Bush is the real threat

[Guest guest]

" Zepp " <zepp

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 05:29:10 -0700

[Zepps_News] Guardian Unlimited Politics | Bush is the real

threat

 

 

 

 

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1559617,00.html

 

Bush is the real threat

 

Tony Benn

Wednesday August 31, 2005

The Guardian

 

Now that the US president has announced that he has not ruled out an

attack on Iran, if it does not abandon its nuclear programme, the Middle

East faces a crisis that could dwarf even the dangers arising from the

war in Iraq.

 

Even a conventional weapon fired at a nuclear research centre - whether

or not a bomb was being made there - would almost certainly release

radioactivity into the atmosphere, with consequences seen worldwide as a

mini-Hiroshima.

 

Article continues

We would be told that it had been done to uphold the principles of the

nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) - an argument that does not stand

up to a moment's examination.

 

The moral and legal basis of the NPT convention, which the International

Atomic Energy Agency is there to uphold, was based on the agreement of

non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons if nuclear powers

undertook not to extend nuclear arsenals and negotiate to secure their

abolition.

 

Since then, the Americans have launched a programme that would allow

them to use nuclear weapons in space, nuclear bunker-busting bombs are

being developed, and depleted uranium has been used in Iraq - all of

which are clear breaches of the NPT. Israel, which has a massive nuclear

weapons programme, is accepted as a close ally of the US, which still

arms and funds it.

 

Even those who are opposed, as I am, to nuclear weapons in every country

including Iran, North Korea, Britain and the US, accept that nuclear

power for electricity generation need not necessarily lead to the

acquisition of the bomb.

 

Indeed, many years ago, when the shah - who had been put on the throne

by the US - was in power in Iran, enormous pressure was put on me, as

secretary of state for energy, to agree to sell nuclear power stations

to him. That pressure came from the Atomic Energy Authority, in

conjunction with Westinghouse, who were anxious to promote their own

design of reactor.

 

It is easy to understand why president Bush might see the bombing of

Iran as a way to regain some of the political credibility he has lost as

a result of the growing hostility in America to the Iraq war due to the

heavy casualties suffered by US forces there .

 

It is inconceivable that the White House can be contemplating an

invasion of Iran, and what must be intended is a US airstrike, or

airstrikes, on Iranian nuclear installations, comparable to Israel's

bombing of Iraq in 1981. Israel has publicly hinted that it might do the

same again to prevent Iran developing nuclear nuclear weapons.

 

Such an attack, whether by the US or Israel, would be in breach of the

UN Charter, as was the invasion of Iraq. But neither Bush, Sharon nor

Blair would take any notice of that.

 

Some influential Americans appear to be convinced that the US will

attack Iran. Whether they are right or not, the build-up to a new war is

taking exactly the same form as it did in 2002. First we are being told

that Iran poses a military threat, because it may be developing nuclear

weapons. We are assured that the President is hoping that diplomacy

might succeed through the European negotiations which have been in

progress for some months.

 

This is just what we were told when Hans Blix was in Baghdad talking to

Saddam on behalf of the UN, but we now know, from a Downing Street

memorandum leaked some months ago, that the decision to invade had been

taken long before that.

 

That may be the position now, and I fear that if a US attack does take

place, the prime minister will give it his full support. And one of his

reasons for doing so will be the same as in Iraq: namely the fear that,

if he alienates Bush, Britain's so-called independent deterrent might be

taken away. For, as I also learned when I was energy secretary, Britain

is entirely dependent on the US for the supply of our Trident warheads

and associated technology. They cannot even be targeted unless the US

switches on its global satellite system.

 

Therefore Britain could be assisting America to commit an act of

aggression under the UN Charter, which could risk a major nuclear

disaster, and doing so supposedly to prevent nuclear proliferation, with

the real motive of making it possible for us to continue to break the

NPT in alliance with America.

 

The irony is that we might be told that Britain must support Bush, yet

again, because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, thus

allowing him to kill even more innocent civilians.

 

· Tony Benn will be talking about War; Religion and politics; and

Democracy, at the Shaw Theatre in London on September 7, 8 and 9

 

 

--