Nuclear-Israel versus a Nuclear-Free Iran

0
36

Facts are the best antidote against poisonous media propaganda. Nuclear-free Iran is militarily weaker than nuclear-Israel, backed by the mighty US; based on the disparity of military capabilities, any impartial observer would identify the likely aggressor. In this case, this is corroborated with a substantive track record of invading and attacking other nations. Unlike Israel, Iran has not invaded anyone in the last 300 years or more; it lives peacefully with all its neighbours.

From the 1950s, Iran was virtually colonised through the CIA installed puppet, Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was eventually ousted by the popular revolution in 1979, led by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. In response the US, in collusion with the other western powers, initiated a proxy war through Saddam Hussein of Iraq that lasted for almost a decade. The country is now surrounded by hostile US military bases, and there is constant talk of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, largely incited by the neo-conservatives, the far right and the Zionist commentators.

There has already been much provocation of Iran: mysterious explosions, computer viruses, economic sanctions, and assassination of the leading physicists that are a hallmark of Mossad and the CIA. Tensions heightened recently as the British government froze Iranian assets, and expelled the diplomats, in response to the embassy raid, so the war drums beat louder.

Historically, Iran has been the victim; now facing so much hostility, it has ample reasons to arm itself. And despite all the provocation, it has confined itself largely to verbal ‘responses’ that are construed as a cause for military action by the Zionist dominated media. Ironically, it would be ‘progressive’ for the Israelis to attack Iran, because unlike the defenceless Palestinian civilians, Iran is a fully functional state that is equipped to fight. Like you wonder how a boxer would perform against a better opponent, after knocking out an inferior one.

In terms of military capability, Israel certainly has the advantage thanks to the constant flow of US aid and blind support, but Israel would struggle in terms of spirit and determination that is also required in any war; the zeal of the criminal is always less than its victims. If the subdued Palestinians were given half a chance they too could demonstrate this point.

Whilst the nuclear-armed, overtly racist regime of Israel is engaged in the gradual pogroms of the Palestinians, security for Israel is used as justification for an attack on Iran. If anyone is need of security, it is the Iranians confined to their borders, like the Iraqis were prior to the US-led illegal war. If Iran possessed nuclear arms, the enemies would think twice about attack; nuclear North Korea is an example of this. Had Japan possessed the bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have taken place either.

Why not construct a nuclear-free Middle East as proposed by the vast majority of the region and the world? Then you get the usual excuse, Israel needs it for its security, facing hostile neighbours. Those neighbours are not equipped to fight any war; they are largely civilians governed by monarchs and despots. Is it possible the neighbours are hostile in the first place, because of Israel’s cruel behaviour towards the Palestinians? Everybody wants and needs security, especially the countries which have been invaded, bombed and surrounded by hostile troops. That certainly doesn’t include Israel or the West.

The issue of ‘security’ for Israel translates to maintaining the ability to invade its neighbours with impunity, and continue the eradication of the Palestinians. Israel’s security is just as fictitious as Iraq’s WMD claims. The real truth is: Israel wants to maintain its position of being the regional bully and thus prevent any other powers from rising. Eventually, Israel will fail, because a growing conservative Turkey is asserting itself, and the Arab Spring may eventually produce a more resolute Egypt or better, a unified North-African block where the governments will reflect the interests of the masses.

The issue of intervention in Iran is not new; in 1951, the CIA helped to oust the elected Prime Minister Mossadegh, and install the puppet Shah. This no doubt came in response to the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry by Mossadegh. At the time, Iran’s lucrative oil was controlled by the British owned Anglo-Iranian oil company. Oil may have been the primary motive in the past for intervention; today it is maintaining the regional status-quo, where Israel can continue its program of annihilating the Palestinians with impunity. For the sake of justice and stability, these outdated colonialists need a bloody nose, and an attack on Iran might paradoxically produce that, as Iran for sure will retaliate. And that can only be good for peace and prosperity for the majority of the people in the region.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here