What's New

Previous Events

February Current Events

Through January all eyes were on Iran and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). As I write, on the 3rd of February, the US, most of the EU, and even Russia and China are pushing the IAEA to report Iran to the Security Council. What the Security Council would do is unclear, but it could, for example, demand that Iran open up all its nuclear facilities to a higher level of inspection, and apply sanctions if Iran refuses.

On January 27, the US Senate passed a resolution on Iran that states:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress—

  1. condemns the many failures of the Government of Iran to comply faithfully with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, including its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement (as reported by Director General to the IAEA Board of Governors since 2003), its suspension commitments under the Paris Agreement, and prior commitments to the EU-3 to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing-related activities;
  2. commends the efforts of the governments of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom to seek a meaningful and credible suspension of Iran's enrichment- and reprocessing-related activities and to find a diplomatic means to address the noncompliance of the Government of Iran with its obligations, requirements, and commitments related to nuclear non-proliferation;
  3. strongly urges the IAEA Board of Governors, at its special meeting on February 2, 2006, to order that Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards obligations be reported to the United Nations Security Council; and
  4. calls on all members of the United Nations Security Council, in particular the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, to act expeditiously to consider any report of Iran's noncompliance in fulfillment of the mandate of the Security Council to respond to and deal with situations bearing on the maintenance of international peace and security.

Again, it is not clear what “respond to and deal with situations” means, but it definitely sounds like the US Senate wants the UN Security Council to take action against Iran. One NGO observer who was present and listening to the debate in the Senate over this bipartisan resolution said that senators were talking openly about “regime change” and “surgical air attacks.” All are quick to add that military action would be a last resort, but that’s what they said about Iraq.

Meanwhile, on February 3, Iranian IAEA Ambassador Larijani said, “I am afraid to warn that if the interlocutors of Iran want to put pressure on the Board to report the issue to the UN Security Council and this pressures be effective, and the Council would be involved in any way with the Iranian peaceful nuclear activities, it would be the final blow to the confidence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will totally destroy it. In such a case, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is logically and legally bound by the law passed by the parliament would have no other choice but to suspend all the voluntary measures and extra cooperation with the Agency which have so far made. In that case the Agency’s monitoring would extensively be limited and all the peaceful nuclear activities being under voluntary suspension would be resumed without any restriction.”

This sounds very much like Iran saying that any attempt by the Security Council to meddle in its nuclear activities will result in total refusal to cooperate. Thus, we have the US, supported by most of the world’s most powerful nations, demanding Security Council action. In response, Iran is vowing to withdraw all cooperation if action is taken, and the US Senate is talking about “dealing with” such non-cooperation through bombing and regime change, jumping right to the most damaging options.

In December on this website I reported that Vice President Cheney has ordered the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to plan a bombing attack on Iran. And, according to an article by Philip Giraldi, this plan involves the use of nuclear weapons to attack buried and hardened targets. Most disarmament experts and anti-nuclear activists discount this report as a mere threat, hardly the first time the US has planned or threatened the use of a nuclear weapon. However, if the Giraldi article, which appeared in the American Conservative magazine, was a trial balloon sent aloft to see how much outrage a nuclear attack would inspire, the answer is, not much. It inspired no shouts of horror from any elected officials. Even in the anti-nuclear NGO community anyone taking the threat seriously was derided as silly or alarmist. The STRATCOM plan soon vanished from the news and the Internet.

Perhaps the calm ones are right. Even the Neocons want to maintain the taboo on nukes. No one in their right mind would want the war on terror to escalate to nuclear weapons, and even the Lone Superpower fears worldwide outrage. Will the US actually use a nuclear weapon preemptively? Impossible.

But various scenarios are conceivable. Maybe the reaction to the STRATCOM leak persuaded US war planners that anti-nuclear outrage is weak and short-lived. Maybe some are already eagerly looking forward to the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki. In one corner, we have the Great Powers determined to decide who can and who can’t have nuclear weapons. In the other, we have Iran, determined to act like a sovereign nation and assert its right to do whatever it wants within its own territory. After much posturing, bickering and resolving, the US, claiming to act on behalf of the United Nations, attacks Iran. Because several targets are hardened and contain weapons of mass destruction, the US breaks out a brand new robust earth penetrator (or nuclear bunkerbuster).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately send letters of protest. A few thousand protesters hit the streets, then go home. After all, it’s a done deal. What can we do? Al Jazeera broadcasts the carnage, but most major media respond with a predictable mixture of positive and negative reactions, then drop it, except for Democracy Now. Amy Goodman does her valiant best to point out that, yes, actually, radiation was released and has made some downwinders very sick. But then, even her attention is drawn to the conventional bombing campaign that continues to ravage Iran, and the nuclear weapon issue fades. A few anti-nuclear activists are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, but most people, thinking, “Well, that wasn’t so bad, after all,” go back to sleep and dream of a friendly, happy world in which a nuclear attack on Iran, like the attack on Japan, turns the victims into pacifists with no thought of revenge.