AJC - Advertising For War
Sunday, April 16, 2006
The American Jewish Committee has paid for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times expressing their concerns that Iran may end up getting the bomb. From their ad, are we to construe that Iran now has a nuclear weapon that can be delivered via a missile? I know that's not the case, but I know because I took the time to research the facts. The only missiles (such as the Shahab-3) that are currently in Iran's arsenal are conventional--meaning non-nuclear. AJC must be relying on the fact that most Americans are either too ignorant or too busy to research the facts surrounding this issue and therefore will believe the implied message that Iran has nuclear weapons. Americans generally rely on the U.S. Government to be honest and straightforward with them when it comes to matters of foreign policy, military intervention, and their justifications for war. We must conclude that by publishing such ads, AJC hopes to gain public support for furthering its agenda by trading on the inherent fear American's have of being "nuked".
So, What would the AJC have us do? From their ad, I would have to guess they're in favor of a military strike on Iran to prevent it from building an arsenal of conventional weapons (knowing Iran possesses no nuclear weapons). This leads me to ask the question, if Iran has not attacked a neighbor in over 250 years, why would anyone care if they stockpile conventional weapons for their own security and defense? They've demonstrated no physical aggression towards other nations. I will admit that Iran has recently made crazy threats to the effect of wishing to wipe Israel from the map, but they have yet to act on their words. We must also consider ads such as the one pictured here when assessing Iran's verbal assaults on Israel. Israel, by some estimates, may be more of a military threat to its neighbors than Iran. It is widely believed that Israel possesses around 250 nuclear weapons and has never signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Iran).
Where do I stand on this issue? I believe that Iran has every right to defend itself. I believe Iran has every right to pursue nuclear energy for the production of energy. I believe that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for the use in nuclear reactors, solely for the production of electricity. I also believe we have every right to be suspect of Iran and should be allowed to fully review and inspect its nuclear energy program at any time we wish. Iran has signed the NPT allowing us that right, and they must abide by it, or withdraw from it. Furthermore, I do not believe that Iran has done anything extraordinary to give us grounds to drop bombs on their country and I am fully against any preemptive military strikes into Iran. If Israel wants to pursue that course of action, they had better be willing to deal with the consequences of their actions. I fully oppose any military or monetary bail-out of Israel if it bites off more than it can chew. In addition, if the American Jewish Committee wants to start a war with Iran, they can do it on their own dime. I absolutely oppose the financing of another illegal war with public funds.
2 Comments:
I believe that Iran has every right to enrich uranium for the use in nuclear reactors, solely for the production of electricity. I also believe we have every right to be suspect of Iran and should be allowed to fully review and inspect its nuclear energy program at any time we wish.
Why is it that the US should be allowed to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities at any time "we" wish? Shouldn't Iran be able to inspect "out" facilities whenever it wishes, too?
Why should Iran be allowed to produce enriched uranium only for the production of electricity? Does Israel or Pakistan or India only produce fissionable material for electricity? Does the US?
In short, why should the US and those governments it likes today, be permitted to produce nuclear weapons, while those governments it does not like should be prevented from producing those weapons. Who is targetting whom right now with nuclear weapons? Hint: it isn't Iran.
By "we," I mean the IAEA.
Iran signed the NPT and has agreed to conduct their nuclear program subject to the restraints placed upon them by this treaty. If they no longer wish to be legally bound by the treaty, they should withdraw from it.
As for who should--and should not--be allowed to produce nuclear weapons, if a country has signed a NPT, they are legally not allowed to pursue or manufacture these weapons. From the NPT:
ARTICLE I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient
whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or
explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any
non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
ARTICLE II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer
from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of
control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or
otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or
receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices.
Post a Comment
<< Home