Beating the War Drums

The next time we’re having our corn flakes, listening to “the most trusted name in broadcasting” telling us of those scary people and their eminent acquisition weapons of mass destruction (Take 2 after Iraq), we may wish to ask ourselves how credible the information is before nodding our heads and accepting what we hear.

Our government’s position regarding their latest enemy de jure can be summed up by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s claim that: "There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment." This will be the thesis and rational for yet another preemptive strike (read ‘war’) against a country who has NOT attacked us, nor has any demonstratable ability to do so (the minor detail of 6,324+ miles between our capitals versus the 1300+ mile maximum range of their missile systems while most of their missiles are not much better than the German V2 rocket of 1942) at the time of this writing.

 Is there any truth to the stories we’re hearing about the big & bad Iranians or, is this more of the same nonsense we heard prior to the “Shock & Awe” they carried out in Iraq?

For those of you who don’t know, Iran is a signatory to the ‘Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’ which has been in force since 1968. This is a short treaty that doesn’t require rocket science or a law degree to understand. I’m going to quote a few passages for your amusement.

Article III, Section 3 of the treaty states:

“The safeguards required by this article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties... of peaceful nuclear activities, including... the processing, use or production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this article”

This means nothing in the Treaty is intended to interfere with commercial use or development of nuclear power. For those unsure what they just read, “production of nuclear material” means enrichment of nuclear fuel. So Condi’s statement and the government’s contention is a lie.

Article IV, Section 1 of the treaty states:

”Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.”

Think hard on this one. It is an “inalienable right” of the parties to the treaty to develop and produce nuclear energy (including enrichment of fuel for those reactors). ...”INALIENABLE RIGHT”....

The fact of the matter is that enrichment of fuel (the current bugaboo and bee in Bush’s bonnet) can't be said to undermine the NPT because the NPT explicitly allows for the right to enrichment. There are twelve signatories of the Treaty who enrich uranium. There are also India and Pakistan (both having numerous nuclear weapons) as well as Israel (having several hundred nuclear weapons) who are non-signatories who enrich their fuel. So, our Secretary of State’s comment (above) and the US position on the issue of ‘enrichment’ is hogwash. The Treaty says Iran can do it, just like the other signatories do.

In 1978, our government/President promised:

"The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT ...except in the case of an attack on the United States, its territories or armed forces, or its allies,

During 1990’s NPT review conference in Geneva, it was resolved that it would be a violation of the Treaty for signatories to attack nuclear facilities of other signatories. These assurances are STILL binding on the United States unless the ‘government’ disavows them as they have (since coming to power) with the Geneva Convention, the UN’s Anti-Torture Treaty, and, indeed, the United States Constitution.

While everyone (including the government) has the right to their ‘opinion’ (in the present case) that these people are intent on building a weapon, having an opinion does not give it any value any more than believing the earth is flat makes it real. To justify overt military action (read as another undeclared war) there must be an attack against the United States.

The FACT remains, they (our government - who NEVER tells a lie) have no more ‘proof’ of their current ‘opinion’ than they did of Iraq’s WMDs. Ponder that before they work you up into a war frenzy and we see any more foolish plastic ribbons, flags or, worse yet, nuclear fallout because when our Leader blows the crap out of Iran’s power plants (owned & staffed by Russians), the least we may have to worry about is our oil being shut off at the Gulf and the resulting economic collapse of our way of life.

We might just find ourselves in a real war, with a real enemy, with real bombers & missile that can “reach out and touch someone” anywhere from Chicago to Cleveland to Claremont, New Hampshire.





Christopher T. Sununu

District 1

Mike J. Cryans

District 2

Andru Volinsky

District 3

Russell E Prescott

District 4

Theodore L. Gatsas

District 5

Debora B. Pignatelli

Click on the above photos to read about each of our council members.


Home Q & A Rules Q  & A Answers RC's Column