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.
The threat faced by Iran is increasingly obvious, but the pigeons want to negotiate and the hawks would like Israel to act. The pigeons refused to consider a military option because leaving that opportunity open would strengthen the possibility of using diplomatic channels. The hawks, who had supported the war on Iraq, want to deal only with a problem at a time and count on a Deus ex machina –a Deus ex machina Jew – to do the job for us. However, the major powers cannot have the burden of (...)
I was in favour of the war against Iraq but had my doubts, which I still have. Those who are against it have their reasons and they could even use the Machiavellian argument that Saddam Hussein was a valuable allied against Iran. And today we have realized that Iran wants to become a nuclear power. Saddam wanted to have at his disposal the weapons of mass destruction to feed his own spectres of power. Iran, on its part, is developing nuclear weapons (no one has claimed otherwise) and it is (...)
The reopening of the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz is the latest evidence of triviality of negotiations with the mullahs of Tehran, who only use discussions to save time for their armament program. The European Union has accused Iran of having documents about manufacturing nuclear warheads and the United States has evidence that Iran has designed nuclear warheads that could be adapted to its Shahab missiles. The mullahs do not want to be moderate and engage in terrorist campaigns (...)
The controversy about the Iranian nuclear program has been revived and many analysts have predicted that it is going to be the main international crisis in 2006. The issues involved in this crisis are simple: Iran claims its right to have full control of the uranium enrichment cycle for pacific use, under articles 1 and 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Today, Russia is helping Iran to build a plant in Bushehr. Russia suggested that it could be in charge of the uranium enrichment, but (...)
We view security as a multidimensional concept. It is an area that requires a carefully considered and complex approach. Based on this position, Russia is firmly committed to expanding cooperation on global energy security within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Community. One of the priorities in this area is to develop cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Cooperation in this field opens up real new opportunities for all of us. Taking into consideration the agreements (...)
The US scientific community is shocked. The scientists are worried about the project of a nuclear bombing on Iran, as justified by the new Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations drafted by the Pentagon in March 2005.
Physicists of San Diego University have filed a lawsuit against these “preventive nuclear bombings”, which includes today nearly 1 500 signatures of US physicists and 9 Nobel Prize winners (photo above: from left to right, Norman Ramsey, Jack Steinberg, Philip Anderson, Frank (...)
Mordechai Vanunu, activist and ex-engineer at the Israeli Dimona Nuclear Center, was once again arrested on November 18, 2005 by Israeli authorities and submitted to a 36-hour preventive detention and later released thanks to his lawyer’s mediation. That was the first detention after Vanunu was released in 2004 from 18 years in solitary confinement. On this occasion, he was suspect of having violated his freedom condition by having talked to the press several times, including an interview (...)
Last week, the Asians received two news; a good one from Beijing, where an agreement was reached regarding the North Korean nuclear issue; and a bad one from Vienna, where the Iranian nuclear issue has come to a standstill. The text signed in Beijing was welcomed worldwide. North Korea abandoned its nuclear program and acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In contrast, the other five negotiating nations recognized Pyongyang’s right to have a civil nuclear program. Negotiations in Beijing (...)
In a fictitious international environment where good news are scarce, the joint statement issued by the six countries assembled at the negotiating table in Beijing on September 19 resulted an encouraging one; it included a comprehensive agenda to dismantle nuclear facilities in Pyongyang. This was, however, the beginning of a difficult process. Celebrations were even more premature when the following day a dispute arose regarding the most sensitive part of the text: to supply a light water (...)
Three years after George W. Bush’s statement about Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil”, his government has not been able to keep a coherent policy with regard to the Islamic Republic; an attitude the Iranians exploit. Iran, on the other hand, has aligned with the conservatives after Ahmadineyad’s victory. The United States has tried to involve the European Union but talks have failed. Nowadays, Washington and Teheran are looking for allies at the UN Security Council.
China, Russia and India (...)
There’s no doubt Iran would like to have the nuclear bomb. It has the means to meet its goal in the next five or ten years. That bomb will be useless to attack Israel or the United States but not to guarantee its security in case of an American aggression. The Iranian government is convinced that the Americans are willing to attack them. With regard to this, the Iraqi example has taught them a lot. Teheran is sure about this and a real nuclear program would increase the government’s prestige (...)
The European troika has exerted pressures against the Islamic Republic in the draft resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors. Once again, the Big Three of the EU demanded the UN Security Council to be informed if Iran does not end its enriched uranium program. But Iran is not planning to give up. The statements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the voice of Iranian president Mohammed El Baradei proved that Teheran has never made (...)
All governments agree that it’s necessary to put an end to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To respect the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an obligation. Two years ago, Iran recognized before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was creating the infrastructure for the uranium enrichment. Today, it still works on the development of ballistic missiles for nuclear weapons. This is the reason why it is believed the Iranian nuclear program has no pacific purposes. We (...)
Though quite different subjects, the nuclear issues of Iran and North Korea have been compared in articles, which have been published by the international press. In so doing, they tacitly validate the association of both countries, first integrated by George W. Bush in a mysterious “Axis of Evil”. Atlantist circles are turning to the argumentative model used against Iraq: they denounce states that can’t be trusted, an inept international system, and demand “consistent policies”.
Iran, one of the countries better located from the geographical point of view, has always been a target of great colonial powers. Its location has also enabled Iran to become a unique commercial market and ensured the path of the most important oil pipelines.
In this regard, several countries like India or China rushed to establish excellent relations with Tehran. Within this framework, Iran prefers the Indian market for its exports and at the same time chooses Indian products when it (...)
When Iran turned to Europe more than two years ago in order to address the controversy surrounding its civil nuclear program, it created a favorable opportunity. Here was a chance for Europeans to play a more proportionate role in tackling international problems, and forge an alliance for the benefit of the region and the world.
Given the unjust sanctions imposed upon it by the West, Iran had to diversify its sources of energy- a need that was in fact recognized long before the 1979 (...)
I just met with the Iranian president in New York and he has asserted that Iran wanted to continue with the negotiation process with the European troika. It was on this basis that we had our discussions. We are willing to coordinate our actions with those of the Europeans and Americans. Our positions are very close. Whatever the case might be, we have a common position about one issue: we all strongly oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and this applies to Iran’s case.
At the (...)
Russia might work together with Germany, France and Great Britain to propose a common project for a new nuclear plant. This would be the ideal solution. Within the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we discussed with the European troika in order to find out whether we could increase our common presence in Iran through the construction of new blocks. Multiple countries have shown their interest in Iran as the market potential player. For Russia, the best scenario would be to (...)
The EU is deeply concerned by Iran’s unilateral resumption of activity at the Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan.
The IAEA Board of Governors has repeatedly asked Iran to suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, including conversion, as an essential confidence building measure. Long term confidence-building is needed in view of Iran’s record of breaching safeguards obligations and failure to co-operate with the IAEA over a long period of time. The EU welcomes the (...)
The great merit of the Iranian elections was the transparency. The arrival of Mahmud Ahmadineyad to power has meant nothing but the continuation of the real holder of power, ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The president of the Republic is just the “façade” of the regime. Iran is a particularly selective “democracy”. The Council of Guardians filters the candidates and only keeps those “compatible” with Islamist values. This purifying “filter” eliminates the unsteady and threatening-for-the- (...)
The new Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has not wasted time alerting the world about his nuclear purposes. During his first press conference after his being elected - which resulted from a manipulated ballot - Ahmadinejad reaffirmed Iran’s right to have its own nuclear technology. He stated that negotiations with Europe would go on provided that “Iran’s right to use nuclear energy” was respected. The matter is that Europeans haven’t put any pressure on Iran. On the contrary, they are glad (...)
The outstanding electoral victory of Mahmud Ahmadinejad represents a happy event for the Middle East, deeply affected by unresolved conflicts, corrupt circles and violent foreign interventions. On August 4, when he’ll take power, his work will be closely watched to see that he’ll be accomplishing his electoral promises and making Iran a model Islamist society. His amazing election will probably make the Arab States change to follow Iran’s model and the United States change its policy.
Iran’s satanization, as well as the Atlantist mediatic treatment of the negotiations of its nuclear program strengthen the distorted view of such an important matter. Regarding this, François Géré, president of the Institut Français d’Analyse Stratégique (IFAS), highlights two essential elements in an interview granted to the Iranian radio and television which we reproduce below. Teheran, which has respected its Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments, hopes to legitimately defend its right to have a civil nuclear program while being aware of the consequences that a gradual resumption of its uranium enrichment program could have.
The negotiations about the Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York led to debates on Israel’s nuclear posture and on its «deliberate ambiguity». Israel was asked to clearly reveal the nature of its armaments.
To stop keeping its base-hidden bombs away would call forth some diplomatic difficulties but a partial disclosure of the Israeli arsenal would substantially increase its security. In fact, it’s not enough that Israel’s enemies «know» that Israel has the bomb, they must also understand that (...)
In early summer, Donald Rumsfeld passed a top secret plan entitled «Interim Global Strike Alert Order», the purpose of which was to have the troops ready to attack any hostile countries owning mass destruction weapons. General Bruce Carlson - Commander of the 8th U.S. Air Force Division - stated that thereafter, with that plan, the United States could attack any opponent in 12 hours or less, anywhere in the world.
In the secret world of military planning, "global attack" is the term used (...)
Due to the five-yearly renegotiation of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, many calls for the U.S. disarmament have appeared on the press. However, for the hawks, this treaty is expected to be but a halt to the emergence of new nuclear powers, but not to the Pentagon’s arsenal development. John J. Hamre suggests keeping this diplomatic dispute secret both by reducing the number of U.S weapons and at the same time developing their power.
The States with nuclear weapons continue to lean on them since they have not developed any other means of prevention. To expedite the removal of all nuclear weapons, an alternative collective security system must be created. An alternative must also be found for the States that have placed themselves under the nuclear umbrella of other powers.
In an era of globalization and interdependence, alliances can only offer short-term solutions. Security can only be collective. The only way to (...)
At the moment in which the Conference on the Revision of the Nonproliferation Treaty opens sessions at the UN, you can simply be amazed at the indifference of the U.S. and the rest of the nuclear powers. In this Conference, a group of middle States has a simple objective: To force nuclear powers so that they adopt the necessary measures to save the Treaty.
Last year, the States with the necessary capacity to become nuclear powers voted for a new resolution to implement the commitments (...)
Thirty-five years ago, when the Nonproliferation Treaty was first brought to light, the starting proposal was that the States not having nuclear weapons, such as ours, had to renounce the right to manufacture them in return for a guarantee that enabled these States to carry out civil nuclear investigations. The five nuclear powers, on the other hand, had to reduce their arms arsenals.
Our countries recently created the Coalition for a New Agenda, whose purpose is to support the prospects (...)
The Cold War left us with an enormous reserve of nuclear weapons that we do not need any more; that we cannot use or maintain in its present condition. Nevertheless, the expert community sticks to the idea of a nuclear cover in the face of an uncertain future. These same experts now demand the creation of nuclear weapons with high terrestrial penetration power. The truth is that we do not have a coherent nuclear strategy. Before making any decision, we must first organize a national debate (...)
“The art of war”
“The Art of War”