What's New

Current Events Update

The nuclear news for January continues to be Iran.

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come

By Jorge Hirsch, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics, University of Chicago
(Article first published at Anti-War.com)

The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons:

  • The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
  • According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents — and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them — which it previously had manufactured.".)
  • According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies."
  • In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24, Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements.
  • Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
  • According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
  • Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
  • President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
  • The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376–3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  • In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.

Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.

Here’s the problem.

Iran claims that its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes. However, according to the IAEA report mentioned by Hirsch, Iran hid that program from the IAEA for 18 years, but IAEA inspectors have recently found traces of highly enriched uranium (weapon-grade). Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, probably for domestic political purposes, is talking tough. He has repeatedly asserted Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program while being less than fully cooperative with IAEA inspections. He has also outraged much of the international community and frightened Israelis by repeating and refusing to back down from Ayatollah Khomeni’s statement that Israel should be “wiped out from the map.”

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, he went on to say, “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism…[a] new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away." Whatever the purpose of this rhetoric, the anger and threat are unmistakable. This angry leader may be seeking and may obtain nuclear weapons; he definitely does not accept that the US or Israel or anyone else has the right to stop his nuclear power program.

On the other hand, the US and Israel insist on their right to protect themselves from an Iranian chemical or nuclear weapon by preemptively bombing Iranian facilities. In other words, they claim the right to bomb Iran because they believe Iran to be developing weapons that could threaten them. This is exactly the thinking that led to war in Iraq.

According to a December 29 article by Praful Bidwai, a leading Indian peace activist:

Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon said on Dec. 1 that "Israel, and not only Israel, cannot accept a situation in which Iran would be in possession of nuclear weapons." While former Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu held out a scarcely veiled threat to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, approvingly citing Israel's 1981 bombing of Iraq's Osirak research reactor, then under construction. On Dec. 16, Iran warned Israel that its response to an Israeli attack would be "swift, firm, and destructive."

In light of Iran’s posture and the facts presented by Hirsch and Bidwai above, it seems likely that the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear and chemical weapons programs will turn violent, if not within weeks, within a year or two. If it does turn violent, nuclear weapons may be used, and even if they are not, any attacks on nuclear facilities can be expected to release large amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere contaminating, perhaps permanently, the surrounding area. Thus, the nuclear danger continues to grow.

In response, as reported last month, a large group of anti-nuclear activists wrote a letter to the key players in the US, Israel, Iran and the UN that ends:

The Parliamentarians, civil society organisations, and prominent individuals signed below hereby urge a solution to the crisis in relations between the US and Iran, Israel and Iran, based on the following clearly defined principles:

  1. No use of any military option whatsoever by any party for any reason.
  2. A clear commitment by all nuclear-armed parties not to use nuclear weapons in this situation, and a broader commitment to the doctrine of no first-use of nuclear weapons.
  3. The implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution on a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle East, implementation of the annual consensus-adopted General Assembly resolutions on 'Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in the region of the Middle East', and particularly the full implementation of this year’s resolution on nuclear proliferation in the Middle-East.
  4. A clear commitment by all parties to the global elimination of nuclear weapons, including through reaffirming the Final Declaration of the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and relevant General Assembly resolutions.
  5. A diplomatic path to the removal of tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran, involving compromise on both sides, recognition of the legitimate security concerns of all parties including both Israel and Iran, and refraining from inflammatory statements or the exploration of military options by any party.

This letter was signed by a distinguished group of NGO leaders representing, among others, hundreds of parliamentarians and thousands of mayors. However, given the fact that 15 million protesters in the streets around the world failed to stop the US–UK invasion of Iraq, this letter is unlikely to stop the rush to violence.

Though not working directly on the Iran situation, Al Marder, president of the International Association of Peace Messenger Cities, is taking anti-nuclear activities to a new level. Marder, a resident of New Haven, Connecticut, is leading a divestment campaign. Under his leadership, New Haven is about to become the first city to declare that none of its pension fund or other monies can be invested in any company or any fund that invests in any company that is in any way involved in the production of nuclear weapons. If Marder’s campaign takes off, nuclear weapons are finished. But do enough investors care enough to go to the trouble to save the world from nuclear catastrophe? Stay tuned.