Before going any further, an explanation: generically speaking, I have nothing against “Jews”, irrespective of whether they are seen as a “race” or religion. Very much to the contrary. As a student in educational institutions ranging from primary school to university, I always felt a natural intellectual affinity with Jews, who are generally affable and good humored individuals who value culture and are averse to brutality. I have never been indifferent to the humiliation and suffering that they have undergone in Europe as the victims of persecution - and not only by the Nazis.
Nevertheless, rather than preventing me, such sympathy obliges me to criticize Israel’s foreign policy over recent decades with respect to the Palestinian people, as well as it’s associated “unfolding developments”, one of these being Iran. Yes, unfolding developments. Iran’s animosity against Israel and the very existence of Islamic terrorism are largely nurtured by the unjust and mean way in which Israel has been treating the Palestinians. It should be remembered that the Israelis were expelled by the Romans, not the Palestinians, who now see themselves as displaced from land they have occupied for almost two thousand years. If the Palestinian-Israeli issue had already been resolved (by the UN, there seeming to be no alternative, amplifying and strengthening international jurisdiction), Ahmadinejad would not be repeating the stupid remark, always remembered by his enemies, of “Wiping Israel off the map”. A mindless phrase, uttered with a view to grabbing votes in elections, as everyone knows, even he himself, that it no longer makes sense, in the modern world, to “wipe” a country - any country, irrespective of whether it is weak or strong - “off the map”. Besides this, Israel is extremely strong in the military, diplomatic and intelligence (spying, using the former nomenclature) areas. In addition, the geographical extent of its population is not limited to Israel. Approximately 6 million Jews live in Israel, but an equal number live in the United States. According to Wikipedia data, the worldwide Jewish population is that of between 12 and 14 million. Among European countries, the greatest concentration of Jews is to be found in Sarkozy’s homeland - France.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz, a Jewish scientist who was born in Germany and subsequently immigrated to the USA (where he had a brilliant career in electrical engineering) said that “There will be a time of small independent nations whose first line of defense will be knowledge”. With this statement, he foresaw the existence of Israel and its concern with so-called “intelligence”, or information in political, military and even commercial fields. Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is probably the most effective in the world.
When compared with Arab countries, Israel has enormous superiority regarding the most modern conventional weapons, as well as an atomic “plus” of dimensions unknown to the rest of the world because nobody - not even the International Atomic Energy Agency - is so bold as to investigate the kind of nuclear arsenal that Israel possesses, without being bothered by western nations. It is this unequal treatment (even an unequal degree of curiosity) that so revolts the Iranians. They can always ask: “If the Israelis have the right to fear Arab aggression and, as a result, are authorized to possess nuclear weapons, why is it that we Iranians do not have the right to fear aggression by the Israelis, who already have such weapons?”
What the Iranian president needs to get into his stubborn head is that although the “shock-value” wipe-off-the-map phrase could have provided him with a few million votes years ago, its repetition, or simple permanence, could currently mean the disgrace of the country. The mindless phrase facilitates and even “authorizes” an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, not only by the Israelis, but also by international forces led by the Americans. As far as this is concerned, there are disappointing signs (and I hope I am mistaken) that Barack Obama is weakening, incapable of resisting pressure brought to bear by the Israeli lobby and his Secretary of Defense, an unfortunate left-over from the W. Bush government. If Iran is bombed, its population will unite in support of its president, as is usual in all countries. We will have a third war underway, to the delight of the American arms industry. It should be remembered that the armaments industry, everywhere, only prospers in a climate of war. Peace is its penury, its ruin, its purgatory. In a less idiotic world, the arms industry would have ceased to be in private hands a long time ago, except with regard to such light arms as revolvers, shotguns and the like.
In the event that an attack occurs against Iranian nuclear facilities (and inevitably in neighboring areas), what kind of benefit could this bring to the country? None whatsoever - only further retardation and destruction. In every aspect, not only that regarding the development of nuclear know-how. Sooner or later, nuclear energy will be necessary to Iran, which does not have sufficient hydroelectric power plants. Could it be that the current president does not understand that maintaining the aforementioned inept phrase only provides arguments and pretexts for Israel to maintain itself as an unequalled power, and in expansion, in the Middle East? From this point of view, it would be useful for Iran to free itself from Ahmadinejad, as in the same way that it would be useful for Israel to free itself from Benjamin Netanyahu and its current Foreign Minister who, one day, will be judged by History. Almost always, it is “leaders” that disgrace their respective peoples. Even in democracies. This is due to the fact that their most important concern is that of pleasing “the masses”, who are neither interested nor have time to read the torrent of news published and analyses performed according to the particular interests of newspaper, magazine and television editors.
More specifically, with regard to the possibility of a series of “harsh sanctions” (bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities?), there follows an analysis of the false “imminent threat” that Iran will soon be capable of making atomic warheads and launching them against Israel.
The text that follows includes information gathered from the respected Brazilian newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo”, which could never be accused of nurturing any kind of sympathy for the current Iranian government.
On 8-2-10 (Page A8), the newspaper in question states: “Iranian radioactive material is enriched between 3% and 5%, and adequate level for civil applications. On being re-processed, such fuel can reach an enrichment level of 20% (ideal for medicinal use), or even 90% (the required percentage for fabrication of an atomic weapon”. Quite a jump this, from 5% to 90%. In summary, Iran is still a long way from being able to produce nuclear weapons. Its current struggle is that of managing to achieve an enrichment level of 20% - far from the 90% necessary to produce bombs. The same article continues by saying that the intelligence services of the USA and European countries “calculate” (a likely exaggeration) that Iran will be capable of producing a nuclear bomb within less than five years”. When an article such as this states “less than five years”, the reader can be certain that the prediction is not that of one, two or three years. It is that of at least four or five. Therefore, the alleged “Iranian bomb” is not a matter of such immediate importance that it justifies bombing now, by any country, unleashing a new war.
The false arguments for immediately “punishing” Iran also include the fact that Iran has shown itself to be reluctant regarding the western proposal that it should sent its nuclear fuel to be processed in France. Iranian suspicion regarding this proposal is justified. What kind of guarantee is there that France and western nations (after a period of time and strongly influenced by Israeli diplomacy) will not resolve to “think again” and “retain” the Iranian nuclear fuel, alleging this or that reason or pretext? In this case, Iran would be deprived of a material that is its own, depending on enormous, slow and inefficient legal bureaucracy in order to claim the devolution of its fuel in an international court of justice. In addition, it is well known that the decisions of international justice are not automatically fulfilled. If France were to refuse to hand over the fuel (to which it has no right of ownership) following years of legal disputes and sentenced for this at the International Court of Justice, the matter would come to be examined by the Security Council, where solely politically motivated decisions are the order of the day. Furthermore, France has already expressly stated that “...its state-owned nuclear company, Areva, would not be able to deliver the fuel to Iran for at least two years, due to prior supply commitments” (same journalistic source).
Summing up, France simply creates confusion with its proposals and counter-proposals. On 10-2-10 (page A12), the aforementioned Brazilian newspaper stated “About one year ago, Sarkozy declared that there were two options: an Iranian nuclear bomb or the bombing of Iran”. In January, the French president warned of the possibility of an Israeli military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities”. Sarkozy is the son of a Jewish mother, converted to Catholicism. It is not unlikely that such a situation makes him inclined to see things in a distinctly partial manner that favors Israel, which is in possession of a nuclear arsenal (always understood to exist but not explicitly confirmed) or pretends to have one, but does not allow foreigners to conduct any inspections.
On this topic - sanctions against Iran - our foreign policy is going in the right direction. Although perhaps not “politically correct” internationally, such policy is certainly “politically correct” from a moral point of view, which is much more important in the long term than subservience to the interests of the more artful.
During his next trip to the Middle East, a great amount of pressure will be subtly brought to bear on President Lula by the Israeli government to adhere to the almost unanimous international viewpoint that judges, with extreme partiality (and without the slightest embarrassment), a conflict capable of unleashing an unjust war against a relatively weak nation - Iran. Please forget the thoughtless bravura shown by the Iranian president. Think only of the Iranian people. At heart, what Iran intends to do is create a shield that provokes some degree of respect, or even fear, in an enemy that is known to be too powerful and influential to be opposed with respect to any territorial pretentions. If the fear is mutual, there is some hope of an agreement regarding the central conflict - the Palestinian issue.
It is to be hoped that the Brazilian government, although polite in its statements during visits, evasively says that it is going to “think about” the suggestions and subsequently decides with a clear conscience (although with an expired vote at the UN). If other countries, through stupidity or shameful submission, wish to authorize such bombing (without a minimum of remorse regarding the unequal treatment of the countries involved), may the blood of Iranian victims be a stain on the conscience of others, not our own.
If the conflict in Palestine is resolved, in a just manner (the decision should come from an “external” source), innumerous other problems will also be automatically resolved, or almost resolved.
(10-02-10)
