Whoever takes the time to study, even if not in depth, the astute international campaign that is underway against the development of nuclear capabilities by Iran, can only be astonished by the tremendous partiality shown by the news media against the only country, Iran, that has had the courage to offer its firm solidarity to the Palestinians, expelled from land occupied for almost two thousand years. And here lies the core of the Middle East problem. Iran is a mere development, subject to interpretive distortion in complex international politics, given that images of atomic mushroom clouds have a greater impression than the day-to-day humiliation of defenseless populations, in this case, the Palestinians.
Such Iranian solidarity could come at a cost, to its people, of the bombing of its nuclear and non-nuclear facilities, followed by a defensive war - which will be tortuously baptized as “offensive” - with the consequent massacre of its population. Those “statesmen” poisoned by hatred, stupidity or shady interests, are excited by the odor of blood and oil of a country that is weak, when compared with Israel and its acolytes, including the USA.
What is the basis for beleaguering this country? The possibility, however remote, that it comes to develop nuclear weapons that could, in theory, be launched against its fierce enemy Israel, a mortal foe that has never denied its nuclear capabilities and enjoys the privilege of never having been bothered on this account. In fact, Israel never took the trouble to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And, as it has not signed the treaty, Israel is not subject to inspections, being able to fabricate nuclear weapons at will. The technically perfect but morally aberrant legal consequence for the globalized world - something that needs to be urgently corrected by the Disunited, or should I say United Nations, if it has sufficient lucidity and courage to take this measure. This appears o be dubious, given that intellectual sheep, even those with doctorates, are to be found everywhere.
Someone could argue that, around forty years ago, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which the possibility was established of any country withdrawing from it - it being sufficient to allege that it was withdrawing for reasons of security, without further explanation. According to the aforementioned treaty, three months after declaring that it wished to withdraw from the treaty, Iran would be “free” to fabricate nuclear weapons, on an equal legal standing with Israel. Today, however, if Iran were to request its withdrawal from the treaty, its enemies would jump with joyous euphoria, saying that such withdrawal is an authentic “confession” of its intention to develop nuclear weapons, thus needing to be contained and, if necessary, destroyed. It is highly surprising that Iran has not remembered to simply withdraw, formally, from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus escaping the accusation that it is violating international standards. It should be made clear that there are no such “international standards”, only international treaties.
The media, almost entirely the enemy of Iran, repeats the whole time that, a few years ago, the president Ahmadinejad of Iran promised to “wipe Israel off the map”, and an atomic bomb (as interpreted by his enemies) would be the kind of broom foreseen for this task. A rhetorical outburst that was not only mindless, but also impossible to achieve, not formally denied by Ahmadinejad simply due to his fear of appearing weak. Without even mentioning his lack of astuteness. Any other more adept president would take up the microphone and say (perhaps resorting to lies) that the promise of “wiping off the map” was made at a time of indignation following abuse committed against the Palestinians, and that he never seriously thought of destroying a country with seven or eight million inhabitants. He would also say that his non-recognition of the Holocaust was also an exaggeration on his part, and that he would never initiate a nuclear war as there can be no winners in this type of conflict. With this “retreat”, sincere or truthful, there would at least be a slight improvement in his image on the international stage. Perhaps he has not denied his original statements knowing that nobody would believe him and, furthermore, he would appear to be a coward. Anyway, such bombastic phrases do not justify what it is intended to do now against Iran, chastising an entire people as a result of the mindless words of a single person, albeit the president of the republic.
Ahmadinejad should know perfectly well that, in the unlikely event of a nuclear attack on Israel, Tehran would almost immediately be reduced to ashes. Besides this, the Mossad, the ruthlessly effective Israeli intelligence agency, would be aware almost immediately of the Iranian plan of attack, quickly taking all necessary measures.
It is evident that the Iranian president, with his “indirect” references to future nuclear weapons capabilities, wishes to impose respect far more than fabricate atomic weapons that could be effectively used, this year or next. Specialists in the nuclear field frequently express the opinion that it will be necessary for several years to pass before Iran can fabricate nuclear weapons and launch them against Israel. It should not be forgotten that countries manufacturing nuclear weapons need to perform tests prior to using them. And any Iranian atomic test would be detected by Israel and its countless allies, showing solidarity when they should only be fair, separating the wheat from the tares. Using this metaphor, Ahmadinejad, with his bravura, represents the tares.
As everybody knows, Israel enjoys immense superiority in terms of conventional arms in the Middle East. In order to maintain its military hegemony, it has no need for nuclear weapons; however, “just in case”, it substantiates its power with presumed nuclear capabilities, which have never been inspected. Israel wants this situation to continue, which will allow it to prolong, indefinitely, the current impasse with the Palestinians in creating two states. Everything indicates that Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of reaching an agreement, despite his statements to the contrary. He is gaining time and, with the opportune and “blessed” Iranian nuclear threat, has found a good pretext for prolonging this impasse while he extends and amplifies occupation of the West Bank. Besides this, he has an insuperable international lobby at his disposal, even capable of putting a Barack Obama in office. He even concedes himself the right to be arrogant, even putting pressure on the presidents of such countries as Brazil, for their representatives not to visit Iran.
The international media is so aberrantly partial that it even considers a “challenge to the West” the fact that Tehran demands the simultaneous exchange, on Iranian territory, of its slightly enriched uranium (3.5%) for material enriched to 20% from abroad, necessary for medicinal purposes. The Western powers intend - seems like a joke... - that the Iranian nuclear material be delivered “in confidence” to Russia and then France, in order to be devolved to Iran years later. Such a scheme does prevent this material from being “confiscated” or retained in Europe, on one pretext or another, by political forces interested in maintaining total Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. What moral authority do Western countries, long accustomed to duplicity, have to require such confidence in them by a country that is comparatively weak and without any strong allies?
China, with the power of veto at the Security Council, has maintained discreet resistance to pressure regarding the imposition of further sanctions against Iran. Fifteen percent of the oil consumed in China comes from Iran. Hence the Chinese resistance to requests for further, more serious, sanctions. Nevertheless, as there are no ethics, only interests, in the international field, the possibility cannot be discarded of Iran’s enemies arranging a scheme for providing China with oil under more favorable conditions, as long as China does not veto harsher sanctions against Iran, including bombing, at the Security Council. If this occurs, Iran will pay dearly for its solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Also look at what is happening in the case of Russia: initially, the country’s leadership indicated that it was not in favor of further sanctions against Tehran. Russia currently needs to purchase French transport aircraft and Sarkosy has determined that the sale of such aircraft is dependent upon the “the Russian vote at the UN”, i.e., on the issue of sanctions (according to the Associated Press, quoted in the newspaper “Estado de S. Paulo, dated 2-3-10, page A-14). The Russian president has already accepted “intelligent sanctions”, demonstrating that heads of state “adapt” their own conscience according to the demands of current circumstances.
Some may say that the stance adopted by Ahmadinejad cannot be explained by his solidarity with the Palestinians. It could be said that what he wants is to exercise greater dominion in the troubled region. It is possible that such a motive also exists, given that a skillful mixture of motives is extremely common in politics. Anyway, if such pretensions of regional power exist, their fulfillment will be highly problematic, given that various Arab countries do not look kindly on submission to a country that is not even Arab, but Persian. Sooner or later, Ahmadinejad’s presidency will come to an end. All the evidence indicates that he will be succeeded by a government that is less “fanatic” and more careful in the words it uses. He will be out of power before the bellicose nuclear fruit is finally “ripe”, with its respective test. And if he manages to fabricate a bomb during his mandate, he will not use it because he is not so stupid as to ignore the fact that retaliation would be immediate and deadly, turning even the president himself to ashes.
That which has impressed me and taken me by surprise, provoking my obvious ire, is the impertinence shown by certain North American authorities in threatening the Brazilian president, almost “prohibiting him” from visiting Iran, during the trip he will make to the Middle East in May. Arturo Valenzuela, an American and Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, left a threatening message: “We want the Brazilians to be more forceful with the Iranians”. In addition, according to the press, Hillary Clinton is going to increase the pressure when she comes to converse with Lula in the near future. Fortunately for the Brazilian people, the president has already replied in kind, saying that he converses with whoever he wishes. A lesson in self-esteem on the part of an ordinary ex-factory worker for many of those in smart suits who are incapable not “blindly accepting the views of others”.
Why is there such irritation on the part of Israeli politicians regarding Lula’s visit to the Middle East, including Iran? In my opinion, it is not because Brazil has influence in deliberations made by the Security Council. The danger lies in Lula calming Ahmadinejad, convincing him to temper his discourse, withdrawing remarks concerning his intention to “wipe off the map”, denial of the Holocaust, and the promise that he will be able to fabricate nuclear weapons. A milder non-threatening Ahmadinejad is just what the Israeli “hawks” do not want, as it is likely that, with this calm, the problem of creating two states in Palestine would have to be addressed once again.
In general, different peoples are in fact similar, made of the same “clay”. There are individuals who are more and less intelligent, more and less cultured, and more and less inclined to human solidarity. Their happiness or misfortune depends on good or bad luck in the choice of their governors. The same occurs in the case of the Israelis and the Iranians, both currently in a rising tide of bad luck. Most of the Jews, admirable Jews, exemplary Jews, would like to live without apprehension, but this essentially originates from the impasse reached with the Palestinians. As long as this issue is not resolved, by agreement between the two parties (almost impossible), or by order of the International Court of Justice (once modifications are made to the UN Charter), we will live at the brink of war, which could become generalized, or turn into a new form of guerrilla warfare. If Iran is bombed, it is not impossible to imagine the assassination of Israeli diplomats in various parts of the world, and vice-versa, as violence breeds violence. Whoever senses that he has suffered injustice and has a hot temper will always grant himself the “right” to react according to his own standard of justice, and to hell with the law.
The world would applaud the great stroke of luck of seeing an exceptional leader arise in Israel, on a level with the admirable Jews that have so enriched civilization. He is likely already there, a younger rather than older individual, rather anonymous and without power. A politician of great moral and intellectual integrity. A mixture of Baruch Spinoza, Einstein and innumerous other intellectuals of courageous mental honesty, who knows what would be best for their country and also for the Palestinians - with or without Hamas, the mere collateral effect of a deep wound. A new Moses, with a new function: that of extending a hand in friendship, with no tricks, to the Palestinians, their Semite cousins who, after living separated for centuries, have forgotten, on meeting again, that they continue to be related.
(2-3-10)
