nuclear-news

The unwisdom of a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilitiesar

the most damning case against pre-emptive over-reaction is that, for all the horror that underpins the nuclear military option, not one of the 50,000 or so warheads held by the two superpowers at the insane height of the cold war was ever fired in anger….

let’s not start any more avoidable wars …..as the cold war showed, patience works.
It’s best to play the Iranians at the long game.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions: let’s not do anything rash, Guardian UK ,  by Michael White   3 November 2011  Should the US seek to destroy Tehran’s atomic sites? No. The security case is not made and the risks are disproportionate…..

According to Hopkins’ report , the Ministry of Defence is gearing up its contingency planning just in case the US seeks British diplomatic and military support to target Iranian nuclear sites, heavily protected beneath mountains though they are.

US-UK solidarity is always a good doctrine – more or less compulsory since 1940 – but it got us into a lot of trouble You Know Where.

Why now? This one flares up from time to time, sometimes on the basis of disturbing new facts, sometimes to suit the domestic political agenda of Iran’s enemies – Saudi Arabia, Israel or the US, to name but three….As Ewen MacAskill and Harriet Sherwood report, the Israeli cabinet has been discussing its military options (again) “in private” – ho ho – but it’s a good rule of thumb that sensible people avoid doing whatever it is that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, wants them to do apart from clean their teeth at
night……

If the IAEA …..has decided things are getting serious, they probably
are. But does that justify a pre-emptive strike like Israel’s against
Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant– nicknamed “O’Chirac” in honour of French
technical assistance – in 1981?

As the Guardian’s editorial points out, such a move would almost
certainly lead to a wider war with uncertain results for all
concerned. Uncertain, that is, except for still higher oil prices and
renewed recession…

, Israel already has unacknowledged nuclear weapons, and the
international community turns a blind eye to the fact. In addition to
the five official nuclear weapon states – the US, Russia, Britain,
France and China, in that historic order – India, Pakistan and North
Korea have developed some form of capability since the
non-proliferation treaty was signed in 1970. ….

It is a scary prospect, but Pakistan is arguably a far more volatile
nuclear-armed state, and one in which terrorists are an established
fact. Scarier still. The paranoid Saudis may seek to buy nuclear
capability in retaliation. Scary, too, in a state with an uncertain
future. So much for non-proliferation.

So should the US therefore seek to destroy Iran’s prospective
capability? No. The security case is not made and the risks are
disproportionate. Iran thinks it is protecting itself from invasion,
and it may be right. But any nuclear threat – or worse – against
Israel would guarantee similar threats against Iran with widespread
international support.

But the most damning case against pre-emptive over-reaction is that,
for all the horror that underpins the nuclear military option, not one
of the 50,000 or so warheads held by the two superpowers at the insane
height of the cold war was ever fired in anger….

It may not prevent war for ever. Some nihilistic fool somewhere is
probably plotting a suitcase bomb this very day.

But let’s not start any more avoidable wars until we have to. Greece’s
debts are more urgent and, as the cold war showed, patience works.
It’s best to play the Iranians at the long game.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/nov/03/iran-nuclear-ambitions-anything-rash?newsfeed=true

November 4, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general