The U.S. and the Escalating Threat to the World

The article that follows was written in 2005. Nonetheless...

The U.S. and the Escalating Threat to the World

by Nabila Harb/FAV co-editor

See Also: Iraq and the Dangers of the Policy of Appeasement (copied below this article)

The U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt have used their invasion of Iraq as a means through which to achieve many goals apart from its primary goal of gaining control of Iraq and its natural resources. This war has been a vehicle through which the U.S. not only elevated propaganda to new heights at the expense of the truth, but actually undertook the murder of independent journalists. By targeting journalists for murder, a clear threat was delivered to any one daring to publicise any facts in opposition to the U.S. and Coalition goals. Now the example of the invasion is being utilised as a concrete threat to any other nation that dares to demonstrate any opposition whatsoever to international U.S./Zionist goals. Victory has not been won by the Coalition in Iraq by any means, and yet, by destroying buildings, statues and other symbols of the legitimate Iraqi leadership and by encouraging widespread looting, the Coalition is hoping to convince the Iraqi people as well as the international community of its power to give life or death to whomsoever it wills.

Bogus accusations of 'pursuing weapons of mass destruction' were part of the foundation upon which the Coalition based its invasion of Iraq. Now, even as the country of Iraq continues to resist, the U.S. warns other nations to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq.' In particular, the U.S. threatens Iran, Syria and Korea with the possibility of a U.S. or 'Coalition' invasion, should they attempt to retain the right to oppose U.S. foreign policy. John R. Bolton, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, warned Syria and other countries in the region to 'open themselves' up to 'new possibilities for peace'. In other words, no one has the right to self-defence or defence of the homeland. 'New possibilities for peace' require capitulation to U.S./Zionist aims and are predicated upon total disarmament by any country that is in a position to threaten the Zionist entity.

Bolton declared that: 'With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest.'

Of course, proliferation of nuclear arms is not only allowed but encouraged in the case of the Zionist entity, an illegal political entity that never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and one that has threatened the U.S. government with the possibility of becoming a 'rogue state' if the U.S. should ever waver in its support. In 1986, Francis Perrin, high commissioner of the French atomic energy agency from 1951 to 1970, told the press that France and the illegal Zionist entity had worked for two years in the late 1950s to design an atom bomb. Perrin declared, inter alia, that: 'We [France] thought the Israeli bomb was aimed against the Americans, not to launch it against America but to say 'if you don't want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us, otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.'

Indeed, the Zionists vowed before the current American invasion of Iraq that, should Iraq attack the Zionist illegal entity, they would feel free to use nuclear weapons in response. This is the same Zionist entity that attempted to conceal its own nuclear capacity from the world for decades. In fact, despite all propaganda to the contrary, it was only Iraq who possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and the American invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'threat', actual or potential, from a nation weakened by over a decade of punitive sanctions.

An U.S. Air Force report from 1999 declared the Zionist entity to be building a nuclear naval force meant to respond to any nuclear strike by such countries as Iran or Iraq. The number of Zionist nuclear weapons cited in the report was 400 atomic and hydrogen weapons, double that of previous assessments. Some of these 400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons could be deployed by the Zionist navy on the fleet of three German-built Dolphin-class diesel submarines, giving the Zionist entity a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles. The same report declared that: 'the first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, located strategically near Iran' but that the Zionist entity might be able to use Jordanian air space for a nuclear strike on Iran. It stated finally that: 'Israel's Defense Ministry has requested from the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorisation for a retaliatory nuclear strike.'

In the spring of 2002, the Zionist entity contemplated a 'pre-emptive strike' against Iran. The Coalition invasion of Iraq made it unnecessary for the Zionists to carry out their own threats against Iraq, but they still remain eager to see both Iran and Syria weakened significantly or destroyed. The Bush administration now has made it clear that it could be persuaded to turn its aggression next towards either Syria or Iran.

Iran, despite its rather despicable attempts to curry favour with the U.S. by abetting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its own compliance with international law in terms of its nuclear programmes, has not won either security or safety with the U.S. and its allies. In terms of nuclear weapons, Iran, unlike the Zionist entity, is party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has accepted full scope safeguards and is entitled to import nuclear reactors and other technologies under the provisions of the treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency regularly has inspected all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities, reports it to be in full compliance with the NPT and has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons effort. Since 1991, the IAEA invoked authority to conduct special inspections of undeclared sites and Iran allowed the IAEA to visit any site upon request. The agency failed to uncover any non-sanctioned activites in any of its several visits. Despite all of this, Iran remains a potential target for the next act of American/Zionist aggression and will not be removed from Bush's characterisation as part of his 'axis of evil'. Demonstrations of disgraceful jubiliation at the Coalition's current successes in Iraq will change nothing.

In reality, it should be far more frightening to contemplate nuclear weapons at the disposal of the Zionists, an aggressive colonialist racist regime proven to have expansionist aims towards the Arab Nation than nuclear power in the hands of Syria, Iran or Korea. In fact, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons and used them on a civilian population is the United States, the nation that demonstrated its aggressive, law-defying nature once again in its invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq.

A U.S. poll was taken to show that half of the United States population would support U.S. military action against Iran if it continued to move toward nuclear weapons development and 42 percent of those surveyed said the United States should take action against Syria if it were helping Iraq. Polls only represent the views of those chosen to participate, and one hopes that this is not the opinion of the people of the United States, but only of those brainwashed by official U.S./Zionist propaganda. Even so, it is a rather frightening prospect, and if a valid poll, definitely supports the notion of culpability of the people of the United States for the blood shed and crimes committed by its government.

Bolton continued to elaborate upon his threat by stating that: 'I think Syria is a good case where I hope that they will conclude that the chemicals weapons program and the biological weapons program that they have been pursuing are things that they should give up. It is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process. He concluded by stating that the priority of the United States was the 'peaceful elimination of these programmes.'

The U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is a demonstration of how 'peaceful elimination' is achieved. Indeed, it is obvious that other nations do need to 'draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq'. The U.S. and its allies must be stopped now. Half-hearted attempts to support Iraq while attempting to placate the U.S. will accomplish nothing.

The real lesson to be drawn from Iraq is that one must not acquiesce in self-destruction at the hands of the enemy. Iraq actually attempted to conform to the dictates of the United Nations with respect to its weapons and resources for self-defence while the United States never had any intention of forswearing its own plans for invasion. While Iraq destroyed weapons at the behest of U.N. inspectors, the United States amassed troops and weapons in preparation for invasion.

Indeed, it is interesting to look at the example of North Korea and its response to U.S. pressure. In a statement made on the 6th of April, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea demonstrated clear recognition of the dangers that face any nation that dares to oppose U.S. world domination and gave its own response to recent threats made by the U.S.

Stating that 'the DPRK has so far made every possible effort to ensure stability and peace in the Korean Peninsula and the region', it accused the United Nations Security Council first of dealing with the nuclear issue on the peninsula in such a manner as to make it a 'prelude to war' to be 'misused by the U.S. as an excuse for war.'

One can hear the echo of similar United Nations discussions and resolutions on Iraq here and recall the recent U.S. manipulation, bullying and ultimate disregard of the international community in its inexorable aim to invade Iraq.

The DPRK then stated very forcefully that: 'The U.S. intends to force the DPRK to disarm itself. The Iraqi war shows that to allow disarming through inspection does not help avert a war but rather sparks it.'

Furthermore, that: 'Neither international public opinion nor the U.N. Charter could prevent the U.S. from mounting an attack on Iraq. This suggests that even the signing of a non-aggression treaty with the U.S. would not help avert a war.'

And finally:

'ONLY THE PHYSICAL DETERRENT FORCE, TREMENDOUS MILITARY DETERRENT FORCE POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DECISIVELY BEAT BACK AN ATTACK SUPPORTED BY ANY ULTRA-MODERN WEAPONS, CAN AVERT A WAR AND PROTECT THE SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY AND THE NATION. THIS IS A LESSON DRAWN FROM THE IRAQI WAR.'

Syria and Iran should take note and respond in like fashion. The DPRK continues by rejecting the entire fabric of deceit upon which the U.S. relies to support its worldwide aggressions, stating that:

'The U.S. is seriously mistaken if it thinks that the DPRK will accept the demand for disarming while watching one of the three countries the U.S. listed as part of an 'axis of evil' already subject to a barbarous military attack.'

In conclusion, the DPRK vowed that, should the U.S. target North Korea, the DPRK would have 'no other option but to beef up the deterrent force for war by mobilising all the potentials.'

In like manner, Syria and Iran must recognise the need for absolute resistance to the U.S. foreign policy 'programme'. Unity against the U.S. is vital. The lesson to be learned from the U.S./Coalition invasion of Iraq is that the U.S. is ruthless in its programme to eliminate any potential threats to its own status as the most powerful dictator in the international community. At the heart of U.S. world domination plans are Zionist interests and this never was more obvious than when the U.S. chose to invade Iraq, a country without any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' rather than taking any action towards Korea, a nation possessing nuclear deterrent power. The Zionists have no interest in Korea at present, but they do have an interest in increasing their sphere of control within the Arab Nation and Iran. The appointment of Jay Garner, a Zionist puppet, to supervise the so-called 'post-Saddam Hussayn' admininstration of Iraq is damning evidence of U.S./Zionist collaboration.

Furthermore, Iraq was chosen as the first target probably because the U.S. believed that it would have United Nations support and because it was able to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War without any effective resistance from the Arab Nation as a whole. Despite Arab opposition to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the anger and frustration with respect to the economic sanctions that punished Iraq for over a decade, the leaders of the Arab Nation made it clear that they would not actually oppose a second U.S. invasion. Moreover, much of the military apparatus for a second invasion of Iraq was in place and indeed, the U.S. and British had been invading parts of Iraq throughout the past decade, under spurious claims of 'enforcing' the sanctions.

Iraq, therefore, was a much easier target than Syria, Iran or Korea. The oil resources in Iraq made it irresistable to Western governments determined to take multi-national control over Arab resources and radically diminish the power of OPEC.

An invasion of Syria certainly would be in Zionist interests, perhaps even more than the invasion of Iraq, but Iraq posed an easier target in terms of the degree of passivity that the U.S. could expect from the rest of the world, even if most of the world opposed a military invasion of Iraq. After all, the brutal economic sanctions against Iraq had been allowed to proceed year after year without any sort of effective intervention from any one.

Iraq is by no means defeated, and the U.S. cannot claim true victory of any sort at this point in time. Even so, it is vital for every country to take note of the unequivocally aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy and to respond as the DPRK responded. No one can afford to wait to see what ultimately happens in Iraq, hoping that perhaps the United States will become so entangled in a long war of attrition that it will not be able to open another front. After all, the United States proved itself willing to invade Iraq even while continuing military actions in Afghanistan, and it carried out attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.

There is no middle path here, and a policy of appeasement with respect to the United States will not grant safety, peace or security to any nation. Any country that decides to work with the United States in an attempt to win either U.S./Zionist friendship or tolerance is committing suicide. The U.S./Zionist aims to destroy the Arab Nation and Iran will not waver. Any U.S. 'road map' for Palestine ultimately will facilitate Zionist security in the region, and thus must be repudiated categorically.

Like an abusive marriage, any so-called alliance with the U.S. or the Zionists operates to the benefit only of the abusive partner. Any gains for the victim are illusory at best. Independence from U.S. control is the only path to true survival.


Before this, I wrote another article:

IRAQ AND THE DANGERS OF THE POLICY OF APPEASEMENT
Nabila Harb/ FAV's Co-editor

A Position Statement on the Behalf of the Editorial Board of the Free Arab Voice

The dirtiest word in the lexicon of political philosophy may be 'appeasement'. It is fashionable to use the example of Hitler's invasion of Poland as an argument to convince people that a 'pre-emptive strike' is justified. With respect to Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq, one has to agree that the spectre of 'appeasement' looms very large on the horizon. If the world does not stop this power-mad leader NOW, it will be much harder to stop him in the future.

It is wrong for a nation to march into another country and assume control of it for no other reason than a desire to control the assets of that country. It is wrong for a nation to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and to use not only the threat of that power to eliminate opposition to its goals, but to actually USE those weapons in aggressive actions against other nations.

The U.S. has made all of these arguments in its bid for world support of its proposed invasion of Iraq. In fact, though, it is the U.S. rather than Iraq that is the threat. The world is guilty of the policy of appeasement with respect to the United States, and the dangers of appeasement in this case cannot be underestimated.

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the attacks of 11 September, Bush warned the world that 'you either are with us or against us' and made the potential effects of any opposition very clear. At that point in time, saturation media coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and Bush's obvious intention to wage war against any convenient target either convinced the world community of the righteousness of his actions or persuaded world powers that it would not be in their best interest to oppose the U.S. The Taliban was not a popular regime in any case. Other nations, even if they did not accept U.S. logic, were not willing to risk their own security for the sake of the Taliban.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the real beginning of a policy of 'appeasement' on the part of the world community. Having persuaded or cowed the world into support, acquiescence or discreet silence, Bush immediately began to rant about his 'axis of evil', and to turn his attention to future targets. Chief among these was the sovereign nation of Iraq, rich in oil but weakened by over a decade of punitive international 'sanctions'. In point of fact, the invasion of Iraq was a primary goal from the moment George W. Bush Jr. assumed the Presidency of the United States. Since the first invasion of Iraq, U.S./Zionist media and interests have portrayed President Saddam Hussein as the 'anti-Christ', a dangerous super-villain with no redeeming features as well as the desire to control or destroy the rest of the world. So successful was this media and government propaganda that even many anti-war activists preface their declarations of opposition to an invasion of Iraq with a caveat statement denouncing Saddam Hussein as a leader and/or human being. Too often, anti-war declarations are in the nature of: 'While we believe in a regime change for Iraq, the United States should not invade Iraq.' Bush Jr. no doubt felt that his programme for the second invasion of Iraq would proceed smoothly, unimpeded by any real opposition.

Reality is against him, however, and there is no new 9/11 drama to obscure the facts or issues here. It is the United States, not Iraq, that possesses the 'weapons of mass destruction' AND the intention of using them. It is the United States, not Iraq, that has plans to invade, occupy and control other sovereign nations. It is the United States and its sidekick, the Zionist entity, that pose the real and pressing threat to world peace and security.

Bush now declares to the world that: 'You either support Saddam Hussein or me'. He is using the same form of intimidation and blackmail against the world community that succeeded in giving him the 'rubber stamp' of international approval for his invasion of Afghanistan. Now, however, the stakes are higher where the international community is concerned.

The proposed U.S. invasion of Iraq is the 'crossing of the Rubicon' in terms of any international influence over the United States and its foreign policies. Opposition to Bush must be real and effective if Iraq is not to be merely the first step in a continuing U.S. policy of invasion and aggression against sovereign nations throughout the world.

The U.S. offers foreign aid for those who support the U.S. and threats of reprisals, whether economic or military, for those who oppose it. One nation cannot stand alone against the U.S., although Iraq bravely has refused to surrender to U.S. acts of military aggression, bullying, threats and years of punishing economic sanctions. It is vital now for the international community to unite against the U.S. plan of aggression, not only for the sake of Iraq, but for the sake of all independent nations and people throughout the world.

The United Nations was created for a situation like this. If it cannot protect Iraq from the proposed U.S. invasion, then it cannot protect any one. Nations cannot act unilaterally now, because the price of opposition to the U.S. for a single nation may be too high. If the international community unites, however, it can halt the progress of the U.S. plan for control of the world map.

The European Community cannot be divided, nor can it afford to support the U.S. proposal to invade Iraq. Tony Blair's bid to increase England's sphere of influence at the expense of Iraq, Europe and indeed the rest of the world is not only shameful but ultimately will be revealed to be an empty illusion. If one day Great Britain should decide that its interests are opposed to a particular U.S. plan, it will fare no better than Iraq in any attempt to halt the U.S. Tony Blair will have to realise that the British Empire cannot be resurrected, even by hanging onto the coattails of George Bush. England must stand united with France, Germany and other European nations who understand the dangers posed by a policy of appeasement. The United States cannot be allowed to continue in its path of aggression.

There was a time when the Soviet Union was able to act as a balance to U.S. foreign influence and aggression. Even if Russia's power and influence do not equal that of the old Soviet Union, it needs to act now to prevent the U.S. from becoming the sole arbiter of world fate.

China certainly possesses the power to do something concrete to halt the progress of U.S. aggression. It cannot afford to be seduced by trade considerations into allowing the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The plan to invade Iraq is part and parcel of a larger U.S. programme to control the global map. The threats and enticements offered by the U.S. to smaller nations in order to gain their 'support' of this war cannot be allowed to influence a nation with real power to stop this international bully.

Small nations that rely upon U.S. aid and could be destroyed easily by the U.S. military machine must unite to form an effective alliance against the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. To stand alone against the U.S. might be suicidal, but to join together with other nations is the only true path to security. They have to recognise the real danger of appeasement, and to understand that they could fall victim to a future U.S. plan of invasion at any time if they do not stand firmly against U.S. aggression now.

One should not have to stress the importance of an Ummah and an Arab Nation united against the threat of U.S. aggression against a fellow Islamic Arab nation, but unfortunately, neither the Ummah nor the Arab Nation have demonstrated any concrete or practical opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The recent example of Turkey, negotiating over aid and influence with the U.S. as its price for betraying Iraq, is disgraceful, even if Turkey so far has not capitulated, simply because its terms were not met. As shameful are those Arab nations that have allowed the preliminary invasions of their own lands by U.S. troops and armaments and their situation should provide a clear and compelling example of the high price of U.S. aid.

On the other hand, a few brave and intrepid Kuwaitis have demonstrated their resistance to the U.S. military programme, even at the price of their own lives. Moreover, their acts are clear proof that, even if the leaders and government of a nation acts dishonourably and surrenders to the pressures of fear and greed, the masses effectively can oppose the U.S. programme of invasion. In practical terms, however, at this late stage, any truly effective popular demonstrations must take the form of action rather than slogans and words.

Iraq has declared that it is U.S. and Zionist weapons of mass destruction that pose the only real threat to the world and this is no more than the truth. It is not a matter of choosing between the U.S. and Iraq, as George Bush would lead people to believe. It is a matter of standing up for oneself against a superpower that obviously has no moral integrity or qualms about destroying any sovereign state that dares to oppose its crimes against humanity. After all, the U.S. unequivocally refused to be bound by any international court of justice. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity, who refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is the U.S., as well as the illegal Zionist entity that refuse to abide by U.N. resolutions and international law in the form of the Geneva Conventions and other laws relating to the protection of human rights.

Iraq poses no threat whatsoever to any one. It is the U.S. that poses the greatest threat now to the world community, and opposition to the U.S. proposed invasion of Iraq must be real and effective, consisting in deeds rather than words.

There is a tactic known as the 'human shield', whereby individuals act as human shields to protect some one who is a target. The world must act now as a 'human shield' to protect Iraq against the U.S. A real international peace-keeping force must be created to protect Iraq from invasion. Iraq cannot be allowed to stand alone against U.S. aggression and if the only way to truly stop this invasion is to stand in the path of the U.S. military machine, then the international community must act to do precisely that. Honour and integrity demand that the world community oppose the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, but beyond that, self-preservation demands it as well.