently on developing its nuclear program. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has nuclear weapons and has not signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In contrast, Iran is under pressure although Iran signed all international agreements and accepted obligations (in the area of preventing nuclear weapon proliferation).

The peaceful use of nuclear energy is allowed according to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Enriching and reprocessing uranium are also permitted. Inspections are carried out to assure that no material is branched off for non-peaceful purposes. An offense only occurs when these inspections are refused. On March 26, 2006, the Security Council summoned Iran to suspend all activities connected with enrichment and reprocessing including research. A deadline of 30 days was set. The Security Council demanded a deadline that is not allowable in international law. Iran may use nuclear power for peaceful goals. The declaration of the Security Council from March 26, 2006 contradicts the UN Charter and has no binding authority according to Art. 25.

THE LIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

Two yardsticks are obviously applied here. Even though the Bush administration has already lost credibility worldwide, the carpet of lies is almost completely formed. This carpet should be continued in the Security Council. If Iran does not satisfy the demands, the Bush administration will increase pressure on the Security Council to take measures according to chapter VII of the UN Charter (threat to peace). If Russia and China abstain from voting for tactical reasons, the Security Council could be used to sanction a war against Iran. The artificial time pressure of 30 days corresponds to a political calculus that is in no way justified. On April 3, 2006, the former UN chief inspector Hans Blix said that Iran was at least five years from developing a nuclear bomb.

THE PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVE: THE UN CHARTER’S PROHIBITION OF FORCE

Wars are waged against people and not for social justice. The justification of the US that wars are necessary to safeguard freedom and protect democracies is in contradiction to life. There are more than two alternatives: friend or enemy/victim or murderer/striking or striking back (preemptive strikes are only the worse variants for the wicked actions of a hegemon). There are more alternatives: for example, renunciation on force as anchored in the UN Charter. According to Art 2, par. 4, all member states are obligated to a strict prohibition of force and conduct reflecting international law. The world=political agenda that currently prevails is a wrong track leading to terror, wars and human failure. The cruelty and human ruthlessness planned for this crisis goes beyond everything that has ever happened in the world.

THE USE OF THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS – A HORROR VISION

The Bush administration has developed a new nuclear doctrine that includes special guidelines for preemptive nuclear attacks against “rogue states” (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations – DJNO). Thermonuclear weapons can be used for these attacks (“mini-nukes”)… However tests have shown these bombs can only penetrate 20 feet in the earth. To destroy deep bunkers, one atomic bomb after another must be directed at the same target. The explosions will rip open a gigantic crater and contaminate the air with massive quantities of radioactive dust. This would be a vast catastrophe for the population living there and for all people in neighboring countries. In its boundless quest for world power, the US would violate an international law convention: the 4th Geneva Convention protecting civilians in war times.

PROCLAMATION TO ALL PEOPLE

In mainstream news reports, the danger of a war against Iran is hardly mentioned. The invocation of the Security Council is even stylized as positive. The danger now exists that a certain automatism could occur – despite all violations of international law – to a nuclear attack against Iran so that the public would only face past facts. Irrespective of this, we must protest against a planned war in which atomic and conventional weapons could be deployed. We can and must prevent this nuclear horror vision

· if people worldwide are outraged over these aggressive plans,
· if worldwide protests occur against the inhumanity of a nuclear war,
· if every person imagines living in Iran,
· if the Security Council and the UN are urged worldwide to fulfill their highest function – securing peace in the world,
· if the insight grows that the powerful are primarily interested in extending their own power and less and less in the well-being of people (the extreme polarization of worldwide wealth in a small elite shows this clearly while the conditions of the majority worsen and many die of hunger),
· if it is recognized that Iran is only the preliminary stage for further geopolitical power struggles (against Russia and China?).

CIVIL SOCIETY AS A WORLD POWER

The hegemon US striving for absolute power moves more and more to lawlessness and exerts strong pressure worldwide on its vassals. Nevertheless we can resist this pressure because the opinion of civil society and every person count. A reversal to peace, development and international cooperation is absolutely necessary for the future.

REMEMBER – URANIUM LIES BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR

By gr

[This article published in: Zeit-Fragen, April 2006 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, www.zeit-fragen,ch/index.php.]

On September 24, 2002, “secret service information” emerged according to which Iraq tried to buy 500 tons of uranium-oxide-concentrate in Niger between 1999 and 2001. This form of uranium ore called Yellow Cake can be used in different reprocessing methods as fuel for nuclear reactors and also transformed into weapon-grade uranium. On the same day, Tony Blair’s government in London published this “information” in a dossier. Different media took up the “story.” Two days later, according to Seymour Hersh, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the “information” to the senate Foreign Relations committee as evidence of Iraq’s nuclear ambition. On December 19, 2002, the American State department accused the Iraqi government of illegal uranium procurement. President Bush first mentioned this in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2004.

After months of pressure, the American government handed over the dubious “documents” to the leader of the Iraq team at the IAEA, the French Jacques Bante. On March 7, 2003, Mohamed El-Baradei, director of the IAEA, told the UN Security Council that the documents on the alleged uranium deal between Iraq and Niger were all forgeries. A high-ranking IAEA worker told Seymour Hersh: “These documents are so pathetic that I cannot imagine they could have come from a serious secret service organization.”

That the war was not stopped with the miserable quality of these documents is depressing. Given their importance, a careful examination was imperative. The “documents” were forged in such a crude way they could be “uncovered with Google on the Internet.” Confronted by Baute, the American government wrapped itself in silence. On March 16, 2003, Vice-President Dick Cheney in brazen denial of the facts as to Saddam’s alleged activation of the nuclear weapon program: “I think Mr. El-Baradei is wrong.” The war against Iraq began three days later.

Seymour Hersh revealed that deputy secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon set up a little group of political advisors and analysts in the newly established Office of Special Plans that with some irony called itself “the cabal” or “the intrigue.” Under the leadership of Abrah Shulsky, this group brought about a decisive reorientation of American intelligence service. They provided a flood of “secret service reports” to influence the public and American Iraq policy. The Office of Special Plans was founded with the “explicit mandate to find evidence for what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld stylized as truth.” Shulsky is an expert on the works of the neo-conservative thinker Leo Strauss. “In his scholarly publications and think tank papers, Shulsky who specialized in Soviet disinformation techniques during the Cold War had long criticized the American secret service. Like Wolfowitz, the son of a journalist studied with Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago and like Wolfowitz was awarded a doctorate with Strauss in 1972.”

If one includes this background, false information about the nuclear program of Iran is certainly fabricated with the single goal of “legitimating” an offensive nuclear war against Iran.

Source: Seymour Hersh: Chain of Command. The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, New York 2004