Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Israeli Bomb

0
1021
Dr. Strangelove

By Jonas E. Alexis

 

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”

Matthew 7:12

 

In the summer of 2012, Netanyahu declared in the Jerusalem Post that Iran “must cease all uranium enrichment in the country, that it transfer all enriched uranium out of the country, and that it disassemble its underground nuclear facilities.”

Two years earlier, when talks began to circulate that the Middle East must be free of nuclear weapons, Benjamin Netanyahu tried to block any practical measures on Israel’s nuclear programs. Of course, as usual, the U.S. yielded to Israel’s command: “The U.S. administration announced after the conference ended late last week that it would not support an international conference on a nuclear-weapon free Middle East without coordinating with Israel…Israel said Saturday that it has no intention to fulfill the decision of the Review Conference to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty], which calls on it to allow international inspection at its nuclear installations.”

A statement from the Prime Minister’s bureau declared in part: “The real problem with weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East does not relate to Israel but to those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and brazenly violated it—Iraq under Saddam, Libya, Syria and Iran.” Even by December 2012, the UN asked Israel for just an inspection of its nuclear weapons, which is consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Israel again refused to do so.

In other words, every country in the Middle East should be free of weapons of mass destruction but Israel…because of course they have no bad intentions. What was even more hilarious was that neither Bush nor Obama “foresaw” that this would create problems with the Muslims in the Middle East. Israeli philosopher and historian Avner Cohen bluntly stated, “Were we to believe in mutual nuclear deterrence, we would be able to see that a nuclear Iran is something that can be lived with.”





Despite all this, the United States continues to offer blind support to Israel. One hour after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama in the middle of a series of conflicts between the U.S. and Israel, the Obama administration released a message defending Israel’s nuclear installations and saying that “only Israel can determine its security needs.”

This argument backfires badly, because it can logically be applied to any nation. If Israel is the only one that can determine its security needs, what business do they have meddling with Iran’s nuclear program? Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Israel never did; Iran allows inspections, Israel does not allow any inspections whatsoever. Israel does not even want to discuss the issue. Western powers know very well that a war with Iran would devastate the already fragile and reckless economy. Netanyahu couldn’t care less about this. He postulated over and over that the U.S. needed to take part in bombing Iran, for that would set Iran back a few years in making the bomb.

Yet this was seen as preposterous by virtually all U.S. intelligence agencies and experts in the field. Where does he get the “moral right” to say that Iran is the biggest threat in the world while Israel already possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads? How is it that Western countries in general universally fall into this double standard by pressing more sanctions on Iran and no sanctions on Israel? I have explored these questions in more details in the current book Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the early Church to our Modern Time.

During a talk with Iran last year, Iranian officials meticulously crafted their argument on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty that has been acknowledged by all Western powers. The Treaty acknowledges “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran also made it clear that its nuclear program will not exceed the 20 percent benchmark, which is right in line with the Treaty itself.

Yet the Zionist regime both in Israel and America continued to claim that Iran was being unreasonable. This is no surprise at all, for Iran has tried this in 2004 and in 2005, demonstrating that it was ready to compromise its nuclear program and even convert all its nuclear energy to fuel rods if the U.S. would support it. Under such a program, the IAEA would be free to check any undeclared facilities. Some officials in England were even willing to admit that Iran was reaching out to the West. Peter Jenkins, British representative to the IAEA and member of the British delegation to Paris, declared, “All of us were impressed by the proposal.”

But the U.S., under Bush, dismissed the offer and wanted Iran to shut down all its nuclear programs. England followed suit. “The British objective was to eliminate entirely Iran’s enrichment capability,” Jenkins continued. “I remember we couldn’t even allow Iran to have 20 centrifuges for R&D (research and development) purposes, because we ourselves had mastered the technology with even fewer than that.”

After months of propaganda by the Zionist machine, Western powers denied Iran the right to even keep its 20 percent uranium for medical and power plant purposes. Iranian officials then refused to give up that 20 percent, with good reason, saying, “We have no reason to cede on 20 percent, because we produce only as much of the 20 percent fuel as we need. No more, no less.” Right after the second-round talks with Iran, one unidentified U.S. official declared, “Obviously that was not something we were prepared to do.” That “something” was giving Iran the right to continue to have uranium up to 20 percent, even though this is not against the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In order to maintain their total shutdown position, the IAEA had to propagate the idea that Iran is building hundreds of enrichment machines to increase their uranium capabilities, finally concluding that Iran was the one being unreasonable. Some Western officials see the illogical leap of this but they remain silent. The only country that has been vocal in their stand against going to war against a sovereign country such as Iran is Russia.

Moreover, it has been reported that 20 percent “highly enriched uranium,” which is what Iran has, is not enough to build nuclear weapons. 90 percent or more is needed, and there is no evidence suggesting that Iran could reach that number anytime soon. Some scientists, like Clinton Bastin, argue that Iran cannot reach that number at all. Bastin, the head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, is a nuclear scientist who also served as a Marine in World War II. Bastin declared that Iran wanted to use its uranium to build nuclear power plants, and even negotiated with the United States in the 1970s to buy five plants. Though the United States promised to sell them the plants, it later denied doing so.

As a result, Iran cancelled its deal and looked elsewhere, particularly to Russia, which was more than ready to help. Now Iran is committed to building its own nuclear power plant, but the Zionist regime in Israel has tried to persuade the entire Western world that Iran is building nuclear weapons, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials and even some Israeli officials and intelligence agencies, including the Mossad, have repeatedly declared that Iran is not researching nuclear weapons. Bastin also declared that many of the inspectors at the IAEA are not scientists and are not familiar with nuclear chemicals, and thus are more likely to be driven by ideology or external misinformation.

It must be made clear that the 20 percent uranium threshold is legitimate and legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and Israel has not. Catherine Ashton, foreign minister for the European Union, made it clear that Iran has the right “to the peaceful use of nuclear power.”

Here is the interesting fact: in the 1960s the United States sold Iran a research reactor and enough weapons-grade uranium to set up nuclear fuel along with atomic power plants in Iran. The same reactor “still operates, supplying isotopes used in the medical treatment of 800,000” Iranians every year. Since the reactor is dependent on other fuel reactors, which the United States can provide, Iran asked them to help in 2010. Bad move. Instead, the United States asked for more sanctions on Iran, even though Iran’s goal was to protect Iranian citizens with respect to medical research.

In other words, serious U.S. officials know that nuclear power does not necessarily mean nuclear weapons! At the same time, in early 2012, Israel continued to resist the idea of banning nuclear arms from the Middle East. Yet the Obama administration is trying to persuade Iran to give up all its uranium, even though they know that Iran will most likely use it for peaceful, legitimate purposes. As professor David R. Henderson of Naval Postgraduate School argues, given all the evidence there is no good reason to attack or even propagate sanctions against Iran.

Many believe that the Zionist machine is responsible for manipulating Americans. Two respected military commanders in Israel—Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin—sent shock-waves among politicians when they declared quite openly that they do not trust Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak when it comes to a strike on Iran. Even Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former Kadima chief, resigned her post, arguing that the Israeli leaders are putting the country in danger. Many Jews in America, the United Kingdom, and even Israel are beginning to agree.

Yuval Diskin, retired chief of Israel’s international security agency, declared that the Netanyahu leadership “makes decisions on messianic feelings,” saying “I have observed them from up close. I fear very much that these are not the people I’d want at the wheel” and claiming that the government was “misleading the public” on the Iran issue.

Referring to Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak as “our two messiahs,” Diskin declared that “they are not fit to hold the steering-wheel of power. I have no faith in the current leadership in Israel and its ability to conduct a war.” Israeli Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, who is no friend of Iran, declared that even though he is a little worried about Iran’s ambitions, “I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.”  Rational people? I thought the Zionist regime said they are all crazy and want to “wipe Israel” off the map? I thought Iran was the biggest threat in the world?

In contrast, listen to noted Israeli historian Martin van Creveld: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.” What if Iran said something like that? It would be all over the media. But again Israel cannot do anything wrong.

This Zionist logjam has got to be broken, for it will create enemies out of thin air and force the U.S. to get involved. Avner Cohen, retired Israeli official, philosopher and historian, senior research fellow at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, put it this way: “Hamas, to my regret, is Israel’s creation.”

The next article is entitled “Nietzsche Goes to Hollywood,” and it will lay the foundation for the subsequent article which is entitled “Escape from the Zionist Matrix.”

Author Details
Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy