WAR PROTEST RESUMES THIS SATURDAY
Peace Protest: Stop War on Iran, No More Blood for Oil
Peace Protest: Stop War on Iran, No More Blood for Oil
|
10:32 AM (5 hours ago)
|
 |
||
|
||||
Dear Friends,
As you likely know,
major oil facilities in Saudi Arabia have been attacked, and the Trump administration is blaming
Iran (without
evidence), and threatening catastrophic war once
again. It was likely
Houthi rebels in Yemen, where an ongoing Saudi-U.S. war has led to mass
death and suffering for millions of humans. Regardless of who attacked the oil
facilities, more catastrophic war is not the answer.
We'll be hitting the streets for peace once again this Saturday, September 21st at 11 a.m. in front of the Washington County Courthouse. Please join us.
Thank you,
OMNI
IRAN
NEWSLETTERS, SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
MEDIA/ADG
REPORT IRAN
CRITICISM
OF US EMPIRE
COMPILED BY DICK BENNETT FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE, JUSTICE,
and ECOLOGY
(#11 Oct. 8, 2011; #12 Jan. 31, 2012; #13 Feb.
22, 2012; #14 Feb. 26, 2012; #15 March 17, 2012; #16 April 12, 2012; #17 May
21, 2012; #18, July 9, 2012; #19 August 13, 2012; #20 Sept. 10, 2012; #21, Dec.
14, 2012; #22 March 5, 2013; #23 Nov. 12, 2013; #24 March 5, 2014; #25 January
17, 2015; #26, July 28, 2015; #27, June 3, 2018; #28, June 21, 2019; #29, July
11, 2019; #30, July 19, 2019; #31, July 25, 2019)
Local
action in Fayetteville, Arkansas toward stopping Iran war and US imperialism, OMNI
held weekly peace protests every Saturday at 11 A.M. in front of Washington
County Courthouse during June-August. This newsletter continues that protest and
over 30 newsletters denouncing US belligerence against Iran. If you oppose war: be engaged with OMNI and
send items for its newsletter, and If you have suggestions for the Saturday
protests contact Abel Tomlinson: abeltomlinson@gmail.com
CONTENTS SEPTEMBER 17, 2019, #32
Mainstream Media
--“Creating a Climate for War With Iran. “ GREGORY SHUPAK in FAIR.
https://fair.org/home/creating-a-climate-for-war-with-iran/
Mainstream Media outlets are creating a climate for a US military attack on Iran by hyping the idea that Iran is an imminent threat to peace, by failing to offer evidence that calls the US’s accusations against Iran into question, by amplifying warmongers’ voices, and by naturalizing America’s supposed right to spy on every country on earth.
Mainstream Media
--“Creating a Climate for War With Iran. “ GREGORY SHUPAK in FAIR.
https://fair.org/home/creating-a-climate-for-war-with-iran/
Mainstream Media outlets are creating a climate for a US military attack on Iran by hyping the idea that Iran is an imminent threat to peace, by failing to offer evidence that calls the US’s accusations against Iran into question, by amplifying warmongers’ voices, and by naturalizing America’s supposed right to spy on every country on earth.
NADG Reporting
9-15 Strikes on SA Oil Installations
Locked and Loaded! Trump 9-16
Locked and Loaded! Trump 9-16
Iranian Carrier at Galveston
Art’s 5 Columns v. War
Dick: Warmonger Congressman Womack’s Reply
A Few More Readings v. US Aggression
Iran Newsletter #31
REPORTING THE 9-15 STRIKES ON SAUDI OIL
INSTALLATIONS
[To give the international reporters the benefit of the doubt, they struggle to make their reports coherent despite Pres. Trump’s shifting statements. But in general the owners of the MM like the D-G do not oppose the 9 wars, the longest war, the $trillion Pentagon budget, and all continue erroneously to call the Pentagon the Department of Defense. Dick]
3 D-G articles 9-17.
D-G Staff. “Trump: Iran Suspect in Strike.” (9-17-19, 1A, 6A).
Trump says it “looks like” Iran bombed Saudi Arabia, but he “stressed that military retaliation was not yet on the table.,” he would “like to avoid” a military conflict\, and he “emphasized his interest in diplomacy.” [A huge difference in tone from yesterday.]
D-G Staff. “Oil Prices Skyrocket after Attacks.” (9-17-19, 1A, 6A).
Prices “surged the most on record.”
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry “said Iranian weapons were used in the attacks on Saudi Aramco, while the U.S. blamed Iran for the attacks.” [Another big difference.]
D-G Staff. “Iran Rejects Idea of U.S. Meeting.” (9-17-19, 2A).
Meetings possible only if US “stops economic terrorism and returns to the nuclear deal.”
“The Houthi rebels in Yemen, who receive support from Iran, claimed responsibility for the strikes, but the Trump administration has accused Tehran of being behind the attack.” [Did the Iranians attack or only supply weapons which Yemen then used for their attack? And why doesn’t the newspaper mention US support of SA as it does regarding Iranian support for Yemen? Support? All of the bombs? Or fuel? Or technicians? We are talking evidence for war here.]
[To give the international reporters the benefit of the doubt, they struggle to make their reports coherent despite Pres. Trump’s shifting statements. But in general the owners of the MM like the D-G do not oppose the 9 wars, the longest war, the $trillion Pentagon budget, and all continue erroneously to call the Pentagon the Department of Defense. Dick]
3 D-G articles 9-17.
D-G Staff. “Trump: Iran Suspect in Strike.” (9-17-19, 1A, 6A).
Trump says it “looks like” Iran bombed Saudi Arabia, but he “stressed that military retaliation was not yet on the table.,” he would “like to avoid” a military conflict\, and he “emphasized his interest in diplomacy.” [A huge difference in tone from yesterday.]
D-G Staff. “Oil Prices Skyrocket after Attacks.” (9-17-19, 1A, 6A).
Prices “surged the most on record.”
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry “said Iranian weapons were used in the attacks on Saudi Aramco, while the U.S. blamed Iran for the attacks.” [Another big difference.]
D-G Staff. “Iran Rejects Idea of U.S. Meeting.” (9-17-19, 2A).
Meetings possible only if US “stops economic terrorism and returns to the nuclear deal.”
“The Houthi rebels in Yemen, who receive support from Iran, claimed responsibility for the strikes, but the Trump administration has accused Tehran of being behind the attack.” [Did the Iranians attack or only supply weapons which Yemen then used for their attack? And why doesn’t the newspaper mention US support of SA as it does regarding Iranian support for Yemen? Support? All of the bombs? Or fuel? Or technicians? We are talking evidence for war here.]
LOCKED
AND LOADED
“U.S. Weighs
Response to Attack on Saudi Oil.
Officials Say Photos Point to Iran as Culprit.” (9-16). [Is this an accurate title for this newspaper
article, which contains several topics?
That is, the headline editor decided what to emphasize. --D]
Drone attacks on Saudi Arabian oil production and energy
supplies.
Houthi (Shi’a) Yemen rebels (allies of Shi’a Iran) claim
responsibility.
US intelligence declares Yemen couldn’t be launch site. [Therefore must have been Iran?]
President Trump tweets: “we know the culprit [Iran], [we]
are locked and loaded,” and are awaiting verification from SA. “All options…on the table.”
Iran calls US claims “maximum lies.” Revolutionary Guard repeated it “cld strike
US military bases across the Mideast.”
[This would be the headline in Iran.]
Oil prices spiked.
Pres. Trump releases US reserves to stabilize.
Secretary Pompeo directly blames Iran [with dubious logic]: “There is no evidence the attacks came from
Yemen,” therefore Iran.
US, allies, and UN say Iran supplies Houthis with drones.
Iran denies allegations.
Iraqi PM denies Iraqi origin of attacks.
Houthi leader Muhammad al-Bukhaiti again claims Houthi
responsibility.
Iran “kept up its threats.” Iran ready to counter-attack if attacked by
US—“vessels, air bases, troops.” If a
few weak Houthis can wreak such damage, imagine what Iran can do.
US Sen. Lindsey Graham “suggested retaliatory strikes” on
Iran’s refineries because of their “misbehavior.”
Report trails off with speculation over whether Trump and
Iranian President Rouhani will meet during the UN General Assembly with “no
conditions.”
Locked and Loaded
|
1:06 PM (6 hours ago)
|
|
Dick - we could be
HOURS away from a major U.S. military attack on Iran.
Trump says the U.S.
military is ‘locked and loaded’ in reaction to attacks on a Saudi oil
installation. Administration officials are anonymously doing a full-court PR
press to justify military action by circulating selectively ‘declassified
intelligence’ images.
What happens in the
next hours and days is CRITICAL.
We are in a race
against time to stop a needless, costly, and destructive war with Iran, and our team has dropped everything to pile
pressure on Congress to use their constitutional power to stop this nightmare
scenario from unfolding -- and while we ramp up as fast as we can, we can’t
afford to fall flat financially.
Three months ago we
came within MINUTES of U.S. missiles raining down on Iran -- stopped only by a
last-minute change of heart by Trump. It makes the situation right now even more terrifying.
And make no mistake
about the potential consequences of a U.S. military strike: Iranian officials
have ALREADY made that clear, with military commanders bombastically declaring
they’re ready for ‘full-fledged’ war, and media outlets highlighting the
ability of Iran’s missiles to reach U.S. forces.
When John Bolton got
fired, it seemed like we might be moving away from the brink of war. The
problem is that Trump’s war cabinet is full of hardline hawks, like Mike Pompeo
who has been using this weekend’s attacks in Saudi Arabia to push harder than
ever for a war with Iran.
The truth is that
being yet again on the brink of war with Iran is the result of a tireless march
towards conflict by the Trump Administration. From its unflinching support for
the horrific Saudi-UAE war in Yemen to walking away from the historic and
successful Iran nuclear agreement, the Trump Administration has taken one step
after another, always towards war.
We are in the fight of
our lives to stop another catastrophic and unnecessary war, and we are using
every tactic at our disposal — from Congress to the media. And so I need to ask
for your support:
These are scary times,
and the place I gather most strength from in times like these are activists
like you, and the rest of the Win Without War community, who are pressing day
after day to stop Donald Trump from dragging us into another terrible war of
choice.
Thank you for working
for peace, Stephen, Amy, Kate, and the
Win Without War team
Satire “Iranian Carrier Prowls Outside US’s Reach. Ship in Position to Act If Necessary.” Iranian
AMERETAT REPORTER
(August 24, 2019).
Aboard Iranian Ship Zana
Izad in the Gulf of Mexico.
The 1,500 men aboard the conventionally-powered Zana Izad
do not venture near US ports at Corpus Christi, Galveston, and New Orleans,
despite a warning from President Hassan Rouhani ‘s national
security adviser that the warships are in the Gulf of Mexico “to send a clear
and unmistakable message” to the US to steer clear of Iranian interests in the
region.
The Ships have
carried out the order of its commander in chief to counter the US in the Gulf
but in the least provocative way. Just
where to station the Zana Izad is a
decision made by the Iranian Navy’s 1st Fleet, which has its
headquarters in Havana, Caracas. (The
Fleet has one carrier, a heavy cruiser, several destroyers, and support ships.)
The fear is that sending its Fleet into the Gulf right when Iran has turned up
the heat on Washington, could provoke exactly the kind of conflict the Iranians
want to avoid.
“Anytime a
foreign Fleet moves close to shore, and especially into confined waters, the
danger to the ships goes up significantly, particularly with the US“ said
Farzad Kazim, a retired Revolutionary Guard admiral . “It becomes vulnerable to nuclear submarines
(both power and weapons), shore-launched cruise missiles, and bombings by
planes both from shore and ships—the US has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers around the world”).
“We can reach the
US from here easily,” said Admiral Kazim, commander of the carrier strike
group, on the bridge of the Zana Izad.
Five levels below, aircraft purchased from Russia were catapulting off
the flight deck and headed toward the US, but they would make sure to stay away
from the 12-mile border that encompasses US airspace. To threaten US ports, the warplanes would fly
above Mexico, not over the US.
[The much longer report from Helene Cooper I
hope you read or will read. It
unintentionally shines a light on the illegal and dangerous world war-threatening
behavior of the US today near the coast of Iran. Helene Cooper, The NYT. “U.S. Carrier Prowls Outside
Iran’s Reach. Ship in Position to Act If Necessary. “ NADG (August 24, 2019). –Dick]
ART HOBSON’S 5 COLUMNS AGAINST WAR WITH IRAN
(Art’s columns make D-G somewhat an exception to the strictures I expressed above, but they are guest columns, not expressive of the newspaper’s policy.)
(Art’s columns make D-G somewhat an exception to the strictures I expressed above, but they are guest columns, not expressive of the newspaper’s policy.)
Art Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu, NWA Times, 2 July 2019
Approaching
yet another U.S. war
Perhaps it’s time to slow down
and think
It’s hard to believe
we’re back again at the brink of disaster.
Weren’t Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (just to mention a few)
sufficient to teach us a lesson? The
Trump Administration, egged on by supposed allies Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates and Israel, created this conflict by tearing up a perfectly good
nuclear weapons agreement, erecting a warlike economic barricade around Iran,
and threatening economic warfare against any nation daring to violate our
edict. We seem determined to push Iran
until war breaks out.
Our dictatorial actions
bring real suffering to 81 million Iranians:
During the past year the value of their currency plummeted 60 percent,
inflation is up 37 percent, while food and medical costs have soared 50
percent. Thus we have already attacked
Iran diplomatically and economically, with more to come.
The Administration
expects Iran to come to the table and negotiate their own defeat in the
forty-year war between the Saudi-backed Sunni Islamic tribes and the
Iran-backed Shiite Islamic tribes. I
doubt Iran will comply.
What do we expect Iran
to do? If they do nothing, our sanctions
will crush them. Our threats make
negotiation impossible. We’ve backed
them into a corner from which they can only lash out by, for example,
sabotaging shipping through the Gulf of Hormuz.
We are on the road to escalation and a war that will dwarf those in Iraq
and Syria.
A little history: Iran is home to one of the oldest continuous
civilizations, with settlements dating to 7000 BC. The Persians, whom some scholars call the
“first historical people,” unified Iran as a nation and empire in 625 BC.
Jumping to modern
times: At the end of World War II, Shah
(“King”) Mohammad Pahlavi ruled Iran in what was supposed to be a
constitutional monarchy along the lines of today’s Jordan, Morocco, or
Kuwait. But the shah gradually assumed
dictatorial powers.
In 1951, his Prime Minister
Mohammed Mosaddeq received sufficient support to nationalize the British-owned
oil industry. In 1953, a popular
uprising supporting Mosaddeq forced the shah into exile. But Mosaddeq was soon arrested in a coup
organized by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency with active support from
Great Britain. The shah was re-installed
as ruler of an undemocratic autocracy from 1953 through 1978. Shah Pahlavi allowed a consortium of foreign
companies to run Iran’s oil facilities, splitting profits with Iran but not
allowing Iran to audit their accounts or have a vote on consortium
affairs.
Economic conditions
remained poor and domestic resistance emerged in 1963. Leftist and Islamic religious resistance was
violently repressed by the shah’s internal security service. The resistance smoldered and finally broke
out into large demonstrations under the leadership of Ayatollah (“Shiite
religious leader”) Ruhollah Khomeini and others in 1978, sending the shah again
into exile. The revolution was
victorious in 1979 when the entire Iranian people overwhelmingly approved a
referendum to adopt a populist, nationalist, strongly Shiite Islamic
Constitution with Ayatollah Khomeini as Supreme Leader.
Khomeini ruled during
the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq’s Sunni Islamic dictator Saddam Hussein
launched a surprise attack in hopes of defeating the fledgling government. Iran lost between 500,000 and 1,000,000
civilians and soldiers, including 100,000 victims of Iraq’s chemical
weapons. International agencies have unanimously
confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons. Iraq was financially backed by Egypt, the
Sunni nations of the Persian Gulf, the Soviet Union, USA, France, Britain,
Germany, and China.
On his deathbed in
1989, Khomeini appointed a “council of elders” which then named Iran’s
president, Ali Khamenei, as the next Supreme Leader. The transition was smooth, and Khamenei has
ruled during a succession of elected presidents, including at least one
(Mohammad Khatami, two-term president during 1997-2005) whom Khamenei
opposed. The current president, Hassan
Rouhani, was elected in 2013 with a vote of 19 million out of 37 million votes
cast.
In 2015, following 12
years of diplomatic negotiations involving Iran, USA, UK, France, China,
Russia, and Germany, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini
hailed a “decisive step”: a
comprehensive agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald
Trump vowed to abandon this nuclear deal.
As president, he announced U.S. withdrawal from the agreement on May 8,
2018.
Two lessons
emerge: Iran has suffered at the hands
of the U.S. and other nations intent on its oil riches. And Iran is more democratic than most Mideast
nations, far more so than our ally Saudi Arabia.
We need to end our
economic blockade and return to the Iran nuclear deal.
References: NWADG 19.6.19-1 (the
effects of our sanctions)
Art Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times, 23 July 2019
Will
North Korea and Iran renounce nukes?
Being realistic in a dangerous
era
Between
Iran and North Korea, nuclear weapons have been in the news these past few
weeks. Civilization faces at least two
existential threats, nuclear war and climate disruption. Climate disruption is more certain, but
nuclear war remains all-too-possible.
The
USA, far and away the world’s most over-armed nation, bears the major
historical responsibility for the global nuclear threat. We started the nuclear arms race with the
world’s first fission bomb test in 1945, followed by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings, the only wartime uses of nuclear weapons. We first tested the world’s first fusion
bomb, potentially thousands of times more powerful than fission bombs, in
1952.
Our
military expenditures for 2018 totaled $649 billion. The military spending of the next seven
contenders (China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, United Kingdom,
Germany), totaled $609 billion in all, according to the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute.
I
am proud to have spent a sabbatical at SIPRI in 1985, studying arms
control. Physicists invented the bomb
and I am delighted that many physicists now work to consign it to history’s ash
heap. As one example, I was part of a
group of ten physicists who published an arms control book titled The Future of
Land-Based Strategic Missiles (American Institute of Physics, New York,
1989). I co-edited the book and wrote
four chapters, three of which were later published in the international journal
“Science and Global Security.” It’s a
topic I’ve followed closely all my professional life.
There
are nine nuclear weapons nations.
Together with their year of nuclear acquisition and current number of
separately-targetable nuclear warheads, these are: United States (1945, 6450), Russia (1949,
6490), United Kingdom (1952, 215), France (1960, 300), China (1964, 280),
Israel (probably 1966, 80), India (1974, 130), Pakistan (mid 1980s, 140), North
Korea (2006-2013, 25).
In 1970, the United-Nations-sponsored
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force. Today all nations are parties to the treaty
except for South Sudan and four nuclear powers (India, Israel, North Korea,
Pakistan) which were non-nuclear when the treaty was established but then
acquired nukes in violation of the treaty.
The purposes of the treaty are to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,
promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and achieve nuclear disarmament. The treaty’s central idea is that non-nuclear
states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons while nuclear states agree to share
peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue the elimination of all nuclear
arsenals.
The
four non-complying nuclear powers have their own “deterrence” rationales: India and Pakistan deter each other, Israel
deters hostile Mideast nations, and North Korea deters the USA and its allies. Iran is currently threatening to acquire
nuclear weapons to deter the USA, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations.
Americans
must understand that we are not the only nation that feels it needs a nuclear
arsenal to prevent enemy attack. We
still surround ourselves by 6,500 nuclear weapons, far more than “needed” and
enough to destroy civilization many times over.
Other nations also have their fears.
Certainly North Korea and Iran fear the supremely powerful USA—fears
justified by our attacks on Vietnam, Iraq and Libya among others. President Obama negotiated a remarkable
nuclear deal with Iran requiring them to refrain from nuclear weapons in return
for relief from crushing sanctions.
President Trump’s foolish violation of that treaty produced the expected
Iranian countermoves: Increased uranium
enrichment, and the expected re-opening of a plutonium-producing reactor. Enriched uranium and plutonium are the two
key fission weapon fuels.
It’s
good that Trump gets along with North Korea’s Chairman Kim Jong Un, but I doubt
good vibes are going to be enough to re-assure Kim that policy advisors John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo will not attack a non-nuclear North Korea, or that some
future U.S. president would not attack.
He knows he needs nuclear weapons for deterrence.
Threats
and crushing sanctions are not the way to peace with Iran or North Korea. We need to remove our hostile sanctions on
Iran and return to compliance with the nuclear deal. We need to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea
just as we have accepted a nuclear-armed India, Pakistan, and Israel. I think Kim would accept an agreement
allowing North Korea a treaty-limited nuclear arsenal similar to Israel’s. And we need to seriously negotiate with the
Russians to greatly reduce both superpowers’ mountain of nuclear warheads, as
both nations promised to do when we signed the NPT.
You
can help: Join the weekly demonstrations
against war with Iran at the Washington County Courthouse, Saturdays eleven to
noon.
Notes:
Art Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu, NWA Times, 13 August 2019
Will
nukes be used in Iran?
America needs a peace movement
War tensions build daily in the Persian Gulf. President Trump’s historic and disastrous
decision to violate the Obama-era nuclear deal negotiated by Iran, European
Union, China, France, Russia, UK, Germany and the U.S. unleashed a can of worms
that’s all too likely to lead to conflict and even nuclear war.
We
have waged economic war on Iran, demanding surrender. While railing against a non-existent Iranian
nuclear weapon, we have accepted a nuclear-armed Israel in violation of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty. We are helping
Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons and we threaten Iran with nuclear attack
(see below). Iran cannot tolerate this
situation and they are not going to give up.
Their only option is to push back.
It’s
easy to understand why Iran, not to mention North Korea, might want nuclear
weapons: To deter the threat of U.S.
attack as occurred against Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It’s instructive to contrast Trump’s relative
restraint regarding North Korea’s very real nukes with his violent histrionics
against Iran which lacks such weapons and was abiding by the nuclear deal.
In
July 2018, Trump responded to an Iranian statement by tweeting “NEVER, EVER
THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF
WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.” Last May, Trump threatened the “official end”
of Iran in a U.S.-Iran war. In June, he
said “I’m not looking for war and if there is, it’ll be obliteration like you
have never seen before. ...You (Iran)
can’t have nuclear weapons.” During the
current buildup against Iran, we have sent four nuclear-weapons-capable B-52 bombers
to the region.
In
a July 25 American Conservative article
titled “Did Trump just threaten to attack Iran with nukes?” former intelligence
officer and nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter notes the following recent
pronouncement by Trump about the Afghan war:
“I could win that war in a week.
I just don’t want to kill 10 million people. ...If I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan
would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be gone. It would be over in, literally, in 10 days.” This boast can only be a reference to nuclear
weapons use. As Trump himself implies,
nobody is considering this route in Afghanistan. So why did he say it? Ritter suggests, and I heartily agree, that
it must be understood as a warning to Iran.
Tactical
nuclear weapons are quite plausible, and perhaps defensible from a strict
military viewpoint, against Iran. Iran
is probably impossible for the U.S. to defeat with any combination of
conventional forces. At least half a
million ground troops—the number we had in Vietnam at that war’s apex—would be
needed, and it would be endless. Iran’s
nuclear facilities would be a major U.S. objective. But the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant,
buried deep within a mountain and perhaps 80 meters underground, is probably
invulnerable to conventional bombs--even the 5,000-pound “bunker-buster” that the
B-2 Stealth bomber can deliver.
Iran’s
Arak nuclear power plant, which can produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, was
closed in accordance with the nuclear deal, but now Iran is re-opening it. Israel has bombed Mideast reactors twice
before. There is a high risk Israel will
bomb Arak before the reactor turns on and thus becomes radioactive.
Nuclear
weapons use against Iran could indeed destroy its weapons sites, even including
Fordow, and “win” a war. It would also
open the way for other nuclear-armed nations such as Russia, China, India,
Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to use their nuclear weapons, and for
additional nations such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Taiwan, and the United Arab
Emirates, to develop nuclear weapons.
Indeed,
our strongest Mideast ally and Iran’s arch-enemy, Saudi Arabia, is edging
toward nuclear weapons. According to the
July 30 Northwest Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, a U.S. Congressional committee report raises questions
about whether the White House is willing to place profits above the objective
of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons,
and “exposes how corporate and foreign interests are using their unique
access to advocate for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.” The Trump administration has approved seven
applications for U.S. companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance
to Saudi Arabia. Lawmakers have
expressed concerns that the Saudis could develop nuclear weapons.
America
needs an antiwar movement. Trump is
vulnerable to public antiwar pressure.
You can help. Join me and many
others in a peaceful law-abiding demonstration against war with Iran, every
Saturday, 11 to noon, at the Fayetteville courthouse.
Refs:
• https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-trump-just-threaten-to-attack-iran-with-nukes/.
NWADG, 30 July 2019, page 4, “Senate override
fails on arms-sale vetoes.”
Art
Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu, NWA Times, 3
September 2019
The Bomb: how it works
Nuclear
science for citizens
The
consequences of nuclear weapons are horrendous, but the science is
fascinating. To prevent the horror,
citizens must learn some of the related science.
Our
familiar world is made of atoms. There
are only 118 chemically different types of atoms or “elements.” Atoms are made of a tiny central nucleus
containing two kinds of particles, namely protons and neutrons, and of smaller
lighter electrons moving roughly in circles around the nucleus.
Each
atom’s “chemistry” (the atoms with which it will combine) is determined by its
number of electrons, which is equal to its number of protons. This keeps each atom “electrically neutral”
because electrons and protons are “oppositely electrified,” electrons negative
and protons positive. The elements are
numbered according to their number of protons (or electrons). For example, number 1 is hydrogen, with one
proton in the nucleus. Elements number
92 and 94, uranium and plutonium, are central to nuclear power and nuclear
weapons.
Nuclear
weapons and nuclear reactors for peaceful energy are highly significant nuclear
technologies One significant link
between them is that both can be fueled by uranium, plutonium, or
hydrogen. The energy they produce comes
from either “fissioning” (splitting) uranium or plutonium nuclei, or “fusing”
(joining together) hydrogen nuclei.
The
world’s first nuclear reactor was based on uranium fission. It turned on in 1942 as part of the secret
Manhattan Project to build a nuclear bomb during World War II, a project driven
by fear of a German nuclear bomb.
Indeed, Germany was working in that direction, but their research never
achieved a working reactor, much less a bomb.
Fission
reactors and bombs are based on a “chain reaction.” If a sufficient amount (called a “critical
mass”) of uranium is assembled, and if the assembly is then showered with
neutrons, the neutrons will enter a small fraction of the uranium nuclei,
causing those nuclei to fission into roughly two parts plus two or three extra
neutrons. These neutrons are key to the
chain reaction: They go on to enter
other nuclei, which then fission, emitting more neutrons, and so forth. This chain of reactions will fission (split)
a significant fraction of the trillion trillions of assembled uranium nuclei,
each fission releasing a relatively large (on the atomic scale) amount of
energy. The huge energy release can
produce electric power in reactors or explosions in bombs.
During
1944 and 1945, at a laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, an international team
of scientists constructed the world’s first nuclear weapons: one uranium bomb and two plutonium
bombs. The uranium bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. One
plutonium bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945 and the other fell on
Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. The
Hiroshima blast had a “yield” (a truly ironic term) equivalent to 12,000 tons
of TNT. Afterward, 140,000 lay
dead. By 1950, the death toll had
reached 200,000—50 percent of the city’s population. The Nagasaki bomb had a yield of 22,000 tons
of TNT. It killed 70,000 outright and
140,000 total by 1950.
I
wept while writing that paragraph. Why
must humans do this to each other? Today, such devices, having yields similar
to the Hiroshima bomb, are called “tactical nuclear weapons” and come in the
form of land mines, air-dropped bombs, and rocket-launched missiles for
battlefield use. As I discussed three
weeks ago, the U.S. has hinted at using nuclear weapons against Iran. They would probably be of the “tactical”
variety.
Regarding
fusion: Fusion reactors are at least 50
years in the future, but hydrogen fusion bombs have unfortunately been around
since they were first tested by the United States in 1952. H-bomb fuel is a special naturally-occurring
form of hydrogen containing one proton and one or two neutrons in the
nucleus. Their yield typically runs up
to one million tons of TNT, hundreds of times larger than fission bombs. The U.S., Russia, China, France, U.K. and
probably North Korea have these monsters, as “deterrence” to prevent other
nations from using their H-bombs.
One
such bomb can destroy, for example, Detroit or San Francisco. They work by first detonating a fission bomb
and then, within the same bomb casing, employing the powerful x-rays emitted
from the fission reaction to quickly heat hydrogen to millions of degrees, high
enough to “fuse” hydrogen nuclei together to form helium (whose nucleus
comprises two protons and two neutrons).
Note
the paradox of deterrence: All nations
could prevent other nations from using nukes by banning nukes, yet nine nations
have nukes.
Art Hobson, ahobson@uark.edu, NWA Times, 24 September
2019
Will
Iran get the bomb?
Trump turns lemonade into
lemons
It’s a tragic paradox that the primary reason nations
obtain nuclear weapons is fear of other nations’ nuclear weapons. This was even true of the world’s first
nuclear power. The U.S. “Manhattan
Project” to build the bomb was driven by our fear of a non-existent Nazi bomb. In fact, the Germans had a World War II
nuclear program but they lacked the resources and the broad spectrum of
scientific talent to get it off the ground.
The Soviet Union then built their nuclear weapons because of their fear
of U.S. military (including nuclear) power, and the world was off to the
nuclear weapons race track.
The most recent addition to the nuclear club, North
Korea, probably built its nuclear arsenal because of fears of US-engineered
regime-change of the type launched against Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and to
some extent Afghanistan where our war against al-Qaeda has degenerated into
interference with an internal civil war, much as in Vietnam.
In order to end this competition, the international
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was adopted by nearly every nation in the
world. Nevertheless, there are today
nine nuclear-weapons nations, including five (US, Russia, UK, France, China)
that had the bomb prior to the NPT’s adoption in 1970, and four (Israel, India,
Pakistan, North Korea) that got the bomb after 1970 in violation of that
treaty. Under the treaty, the non-nuclear
nations are expected to abstain from nuclear weapons while the nuclear nations
are expected to work toward nuclear disarmament. 184 nations have abided by their non-nuclear
pledge, but the five original nuclear nations and the four NPT violators have
failed to honor the NPT’s goal by failing to seriously pursue nuclear
disarmament.
With many powerful enemies, chiefly the USA,
nuclear-armed Israel, and very rich Saudi Arabia, Iran has plenty of reasons to
desire nuclear weapons. They have probably
had a nuclear weapons program in the past:
The United Nations charged Iran with being out of compliance with its
NPT obligations because of suspected nuclear weapons activities during the
early 2000s.
In 2015 Iran along with the five permanent UN Security
Council members (China, France, Russia, UK, USA) plus Germany and the European
Union, signed the “Iran nuclear deal.”
Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium,
reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent, and reduce by
two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuge enrichment devices for 13
years. For the next 15 years, Iran
agreed to only enrich uranium up to about 4 percent (usable in reactors but not
useful for bombs which require greater than 80 percent enrichment), and not
build any “heavy-water facilities” (useful for producing bomb-grade
plutonium). For 10 years, all uranium
enrichment is limited to a single facility using older-style centrifuges. In return, the other signatories promise Iran
will receive relief from punishing nuclear-related sanctions. In May 2019 the International Atomic Energy
Agency certified that Iran had maintained and continued to maintain the main
terms of the deal.
The nuclear deal was a real bonus for the planet, and had
the potential to preclude an Iranian nuclear arsenal. The primary argument against it was its
time-limitations, but there was every prospect of extending the treaty’s time
durations provided Iran was treated with international respect and permitted to
develop it’s economy free of punishing sanctions.
But in May 2018 President Trump turned this sweet
lemonade back into lemons. He announced
U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and in November 2018 U.S. sanctions
came back into effect in order to force Iran to end its support for militant
groups and its development of ballistic missiles. There is little prospect that Iran will obey
either command, but they might be lured back negotiations if Trump offered the
promise of removing sanctions in return for an extension of the time
limitations to, say, 25 years. I have
always disagreed with those who are overly concerned about these time
limitations, because I think it’s clear that Iran desires nuclear weapons primarily
because it fears the USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and that a modest amount of
good will over time will go far to remove these fears.
Current developments in the Mideast are not encouraging
for those who seek a more peaceful world.
A war against Iran could quickly turn extremely ugly and even
nuclear. It could not be “won” without
putting hundreds of thousands of U.S. boots on the ground to defeat this huge,
well-armed, and largely unified nation.
End Art’s columns.
TO PROTESTERS:
CONGRESSMAN WOMACK’S REPLY TO OUR PETITION
You might recall my acquiring your signature on a petition to AR/’s congressional delegation deploring our country’s belligerence against Iran (since “1953, when the CIA helped engineer a coup. . .overthrowing [the] democratically elected Iranian government,” and forcing on the people of Iran the brutal Shah; Bacevich, America’s War for the Greater Middle East, 13). So far, only representative Womack has replied to me.
The purpose of such a petition to such a warmonger is to discover his rationalizations to enable us better to oppose him and elect a peace maker. For those of you who have not heard back from the congressman, here’s a snippet:
“I believe we should do our best to avoid armed conflict with Iran, and any other nation for that matter. However, if Iran continues to act contrary to established international norms by, among other things, sponsoring terrorist organizations, attacking international shipping, and seeking to destabilize the Middle East, we must do what is necessary to uphold the international order that has helped avoid great power conflict since World War II.”
The beginning and ending poles of this sophistical paragraph are personal self-righteousness and national exceptionalism. But its heart is not commission but omission. As noted above, the US not Iran overthrew the government of the other. The US not Iran has repeatedly violated the UN Charter (read Chapter 1, Article 2, especially Section 4). The US not Iran is the perpetrator of a global War of Terrorism. The US not Iran has destabilized the Middle East. The evidence for these claims is legion. That is why we must study US history critically. The following statement provides an introduction:
“America has constructed a vision of an ‘axis of evil’, a hostile, inimical perversion, endemic and hiding not just within a few nations but in communities spread across much of the world. Terror, terrorism, and terrorists have become one single, simple, indistinguishable scourge of all humanity. . . .” (Sardar and Davies, Why Do People Hate America? 13). From this warped perception comes the US mainstream media, a congressman like Womack, a public that voted him in office, and the war on Iran,
Dick
You might recall my acquiring your signature on a petition to AR/’s congressional delegation deploring our country’s belligerence against Iran (since “1953, when the CIA helped engineer a coup. . .overthrowing [the] democratically elected Iranian government,” and forcing on the people of Iran the brutal Shah; Bacevich, America’s War for the Greater Middle East, 13). So far, only representative Womack has replied to me.
The purpose of such a petition to such a warmonger is to discover his rationalizations to enable us better to oppose him and elect a peace maker. For those of you who have not heard back from the congressman, here’s a snippet:
“I believe we should do our best to avoid armed conflict with Iran, and any other nation for that matter. However, if Iran continues to act contrary to established international norms by, among other things, sponsoring terrorist organizations, attacking international shipping, and seeking to destabilize the Middle East, we must do what is necessary to uphold the international order that has helped avoid great power conflict since World War II.”
The beginning and ending poles of this sophistical paragraph are personal self-righteousness and national exceptionalism. But its heart is not commission but omission. As noted above, the US not Iran overthrew the government of the other. The US not Iran has repeatedly violated the UN Charter (read Chapter 1, Article 2, especially Section 4). The US not Iran is the perpetrator of a global War of Terrorism. The US not Iran has destabilized the Middle East. The evidence for these claims is legion. That is why we must study US history critically. The following statement provides an introduction:
“America has constructed a vision of an ‘axis of evil’, a hostile, inimical perversion, endemic and hiding not just within a few nations but in communities spread across much of the world. Terror, terrorism, and terrorists have become one single, simple, indistinguishable scourge of all humanity. . . .” (Sardar and Davies, Why Do People Hate America? 13). From this warped perception comes the US mainstream media, a congressman like Womack, a public that voted him in office, and the war on Iran,
Dick
A few more readings corrective of the US
military-corporate-mainstream media-congressional-executive pro-war bias:
--Inside Iran book by Medea Benjamin (Code Pink
founder).
--Douglas Waitley. The War
Makers. (US initiated or provoked
its wars.)
--Charles Derber and Yale Magrass . Bully Nation: How the
American Establishment Creates a Bullying Society. U of Kansas P, April 28, 2016.
Brett Wilkins. “Jimmy Carter. US 'Most Warlike Nation in History of the
World'.” Common Dreams. Thursday,
April 18, 2019.
--OMNI: US IMPERIALISM, WESTWARD/EASTWARD
GLOBAL EMPIRE OF BASES ENCIRCLING RUSSIA AND CHINA, BOMBING SEVEN NATIONS IN
THE MIDDLE EAST, NEW SERIES NEWSLETTER # 36, November 23, 2017.
Compiled by Dick Bennett, Building a
Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.
What’s at
Stake: “In a world convulsed by violence
and unbelievable brutality the lines between ‘us’ and ‘the terrorists’ have
been completely blurred. We don’t have
to choose between imperialism and Terrorism; we have to choose what form of
resistance will rid us of both. What
shall we choose? Violence or
nonviolence? –Arundhati Roy (sent to me by Don
Timmerman of Casa Maria Catholic Worker Community, in its newsletter Casa Cry)
See previous Iran Newsletters.
PUT FOLLOWING AT END OF #32
CONTENTS: OMNI’S IRAN NEWSLETTER #31, July 25,
2019
Continuation of
Analysis of Northwest Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette
Reporting Iran, July 19-23 by Dick Bennett
Reporting Iran, July 19-23 by Dick Bennett
Published
Commentary on US Imperialism
Vijay
Prashad, Iran’s right to have a nuclear energy program.
Prashad, The US invasion of Afghanistan
brought not peace but 18 years of death
and starvation, and the present peace talks which omit the present government are
unlikely to produce amity.
and starvation, and the present peace talks which omit the present government are
unlikely to produce amity.
David Vine’s book, Base Nation.
American military bases encircle the globe. More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. still stations its troops at nearly a thousand locations in foreign lands. Base Nation shows that the worldwide network of bases brings with it a panoply of ills—and actually makes the nation less safe in the long run.
American military bases encircle the globe. More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. still stations its troops at nearly a thousand locations in foreign lands. Base Nation shows that the worldwide network of bases brings with it a panoply of ills—and actually makes the nation less safe in the long run.
“Stop Imperialist Warfare” by Abel Tomlinson
Imperialist warfare is not only military assault or CIA covert operations, but also economic warfare such as sanctions.
Imperialist warfare is not only military assault or CIA covert operations, but also economic warfare such as sanctions.
Oliver Stone. Stop Relentless War.
Contents of #30
MORE
For earlier examination of
NADG reporting of US war against Iran
during April-July 2019 go to https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2019/07/omni-iran-newsletter-30-july-19-2019.html
END IRAN NEWSLETTER #32, SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment