In a speech to the UK parliament yesterday British Foreign Secretary William Hague joined the US and Israel in rhetoric designed specifically to induce fear over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Hague told parliament that the Iranians had tested missiles during their recent military exercises that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He also told parliament that Iran was enriching uranium beyond that which was required electricity generation. Hague reportedly told parliament that Iran "has announced that it intends to triple its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium. And that "these are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy”.
William Hague is deliberately practicing deceit with these statements. He has ignored telling the parliament that having a medium range missiles does not mean that nuclear warheads are available for them. All medium range missiles are capable of being adapted to carrying a nuclear warhead. Modern nuclear weapons are now so small that they can be fitted to most missiles. The US has even tested nuclear weapons in artillery shells.
Hague also attempts to deceive with his statement about Iran’s desire to enrich uranium to 20%. The fact is, Iran has been quite open about its enrichment of uranium to 20%; they’re not doing it covertly as Hague has tried to infer. Uranium enriched to 20% is required in order to manufacture medical isotopes for the treatment of cancer. Iran announced their intention to do this a long time ago yet Hague tells the British people about as though it has just been announced. Iran announced ages ago that it had an urgent need for isotopes and that it would be expediting enrichment to 20%.
Hague has joined with the US and Israel in their fearmongering just as both are upping the propaganda and rhetoric over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Why?
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
4 comments:
I fear the iranians are in one of those dreadful positions where whatever they do, they can't win as their accusers want us to listen to them and their spiteful claims and ignore the many inconsistancies in their long running vendetta against iran.
Personally, I don't think much of the politicians etc running the show there, but no-one deserves to be attacked in a new war which is a greater wrong.
Moreover it annoys me that this 'iranian nuclear weapon' campaign is getting worse simply through repetition in 'western' media.
I've had to email the ABC in the past with healthy reminders to not conflate an announced nuclear energy programme with the dubious claims by some fools about a weapons programme .
The inertia of warmongering I fear!.
Simply, Iran has painted itself in a corner by renouncing nuclear weapons, so if any weapon were to be tested, to do so would be a violation of its past statements and demonstate deception, ergo, they'd be violating their Islamic sense of integrity.
Moreover any claims against iran must have proof like any legal process, but I fear the inertia of claims is now by repetition becoming 'proof' in the minds of jaundiced men in the U.S and its sycophants (including here in Australia).
The only good thing is that the yanks are war weary and a new one against iran would be dreadful and very difficult indeed for all.
Global recession or worse at the very least as one byproduct.
Moreover, as Libya, Afghan, Iraq demonstrates, wars now aren't going as well as the 'Daleks' thought they would
so the prospects are low for a new one.
I suspect though the anti iran campaign are just the empty mutterings of a discredited group who have no credibility, but now are in that mode where they are now goosing around like the madman in the street badgering anyone passing to listen to them as only they 'know the truth'.
So on balance, I thnk we're safe and another war is unlikely for all concerned.
It makes you wonder though, what would happen if Australia finally stoped being a servile sycophant to the tyrannical American empire and went down the nuclear path, would we be then subject to a campaign as iran is.
Think about the plain package cigarette plans by the government here as an example.
I find little of value in any side of politics, but I can see merit in this idea by Roxon (I've never smoked in my life) and wonder why cigarettes weren't banned decades ago!.
How fragile are our 'friends' and 'alliances', where in truth they only stand as long as we obey them!.
Nylon Shirt
You're dead right, NS; repeat the lie often enough and it soon becomes 'fact' in the minds of those who can't see beyond Murdochised news.
I also get annoyed at the Right-wing propaganda that says those on the Left are in bed with the likes of some of the despot governments that happen to support Palestine. Personally, my beef is about Israel and their Western supporters wanting to wage war - full stop; regardless of who it is against, but for the Right-wing this somehow morphs into supporting extremists.
As far a Iran is concerned, there is no proof whatsoever that they have anything like a nuclear weapons program. This is just being used as an excuse for war. I don't like the way does stuff, but I like even less the idea of an utterly devastating war that will kill thousands for no other reason than to extend ones own empire.
Cheers
Damian
PS As I said before, please don't feel neglected if I don't always respond to your comments. Times is running away from as I finish up a research project that now has a deadline. DL
No worries Damian mate, time waits for no man and I hope your research goes well.
Can you say what its about?.
Perhaps an analysis on what 'hold' the yanks have on Aussie politicians?. (I'm sure we're threatened behind the scenes if we step out of line by withdrawing their patronage or Murdoch does an axe job on them being the propaganda arm of the American empire).
Just a quick cogent point on Iranian missiles.
Did you know that in the late 1980's the Saudi's bought of China about 50x CSS-2 (as we call them) mid range ballistic missiles?.
About 2500km range or so but inaccurate.
They were operational by the early '90's and there was much alarm at their acquisition by the Saudi's (unknown to the yanks at first), but everyone got used to them and now hardly anyone remembers!.
There was alarm too that with such inaccuracy, that perhaps the Saudi's may develop Chemical warheads to hit cities, but after assurances by the Saudi's, all was well as it was said that the missiles were aimed not as Israel, but Iran!.
So who was 'provocative' first?.
Seems to me the Saudi's secretly going off and buying ballistic misiles in the '80's and supposedly aiming them at Iran, is more a provocation than the behaviour of the Iranians today.
Perhaps the Iranians shortly afterwards may have aimed their missiles (what they had in the early '90' at least), but the point is, who started it?.
Seems to me the Saudi's, but of course they're the mates of the yanks so thats alright then isn't it!.
Bloody hypocrites!.
Look if up if you like and then ask who was being 'provocative' first, especially in light of the fears at the time of WMD warheads being employed to compenate for the missiles inaccuracy!.
I'd almost forgotten this titbit, but the matter of missiles made me thing a bit more about the matter.
I think I first read it in 'Flight International' magazine in the run up to the Gulf war in 1990, so its not been secret for a fair while now!.
But of course, the ratbags in the U.S etc rely on people forgetting believing their 'repeated lies as truth' claims!.
Hope this helps clarify matter s more,
Nylon Shirt
Hi NS
I'm finishing up a PhD thesis on neoconservatism and its influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East. I'm trying to get it polished off by September. Part of the thesis does examine the roles that conservatives in Australia and elsewhere played, and also the role of Murdoch.
I was aware that Saudi Arabia had purchased Chinese missiles though for diehard neocons Richard Perle and David Frum it would make no difference who they were aimed at because Perle and Frum are adamant that Saudi Arabia should be on the list of Islamic nations that the US should destroy. (See 'An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror'. pp. 129-142.) The neocons couldn't be happier if the Middle East nations turned on each other; they're all enemies of Israel as far as the neocons are concerned.
You have to wonder who is provoking who behind the scenes though I'd have a reasonable idea!
Cheers
Damian
Post a Comment