In 2005, Mohamed ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize for his outstanding work in the international control of nuclear
weapons. In 2003, ElBaradei had proposed a verifiable ban on the production
of weapons-grade fissile material – a positive move that would severely limit
the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In a vote of the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations (UN), one and
only one nation voted against ElBaradei's proposal – George Bush's America.
In that same vote, Israel abstained, apparently fearing international interference
with their own outlaw nuclear weapons program, and Britain abstained in an act
of diplomatic fealty to the "special relationship" between Tony Blair
and George Bush. The final tally was 147 nations to one with the two abstentions.
In a later vote of the entire UN General Assembly, Israel and Britain abstained,
while America and Palau voted against ElBaradei's verifiable ban on fission,
and 179 nations voted in favor of his proposal. The final vote on that
occasion was 179 in favor, two opposed (U.S. and Palau), and two abstentions
(Israel and Britain).
ElBaradei's proposal would monitor all nuclear fission and guarantee that
non-nuclear weapons states would be able to obtain adequate supplies for their
nonmilitary usage of enriched plutonium.
One nation has publicly accepted ElBaradei's proposal: Iran.
In light of this important backstory, it is now perfectly obvious that the
so-called "negotiations" among America, its intermediaries, and Iran
have been designed to camouflage, distort, and erase the historical record.
America and Israel are opposed to ElBaradei's proposal for a verifiable ban
on nuclear fission (Fissban) apparently to prevent the intrusion of international
inspectors into the Israeli nuclear industry.
Given the facts of the highly publicized "Iran Plans" for a massive American
military intervention against the Iranian nuclear industry and the constant
threat of bombing Iran leveled by American authorities from George Bush and
Condoleezza Rice to Richard Perle and John Bolton, it is equally clear that
American policy is being driven by a Machiavellian political calculus.
Over the past two weeks, there has been a chain of interlocked events: the
execution of Zarqawi; the Camp David summit on Iraq; Bush's secret flight to
Baghdad; and the narrow escape of Karl Rove from federal indictment in the Valerie
Plame case. These events are fitting into a discernible pattern designed to
resuscitate the dying political corpse of the Bush administration in time for
the midterm elections this November.
The continuing weakness of the Bush administration, as measured by the president's
approval rating, will embolden those proponents of the unilateral bombardment
of Iran as a measure that could precipitate the president's resurgence. With
so little left to lose, Bush may press the button for war in hopes of gaining
approval in red-state America, where his political fate will be decided on the
Nov. 6.
Darker plans may even be afoot, or so we are led to believe by scholars of
the U.S. intelligence industry. The former CIA official Ray McGovern has warned
of "staged" atrocities as part of a covert U.S. program for the manufacture
of "'synthetic terror." Robert Woodward warned
an academic audience in Texas that the next major atrocity on U.S. soil would
reduce 9/11 to a footnote in world history. There are persistent back-channel
rumors
of Republican Party officials circulating memoranda longing for a return to
the heady days after 9/11 to revive the ailing Bush presidency – even at the
cost of a new 9/11.
Neither America's people nor the peoples of other nations are being adequately
informed about the history of international planning for the control of fissionable
materials, which are the essential ingredients for nuclear weapons. The global
media is complicit in the increasing threats to peace by a deeply unpopular
American president and his loyal cadre of neoconservative apparatchiks, who
now threaten the future of the planet with a holocaust of gigantic proportions.