| ATOMIC HYPOCRISY |
|
|
| Thursday, 12 January 2006 | |
 Neither the US nor the UK is in a position to criticise Iran's nuclear programme.The White House has warned Iran that it risked a “serious escalation” in its nuclear stand off with the United Nations and the west after Tehran broke the seals, installed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the underground facility at Natanz, on equipment at its uranium enrichment facility. The warning comes from an administration that has pursued a hard line against Tehran from the early days of George Bush’s presidency. President Bush pursued a vision of the “axis of evil” in which Iran was seen next on the list for regime change- yet again, isolating Iran. Iran’s defiance of a European-brokered agreement for a nuclear freeze, now risks international sanctions imposed by the UN. The Bush administration has been quick to suggest action by the Security Council, for which it has pressed for more than a year. Now, after an emergency meeting in Berlin between the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France and Germany it looks like Iran may be in for a fight as they prepare to respond to Iran’s activities by possible punitive sanctions. Next week, the US will meet key players on the Security Council: European officials, Russia and China to “discuss the way forward”. The high drama comes from the fact that it is quite severe and a confrontation that has dragged in the Middle East, UK, US and Israel. The escalating dispute confronts the international community with potentially its biggest challenge since the Iraq War. It resurrects a range of divisive issues, such as the true extent of the global WMD threat, the difficulty of pursuing joint action via the UN and the double standards over the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Mohamed Elbaradei, the boss of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, confirms that Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapons capability, was acting within its legal rights under the NPT represents another obstacle to a common front. The failure of nuclear-armed states, notably the US, to reduce their arsenals in line with NPT provisions is controversial in developing countries and especially in the Muslim world, where there is sympathy for Iran. Iran claims the enrichment facility is for electricity- not illegal under international law - and not to make a bomb. In this case, Israel claims more or less the same - it works to promote peaceful applications of nuclear energy in the areas of health, agriculture and industry. Why does the West not assume the worst for Israel? After all, Israel did illegally attack the nuclear plant in Iraq even though many scholarly predictions have guessed that it possesses a minimum of 100 nuclear warheads. It is decades overdue that the IAEA investigate Israel, the Security Council impose sanctions and that it should come under scrutiny from the Western powers for its illegal apartheid policies. Most astonishing of all, in the light of the present discussions, is that the problem of Iran developing such a nuclear capacity caused no problems for the Americans because, around 1976 (also when the UK secretary of state energy went to visit the Shah and much of the time was spent the plans he had to develop a nuclear programme), the Shah was seen as an ally, and had been put on the throne with American help. The fundamental question, of course is if nuclear weapons are to be developed. The Iranians insist they are not, the West suspects it might. Looking around at the international scene- at Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, North Korea’s development of them and the continued clamours from Washington about possible air strikes and even an invasion – it is hard to dent their attraction to Iran. Iraq would not have been invaded if Saddam had the weaponry; North Korea is receiving quite different treatment from America now that it does. On the latest US intelligence, Iran is perhaps a decade away from developing the nuclear bomb or warhead. One can deduce that what they want is the knowledge and the ability, not the possession. And if we examine the issue of Israel’s a nuclear arsenal and its support in the western world which will not tolerate another country with an adequate defence, ensuring that Israel can continue to act as a rogue state without impunity. After all Israel over the last 50 years has been involved with ethnic cleansing, invading every one of its neighbours and carrying out international terrorist acts across the Middle East. While the Muslims in the west shake their head at the possible crippling effects of international sanctions, or even worse military action the Zionist community make the link and punitive action inevitable. And the West will pander to the local lobbyists and activists to ensure that when the threat of a Middle Eastern regime has of acquiring nuclear technology Israel is firmly let off the hook. There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled and the complete silence over Israel’s huge nuclear armoury, which is itself a breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And let us not forget that the current Iranian government has vowed that the nuclear programme is strictly for civilian purposes which is more than Israel has. Why is it that the West must always assume the worst from the Muslim world just because they don’t understand them? Until the West, in particular the US, engages with them as equals in the international arena, we’re simply going to reel from crisis to crisis. If the problems now being discussed can be dealt with in a practical way through the IAEA, there is a chance of a solution, and that is what we should demand since neither Bush or Blair is in a position to take the moral high ground. {moscomment}    |
