Aggression in case Capitulation Fails.

It was reported in Scotland’s Sunday Herald that the US is sending nearly four-hundred “bunker busters” to the base in Diego Garcia. It is rumored that the 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs are in preparations for a military strike on Iran. Translation: aggression.

Israel’s Haaretz ran a story on it today too, largely taken from Scotland’s paper. There was one sentence that caught my eye:
Neither the United States nor Israel have ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the long-running row over Iran’s disputed nuclear ambitions. [emphasis added]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. “If diplomacy fails”? As if! Since when did diplomacy become synonymous with capitulation? I ask because that is what the US is pushing for. Capitulation, not diplomacy.
Let’s run through some things here.
Before the revolution in Iran the US had no problem supporting the nuclear program, and as Chomsky has repeatedly quoted Kissinger on the reason for our hypocrisy is that we are punishing Iran for not being our tool.
The US has been trumpeting these hyperbolic alarms about Iran for years. There are always almost about to have the nuke. Considering the fact that having the nukes makes good sense if you want to be independent and deter the US, it’s amazing they haven’t made more of an effort to actually have them by now. How many times must the IAEA report that they are well below the levels needed to have the bomb? All that aside, it’s worth noting that Iran doesn’t have a history of aggression and that assuming it is trying to build a nuke it is for self-preservation, not aggression. Only one state has used nuclear weapons and its “lite” counterpart (depleted uranium) for aggressive purposes: the US.
In May 2003 it was reported by Gareth Porter that Iran offered the US and Israel an extensive peace offer. They offered to enter into a full peace and diplomatic treaty with both countries, end their nuclear program – which they have always maintained was for peaceful purposes (I will come back to more on this in a second) – and cut off all ties to Hezbollah and Hamas. All they asked for in return was that the US acknowledges them as a regional player and that Israel adheres to international law. That’s it. The Swedish diplomat who relayed the offer was rebuked by the Bush administration.
Also, Iran is and has remained a signatory to the NPT whereas Israel refuses to sign. Double-also, Iran has continually supported strengthening the treaty so as to block proliferation and to eliminate existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons whereas the US has been a persistent obstacle. Iran supports FISSBAN, the US does not.
None of this figures into the “diplomacy” that is allegedly underway though it (see reality and historical record) should figure prominently. What the US is pushing for is capitulation to its demands.
So here is nuclear-armed Israel (who refuses to sign the NPT and is constantly engaged in aggression towards its neighbors and the Palestinians it has brutally occupied for decades [see this map for a painful reality on the ground] and objecting peace offer after peace offer or as recently demonstrated: turning the sabotaging of talks into a form of art) receiving billions from nuclear-armed US (who is sabotaging nuclear disarmament talks and constantly engaged in aggression around the world and vetoing international justice like it’s going out of style). Then there is Iran who has a much cleaner record at international diplomacy, doesn’t attack its neighbors and offers, not obstructs or objects, peace offers. This is not "anti-American" or "pro-Iran." It’s the facts.
Anywho, to describe this shipment and write “military action in case diplomacy fails” is just Orwellian as Orwellian can be. A more honest description would be “aggression in case capitulation fails.”

Leave a comment