Tag Archives: nuclear weapons

Posted on by

When Hillary Clinton doesn’t make sense

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

U.S. President Barack Obama will be a lame duck next year and the officials in his administration, especially his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are hilariously doing their best to make sure that they haven’t spared any effort to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and sabotage the stability and security of those whom they call “enemies”, like Iran.

On October 27, Hillary Clinton gave an exclusive interview to the UK’s state-funded, state-run BBC Persian TV and in an attempt aimed at reaching out to the Iranian nation, made bombastic remarks which have certainly infuriated the Iranian nation and demonstrated that the hostile behavior and antagonistic stance of the U.S. government toward the Iranian nation is a manifestation of the idiom “the leopard can’t change its spots.” Continue reading →

Posted on by

Iran sanctions: Much ado about nothing

Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)
Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)

Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)

Dr. Ismail Salami and Kourosh Ziabari

Almost five years have passed since the United Nations Security Council imposed its first round of sanctions against Iran over the allegations that Tehran might be moving toward developing nuclear weapons. Since that time, four rounds of devastative sanctions have been imposed on Iran by the Security Council and several European nations, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and other countries joined the march of imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Many resources indicate that Iran’s nuclear program was initiated by the United States in 1950s as part of a program named Atoms for Peace. “Atoms for Peace” was a title given to a speech by the former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower before the UN General Assembly on December 8, 1952. Following this speech in which President Eisenhower alluded to his experience as a military man and stressed the necessity of paying especial attention to the use of nuclear energy in the 20th century, the U.S. government launched a program called Atoms for Peace and pledged financial and scientific help and support for hospitals, schools, universities, scientific centers and research institution, seeking to carry out studies on nuclear energy. This program helped Iran and Pakistan build their first nuclear reactors in 1950s.

In line with their policy of empowering the client states, the United States and its European allies supported, financed, backed and advanced Iran’s nuclear program until the Islamic Revolution of 1979 overthrew the U.S.-installed Shah of Iran and brought to power the Islamic Republic which was from the beginning of its inception a thorn in the side of the United States and its European cronies.

Right after the beginning of Iran’s new era under the leadership of Imam Khomeini, the U.S. and Western nations started to take an aggressive stance against Iran and set in motion their irrational animosity with a country which had proclaimed its decision to be a defender of the subjugated and an enemy of the oppressors and hegemonic powers.

The West began to create hurdles and impediments on Iran’s way toward self-sufficiency. Iran sought to extricate itself from the manacles of the U.S. and its cronies. When Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled Iran, the country was practically in the hands of American and British consultants and advisors. Imam Khomeini’s movement was a popular uprising against the de facto occupation of Iran by the United States and Britain and this was extremely unfavorable and bitter for the White House. They provoked Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to wage a war against Iran in the high hopes that a heavy military expedition would paralyze Iran and bring the Islamic Republic to its knees. They promised Saddam that they would help him financially and militarily; however, after an 8 year war of attrition which cost the lives of more than 500,000 Iranians, and after several diplomatic, underground operations to topple the government in Iran, the American statesmen realized that the Islamic Republic was too powerful and determined to be defeated easily. It was when the financial sanctions and soft war commenced.

Holding back Iran’s nuclear program was on the high agenda of the United States. They knew that the theological mindset of the Iranian leaders would keep them away from planning to produce nuclear weapons, and at the same time, they knew that their close allies in Europe and Israel possess hundreds of nuclear warheads; however, their main objective was to hamper Iran’s scientific progress and slowing down Iran’s movement toward the zeniths of success and glory.

After years of psychological propaganda against Iran and introducing the people of Iran as an uncultured, uncivilized and terrorist nation, the U.S. and Europe joined the anti-Iranian terrorist organization MKO, which is notorious for the killing of more than 40,000 civilians, to stage a charade against Tehran and accuse it of developing nuclear weapons. They were too quick in their moves and for the first step, publicized forged documents and materials which allegedly showed that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction and atomic weapons. The first step was taken by Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesperson for the MKO terrorist organization who claimed in 2002 that he accessed documents, revealing that Iran has clandestine nuclear facilities in Natanz and Arak. The Western media swiftly picked up the story and aggrandized it to the extent of an international concern which involved the whole world, including the numerous enemies of Iran in Europe and the Northern America. The story continued as IAEA stated its decision to send inspectors to Iran to investigate Iran’s nuclear facilities. The atomic watchdog demanded that Iran cease uranium enrichment and all of the research activities related to uranium enrichment and then start negotiations with the five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany and resolve the crisis diplomatically.

Although Iran was one of the first world countries to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and had the legal right of enriching uranium under the comprehensive safeguards of the IAEA, it has been discriminatorily pressured by the U.S. and its allies to suspend its nuclear activities since 2003.

On October 21, 2003, and in league with the governments of France, the UK and Germany (called EU-3), Iran declared that it would suspend uranium enrichment voluntarily and sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a confidence-building measure and freeze its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of talks with the P5+1.

Interestingly enough, following Iran’s voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment, IAEA issued antagonistic reports, claiming that Iran did not fully cooperate with the inspectors and that it  failed to submit regular reports of its activities in the Natanz and 40 MW heavy-water reactor in Arak. Despite all this, Iran continued its suspension of uranium enrichment until 2006 when it decided to open the seals of the nuclear facilities and resume uranium enrichment in compliance with the IAEA regulations. The IAEA inspectors were allowed to travel to Iran several times a year and look into Iran’s nuclear activities. It’s an undeniable reality that no country in the world has been so cooperative with IAEA as Iran has been.

The U.S. and EU, however, retained their unwarranted hostility towards Iran and during a period of 5 years, they imposed harsh sanctions on Iran which targeted the country’s economy and adversely affected the daily life of the ordinary citizens. These multilateral and unilateral sanctions include travel restrictions, ban on the sale of electronic devices and apparatus, restriction of transaction with Iranian companies and cartels, trade embargo on Iran’s medical sector and other variations of restrictions which have been exceptionally devastative and damaging.

The U.S. and its European allies keep refraining from selling aircraft to Iran and hundreds of people die every year on account of the country’s aging fleet of aircraft. They have also imposed sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas sector in which thousands of Iranians and their families are involved. Iranians are unable to buy the basic commodities of their daily life as a result of the sanctions imposed on the country. This is while the U.S. and European states shamelessly boast of their being concerned about the Iranian people and on every occasion, try to reach out to the Iranian citizens whom they claim are oppressed by the government.

It is a certainty that the nuclear program of Iran and regarding it with a suspicious eye have been hyped up by the Western governments and that has to be seen as part of U.S. ploy to demonize the Islamic republic in the world. This animosity is not however something new but an old sore which the US keeps rubbing. The enmity, as Ron Paul reaffirms, goes back to the advent of the Islamic revolution and even further beyond, “We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the shah. And the reaction, the blowback, came in 1979. It’s been going on and on because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem.”

There is indeed much ado about Iran’s nuclear program and despite all evidence that Iran is not pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the US keeps piling accusations on the country. Who knows? Maybe Iran’s nuclear program is only an excuse for the U.S. government to start another war in the region.

This article was co-written by Dr. Ismail Salami and Kourosh Ziabari. Dr. Ismail Salami is the chief editor of Press TV website. Kourosh Ziabari is a freelance journalist from Iran.

Posted on by

The folly of the Israeli AND Arab approach to Iran

Alan Hart

Alan Hart, 1 Dec 2010

The Wikileaks revelation that some Persian Gulf Arab leaders wanted (and still want?) America to attack Iran is confirmation of what some of us thought we knew – that Arab leaders are not merely impotent but as dangerously deluded as their Israeli counterparts.

Netanyahu was absolutely correct when he told a group of editors in Tel Aviv that “Israel has not been damaged at all by the Wikileaks publications.” A senior Israeli government official went further in his response to questions from AFP. He said: “We have come out looking good.” The leaked documents, he added, “confirm that the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran… The Arab countries are pushing the United States towards military action more forcefully than Israel.”

Actually the assertion that “the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran” is nonsense. The Arab regimes which more or less do the bidding of America-and-Zionism are terrified, but the same cannot be said of many of their repressed subjects. As Noam Chomsky pointed out in a recent interview with Open Democracy’s Amy Goodman, a poll of Arab opinion indicates that 80% regard Israel as the major threat in the region. Iran is seen as a threat by only 10%. The poll also indicated that 57% believe the region would be a more safe place if Iran had nuclear weapons. (As with Israel/Palestine, the regimes are effectively on one side – that of America-and-Israel, and the Arab masses are on the other side – that of the Palestinians).

The only good news confirmed by the latest Wiki leaked documents is that President Obama has so far resisted pressure from both Israel and the Arabs. (In fairness it should not be forgotten that President George “Dubya” Bush also said “No” to an attack on Iran when Vice President Cheney wanted him to authorize it).

There is no mystery about why any U.S. president who is not completely nuts will refuse to authorize an American attack on Iran (and do his best to stop Israel going it alone, no doubt with clearance through Saudi airspace). An American attack on Iran would have huge and possibly incalculable consequences for American interests. It would set in motion an escalating and possibly unending counter offensive including unbridled terrorism against American forces and facilities (civilian and business as well as military) around the world. And while that was happening, what is left of the global economy could be wrecked by sustained rises in the price of oil.

If those Arab leaders who pressed America to attack Iran discount the catastrophe scenario indicated above, they are very, very irresponsible. But there is more to their folly.

I don’t believe Iran’s ruling mullahs want nuclear weapons, but under pressure from the Revolutionary Guards (the real power in the country when push comes to shove?), they may have agreed in principle a while ago that Iran should have at least the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb for deterrence.

Prior to the publication of Wiki’s latest leaks, the question of how far and how fast Iran should go to have the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb was still the subject of debate in the leadership in all of its manifestations. It may be that Wiki’s revelations will play into the hands of those in Tehran who are insisting that Iran must have a nuclear bomb for deterrence.

While I was absorbing what the Wiki leaks confirmed about the attitudes of Arab leaders, I asked myself this question: What would I want if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the present regime?

My answer?

I would want my government, whatever its composition, to crash ahead with developing a nuclear bomb for deterrence. I would tell myself that was the only way to keep Iran safe from Arab-backed Israeli threats. And when challenged in argument, I would say, “Do you think America and Britain would have invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons?”

My main point?

If Iran does becomes a nuclear-armed state, it will be because of Israeli threats and Arab leadership’s endorsement of them.

Now to a most controversial question, one at least as controversial as the various 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Is Wikileaks being manipulated by intelligence services – one or several?

There are a number of bloggers – some of them informed writers with credibility, some of them uninformed, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nutters – who think the answer is “Yes”. More to the point is that no less a figure than Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, thinks the answer could be “Yes”. He said so in an interview with PBS’s Judy Woodruff and also in a subsequent BBC World Service (Radio) interview. To Judy Woodruff he said:

“The real issue is, who is feeding Wikileaks? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed… The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home…It’s a question of whether Wikileaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments… I have no doubt that Wikileaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.”

Another way to look at the matter is to ask this question. If a visitor from Outer Space studied the first two days of Wikileak’s revelations, what preliminary conclusion would he (or she) come to?

I think it’s entirely possible that he (or she) would say: “The main message is clear. Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world and not only because the Israelis say so. Arab leaders agree with them. The secondary message is that apart from the Arab leaders who say they share Israel’s assessment, other Muslim leaders, those in Turkey and Pakistan especially, are not to be trusted.”

And here’s another question. Which party benefited most from the first two days of Wikileaks revelations? The obvious answer is the Zionist state of Israel.

I must also confess that I have a nagging worry (small but real) about the possibility that Julian Paul Assange, Wikileaks’ founder, has been compromised in some way and is open to manipulation. My concern on this account is the fact that he is a 9/11 conspiracy denier. He is firmly on the record as saying: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

As I have said on public platforms in America and written in a number of articles for the worldwide web, I think there is irrefutable evidence that the Twin Towers were not brought down by the planes and their burning fuel.

My own conclusion at the present time is that I don’t have a conclusion; but I think the question of whether or not Wikileaks is being manipulated, and if so by whom, is worthy of deep and serious investigation.

Alan Hart

Alan Hart

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

Alan maintains an online blog with a wealth of articles that can be found here http://www.alanhart.net/

Posted on by

Ahmedinejad and Netanyahu as guests of the White House!

Sami Jadallah

Sami Jamil Jadallah, 6 August 2010

It may do some if not a lot of good if President Obama invites both President Ahmedinejad of Iran and Bibi Netanyahu of Israel to the White House to watch jointly the horrors of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it will do the world lots of goods if the president of France, the prime minister of England, the president of Russia, the prime minister of India, the president of Pakistan and the president of China all join in with Netanyahu and Ahmedinejad and watch a documentary on the horror and the devastation that struck the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the US dropped the first ever nuclear bombs.  May be, just may be there will be a call to end all nuclear weapons.One can only imagine the horrific feeling of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the United States dropped the “ Little Boy” over Hiroshima and the “Fat Man” over Nagasaki.  The US decision to attend the memorial ceremony is a first step toward a long process of healing. Who knows perhaps President Obama will also make a visit to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On August 6 and August 9 respectably, the United States dropped the first ever-nuclear bomb over civilian targets killing some 80,000 instantly in Hiroshima and some 50,000 in Nagasaki. The human death toll within the first 2-4 months where 90,000-166,000 in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki.

Of course there are many who justify the use of nuclear weapons and attribute this to the speedy capitulation and surrender of Japan bringing an end to the war in the Pacific and Far East. There are those, and I am one of them, who could never justify the use of nuclear bombs under any circumstances and who for that matter think the nuclear bombs are a waste of time and money and could never be used or come to aid a country in collapse of disintegration just like the case with the former Soviet Union where tens of thousands of nuclear weapons did not prevent the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union.

I dare to say the same, that Israel with its some 160 nuclear bombs nuclear could never save Israel from coming to tragic end, and that the best security for Israel in the short and long run is peace and reconciliations with the Palestinians and with the much larger Arab and Muslim world. Any one who thinks there is safety in nuclear bombs should think twice. If the US and the Soviet Union dare use the nuclear weapons during the Cold War, that would have been the end of both the US and the Soviet Union.

For Iran, while I do believe that Iran like the rest of the world has the absolute and undeniable rights to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes I think the atomic bomb will not save the Islamic Republic from collapse and failure and will never provide an absolute tight fit security for the country or the regime, that the only way for Iran to survive as an “Islamic Republic” is to forge ahead and move from a country ruled by “ mullahs” to country where citizens are the ultimate protectors of the state, not an Ayatollahs.

May be the meeting at the White House with Netanyahu and Ahmedinejad may change the minds of both men, and may just may bring this world step closer to safety and prosperity.

PS. One only need to see Nagasaki and Hiroshima now, two cities destroyed by war and nuclear bombs and how they became prosperous exciting cities and see Detroit that was the place to manufacture war machines and how it in turn became a city ravaged by war, neglect, inept politics, racism, run away capitalism. One has to wonder how the Japanese were able to rebuild what war destroyed and we destroy what war built.

Posted on by

Iran’s nuclear standoff: who is the loser?

Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)

Kourosh Ziabari, 26 July 2010

It’s more than 8 years that the world’s newspapers are filled with miscellaneous news, reports and commentaries concerning Iran’s nuclear program. Controversy over Iran’s nuclear program has spanned through two administrations in Iran: ex-President Mohammad Khatami’s government and the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration. The term “Iran nuclear program” returns more than 6 million results in Google web search. Thousands of scholars, journalists, politicians and political pundits have made their own statement regarding this debatable subject.

Terminologically, Iran’s nuclear program calls to mind the words holocaust, Israel, Zionism, Axis of Evil, George W. Bush, stretched hands and uranium enrichment. The world is watching the uninteresting continuation of confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program and the opportunist journalists find this tedious charade the best subject to entertain their readers and enrich their portfolio.

Iran says that it needs enriched uranium to meet its energy demands and produce electricity. The United States and its European allies claim that Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons in order to launch a military strike against Israel. Israel, over the past 5 years, has been incessantly threatening Iran with a preemptive attack, warning that it would not allow Iran to achieve nuclear technology.

The United Nations Security Council, under the pressure of United States and its stalwart allies, has imposed 4 rounds of backbreaking financial sanctions against Iran to dissuade it from developing “nuclear weapons”. Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected the claims that they’re moving towards developing nuclear weapons and called the sanctions ineffective, valueless.

These scenarios have been taking place over the past 8 years repeatedly and there was not a single magnanimous politician to put an end to the exhausting war of words between Iran and the West categorically.

There are only two possibilities which can terminate Iran’s nuclear deadlock. The first solution is that Iran has to withdraw from its nuclear accomplishments and submit to the calls of Western politicians by giving up its uranium enrichment program. The other solution would be the West’s abandonment of its uncompromising stance by accepting a new nuclear power in the Middle East.

Both of the solutions, however, seem to be impractical and unattainable as none of the parties involved in Iran’s nuclear standoff have so far shown any sign of flexibility and reasonability. The West staunchly insists that Israel should remain the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and the employment of nuclear energy by the other countries, even for peaceful purposes, violates the policy of a Middle East with an unrivaled nuclear Israel. Iran, on the other hand, insists that it would never accede to halt its uranium enrichment program in lieu of receiving a certain amount of uranium enriched by a third country to be consequently transferred to Iran to be used in the nuclear reactors in Bushehr and Natanz.

Both sides of the game continue to stick to their stubbornness and adamancy. None of them retreat from their stances which have been indicated a number of times that are baseless and unfounded. The game which they’ve started has no winner. It’s a “lose-lose” competition. Amidst their erosive and probably unending clashes, the Iranian people seem to be the only loser. They’re the ones who should tolerate the intolerable consequences of financial sanctions. They’re the ones who will be deprived of the barest rudiments of their daily life as a result of the financial sanctions which are purportedly imposed on the government of Iran.

The Iranian people are the only loser of power game between Iran and the West. They’re competing to surmount each other in a nonstop match which is designed to show the most powerful competitor.

Once the turn comes to boasting of respecting the human rights and freedom, the Western leaders chant that they want the well-being, liberty and safety of the Iranian people. Once it’s time to keep silent and watch, they interfere disturbingly and affect the political destiny of a nation. I’m referring to Iran’s June 2009 presidential elections in which the Western politicians blatantly took the side of the reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi and made an opposition figure out of him, laying the groundwork for his being demonized domestically; however, once it’s time for them to take action and prevent the Iranian nation from being affected by the grave consequences of a meaningless power game, they vote in favor of a fourth round of financial sanctions against Iran unilaterally and prove that their claims are drastically futile and unrealistic.

The only losers of this power game are the ordinary Iranian people. There’s no doubt about that.

  • Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist. He has received the national medal of superior Iranian youth from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Posted on by

Mairead Maguire: Open Letter of Appeal to the Jewish people

Vanunu revealed details of his detention by writing on his hand: "Vanunu M was hijacked in Rome. ITL. 30.9.86, 21:00. Came to Rome by fly BA504."

Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate

Dear Friends,

I write to ask for your help in gaining the freedom of a good man, a man of peace, and a man of conscience.

Vanunu revealed details of his detention by writing on his hand: "Vanunu M was hijacked in Rome. ITL. 30.9.86, 21:00. Came to Rome by fly BA504."

In the Jewish scriptures there is great emphasis on justice and freedom and it is for such, for one man, that I write to seek your help.

He will not be aware that I am writing this Appeal, but I do so in the hope that, with your help,  it will produce his freedom, and not (and this I must risk) cause yet more punishment and cruelty to be  inflicted upon him.

However, I feel when I tell you the story, it will touch your hearts and there will be those amongst you who will be able to help him gain his freedom.

In May,2010, this man was returned to prison to serve three months for allegedly breaking his prison release restrictions and speaking to Foreign Media.   On Sunday llth July,2010, he had  his first visit in seven weeks.   His brother, Meir, was granted a 30 minute visit.  There was  a glass window between them and they spoke via the phone.  He wore a prison uniform.  He is held in the hardest prison section there is in the prison.  It has the most notorious criminals in the country, well known hard murder cases.  All about a dozen are in severe isolation conditions.  He is in a cell by himself for 24 hours a day, no window but a small wire covered crack at the top part of one wall.  He has about an hour’s walk a day in a very tiny yard.  He was simply thrown in a cell by the security agents, the door locked, and left to suffer there all alone.  He has not spoken to anyone in all the seven weeks and this visit was (apart from a short visit of his lawyer 6 weeks ago) the first conversation he had in seven weeks.  His food is limited in quality and quantity, and his reading material two books he has with him.  Of course his spirits are down as a result of being put in such harsh, inhuman and cruel conditions.

His name is Mordechai Vanunu, and he is in an Israeli prison cell.  Mordechai is no stranger to prison.  In l986 Mordechai Vanunu told the world that Israel had a Nuclear Weapons Programme and he was given 18 years imprisonment for doing so.  He is the Israeli Nuclear whistle blower and 24 years later continues to be punished for trying to warn the Israelis and protect both Israel and the world from a Nuclear weapons disaster.

Mordechai Vanunu in the garden of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem. This picture was taken two days after his 21 April 2004 release from prison.

Mordechai Vanunu in the garden of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem. This picture was taken two days after his 21 April 2004 release from prison. (Wiki Commons)

Mordechai Vanunu served the full 18 years of his sentence (eleven years in solitary ) and upon release, instead of allowing him to leave Israel, the Israeli Government put  severe restrictions upon him, including forbidding him to leave Israel and not to speak to foreign media.  It was the allegedly breaking of these restrictions and speaking to Foreign media, which resulted in Mordechai being returned to prison for 3 months.   He has  6 weeks left to serve in these harsh prison conditions, and even upon release from prison will still have to remain in Israel until next April, 2011 when the restrictions will be reviewed and probably renewed yet again, as they have been renewed each year for the past 6 years.   Some people say Vanunu will never be allowed to leave Israel but will die there, if indeed in the meantime his spirit is not broken by his ill treatment and he losses his sanity.
The Shabak continues to tell the Israeli Government he is a security risk and must not be released and the Israeli Judiciary and Government obey them and keep him imprisoned.   Vanunu is no risk to Israeli National Security.  He has no nuclear Secrets.  I have asked some Israelis why they think Israel refuses to allow Mordechai Vanunu to leave Israel.   Various reasons are given but the most frequent answer is they feel the Israeli Government does not trust its citizens and holding Mordechai Vanunu, forever, if necessary sends out the signal to Israeli Citizens to behave themselves.

It seems, if this is so, that the strategy is working.  To date only a few courageous Jewish people have raised their voices against such cruelty and injustice perpetrated upon Mordecai, and called for him to be allowed to leave Israel.  But I don’t believe Mordechai will never be allowed to leave Israeli and will die in Jerusalem.   I have met Mordechai many times since he was released from prison on 2lst April, 2004.   He is a good man, a man of peace, and a true Gandhian  spirit. Instead of punishing him, Israel should be proud of Mordechai Vanunu,  and I believe that future generations of Israelis will look back and realize that there lived amongst them a great visionary and man of peace, not only for Israel, but for the human family.  It was with great joy I nominated him several times for the Nobel Peace Prize, as did many other prominent names during the past 24 years.  He richly serves the NPP as he lives and acts in the true spirit of Alfred Nobel, who left his prize for those who would work for peace and disarmament.

However, it is with the deepest sadness that I acknowledge that in spite of world campaigns by many, including Amnesty International (and personal letters from myself  to President Obama, President Shimon Peres,) Mordechai Vanunu continues 24 years later to be most cruelly imprisoned and punished by Israel.   Most  Political and Spiritual leaders, and International Bodies,  of our time are silent in the face of Israel’s abuse of Vanunu’s basic human right to freedom of speech and liberty, which is in violation of many International Laws.

However, I have hope that he will be free and I place my hope in those Jewish people who read this story and are moved to right a wrong continuing to be done to Mordechai Vanunu,  and they will demand that their Government give him his freedom, and allow him to leave Israel.

Shalom,
Mairead Maguire
Nobel Peace Laureate
www.peacepeople.com
14.7.2010

Posted on by

The American Double Standards Unjustifiable: Eric Garris

anti-aircraft guns guarding Natanz Nuclear Facility, Iran (Hamed Saber, 2006)

Kourosh Ziabari, 16 July 2010

anti-aircraft guns guarding Natanz Nuclear Facility, Iran (Hamed Saber, 2006)

anti-aircraft guns guarding Natanz Nuclear Facility, Iran (Hamed Saber, 2006)

Things are getting more complex concerning Iran’s nuclear program. The Brazil, Turkey-brokered Tehran Declaration according to which Iran agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms of its Low Enriched Uranium to Turkey for further enrichment to be used in Tehran’s research reactor was welcomed by a fourth round of UNSC sanctions and a set of unilateral sanctions imposed by the EU and United States against Iran.

At the same time, Tel Aviv has renewed its war threats against Tehran, cautioning that it might use the Saudi Arabia’s airspace to launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities; however, the war of words and struggle over dominance and superiority between the governments does nothing but costing the daily life of ordinary Iranians who has been already entangled in a 30-year-long embargo by the United States.

“Sanctions rarely accomplish what they are intended to do, or what they are claimed to intend to do. They usually hurt the poor and middle class the most,” says Eric Garris, the prominent American peace activist and the founder of Antiwar website.

“The Iraq sanctions are an excellent example. Sanctions are nothing more than a form of collective punishment and a step toward war,” he adds.

According to Garris, the United States has resorted to the exercise of double standards by putting a lethal pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program while neglecting the atomic arsenal of Israel that has threatened Iran with a nuclear strike several times: “Of course these double standards are not justifiable. But it is not just Israel. The U.S. and several Western nations have threatened Iran with nuclear weapons, yet they deny the right of Iran to possess the same sorts of weapons.”

“It would not be surprising if Iran was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, although there is no evidence that they are trying to obtain them, given the number of countries threatening them with the same. The U.S. should begin disarmament of its own nukes and encourage others to do the same,” stressed Garris.

Eric Garris believes that the obligations of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are being imposed on Iran discriminatorily: “The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has become a farce. Nations like Israel, Pakistan, and India are not pressured to sign or submit to inspections, while Iran is forced to comply with even more inspections than are required by the treaty. The treaty can only work if it is applied equally across the board.”

The co-founder of Antiwar website also believes that the United States has labeled Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism” fallaciously: “Iran is no more a state sponsor of terrorism than the U.S. is.   By labeling a nation this way, the West is able to deny it basic respect and rights and to paint it as some sort of backward nation of thugs. Americans need to learn the recent history of Iran, including the US-backed overthrow of the democratic regime in 1953 and US support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.”

Responding to my question about the prospect of Israel without the unconditional sponsorship of the United States, Garris stated that it would be so effortful for Israel to survive politically should the White House lifts its support for Tel Aviv: “Israel would have a hard time sustaining their warfare, welfare state without the billions of U.S. aid and its unconditional diplomatic support. Americans need to kick the ultimate welfare queen, Israel, off the dole and cut off all foreign aid.”

And the final word of Eric Garris was about the recent Freedom Flotilla massacre: “The international community, by and large, let Israel get away with an act of piracy on the high seas.   They also continue to let Israel get away with turning the Gaza Strip into a giant prison camp, using collective punishment as the only rule of law.”

  • Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews have appeared on Tehran Times, Press TV, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journal. He has interviewed Noam Chomsky, Vicente Fox, Peter D. Feaver, Theodoros Pangalos, Joshua Frank and Gilad Atzmon.