The Big Issue: The Nuclear Threat
Sunday September 23, 2007
Guardian
In his careful analysis of what is and is not known about the reason for Operation Orchard, the Israelis' 6 September bombing raid into northern Syria, Peter Beaumont notes that the 'message being delivered from Tel Aviv is clear: if Syria's ally, Iran, comes close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, and the world fails to prevent it, either through diplomatic or military means, then Israel will stop it on its own'. ( 'Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?' News, last week.)
But if this can be explained away as a harbinger of Israel acting 'on its own' to 'stop' other states from 'acquiring a nuclear weapon', are other states then permitted to act on their own to cause damage to Israel's nuclear weapons programme and capability? How about to the United States's nuclear weapons programme and capability? And if not, why not?
Does this right to engage in a breach of the peace under the United Nations charter apply to all states when nuclear weapon are at issue? Or only to some states on a highly selective basis?
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
---
Your leader, 'Time is running out to avert war with Iran', suggests that, given the rhetoric coming out of Washington, Iran may as well develop nuclear weapons. After all, the Iranians have grounds for believing that 'whatever they do, they will be attacked'...
Ivor Morgan
Lincoln
---
It is absolutely breathtaking that a leader on the dangers posed by Iran's possible future development of nuclear weapons makes no mention of the fact that Israel has covertly developed a huge nuclear armoury.
How can other Middle Eastern states be expected to eschew nuclear status while hostile, expansionist Israel is quietly left to its own devices? Iran has attempted to conform with international conventions: it has signed up to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and welcomed International Atomic Energy Authority inspectors.
Israel has never done as much: it even kidnapped and imprisoned the man who revealed its nuclear-weapons programme to the world. No demands are being made of Israel to put its nuclear weapons on the negotiating table or even to open its nuclear programme to inspection.
Should we be surprised if other states in the region detect double standards and are unwilling to allow such an unbalanced situation to continue?
David Richardson
Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex
---
Your editorial last week seems to state that Iran refuses to abandon its nuclear weapons programme.
It is important to note that neither the United States nor the IAEA has been able to provide any substantial evidence to prove that Iran currently has a nuclear weapons programme.
Darian Meacham
Brussels
---
Pakistan is a military dictatorship under growing pressure from Islamic extremists. Why are its real nuclear weapons less of a concern than Iran's imaginary ones?
Is it because Iran has more oil or because its independence is seen as a threat to US and Israeli dominance of the region and its resources?
Your leader claims that 'Britain's diplomatic leverage in Washington is also waning'.
Surely, the one thing we have learnt over the last few years is that Britain never had any diplomatic leverage in Washington.
Chris Webster
Abergavenny
Gwent
No comments:
Post a Comment