I fear there’s a mushroom cloud on the horizon, but we may be shocked by who drops the bomb.
Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran possesses the technology and material
to build a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. It confirmed the fear that’s gripped Israel and others for years.
The European Union, United States, and allies have accused Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons through its uranium enrichment programme, and imposed sanctions for the country’s refusal to end the program. Iran claimed
the fuel was for use in reactors to generate electricity. It’s a ludicrous debate.
A wise teacher once said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” In this dispute, the name callers, finger pointers and potential stone throwers are also “sinners” when it comes to nuclear weapons possession.
Why is it acceptable for the United States, United Kingdom, France and others to possess nuclear weapons, but not for Iran? Why is Israel’s manufacturing of nuclear
warheads tolerable, but the possibility of Iran doing the same, appalling?
It’s deplorable for any nation to own weapons of mass destruction and a violation of international law to use them.
Besides those countries already noted, China, Russia, India, Pakistan and, it’s believed, North Korea, also
have nuclear weapons. The total number of warheads possessed by the nine nuclear armed states — operational weapons, spares, and warheads in storage — exceeds
23,000.
The U.S. owns 9,400 of them. According to the Nobel Committee, U.S. President Barack Obama was awarded the 2009 Peace Prize largely for his “vision” and “work
for a world without nuclear weapons.”
Surely he’s doing something to bring a peaceable solution to this problem.
Well, not exactly.
Israel maintains a policy of “nuclear opacity”—it’s never admitted to possessing nuclear weapons, even though it built its first in the 1960s, according to a former Israeli nuclear technician. It’s believed that Israel now owns at least 100.
In 1969, a deal was struck between U.S. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in which the U.S. agreed to accept Israel’s nuclear weapons status, as long as Israel kept the weapons a secret.
In a 2009 meeting between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama agreed to uphold that understanding, according to three officials familiar
with the agreement and Netanyahu, who let news of the pact
slip in an interview.
Obama cannot work for a nuclear- free world while he helps Israel keep its possession of nuclear weapons a secret.
Shortly before Netanyahu was sworn in as prime minister in March 2009, he told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the
economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.” If Obama failed to do this, he said, Israel may
have to act unilaterally to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Israel has taken matters into its own hands before. In 1981 Prime Minister Menachem Begin had his army fire missiles into Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor because he believed that nuclear fuel would be used in bombs that would be directed against Israel. In 2007, according
to George W. Bush, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked the U.S. to bomb a nuclear site in Syria. When Bush declined to do so, Israel blew it up.
Earlier this month, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon said military action against Iran should only be taken as a last resort and that the U.S. should be the one to lead the charge.
Is this “last resort” stage?
What will become of Iran’s nuclear facility? Will nuclear weapons explode upon the nation before it ever builds one of its own? Who will make the obscene decision to wilfully
violate the right to life of the innocent victims of an atomic attack?
The answers could surprise us.
But we may not have to wait long to find out.
