The interesting developments in the US political campaign are still nondescript enough to forestall any predictions from me. If I had to put money on it I’d go with the Polls and back Barack Obama, but I feel this could just be me putting my money with my hopes and risking losing both.
The issue of Iran becomes more salient as November approaches, especially regarding the situation which developed in the Strait of Hormuz; to me it would appear to be sabre rattling on both sides and having watched the tapes from the Pentagon and Tehran I’m tempted to say both sides were playing silly buggers but that a mountain could have been made over a (sea based) molehill (imagine a mole combined with a seabass) The fact remains that these were US warships versus Speedboats, even with the USS Cole in mind it is justifiable to assume that a Warship which can see its attackers and is on a state of alert can deal with the simple threat of a speedboat, if it can’t then where the hell is all the defence spending going?
Still the argument remains that Iran constitutes the largest threat to world peace mainly because of its religious fundamentalism and its much talked about ‘nuclear weapons program’. We are led to believe that this state will use nuclear weapons with the same abandon as people use partypoppers on new years eve and that, as a result of such unreliability, they must not attain nuclear power period.
However.
California Rep. Duncan Hunter said he would — in the unlikely situation that there were no other options. “I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges,” Hunter said at Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate sponsored by CNN. . . .
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani warned of the dangers of a preemptive strike. “Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power,” he said. “I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table,” Giuliani said.
What I can surmise here is that a nuclear armed state is talking about taking preemptive action involving the use of tactical nuclear warheads against a non nuclear weapons state because it fears that, should that state gain nuclear weapons it would use them.
Which brings into question the alleged responsibility of the United States in possessing nuclear weapons.
I’m well aware that when we start talking about tactical strikes, we’re not talking about giant ICBM’s being dropped on Tehran (though quite frankly if the unlikely happened and Fred Thompson gained the hotseat, I wouldn’t be surprised) what we’re talking about is the use of bunker buster tactical warheads designed to destroy military targets.
This does not mean that there will not be nuclear fallout in the area, this does not mean that Iran will not translate such an action as an all out declaration of war and this does not mean that the precedent for the use of nuclear weapons in our post Hiroshima world would not be set.
It also does not do anything for the image of the United States in the Muslim world or for that matter in the international world, or importantly to the developing powers of China and Russia; who will be faced with a state that uses Nuclear Weapons at its own disgression and which is attempting to nullify both countries nuclear deterrents by the formation of a missile defence system.
I don’t want to bore anybody with the seemingly irrelevant laws which govern international politics but a US attack on Iran is a direct contravention of the U.N Charter which by way of treaty is translated into the US Constitution as Article VI
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
I quote this having for a second forgotten the reality of the world we live in, whereby international law is interpeted in whichever way the US (and for that matter the Labour Government of the UK) wish it to be.
According to AP sources Tehran is complying with the efforts of the IAEA to reach a diplomatic solution to the dispute. Iran’s deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri speaking to reporters at the Alliance of Civilizations in Madrid stated that.
“We think the conditions and the circumstances are quite favorable, and we are getting ready to solve and settle the issue once and for all,”
He also pointed to the fact that the most recent US intelligence report points toward the fact that Iran gave up it’s nuclear weapons program back in 2003 and that its nuclear program is aimed at the production of nuclear energy and industrialised enriched uranium.
Iran has also accepted an invitation to appear in a conference about securing Iraq, the meeting will see members from the G8, U.N Security Council and Middle East discuss the issue of Iraq and how to proceed.
As far as I can see diplomacy is proceeding as well as it can when you have fundamental differences between participants and a great deal of aggression from the US.
Situations such as the Strait of Hormuz incident and the talking up of military readiness on both sides merely precipitates a slippery slope into armed conflict which will see the rifts between the East and West continue to widen and will add to the already unacceptable body count on both sides.
To return to the US election the two hopes are that the Bush administration does not commit the nation to war with Iran before he leaves, a move which would most likely push the Democrat nomination out political existence as the country rallied around a war leader. Secondly the hope is that Bush is not succeeded by a warmonger and the same tawdry story is continued.
November 2008 offers the US the real chance at changing its current path towards war, it offers the world a chance at repairing the damage done in the course of last eight years (and of course before) it offers a chance for the international community to meet, discuss and agree and as a result of such maturity in politics, it offers everyone a chance at living their lives by their hopes and not under the shadow of their fears.
