Current Events June

The World Conference of Mayors for Peace, notably supported by the 1,139 major cities (over 30,000) of the US Conference of Mayors, is leading the charge toward nuclear disarmament. Hopefully, the World Assembly of United Cities and Local Governments meeting this year in Jeju, South Korea, will also endorse the Mayors for Peace campaign. If so, the world’s cities, representing the richest and most educated half of the human beings on this planet, will be calling loudly and clearly for the total elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020.

This past May 14 to 17, the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit brought the mayors of many major cities to New York to discuss what they can do to address environmental problems. As Jeremy Harris, former mayor of Honolulu, has been saying for years, “If all US cities were to follow the Kyoto Protocol, it wouldn’t matter that the federal government is failing to do so.”

It’s great that cities are stepping into the breach, but this phenomenon must be seen for what it is, a reaction to the utter failure of nations to come to grips with the two most serious problems confronting our species: nuclear weapons and environmental deterioration.

Most world leaders today are warriors. They see opponents as enemies. They are incapable of cooperation at the level required to solve today’s global problems.

On June 6, William Arkin offered this comment on the Republic debate in the Washington Post:

At the Republican debate last night, almost all the candidates said that they would not rule out a nuclear attack on Iran as a means to prevent it from getting its own nuclear weapons. Only one of these knuckleheads would say that attacking Iran -- indeed even threatening to nuke Iran -- is not the right strategy.

"We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption," he said. The audience applauded, but he didn't get much support from his fellow candidates.

Who was this voice of reason on Iran? First, let's review the positions of some of the other men on the podium.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California was the starkest: "I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," he said. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table." Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table" with regard to Iranian nuclear weapons. Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table."

After the debate, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who did not participate, added his name to the list of candidates who would consider a preemptive attack against Iran.

Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the "Dennis the Menace" of his party, said he opposed a nuclear strike on moral grounds and because he believed Iran "has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security."

The Iraq war and the war against terrorism are the central battles of our time, these candidates say. They all profess their faith in God and the United States, and speak of a moral struggle between good and evil, between the United States and "radical Islam." Yet they are not willing to say that nuclear weapons have no place in modern confrontations.

I am not arguing that Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons is justified. It isn't. I am saying, however, that the U.S. should not use its nuclear weapons to threaten Iran. And not just from a moral standpoint, but from a practical one: When we brandish our own nuclear arsenal, we only play into the hands of supporters of Tehran's plans to develop its own.

Leaving aside the fact that the IAEA has found absolutely no evidence to support Arkin’s reference to Iran’s “effort to develop nuclear weapons,” this piece would appear to be a brief but compelling argument for electing a Democrat. Unfortunately, in previous debates and statements, only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have taken clear stands against the use of nuclear weapons. The rest of the Democrats have pointedly, and in terms indistinguishable from the Republicans, kept the nuclear option “on the table.” Thus, at this moment, all potential US presidents except the three least likely to succeed have expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

These campaign statements are intended for domestic consumption. These presidential candidates are brandishing nuclear weapons because they believe this tough stance will help them win the election in November 2008. They apparently believe that the average voter likes to hear his or her leader talking like the hero of an action movie, and they may be right. On the other hand, in March 2005, sixty-six percent of Americans replying to an AP-IPSOS poll favored the total elimination of all nuclear weapons, including American nuclear weapons.

Regardless of any political analysis, the message delivered by these American leaders to the world outside the US is terrifying. They are clearly saying that we, Americans, will decide who can and cannot have nuclear weapons, and we are willing to use nuclear weapons to ensure that our will is obeyed.

Let me say it one more time. The IAEA has found no evidence that Iran is building a bomb. The religious leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khameni, has declared a fatwa against nuclear weapons. If Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, it would be doing so against the will of its Supreme Leader, who has clearly stated that nuclear weapons are against the will of Allah. Iran has every right to enrich as much uranium as it wishes. In fact, it is perfectly free to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and make a bomb like North Korea did. The US, working with or without the UN or any coalition of the willing, has absolutely no legal authority to tell Iran what weapons it may and may not build or possess.

War, ruin and misery are the inevitable outcome when warriors are in charge. If the US uses a nuclear weapon in Iran, the resulting catastrophe will make World War II look like a picnic.