Nuclear Iran: can one believe anything that Ministers and security services say about Middle East?

Here we go again.   We’re being told yet again – as well as several times over the last few years – that Iran is about to produce a nuclear weapon and must be stopped at all costs by bombing their nuclear facilities.   What is asserted to be new this time is that, firstly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has allegedly found new evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran, secondly that Iran has allegedly been behind some recent assassination attempts abroad against Saudi officials, and thirdly that Iran has allegedly installed a set of centrifuges to a heavily fortified site dug beneath a mountain at Fordow near Qom which may be impregnable to a missile strike.   There are good reasons for doubting each of these claims; and after we were given absolute assurances that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be non-existent, justified a war in Iraq, we should now treat these latest allegations about Iran with extreme scepticism.

On the first point, neither international law nor the NPT prohibits uranium enrichment, and there is nothing to prevent Iran seeking the technical capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons without actually doing so.   On the second, the three recent assassination plots attributed to Iran have not been proved and look more like a convenient trumped-up casus belli.   On the third, whether or not the Fordow site is impregnable is not a reason under international law for it to be attacked in a pre-emptive strike.

It is disturbing that we are now seeing the same obfuscations and misleading so-called intelligence reports as we saw in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and again we are seeing Britain tamely falling into line behind a hatched US-Israeli neocon adventure.   This attack on Iran is now the greatest threat to world peace today.   Nobody should be naive about an Iranian nuclear weapon, but it is true that Iran, unlike Israel, has never invaded other countries and Israel remains a far more aggressive and dangerous source of instability in the Middle East than Iran.   And it might be questioned, if Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, on what grounds is a much more assertive and threatening power like Israel allowed to retain them? 

A US-Israeli attack on Iran would be extremely dangerous, it would be clearly illegal, it is wholly unjustified on the evidence available, and would almost certainly be utterly counter-productive.   Britain should be strongly deploring and resisting this, and telling the US that we will do nothing to support this, and certainly not allow our Diego Garcia base to be used for this purpose.

4 thoughts on “Nuclear Iran: can one believe anything that Ministers and security services say about Middle East?

  1. Why didn’t the USA go in and nuke the Russians after WW2 when the Russians were developing atomic weapons? I believe that Iran offered help to root out Al Queada after 9/11 but their offer was refused. The biggest aggressor in the Middle East, Israel,has atomic weapons but no action is contemplated against them.

  2. I totally agree with you, Norman. There are many countries with either nuclear or biological weapons capability, yet the hypocritical US and UK seem to have taken it upon themselves to dictate their version of the law to the rest of the world.
    It’s almost farcical that we, the common people, can predict future US/UK invasions, given previous history of proven false-flag events, deliberate mis-information and sensalionalist media hype. It’s almost like the powers that be have a script for creating world unrest and subsequent domination, and because we are familiar with the playwright, we know how the play will pan out.
    As a British person I am distressed that even though we now trust nothing that comes out of the Western leaders’ mouths, there is nothing that can effectively be done to stop this roller-coaster. Iran will be dammned regardless of whether or not it has bio/nuclear warfare technology, just as Iraq was. I wish that all the Arab nations would get together to expose Western deceipt and war-mongering and stand together in defiance of their accusers. Maybe then the Western agitators would slink away and mind their own business for once, and stop taking our soldiers to war in other nations.

  3. Equity’s a questionable principle to apply to nuclear proliferation. Post Blair it’s impossible to avoid asking “Why are these bastards lying to me?” when governments tell us that another state is a threat to global stability. However the reality that nuclear Israel and nuclear Pakistan pose a constant threat to that stability should serve as a reminder that it’s easier to stop the cat getting out of the bag than to try and put it back afterwards. A dilemma.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *