Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Iran

  • Statement by Iranian President to the NPT Review Conference

    2010_05_03_iran_npt.pdf

  • New Think and Old Weapons

    Every four years the White House issues a “nuclear posture review.” That may sound like an anachronism. It isn’t. In a world where the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons — and Iran, North Korea and others have seemingly unquenchable nuclear appetites — what the United States says about its arsenal matters enormously.

    President Obama’s review was due to Congress in December. That has been delayed, in part because of administration infighting. The president needs to get this right. It is his chance to finally jettison cold war doctrine and bolster America’s credibility as it presses to rein in Iran, North Korea and other proliferators.

    Mr. Obama has already committed rhetorically to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. But we are concerned that some of his advisers, especially at the Pentagon, are resisting his bold ambitions. He needs to stick with the ideas he articulated in his campaign and in speeches last year in Prague and at the United Nations.

    These are some of the important questions the posture review must address:

    THEIR PURPOSE: Current doctrine gives nuclear weapons a “critical role” in defending the United States and its allies. And it suggests they could be used against foes wielding chemical, biological or even conventional forces — not just nuclear arms. Mr. Obama’s aides have proposed changing that to say that the “primary” purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. This still invites questions about whether Washington values — and might use — nuclear forces against non-nuclear targets.

    Given America’s vast conventional military superiority, broader uses are neither realistic nor necessary. Any ambiguity undercuts Washington’s credibility when it argues that other countries have no strategic reason to develop their own nuclear arms. The sole purpose of American nuclear forces should be to deter a nuclear attack against this country or its allies.

    HOW MANY: President George W. Bush disdained arms control as old think, and Washington and Moscow have not signed an arms reduction treaty since 2002. Mr. Obama launched negotiations on a new agreement that would slash the number of warheads each side has deployed from 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675. The talks are dragging on, but there is hope for an agreement soon. Both sides should go deeper.

    The review should make clear that the United States is ready to move, as a next step, down to 1,000 deployed warheads — military experts say half that number is enough to wipe out the assets of Russia, which is no longer an enemy. China, the only major nuclear power adding to its arsenal, is estimated to have 100 to 200 warheads. The treaty being negotiated says nothing about the nearly 15,000 warheads, in total, that the United States and Russia keep as backups — the so-called hedge. And it says nothing about America’s 500 short-range nuclear weapons, which are considered secure, or Russia’s 3,000 or more, which are chillingly vulnerable to theft.

    The review should make clear that there is no need for a huge hedge, and that tactical weapons have an utter lack of strategic value — as a prelude to reducing both. Certainly no general we know of could imagine exploding a warhead on a battlefield. Today’s greatest nuclear danger is that terrorists will steal or build a weapon. That is best countered by halting proliferation and securing and reducing stockpiles and other material.

    NEW WEAPONS: The United States built its last new warhead in 1989. So when aides to President George W. Bush called for building new weapons, with new designs and new capabilities, it opened this country to charges of hypocrisy and double standards when it demanded that North Korea and Iran end their nuclear programs.

    Mr. Obama has said that this country does not need new weapons. But we are concerned the review will open the door to just that by directing the labs to study options — including a new weapons design — for maintaining the arsenal. The government has a strong and hugely expensive system for ensuring that the stockpile is safe and reliable. Mr. Obama has already vastly increased the labs’ budgets. The review should make clear that there is no need for a new weapon.

    ALERT LEVELS: The United States and Russia each still have about 1,000 weapons ready to fire at a moment’s notice. Mr. Obama has rightly described this as a dangerous cold war relic. The review should commit to taking as many of those forces off hair-trigger alert as possible — and encourage Russia to do the same.

    •

    In April, Mr. Obama will host a much needed summit meeting on the need to better secure nuclear material from terrorists. In May, Washington will encourage a United Nations-led conference to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the bedrock, and battered, agreement for curbing the spread of nuclear arms.

    President Obama will also have to persuade the Senate to ratify the Start follow-on treaty, and we hope he will quickly press the Senate to approve the test ban treaty. He is also working with allies to revive nuclear talks with North Korea and to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Getting the nuclear posture review right is essential for moving all of this ahead.

  • Excerpts from President Obama’s Speech in Cairo

    Following is the section of President Obama’s speech in Cairo dealing with nuclear issues. To watch a video of the full speech, click here.

    The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

    This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

    It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

    I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

  • Remarks to the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference

    Excellences, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I am pleased to welcome you to the United Nations as we open this important third session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    For too long, the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agenda has been stagnating in a Cold War mentality.

    In 2005, the world experienced what might be called a disarmament depression. The NPT Review Conference that year ended in disappointment. The UN World Summit outcome contained not even a single line on weapons of mass destruction.

    Today, we seem to be emerging from that low point. The change has come in recent weeks. But it is unfolding against a backdrop of multiple threats that, while urgent, tend to obscure the urgency of the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda.

    The global economic crisis, climate change and the outbreak of the H1N1 flu virus are all reminders that we live in an interdependent world. They demand a full and forceful multilateral response. At the same time, nuclear weapons remain an apocalyptic threat. We cannot afford to place disarmament and non-proliferation on a backburner. Let us not be lulled into complacency. Let us not miss the opportunity to make our societies safer and more prosperous.

    Excellencies,

    I have been using every opportunity to push for progress. I discussed non-proliferation and disarmament with Russian President Medvedev and U.S. President Obama. I welcome the joint commitment they announced last month to fulfill their obligations under article VI of the NPT.

    I am particularly encouraged that both countries are committed to rapidly pursuing verifiable reductions in their strategic offensive arsenals by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding pact. I hope their example will serve as a catalyst in inspiring other nuclear powers to follow suit.

    Other developments also merit attention.

    On Iran, I encourage the country’s leaders to continue their cooperation with the IAEA with a view to demonstrating the entirely peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

    I also encourage them to re-engage in the negotiating process with the EU 3+3 and the EU High Representative on the basis of the relevant Security Council resolutions, and in line with the package of proposals for cooperation with Iran.

    With respect to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, despite the current serious challenges, I continue to believe that the Six-Party process is the best mechanism to achieve the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.

    I therefore urge the DPRK to return to these talks so that everybody can resolve their respective concerns through dialogue and cooperation, based on the relevant Security Council resolutions as well as multilateral and bilateral agreements.

    I also urge all states to end the stalemate that has marked the international disarmament machinery for too long. To strengthen the NPT regime, it is essential that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty enters into force without further delay, and that the Conference on Disarmament begins negotiations on a verifiable fissile material treaty. I commend President Obama’s commitment to ratify the CTBT, and urge all countries that have not done so to ratify the Treaty without conditions.

    Hopes for a breakthrough on the deadlocked disarmament agenda have been building. We have seen a cascade of proposals. Elder statesmen, leaders of nuclear-weapon states, regional groups, various commissions and civil society representatives have elaborated proposals for slaying the nuclear monster.

    Their voices may be varied, but they are all part of the same rising chorus demanding action on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Concerns about nuclear terrorism, a new rush by some to possess nuclear arms, and renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels have only heightened the need for urgent action.

    Excellencies,

    The work you do in the next two weeks will be critical. You must seize the moment and show your seriousness.

    This preparatory session must generate agreements on key procedural issues and substantive recommendations to the Review Conference.

    The Review Conference must produce a clear commitment by all NPT states parties to comply fully with all of their obligations under this vital Treaty.

    I urge you to work in a spirit of compromise and flexibility. I hope you will avoid taking absolute positions that have no chance of generating consensus. Instead, build bridges, and be part of a new multilateralism. People understand intuitively that nuclear weapons will never make us more secure.

    They know that real security lies in responding to poverty, climate change, armed conflict and instability.

    They want governments to invest in plans for growth and development, not weapons of mass destruction.

    If you can set us on a course towards achieving a nuclear-weapon-free world, you will send a message of hope to the world.

    We desperately need this message at this time. I am counting on you, and I am supporting all of your efforts to succeed, now and at the Review Conference in 2010.

    Thank you.

    Ban Ki-moon is Secretary-General of the United Nations. This address was delivered at the opening session of the Third Preparatory Committee of the 2010 NPT Review Conference at the United Nations in New York.

  • First Iran, Now Arabs Going Nuclear: An Interview with Richard Falk

    This interview was originally published on Al-Jazeera

    There is renewed effort to engage Iran on its nuclear programme. Washington has expressed willingness to hold direct talks with Tehran, which marks a dramatic shift between the policy of Barack Obama, the US president, and his predecessor George Bush.

    The emphasis on dialogue comes as North Korea signals that it is restarting a nuclear plant that produces arms-grade plutonium, and Arab nations are importing nuclear technology and assistance at an unprecedented pace.
    Al Jazeera spoke to Richard Falk, the chair of the board at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, about Iran’s nuclear programme, its effect on regional Arab ambitions for nuclear power, and whether the Middle East will enter a nuclear arms race.

    The following are excerpts from the interview:
    Al Jazeera: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, recently announced the opening of a nuclear fuel plant, and stressed Iran’s ability and right to enrich uranium. However, he also welcomed constructive dialogue with the US and other powers. What motives are behind his statements? f

    Falk: I think it is difficult to assess the motives behind this kind of Iranian public initiative. It may be connected with domestic politics – the eflection campaign there – where Ahmadinejad is trying to present himself as a leader who has restored Iran’s stature and that this stature is associated symbolically with a robust nuclear programme.

    It may also be a signal that though Iran seems receptive to resuming some kind of negotiations about their nuclear programme … this shouldn’t be made too easily.

    It could be that this is part of a bargaining strategy by indicating that they already have enrichment capabilities and if they were to curtail them they would have to be given quite a bit in exchange.

    Are Arab states pursuing nuclear programmes due to growing energy demands or does the perceived threat from Iran’s apparent capability to develop nuclear weapons play a role?

    Often in these kinds of decisions the true motives are disguised and the public explanations are presented in the most acceptable, least provocative form.

    I think that is the case here. Most of the rationale for these expanded nuclear energy programmes are almost always related to domestic factors, increasing electricity demand and the expense of importing energy.

    It is hard not to believe, given the geopolitical climate in the region – not only Iran, but the Iraq war and other factors like Israel’s nuclear capabilities – that the geo-strategic factors have not entered into the motives of all these countries going in that direction.
    Of course, they are also imitating one another. There is a sense that if you don’t move in this direction you are acknowledging you are subordinate or marginalised in the region.

    There is also a prestige element at work. It is extremely hard to read the hierarchy of motives. In the background it is probably the way in which India and Pakistan evolved their nuclear programmes.

    They developed over time and as a result, India began to be taken seriously as a world power when it crossed the nuclear threshhold.

    Will the Middle East witness a race for nuclear technologies?

    The background of all of this is the abandonment by the Arab countries of their earlier mission of seeking a nuclear-free region that are directed at weapons and combining it with regional security.
    Perhaps it is an interpretation that Israel is never going to go along with the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East.

    And now that Iran is at least a latent nuclear weapons state, it doesn’t make any sense to proceed in that direction anymore, rather to the extent that strategic considerations are at work.

    It seems that the leading Arab countries think that they need to have their own long-term security. It should be a contingency option for them.

    Arab leaders have implied that Israel does not want to see Arab countries acquire nuclear technology and has thwarted their efforts to advance their programmes.

    As you suggested, the evidence over the years is that Israel becomes very nervous when any of the Arab countries move in directions that could challenge its regional military superiority.

    Though that is sort of a remote prospect, the manner in which Israel views its relationship with its neighbours is such that it has consistently opposed arms sales of any kind or of enhancement of their potential capabilities.

    Maybe Israel would prefer to see the Arab countries energy-dependent rather than energy-independent. I think it is consistent with the kind of regional hegemonic ambition that Israel both defensively and offensively assert.

    Thirty years ago you called for a total renunciation of nuclear power in exchange for other pollution-free energy sources. Obama has also pledged to create a nuclear-free world. But is it too late?

    I think it is already too late. A number of elements make it too late.

    The first of which is this sense that alternative energy is indispensable for dealing with the limitations on oil supply and in the face of increasing demand for oil and gas, combined with considerations for climate change and combined with the fact that there is a sufficient commitment on the part of a sufficient number of important states that it is just implausible to think that this kind of total de-nuclearisation can occur.

    The only thing that might give it a renewed possibility is another Chernobyl-type accident. Or several Chernobyls which would highlight the other aspect of developing nuclear energy – what you do with the waste and a variety of related things.

    Jordan wants to maintain their right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But the UAE has unilaterally given up theirs to prove their peaceful intentions to advance their programme. Should Arab countries be allowed to enrich uranium?

    The US geopolitical discipline in relation to nuclear energy and weapons has faced a two-tier view of international legitimacy. Some countries are allowed to have the weapons and other countries are not.

    Of the ones that are, most say that the others are not allowed to come close to the threshhold. At the same time, from the perspective of the international law regime embodied by the NPT, it was supposed to be consistent with having the complete benefits of peaceful uses, including the option to develop the nuclear fuel cycle.

    You have a much stricter regime geopolitically than you do legally. The UAE is trying to conform to the geopolitical discipline or reality by assuring the world its nuclear energy programme is accepting international inspection and forgoing the option to reprocess nuclear fuel or have the enrichment capability.

    I suppose the UAE is trying to make itself look like the optimal actor of how to ensure the energy security transition beyond the petroleum age. They also have the resources to pull off the kind of programme there.

    Is it fair for ‘nuclear weapons states’ to tell others they cannot produce weapons without stripping down their own nuclear arsenals?

    The fascinating fact is that they have been able to successfully for 45 years convince most of the actors in the world that they are better off going along with nonproliferation charades, rather than repudiating them.

    It is based on this whole pervasive double standard that is embedded in the whole idea of nuclear nonproliferation and what I call the mind game that has been successfully played by the nuclear weapons states that makes us believe that the danger comes more from those who don’t have the weapons, rather than those who have the weapons.

    Nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled the Article Six pledge of nuclear disarmament. It was unanimously affirmed in the advisory opinion of the world court of the legality of nuclear weapons.

    It was divided on the issues of use, but unanimous on obligation to seek in good faith and I think they have not acted in good faith and fulfilled the real bargain. Therefore non-nuclear states, from a legal point of view, would be quite entitled to say they are no longer bound either.

    Is it in the interest of these states, particularly Israel and the US, to work toward military de-nuclearisation?

    I would think it is in Israel’s long term interest. It is particularly pertinent to the region because there are several dimensions of unresolved conflict, one important adversary posses a rather formidable nuclear weapons capability, others, particularly Iran have clearly latent potential.

    So if one is thinking from the perspective of conflict avoidance or war prevention, it could seem that one is at a point where it would make a lot of sense to exert that kind of political pressure.
    Israel talks a lot about attacking Iran, but that is filled with uncertainty and probably would generate a very strong backlash in the region and possibly even in the US and Europe. They stand to gain a lot by a reliable process of regional regulation, security, system of mutual non-aggression.
    In that sense it exposes the unwillingness of the US to press Israel in the way it would press other countries, which is illustrative of another aspect of these double standard in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

    Richard Falk is Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • No Exceptions

    Article originally published in Haaretz on 11/5/2007

     

    How can a country, which according to endless foreign reports has kept secret for years several atomic weapons, manage to rally the international community in a struggle against a neighboring country that insists on acquiring nuclear energy? What do Israeli politicians answer to those asking why Iran should not be allowed to acquire the same armaments that are already in the arsenals of neighboring countries, like Pakistan and India? The common response is that “Iran is the sole country whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declares openly that he intends to destroy the state of Israel.” This argument is a double-edged sword, par excellence, used by a country that sports a radiant nuclear glow (according to foreign press reports, of course), and who has a senior minister, one assigned to dealing with strategic threats, who has threatened to bomb the Aswan Dam.
    What will Israel’s policy – or for that matter, America’s – be, if in Iran’s upcoming elections, Ahmadinejad were to give way to a more moderate leader, who were to announce that Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist within the 1967, borders? Will Iran become one of the “moderate” Muslim states, like, say, Pakistan, which is allowed to develop nuclear weapons? There was a day when our friend the Shah ruled Iran, and then came the Ayatollahs, with whom we were happy to trade arms, until the whole affair became muddled. Regimes come and go, but nuclear weapons are forever.
    According to foreign reports, Israel recently bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor that was under construction. It was reported that the United States approved the attack on the Syrian installation and went so far as to encourage Israel’s violation of Syrian sovereignty. Syria is part of the axis of evil, mostly because of its ties with Iran, its involvement in Lebanon and its intentional failure to prevent the entry of anti-American extremists into Iraq. But it is a well-known phenomenon, in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular, that an evil leader can become a popular friend overnight. What will the Israeli and American policies be toward the Syrian nuclear program if Assad were to announce his intentions to step away from Iran, not interfere in Lebanon and seal the border with Iraq?

    A visit to Jerusalem 30 years ago transformed Anwar Sadat from enemy No. 1 into a hero for peace. President Hosni Mubarak is considered an astute, peace-loving leader, and a friend of the west. He was even democratically elected. Sort of. But what would happen if one day, when the nuclear reactor is operational in the middle of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood does to Mubarak’s heir what their Hamas brethren did to Mahmoud Abbas? Will we fly over to bomb the Egyptian nuclear reactor? And how does the free world need to deal with Pakistan, if its nuclear weapons fall under the control of Islamists? Is anyone proposing to preempt and invade Islamabad?
    Jordan’s King Abdullah said several months ago that most of the countries in the region, including his own, would begin developing nuclear energy. He was quick to stress that the Hashemite Kingdom would obviously place its nuclear installations under international supervision. He did not need to point out that this was “contrary to Israel.”
    The question is not therefore whether the Middle East is going nuclear, but when it will happen. The demand for a sanity certificate as a precondition for joining this club ensures that even the opponents of the Iranian regime will back Ahmadinejad against the entire world. Visitors who recently were in Tehran say that intellectuals, who did not hide their displeasure with their president, have expressed full support for his position on the nuclear question. They said that relinquishing the nuclear program would be interpreted as an admission that Iran belongs to the club of pariah nations and persisted in asking, “Why should it be forbidden to Iran when it is permitted to Pakistan and Israel?”
    The struggle against the Iranian and Syrian nuclear programs, and in the future perhaps the Egyptian and Jordanian programs, is meant to divert attention from the real problem in the Middle East – the war for hegemony over the region between the religious-extremist camp and the moderate-pragmatic one. The Annapolis summit is an excellent opportunity to update the formula for peace posed by the Arab League and conclude that when the conflict is resolved, the Middle East will be free of nuclear weapons. No exceptions!

     

    Akiva Eldar is the diplomatic affairs analyst for the Haaretz newspaper.

  • A Coup Has Occurred

    Text of a speech delivered September 20, 2007 at American University

    I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.
    If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.
    Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11.
    And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran — an escalation — which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.
    It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. …
    This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.
    Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so.
    Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in — and there’s no move to do this at this point — unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.
    The Next Coup
    Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.
    The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world — in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.
    There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.
    I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.
    I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today.
    That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren’t found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.
    It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president — elected or not — with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.
    When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country — but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.
    They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.”
    It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.
    Founders Had It Right
    Now I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.
    It’s not just “our way of doing things” — it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.
    That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. …
    But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.
    Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t, it doesn’t even make it unlikely.
    That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress — Democrats and Republicans — and the public and the media, we have freed the White House — the president and the vice president — from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.
    And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.
    And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.
    What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.
    And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect.
    However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps — anyway not large — possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.
    Restoring the Republic
    Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration.
    Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little…
    We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” — names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.
    How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.
    I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.
    And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
    Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.
    I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.
    I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada — who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war — is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.
    The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people.
    Congressional Courage
    On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate — and frankly of the Republicans — that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.
    I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
    Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?
    I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution. We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony.
    I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.
    And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves — they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.
    That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.

     

    Daniel Ellsberg is a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Fellow and author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

  • Preventing War Against Iran

    The United States is deeply mired in a preventive war of its own making in Iraq with no clear way out. Now the Bush administration is making accusations against Iran and bolstering US forces in the Persian Gulf with two additional naval battle groups.

    Why would the Bush administration contemplate a new war against Iran? How would a war against Iran in any conceivable way benefit the United States? There are no clear answers that explain the Bush administration’s increased threats toward Iran. Yet, despite the president’s statements that he will pursue “robust diplomacy,” the possibility that the United States will launch an attack against Iran cannot be dismissed.

    The Bush administration has continued trumpeting the fear that Iran may develop nuclear weapons, a technological possibility because of the uranium enrichment program it is pursuing. This charge, however, is not credible, at least in the near-term. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The CIA indicates that it would take Iran a decade to develop nuclear weapons, if that were its intention. Thus, the charge that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear weapons state appears farfetched. The charge, and the lack of evidence to support it, is ominously similar to the spurious claims the Bush administration leveled against Iraq as a cause for initiating that war.

    More recently, the Bush administration has floated a new charge that Iran has provided Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to insurgents in Iraq, even suggesting that the devices were responsible for the deaths of some 170 Americans. The administration has put forward little supporting information to substantiate its claim, and the government of Iran denies the allegation. It may be possible that Iranians are giving some support to Iraqi Shiites, but is this adequate cause to attack Iran and initiate a war with a country of some 70 million people? This is highly doubtful, unless the US is prepared to pay an even heavier price in blood and treasure than it is already paying in Iraq.

    Perhaps Mr. Bush thinks that he can bring democracy to another country in the Middle East, but this hasn’t worked out in Iraq and it is even less likely to happen in Iran. This is particularly true since US military forces are already stretched so thin that there would be little possibility for the US to put “boots on the ground” in Iran. A war against Iran would likely be an air war, a prolonged demonstration of “shock and awe.”

    What else could be motivating the Bush administration to pursue a war against Iran? Is it that the administration wishes to support Israel, which views Iran as a significant threat? Is it that Iran, like Iraq before it, is talking about changing its currency for oil revenues to Euros? Could it be that Mr. Bush likes being a “war president,” and, rather than accept defeat in Iraq, is seeking to widen the war by extending it to Iran?

    It is possible that the administration’s threatening behavior toward Iran is merely muscle flexing to strengthen the US hand in negotiations, but this possibility cannot be relied upon, particularly in light of the manner in which the Bush administration initiated the Iraq War.

    There have been reports by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the US has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Even rumors of the US planning to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Iran should raise serious concerns in the halls of Congress and throughout the country. Nuclear weapons concentrate power in the hands of a single individual, undermining democracy and the future of global security.

    Congress opened the door for Mr. Bush’s attack against Iraq. Whatever the administration’s motives may be for its threatening behavior regarding Iran, Congress should now be responsible for closing the door to a US attack on another country. Speaker of the House Pelosi has said, “…Congress should assert itself…and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.”

    Congress should act proactively and go on record before it is too late, foreclosing the president from attacking Iran without specific Congressional authorization, as well as appropriate authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The hour is late, but not too late, for Congress to assert its Constitutional responsibility.

    Senator Robert Byrd, among other Senators and members of Congress, has already put forward a resolution that requires Congressional approval of any offensive US military action taken against another country. In introducing Senate Resolution 39 on January 24, 2007, Senator Byrd stated, “I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress…not the President – that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.” He called his resolution “a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President – any President – may strike another country before that country threatens us….”

    As bad as things are in Iraq – and there is no doubt that they are bad – for Mr. Bush to initiate a new war by attacking Iran would only make matters worse for the United States. The US needs to pursue an exit strategy from Iraq, not a preemptive war against yet another country that has not attacked the United States. The Congress of the United States needs to go on record now to assure that Mr. Bush understands this and the limits of his authority under the Constitution.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Congress Must Act to Stop a US Attack on Iran

    George Bush has already lost the illegal war of aggression that he initiated in Iraq. In the process, he has spent enormous sums of money, stretched the US military to the breaking point, undermined international law and the US Constitution, been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as more US citizens than died on September 11, 2001, and brought respect for the United States to new lows throughout the world. He now appears poised to initiate a new war against Iran.

    In advance of the war against Iraq, Mr. Bush moved US forces into the region. In an ominously reminiscent set of maneuvers, he has already moved two naval battle groups into the Persian Gulf, and has another battle group on the way. It is likely that Mr. Bush will opt for air attacks against Iran rather than “boots on the ground,” as too many US troops are already tied up in Iraq. There should be grave concerns about Mr. Bush’s inability to think strategically beyond threat and attack, given the dismal consequences of his actions in Iraq.

    Mr. Bush believed our forces would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. One wonders what Mr. Bush thinks will happen if he attacks Iran, a regional power in the Middle East. The US could end up bogged down in the Middle East for decades. There have also been reports by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the US military has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, an act of terrorism that could open a global Pandora’s Box.

    Speaking recently to a security forum in Munich, Russian President Vladimir Putin had some strong criticism for the Bush policies. While Mr. Putin’s credentials are far from impeccable, his words bear consideration. “One state, the United States,” he said, “overstepped its national borders in every way.” Putin observed, “It is a world of one master, one sovereign…it has nothing to do with democracy. This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons.” Mr. Putin was particularly critical of the way in which the United States is undermining international law.

    Congress opened the door for Mr. Bush’s attack against Iraq. Congress should now be responsible for closing the door to a US attack on Iran. Congress should go on record before it is too late foreclosing the president from attacking Iran without specific Congressional authorization as well as appropriate authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The hour is late, but not too late, for Congress to assert its Constitutional responsibility. Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war and allocate funding for war.

    Senator Robert Byrd has already put forward a resolution that requires Congressional approval of any offensive US military action taken against another country. In introducing Senate Resolution 39 on January 24, 2007, Senator Byrd stated, “I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress…not the President – that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.” He called his resolution “a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President – any President – may strike another country before that country threatens us….”

    As bad as things are in Iraq – and there is no doubt that they are bad – for Mr. Bush to initiate a new war by attacking Iran would only make matters worse for the United States. The US needs to pursue an exit strategy for Iraq, not a preemptive attack against yet another country that has not attacked the United States. Through its actions, the US needs to return to respecting and supporting international law. The Congress of the United States needs to go on record now to assure that Mr. Bush understands this and the limits of his authority under the Constitution.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Is There A Reason To Be Concerned About War With Iran?

    The short answer is YES! A more complete answer becomes visible when we look at recent war signals. For insights on how war can be prevented, it is helpful to go back in history to when the governments of the US and Iran were the best of friends.

    As the US war propaganda intensifies, I sometimes wonder what Iran and the Middle East would look like today if the CIA did not overthrow Iran’s democratic government in 1953?

    A Timeline Worth Remembering

    — 1950s & 1960s — In 1951, US and Iranian relations were so good that Mohammad Mossadeq was named Time magazine’s Man of the Year. To show his admiration of America’s democracy, Mossadeq made a high-profile trip to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. In 1953, the US and Britain illegally overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government because Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq interfered with US and British oil interests. In 1967, Mossadeq died after many years of living under house arrest. Mossadeq’s comment on his arrest was “My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire on Earth.”

    — 1970s — In 1973, the US offered Israel a defense treaty after the Yom Kippur war. Israel rejected this offer because Israel would have to define its boundaries. Contrary to incorrect statements by President Bush, there is no defense treaty between the US and Israel. Why does President Bush now continue to say that the US has a defense alliance with Israel? In 1976 Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve offering Iran nuclear reprocessing facilities. Cheney and Rumsfeld stated that Iran needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements which is what Iranian officials are saying today. In 1979 US embassy personnel in Iran were held captive for 444 days and the Islamic revolution changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran’s current President Ahmadinejad was a leader of the student group that stormed the embassy.

    — 1980s — In 1980, Iraq attacked Iran. The US initially provided weapons to Iraq but eventually sold weapons to both sides. Iraq ended up spending more on weapons than it earned from oil sales. The war ended in 1988. In 1980, President Reagan’s campaign manager and future CIA Director, William Casey, made a deal with Iran’s leadership to delay the release of the US embassy personnel until a few hours after President Jimmy Carter leaves office. For compensation, President Reagan arranged for Iran to receive $4 billion dollars and a letter stating the US would never attack Iran. Since the 1980s Iran has had anthrax and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility. Israel’s attack, against international law, motivated Iran to disperse, bury and harden its nuclear facilities. Between 1984 and 1988, Iraqi air attacks damaged Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facility. In 1986, Pakistan began helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. Abdul Qadeer Khan transfers over 2000 components and by 1995, P-2 centrifuge components are transferred to Iran. In 1987 and 1988 US forces secretly attacked Iranian forces, including strikes on Gulf oil platforms. In 1988 the US cruiser Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial plane and 290 people are killed.

    — 1990s – In 1995, Russia resumed work on the Bushehr nuclear facility. In 1996, China sold Iran a conversion plant and provided the gas needed to test the uranium enrichment process. In 1997, the Project For A New American Century, authored by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other neo-cons now in power, calls for preemptive attacks so that the US will remain the dominant power in the new century. A cornerstone of the strategy is to keep a rising China subordinate by denying access to resources in Central Asia and the Middle East.

    — 2000 to 2002 — Sep 2001: Pakistan’s Khan network and assistance to Iran is shut down after the US threatens to nuke Pakistan and bring it back to the stone age. Jan 2002: President Bush, in his State of the Union address, described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil”. Aug 2002: Iranian dissident, Alireza Jafarzadeh, revealed two previously undeclared nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak.

    — 2003 — Mar: The US illegally invaded Iraq. Aug: A confidential UN report revealed that Iran has developed two kinds of enriched uranium that are not needed for peaceful energy production. Dec: US sent humanitarian aid to Iran after earthquake kills up to 50,000 people in city of Bam. Dec or earlier: President Bush had the 1980 document stating the US will not attack Iran nullified because it was signed under duress.

    — 2004 — Jun: The International Atomic Energy Agency claims to have found new traces of enriched uranium that exceeded the levels necessary for civilian energy production. Jul: Iran admited to having resumed production of parts for centrifuges that are used for enriching uranium, but insists that it has not resumed its enrichment activities. Sep: Iran refused to accept an unlimited suspension of uranium enrichment and says it will not stop manufacturing centrifuges. Sep: To facilitate military operations in Iran, the U.S. sent 4,500 smart bombs to Israel and built a staging base in Afghanistan near its border with Iran. Oct: The Iranian parliament passed a bill approving resumption of enrichment activities. Dec or earlier: Israel built a model of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility to practice attacks on the facility.

    — 2005 — Jan: Iran’s Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani indicated that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Shamkhani said, “we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent.” Feb: The book American Hiroshima is published and warns the US will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and this will lead to Iran’s Qods Force attacking US nuclear facilities. Feb: The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, at his private ranch in the Negev desert, gave “initial authorization” to attack Iran. They agreed to coordinate the attack with the most supportive US administration since Israel was created in 1948. Feb: Iranian Information Minister Ali Yunessi confirmed that US spy planes have been spotted in Iran. The objective of these spy missions is to identify approximately 36 nuclear weapons-related targets that can be destroyed by an Israeli or US surprise attack. Feb: North Korea, secretly collaborated with Iran. North Korea declared it has nuclear weapons. Aug: President Bush made the first of several statements in which he refused to rule out using force against Iran.

    — 2006 — Feb to present: The war propaganda, direct from the playbook of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, is repeated daily. The “battlefield of public perception” is prepared for war with statements from Donald Rumsfeld that Iran is the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist repeated the mantra “we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation.” Richard Perle said “If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don’t try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war … our children will sing great songs about us years from now.” We also see Iran’s President repeatedly misquoted (e.g., he is quoted as saying military force should be used to wipe Israel off the map when President Ahmadinejad’s actual statement never used the words “wipe” or “off the map”). Feb: President Bush was asked if the United States would rise to Israel’s defense militarily, he said: “You bet, we’ll defend Israel.” Mar: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the US faces “no greater challenge” than Iran’s nuclear program. Apr: A report by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker warns the US is planning a tactical nuclear strike against Iran. Apr: The Washington Post reports the US is studying military strike options on Iran. Apr: The Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Iran’s military response to an attack is called Operation Judgment Day. May: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends a letter to President Bush proposing new and peaceful solutions to their differences. This is the first communication between Iranian and US leaders in 27 years. May: The Physicians for Social Responsibility publish a report titled “Medical Consequences of a Nuclear Attack on Iran.” The report illuminates that millions of lives will be lost if the US attacks Iran. Jul & Aug: Israel responds to the kidnapping of soldiers with war. This is seen by many as an attempt to draw Iran into a direct conflict with Israel. As a result of Israel’s attack, Hamas and Hezbollah “near” enemies are subsequently less able to inflict harm on Israel when the “far” enemy of Iran is attacked. Aug: Former Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Chief, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul “predicted” that America will attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October. Aug: War propaganda continues to ramp up with Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, and other prominent proponents for attacking Iran, stating Iran is 5 to 10 years away from having a bomb. The public is “sold” this ridiculous piece of information, especially given Pakistan’s previous direct assistance, to minimize concerns about what Iran can do to retaliate. In addition, as media commentators increasingly demand America attack Iran, there is no mention of Iran’s existing chemical and biological weapons. Aug: Iran started the “Blow of Zolfaqar” military exercise in the Persian Gulf. Aug: Iran rejected the US led UN Security Council offer to stop uranium enrichment. Aug: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is interviewed by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes and calls for peaceful dialogue. He subsequently offers to debate with President Bush. The White House rejects the offer. Sep: Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), “asked for fresh eyes” to review the existing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf. Sep: The Pentagon announced the extension of overseas assignments for US soldiers. Oct: A major naval strike force carrying nuclear weapons received surprise “prepare to deploy” orders to depart for the Persian Gulf. Oct: North Korea sees the US as preoccupied with attacking Iran and conducted a nuclear test. The US media ignores North Korea’s 2005 public announcement that it had nuclear weapons to reinforce the fiction that a new rogue state has become a nuclear power stressing the message “this is what happens if we don’t strike Iran.” Oct: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei held an AK 47 on October 13 to symbolized Iran’s readiness to repel an Israeli and US attack. Oct: The Defense Department started mandatory anthrax immunizations. Oct: Iran’s military forces are deployed to battle positions as the Eisenhower naval strike force entered the Persian Gulf. Oct: Respected US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg warns the US is planning to attack Iran with H-bombs. An H-bomb, also known as thermonuclear bomb, can be over one thousand times more powerful than an atomic bomb. Oct: According to Muslim tradition, the “Night of Determination” (10/26-10/27) is when Allah determines the fate of the world for the coming year. An Operations Northwoods (i.e., a self-inflicted attack so that Americans will support attacking Iran) event increasingly appears likely, especially with US elections taking place in November.

    If The US Attacks Iran, What Happens? On April 27, 2006 the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported Iran’s military response to a US and Israeli attack is a plan called Operation Judgment Day.

    The attack has several components. The final component is the American Hiroshima attack.

    1. A missile strike directly targeting the US military bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, as soon as Iranian nuclear installations are hit.
    2. Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against the US and US allies.
    3. Stepped up attacks by the Basij, the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq.
    4. Hezbollah launches hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel.

    The final Judgment Day component is for Iran to give the al Qods Brigades the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US, and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries. This could lead to an American/global Hiroshima attack to maximize civilian casualties by attacking nuclear and chemical facilities.

    Is component 1 why the anthrax vaccinations of US military personnel started in October? Components 2 and 3 are already happening. Israel attempted to minimize component 4 with the July and August war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    A detailed explanation of why this is happening and how it can be prevented is the subject of the American Hiroshima book.

    While War With Iran Is On The Horizon – Choose Hope! Iran may or may not have developed the “greatest deterrent.” In the 1960s, it was unknown to US intelligence that the Soviet Union had almost 100 nuclear weapons in Cuba at the time of the 1962 missile crisis. Regardless of Iran’s status as a nuclear weapons power, Iran’s Qods Force has been capable of attacking US nuclear power facilities for over a decade. Therefore, the issue is really not Iran’s nuclear program but how can we return to the friendship that existed in 1951?

    A first step would be for President Bush to acknowledge that the US was wrong to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953. Regardless of what President Bush elects to do, we must choose hope and work to prevent war. History has shown us that a peaceful future is possible. In 1962 the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war and yet the Cuban Missile Crisis was solved without war.

    As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “We still have a choice today: nonviolent co-existence or violent co-annihilation. History will record the choice we made. It is still not too late to make the proper choice. If we decide to become a moral power we will be able to transform the jangling discords of this world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we make the wise decision we will be able to transform our pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. This will be a glorious day. In reaching it, we can fulfill the noblest of American dreams.”

    Americans bear a special responsibility for preventing war with Iran. I challenge my fellow citizens and people around the world to work to save lives in the Middle East and around the world. When we accept our share of the responsibility for a better world, everyone will be more secure. Please share this information with your political leaders. Please take action now so that we can create a groundswell for peace that is too powerful to be set aside.

     

    David Dionisi is the author of American Hiroshima, the Northern California Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the National Awareness Officer for Freedom From War.