Attack on Iran would be catastrophic

Open-minded peace advocates and conscientious objectors to biased unfairness should ask themselves whose stance is the riskier threat to global security – Israel, which has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to submit to inspections, or Iran, which has been (reluctantly) playing by the rules by signing the NPT and allowing inspection of all nuclear sites?

American right-wing politicos, fearful of offending a well-financed, powerful lobby that is bent on forcing its intimidated allies into yet another unwinnable war, have consistently resisted efforts under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to promote extension of safeguards to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, which reportedly has at least 400 top secret nuclear warheads. Fear-mongers have pre-judged nuclear buildup, supposedly for domestic use, as posing an ominous threat to Israel ’s existence, but don’t 400-to-1 odds represent a disproportionate imbalance? Retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan has called a possible Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities “the stupidest thing I ever heard”. The major doubt focuses on “Then what?”

Israel’s emboldened chutzpah and rhetoric should be reined in, along with bullyrag attempts to suck intimidated allies into the apocalyptic black hole. Diplomacy alone represents the only viable long-term solution to negotiate a verifiable weapons-free zone, and to actualise the Arab Spring’s democratic ideals by granting long-oppressed Palestinians their well-deserved sovereignty. 

Charles Frederickson

Bangkok