Iran: Hague claims mask new threats

international | anti-war / imperialism | other press

Friday February 24, 2012 17:50

by pat c

British Foreign Secretary William Hague claims that the World is Facing a new Cold WAr unless Iran gives up its hopes of constructing nuclear weapons. Peter Manson thinks this is a load of codswallop and analyses whats really going on. Full text at link.

Foreign secretary William Hague’s absurd claim that the world faces a “new cold war” if Iran does not give up its aim of acquiring nuclear weapons might not stand up to examination, but Hague was undoubtedly given a boost on February 22 when a team from the United Nations-sponsored International Atomic Energy Agency returned from a two-day visit to Iran.

IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano said that no agreement had been reached on the holding of talks to “clarify unresolved issues”, although the previous day Iran’s “supreme leader”, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted that Tehran’s nuclear programme was entirely peaceful: “There is no doubt that decision-making establishments in countries that stand against us are quite aware that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, since the Islamic Republic of Iran regards the possession of nuclear weapons as a great sin, in terms of thought, theory and religious edict, and also believes that holding such weapons is useless, costly and dangerous.”[1]

Hague’s inane warning of a “new cold war” came in an interview with The Daily Telegraph last week.[2] He added to the absurdity by implying that this time things would be even worse - in Cold War II there would be no “safety mechanisms”, you see. The following day the foreign secretary told the Commons: “If Iran sets about the development of nuclear weapons, then other nations in the Middle East would do so as well.”

Let us examine Hague’s claim by comparing this “new cold war” with the genuine article. The post-World War II extended stand-off between the USA and the Soviet Union saw a massive arms race resulting in the accumulation of enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over. Each side had hundreds of formidable intercontinental ballistic missiles pointing at the other and no-one doubted that they had the capacity to deliver them effectively. This produced a scenario known as MAD - ‘mutually assured destruction’ - where the state that launched a nuclear attack would have to be literally insane, since such an act would guarantee its own obliteration.

save preference

Comments (2 of 2)

the opinions of people actually spying on Iran completely contradict the crap being spouted by the media

by lefty

Sat Feb 25, 2012 13:18

the opinions of people actually spying on Iran completely contradict the crap being spouted by the media

http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-us-intelligence-207/

Quote:
"the consensus among US spy agencies remains that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons research years ago, as evidenced by latest statements, reports The New York Times.

The agencies believe that Tehran may militarize its nuclear program, but it has not done it. James Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence and David Petraeus, the CIA director, testified so before Senate on January 31.

Other senior US officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.

US intelligence agencies believed that Iran pursuit nuclear capability up to 2005, but in 2007 they made a u-turn on the issue. That year’s National Intelligence Estimate said that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons research in 2003."

Look At The Facts: Who Is The REAL Nuclear Threat In The Middle East ?

Fri Feb 24, 2012 18:12

An interesting comparison. Full text at link.

Tensions, threats, and the danger of a U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran are escalating dangerously. The U.S. and Israel say Iran presents a grave danger because it is enriching uranium and—they claim—may be developing the technical capability to build nuclear weapons. “We're not going to take any options off the table,” President Obama said in an interview broadcast during the Super Bowl, “and I've been very clear that we're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon...”

Nuclear weapons in anyone's hands are dangerous. And Iran 's Islamic Republic is a repressive and reactionary theocracy driven by its own interests to increase its influence and standing (even while those aspirations are well within the operation of the current oppressive world order). But since the U.S. and Israel have raised the issue of nuclear weapons, it's only fair to look at what the facts actually show about just who is the biggest nuclear threat to the planet by far .

How much does Iran spend on its military?

$7,044,000,000.

How much does the U.S. spend on its military?

$687,105,000,000 (not counting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ). This is nearly 100 times what Iran spends.

How many military bases does Iran have outside its borders?

None.

How many bases does the U.S. have overseas?

Officially there are 737 U.S. military bases in 132 of the 190 member states of the United Nations. The actual number may be more than 1,000.

How many nuclear weapons does Iran have?

None.

How many nuclear weapons does Israel have?

Between 75 and 200 nuclear warheads.

How many nuclear weapons does the U.S. have?

Approximately 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warheads and approximately 3,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,790 deployed strategic warheads, approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Iran: Hague claims mask new threats

Comments (2 of 2)