If you read one thing this weekend, or month for that matter, read this piece by former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. In it, Ritter confronts the shady practices of David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, an organization that Albright himself started. Two of the more revealing passages from Ritter’s piece read…

I can’t say for certain when Albright became “Doctor” Albright. A self-described “physicist,” he allows the term to linger, as he does the title “former U.N. inspector,” in order to create the impression that he possesses a certain gravitas. David Albright holds a Master of Science degree in physics from Indiana University and a Master of Science in mathematics from Wright State University. I imagine that this résumé permits him to assign himself the title physicist, but not in the Robert Oppenheimer/Edward Teller sense of the word. Whatever physics work David Albright may or may not have done in his life, one thing is certain: He has never worked as a nuclear physicist on any program dedicated to the design and/or manufacture of nuclear weapons. He has never designed nuclear weapons and never conducted mathematical calculations in support of testing nuclear weapons, nor has he ever worked in a facility or with an organization dedicated to either.

At best, Albright is an observer of things nuclear. But to associate his sub-par physics pedigree with genuine nuclear weapons-related work is, like his self-promotion as a “former U.N. weapons inspector,” disingenuous in the extreme. His lack of any advanced educational training as a nuclear physicist, combined with his dearth of practical experience with things nuclear, is further exacerbated by his astounding assumption of the title Doctor. In 2007 Albright received an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Wright State University. This honorary award is a recognition which should never be belittled, but it in no way elevates David Albright to the status of one who has undergone the formal educational training and has actually earned a doctorate, especially in the demanding field of nuclear physics. While I cannot find any evidence of Albright promoting his honorary title in a manner which indicates direct fraud on his part (i.e., falsely claiming to be a Ph.D. in physics), there are far too many instances where he is referred to by those who interview him as being both “Dr. Albright” and a “physicist” that the uninformed reader might be misled into believing that the two were somehow connected.”

Secondly, and this is of paramount importance…

“David Albright has a history of being used by those who seek to gain media attention for their respective claims. In addition to the Hamza and Obeidi fiascos, Albright and his organization, ISIS, have served as the conduit for other agencies gaining publicity about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program, the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor, and most recently the alleged Swiss computer containing sensitive nuclear design information. On each occasion, Albright is fed sensitive information from a third party, and then packages it in a manner which is consumable by the media. The media, engrossed with Albright’s misleading résumé (”former U.N. weapons inspector,” “Doctor,” “physicist” and “nuclear expert”). give Albright a full hearing, during which time the particulars the third-party source wanted made public are broadcast or printed for all the world to see. More often than not, it turns out that the core of the story pushed by Albright was, in fact, wrong.

While Iran did indeed possess uranium enrichment capability at Natanz and a heavy water plant (under construction) at Arak (as reported by Albright thanks to information provided by the Iranian opposition group MEK, most probably with the help of Israeli intelligence), Albright’s wild speculation about weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium proved to be wrong. There was indeed a building in Syria which was bombed by Israel. But Albright’s expert opinion, derived from his interpretation of photographs, consists of nothing more than simplistic observation (”The tall building in the image may house a reactor under construction and the pump station along the river may have been intended to supply cooling water to the reactor”) combined with unfocused questions which assumed much, but were in fact based on little (”How far along was the reactor construction project when it was bombed? What was the extent of nuclear assistance from North Korea? Which reactor components did Syria obtain from North Korea or elsewhere, and where are they now?”). And, most recently, we have Albright commenting about the contents of a computer he hasn’t even laid eyes on, though he feels confident enough to raise the specter of global nuclear catastrophe (”How will authorities learn if Iran, North Korea, or even terrorists bought these designs?” Albright asks when referring to the contents of the Swiss computer).

Nowhere in his résumé does Albright cite any formal training as a photographic interpreter; in any case, one would have to have an intimate knowledge of nuclear facilities in order to know what one was looking at when examining an aerial image. A genuine nuclear weapons expert would have been able to discern the technical faults in the logic of the stories being peddled by Albright. And a genuine former U.N. weapons inspector, well versed in preparing airtight investigations based upon verified intelligence information, would have balked at the shabby nature of the evidence provided. Again, because Albright is neither, he and ISIS play the role of patsy, the middleman peddling misinformation to a media too lazy to conduct their own due diligence before running with a story.”

The New York Times recently learned from US officials that the Israeli military conducted an exercise over the Eastern Mediterranean involving more than 100 aircraft. The purpose? To firm up target packages were Israel to preemptively strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Of course, were they to actually preemptively attack Iran it would, as the IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei recently stated, most likely lead to the Iranians implementing a crash program in an attempt to acquire a nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible. Obviously the Israelis, most likely back by US satellite intelligence, feel confident that they would completely wipe out Iran’s ability to do so. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of gamble that may very well produce dire consequences for the region as a whole.

Given that US officials furnished the New York Times with the details of the Israeli exercise, I am of the opinion that the United States is employing the Israelis in this business by using them to represent the military reality of what could happen if Iran refuses to cease all nuclear activities. Thus, an Israeli military exercise may very well represent a very dangerous negotiating tool, the consequences of which, I believe, will produce the opposite results than those ultimately desired.

There is, of course, the possibility that Israel acted completely on its own and without American input, but I think that highly unlikely. No matter, the fact that the exercise was carried out and then publicized indicates that it wasn’t merely a military exercise, but a PsyOp as well.

When madmen open their mouths these days the severity of their words tends to get more attention depending on where they’re from. For example, what do you think the response would be were a high ranking Iranian official to utter the following…

“A top Iranian official has said that if Israel continues with its alleged nuclear arms programme, Iran will attack it.”

First, spare me the tired argument that Ahmadinejad claimed that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. Despite the fact that the media promoted that phrase, the translation was utterly inaccurate. Of course, that didn’t stop it from becoming carved in stone as far as Western public perception is concerned.

That said; let’s look at the above statement for a second.

First, Israel’s nuclear program is officially ‘alleged’. Despite the fact that it is widely known that Israel has a nuclear arsenal that ranges between 100 and 300 weapons, the Israeli government has refused for decades to admit that they exist.

Second, the United Nations (the IAEA) has never been granted access to Israeli nuclear facilities. Of course, that only makes sense being that the Israelis claim that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program. It’s a lie, of course, but one that most of the world is comfortable with for some bizarre reason.

It all comes down to one very simple outlook – that Israel is not perceived as an aggressor but rather a victim. Israel’s military actions are viewed as defensive, never aggressive, and therefore questions regarding its secretive nuclear program are viewed in much the same way. That even though they claim to not possess nuclear weapons, if they do it’s completely understandable given the threats that surround them, even if those threats do not possess nuclear capabilities. Even more, were Israel to openly admit to possessing a nuclear arsenal it would immediately set a regional precedent, gifting others justification for developing their own programs. That, in truth, is the hypocrisy of the Israeli position.

How we view the world is paramount. When it comes to Israel the stereotypical view of the Arab and Persian world is amplified. While the Israelis are viewed as a people that would never dream of employing nuclear weapons, the Iranians, for example, are viewed as being ignorant enough to employ them without forethought or question. Even more, that they would be ignorant enough to gift them to a terrorist organization and not realize the implications of such an act were that organization to employ them against Israel.

Unfortunately, most of the Western world believes that Iran would use nuclear force against Israel in a first strike capacity, even though they would be utterly overwhelmed by not only the Israeli nuclear response, but the American response as well.

All of that said, let’s return to the above quote. Here it is in its actual form…

“A top Israeli official has said that if Iran continues with its alleged nuclear arms programme, Israel will attack it.

Speaking to Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said sanctions on Iran were ineffective.”

On top of that, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently commented…

“The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating.”

These comments, given that they were made by Israelis, are not viewed with the same sort of shock or concern as they would had they been made by their Iranian counterparts. And that is something that more people need to take note of. Because aggression is aggression, no matter what face it wears.

In essence, a country with a nuclear program that it denies exists, and that has never been scrutinized by the United Nations, is making extremely serious overtures regarding a nation that has, to some extent, at least allowed the IAEA access to its facilities. Further, Iran has ratified the NPT and has not attempted to hide the fact that it is developing its nuclear sector. And yet it is considered the foremost regional threat with regards to the possibility of nuclear aggression.

There is no questioning the fact that Hezbollah is supported by Iran. That being said, one can deduce that by way of a military proxy the Iranians have long funded a militant organization that has jousted with the IDF numerous times in the past, and one that has also come to represent a significant political force in Lebanon.

On the other hand, Israel can certainly be viewed as a US military proxy of sorts, and possesses one of the world’s most formidable militaries. Unlike Hezbollah, the IDF is replete with state of the art attack helicopters, fighters, bombers, armour, vehicles, missile systems, small arms, and so forth. The possession of such a formidable arsenal has been made possible largely because of Israel’s relationship with the United States, who provides Israel a significant amount of military assistance. Thus, the United States has a stake in the actions of the Israelis and their position in the region.

An interesting irony that has been significantly overlooked regarding the invasion of Iraq is that it has emboldened Iran. The Iraqi government is now predominantly Shi’ite, as are the more formidable militias in Iraq. The Interior Ministry has been infiltrated by Shi’ite militant groups leading to the purging of Sunnis from various positions. In effect, Iraq has been rid of a dictator that was utterly anti-Iranian and replaced with a government that is more likely to treat with Tehran. Ironically, while the United States claims that democracy has been gifted the Iraqi people, its supposed institution has only helped create a government that is largely controlled by a Shi’ite majority that is more likely to negotiate with the Iranians than follow any other course of action. This, of course, places the United States in an interesting spot given its position regarding Iran. It is also the reason why a sustained US military presence is required in Iraq. Therefore, extreme rhetoric on the part of the Israelis is quintessential with regards to the current US position on Iran.

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

Since the advent of the nuclear age, only two nuclear weapons have ever been employed, both in August of 1945 on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While many will argue that their use was required to avoid directly invading the Japanese islands, an effort that the government and military at the time claimed would cost the lives of upwards of a million US soldiers, the reality was that most of Japan has been decimated by conventional fire bombing, that the government of Japan had been attempting to negotiate a surrender all that summer, and that the people of Japan, despite news reels shown in US movie houses, were not on the streets in force training to repel US forces. They were, in truth, in the grips of near total economic and civic collapse.

The bombs were, in all honesty, dropped for post-war geopolitical reasons. The Soviets, who had coveted most of Eastern Europe in their advance towards Berlin, were viewed as a threat to Western post-war interests. Thus, individuals such as Dean Acheson urged the use of the bombs to demonstrate US military might, a position that was completely abhorrent to the likes of then General Dwight Eisenhower and the majority of the scientists that had worked on the Manhattan Project. They were dropped nonetheless, ushering in a new age of permanent global nuclear proliferation.

From the second that Little Boy detonated above Hiroshima unleashing the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT, decimating everything in a 1.6 kilometer radius, evaporating every living thing within the bomb’s primary blast radius, and killing some 140,000 people (during, and by way of radioactive fallout), deterrence immediately became the primary purpose for possessing a nuclear capability. That reality has not changed in the 63 years since.

The Manhattan Project placed the United States at the forefront of the nuclear arms race, but their position as the planet’s lone nuclear power would end when the Soviet Union successfully tested First Lightning, referred to as Joe 1 by US intelligence, on August 29th, 1949. The rest, as they say, is history.

Reason And Emotion

That’s not to say that the world hasn’t flirted with the possibility since. Fortunately, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, cooler heads prevailed. Then again, it should be noted why they prevailed.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, both Washington and Moscow had their fair share of Hawks pressing for a confrontation. Thankfully, a handful of individuals on both sides possessed the emotional fortitude to examine the realities of what would become of the world in the aftermath of posturing that had but one outcome. The United States would ultimately view it as a victory, but the reality is that it was nothing more than a victory over political arrogance. Of course, little mention is ever given the role played by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, a veteran World War Two Commander who witnessed first hand the horrors of Stalingrad. Khrushchev was no stranger to the realities of war, and in his first transmission to President Kennedy during the crisis made that point very clear – that both he and Kennedy knew full well the ramifications, betraying an emotional state that was extremely uncommon for as Soviet leader.

Emotionality is something that many view as extremely dangerous when it comes to the nuclear equation, but it is perhaps the one thing that perseveres when it comes to facing the realities of mutually assured destruction. Reasonable men can find excuse enough to destroy the world on any given day. It is not until emotionality enters into the equation that the reality of nuclear war becomes abundantly apparent.

The Inescapable Outcome

There is no winning a nuclear contest – that is, not a contest between two or more nations that possess nuclear weapons. The reality is that the modern destructive power of a single nuclear weapon is such that the devastation wrought is not something that can be justified with regards to proportional or superior responses. The loss of hundreds of thousands of lives simply cannot be viewed as acceptable compared to the loss of a million or more lives in response. No citizen of any nation on earth would think that acceptable given the lasting affects of even a single nuclear weapon on a specific city or location.

In the case of Iran, were the Iranians to possess a weapon and use it, or even three, against Israel, they would be facing a nation with approximately one hundred times their nuclear capability. In short, while the Iranians would be able to, for example, strike Tel Aviv, killing multitudes, the Israelis could eradicate every major city in Iran, not to mention a list of other targets.

There is also the political question of approximation to consider. Were Iran to target Israel, the conventional response against groups in Palestine and Gaza would most likely be as immediate as possible, decisive, and unrelenting. Under the circumstances, collateral damage, including the death of civilians in large numbers, would most likely occur. Given the state of mind that the IDF would be in, were such a thing to occur, I do not think that that is at all a stretch.

All of that, of course, is without involving the United States and what their nuclear response would be were Iran to strike Israel. Compared to Israel, the United States possesses vastly more advanced delivery capabilities, the most lethal being the use of Ohio Class Submarines that have the ability to strike multiple targets within minutes if their proximity to those targets is within a certain radius. As it stands now, given that two US battle groups are in the Gulf, there are certainly nuclear boats with them, making their proximity to Iranian targets minimal. A single such boat carries a compliment that could completely wipe out the population of Tehran.

Given the magnitude of both Israeli and American capabilities, even the most crazed lunatic in Iran would be faced with the reality that their nation would be utterly devastated in response to any attack made against Israel. Their family, the families of their friends and counterparts, all would be killed. The government of Iran, along with its entire military, civic, and religious infrastructures would cease to exist. The majority of Persia, as we know it, would basically be gone.

It’s one thing to believe that a group can exist that believes self-sacrifice is required for some greater, albeit fanatical, purpose. It’s entirely another to believe that the government of a nation would sacrifice the majority of its population for the sake of ideological fanaticism and nothing more, with no endgame or stratagem involved. To believe the Iranian government stupid enough to employ nuclear weapons as a first strike option requires the inclusion of the belief that they have no goal other than to ensure their own destruction, that they not only have no regard for the lives of the Iranian people, but their own as well. Even were they to gift a weapon to a terrorist group, the ramifications would be the same, because they would be held responsible. In fact, were Israel attacked with a nuclear weapon, no matter where that attack originated from, Iran would still be the victim of nuclear reprisals, and it is rather unintelligent, in my opinion anyway, to think that the government of Iran isn’t aware of that fact.

In essence, the current position of the United States, Israel, and others, is that the Iranians are seeking to obtain an offensive nuclear capability. Such a position all but promotes the fundamental tenets of the Bush Doctrine, the cornerstone of which is the use of preemptive, unilateral force to deal with those deemed a threat to US national security, its interests, or allies. Mind you, the US is not alone when it comes to such policies. The Israelis also partake in such practices when it suits their purposes, such as violating Lebanese airspace and conducting over-flights over Beirut, which they recently did.

I have said it before, and will exhaustively say it again now – what constitutes a ‘safe’ nuclear power? One that discloses its nuclear practices? The Iranians have been repeatedly accused of hiding their program by nations that have never allowed the IAEA to inspect theirs. Israel, as I have pointed out in the past countless times, has an estimated 300 nuclear weapons, though denies to this day that it even has a weapons program at all and refuses to allow its facilities to be inspected by the United Nations.

So what exactly makes Israel a ‘safe’ nuclear power? They continue to diversify their delivery systems, such as through the acquisition of submarines, and have even been caught stealing nuclear secrets from the United States – something that has, to this very day, never really been addressed by the highest levels of the US government. And yet the world is supposed to believe that the Iranian government is bent on not only acquiring a nuclear capability, but also actually being ignorant enough to employ it knowing full well that the consequences of such actions would result in their destruction?

Why? Because the current Iranian regime refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist? I’ll not disagree that that’s a ridiculous position, but it is by no means provides justification for initiating a nuclear exchange that would be tantamount to suicide.

Given the realities of modern nuclear age, are we to believe that the Iranian government, or even a radical faction within its military, is so consumed by madness that it would use nuclear weapons against those that possess the ability to retaliate in an overwhelming fashion? And if we are, then how are we to view the last 63 years since their first employment and the overwhelming proliferation that followed? As nothing more than a game played by sane men using the most insane weapon ever conceived to play an elaborate game of global chess? And if we are, then what exactly does that make us?

Pawns or Kings?

When it comes to the unfolding drama regarding Iran, look no further than the Israelis for proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well. Yesterday, Israeli’s newly appointed ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, uttered the following…

“At the current rate of progress, Iran will reach the technical threshold for producing fissile material by 2009,” he said.

“This is a global threat and it requires a global response.

“It should be made clear that if Iran does not co-operate, then military confrontation is inevitable. It is either co-operation or confrontation.”

“There needs to be full verification of what is happening in Iran,” Mr Prosor said. “In Israel, there is a belief that the Iranians are continuing with their nuclear weapons program.”

While I’m sure that I’ll catch flack for this entry, I must admit to being tired of hearing the Israelis go on about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program when they themselves have refused to acknowledge that their own program even exists, have never allowed the IAEA to inspect it, have not signed the NPT, and jailed the one person that had the fortitude to come forward and tell the world that Israel does, in fact, possess a nuclear arsenal.

As of 2002, Israel is believed to possess between 75 and 200 nuclear weapons. Among them are neutron bombs, nuclear mines, submarine borne missiles, and other variants. Despite the fact that, in 1975, highly classified US government documents, now declassified, show that the United States was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons, the US has never called for an international inquiry into their existence or production, nor pushed for the UN to be granted access to Israeli facilities to determine the scope of their program.

In Ness Ziona, at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, the Israelis have also undertaken research and development into vaccines to counteract the effects of chemical and biological weapons. And while it is currently believed that they are not producing chemical and biological weapons of their own, such research could be used to constitute an offensive chemical and biological arms program. Given that last statement, why is that of little to no concern to anyone? Because we, in the West, simply accept the fact that Israel wouldn’t initiate an offensive chemical and biological weapons program? And if so, why is it that the West is so unsuspicious of Israeli programs?

In all seriousness, here we are talking about a nation in the Middle East that, in truth, has been given free reign by the West for no other reason than it represents the West’s foremost military proxy in the region. Even Israel’s creation was the result of a heavily Western backed initiative via the United Nations, largely spearheaded by the Truman administration. It has, since that time, been one of the largest recipients of US military aid in the world, a trend that continues to this day. In fact, to counteract a recent ten year, $20 billion dollar, arms agreement with various Arab states, the United States pledged to provide Israel alone with $30 billion dollars in military aid over the same period of time.

I’ll not disagree that the Iranian government’s position on Israel’s right to exist is tired and counterproductive, because it is. Then again, since the Islamic revolution, no overt military action has been taken against Israel by Iran itself (in truth, Iran, then Persia, has not invaded another country since the 19th century). True, Iran has been complicit in funding groups such as Hezbollah, but how is that any different that the Israelis being funded by the United States and exploiting that relationship to institute policies that have basically ghettoized a people and been responsible for human rights violations and war crimes?

If you’re under the assumption that that isn’t the case, that Israel has enacted such policies solely for purposes of security, then why did Avi Dichter, Israel’s Public Security minister, recently turn down an invitation to travel to the UK in fear that he could be arrested on war crimes charges in connection with the attack in Gaza on Saleh Shehadah which killed at least 13 civilians in July of 2002?

I’m not going to claim that it doesn’t go both ways, but there is a vast difference between radical Palestinian groups armed with RPG’s and Kalashnikovs, not to mention children hurling rocks, and the IDF, which has at its disposal some of the most advanced weaponry in the world, including a state of the art air force. True, suicide attacks are one of the tools employed by radical groups, though it must be said – if they possessed attack helicopters, armor, and fighter planes, they would most likely resort to employing the sorts of weapons that we commonly condone as ‘honourable’. Let’s face it – there is, as far as Western perceptions are concerned, no honour in blowing oneself up and taking others with you. But it is honourable to use state of the art attack helicopters to do the same thing – correct?

Now, with regards to Iranian support for Hezbollah, I will again not argue that Iran hasn’t been complicit. But as I’ve said, how is that any different than US support for Israel? In truth, Iran’s military support for Hezbollah is vastly minimal by comparison. Of course, the counter argument is that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that the government of Israel is not. Then again, the last time I checked, Hezbollah was not responsible for the million bomblets from Cluster Bombs that still litter Southern Lebanon, the majority of which were dropped in the last days of that conflict, and that still continue to maim and kill Lebanese civilians on a daily basis.

The fact remains that while Israeli’s foremost military enabler scrutinizes Iran’s intentions and programs, Israel escapes scrutiny. There is nary a word about Israel’s nuclear program, or the fact that the Israelis refuse to allow it to be inspected by the very same body that has been pushed to scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program. No National Intelligence Estimate regarding Israel’s nuclear program has been undertaken, and if it has it hasn’t been publicized for the sole reason that it would expose the hypocrisy of not only the Israelis, but the United States as well. In fact, the influence of the Israeli lobby in the United States would probably ensure that it was killed before it even saw the light of day.

Is the Iranian government guilty of human rights violations? Absolutely. Is Israel? Absolutely. Of course, it can be argued that Iran’s violations are considerably worse, and one would expect that. Then again, the same sorts of violations occur in other counties with which the US has close relations and they are rarely, if ever, scrutinized – Saudi Arabia being a primary example.

When it comes to this issue, we live in a society that lacks objectivity, and to claim as much is to offer ones self up for target practice for daring to say so. Deep and indoctrinated lines have been drawn regarding this issue, and to attempt to look at it objectively, or to hold all those involved to the same standards, is something that is, rather ironically, not acceptable.

No matter what you happen to believe, peace is a universal proposition. It is not one that comes with caveats penned by those that possess greater military capabilities. We have been programmed to believe that the latter is standard practice and, not surprisingly, peace continues to elude us.

There is no side worth being on that does not transparently promote justice, equality, and security without agenda. Those besides are nothing more than avenues paved for the weak willed to travel. Ironically, the fantasy author JK Rowling might have put it best when she wrote – the time will soon come to choose between what is right and what is easy. When it comes to how we view global events, that maxim is of incredible import. For behind those behind the curtains there are ordinary people that outnumber them by the billions, all of them connected by the simplest of bonds - the universal desire to live lives without fear and to escape those entrenchments that have pitted them against one another for far too long.

This is what we like to call damage control. After all sixteen of your own intelligence agencies deliver to you an estimate that is consistent with the findings of the IAEA, there’s not much left to do but play it down and continue to apply pressure. With enough face time, and the right media coverage, in a few weeks the NIE will have been forgotten, and the rhetoric employed by the administration will once again become the mainstay.

I found this passage of particular interest…

“They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities, and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment programme and come to the table and negotiate.

“Or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people.”

You have to wonder why that exact same statement isn’t made about the Israelis? Forget nuclear energy, Israel possesses a considerable nuclear weapons arsenal, has not signed the NPT, and even continues to claim that they don’t possess nuclear weapons at all. The only person to actually attempt to reveal the scope of Israel’s program was jailed for 18 years, 11 of those in solitary confinement, and nary a word was said about it. Ironically, were the Iranians to have anywhere near the same nuclear weapons program, and an Iranian revealed the extent of it to the world, they would be praised to high heaven by the likes of the Bush administration who would, without question, condemn their imprisonment for leaking that information.

Following his release from prison in 2004, Mordechai Vanunu did what any decent and courageous person would do in his position – he spoke up again, leading to even further troubles with the Israeli authorities. Of course, at the time, Washington had nothing to say about it, nor have they ever. Unfortunately, men who believe in peace, and have the strength of character to speak their minds no matter the consequences, are only hailed as heroes when their deeds expose the transgressions of those that we perceive as enemies. In Vanunu’s case, because of how the West perceives Israel, his is a story of courage that has been entirely overlooked.

In truth, given the overwhelming size of America’s nuclear arsenal, one has to wonder why the IAEA isn’t allowed to scrutinize it. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the United States is far more guilty of international transgressions than the Iranians ever will be. Those that oppose the Iranians, and I completely agree that theirs is a nation that is controlled by a hard-line element that does not act in the people’s best interest (sound familiar?), repeatedly make claims about Iran’s complicity with regards to supporting the likes of Hezbollah. But where is the same outrage over US support for a myriad of organizations and governments that have been wholly undemocratic and guilty of mass human rights violations?

When it comes to peace, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t dick around in the affairs of others for decades and then have the audacity to claim that you are morally beyond reproach. Peace is not defined by the ability to ensure it through the deterrence that an immense military capability provides. That is simply global détente.

It’s working. To think that it wouldn’t be would be a stretch. At this point, just like the tactics that were employed to discredit and sideline Hans Blix, the United States is already working to undermine the integrity of the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, who has claimed that his agency has no evidence that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. The IAEA is, of course, the UN’s nuclear watchdog…

“Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CNN Sunday that he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding “fuel to the fire” with their warlike rhetoric.”

The statement was countered by US State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, who said…

“He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency. I think we can handle diplomacy on this one. We appreciate the work that the IAEA is performing but it is the member states of the international community that are going to be responsible of the diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program.”

How well are the efforts of the Bush administration working? Well, according to a recent poll…

“More than half of likely voters in the United States would support a U.S. military strike against Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon, according to a poll released Monday.

The poll found 53 percent of Americans believe it is likely the United States will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the November 2008 presidential election.

The nationwide telephone survey, conducted by polling firm Zogby International, found 52 percent of U.S. adults interviewed would support such a strike.

In the months leading up to the United States’ imposition of fresh sanctions against Iran on Oct. 25, top officials of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, have issued a series of harsh remarks. Cheney said last week Iran will face “serious consequences,” if “it stays on its present course.”

A very wise man once opined that history repeats itself. In this case, it may very well do just that in a matter of four years.

One wonders if Mohamed ElBaradei’s offices have been bugged too.

If pictures say a thousand words, the expression on President Bush’s face in the above photograph says only a handful – “what are you guys, stupid?”. It’s a face that he’s employed in the past on more occasions than I can count. Unfortunately, his track record when employing it is less than stellar. In fact, it’s utterly dismal. It’s the face that he uses when he seems to think he knows something that everyone else doesn’t. In the past I would have chalked that up to Presidential privilege and the fact that he has 16 different intelligence agencies feeding him information. But not anymore.

As I have exhaustively said in the past, I’m no fan of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; that much is certain. But I’ll not sit silently by and watch idiots drive their nations towards war when the outcome will see the deaths of innocent Iranians, American soldiers, and God knows who else.

The President of the United States claims that if and when Iran obtains nuclear capabilities it’s only a matter of time before they have the bomb and then only a matter of time before they use it. You know, I sometimes wonder how George Bush made it out of high school, let alone Yale and Harvard. Then again, I suppose that has to be uniformly applied to pretty much everyone in his administration as well.

The President’s current ‘public’ strategy is to isolate Iran in hopes that internal elements will emerge and force a change in Iranian leadership because they refuse to endure prolonged economic sanctions and international isolation. Of course, it should be pointed out that UN imposed sanctions against Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, which began in 1990, killed an estimated 1.25 million people, of them over 500,000 children below the age of five. The infant mortality rate during that period was 108 for every 1,000 births. Of course, the United States claimed that Saddam Hussein was guilty of starving his own people, and I’ll not argue that entirely. But cause and effect when dealing with a regime such as that of Hussein’s also has to be taken into consideration. So too does the corrupted oil for food program.

When it comes right down to it, and I have written about this on so many different occasions that I’m blue in the face – would Iran unilaterally use a nuclear weapon against, for example, Israel if they had the opportunity? Would they be stupid enough to gift a weapon to the likes of Hezbollah? The fact remains, were the use of nuclear weapons to occur, Iran would instantly be blamed, targeted, and decimated. It’s as simple as that.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with our perceptions of just how ‘crazy’ the Iranians actually are, doesn’t it? And make no mistake; we’ve been propagandized to the hilt with regards to just how diabolic they must be to willingly allow a man such as Ahmadinejad to govern them without openly opposing his government. Interestingly, not unlike the current US administration, the government of Mr. Ahmadinejad represents a small, hard-line element within the national political landscape, not to mention Iran’s national public psyche. One need only look at the robbery of the national elections in Iran in 2005 as proof positive that there are those within that country that are forward thinking, and it truly has to be said that were the elections truly transparent, Khatami would most likely have remained President. Unfortunately, his initiatives to do with limiting various governmental powers and opening up the representative process in Iran were met with massive opposition by those threaten by their possibility. Thus, it was assured that Ahmadinejad would win and therefore help maintain the status quo.

But is that enough to force the Iranians into a position in which they feel threatened? Even more, to actually bet on the possibility that the people of Iran will work to disenfranchise the government given everything that has occurred in the region since 2003 with regards to foreign occupation and influencing? The truth is, even while Khatami was President, Iran was already backed into a corner when they were listed as a member of Mr. Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ during the 2002 State of the Union address. And it also shouldn’t be overlooked that that inclusion also gave power to hardliners in Iran to see a more abrasive and anti-Western government come to power.

After 9/11, some 1 million Iranians held a vigil for the victims, something that was completely overlooked by the Western media. In fact, Khatami’s government was wholly sympathetic and denounced the attacks outright. This is the same government that Bush would later label as ‘evil’ not months later because of their ties to groups such as Hezbollah. It’s here that we often forget our own ties with paramilitary groups throughout the world, such as numerous ones in Latin America over the last half century that have been responsible for untold death and destruction. Of course, we are not evil, and were we labeled as such by anyone else, we would dismiss it as preposterous.

In the final analysis, would the Iranian government, either directly or through a proxy, employ the use of nuclear weapons unilaterally against another nation – Israel, for example? And if they did, what would the outcome entail? It would most certainly mean the destruction of Iran itself and deaths of tens of millions of people besides. Now, if you want to labour under the misconception that such reckless behaviour would be employed because of religious zealotry with absolutely no regard for cost or consequence, then by all means do so. But I, for one, do not believe for a second that the government of Iran is that stupid, let alone zealous. It may be led by a man that I consider no more enlightened that Mr. Bush, but I simply cannot believe that the consequences of any unilateral nuclear action is lost on anyone within the Iranian government or military infrastructure. They too have families and friends, and I’m sure seeing them liquefied is not something that is their top priority.

This leads us back to why Iran would want a nuclear weapon in the first place and why the United States and others are so vehemently opposed to it. It provides the Iranians a deterrent against invasion. It provides them the exact same ability that nations such as the United States, Israel, Russia, and China possess – that with any attempted military action against them comes the possibility that nuclear force can be employed to respond defensively. Were that not the case, and were that not the reality of nuclear deterrents, then the United States would not possess the nuclear arsenal that it does, not would India or Pakistan or anyone else for that matter.

Put into context, if Afghanistan was conventionally invaded following 9/11 as a reaction to the attacks, the Taliban becoming the enemy singled out because of their association with al-Qaeda, then it only stands to reason that were a rogue group to employ a nuclear device, a state would be held responsible for it, not merely the group itself. And if any connection existed between it an Iran, even in the most obscure fashion, the repercussions would be overwhelming.

If we are not able to take that logic into account regarding Iran, and come to the realization that they truly understand the possible repercussions, then we must assume that preemptive military action against it is therefore a foregone conclusion, no matter Mr. Bush’s current rhetoric.

One of the great ironies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is the self-imposed sense of heightened morality that various nations have provided themselves to justify the possession of nuclear weapons.

I use the term ironic because we are, after all, talking about the possession of the worlds most destructive force, one that, if used, could change the face of the planet itself. Thus, who, that would claim any sort of moral superiority, would want anything to do with that sort of destructive power to begin with?

The reality of nuclear weapons is that they exist as deterrents, not offensive weapons (having only been used twice since their inception as such), and have thus been attainted or mass produced by a variety of nations for that purpose – primarily during the Cold War era. But that does not explain why, for example, Israel possesses nuclear weapons, nor why they refuse, to this day, to admit that they do.

This leads us back to the sense of entitlement that some possess with regards to the possession of nuclear weapons and the right they feel they have to then condemn others for attempting to attain the same sort of security that such an overwhelming deterrent provides.

Again, Israel provides the prefect example.

As stated prior to this, Israel continues to deny that they even have a nuclear arsenal, even though they jailed Mordechai Vanunu for leaking the truth about their ‘non-existent’ nuclear program to the international press. Vanunu, once a technician at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, was tried, in secret, for treason in 1988 and spent 18 years in prison (11 of those in solitary confinement) for his exposure of Israel’s program. After his release, Vanunu again spoke openly about Israel’s program, and was subsequently jailed for a further six months in 2006. His access to the press is now strictly monitored, if not forbidden in most cases, and he is also unable to leave the country.

Like India, North Korea, and Pakistan, Israel is not recognized as a nuclear weapons state under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even though the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, considers Israel to be a state possessing nuclear weapons. In a slip up during an interview in December of 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, while referring to Iran’s desire to obtain a nuclear weapon and the now massively misinterpreted assertion that Iranian President Ahmadinejad claimed that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map…

“Can you see that is the same level when you are aspiring to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia?” he asked.

Officials at the Prime Minister’s Office later attempted to minimize the damage and rejected the claim that Olmert violated the ambiguousness policy by admitting that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

They clarified that OImert only referred to the fundamental issue and said that by no means whatsoever did he intend to talk about the existence of absence of nuclear weapons.” - Y Net News, 12.12.06

As some of you might recall, on the 6th of this month, the Syrian government claimed that Israeli military aircraft violated their airspace and dropped munitions within their boarders. The Israeli government’s response was to claim that it does not comment on military operations, and many throughout the world employed the term ‘allegedly’ in articles about the event. Interestingly, in today’s Haaretz, new information has come to light (relying an article in yesterday’s Washington Post) that attempts to clarify what occurred on the 6th…

“An American Mideast expert said the alleged Israel Air Force strike in northern Syria last week was directly connected to a shipment Syria received from North Korea three days earlier, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

The expert spoke on condition of anonymity in order to protect his sources, who the report said are comprised of “Israeli participants” in the strike. He said the shipment was labeled as cement, but Israel believed it carried nuclear equipment.

The U.S. daily said the expert believed the IAF strike targeted a facility the Syrians claim serves as an “agricultural research center,” but Israel believes is used to extract uranium from phosphates.

The Washington Post also reported that the secrecy of the mission, on which Israel refuses to release details, was extended to those who carried it out. He said that the pilots providing cover for the aircraft that attacked the facility were not given specifics of the mission, and the pilots who actually carried out the strike were only briefed after they were in the air.

While neither side has explained what exactly happened in the early hours of September 6, a number of Israeli and American officials have speculated that the alleged attack was designed to thwart the possible development of Syrian nuclear capabilities.”

The Post also reported yesterday…

“Syria has signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty but has not agreed to an additional protocol that would allow for enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. GlobalSecurity.org, which offers information on weapons of mass destruction, said that “although Syria has long been cited as posing a nuclear proliferation risk, the country seems to have been too strapped for cash to get far.”

This is interesting, and also reverts back to my referencing irony at the beginning of this entry. While Syria has signed the NPT, Israel has not. The reason being, of course, that they refuse to admit that they have a program at all, even though it’s believed that their missiles have intercontinental capabilities – which seems very strange being that those they deem threats are entirely regional. Second, while Israel’s actions are basically defended, it is conveniently pointed out that Syria has not agreed to the additional protocol that allows for enhanced inspections by the IAEA. This, too, is ironic, being that Israel’s program has never been scrutinized by the United Nations, nor have they ever agreed to allow it to be.

This is where an entirely warped sense of moral entitlement comes into play with regards to nuclear weapons. While the world’s foremost powers, and their allies, can justify the possession of nuclear arsenals, they also possess the right to condemn those that they feel would present a threat to their sense of global and regional security were they to obtain nuclear deterrents. Since 9/11, this has largely been done by claiming that nations, such as Iran and Syria, both of whom have been singled out as state sponsors of terrorism, could gift terrorist organizations a weapon, or that such technology could be absconded with. Further, that they would dare to fly in the face of the overwhelming realities of mutually assured destruction were they to use a nuclear weapon out right.

That said, what do such concerns indicate? That Iran and Syria are immoral? That they do not possess the graces that we claim paramount within our own selves? That they would willingly bring down upon themselves the roofs of their own houses and sacrifice the lives of tens of millions of their own people? That they would be ignorant enough to supply a nuclear weapon to those that might use it without regard, knowing full well that the response to such usage would ultimately be visited upon them ten fold?

When one looks at the massive imbalance of nuclear power in the world, it is easy to see why the acquisition of nuclear deterrents by various nations might be of concern. Because it would represent a challenge to the already overwhelming military superiority of those that claim to hold the moral high ground. This, of course, is why it’s entirely ironic – because morality and decency have nothing to do with assurances of military dominance.

It is here that the question has to be asked. Were the regime of Saddam Hussein to have possessed a nuclear deterrent, would the United States have invaded the country in 2003? Given the fact that it didn’t, and the Iraqi regime was removed from power, what government in the region who has since been threatened by the United States would not want to obtain a deterrent against a possible invasion?

It should be lost on no one that many of the foreign militants in Iraq that are members of Salafi Jihadi groups are Saudi nationals. And yet no threatening rhetoric has been directed at Saudi Arabia. This week, General Petraeus claimed that al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a significant threat, yet there was no mention of how many of those within its ranks are from foreign locales, such as Saudi Arabia. It should also not be overlooked that the Saudis are included in the recent $20 billion dollar US military aid package to a number of predominantly Sunni states over the next decade. Of course, to counter balance that, Israel was gifted $30 billion dollars in military aid over the next decade, an increase of 25%, most of which has to be used to purchase arms from US manufacturers. Were Iran or Syria customers, one wonders how different the position of the United States, and their allies in the region, might be.

Quite obviously, our morality could be set aside for the sake of placating others with gifts of military assistance so long as they adhered to our goals.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Paul Wolfowitz wrote in the Defense Planning Guidance, which would be buried after the New York Times published excerpts from it, though it would later re-emerge post 9/11 and be instituted as official US foreign policy…

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

“There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

In truth, when it comes to nuclear weapons, morality has no place. As I type this, under the surface of the waters of Persian Gulf, it is probable that one of fourteen Ohio-class SSBNs is present. Within the confines of such a submarine sleeps a complement of 24 Trident II missiles, a total of 288 missiles equipped with 1152 nuclear warheads. In short, it alone has the nuclear capability to decimate a significant portion of the Iranian population.

Immorality, it seems, is a universal proposition.