How to prevent the war that is becoming more likely?
TFF Board member who has visited Iran a number of times the last few years

The threat of a war involving Iran, Israel and USA is discussed with increasing intensity. At this time an attack by Israel is seen as the most likely risk.

Do I, decidedly not an expert, have the right to say that most contributions are lacking in depth and there is little attempt to understand the other parties? I say so, and I hope to be proven wrong.

Of the three parties, the intentions of Iran is the target of most scrutiny. Israel is considered mostly according to the preconceptions of the writer, while the USA, surprisingly, is often seen as a reacting force, without a clear agenda of it own.

The situation of Iran

Since the time of the Shah, Iran has developed a nuclear program that has become a centerpiece of national pride. For domestic reasons the program cannot be cancelled, at least not as a response to pressure from other countries.

Any nuclear weapons free country, which runs uranium enrichment, can at any time decide to leave the Non-proliferation Treaty, send the IAEA inspectors out of the country and proceed to make nuclear weapons. This applies to e.g. Japan, Brazil and Germany – and of course to Iran. To make a primitive uranium bomb of the type which destroyed Hiroshima is not complicated. A nuclear warhead for a missile will take longer, but much of the preparations can be done at any time. These aspects are discussed in recent articles by e.g. Jonathan Power on this TFF Themes and Associates Blog.

Within the leadership of Iran – and that is a very complex structure – there are likely to be different opinions about how far to proceed on the path to become a “virtual nuclear weapon state”. If they go too far, the risk of an attack from Israel or the USA will increase.

An attack by Iran on Israel would be an almost guaranteed suicide. The subsequent retaliation on Iran by a US military attack would be as thorough as devastating. Are we really to believe that the leaders of Iran intend or plan to call down such a devastation upon their own country and citizens as well as take the high risk that they themselves and their families will get killed? There are those who believe so, believe that these leaders are all suicidal fanatics. I for one disagree.

The intentions of Israel

Will Israel attack Iran? In a recent long text in the New York Times, Ronen Bergman, a journalist with good contacts in Israel, reports on several private conversations with the Israeli Minister of Defence, Ehud Barak. The minister believes there is a serious threat of an attack from Iran. He, surprisingly, does not discuss the reasons for that conclusion. And Minister Barak seems to prepare for a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran, probably in this year of 2012.

Given the limited range of the Israeli air force and missiles, only some of the widely dispersed nuclear facilities in Iran could be bombed. Nuclear weapons would not be used. An attack on the facility for uranium enrichment in Natanz is likely to release substantial amounts or radioactivity. Under certain weather conditions, the radioactive fallout could affect the population of the nearby city of Isfahan, with more than three million people. Would it be possible to see Israel as a civilized country after this?

A recent poll in Israel shows that a majority of the people would accept to give up Israel’s nuclear weapons if Iran stops it nuclear weapons program. This opinion should be expressed at the meeting for a Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction this coming fall. Will the Israeli government respect this opinion of its people?

The American agenda

What are the plans of the USA? The protection of Israel is of course important. I hope and assume, without much evidence, that the White House is advising the Israeli leaders strongly against an attack on Iran. But what pressure can President Obama put on Israel, particularly now in an election year? If there is a threat of retaliation from Iran after an Israeli attack, USA will attack the Iranian air force and missile bases. Israel knows this. So does Iran.

Given the enormous military presence of the USA in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, with two or maybe even three aircraft carriers, Iran would think twice before retaliating against Israel. But even if they abstain the humiliation of the military and the political leaders of the mighty Iran would have serious long lasting consequences. Peace will then be more distant than ever. The groups that see Israel as the cancer of the Middle East will be strengthened and increase their attacks. While the USA might achieve an increased stature among the dictators in the area, such as in Saudi Arabia and perhaps Pakistan, it will lose whatever respect which remains in the democratic groups who brought the Arabian Spring.

But there is more on the US agenda. The Americans have not forgotten the Embassy Hostage drama in 1979. Resentment after a humiliation can last long. But first of all, it is necessary, in the minds of the Anglo-American leaders, to stop Iran from becoming a strong independent power in the area. The West, mostly Britain and USA, have for a century or more tried repeatedly – and at times successfully – to subdue Iran. The Iranian population on their side has not forgotten that these two powers removed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953. Today the USA keeps up this subversive work with rather extensive infiltration by agents hired by the CIA, trying to instigate a revolt from minority national groups in the country.

The sanctions forced by the US may be more an attempt to provoke a regime change rather than to stop the nuclear program. It is not clear whether the sanctions are effective in this regard; more likely, they’ll rather tend to unify the country behind the leaders, as has been the case in Cuba. Fidel Castro would not have survived without the US sanctions.

Nuclear weapons are not deterrents; they are a cause of war

In the preparations for the attack on Iraq, President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to the American people telling tales of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Had not “the loud of a nuclear weapon detonation over Manhattan” been invoked, the American people would probably not have accepted the attack on Iraq. Today the appearance of a nuclear threat from Iran serves as a pretext for the US military escalation in the area, and the result may be war.

Also, we see how the nuclear weapons of Israel in no way increase the security of the country. The Israeli population seems to understand this, and they understand that the best use they can have of their nukes is to use them as a bargaining chip against the nuclear program of Iran: We give up our nukes, you stop making any. Great deal!

How to prevent war against Iran?

The war can be avoided! War is started by men, and can be prevented by men – and by women. Here are my pro-peace proposals and I hope to stimulate others to advance their proposals in the comments field below and elsewhere.

1. War is not an option!
War, initiated by any party, must be avoided. No threats of war shall be stated. In the end threats may have to be followed by action, even if this was not the intention.

2. Begin negotiations!
At present we only see coercion: If you, Iran, do not stop your nuclear program, we will cause economic ruin for your country, etc. Negotiations should offer ease of sanctions, trade and diplomatic recognition.

3. Iran should be allowed to continue its uranium enrichment program, but under close surveillance from the IAEA according to an Additional Protocol.
The recent proposal by Pierre Goldschmith of the Carnegie foundation is a good example of how this could work (The Iranian Nuclear Issue: Achieving a Win-Win Diplomatic Solution)

4. The West should stop its the attempts to overthrow the present regime.
The young people of Iran will do that themselves.

5. USA and Israel should end the terrorist acts.
They should stop killing Iranian citizens inside their own country and stop the cyber warfare exemplified by the Stuxnet cyber virus.

6. Iran should end its support of terrorist groups that attack Israel.

7. Iran should end its talks of hatred against Israel.
The Iranian leaders should make it absolutely clear that they will not attack Israel, except in the case that Iran is attacked by Israel.

8. Iran should again accept a far-reaching Additional Protocol for the inspection regime of IAEA.

9. USA should stop its coercion of the IAEA.

10. Iran should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, thus setting a good example for the USA.

11. The establishment of a the Middle East as a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone is absolutely essential for the future of peace in the region and the wider world.

In summary: All options are not on the table! Pre-emptive war is a war crime.

Medical education and professional career

Related Posts

Photos © TFF 2000 Read PressInfo 90 “Lift the Sanctions and Bring More Aid to Yugoslavia” See Pictures from Belgrade © TFF 2000 Please reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item, but please retain the source.
LONDON – So far so good, at least on the wider level. While internally Iraq seems on the edge of chaos, the much heralded clash of civilizations between the Muslim and Judaeo-Christian worlds has yet to become apparent. We have anger and despair aplenty in the Arab and Muslim worlds. But very little rushing to the standard and there was no great pilgrimage of warriors to join the fight, as happened when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan twenty years ago, and then, having driven the Red Army out, were left to ferment in that mountainous redoubt. With the armaments supplied by the CIA the mujahidin were transformed into Al Qaeda that became, for a relatively brief moment as these things go, ‘the greatest threat to the homeland that America has ever known.’ Nevertheless a ‘Cold War’ between much of the Muslim world and the West is certainly in full swing. Winston...
The Challenge of Nuclear Weaponsin the Twenty-first CenturyA Path Forward The peoples and governments of the world face an urgent challenge relating to weaponry of mass destruction and particularly to nuclear weaponry.  At the crossroads of technology, terrorism, geopolitical ambition, and policies of preemption are new and potent dangers for humanity. Despite ending the nuclear standoff of the Cold War era, nuclear weaponry is again menacing the peoples of the world with catastrophic possibilities.  We recognize the need for any government to pursue its security interests in accordance with international law; and further, we recognize that distinctive threats to these interests now exist as a result of an active international terrorist network having declared war on the United States and its allies. Nonetheless, we reject the assessment of the current US administration that upgrading a reliance on nuclear weapons is in any sense justified as a response. We find it...

Recent Articles

Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Jan Oberg TFF director October 13, 2026 According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Nobel Peace Prize shall be awarded: ”to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Further down, he also expresses how the prize for the “champions of peace” shall be decided: “that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. Alfred Nobel’s will is remarkably short and clear. But few seem to have read it. Nobel did not say that the committee itself should consist of members of parliament. He entrusted the Storting with appointing five persons. In principle, it could have selected diplomats, mediators, peace researchers, conflict-resolution specialists, or other individuals with recognised expertise in matters of peace from around the world. Instead, the Storting gradually...
The Quest for Humane Survival Richard Falk Professor emeritus, Princeton UniversityTFF Associate since 1986October 12, 2026 After decades of teaching and writing about international law in academic frameworks that were not institutionally situated within law school environments—at Princeton and the University of California, Santa Barbara—I found myself most receptive to the TWAIL outlook. It has been especially illuminating in clarifying the extent to which international law evolved as a dialogical critique of Europe’s efforts to legitimize its colonial undertakings. In particular, TWAIL has exposed how international law has functioned to legalize the subjugation of Third World peoples, securing conditions for exploitative investment and trade relations, the coercive enforcement of public debts, and an ideology of cultural superiority. TWAIL’s exposure of these economic legacies of colonialism has influenced my understanding of the history and development of international law, broadly conceived, as an ideological project of the Western sub-system of the world...

TFF on Substack

Discover and subscribe to more peace materials on TFF Substack

Most Popular

Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Jan Oberg TFF director October 13, 2026 According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Nobel Peace Prize shall be awarded: ”to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Further down, he also expresses how the prize for the “champions of peace” shall be decided: “that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. Alfred Nobel’s will is remarkably short and clear. But few seem to have read it. Nobel did not say that the committee itself should consist of members of parliament. He entrusted the Storting with appointing five persons. In principle, it could have selected diplomats, mediators, peace researchers, conflict-resolution specialists, or other individuals with recognised expertise in matters of peace from around the world. Instead, the Storting gradually...
The Quest for Humane Survival Richard Falk Professor emeritus, Princeton UniversityTFF Associate since 1986October 12, 2026 After decades of teaching and writing about international law in academic frameworks that were not institutionally situated within law school environments—at Princeton and the University of California, Santa Barbara—I found myself most receptive to the TWAIL outlook. It has been especially illuminating in clarifying the extent to which international law evolved as a dialogical critique of Europe’s efforts to legitimize its colonial undertakings. In particular, TWAIL has exposed how international law has functioned to legalize the subjugation of Third World peoples, securing conditions for exploitative investment and trade relations, the coercive enforcement of public debts, and an ideology of cultural superiority. TWAIL’s exposure of these economic legacies of colonialism has influenced my understanding of the history and development of international law, broadly conceived, as an ideological project of the Western sub-system of the world...
Read More
girl-5894831_1280
Below are TFF-related media mentions, comments, videos and social media posts published elsewhere but not on this homepage. We happen to catch and list only a fraction. Regarding video comments and debates, we recommend that you go to the TFF Video Channel on Substack where many of them are reproduced. Jan Oberg is a contributor to China Daily – 52 million daily clicks – and Global Times, CGTN and CCTV (the national television), China Investment, Xinhua News Agency and several others. Articles and videos on these media very often multiply into countless Chinese (and Western media) that re-post them from these main media. Thanks to The China Academy, his analyses, interviews and comments are frequently posted on YouTube channels such as Thinkers Forum and Wave Media. These videos are often re-posted on Bilibili (China’s YouTube), the China Content Center on TikTok, and on the Chinese edition of TikTok, Douyin.com. This means reaching hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide over a year. While there are too many to catch on all these...
Nobel-Prize-Plaque
Jan Oberg TFF director October 13, 2026 According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Nobel Peace Prize shall be awarded: ”to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.” Further down, he also expresses how the prize for the “champions of peace” shall be decided: “that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be selected by the Norwegian Storting. Alfred Nobel’s will is remarkably short and clear. But few seem to have read it. Nobel did not say that the committee itself should consist of members of parliament. He entrusted the Storting with appointing five persons. In principle, it could have selected diplomats, mediators, peace researchers, conflict-resolution specialists, or other individuals with recognised expertise in matters of peace from around the world. Instead, the Storting gradually...
law-419057_1280
The Quest for Humane Survival Richard Falk Professor emeritus, Princeton UniversityTFF Associate since 1986October 12, 2026 After decades of teaching and writing about international law in academic frameworks that were not institutionally situated within law school environments—at Princeton and the University of California, Santa Barbara—I found myself most receptive to the TWAIL outlook. It has been especially illuminating in clarifying the extent to which international law evolved as a dialogical critique of Europe’s efforts to legitimize its colonial undertakings. In particular, TWAIL has exposed how international law has functioned to legalize the subjugation of Third World peoples, securing conditions for exploitative investment and trade relations, the coercive enforcement of public debts, and an ideology of cultural superiority. TWAIL’s exposure of these economic legacies of colonialism has influenced my understanding of the history and development of international law, broadly conceived, as an ideological project of the Western sub-system of the world...
images-2
Advocates of nuclear disarmament are regularly dismissed by the champions of nuclear deterrence as naïve and unrealistic, utopian or even irresponsible. Yet this ‘doctrine’ of deterrence, regarded by France as the ‘cornerstone’ of its national security, is based on quasi-religious beliefs, a theory that cannot be proven, risky gambles and fragile assumptions. So much so that one might legitimately ask which side the ‘Care Bears’ are on. Marc FinaudVice-President of Initiatives for Nuclear Disarmament (IDN) October 9, 2026 This article was originally published on Pressenza When it comes to these things being treated as religious concepts, look here. Idealists and realists It was Hubert Védrine, François Mitterrand’s former Foreign Minister, who repeatedly coined the phrase: ‘Europeans are a sort of Care Bears who don’t realise they’re living in Jurassic Park’. He applies this reference to the cartoon for well-behaved children not only to what he regards as weakness or idealism...
8824b09f-33a5-43f9-9fd0-550f28cda24d_1536x1024
What the West Borrowed from Asia and What It Left Behind Jan Krikke October 8, 2026 The article was originally published here In the late 1960s, the musical Hair announced that the Age of Aquarius was dawning. Its opening anthem promised a transformation of human consciousness: an era of peace, harmony and understanding. Half a century later, a familiar echo of that promise is a meditation app offered by your employer. You can find it in the same list of benefits as the pension plan and the gym discount. How did a spiritual revolution become an employee benefit? The answer lies in the history of the movement known as New Age: where it came from, what it borrowed from Asia, and why the meaning of what it borrowed changed in the process. Two definitions will help. New Age is a loose label for a wide range of spiritual practices and...
Screenshot 2026-10-04 210142
Small and different + among the 10% most active + 9,000 texts + 150 Associates + 60 000 a day — and a stubborn belief that peace is smarter and must be secured by peaceful means. In 2026, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF) turns 40. On Monday, October 5, 2026, a new TFF homepage will go live — a new gateway to more than 9,000 articles, analyses, research papers and other contributions produced over four decades of independent peace research. But this is not simply a new website. For four decades, TFF has worked from a simple conviction: peace is smarter than militarism and can be brought about by peaceful means. This is not merely an aspiration. It is the principle expressed in the UN Charter and the Gandhian tradition that has guided our work from the beginning. TFF is a research-based, independent and people-financed foundation....