Current Events June 08

I have had a terrible time trying to decide what to write about this month. My top concern, as always, is the prospect of an American or Israeli attack on Iran, and this month has only intensified my concern. In fact, just this morning (Friday June 20), I heard on the radio that Israel mobilized a large fleet of F-15 and F-16 jets for what analysts are calling a bombing run rehearsal. It seems the Israeli planes flew about 900 miles, approximately the distance from Israel to the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

The announcer said that Israel was sending a message to Iran that it is willing to use military means if diplomatic means fail to stop Iran’s nuclear project. The situation was described as follows in an article that appeared in Der Spiegel on June 16.

Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg, a foreign policy expert and member of the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), says that he has "the unsettling feeling that the contemplation of a military option against Iran is gaining a new dynamic in Israel." He wants to see Berlin use its close relations with Jerusalem to deter it from launching a military strike.

This political offensive would not be without risk. "By issuing this warning, we are taking even more responsibility for (guaranteeing that) our favored approach will yield results," says Ruprecht Polenz, the chairman of the German Bundestag's Committee on Foreign Affairs. In other words, if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program, the West will have to close ranks with Jerusalem. "Under no circumstances can the impression be created that Israel would be left alone with the possibility of an Iranian atom bomb," says Polenz.

Israel's main ally, the United States, is still at odds over what constitutes the right strategy on Iran. The Bush administration is divided. Vice President Dick Cheney "would still want an attack," says Flynt Leverett, a former official in the US State Department and now a Middle East expert with the New America Foundation. However he believes the secretary of state favors a different approach: "Condi Rice is buying time to get the president through his term."

Bruce Riedel, a Middle East expert who spent many years working for the CIA, says it would be "very difficult for this administration to start a war with Iran. There would be public uproar and congressional uproar." But the situation is different from Israel's perspective, says Riedel. "There is some risk that Israel thinks it has limited time to act and it has a green light from American politicians."

Besides, the Israeli Air Force is known for its "inventive solutions to military problems," says Riedel, who has strong contacts to Israel, referring to the feasibility of such an attack. "Israeli military planners tell me it is mission doable."

This is why Riedel sees an Israeli military strike, with the US government's consent, as the most likely attack scenario. But the consequences, according to Riedel, would not differ from those of an American attack. "An Israeli attack will be seen as a US attack. Iran will retaliate against both Israel and the US." The consequences, says Riedel, would be fatal. "We will see a Middle East in flames."

Nevertheless, in Israel it is no longer a matter of whether there will be a military strike, but when. It is clear that the attack would be exclusively an aerial strike. Jerusalem recently received approval from Washington for a purchase of F-22 stealth bombers. The centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the Natanz nuclear facility are apparently the main target. According to Israeli information, the centrifuges are kept above ground and are thus easier to destroy. The reactor in Bushehr is seen as another possible target.

And the Iranian air defenses? "We know that Iran's air defenses are not among the world's best," says former Mossad chief Yatom. "They can be overcome." Nevertheless, many Israelis still hope that the Americans will do the job for them. "It could still be the case," says Yatom, "that George W. Bush wants to guarantee himself a place in the history books with this last act."

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

The real problems here are US and Israeli arrogance and the hold they have on the UN Security Council and the global media. Two countries with nuclear weapons, one of which has never joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, are, with no legal justification whatsoever, telling a state party to the NPT that it may not enrich uranium because it might use that uranium to build nuclear weapons. Both the US and Israel are threatening to illegally bomb Iranian nuclear facilities to stop a nuclear weapons program that even US spy agencies say does not exist, and yet they somehow manage to get the Security Council to subject Iran to increasingly harsh economic sanctions. And the mainstream global media accept at face value the premise that Israel has the right to bomb preemptively any country that might threaten it.

I am concerned and tempted to write about this situation because, as Scott Ritter eloquently points out, an attack on Iran could easily lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Let’s say the US or Israel attacks Iran. Then, let’s say that Iran finds a way to get some sort of revenge, pulling off a major destructive act in Iraq or Israel or even in the US. At that point, the US and Israel will be at war with Iran. However, the US still has 150,000 troops and another hundred thousand or so overpaid mercenaries tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where will it find the troops to fight Iran? Does Israel have enough troops? No, Israel and the US will be forced to attempt regime change through air power alone.

Iran, which is vastly more powerful than Iraq, will not take this lying down. Eventually a large number of Americans or Israelis will die in a massive attack of some sort. Maybe Iran will borrow a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. Or maybe it will find a way to blow up a nuclear power plant near a major American metropolis, wiping out the entire city of New York or Chicago or Los Angeles. If that happens, does anyone doubt that the US will respond with nuclear weapons? And if so, does anyone think the violence will end there? Millions, perhaps billions, will die. The militarists will have won. Peace will be out of the question. We will have chosen to solve our environmental problems through a rapid and painful reduction in human population.

But I can’t write about this. Too much else is going on. Recently, the Arab League declared that if Israel admits to having nuclear weapons, the Arab nations will drop out of the NPT and build nuclear weapons of their own. This month, the IAEA announced that 40 countries have submitted notice of new nuclear programs. We are not, as the US fantasizes, choosing between proliferation and nonproliferation. The only real choice is between total abolition and hyper-proliferation leading to use.

If you doubt that, read this June 16 article put out by the Agence France-Presse:

Blueprints for advanced nukes possibly sold: report

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A report compiled by a former UN arms inspector warns that an international smuggling ring that sold bomb-related parts to Libya, Iran and North Korea also managed to acquire blueprints for an advanced nuclear weapon.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that a copy of the draft it had obtained suggests the plans could have been shared secretly with a number of countries or rogue groups.

The study focuses on drawings discovered in 2006 on computers owned by Swiss businessmen, according to the paper.

They included essential details for building a compact nuclear device that could be fitted on a type of ballistic missile used by Iran and more than a dozen developing countries, The Post said.

The computer contents -- among more than 1,000 gigabytes of data seized -- were recently destroyed by Swiss authorities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is investigating the now-defunct smuggling ring previously led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

But UN officials cannot rule out the possibility that the blueprints were shared with others before their discovery, the report's author, David Albright, a prominent nuclear weapons expert, told The Post.

"These advanced nuclear weapons designs may have long ago been sold off to some of the most treacherous regimes in the world," the paper quotes Albright as saying in his report.

Meanwhile, here is how things look from Russia.

MOSCOW, June 18 (RIA Novosti) - The U.S.-proposed European missile shield will eventually spread along Russia's borders and may neutralize Russia's nuclear potential by 2012-2015, a Russian political analyst said on Wednesday.

Commenting on reports that the United States and Lithuania were formally discussing deploying elements of the U.S. missile shield in the ex-Soviet Baltic state should Warsaw reject Washington's plans to station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, Leonid Ivashov, the head of the Moscow-based Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said: "We should expect that elements of a U.S. missile shield will be placed not only in Lithuania, but also in all territories bordering Russia and controlled by NATO."

So far, the Czech Republic has agreed to host an early-warning radar on its territory. Poland has taken a tough stance in missile talks with the U.S., demanding that Washington upgrade its air defense systems in return.

Ivashov said the main purpose of the U.S. global missile shield was to neutralize Russia's nuclear potential by 2012-2015 and that NATO eastward expansion was part of this plan.

He said Ukraine's and Georgia's possible accession to NATO would have dire consequences for Russia's defense capability.

"There is no doubt that elements of the U.S. missile shield will be placed in Georgia and Ukraine immediately after they join NATO," the analyst said, adding that Ukraine already had radars [in Mukachevo and Sevastopol] that may be used against Russia.

"The U.S. wants to create an impenetrable shield capable of intercepting and destroying Russian nuclear missiles on launch pads, in the initial trajectory, in orbit and on the final trajectory," he said.

Ivashov criticized the Russian leadership for "wasting time in empty rhetoric with the West," rather than taking concrete steps to counter the looming threat.

He suggested that Russia should threaten to sever all relations with NATO if the U.S. missile shield is eventually placed in Europe.

"Russia must also warn the European countries that...in case of a potential military confrontation...capitals, large cities, industrial and communications centers of the countries hosting elements of the U.S. missile shield will inevitably become the primary targets of [Russian] nuclear strikes."

War culture Neanderthals in all countries never stop trying to get us all killed, and the threat from the Lone Superpower is creating new bedfellows, as shown by this May 16 article from The Hindu:

YEKATERINBURG (Russia): Russia, India and China displayed enhanced solidarity on a range of key international issues at their meeting here on Thursday in a sign that their trilateral dialogue may be acquiring a strategic dimension.

In a joint communiqué, adopted at their eighth meeting, the Foreign Ministers of the countries “reaffirmed the commonality” in their views on the global situation and, for the first time, set out coordinated positions on Kosovo, Iran, Afghanistan and the Asia-Pacific region, as India displayed a greater readiness to go along with its partners in the triangle on these issues.

Obviously, the atavistic, unilateral neocon plan to boss the whole world will fail. The only question is, will the US end up destroying the world it is trying to dominate? Or will it learn to share, as it should have in kindergarten?