IPPNW Calls for an Immediate Ceasefire and Return to Diplomacy with Iran

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has just issued a most important statement calling for an immediate ceasefire and return to diplomacy with Iran. We must understand that if this conflict escalates beyond a certain (and unknown) threshold, it is almost certain to draw the U.S. and Russia (the two major nuclear powers) into the conflict, significantly raising the stakes and vastly increasing the risk of a global nuclear war. This is a risk that Humanity cannot afford to take. Everyone must speak out, demanding an end to Israel's current conduct and the charting of a diplomatic course to a peaceful resolution of this conflict.

Statement issued JUNE 13, 2025

The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) condemns Israel’s military strikes on Iran and calls for an immediate ceasefire to prevent further escalation and the loss of civilian life.

Iran is not currently assessed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the US government to have an active nuclear weapons program. This attack by a nuclear-armed state undermines ongoing US-led diplomatic efforts to restore non-proliferation efforts in the region.

IPPNW urges Iran to fully comply with its obligations under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA safeguards, and to re-engage in negotiations with the United States at the earliest possible date. Israel, the region’s only nuclear-armed state, must support these efforts and take concrete steps toward disarmament, notably by participating in the establishment of a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone. We urge Iran, Israel, and all UN Member States to join the nearly 100 states that have already signed on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

The declared nuclear weapons states – the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK – bear substantial responsibility for the progressive weakening of the global non-proliferation regime.  Not only have they failed to honor their disarmament obligations under the NPT, but they are also going further by making massive investments in new nuclear weapons and capabilities. The US decision under the first Trump administration to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) is another major contributing failure that has led to this latest regional and global crisis.  

The humanitarian and environmental consequences of any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic. A single nuclear detonation over any major city would cause mass casualties and overwhelm health systems; a nuclear war of any size would trigger global climate disruption and a famine that could affect billions. Humanity is already closer to nuclear war than at any point since the Cold War. We cannot survive the addition of another nuclear-armed state.

There is no military solution to the growing risk of nuclear proliferation. Indeed, war and armed violence further incentivizes states to seek nuclear weapons. The only reliable path to security is through diplomacy and the irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons.

CLICK HERE to read the full statement at the IPPNW website.

END NOTE: IPPNW was founded in 1980 with the "goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation", and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for its efforts.

TAKE ACTION: You can take action by calling on your members of Congress to embrace the War Powers Act and stop any U.S. support for Israel's strikes on Iran.

Say NO THANKS to Nuclear (Non) Diplomacy!!!

A few days ago Duncan Hunter, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, suggested that the U.S. should plan to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict with Iran.

He said: "If you hit Iran, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and set them back a decade or two or three.”

Of course, Hunter failed to mention the consequences of the use of any nuclear weapons against Iran - among them the uncontrollable consequences of such weapons once released, the radioactive fallout and it's effects on the region, and the regional destabilization that it would most likely cause.

So much for diplomacy!!!

Hunter's statement demonstrates his total lack of understanding (on any level) of both the risks related to the use of any type of nuclear weapons and the realities of the situation with Iran.  It is completely irresponsible on the part of any elected (or other) official to remotely suggest the use of nuclear weapons.

In an article titled Nukes Are Nuts David Krieger quoted former US secretary of state and four-star general Colin Powell who said "no sane leader would ever want to cross that line to using nuclear weapons. And, if you are not going to cross that line, then these things are basically useless." Yes - Nukes are certainly nuts (and most definitely "useless", and the people who consider them a viable weapon most certainly are nuttier than a nuke.

There must be only one line of conversation about the situation with Iran - DIPLOMACY!!!

As citizens we need to send a clear message to Congress that there is only one acceptable path toward a resolution of tensions with Iran and that is a diplomatic one.

Click here to send a message to your Senator supporting President Obama's diplomatic efforts to avoid military confrontation with Iran.

Ho, Ho, Ho... Who's Next???

Friends,

With all the hand-wringing about Iran developing nuclear weapons (and North Korea developing missiles with which to deliver them) and thus vying for membership in the ever so exclusive nuclear club, one has to wonder who will be next. 

There have been rumblings from various countries singing the praises of nuclear weapons.  There have even been statements from some in Japan claiming the need to develop nuclear weapons.  What madness is this?

Perhaps a more appropriate question is - Just who (or what countries) are leading the rest of the world, like lemmings, toward the omnicidal cliff???

The U.S. and Russia still have vast nuclear arsenals.  Sure, they are much smaller than they were at the height of the Cold War.  And yet, what both nations have kept are the premier weapons. In the case of the U.S. those weapons would be the warheads mounted on Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles and those on the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Besides the sophistication of the weapons themselves, it appears that most, if not all, the major nuclear powers are modernizing not only their weapons and delivery systems, but also the infrastructure that develops, builds and maintains them.

Just in the U.S. we have built (or are building) brand new facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Y-12), Kansas City.  Others are in planning.  Besides "life extension" programs for warheads, submarines and more, the Navy is planning to build twelve new ballistic missile submarines.

It should then come as no surprise that other nations ponder going nuclear.  After all; who (or what country) is going to mess with a nuclear-armed nation?  Of course those of us involved in the effort to build a nuclear weapons-free world know that it's not that simple.  The more weapons there are and the longer they exist, the greater the chance of one big nuclear mess (also known as a nuclear holocaust).

And just as an aside - Why are we screaming about North Korea shooting off missiles when the U.S. regularly tests (unarmed) Trident and Minuteman III missiles every year??? Can you say "HYPOCRISY???"

Talk about a horrible role model!!!  But I digress.

Perhaps Tom Lehrer's timeless song "Who's Next" can provide some perspective as people start contemplating digging bomb shelters.  It may not be a song of the holidays, but what the heck; give it a chance.  It's truly a classic of the nuclear age.

Should the major nuclear powers continue on their current path with respect to nuclear weapons I might have to start a contest to guess Who's Next.  The grand prize could be a custom bomb shelter.  It would certainly come in handy if we continue arming ourselves to death. 

Peace (Please!!!),

Leonard

The Dream of a Nuclear Weapon's Free Middle East

Friends,

With last week's overwhelming United Nations General Assembly vote to grant non-member observer state status for Palestine - the US and Israel were two of nine members voting no - still warm, the US and Israel were once again joined at the hip for a number of votes this week.

Once again, the US and Israel were in the minority on Monday for votes on draft resolutions including one on depleted uranium munitions and another decreasing operational readiness of nuclear weapon systems. 

Then came the resolution (that passed) on non-proliferation in the Middle East.  You guessed it - The elephant in the closet not only voted against the resolution, but Israel's representative pointed fingers at Iran and Syria "due to the clandestine activities [of Iran and Syria] in contravention of their NPT obligations."  Of course, Israel isn't even a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no one has been more "clandestine" in its nuclear weapons activities than Israel (OK, so maybe North Korea).

The vote on Non-Proliferation in the Middle East: 180 - Yes, 2 - No, 2 - Abstain.  I shouldn't have to tell you who the two "No" votes were.



This YouTube video has not only Israel's statement on the non-proliferation resolution, but also Iran's and Syria's responses.

That the community of nations is speaking out clearly for non-proliferation and disarmament is important.  It is time to bring all pressure to bear on all nuclear weapons states - and not just signatories to the NPT - to begin good-faith negotiations on a binding nuclear weapons convention.

Of course no progress toward a nuclear weapons-free Middle East can be made without Israel's participation.  To even begin the conversation necessitates some serious closet cleaning.  The US needs to clean out not only its own closet, but Israel's as well. It is the responsibility of the US to open the conversation and debate on Israel's nuclear weapons, and it needs to begin now!

The US needs to stop rubber stamping UN votes regarding Israel.  Otherwise, the dream of a nuclear weapons-free Middle East will remain just that - a dream.

Towards a nuclear weapons-free world,

Leonard

Bibi's Gone Bomby!!!

Israel continues to ratchet up nuclear tensions in the Middle East.

Yesterday the Associated Press announced that "attempts to find Arab-Israeli common ground on banning weapons of mass destruction from the Mideast have failed, and high-profile talks on the issue have been called off."

Today we learned that because "much of Iran’s Fordow enrichment site near the city of Qom is now deep underground in a 'zone of immunity' safe from conventional air strikes," Israel could be considering "the use of ballistic missiles carrying small tactical nuclear warheads."

It is deeply disturbing that Israel might remotely consider such a plan.  It is a well known fact that the U.S. supplied Israel with conventional bunker buster bombs (GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators) in 2011.  What is yet unknown is whether Israel possesses nuclear bunker busters (such as the B61-11 nuclear bunker buster in the U.S. arsenal).  It is safe to say that Israel is technologically capable of producing such a weapon.

Using such a weapon on deeply buried targets in Iran would be disastrous.  Even a low yield weapon with the ability to penetrate deep underground would still blow out a massive crater of highly radioactive material, spreading lethal radiation over a large radius from the target.  The depths reached by the most effective earth penetrating weapon simply cannot contain the resulting nuclear explosion. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "Even a 0.1 KT burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained."

Furthermore, because the material kicked up into the atmosphere by a nuclear bunker buster would be more directly exposed to the intense radiation emanating from the underground explosion, the resulting fallout would be much more highly radioactive than the fallout from an above ground detonation. The radioactive contamination could very well reach major population centers, and even spread to other countries.

Should Israel use even a single nuclear weapons against Iran, it would become a pariah state.  The use of nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity.  Besides the immorality of it, the International Court of Justice in 1996 determined that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law."

It is obscenely ironic that Israel might consider using nuclear weapons of any sort against a sovereign nation that does not even have nuclear weapons.  There is absolutely no sane argument for their use against Iran by any stretch of the imagination.  Israel is the only state in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, and does not abide by any treaty, in particular the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin (aka "Bibi") Netanyahu, should be called to account and should immediately and publicly declare a no first strike policy regarding nuclear weapons. 

The Middle East needs to become a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, and NOT a Radioactive Wasteland.  And since Israel is the only nuclear-armed nation in the Middle East, it would seem that the responsibility lies with Israel to lead the way.

Deterrence??? A fresh look at an archaic concept

Editor's Note:  Thanks to Lawrence Wittner for this refreshing challenge to the age old doctrine of deterrence.  This article originally published in History News, June 4, 2012, source URL: http://hnn.us/articles/do-nuclear-weapons-really-deter-aggression

*************

Do Nuclear Weapons Really Deter Aggression?  

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual” (University of Tennessee Press).

It’s often said that nuclear weapons have protected nations from military attack.

But is there any solid evidence to bolster this contention? Without such evidence, the argument that nuclear weapons prevented something that never occurred is simply a counter-factual abstraction that cannot be proved.

Ronald Reagan -- the hardest of military hard-liners -- was not at all impressed by airy claims that U.S. nuclear weapons prevented Soviet aggression. Kenneth Adelman, a hawkish official in the Reagan administration, recalled that when he “hammered home the risks of a nuclear-free world” to the president, Reagan retorted that “we couldn’t know that nuclear weapons had kept the peace in Europe for forty years, maybe other things had.” Adelman described another interchange with Reagan that went the same way. When Adelman argued that “eliminating all nuclear weapons was impossible,” as they had kept the peace in Europe, Reagan responded sharply that “it wasn’t clear that nuclear weapons had kept the peace. Maybe other things, like the Marshall Plan and NATO, had kept the peace.” (Kenneth Adelman, The Great Universal Embrace, pp. 69, 318.)

In short, without any solid evidence, we don’t know that nuclear weapons have prevented or will prevent military aggression.

We do know, of course, that since 1945, many nations not in possession of nuclear weapons and not part of the alliance systems of the nuclear powers have not experienced a military attack. Clearly, they survived just fine without nuclear deterrence.

And we also know that nuclear weapons in U.S. hands did not prevent non-nuclear North Korea from invading South Korea or non-nuclear China from sending its armies to attack U.S. military forces in the ensuing Korean War. Nor did massive U.S. nuclear might prevent the Soviet invasion of Hungary, the Warsaw Pact’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Also, the thousands of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal did nothing to deter the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on U.S. territory.

Similarly, nuclear weapons in Soviet (and later Russian) hands did not prevent U.S. military intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Nor did Soviet nuclear weapons prevent CIA-fomented military action to overthrow the governments of Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, and other nations.

Other nuclear powers have also discovered the irrelevance of their nuclear arsenals. British nuclear weapons did not stop non-nuclear Argentina’s invasion of Britain’s Falkland Islands. Moreover, Israel’s nuclear weapons did not prevent non-nuclear Egypt and non-nuclear Syria from attacking Israel’s armed forces in 1973 or non-nuclear Iraq from launching missile attacks on Israeli cities in 1991. Perhaps most chillingly, in 1999, when both India and Pakistan possessed nuclear weapons, the two nations -- long at odds -- sent their troops into battle against one another in what became known as the Kargil War.

Of course, the argument is often made that nuclear weapons have deterred a nuclear attack. But, again, as this attack never took place, how can we be sure about the cause of this non-occurrence?
Certainly, U.S. officials don’t appear to find their policy of nuclear deterrence very reassuring. Indeed, if they were as certain that nuclear weapons prevent nuclear attack as they claim to be, why are they so intent upon building “missile defense” systems to block such an attack -- despite the fact that, after squandering more than $150 billion on such defense systems, there is no indication that they work? Or, to put it more generally, if the thousands of U.S. nuclear weapons safeguard the United States from a nuclear attack by another nation, why is a defense against such an attack needed?

Another indication that nuclear weapons do not provide security against a nuclear attack is the determination of the U.S. and Israeli governments to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. After all, if nuclear deterrence works, there is no need to worry about Iran (or any other nation) acquiring nuclear weapons.

The fact is that, today, there is no safety from war to be found in nuclear weaponry, any more than there was safety in the past produced by fighter planes, battleships, bombers, poison gas, and other devastating weapons. Instead, by raising the ante in the ages-old game of armed conflict, nuclear weapons have merely increased the possibility that, however a war begins, it will end in mass destruction of terrifying dimensions.

Sensible people and wise government leaders have understood for some time now that a more promising route to national and international security is to work at curbing the practice of war while, at the same time, banning its most dangerous and destructive implements. This alternative route requires patient diplomacy, international treaties, citizen activism, the United Nations, and arms control and disarmament measures. It’s a less dramatic and less demagogic approach than brandishing nuclear weapons on the world scene. But, ultimately, it’s a lot safer.

STOP Pushing Iran Toward the Brink!

Friends,

If people took the headlines in the corporate press seriously - and far too many do - we would all be building bomb shelters and hoarding supplies in advance of the coming Armageddon.  Two major factors are involved in pushing (what appears to be) the U.S. government's (and Israel's) agenda of a violent conflict - can you say "WAR" - with Iran.

First - The U.S. has never conducted serious, open discussions and negotiations with Iran.  The political baggage from a long history of U.S. meddling (installing and supporting the Shah) followed by the 1979 overthrow of the Shah and the hostage crisis of the same year are too deeply embedded in our exceptionalist conscience to allow us to act objectively.  Instead, the U.S. continues to pursue an endless succession of sanctions, which only serve to strengthen Iran's resolve.

Second - The media's misreading of the IAEA's report on Iran's nuclear weapons activities along with its parroting of inflammatory statements coming from The White House only serve to fan the flames of what could become nuclear flames should Israel go nuclear at some point should war break out (if Israel were to attack alleged nuclear sites in Iran). 

I strongly suggest reading the following article by Greg Thielmann and Benjamin Loehrke in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that provides an objective perspective on the IAEA's report on Iran's nuclear program.  You can also read it below.  Chain reaction: How the media has misread the IAEA's report on Iran, published November 23, 2011 in The Bulletin's online edition.

When you are done reading the article, please forward it to the editor of your local newspaper, and then go to the Just Foreign Policy action page and tell President Obama to conduct real negotiations with Iran.  Let's try nonviolent conflict resolution for a change (and for our future).

Peace,

Leonard

*****************

Chain reaction: How the media has misread the IAEA's report on Iran

By Greg Thielmann and Benjamin Loehrke | 23 November 2011

When, earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report on Iran's nuclear program, several media agencies and politicians walked away with two messages: that the Vienna-based agency now refutes past estimates of the US intelligence community, and that Iran is now making a break for the bomb. Both representations are false. Yet these assertions have been repeated often enough to give them traction with the public and Congress.

Most analysts familiar with the report agree that there "is nothing in the report that was not previously known by the governments of the major powers" -- a nuclear Iran is "neither imminent nor inevitable." While it is clear that Iran's continuing research on nuclear weapons is a serious concern for international security, there "has been no smoking gun when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons intentions."

So why the conflicting analyses over a highly bureaucratic and technocratic paper?

Washington talks a lot, but does not read very much. That is the simplest way to explain why commentators overlook the consistency between the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran and the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program.

The 2007 NIE on Iran made the headline-grabbing, high-confidence assessment that, in fall 2003, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program (as distinct from its uranium enrichment and ballistic missile programs). Additionally, the NIE said:

We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. ...

We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, [the Energy Department and the National Intelligence Council] assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

That is remarkably consistent with the IAEA's latest report, which noted:

[Iran's nuclear weapons effort] … was stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a "halt order" instruction issued in late 2003 by senior Iranian officials. According to that information, however, staff remained in place to record and document the achievements of their respective projects. … The agency is concerned because some of the activities undertaken after 2003 would be highly relevant to a nuclear weapon programme.

The NIE left open the possibility that Iran could continue its weapons-relevant activities. With four years of additional perspective, the latest IAEA report gives greater detail on the weapons work that Iran did prior to 2003, then updates the available information on what lesser work occurred after 2003. The new activities included:

•Engaging in experimental research, after 2003, on hemispherical initiation of high explosives.
•Further validation, after 2006, of a neutron initiator design.
•Conducting modeling studies, in 2008 and 2009, that could determine the yield of a nuclear explosion.

Carrying on scattered research activities does not amount to a full-fledged restart of an integrated weapons program. That type of activity still appears to have halted in 2003. The activities since seem more like Iran is refining its previous understanding of nuclear weapons design -- not breaking for a bomb.

Hence, in explaining the latest classified NIE on Iran released in March of this year, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.

Clapper's testimony was in keeping with the recent IAEA report, which added considerable detail to the sanitized summary of the 2007 NIE.

The IAEA's comprehensive report is a strong indication that US intelligence in 2007 on Iran's nuclear program was based on solid evidence that has not been upended by the latest information. Iran's situation is not static; continuing reevaluation and updated analyses are necessary for any dynamic and professional intelligence process.

Moreover, sharing the information with the public on the conclusions reached is vital to informing ongoing debate. The IAEA deserves credit both for the quality of its analysis and for sharing its expert opinions with the wider public on these critical issues -- particularly since no summary of the latest NIE update has been released.

Pundits and politicians who use the latest IAEA report to attack the 2007 NIE are distorting the information, at best -- and, at worst, are playing politics with national security.

Copyright © 2011 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. All Rights Reserved.
source URL (retrieved on 12/01/2011 - 09:49): http://www.thebulletin.org/node/8947

What is the difference between Israel and Iran???

Friends,

I would hazard a guess that if one polled the people of the United States about what to do about the dreaded Iranian nuke threat, thanks in large part to the corporate media hype, a large percentage of people would recommend sanctions and direct military action and God knows what else. I have not heard one peep in the corporate press questioning the legitimacy of any of the claims made by the U.S. government, even the highly questionable hoopla over the planned enrichment facility near Qom, which the Iranian government announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a few days ago, or Monday's missile tests.

Tomorrow in Geneva, Switzerland, the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), hold talks with Iranian officials, led by Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. The P5+1 members will be wagging their fingers and, as they have for many years, chastise Iran for enriching uranium, something the nuclear nations have been doing since the dawn of the nuclear age.

Yes Virginia, uranium, if enriched well (and I mean really well) beyond the level required to produce electricity, can be used to make bombs. The jury is out on this one so far in terms of Iran. What is relevant, however, is why we are so focused on Iran as a potential proliferator of nuclear weapons when we have turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear program for decades.

As with everything else with Israel, the U.S. continues to avoid the topic of its decades old nuclear program that has produced anywhere from 100 to 200 nuclear weapons that it continues to pretend it does not have. In the big picture of disarmament and nonproliferation we cannot isolate and focus on one politically expedient country (Iran) while ignoring (or should I say catering to) others that have flaunted the idea of nonproliferation (like Israel, India and Pakistan) and hope to acheive success.

