This weblog has been updated on regular bases at least few times a month

At nuclear arms talks at U.N. U.S. threatens first strike on Iran

Posted by alanmirs on May 15, 2010

At nuclear arms talks at U.N.

U.S. threatens first strike on Iran

At nuclear arms talks at U.N.

U.S. threatens first strike on Iran

By Sara Flounders
Published May 15, 2010 7:39 AM

A month-long meeting, involving 189 countries, is underway at the United
Nations. It’s the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review.

This review of a nuclear disarmament treaty that went into effect 40 years
ago occurs every 5 years. Its stated purpose was disarmament by the countries
holding nuclear weapons, stopping the spread or proliferation of nuclear weapons
to other countries, and the right of all countries to use nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes.

Almost the only U.S. media attention of this international gathering has been
the ridicule, threats and demonization heaped on Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to take the disarmament conference seriously
enough to attend it and offer concrete suggestions on how to meet the goals of
nuclear disarmament.

Rather than hear a call for NPT to oversee disarmament of all nuclear-armed
states within a specific timeframe and a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone, the
nuclear powers of U.S., Britain and France orchestrated a public walk-out during
the Iranian president’s U.N. talk. They used their enormous political and
economic strength to pressure 30 other countries to participate in the

More ominous than the symbolism of a U.S.-led walk-out on disarmament
proposals were the actions in Washington in the month leading up to the NPT.

President Barack Obama, while announcing the results of the Nuclear Posture
Review of the Pentagon’s weapons on April 5, explicitly asserted the right to
make a nuclear first-strike against Iran and North Korea if the U.S. deemed them
to be in violation of nonproliferation rules.

The corporate-owned media actually described this as a disarmament

Just after this announcement, President Obama flew to Prague and with great
flourish signed, with Russian President Medvedev, a new Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons to 1,550.

But the New York Times gave the real reason for the disarmament proposals in
the Nuclear Posture Review and the START Treaty with Russia. “At the heart of
President Obama’s new nuclear strategy lies a central gamble: that an aging,
oversize, increasingly outmoded nuclear arsenal can be turned to the new purpose
of adding leverage” against Iran and North Korea. “We think we now have
credibility Bush never did to tighten the noose,” said one of Obama’s aides.
(April 6)

What could be a more cynical maneuver than signing a treaty on disarmament to
give more weight to a first-strike nuclear threat against Iran and the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?

Hopes were dashed for those who took President Obama at his word a year ago
in Prague in the midst of his first European trip as president when he outlined
a goal of “a world without nuclear weapons.” There was hope for at least a
blanket statement that the U.S. would never be the first to use nuclear

It is essential to understand that nuclear weapons taken from active status
do not have to be destroyed. The number of operationally inactive stockpiled
nuclear warheads will remain in the high thousands as “responsive reserve
warheads,” part of the “Stockpile Management Program.”

There is another impediment to any form of real U.S. disarmament. Regardless
of the risk to humanity or the cost to U.S. workers, the sheer
multibillion-dollar size of and super profits to major corporate military
contractors and thousands of subcontractors in the U.S. capitalist economy all
mean that there is a sector of the ruling class demanding that these weapons
systems continue to be built. This was once justified using Cold War
anti-communist rhetoric and now using “anti-terrorist” rhetoric.

U.S. deflects attention from its arsenal

The problem Washington faced, at a world conference to discuss disarmament,
was how to deflect attention from the U.S.’s own role and any demands for clear

The solution was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s demand to discuss the
totally unsubstantiated charges that Iran is a global nuclear threat because the
country could develop the capacity at some point years in the future to build a
nuclear weapon.

The U.S. holds the majority of nuclear weapons — an enormous arsenal of 5,113
warheads by Washington’s own admission. Iran is still at the technical level of
attempting to develop lowly enriched nuclear energy for fuel, lighting and
medicine. Iran has enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel
for a small civilian nuclear power plant. Nuclear weapons use uranium that is
highly enriched to more than 90 percent. Such enrichment requires technology
that Iran does not possess.

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency, the watch-dog agency set up
by the U.N., has consistently reported no evidence of links to a nuclear weapons
program in Iran, the U.S. threats, sanctions and efforts at a
still-more-stringent fourth round of sanctions have continued.

While Washington demands endless inspections of Iranian sites, it refuses to
give any information on the deployment of its 12 nuclear-powered ballistic
missile submarines that are on “hair-trigger” nuclear-launch readiness. These
giant death machines are each armed with 24 Trident-II missiles with a range of
more than 4,000 nautical miles. Each of the 24 missiles on board a sub has 4
MIRV nuclear warheads. This is total of 1,152 nuclear warheads hidden underwater
in the oceans of the world, including in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf
and off the coast of Korea.

The U.S. has never demanded or even proposed inspection of the 400 nuclear
weapons held by Israel with U.S. technical support and decades of diplomatic and
political cover.

Washington continues to raise the fear that Iran or North Korea will spread
nuclear weapons to other countries. The NPT prohibits nuclear weapons states
from transferring nuclear weapons — including the direct or indirect control of
such weapons — to nonnuclear weapons states. But this is exactly what the U.S.
itself does.

Hundreds of B61 thermonuclear bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, among other
U.S. nuclear weapons, are presently “hosted” in the nonnuclear NATO countries of
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. U.S. nuclear weapons were
held for decades in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Guam.

Far from submitting to intrusive inspections as it demands of Iran and North
Korea, the U.S. will neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear
weaponry on board its nuclear-powered aircraft supercarriers.

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of
this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this
notice is preserved.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: