Çekirdeksel silâh kurtarıcı olamaz. Ayrıca saldırı amacı değil de savunma amacı gütmek de nedir? Söz konusu olan çekirdeksel silâhtır. İran kendine karşı olası bir saldırıda yıkım gücü yüksek olan çekirdeksel silâhı kullandığında ortaya çıkacak olan ışınım nasıl bir savunma sağlayabilir?

Eğer demek istediğiniz "caydırıcı güç" denilen olgu ise yalnızca birkaç çekirdeksel silâhla bu da sağlanamaz. Pakistan buna güzel bir örnektir.

Çekirdeksel bir silâhın herhangi bir devletçe herhangi bir durumda başka bir devlete karşı kullanılması yeni bir yeryüzü savaşına gebe olacağından, bu yalnızca büyük bir yıkım getirecektir. İnsanlığın da, Türklüğün de, İslâmlığın da kurtuluşu aydınlanmaktan geçer. Bilim ve teknoloji alanında ilerlemekten geçer.

II. Anadolu Ihtilali yazdı:ABD'nin nukleer silahi olan ulkelere saldirmadigi biliniyor, bir cok Amerikali uzman tarafindan da dile getirildi; "eger Amerika'nin tepenize binmesini istemiyorsaniz nukleer silaha sahip olmaniz gerekiyor". Eger nukleer silahiniz varsa askeri saldirilara karsi nukleer silah ile cevap verme gucunuz oluyor, bu da saldiriyi caydiriyor. Pakistan nukleer silahlari oldugu icin herhangi bir ulke tarafindan bombalanmasi, bir Irak ya da Libya olmasi mumkun degildir. Nukleer silahi olan ulkelerin olmayanlara saldirmasi tek tarafli bir savastir, karsi tarafin karsi saldirida bulunmasi ve dusmani yoketmesi mumkun degildir, cunku nukleer guc bir aksilik durumunda kullanilmak uzere hazir bekletilmektedir. Bir elinde silah ile karsindakini tehdit edip, karsindakinin cevap verme sansini yokedip, diger elindeki sopayla karsindaki dovmek gibidir. Israil, Suriye tanklarinin Golan tepelerindeki ilerleyisi tehdit oldugu zaman, nukleer silahlarini fuzelere ve ucaklara yukleyip, nukleer silahlari tehdit olarak kullanmistir. Saldiri altindaki Suriye'nin ve Misir'in Israil'i yenme firsati dogdugunda, nukleer silahlar tehdit olarak kullanilmistir. Tabanca dogrulttugun silahsiz adami tekmeleyerek dovmeye benzemektedir.

Öyle görünüyor ki çekirdeksel silâhlar hakkında bilgisiniz. ABD çekirdeksel silâha iye bir ülkeye saldırsın diyelim. Bu durumda bu ülke çekirdeksel silâhını ABD'ye karşı nasıl kullanabilir? ABD havadan, denizden ve karadan saldırdı diyelim; bu ülke kendi ülkesini yıkıma uğratmadan gelen saldırıyı çekirdeksel bir silâhla nasıl önleyebilir? Dahası, saldıran ülke olan ABD topraklarına bir çekirdeksel silâhla saldırabilir mi? Ben sizin kadar bilmiyorum da o nedenle soruyorum.

Iddia ettiginizin tam tersine, buyuk felaketlerin engellenmesi icin herkesin nukleer silahi olmasi gerekir, esitlik gerekir, Libya ve Irak nukleer silaha sahip olsaydi simdi Turkiye kadar guvenli ulkeler olacaklardi. Bircok alanda, ozellikle politik alanda Turkiye'den de cok daha ileri olacaklardi. Hayat standartlarini yukselten bir cok atilimi ve politik liderligi gerceklestirmeye baslamislardi.

Herkesin silâhlanması, herkesin birbirini öldürmesi olasılığını arttırmaktan öteye gitmez. Savladığımın tersi olsaydı, savladığınız gibi Pakistan'ın da Türkiye kadar güvenli(!) ve daha ileri(!) olması gerekirdi. Gene savladığınız doğru olsaydı, çekirdeksel silâha iye olmayan ülkemizin (Topraklarımızda Amerika'nın buyruğunda ve denetiminde olduğu savlanan atom bombaları bunun dışındadır) de Irak, Libya vb. gibi geri, güvensiz ve kolayca bombalanabilir bir ülke olması gerekirdi. Çekirdeksel silâha iye olmayan Kuzey Avrupa ülkelerinin de aslında geri olması gerekirdi. Gene çekirdeksel silâhla vurulan Japonya'nın geri ve güvensiz olmasını bırakın, yok olup silinmesi gerekirdi. Gerilik, ilerilik çekirdeksel silâhla açıklanıyorsa, ABD ve Rusya'nın çok ileri olması gerekirdi -ki siz bunu savlayarak dünyanın gerçeklerini kavramış(!) oluyorsunuz. Çekirdeksel silâh güç gösterisinin bir parçasıdır, bulunduğu ülkeyi güçlü yapar; bu doğrudur. Çekirdeksel silâhla sağlanan bu gücün tek başına ülkelerin ileri ve güvenli olmasını sağlaması ise -verdiğim örneklere bakıldığında- dünyanın gerçeklerine(!) pek uymuyor.

Sayin Ram, butun teshisleriniz yanlistir, dunya gerceklerini yakalamaktan cok uzaktir. Odtu Uluslararasi Iliskiler bolumu baskani bile, Amerikali uzmanlar ile katildigi tartismada konuyu ve konusulanlari takip edemiyor, ucuz bilgileri tekrarliyor, karsi tarafin argumanlarini cevaplayamiyor. Bu kadar cehalet, bati usakligi, gercekleri gorememe, olaylari okuyamama, devletin ust duzeylerine de hakim oldugundan, Turkiye'yi 2012 yilinda buyuk tehlikeler bekliyor, onumuzdeki yillarda da varolus mucadelesine girmesi gerekecek. Durum cok vahim.

Demek ki bu saptamalarla ben dünya gerçeğini yakalayamayan, bilgisiz, batı uşağı, gerçekleri göremez, olayları okuyamaz olanlardan biri oluyorum. Öyle mi?

Siz yayılmacı ve işine geldiğinde Batı'yla çok uyumlu olabilen İran'ın Mazlum Milletler dostu, Müslümanların iyiliğini isteyen, bunun için çabalayan bir devlet olduğunu sanıyorsunuz, ancak dünya gerçeğini yakalayamayan ben oluyorum. Kaddafi'ye Yahudi diyen İran mollaları "Arap Baharı" denilen işin içinde kendi çıkarlarını korumak için at koşturmuyordu örneğin. Dahası Mübarek'e de Batı uşağı diyen İran, CIA'cı Müslim Brothers'a "devrim"e dek yoğun olarak destek vermiyordu. Doğrusu İran'ın Türkiye'de cinayetler işleyen, yurttaşları kışkırtan örgütlerle de bir bağlantısı yoktur. Bundan da ötesi çekirdeksel bir silâh, yok edici, yıkıcı değil de barışı sağlayan, korumacı bir nitelikte size göre...

Çekirdeksel silâhla yapılan ilk ve son saldırının (Hiroşima, Nagazaki) üzerinden uzun yıllar geçmiştir. Sonuçları, izleri daha ortadadır. Atatürkçü olan biri savaşın gerekmedikçe bir cinayet olacağını bilirler. Yıkım aracı olarak kullanılan bilim de, bilim değildir. Çünkü bilim insanlığın yıkımına değil, gelişimine uşaklık eden bir araçtır. Toplu yıkım ise insanlık suçudur, soykırımdır.

Noam Chomsky'nin Iran'in Nukleer Silah Hakki Uzerine Argumani

The Nonaligned Movement – the governments of most of the world’s population – is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members – India, for example – adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.

The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”

Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared.







Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.

If Iran is indeed moving toward nuclear-weapons capability – this is still unknown to U.S. intelligence – that may be because it is “inspired to do so” by the U.S.-Israeli threats, regularly issued in explicit violation of the U.N. Charter.

Why then is Iran the greatest threat to world peace, as seen in official Western discourse? The primary reason is acknowledged by U.S. military and intelligence and their Israeli counterparts: Iran might deter the resort to force by the United States and Israel.

Furthermore Iran must be punished for its “successful defiance,” which was Washington’s charge against Cuba half a century ago, and still the driving force for the U.S. assault against Cuba that continues despite international condemnation.


Why America, Israel Are the GREATEST Threats to Peace: Imagine If Iran Did a Fraction of What US, ISRAEL Do At Will
Post Categories: Head Stories
Prof. Noam Chomsky | Thursday, September 6, 2012, 11:26 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on reddit Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services
1
Print

Imagine if Iran — or any other country — did a fraction of what American and Israel do at will.

It is not easy to escape from one’s skin, to see the world differently from the way it is presented to us day after day. But it is useful to try. Let’s take a few examples.

The war drums are beating ever more loudly over Iran. Imagine the situation to be reversed.

Iran is carrying out a murderous and destructive low-level war against Israel with great-power participation. Its leaders announce that negotiations are going nowhere. Israel refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections, as Iran has done.

Israel continues to defy the overwhelming international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Throughout, Iran enjoys the support of its superpower patron.

Iranian leaders are therefore announcing their intention to bomb Israel, and prominent Iranian military analysts report that the attack may happen before the U.S. elections.

Iran can use its powerful air force and new submarines sent by Germany, armed with nuclear missiles and stationed off the coast of Israel. Whatever the timetable, Iran is counting on its superpower backer to join if not lead the assault.

U.S. defense secretary Leon Panetta says that while we do not favor such an attack, as a sovereign country Iran will act in its best interests.

All unimaginable, of course, though it is actually happening, with the cast of characters reversed. True, analogies are never exact, and this one is unfair – to Iran.

Like its patron, Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in brazen defiance of international law and the U.N. Security Council.

It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without credible pretext.

Thirty years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, an act that has recently been praised, avoiding the strong evidence, even from U.S. intelligence, that the bombing did not end Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program but rather initiated it. Bombing of Iran might have the same effect.

Iran too has carried out aggression – but during the past several hundred years, only under the U.S.-backed regime of the shah, when it conquered Arab islands in the Persian Gulf.

Iran engaged in nuclear development programs under the shah, with the strong support of official Washington. The Iranian government is brutal and repressive, as are Washington’s allies in the region.

The most important ally, Saudi Arabia, is the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime, and spends enormous funds spreading its radical Wahhabist doctrines elsewhere. The gulf dictatorships, also favored U.S. allies, have harshly repressed any popular effort to join the Arab Spring.

The Nonaligned Movement – the governments of most of the world’s population – is now meeting in Teheran. The group has vigorously endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and some members – India, for example – adhere to the harsh U.S. sanctions program only partially and reluctantly.

The NAM delegates doubtless recognize the threat that dominates discussion in the West, lucidly articulated by Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command: “It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East,” one nation should arm itself with nuclear weapons, which “inspires other nations to do so.”

Butler is not referring to Iran, but to Israel, which is regarded in the Arab countries and in Europe as posing the greatest threat to peace In the Arab world, the United States is ranked second as a threat, while Iran, though disliked, is far less feared.







Indeed in many polls majorities hold that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons to balance the threats they perceive.

If Iran is indeed moving toward nuclear-weapons capability – this is still unknown to U.S. intelligence – that may be because it is “inspired to do so” by the U.S.-Israeli threats, regularly issued in explicit violation of the U.N. Charter.

Why then is Iran the greatest threat to world peace, as seen in official Western discourse? The primary reason is acknowledged by U.S. military and intelligence and their Israeli counterparts: Iran might deter the resort to force by the United States and Israel.

Furthermore Iran must be punished for its “successful defiance,” which was Washington’s charge against Cuba half a century ago, and still the driving force for the U.S. assault against Cuba that continues despite international condemnation.







Other events featured on the front pages might also benefit from a different perspective. Suppose that Julian Assange had leaked Russian documents revealing important information that Moscow wanted to conceal from the public, and that circumstances were otherwise identical.

Sweden would not hesitate to pursue its sole announced concern, accepting the offer to interrogate Assange in London. It would declare that if Assange returned to Sweden (as he has agreed to do), he would not be extradited to Russia, where chances of a fair trial would be slight.

Sweden would be honored for this principled stand. Assange would be praised for performing a public service – which, of course, would not obviate the need to take the accusations against him as seriously as in all such cases.

The most prominent news story of the day here is the U.S. election. An appropriate perspective was provided by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who held that “We may have democracy in this country, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”







Guided by that insight, coverage of the election should focus on the impact of wealth on policy, extensively analyzed in the recent study “Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America” by Martin Gilens.

He found that the vast majority are “powerless to shape government policy” when their preferences diverge from the affluent, who pretty much get what they want when it matters to them.

Small wonder, then, that in a recent ranking of the 31 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in terms of social justice, the United States placed 27th, despite its extraordinary advantages.

Or that rational treatment of issues tends to evaporate in the electoral campaign, in ways sometimes verging on comedy.







To take one case, Paul Krugman reports that the much-admired Big Thinker of the Republican Party, Paul Ryan, declares that he derives his ideas about the financial system from a character in a fantasy novel – “Atlas Shrugged” – who calls for the use of gold coins instead of paper currency.

It only remains to draw from a really distinguished writer, Jonathan Swift. In “Gulliver’s Travels,” his sages of Lagado carry all their goods with them in packs on their backs, and thus could use them for barter without the encumbrance of gold.

Then the economy and democracy could truly flourish – and best of all, inequality would sharply decline, a gift to the spirit of Justice Brandeis.



Prof. Noam Chomsky

This article was originally posted at Alternet

Inventing an Iranian Threat But Iran Threatens No One


Inventing an Iranian Threat But Iran Threatens No One: Western, Israeli Leaders Know It, So Do Over 100 Non-Aligned Movement Countries
Post Categories: China
Stephen Lendman | Tuesday, August 28, 2012, 17:16 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on reddit Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services
2
Print

Iran threatens no one. Western and Israeli leaders know it. So do over 100 Non-Aligned Movement countries coming to Tehran. They’ll be there from August 26 – 31. They’ll participate in NAM’s 16th summit.

Their presence endorses Iran’s legitimacy, extends support, shows disapproval of Western hostility and belligerence, and confers prestige when Tehran most needs it.

Washington and Israel target the Islamic Republic relentlessly. Longstanding war plans await implementation. Media scoundrels and right-wing think tanks support it. They’re paid to endorse ravaging one country after another.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) calls itself “the most influential group on the issue of US-Israel military relations.”

It “advocate(s) on behalf of a strong U.S. military, a robust national security policy and a strong U.S. security relationship with Israel and other like-minded democracies.”

It supports Israeli lawlessness, its regional dominance plans, and belligerence directed at Palestinians and other regional enemies.

Founded in 1976, it seeks full Washington support. It wants both countries in lockstep on policy. It’s connected to military/industrial officials in both countries.

In January, the Jewish Daily Forward headlined “JINSA Leadership in Flux After Ouster,” saying:

Firing former executive director Shosana Bryen rankled other members. In protest, neocon stalwarts James Woolsey, Richard Perle, and Michael Ledeen quit Jinsa’s advisory board.

The Forward attributed what happened to “a messy transformation of power in the group’s top ranks and a struggle to maintain relevance and funding at a time of shrinking budgets and growing competition from other Jewish causes.”

Also at issue is a crowded neocon establishment. Organizations vie for influence, credibility, preeminence and funding. Having former high-level officials as board members and/or advisors is key. So are wealthy individuals and others connected to well-endowed right-wing foundations.

Jinsa won’t likely run out of influential members who matter. David Steinmann co-chairs its Board of Advisors. He formerly headed the right-wing William Rosenwald Family Organization. He’s closely connected to Israeli Lobby, defense, and other corporate interests.

Co-chair David Justman is a JP Morgan managing director and wealth management advisor. Vice chairman Morris Amitay formerly served as AIPAC’s executive director. He also founded the Washington Political Action Committee. Like Jinsa, it’s hawkishly pro-Israeli.

Board of Advisors members include numerous retired generals and admirals. It’s also stacked with pro-Israeli right-wing ideologues. Jinsa has no shortage of key people representing Israeli interests. Often they’re at odds with America’s.

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer include Jinsa among other influential groups comprising the Israeli Lobby’s think tank arm. Its agenda supplements AIPAC. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee focuses on influencing administration and congressional policies.

Jinsa works on military issues, ties between Pentagon and IDF officials, and America’s military/industrial complex.

Post-9/11 Jinsa and like-minded groups called for expanding Washington’s military response. It argued for war on Iraq.

It now wants war on Iran. On July 16, it headlined “Iran Sanctions Are Dangerously Ineffective,” saying:

Iranian leaders believe they can ride out sanctions and wait for “the world (to) line up to purchase their oil once Iran’s status as a nuclear power is secure.”









It still has substantial oil income. Its monetary and gold reserves are large. Nothing in place will change policy. Sanctions “are a short-term tactic doomed to failure in the foreseeable future.”

Cyber attacks, propaganda, assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, negotiations, and other actions may slow but won’t resolve much. In the meantime, Iran buys “time to enrich more uranium.”

Jinsa calls Tehran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons (a) strategic imperative” despite no evidence whatever proving it. It further “believes that defiance in the face of western sanctions is yet another reason for the greater Islamic world to emulate (its) revolutionary example.”

Instead of current policies, it advocates discarding containment notions, expanding ties to regional states, increasing the Pentagon’s Middle East footprint, and promoting a regional alliance against Iran going nuclear.

Jinsa’s punchline came last, saying:

“Prepare to use military force at the optimal time regardless of elections or other political considerations, recognizing that the credible threat of force is the best insurance that measures short of war will have the greatest opportunity for success.”

Like Jinsa, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) wields enormous public policy influence. Founded in 1943, it promotes “free enterprise, a strong defense centered on smart international relations, and opportunity” for dominant segments of US society to gain added wealth and power.

It’s connected to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Sourcewatch calls it “a corporate bill mill. (Its) not just a lobby or front group. (It’s) much more powerful than that.”

Corporations use ALEC strategically. They promote legislation benefitting their bottom line. They write laws behind closed doors. Doing so harms popular interests.

In the 1970s, AEI gained major national prominence. It grew from 12 resident “thinkers” to 145 resident scholars, 80 adjunct ones, and considerable support staff.

Ronald Reagan called AEI “a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. (Its) remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank.

For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks – and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute.”

Post-9/11, AEI was one of the Bush administration’s leading foreign policy architects. It was influential in promoting regime change through war on Iraq.

George Bush addressed AEI three times. He expressed admiration, saying he “consistently borrow(ed) some of (its) best people.” Over 20 AEI scholars were administration members.

In June 2003, AEI and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies founded NGO Watch. It’s a militantly pro-Israeli front group. It spurns truth, equity and justice. When Israel wants war, it champions it.

Corporate CEOs and other top officials comprise AEI’s Board of Trustees. Dick Cheney is one of its prominent members. Scholars include Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, John Yoo, Richard Perle, Phil Gramm, Larry Lindsey, Glenn Hubbard, Charles Murray, Roger Noreiga, and Lynne Cheney.

AEI powerfully advances Washington’s imperial agenda. Currently it’s hawkish on Syria and Iran. It supports regime change in both countries. It’s not shy about promoting war.

Maseh Zarif is AEI’s “Critical Threats Project” research manager. On August 22, he headlined “Iran’s military complex at Parchin and the nuclear connection,” saying:

“Iran’s nuclear weapons program poses a serious threat to American national security interests. Iran has been working to develop the key components of a nuclear weapons capability for decades – covertly when it can and openly when exposed – in contravention of nuclear nonproliferation pacts it has signed and international obligations it is required to meet.”

“The regime has waged an intensive denial-and-deception campaign intended to facilitate the development of critical technologies and infrastructure and, ultimately, the fulfillment of its nuclear ambitions.”

Zarif tried inventing reality and failed. No evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Israeli, Washington, and other Western officials know it. So do AEI scholars. Perhaps Zarif should consult them.

Nonetheless, he persists in saying Iran “advanced along three interrelated, parallel tracks: acquiring fissile material, weaponization and bomb design, and delivery vehicle development.”

Panchin, he claims, conducts nuclear weapons-related experiments. His accusations are spurious. Evidence is absent. Rhetoric substitutes for reality. Zarif’s credibility is sorely lacking.

He’s advancing the ball for war. So do other AEI scholars and trustees. They prioritize imperial dominance. Ravaging the world one country at a time is their way to get it. Jinsa and other hard-right groups concur. Societies they endorse aren’t fit to live in.



Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net . His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour