don't bomb iran ban all nuclear weapons

actions                

To receive email updates about the campaign "Don't bomb Iran", email info@vicpeace.org with subject "Iran update"

Go to actions page

links

• disarmament activist

consequences of war

• Iran: Consequences of a War (Oxford Research Group)

oil and resource wars

• Iran, oil and euros? the war scenario by Gwynne Dyer / Jordan Times 22 February 2006
• The coming resource wars by Michael Klare / 11 March 2006
• Decline and fall by Michelle Goldberg / Salon.com
• Iraq's oil: A neo-con dream gone bust by Peter Kiernan / 17 May 2006
• The failed mission to capture Iraqi oil by Michael T Klare /September 22, 2005

Statements

• Appeal from Parliamentarians and Civil Society on Iran

• Medical Association for Prevention of War

• For a nuclear-free Middle East

• Nuclear age peace foundation: What now?

why we say "don't bomb iran"

THE BUSH Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. White House insiders say that George Bush and Dick Cheney, are planning, before they leave office in three year's, military intervention — in the form of a massive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities — unless Iran scraps its nuclear programme. The plans include an option of using nuclear weapons, such as bunker busters. These plans were made even before the war on Iraq.

THERE ARE dozens of countries in the world with significant nuclear programs, 9 with nuclear weapons; 442 nuclear reactors throughout the world each produce materials with the potential to be used in nuclear weapons; and numerous other countries have uranium enrichment programs - including Australia, which hosts a research program on laser enrichment at the Lucas Heights reactor. So why target Iran? Like the recent wars on Iraq, it is all about oil and the coming resource wars. And to demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMDs.

AND hypocricy. How outrageous is it that the USA – with half of the world's deployed nuclear weapons – threatens to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, which has none. If there were genuine efforts fror disarmament and a reduction in the militarisation of the Middle East, the peace movement would be camapigning with all its energy for such an outcome.

BUT THE refusal of the members of the security council to make any moves towards disarmament, their threats of pre-emptive bombing and their quiet development of new weapons systems guarantees the failure of both the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nothing could make us less secure than the billions we are spending in the name of security. Eighty per cent of the world's arms trade exports flow into the Middle East and west Asia. Almost half of global conventional weapons deals are made by American companies. Unless we curtail the arms trade, we face another violent century.

IN NOVEMBER 2001, the USA announced plans to resume nuclear testing for development of new short-range tactical nuclear weapons, in contravention Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. In December 2001, the US officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and in July 2001 the USA undermined attempts to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. The previous month it had rejected the Land Mine Treaty. And in May 2002 the Bush administration announced that it was "unsigning" the 1988 International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty.

THE ANSWER to the "iran issue" is not another war that will, like the war on Iraq, only deepen the problems in the region. The answer is to ban all nuclear weapons, starting in Washington, London and Moscow.

• Go to index of relevant articles

recent articles                

• A Final End to History? Bush's Armageddon Wish by Paul Craig Roberts / 12 June 2006
John Bolton, a notorious neocon warmonger who could not be confirmed as America's ambassador to the UN by even the compliant and corrupt US Senate, got the job as a recess appointment. He is using the platform to push America into war with Iran.

• Lost In Translation By Jonathan Steele Guardian 14 June 2006
Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.

Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel' by Gareth Porter / May 25, 2006, Asia Times
Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to a secret Iranian proposal to the United States.

• Iran colour-coded relgious badges untrue by Tom Regan / csmonitor May 25, 2006
How did it happen? Looking back, one can see that with the confrontation between Iran and the Bush administration escalating over the nuclear issue, frequent outrageous statements against Israel and Jews issued by Iran’s president, and the daily drumbeat in the media shaping public opinion as tensions build, the setting was ripe for running with a story that seemed to confirm an Iranian government following a Nazi script. Some feared a replay of the kind of mis- or dis-information that primed Americans for war with Iraq. Others noted that the National Post was owned by the Asper brothers, who are known for their conservative and pro-Israel stands. “You can’t have a war without a good disinformation campaign,” opined Mathew Yglesias, of the liberal American Prospect Magazin."
• Iranian Public Opinion and the Nuclear Stand-Off by Mahan Abedin
Few Iranians are displeased with their new president's nuclear brinkmanship.