Since President Truman’s decision to detonate two atomic bombs over Japan in a show of U.S. military strength vis-à-vis the Soviets to deter them from retaliating against the Anglo-Saxons at the end of World War 2, numerous initiatives have been undertaken to dissuade Washington from replicating similar crimes. Whereas the USSR acquired its own bomb opening the door to proliferation, neutral States advocated in favour of a nuclear-free world. The international treaties in force consecrate the strategic edge gained by the big powers while depriving the smaller ones of nuclear weapons. These are exploited politically to condemn - rightly or wrongly - insubordinate States (Iran, North Korea) and to protect friendly nations (Israel, India-Pakistan). In the context of the U.S. economic crisis, Obama attempted to reopen denuclearization negotiations. However, vast regions of the planet have already been contaminated, either for having served as nuclear testing grounds or as a combat theater where depleted uranium was used.
General Musharraf thought about using the atomic bomb, when provoking the « Glaciers War », in Kargil, 1999. The release of an investigative work containing this - and other worrisome revelations – has been shaking the Indian sub-continent. But the man, who was then only occupying the position of Joint Chief of Staff, has since then seized power and is exerting it with the support of radical Islamic militants. According to General Vinod Saighal, it is urgent that the Pakistanese people overthrew an administration whose policy can bring about a regional nuclear war at any moment.
The Security Council,
Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006, and its resolution 1737 (2006) of 23 December 2006, and reaffirming their provisions,
Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with all their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of (...)
The Security Council,
Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006,
Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,
Reiterating its serious concern over the many reports of (...)
While the United Nations Security Council had made Iran stop all its uranium enrichment, whether for military or civil ends, Washington continues its double dealing on this matter.
President Bush recently went to India to sell US nuclear technology. Meanwhile, The Australian of 17 August 2006 reveals that the US Department of Energy supports Canada’s and Australia’s plans to enrich (...)
The Security Council,
Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006,
Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,
Noting with serious concern the many reports of the IAEA Director General and resolutions of the IAEA Board (...)
Consultations keep on the rise in order to have a resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Iran. Russia plays a crucial role in this moment as the major obstacle to the adoption of such a resolution against Teheran, which Washington and the neo-cons try to impose, and as the main interlocutor of the Islamic Republic as to the nuclear issue is concerned. In an interview granted to Ria Novosti, Viktor Mijailov, sometimes presented as the father of Iran’s electro-nuclear activity, gives his own version of the facts. For him, it is evident that Iran wants the atomic weapon and it could build it in a five-to-ten-year term. However, he also says he is convinced that Russia will reach an agreement with Teheran, as well as that the United States will retaliate (...)
"The Foreign Ministers of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union met in Berlin today, 30 March 2006.
We had a very substantive exchange of views on the situation resulting from Iran’s nuclear activities.
We continue to be seriously concerned about the outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme and Iran’s failure to take the steps as required of Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors in its (...)
Last January 19, French President Jacques Chirac gave an eagerly awaited speech in Landivisiau before France’s strategic air and naval forces. Chirac’s speech, which dealt with the French nuclear doctrine, has been largely discussed and commented by international media outlets which allowed readers to find what they wanted to read about. In the speech, mainly the western media saw the announcement of a French strategic orientation, which from that moment on, would make «terrorism-supporting countries» a potential target for nuclear attacks. That is to say, another step by France towards the Bush doctrine. But, is it really so?
It’s a great pleasure for me to meet with women and men, military and civilians, who are involved in a fundamental mission for our independence and security: the nuclear deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent national force was created thanks to our efforts and represents what France is capable of making when a goal is set. I’d like to pay tribute to those experts and military men who were involved, and still are, in those efforts.
The bipolar world is over, but threats against peace have not (...)
In his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize 2005, economist Thomas Schelling pointed out that the most important event of the last sixty years has been the non use of the nuclear weapon. He made emphasis on how important the nuclear matter was still at the beginning of this XXI century.
The President of the Republic had three good reasons to speak about the role of the French nuclear deterrent on Thursday: deterrence needs a strong and repeated public expression and time had gone by since (...)
Mister President, on January 19 you gave an important speech in which you reminded our country the fundamental principles that make up our defence policy. But, even when it’s important for the French population to know how we defend our vital interests, having irrefutable decisions about this is also essential. However, that’s not the case.
The usefulness of the French nuclear deterrent has been debated since the end of the Cold War. You have just added another element to this discussion by (...)
During the Cold War, France’s mainly strategy was aimed at destroying the Soviet Union and protecting itself from possible attacks against its territory. However, the end of that world marked the beginning of an important change in the French military strategy. Paris realized that it had to define its military needs for the future. Therefore, the President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, adopted different measures to modernize the French army and its military arsenal. Likewise, the Republic (...)
When giving his speech about the «nuclear» strategy, Jacques Chirac was probably talking to Ahmedinejad. This is the only element that could be considered «new» in his speech for it’s not the first time that the French President speaks of the need of evaluating the nuclear strategy of his country. This new speech of the President coincides with political events that points at the recipients of this message. This can be divided into two parts: one firm; the other, inconstant.
The first part (...)
After presenting himself as «pacifist» against the war in Iraq, Jacques Chirac shows mechanisms that make the French nuclear might known again. In the same way in which before the attack against Iraq, George W. Bush made emphasis on the national security of Americans, Chirac insisted on the necessary defence of the «vital interests» of France. Vital interests that, as recognized by the head of state, are above all «guarantees of the strategic energy supplies and the defence of allied (...)
Last Thursday, in a speech given to the crew of nuclear submarine «Le vigilant», French President Jacques Chirac showed its terrible and theatrical sense of humour. But nobody laughed, everybody was perplexed.
It was all against the traditional French nuclear doctrine for the President talked about the possibility of a preventive attack against non-nuclear states. What has happened to this moderate, independent and European country and to its leader, who opposed the war against Iraq? The (...)
During the past years, we have witnessed the emergence of strange positions in Paris’ foreign policy. Despite this, last week everybody was shocked when they listened to the French President stating that his country was ready to use the nuclear weapon against any country that would use terrorism against French interests. Although Jacques Chirac did not mention any particular target, it is not necessary to be a genius to guess that the list includes Iran and other Arab countries of the Middle (...)
The threat of French President with regard to the use of the nuclear weapon against delinquent states supporting terrorism, has certainly been welcomed by the tough guys in Paris and Texas but it can not be seriously analyzed. The Jihadists, capable of breaking the glass of the Louvre Pyramid or blowing the Eiffel Tower and the Triumphal Arch to humiliate the French power, seem to have come out of a poor Muslim area of Paris or Marseilles. They could also come from Al Qaeda’s training camps (...)
Tensions continue to escalate between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Atlantist powers, which are eager to control the last hydrocarbon reserves. Under British pressure, the permanent members of the UN Security Council accepted to redefine relations between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations. This commitment should facilitate the work of those who advocate an armed conflict. Russia and China, however, put their bets on the time factor. In effect, Vladimir Putin is about to reveal an important project that could definitely resolve the issue of proliferation and which, at the same time, guarantees every nation’s legitimate right to use the atomic energy with peaceful purposes.
In the Name of God, the Almighty.
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Response to the Statement from the Five Nuclear States . In the course of the past two and a half years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made the greatest efforts for expanded cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Nevertheless, the five nuclear Permanent Members of the Security Council issued a statement which is totally political and contrary to the recognized international rules and (...)
The Foreign Ministers of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union met this evening, 30 January 2006, and agreed the following:
underlined their commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and their determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons;
shared serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, and agreed that an extensive period of (...)
"The European Union is gravely concerned at the removal of seals at several nuclear installations, including at Natanz, and Iran’s decision to resume enrichment related activities. The EU calls on Iran to re-instate the seals and to re-establish full, sustained and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as called for repeatedly in IAEA Board of Governors’ resolutions as an essential confidence building measure. In line with the requests made in IAEA Board (...)
At the beginning of the sixth year of the new millennium, Adolf Hitler has raised from the dead or, more exactly, has reincarnated as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, a short and weak man like him, whose discourse follows the ideological line of Mein Kampf. But the difference between Hitler and Ahmedinejad is that the first failed just where the second is succeeding: the access to the atomic bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its president Mohammed El Baradei have proved that, (...)
When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, everything had already been announced but nobody wanted to pay attention due to blindness or cowardice. After Munich, multitudes were full of enthusiasm, only Churchill made the right approach.
Iran is controlled by a group of cruel, totalitarian and dangerous ayatollahs who develop the nuclear weapon in their territory. That country is ruled by a man who wants the atomic weapon, who wants Israel to be disappeared off the face of the earth or displaced to (...)
We’re witnessing, in the mainstream press, a propaganda campaign against Iran similar to that preceding the invasion of Iraq. We’re seeing again the arguments then used to shape western opinion for a war on Baghdad. However, there is a big difference between the articles currently condemning Iran and those that stigmatized Saddam Hussein’s Iraq before the invasion: there is practically no talking about a possible war. The process of making Iran satanic is running smoothly but even the most belligerent neo-cons frown now before explicitly speaking of an armed conflict.
Thanks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, a new term in the political vocabulary has been coined: mahdaviat.This is technical religious term that refers to mahdi, an element of the Shiite doctrine that identifies the restorer of religion and justice who will rule before the end of the world. It’s also called “return of the twelfth imam”. The mahdaviat plays a central role in the ambitions and beliefs of Ahmedinejad. As mayor of Teheran and president of the Islamic Republic, his policy (...)
In an open challenge to the international community, the regimen ruled by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad lifted the seals that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had on the Iranian nuclear facilities and resumed its nuclear programme. Iran has said this programme is only aimed at the production of nuclear energy but many believe that Teheran actually wants to have nuclear weapons.
The resumption of the uranium enrichment programme is an insult to the French, British and German Foreign (...)
The West has a new challenge. After Iraq, Iran now. While Teheran removes the seals of the nuclear facilities and gets ready to resume its uranium enrichment programme that could allow it to produce atomic weapons in some years, Europe and the United States must work on a common answer immediately. But, which one? If this crisis is wrongly handled, another military confrontation will break out and a new crisis will be unleashed in the West.
The European policy of negotiated containment, (...)
“The art of war”
“The Art of War”