What Have We Got to Lose?

Perhaps you’re relieved, judging that the looming worldwide economic depression – which was not deliberately caused by Bubba Clinton or Dubya Bush or the Best Congress Money Can Buy – will make World War III less likely.

But Bubba (with a complicit BCMCB) did deliberately launch missile attacks (violations of the UN Charter) in 1998 against Afghanistan and Sudan and against Baghdad (in violation of the Gulf War UN Security Council cease-fire resolutions), as well as bombing Kosovo in 1999 (in violation of the UN Charter).

And Dubya (with a complicit BCMCB) did deliberately invade and occupy Afghanistan (in violation of UN Charter) in 2001 and Iraq (in violation of Security Council resolutions) in 2003.

So, even though things are going so badly for Dubya in Iraq and Afghanistan, militarily, what makes you think he won’t take advantage of the looming worldwide economic depression to compound his criminal activities by attacking the nuclear facilities of Iran and/or of Pakistan?

After all, Dubya has already authorized large-scale covert military incursions into, and aerial attacks on, Pakistan – our nuke-armed non-NATO ally – and has allegedly attempted to get our newest "strategic partner," nuke-armed India, Pakistan’s mortal enemy, to get involved, militarily, with NATO, along the nebulous Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Why?

Well, killing or capturing Osama bin Laden is now to be his legacy.

Insanity!

Back in 2005 Secretary of State Condi Rice had whizzed down to New Delhi to prevent India's finalizing technical and commercial contracts for a $4.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India natural-gas pipeline that is to provide Iranian natural gas mostly to India.

In return for India canceling the "peace pipeline," Condi held out the possibility that we would (a) lift sanctions imposed by Congress on India (as a result of the nuclear weapons tests India conducted in 1998), (b) allow India to be supplied with NPT-proscribed nuclear materials and equipment – to be subjected to special IAEA Safeguards – we had previously blocked , and (c) get the Nuclear Suppliers Group to completely disregard guidelines on restrictions to be applied to NSG exports to India.

Well, as of this writing, the IAEA and NSG have given in to our strong-arm tactics, virtually destroying the IAEA-NPT-NSG nuke proliferation-prevention regime. But some worried members may prevent the BCMCB from approving the U.S.-India deal while Dubya is president.

However, insofar as attacks on Pakistan are concerned, it doesn’t really matter who succeeds Dubya. Both McCain and Obama are on record as recognizing the need to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions as the true battleground in the War on Terror.

Also, as far as attacks on Iran are concerned, it doesn’t really matter who succeeds Dubya, either. Both candidates have promised the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee – as well as serving Israeli officials – that they will satisfy the concerns of Likudnik paranoids, here and elsewhere, about the perceived threat of Iran’s nuclear programs.

Some details of the alleged covert "nuclear weapons program," obtained from the hard-drive of a laptop computer, allegedly stolen in Iran in 2004, had been supplied to us a few months later. We allowed the IAEA to take a peek at some of the contents in the summer of 2006.

This year, IAEA Deputy Director Heinonen made a startling presentation – which he said was based upon smoking laptop information – to the IAEA Board of Governors which suggested Iran may have been working on a missile which may have been capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Whereupon, Dubya and Condi got – in contravention of the IAEA Statute and the UN Charter – the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 1803, which, after "expressing the conviction" that the "verified" total suspension of Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded programs "would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution, that guarantees Iran’s nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes" – goes on to say that the Security Council is "determined" … to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programs."

Of course, unless NPT-proscribed materials have been "diverted" to this alleged missile program, or the alleged sensitive technologies have actually been used in the physical or chemical transformation of NPT-proscribed materials, all of this is literally none of the IAEA’s business.

Understand that IAEA inspectors have never, ever, accused Iran of diverting NPT-proscribed materials, to any program, peaceful or otherwise.

In particular, in its latest report,

"The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared material and has provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."

Of course, Iran now flatly refuses to continue to address the endless allegations about its alleged "nuclear weapons program" which Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Rice has strong-armed the Security Council into requiring Iran to refute.

So, Javier Solana, the European Union’s "foreign policy chief," says the Iranian refusals will have to be addressed by the UN General Assembly.

But, on March 28, Iran’s foreign minister wrote a letter to the UN Secretary-General, which began by noting – correctly – that Iran "has consistently complied with its obligations" under both the NPT and the IAEA Statute.

It then went on to note the "irrational opposition" of the United States (and the Likudniks) to Iran’s exercising its "inalienable rights" as affirmed in the NPT and IAEA Statute, and further charged that their "instrumental manipulation" of the IAEA Board and Security Council had resulted in international law and the UN Charter being "seriously violated."

Then, just last month, 115 members of the Non-Aligned Movement issued a strongly worded declaration, expressing support for Iran's insistence upon pursuing "without discrimination" its "inalienable rights" – affirmed under the NPT – and deploring the misuse (by Bush-Cheney-Rice-Bolton) of the IAEA for political purposes and the forced involvement of the UN Security Council in matters not properly its concern under the UN Charter.

So, if the Iranian-Likudnik standoff now goes to the General Assembly for resolution, how do you think that will turn out?

And what will the Likudniks do then?