A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran

The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution
by Jorge Hirsch
On September 24 of this year, the United States finally achieved a goal it had persistently pursued over several years. Iran was declared by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to be in "non compliance" with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The resolution passed by the IAEA is remarkably weak. It does not set a date for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, and it does not even mention the possibility of sanctions. It even notes that Iran has made "good progress" in correcting its "breaches," all of which date back to before October 2003. The LA Times characterized it as a "gentle slap." It is instead an enormous thud.

We pointed out before that the probable reason for the U.S. to insist on the passage of such a weak resolution (on the face of opposition by Russia and China to stronger resolutions) was to reach a stalemate in the Security Council that would provide an excuse for U.S. military action, which would necessarily include the use of nuclear weapons against Iran [1], [2], [3]. There is, however, an even stronger reason for the U.S. to have pushed for this resolution so adamantly, a reason which is valid even if Iran is not referred to the Security Council at the forthcoming November 24 meeting or thereafter, and that supports the predicted scenario.

The IAEA resolution of September 24 2005 allows the United States to carry out a nuclear attack against Iran "legally."

Non-nuclear states have sought for many years that nuclear states issue clear "negative security assurances," meaning a committment from nuclear states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. No matter how logical such a desire appears to you and me, nuclear states have been notoriously reluctant to make such pledges, especially the United States.

The latest such assurances from the five nuclear states date back to 1995, and are the subject of UN Security Council Resolution 984, which was passed with unanimity. The legal status of these assurances is not totally clear, and non-nuclear states have continued to request "legally binding" assurances, implying that the existing assurances are not. In fact, in 2002 John Bolton, then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an interview with "Arms Control Today" explicitly disavowed any U.S. committment to the 1995 resolution.

Nevertheless, a case can be made that these assurances are at the very least "politically binding" and may even be "legally binding." The reason is that they were made for the explicit purpose of having the non-nuclear states extend the NPT in 1995. The fact that the non-nuclear states indeed did extend the NPT based on these assurances confers them legally binding character even if it was not so intended originally, according to G. Bunn (1997).

The text of the 1995 U.S. negative security assurance (S/1995/263) reads:

"The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."

Good news, the U.S. cannot nuke Iran, a party to the NPT? Think again. The paragraph immediately before in the U.S. declaration reads:

"It is important that all parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. In that regard, consistent with generally recognised principles of international law, parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be in compliance with these undertakings in order to be eligible for any benefits of adherence to the Treaty."

Iran was "in compliance" until September 24th, 2005. Thereafter, the "benefit" of not being subject to nuking no longer applies. An analysis of this qualification of the U.S. negative security assurance declaration and its implications for non-nuclear states has been made by Jean du Preez in 2003 and is consistent with our conclusion.

Bolton's statements were made at a time when the US had already been denouncing for several years that Iran was pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the NPT. The detailed analysis of Gordon Prather, however, shows that Iran's 'violations' did not then nor do now amount to "non-compliance." Nevertheless it will be politically very important for the US that the 1995 security assurance is no longer applicable to Iran, and Bolton (now US Ambassador to the UN) will surely emphasize it at the United Nations when the time comes to justify the US action.

Iran's protective shield against US nukes, however feeble it was, is no longer. Any "negotiating proposal" of the EU and the US towards Iran will be carefully tailored so that Iran cannot possibly accept it. Irrespective of what happens at the November 24th IAEA meeting, the US plan to nuke Iran will continue moving forward, focused and unrelenting.

__________________
"I did but teach the age to quit their cloggs By the plain rules of ancient Liberty, When lo! a barbarous noise surrounded me, Of owls and cuckoos, asses, apes and dogs." John Milton
The jews need to throw a holocaust, they owe us one.
http://zionistwatch.files.wordpress....ng-zionism.jpg

Lol. You think we are going to use nukes against Iran. LOLOLOLOL

Published on Saturday, April 8, 2006 by Agence France Presse

US Considers Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Iran

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.


A B-2 Spirit Bomber from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., practices dropping an unarmed B61-11, a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

__________________
"I did but teach the age to quit their cloggs By the plain rules of ancient Liberty, When lo! a barbarous noise surrounded me, Of owls and cuckoos, asses, apes and dogs." John Milton
The jews need to throw a holocaust, they owe us one.
http://zionistwatch.files.wordpress....ng-zionism.jpg

__________________
"I did but teach the age to quit their cloggs By the plain rules of ancient Liberty, When lo! a barbarous noise surrounded me, Of owls and cuckoos, asses, apes and dogs." John Milton
The jews need to throw a holocaust, they owe us one.
http://zionistwatch.files.wordpress....ng-zionism.jpg

US, NATO and Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran

October 1, 2007 · No Comments

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, September 27, 2007

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.

In late August, reported by the Military Times, a US Air Force B-52 bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana with six AGM advanced cruise missiles, each of which was armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead. “… Missiles were mounted on the pylons under its wings. Each of the warheads carried a yield of up to 150 kilotons, more than ten times as powerful as the US bomb that leveled Hiroshima at the close of the Second World War.” (See Bill Van Auken, Global Research September 2007)

The Military Times byline was “B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard”. The issue was casually acknowledged by The Washington Post and the New York Times. The reports quoted a US Air force spokesman. The matter was offhandedly brushed aside. The incident represented “an isolated mistake” and that “at no time was there a threat to public safety.” (Ibid) :

“As far as is known, the incident marked the first time that a US plane has taken off armed with nuclear weapons in nearly 40 years. …

… The transport of weapons from one base to another, however, is normally carried out in the holds of C-17 and C-130 cargo planes, not fixed to the wings of combat bombers.

Someone had to give the order to mount the missiles on the plane. The question is whether it was a local Air Force commander—either by mistake or deliberately—or whether the order came from higher up.

B-52s from Barksdale have been used repeatedly to strike targets in Iraq, firing cruise missiles at Iraqi targets in 1996 and 1998, and in the “shock and awe” campaign that preceded the 2003 invasion, carrying out some 150 bombing runs that devastated much of the southern half of the country.

Moreover, the weapon that was fixed to the wings of the B-52 flying from Minot air base was designed for use against hardened targets, such as underground bunkers.

Given the ratcheting up of the threats against Iran and the previous reports of plans for the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear installations, there is a very real possibility that the flight to Barksdale was part of covert preparations for a nuclear strike against Iran.

If this is indeed the case, the claims about a “mistake” by a munitions officer and a few airmen in North Dakota may well be merely a cover story aimed at concealing the fact that the government in Washington is preparing a criminal act of world historic proportions by ordering—without provocation—the first use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than sixty years ago. (Bill van Auken, op. cit).

In recent developments, Wayne Madsen (September 27) has suggested, based on US and foreign intelligence sources, that the B-52 carrying the advanced cruise missiles with bunker buster nuclear warheads was in fact destined for the Middle East.

Is the B-52 Barksdale incident in any way related to US plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran?

Madsen suggests, in this regard, that the operation of shipping the nuclear warheads was aborted “due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community”, which was opposed to a planned US attack on Iran using nuclear warheads.

Without downplaying the significance of the Barksdale incident, if Washington were to decide to use nuclear weapons against Iran, they could be launched at short notice from a number of military bases in Western Europe and the Middle East, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, from a submarine or from a US Aircraft carrier. Turkey has some 90 B61 nuclear weapons which are fully deployed. (See details below). It should be noted that, with regard to the Barksdale incident, the 150 kt. W-80-1 nuclear warheads mounted on the B-52s are not the type of nuclear weapon contemplated by the US military for use in the Middle East conventional war theater.

To grasp the seriousness of the “Barksdale incident”, it is important to understand the broader context of nuclear weapons deployment respectively by the US, NATO and Israel.

We are not dealing with a single aborted operation of deployment of nuclear weapons to the Middle East.

There are indications that a large number of US made nuclear weapons are currently deployed in Western Europe and the Middle East including Israel.

Coordinated Military Operation

We are dealing with a coordinated military operation in which US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) plays a central role. The main coalition partners are the US, NATO and Israel.

There are four interrelated “building blocks” pertaining to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater

__________________
"I did but teach the age to quit their cloggs By the plain rules of ancient Liberty, When lo! a barbarous noise surrounded me, Of owls and cuckoos, asses, apes and dogs." John Milton
The jews need to throw a holocaust, they owe us one.
http://zionistwatch.files.wordpress....ng-zionism.jpg

and what's wrong with Nuking Iran?

__________________
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." - Ronald Reagan

There is much wrong with opening Pandora's box, least of which is that we have no valid reason to attack Iran. Israelis are the terrorists against Arabs and Americans, and that's why we are hated around the world. There exists no more terroristic countries than the U.S. government and israel.

Preemptive war is wrong, unless there exists a clear and present danger, which does not exist here or we would hear it in the zionist/neo-con news every day.

__________________
"I did but teach the age to quit their cloggs By the plain rules of ancient Liberty, When lo! a barbarous noise surrounded me, Of owls and cuckoos, asses, apes and dogs." John Milton
The jews need to throw a holocaust, they owe us one.
http://zionistwatch.files.wordpress....ng-zionism.jpg

__________________
http://www.resist.com/other/border_patrol.swf

We won't nuke Iran, don't need to. Dumb bombs would do the trick. This Nuking talk is all unfounded..........

__________________
http://www.resist.com/other/border_patrol.swf

"Usable Nukes" is a Bushco thing, and plernty real.

If all you dumbshit Republicants think we have problems with terrorism now, wait until neocons nuke a city in the ME!


Kiss the good life goodbye, fools.


The Constant American: Scott Ritter & Seymour Hersh Discuss Bush's Plans for War with Iran After the Mid-Term Elections