Above all, until the longstanding members of the nuclear club demonstrate sincere efforts to cut back their arsenals as they work towards disarmament, they have no moral standing to call on other nations to abstain. The myth of deterrence is so strong that it continues to seduce otherwise sane people to lust after nuclear weapons. Even the vice president of Brazil said (in a recent interview) that "nuclear weapons would be a boon to the security of Brazil," and spoke of how they could be "used as an instrument of deterrence."

History makes dealing with Iran problematic, particularly in terms of U.S. engagement. The United States' significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh, and the subsequent rule by Shah Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi didn't help, and U.S. military aid to Saddam Hussein during Iraq's war with Iran was icing on the cake of bad foreign relations. It is easy to see how a sovereign nation such as Iran may be reluctant to want to listen to the U.S. on any level.

One final matter of critical importance is Israel's itchy trigger finger. They are ready to attack anything remotely resembling an Iranian nuclear facility, and such an action would not only be imprudent, but destabilizing to the Middle East. This is not the time for the United States to maintain its usual "hands off" stance with Israel. Allowing any military action by Israel would be tantamount to Israel acting as a U.S. proxy; not a good idea!!!

Commentator Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, in the last paragraph of her September 28 commentary in The Independent, "Don't Israel's Weapons Count?", quoted Israeli human rights activist Gideon Spiro: "Rein in Israel, compel it to accept a regime of nuclear disarmament and oblige it to open all nuclear, biological and chemical facilities and missile sites to international inspection." Alibhai-Brown then summed things up: "The US has leverage because it maintains and funds Israel. If Obama shies away from this, there can be no moral justification to go for Iran or North Korea or any other rogue state. And the leader whose election and dreams gave hope to millions thereby hastens the end of the world."

Let's hope that President Obama takes the moral high ground.

Peace,

Leonard

Missile Defense is So Offensive

Friends,

Well, well, well... The fallout (just had to use that one) over missile defense has gone global. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates got in his two cents in a New York Times editorial in response to criticism of the new U.S. plans: A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe. Gates' opening line speaks volumes, and not just about missile defense in Europe, but missile defense in general. "The future of missile defense in Europe is secure." Although missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic are history, in reality missile defense in Europe has only been deferred until a later date (as explicitly stated by Gates). So what's new? Nothing really.

One way to look at U.S. missile defense is from the perspective of Pentagon contractors. Boeing loses out (for now) as ground-based interceptors in Europe shift to ship-based interceptors (a huge boon for Raytheon). Boeing also lost out (for now) as the airborne laser (think of a 747 jet modified with a huge chemical laser to shoot down missiles) program that the Obama adminstration recently cancelled. Of course, you can imagine that Boeing is working on other uses for the airborne laser; they won't be letting this baby go any time soon.

In the big picture, these losses and gains are just another day in the life of "defense" contractors, part of an endless game, one that has no end but in which the score keeps changing in favor of one team and then another. There seems to be a "gentlemens" agreement in which all the teams know that they will ultimately get their share, so they don't play hardball to often. They all know how much (profit) is at stake, and how much they all need each other in this intricate web of defense projects.

Of course, there will always be members of the U.S. Congress protecting (missile) defense jobs in their home states just as with the F-22 Raptor or C-17 Globemaster. In the case of the C-17, with "more than 650 suppliers and 30,000 jobs in 43 states", Congressional support is pretty much guaranteed. Then again, the Secretary of Defense can simply throw out a few key phrases about what kind of missiles Iran may be capable of producing, along with his concerns over "outdated" intelligence assessments, and the future of missile defense is good as gold (a little fear works wonders).

Projects like the Airborne Laser are like sacred cows (excuse the analogy); once the government starts pumping money into the research and development phase of a program this massive it is pretty hard to put on the brakes, particularly once it's "airborne". Long before President Obama announced the cancellation of this project, Boeing had been "developing additional missions" [read "guaranteeing the survivability of this program through mission diversification"]. Essentially, Boeing will look for anything and everything to shoot at to ensure that this baby flies.

And that is the way of defense contracting in today's competitive market. They are just applying some old fashioned thinking - If at first you don't succeed, try, try again (and in every imaginable way). And try, they will. So, don't cry for Boeing for the loss of a few missiles in Europe. It will all come out in the wash, and their stockholders will be very, very happy down the road.

However, one has to wonder if the U.S. put a fraction of the money spent on missile defense into positive engagement with Iran - diplomacy, people to people exchanges and trade - might we get a better return on our investment, including a peace dividend? And might we be just a bit safer than in a world bristling with missiles, since missiles (defensive or not) seem to beget more missiles?

Peace,

Leonard

Iran And THE Bomb

That's right - one lousy bomb! That's how much enriched uranium the experts believe Iran has; enough to build one bomb. Ooh! I'm about to faint. But really folks - ONE nuclear weapon. Besides the relatively small nuclear arsenals of Pakistan, India, China, Israel, France and the United Kingdom, you have to admit that it's pretty impressive to consider that just the United States and Russia combined have an estimated 19,400 nuclear weapons . And when you add in those other nations' nuclear weapons, the total is around 20,000.

All right, even one bomb IS significant. But what is staggeringly evident as the world (led by the Bush Administration) has focused so much attention on Iran's drive to get the bomb is that it has shifted the focus from the most critical issue to resolve in order to convince countries like Iran to give up the bomb, namely real global disarmament efforts. For all the talk about non-proliferation, the only way we will ever see any real progress is by the major powers undertaking a serious effort to reduce their arsenals with the goal of total disarmament at some (reasonable) future date (with a specified timeline with verifiable goals).

Let's face it; there are some very basic aspects of human behavior involved here. When you have the bully on the block running around brandishing its brass knuckles and pushing everyone around, you can bet that not everyone is going to start paying protection money. Someone (or two or three) is going to go out and buy a pair of those cool brass knuckles and show them off. When it comes to nuclear weapons, however, the stakes are way too high. And it's time for the bullies on the block to disarm and play nice.

Now, that is not to say that the U.S. and Russia should just get rid of all their weapons at once and hope that everyone will follow. Of course it isn't as simple as that. But it has to start with a concerted effort at reducing the numbers of weapons along with serious diplomatic efforts to convince other nations to do the same. Strengthening the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (and establishing target dates) will be a key element; the next NPT Review Conference is scheduled for 2010.

One might counter that the United States has significantly reduced its stockpile of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, and they would be (partially) correct. The U.S. has "dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988." But if you read the fine print , nearly all of those weapons are either outdated, or (as is the case with some warheads) have been replaced by newer models. Let's get real here (just a couple of examples) - "naval nuclear depth bombs"? "Nuclear artillery shells"? And, I'm sure we didn't need those "suitcase bombs" anymore.

Who needs all this old stuff anyway when you have silos spread across the American heartland bristling with roughly 500 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, in addition to those 18 stealthy Trident nuclear submarines, each one loaded with 24 of the new and improved Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. These are the big boys! Just one Trident sub carries enough missiles to destroy an entire (large) continent.

As for Iran; lets not get too excited just yet. However, let's also remember that they aren't the only new kid on the block trying (or thinking about trying) to join the prestigious nuclear club. If we deal with them the old fashioned way using military force (and President-elect Obama has not yet ruled out this option), we will just be sending a message to nations like North Korea that they had better ramp up their programs or they will be next. Military action must NOT be on the table.

For an interesting perspective, watch The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons From History produced by Just Foreign Policy below.


You can read the recently issued Joint Experts Statement on Iran from Just Foreign Policy. If you agree with their five step strategy for a new relationship with Iran, consider sending an email to your members of Congress asking them to support direct diplomacy with Iran (without preconditions).

Fortunately for Iran, our nation and the world, we will soon have a new administration in Washington, D.C. But don't let that lull you into a false sense of security; the hawks are already descending on The White House (stay tuned for more on that). Our voices will be needed to help convince Congress and the Obama administration that the only way to avoid having Iran build nuclear weapons is through direct diplomacy (as well as meaningful progress in disarmament by all the nuclear nations, led by the U.S. and Russia).

Peace,

Leonard

Note: The top photo is of a "cascade" of centrifuges that are used to enrich uranium to separate out the isotope of Uranium needed to build a nuclear weapon.