[www-features] MODIFYING: US/Israel plan nuclear attack on Iran to control oil and defend the dollar

Tue Mar 21 14:02:44 PST 2006

I'd like to follow on manos' concerns with regards to this story.
Specifically, the section which reads "there is a risk that nuclear
bombs may be used" cites 1) a Wikipedia summary of Jorge Hirsch and
Michel Chossudovsky's claims, 2) a report by the Centre for
Nonproliferation Studies that details numerous reasons why an attack on
Iran by Israel or the US might backfire, but nothing about a nuclear
attack, 3) an article by Michel Chossudovsky, 4) an article by Jorge
Hirsch, 5) the US Joint Nuclear Operations document and 6) another
article by Jorge Hirsch.

In other words, two sources - one (Hirsch) a theoretical physicist and
the other (Chossudovsky) an economist - are cited, but not directly
named. Neither of these sources can claim to have direct knowledge of
what US leaders are planning. Citing these guys just to me feels like
passing on speculation... and at least something along the lines of
"Chussodovsky and Hirsch say there is a risk nuclear bombs may be used"
should be said.

Reading the proposed new article again, I think for me the main point of
the article is at the end:

"Regular ZMag <http://www.zmag.org> contributor Norman Solomon visited
Iran in June 2005
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8154> to see how to
support activists there, and a month ago claimed that US antiwar
activists mistakenly /"seem eager to believe that [air attacks on Iran]
won't happen"/ <http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9694>
and urging activists to prevent the possible attack. "

So in effect this article is trying to create a struggle? Is it a
commentary on the US anti-war movement? (I feel that one is sorely
needed - the fact that no anti-war features were proposed for the 3rd
anniversary of the invasion of Iraq also seems to me to point to a
decline of the anti-war movement, at least that part of the movement
that is connect to Indymedia). Again, I think I agree entirely with
Manos' concerns, that this feature is not reporting by "social movement
actors" but rather a summary of the opinions of various "left analysts"
(Hirsch, Chossudovsky, Solomon). Its not what I think Indymedia should
be about, but I am full aware that we don't have a consensus on "what
Indymedia should be about".

I'm left uncomfortable by this article, but not uncomfortable enough to
take a strong position for or against hiding it.

Peter

boud wrote:
> hi all,
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, mazzetta wrote:
>
>   
>> hi all
>>
>> boud :
>>     
>>> hi mazzetta,
>>>       
> (snip)
>
>   
>>> Is this a fair summary of your concerns?
>>>       
>> yep, thanks boud
>>     
>
> i've spent several hours reading more stuff and making changes
> according to the 6 points, which would seem to satisfy mazzetta and
> wowi. The more i read, the more frightening it gets. The Bulletin of
> Atomic Scientists says that India already has about 40-50 warheads,
> and with 5-7 years is expected to have 300-400 deployed nuclear
> weapons. This is not just having the *potential* to have 300-400
> weapons, it's an estimate of actually having them, putting India at
> the same level as France/UK/China/Israel. If the US pre-emptive
> nuclear strike doctrine is not quickly reversed, or if it becomes
> reality by using mini-nukes in Iran, then it's hard to see how
> citizens can stop another 30-40 states around the world from
> developing nuclear weapons. The US at present has some level of
> political support for bombing Iran (unfortunately). But it's not going
> to have support for bombing Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina,
> South Africa, Australia, ...  Nuclear disarmament is just as big an
> issue as preventing/reversing global warming: IMHO Chomsky is correct.
>
>
>
> Anyway, the modified version is here:
>
> https://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcIranFeatureStopAttack
>
> A brief summary of the changes made in response to the 6 concerns
> is below.
>
> The new title may possibly be the most difficult. i've proposed
>
>
>    US/Israel threaten attack (possibly using nuclear weapons) on Iran
>
>
> If someone has an alternative, please propose it.
>
>
>
> anti-nuclear-weapons solidarity
> boud
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   
>> (1) Although you approved the title before by saying nothing about it,
>>     now you wish it to be changed
>>     
>
> proposed new title is:
> US/Israel threaten attack (possibly using nuclear weapons) on Iran
>
>   
>> (2) The difference between *plans to attack, which may or may not be
>>     carried out* and *certain attack* needs to be made clearer
>>     
>
> Several small changes, and adding this sentence in the abstract:
>
> "It is unknown when the attacks would happen, and opinions differ on
> the probability of an attack (whether nuclear or non-nuclear)."
>
>
>   
>> (3) The petroeuro should not be listed as the *first* among the
>>     different likely reasons, just as one of the possible reasons
>>     
>
> It is now the last among the reasons listed in the abstract. 
> The list of reasons is now joined by "and/or" instead of "and".
>
>
>   
>> (4) The time scale of the attack needs to be changed - chances of it
>>     happening in March look weak now (the article was proposed in late
>>     Feb)
>>     
>
> Abstract: "It is unknown when the attacks would happen,..."
>
> Several changes in the main text in the petroeuro section, especially
> regarding the date.
>
>
>   
>> (5) Maybe add a sentence about the change in US nuclear weapons
>>     doctrine, to make it clearer why Chossudovsky and Hirsch and 1795
>>     other US physicists are worried about the US breaking the "no nukes"
>>     taboo by starting with "small nukes".
>>     
>
> added in Abstract:
>
> "Since the <b>new US nuclear
> weapons doctrine</b> authorises
> <a href="http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/">
> pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear adversaries,</a> "
>
>   
>> (6) Add something about how public opinion in "NATO allies" along with
>>     present head-of-government public statements is already making
>>     it politically difficult for the US/Israel to carry out the attack,
>>     since the US is hoping (this time) not to be "isolated", so that
>>     further public pressure from activists can be effective, link to
>>     http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC16Ak01.html
>>     
>
> i added the following to the end of the main text:
>
>
> Can activists stop this attack? 
> Regular <a href="http://www.zmag.org">ZMag</a> contributor 
> Norman Solomon 
> <a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8154">visited Iran in June 2005</a> 
> to see how to support activists there, and a month ago claimed
> that US antiwar activists mistakenly 
> <a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9694"><i>"seem eager to believe that [air attacks on Iran] won't happen"</i></a> and
> urging activists to prevent the possible attack.
> There are some signs that the US may decide not to attack Iran if
> it has 
> <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC16Ak01.html">insufficient support from rich European states</a> and other "NATO allies", so 
> public pressure on national governments 
> from activists in Europe and elsewhere may be more effective
> this time than it was three years ago against the threats to attack Iraq.
>
>
>
>   
>> Is this a fair summary of your concerns?
>>
>> yep, thanks boud
>> I think we could now add something on the Us-India deal on nues and
>> the double-standard on TNP and nucear issues embraced lately by US'
>> administration
>>     
>
> i've added a point to the abstract:
>
> <li><b>India</b> <a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so05norris">has about 40-50 nuclear warheads</a> and has neither signed nor ratified the NPT; in March 2006, Bush and Singh signed a US-India deal supporting the Indian 
> nuclear industry
> <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/03/335043.html?c=on">[1]</a>
> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/03/151200">[2]</a>
>
> and a bit to the text.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> www-features mailing list
> www-features at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/www-features
>   