Nuclear

, marks for Europe. Comment Today is a tragic day for Europe, indeed for the world – but do the media highlight that fact on their front pages? Of course, they don’t. The INF Treaty has made Europe less insecure since 1987. But Russia and the US have accused each other of violating it. The bigger reasons for this tragedy are that a) there is a new Cold War in Europe and b) since other countries are now able to develop similar INF weapons – Inter-mediate range Nuclear Forces (INF) with the particular range mentioned in this movie – they want to have their hands free. And, one might almost say, as usual – the policies of the US have spearheaded today’s tragedy, particularly with the totally counterproductive and de factor offensive Ballistic Missile Defence, BMD, that Russia – legitimately – sees as a threat. Just listen to a man...

The Trump administration imposed sanction on Iran’s foreign minister, Dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif last night – as if the present intensified sanctions – primary on Iran and secondary on, in principle, everybody else, were not enough already. Here is AlJazeera’s story which also includes Iranian President Rouhani’s and Zarif’s own – witty – response to the move. The Trump administration thereby continues its one-sided provocative tension escalation making it more and more difficult to envision a peaceful solution to what is, in a larger perspective, an ongoing harassment of major regional power and a 7000–year-old civilisation since the CIA-led coup d’etat against the first democratically elected Iran Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh in 1953. Dr. Zarif – whom I happen to have had the honour of saying hello to at a conference in Tehran and whose work I have followed over several years – is not only one of the world’s...

There’s never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. If Iran one day did cross the nuclear threshold the same deterrence will apply. No one rational would want to provoke their own incineration. Columbia University professor, Kenneth Waltz, the distinguished theorist on the conduct of war, wrote in Foreign Affairs that with Israel possessing over 200 nuclear weapons (which the US refuses to publically admit) Iran having a bomb would bring stability. I would never go as far as Waltz on that last point. The launch of nuclear weapons can always be done by accident or by the rogue action of one or two of the members of the launch team in the silo. It has nearly happened in the US a number of times, and probably in the Soviet Union too. Moreover, if Iran got really close to building a bomb, Saudi Arabia would follow in short order,...

It focuses on the U.S. call for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, concerning Iran’s nuclear policy.

By Gregory Shupak Media outlets are creating a climate for a US military attack on Iran by hyping the idea that Iran is an imminent threat to peace, by failing to offer evidence that calls the US’s accusations against Iran into question, by amplifying warmongers’ voices and by naturalizing America’s supposed right to spy on every country on earth. Headlines are breathlessly suggesting to readers that Iranians are going to kill Americans if Americans don’t kill Iranians first. Originally published by FAIR on July 2, 2019 here A Hill article (6/7/19) told readers “Why Congress Needs Accurate Intelligence on the Iran Threat”; Fox (6/14/19) explained “The Trump Administration’s Strategy to Meet Threat from Iran.” A New York Times article (6/17/19) by David E. Sanger called Iran one of the “nuclear crises” facing the US, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that Iran does not have a nuclear...

Shortly after the media broke the news that President Trump had first endorse bombing of Iran and then called it off – see the report by the New York Times here – I had the opportunity and privilege to speak with iran’s PressTV about various aspects of this very dangerous tension build-up. The program first discusses the sensational pictures of the American drone which was shot down by Iran after which the anchor turns to me.

June 10, 2019 Mr. Amano, IAEA, indeed has good reasons to be worried – also today when the Germain foreign minister, Heiko Maas, visits Tehran and seems to have nothing new to convey to Iran’s foregin minister and president. Iran’s PressTV asked TFF’s director and co-founder, Jan Oberg, to comment on Amano’s statement, together with E. Michael Jones.

By Dr. Lawrence Wittner June 5, 2019 In late April, the highly-respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that, in 2018, world military expenditures rose to a record $1.82 trillion. The biggest military spender by far was the United States, which increased its military budget by nearly 5 percent to $649 billion (36 percent of the global total). But most other nations also joined the race for bigger and better ways to destroy one another through war. Originally publishes on Counterpunch.org on May 29th, 2019 here This situation represents a double tragedy. First, in a world bristling with weapons of vast destructive power, it threatens the annihilation of the human race. Second, as vast resources are poured into war and preparations for it, a host of other problems―poverty, environmental catastrophe, access to education and healthcare, and more―fail to be adequately addressed. But these circumstances can be changed, as shown by...

William R. Polk June 5, 2019 Despite appearances of random, off-the-cuff decisions, rendered on tweets and without, or even in opposition to, the advice of foreign policy specialists, I am going to posit a rationale behind the warlike actions and pronouncements of Messrs. Trump, Bolton and Pompeo. To do so, I will try to put all the scattered and sometimes conflicting pieces together. I begin by acknowledging the issue that has attracted most attention. That is the nuclear danger. While it figures in all the media accounts, I put it aside for two reasons: First, Iran has no nuclear weapons as every reasonably well-informed person in government and among the general population knows. To acquire them in the foreseeable future, Iran would have to buy them from an existing nuclear power. Nuclear-capable powers have not been known to put their weapons on the market. But, as threats of invasion grow,...

On Monday, 13 May 2019, the New York Times posted an article with the title “White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War”. Besides the aircraft carrier and other naval forces already sent to the Persian Gulf, plans include sending as many as 120,000 US troops to the region. There is a great danger that an attack on Iran might be sparked by a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like false flag incident involving Saudi oil ships. On Sunday, 19 May, Donald Trump tweeted: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”. He did not specify how or when Iran had threatened the US. Why is the possibility of a military attack on Iran especially worrying? Such a war would completely destabilize the already-unstable Middle East. In Pakistan, the unpopularity of the US-Israel-Saudi alliance, as well as the memory of...

Remissvar om Lars-Erik Lundins utredning avgivet av Fredsrörelsen på Orust 24:e april 2019 Inledning Under läsningen av utredningens 215 sidor framtonar några grundläggande drag i den världsbild och den begreppsapparat som utredaren utgår ifrån och använder. Ingen öppen redovisning eller definition görs av dessa grundläggande drag i utredningen och dess slutsatser. Här följer ett representativt urval av begrepp som de kan förstås i utredningen. (Video med Lars-Erik Lundins presentation av utredningen). Säkerhet ett ord för trygghet i världen och frånvaro av osäkerhet för Sverige. (sid 69) Säkerhetspolitik utgörs av militära rustningar och samarbete med militäralliansen Nato och dess kärnvapenparaply (sid 24) Samarbete innebär verksamhet, avtal och militär utveckling tillsammans med Nato. (sid 69 och 153 Exempel: ”Rysslands ökade aggressivitet understryker vikten av samarbete”.) Försvar utgörs av militär styrka (överallt där ordet används) Avskräckning är målet för säkerhets- och försvarspolitik riktad mot Ryssland. Trovärdigt hot om användning av kärnvapen ingår. (sid...

By us-russia.org April 18, 2019 The Sunday, February 24 edition of Russian state television’s flagship program News of the Week with Dmitry Kiselyov provided a detailed description of the “mirror like” response that Russia will take to any US installations of land based cruise missiles directed against Moscow following termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Originally published at us-russia.org The scenario focused on the new hypersonic Zircon missile system which can be launched from existing Russian submarines carrying the “normal” Tomahawk-like cruise missiles called Kalibr and which were used successfully in the recent operations against ISIL in Syria. We were told that the Russians are prepared to station such submarines holding 40 Zircons each just outside the territorial waters of the US economic zone, at perhaps 250 miles from the American East and West coasts. That would give them a 5 minute flight time to precision attack all...