Recover password

Iran Not a Proven Nuclear Threat

I am writing in response to Gregg Fallick’s op-ed piece, “Santa Fe Council Off Base On Israel.”

The column recycles a number of premises that have been shown to be false, and then goes on to quote extensively from Hitler, presumably to tar Iran and the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with Hitler’s views and speeches. This is not even guilt by association, since when Hitler died in 1945, Ahmadinejad was not only not the leader of Iran – that would be the former Shah’s father, who changed Persia’s name to Iran in tribute to Hitler’s “Aryan” obsession; the U.S. then supported the son, who ran one of the most brutal regimes in the world, until his fall in 1979 – but he was not even born.

The fact is, Israel has at least 200, and possibly twice that many, nuclear weapons, along with the delivery systems to drop them as far away as 2,000 miles, thanks to the U.S. giving or selling them the very latest in missile technology. Moreover, unlike Iran, which has attacked none of its neighbors during under the leadership of its mullahs, Israel has repeatedly attacked its neighbors, mostly without provocation.

One need have no faith in Iran’s “claims,” since the inspection regime that has been imposed on it under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory, are more stringent than those imposed on any other country.

Indeed, the United States, behind the scenes, orchestrated the replacement of Mohamed elBaradei, the Egyptian head of the arms control agency in the U.N. (who was seen by Washington as “soft” on Iran) with a hard-liner from Japan who promised the U.S. that he would work faithfully to carry out U.S. desires with regard to Iran. Yet the U.N. agency has still not found, in any of its inspections, unambiguous evidence that Iran is trying to make a bomb.


Continue reading

The head of Israeli intelligence, the U.S. director of the CIA, and the Pentagon have all concurred that there is no indication that the leadership of Iran has decided to join the nuclear club. Its “enriched” Uranium is now at 27 percent; 90 percent or better is required for nuclear weapons. Under the treaty, Iran has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which include medical equipment as well as electric power. It is, therefore, the U.S. and its acolyte states in Europe that are in violation of international law and the non-proliferation treaty through their threats against Iran. (The U.N. charter, a ratified treaty that was largely created by U.S. government employees, forbids using threats to accomplish foreign policy objectives.)

It might be noted that the top religious authority of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has repeatedly and publicly denounced the possession of nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam. Since it is the Western position that this unelected authority holds Iran’s political system in an iron grip, his pronouncements on the subject, which have not been challenged by any prominent figures in Iran, ought to be taken seriously.

The assertion that Iran is the primary supporter of terrorism in the world today would require an essay all by itself to cover; suffice it to say that it is the United States that boasts of having squads of subversives and armed agents in over 120 countries today, not Iran.

Finally, for the sake of argument, suppose that Iran were to develop a nuclear bomb, or even a dozen of them, in response to the open-ended threats by the most powerful country in the world (the U.S.) and the fourth-largest military power (Israel). Does Fallick believe the leadership of Iran are such lunatics that they would launch or place these weapons inside a nation run by the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu or Barack Obama, in the belief that this would not lead to the immediate and total destruction of Iran by the hundreds and thousands of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons at the disposal of those two countries?