FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Case for a Nuclear Iran

 

“America operates a rigorous double standard with respect to nuclear weapons issues, rather like confirmed alcoholics complaining about teenage drinking.”

Dan Plesch, arms control expert

Iran should be allowed to purchase or manufacture nuclear weapons without the interference of the United States. The flagrant hostility directed at Iran from the Bush Administration suggests that its survival is as threatened as any country on earth. If ever there was a case for the use of “nuclear deterrents” to evade “imminent” danger, this is it.

In any event, the decision should be made after a calm and reasoned deliberation on the facts. The verdict should not be affected by the hysteria that issues from Washington like bilge from a sinking ship.

Consider for a moment Iran’s present predicament.

The Bush Administration has telegraphed its animosity towards Iran in unambiguous language, listing it in the now infamous “Axis of Evil”.

The US has kept up its verbal assaults while at the same time engaging in an open campaign to enlist the UN’s support to condemn Iran’s shadowy nuclear activities. The US is pushing to have the Security Council insert a “trigger” mechanism in a resolution that will allow the US to take military action against Iran for “failure in compliance”.

Sound familiar?

Again, the Bush Administration is looking for the UN imprimatur to vindicate its plans for aggression.

So far, the UN is resisting, calling the US approach “unbalanced.”

There is also a history of US antagonism towards Iran that can’t be ignored.

In 1952 the US took the extraordinary step of deposing the democratically elected (but left of center) Mossedeq Government in a CIA coup carried out by Kermit Roosevelt. This led to 25 years of brutal rule by the American puppet, the Shah.

The US assisted the Shah in the training of his security “Gestapo”, the Savak, and supplied him with sufficient weaponry to keep the populace in a continual state of terror.

When a coalition of fundamentalist groups finally toppled the Shah, President Jimmie Carter appealed to the Iranian Military to reinstate the deposed tyrant rather than allow the more popular Ayatolla Khomenni take charge.

Carter’s efforts failed, (but not for lack of trying) and the popular mandate of the Iranian people succeeded.

(Whether or not the US approved of the Ayatolla is entirely irrelevant. The simple fact is he was the popular choice at the time and, therefore, his rise to power was much more consistent with basic American values of representative government than the Shah.)

The US stubbornly refused to extradite the criminal Shah back to Iran where he would have stood trial as he deserved.

Compare this to the Bush Administration’s insistence that the Taliban extradite bin Laden after 9-11 without any tangible proof of his guilt. As Bush said, “We don’t need to know if he is innocent or guilty. We know he’s guilty.” The hesitation of the Taliban was used as Bush’s justification for initiating the war.

Look, how different the approach was when Iran requested the extradition of a ruthless despot who had been terrorizing the Iranian public for 25 years. The refusal to return the Shah was a brazen and immoral act. Nations not only have the right, but the duty to hold their leaders accountable for the crimes perpetrated against their own people. It is not within America’s purview to arbitrarily determine how justice is best served in another sovereign nation. It only goes to prove that duplicity is rarely confused for justice.

The US has continued its hostility towards Iran in myriad ways.

It helped facilitate Saddam’s aggression in the eight year war that took over one million Iranian lives. The war left suffering and devastation on a massive scale on both sides, and yet, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, summarized the administration’s policy when he opined, “I hope they kill each other.” (We should note that the chemical weapons (precursors) used by Iraq against Iran were provided by both the US and Britain to Saddam. Their mutual culpability is not in question)

And, of course, ever since Iran took control of their own resources (oil and natural gas) the US has maintained strict sanctions against the country.

Control of one’s own resources is the one unpardonable crime.

Presently, the US has just unseated the Saddam regime without any proof of proscribed weapons, and is looking to destabilize the current Iranian government. President Bush has referred to this as “strengthening the forces of democracy in the region,” which translates into “unyielding covert activity to promote social unrest.”

There are 130,000 American servicemen next door in Iraq and no one can be entirely certain what “imaginary” provocation might send them marching towards Tehran.

No one should harbor any illusions about the intentions of the Bush Administration regarding Iran. It is more than likely that a UN resolution with a “trigger mechanism” would be put to good use by the “loose cannons” in Washington.

Iran provides a case where nuclear deterrents might be of some practical value.

There’s no doubt that Mr Bush would keep his legions in check if they were faced with an adversary who could actually defend themselves. Some may remember how contrite Bush was when he needed to retrieve his spy plane that went down over China. Apologies are meted out to the strong not the worthy.

It’s the same with nuclear weapons; bullies wither.

Whether or not Iran should be able to procure or manufacture nuclear weapons should be determined in an evenhanded manner. A simple series of questions will prove this point.

Has Iran violated the territorial integrity or sovereignty of any of its neighbors?

Has Iran toppled the leadership of any foreign state and replaced it with people of its own choosing?

Has Iran trained the security apparatus of any other country in the brutal methods of repression and state terror?

Has Iran actively engaged in the ousting of foreign governments to insure its access to its resources?

Has Iran levied debilitating sanctions against other countries as a form of punishment and coercion?

Has Iran ever held foreign nationals against their will in a prison camp setting in clear violation of international law and all accepted conventions of human rights?

These are the criteria that should be used to determine whether a state is responsible enough to have nuclear weapons. (if any state at all!)

Needless to say, other states would perform quite miserably on such a test.

Those are precisely the countries that should be required to disarm.

Realistically, however, Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The ongoing charade is merely designed to undermine Iran’s defenses while the plans go forward to steal its resources.

The process of disarming one’s victim is common to any “mugging”.

This is no different.

When the farce is over, the UN will assume an air of surprise and indignation; a role it plays with considerable skill.

The clock is ticking for Iran.

The Bush Administration will not be derailed on its way to secure the seductive resources of the Caspian Basin. To the contrary, it seems all but inevitable.

When reflecting on Iran’s fragile situation we should recall Tony Blair’s ominous warning about Iraq, that it was only “a test case.”

We should stop the quibbling over who can or can’t have nuclear weapons. No nation has the right to put humanity’s neck in the noose and then, toy with its survival. That, in itself, is the height of depravity.

Abolish all nuclear weapons.

MIKE WHITNEY can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

 

More articles by:

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

April 26, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
As Trump Berates Iran, His Options are Limited
Daniel Warner
From May 1968 to May 2018: Politics and Student Strikes
Simone Chun – Kevin Martin
Diplomacy in Korea and the Hope It Inspires
George Wuerthner
The Attack on Wilderness From Environmentalists
CJ Hopkins
The League of Assad-Loving Conspiracy Theorists
Richard Schuberth
“MeToo” and the Liberation of Sex
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Sacred Assemblies in Baghdad
Dean Baker
Exonerating Bad Economic Policy for Trump’s Win
Vern Loomis
The 17 Gun Salute
Gary Leupp
What It Means When the U.S. President Conspicuously and Publicly Removes a Speck of Dandruff from the French President’s Lapel
Robby Sherwin
The Hat
April 25, 2018
Stanley L. Cohen
Selective Outrage
Dan Kovalik
The Empire Turns Its Sights on Nicaragua – Again!
Joseph Essertier
The Abductees of Japan and Korea
Ramzy Baroud
The Ghost of Herut: Einstein on Israel, 70 Years Ago
W. T. Whitney
Imprisoned FARC Leader Faces Extradition: Still No Peace in Colombia
Manuel E. Yepe
Washington’s Attack on Syria Was a Mockery of the World
John White
My Silent Pain for Toronto and the World
Dean Baker
Bad Projections: the Federal Reserve, the IMF and Unemployment
David Schultz
Why Donald Trump Should Not be Allowed to Pardon Michael Cohen, His Friends, or Family Members
Mel Gurtov
Will Abe Shinzo “Make Japan Great Again”?
Binoy Kampmark
Enoch Powell: Blood Speeches and Anniversaries
Frank Scott
Weapons and Walls
April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Paul Bentley
A Velvet Revolution Turns Bloody? Ten Dead in Toronto
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail