The madness of bombing Iran
Robert Skidelsky

As our leaders soften us up for a new war, the arguments we can’t afford to ignore


THERE IS no doubt that Western opinion is being softened up for a US or Israeli strike against the Iranian centrifuges at Natanz. “Can anyone within range of Iran’s missiles feel safe?”, screams a full-page advertisement in the International Herald Tribune, displaying a map of the Eurasian land mass with Iran at its centre.
As part of the softening-up come the justifications, as false as the ones that preceded the Iraq([search]) war, but more disgraceful second time round. Here are the counter-arguments.



First, it needs to be trumpeted that a military strike now would be illegal under international law. The UN Security Council would never authorise it, since Iran has not breached the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that allows every signatory to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use. However, the hawks no longer even talk about the need to get Security Council approval — this is the measure of the damage to international law that Bush([search]) and Blair have inflicted.

The United States (or Israel) would claim it was acting in self-defence. But by long-established customary law a pre-emptive strike is justified only to defend against an “imminent and certain” attack. True enough, what happens tomorrow is never certain, but if another country’s troops start massing at one’s frontier that would be pretty good evidence of hostile intention. To claim the right of self-defence against a threat that may or may not emerge in five years’ time is to claim the right to wage aggressive war whenever one chooses. This was one of the two grounds on which Nazi leaders were convicted and executed at Nuremberg.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has recently been arguing that the right of pre-emption should be turned into the right of prevention, “rather than waiting for the next threat to come along”. If one happened to “learn” that a threat was being developed, would it not be one’s duty to zap it before it became actual? The answer is “no”. The more “potential” the threat, the less transparent it will be, the more flawed one's intelligence, and the more scope leaders will have to manipulate public opinion.

If Iraq taught us anything it should have been this. Tony Blair at first stuck to the accepted justification for a pre-emptive strike by claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat (the notorious “45 minutes”). When that was revealed as phoney, he fell back on the argument that Iraq “would have” acquired a WMD capability had we not overthrown Saddam Hussein. Such arguments allow unscrupulous leaders to make war on a whim.

To return from Mr Reid’s science fiction to earth: the technology of making nuclear weapons is not obscure. The Iranians claim to have enriched uranium to the “3.5 per cent level”. This is enough to use as nuclear fuel, but nowhere near enough for nuclear weapons. That requires up to 90 per cent enrichment, with 50 to 100 kilograms of it to make a single bomb. The Iranians say they have 164 centrifuges. But thousands would be needed to get a significant amount of weapons grade uranium. Experts say it would take five years or more to produce an atomic bomb from domestic processes.

The biggest danger of nuclear proliferation is not that rogue states will learn how to enrich uranium enough to build nuclear weapons but that already enriched uranium stocks will leak out to terrorist groups. A terrorist group that obtained 50kg of highly enriched uranium would probably be able to make a nuclear device. But it could make it anywhere — in a garage in London, for instance. The answer to this is not to bomb Iraq, but to reduce such stockpiles (mainly in Russia and the United States) to a minimum, and make sure they are under iron control.

People who support military action ask: how do we know that Iran isn't lying when it says that its uranium enrichment programme is intended only for civilian use? Surely, this is a clear case for invoking the precautionary principle: the risk may be slight but the consequences of ignoring it may be catastrophic. But no one is arguing that the risk should be ignored. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty now also allows for intrusive inspections. Hans Blix has written: “If you want a control system that gives a maximum of assurance, you can . . . require that inspectors have the right to go almost anywhere, any time, and demand any kind of documents.” Iran has accepted this protocol and operating under it the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence that it is developing a weapons programme. However, the protocol could be strengthened for states such as Iran whose leaders make Hitlerian pronouncements.

Given that it is possible, though difficult, to put in place a series of checks on Iran's nuclear ambitions, our leaders need to weigh very carefully the equivocal comfort that a so-called preventive strike may buy against the massive costs of mounting one. It is as certain as it can be that a strike against Iran would inflame Muslim hatred throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would interrupt oil supplies and disorganise the world economy. It would swell the insurgency in Iraq, multiply the numbers of “terrorists” and strengthen their determination to exact a terrible vengeance, especially on Israel. It would be against every counsel of prudent statesmanship. The danger is that we will drift into war because we lack the will and imagination to create institutions to make peace safe.

“The threat posed by Iran has been grossly exaggerated” will be debated tomorrow at the Royal Geographical Society in one of a series of Times debates. www.intelligencesquared.com

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2149135,00.html

Israel raises alert for possible Iranian missile attacks

www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-24 18:31:26

JERUSALEM, April 24 (Xinhua) -- Israel has raised the vigilance level of its Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile defense system for fear of possible missile attacks from Iran, local newspaper the Jerusalem Post reported on Monday.
 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-04/24/content_4468399.htm

Don't forget that both Israel and the US - who are attempting to start a war with Iran, have been carrying out Covert Operations in Iran for months now.



State Department: 'Iranians have put both feet on the accelerator'

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, April 24, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration, in what appeared to be a rebuff to the U.S. intelligence community, said Iran is approaching the point of no return in terms of its indigenous nuclear capability.
 http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453850.0652777776.html

And the US has put both feet on the accelerator of World War III. It's just a question of when, not if, the US will attack. The enrichment Iran has acheived is only enough to fuel a power plant, not a nuclear weapon.

REAL Nuclear Disarmament for the Middle East!
…from Y-Net News:

“Jordanian King Abdullah said his country is interested in a nuclear-free Middle East and urged the international community to pressure Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.
 http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/04/real-nuclear-disarmament-for-middle.html

Russian MoD says missile sale to Iran to go ahead
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
MOSCOW
[Print this Article] [EMail this Article] [Subscribe] [SMS Alerts] [JPost Toolbar] [JPost ePaper]

Russia's defense minister confirmed Monday that his country will go ahead and supply Iran with sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles, news agencies reported.

"Unless there are some circumstances beyond our control, this contract will be honored," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was quoted as saying by Interfax and RIA Novosti in Beijing, where he was on an official visit.

The United States last week called on all countries to stop all arms exports to Iran and to end all nuclear cooperation with it to put pressure on Tehran to halt uranium enrichment activities.

But Moscow insisted it would not stop a project to construct a US$800 million (€645 million) nuclear power plant in Bushehr, southern Iran.

And Nikolai Spassky, the deputy head of the Kremlin Security Council, said Russia would not end military cooperation with Iran, including the commitment to provide the country with Tor-M1 air-defense systems.

Russia's Defense Ministry has said Moscow will supply 29 sophisticated Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran under a $700 million (€565 million) contract, according to Russian media reports.

Ivanov also defended the Bushehr project, saying it "has nothing to do with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," according to ITAR-Tass.

 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498910561&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull