Home

"All Options are on the Table"

Comment by Larry Ross, April 13, 2007

Each of the Democratic Presidential candidates are willing to launch a  nuclear war on Iran, as indicated by their comments below, supposedly to prevent them from making nuclear weapons.

However I cannot believe that these three leading Democratic candidates for the US Presidency do not know simple well-established and easily verified facts on Iran.

These are that:

1. Iran has a right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium for power purposes and there are many safeguards against diverting such enrichment into nuclear weapons production.
2. The IAEA nuclear inspectors have regularly inspected and reported on Iran 's nuclear programme that there is no evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapons or programme to make nuclear weapons.
3. Therefore it follows that Iran is not a nuclear threat to the US, to Israel or to other countries.
4. The US and Israel, both preparing for war with Iran on the basis of their false nuclear weapons accusations, each have well-developed arsenals of nuclear weapons - the US has thousands and Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Each could destroy Iran and most of its population in a few hours. The Presidential candidates must know these simple facts, and should be able to make simple deductions from these facts.
5. That is that Iran is not and could never be in the foreseeable future, a nuclear or any other threat to the US or Israel.
6. Another simple deduction is that the US or Israel could wipe Iran off the map if Iran took any offensive action against them.
7. Even if Iran decided to try and make nuclear weapons, it would take them up to 10 years to do this. A few Iranian nuclear weapons could not be seriously considered as a threat to the US with thousands and Israel with hundreds of nuclear weapons.
8. Since when did the US have the right to dictate which nations may have and which may not have nuclear weapons?
9. Nine nations now are nuclear weapon states. They are a huge threat to the future of humanity. Why is the US so unconcerned about this situation, while condemning Iran for enriching nuclear fuel for power? Iran is under constant IAEA inspection to alert the world of Iran moves on to make nuclear weapons.
10. One would think that a reasonably intelligent level-headed Presidential candidate would express these truths and talk sense to a war-crazed President preparing for a war with Iran based on his false accusations and lies.
11. But no, the Democratic candidates repeat Bush's false accusations and lies. They don't expose the emptiness of these ridiculous accusations, but like Bush parrots, they threaten "All options are on the table".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John... and Whitewash

by Norman Solomon, April 12, 2007

The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.

Hillary Clinton says “no option can be taken off the table.”

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is “a threat to all of us” and “we should take no option, including military action, off the table.”

John Edwards says, “Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.” And: “We need to keep all options on the table.”

A year ago, writing in the New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: “One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.”

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington's policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

This year, with their virtually identical statements about “options” and “the table,” the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran.

If you're not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:

On Feb. 22, the national leaders of MoveOn sent an e-mail letter to more than 3 million people with the subject line “War with Iran?” After citing a need to give UN sanctions “a chance to work before provoking a regional conflict,” the letter said flatly: “Senator Hillary Clinton has provided some much needed leadership on this.”

The MoveOn letter quoted a passage from a speech that Clinton had given on the Senate floor eight days earlier: “It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization. Nor should the president think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Continue.....