from NOW Magazine NOW | FEBRUARY 8 - 14, 2007 | VOL. 26 NO. 23 Dropping a bomb French prez blows West’s cover on Iran using nukes first – it’s not going to happen By GWYNNE DYER For more than two years, all the big Western powers have insisted that Iran's nuclear power program is secretly intended to produce nuclear weapons, and that the minute it gets them it will launch them at Israel. But on Monday (January 29), French president Jacques Chirac said something very different. He said Iran would never use them first. "I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of [Iran] having a nuclear bomb," Chirac said in reply to a journalist's question. "Where will it drop it, this bomb?'' Chirac asked scornfully. "On Israel? [The missile] would not have gone 200 metres into the air before Tehran would be razed." He spoke as if deterrence would work even against Iran. As if the country were run by sane human beings who don't want their children burned, crushed and vaporized by Israeli and American nuclear weapons. He's not supposed to talk like that in public. "Chirac gave us a moment of honesty,'' said Alireza Nourizadeh, chief researcher at the London-based Centre for Arab-Iranian Studies. "His comment was basically what I believe to be the position of Britain, the United States and much of the West: if Israel is attacked, there will be no hesitation to bring retaliation and destruction to Iran." And that, Chirac concluded, meant that Iran would not use its nuclear weapons to attack Israel should it ever acquire them. In Chirac's view, the danger is not that Iran would use its nuclear weapons, but that they would lead to a general proliferation of such weapons in the Middle East. "Why wouldn't Saudi Arabia do it?" he asked. "Why wouldn't it help Egypt to do it as well? That is the real danger." But he's not supposed to say that either. Those are the West's allies, the very countries that the United States is currently trying to mobilize to lead an anti-Iranian alliance of Sunni Arab states. Chirac was simply stating the truth as he (and many others) see it, but his comments completely undermined the joint Western position, so the following day he was forced to retract them. He didn't say he was wrong, however, just that he'd thought he was speaking "off the record" when discussing Iran, as the interview was originally about climate change. France is clearly very worried by the drumbeat of anti-Iranian propaganda in Washington, which sounds alarmingly similar to the campaign of misinformation waged by the Bush administration before it attacked Iraq. Last month, Chirac was forced to cancel a planned visit to Tehran by his foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, because his allies did not trust France to stick to the party line. They were doubtless right in their suspicions. But France is also right to argue that Iranian nuclear weapons, if they existed, would be primarily defensive in nature and would not be used to attack Israel, because nuclear deterrence still works and Iranians do not want their country to commit suicide. It is also right to worry that an Iranian bomb would create pressures for further proliferation, as Arab countries that have lived under the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons for 40 years decide that living under the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons as well, with no means of deterrence or retaliation, is simply intolerable. Certainly, France is utterly hypocritical to worry about Middle Eastern countries owning nuclear weapons when it has had them itself for almost half a century, but that is equally true of all the other great powers. And it is jumping to conclusions when it assumes that Iran's stated (and quite legal) desire to enrich uranium for nuclear power generation conceals a drive to get an actual nuclear weapon as soon as possible. The truth may be that Iran is for the moment seeking only a "threshold'' nuclear weapons capacity: a level of technological expertise from which it could, in an emergency, develop actual nuclear weapons in only six months or so. Such a position is entirely legal, and some 40 countries currently hold it. The truth may also be that the nuclear-armed neighbour Iran really worries about is not Israel but Pakistan, whose 1998 nuclear tests scared Iranian strategists half to death. They don't worry about the intentions of Pakistan's current dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, but they know it is a one-bullet regime and they worry a great deal about what kind of fanatics might succeed him in power. So maybe Chirac's gaffe wasn't as accidental as it seemed. Maybe he wants people to re-examine all the lies and half-truths we are being told about Iran as Washington seems to be gearing up for another attack. And maybe we should. —————— Interesting. I'm inclined to agree, if logic holds, that the mutally assured destruction or Mexican stand-off applies here as with other holders of power. Of course, demonizing the leaders and portraying them as extremist lunatics is the standard propaganda, which means logic only counts when dealing with sane people. Religious zealots who want to fulfill prophesies of Armageddon are pretty scary to me if they are close to the critical ignition switches. I'd guess Israel has its own black coated ayatollahs who are proponents of that, but not before they build the third Temple. And they don't really run things there, just influence which political coalitions are in power. Extremist Christians might be already too close to the red button in the US, but that's just speculation. Nobody in the nuclear arms club sought permission to be there. They assumed they needed to just do it in secrecy, as with South Africa, India, Pakistan and Israel. What is the real deal on Iran? Is Iran closer to a fledgling democracy waiting to be liberated and flourish or still (as the US appears to think and act) a rabid dog with dreams of grandeur wishing to export its Islamic revolution? Pakistan is one bullet away from a more real and present danger if its dictator falls. How many assasination attempts have failed in offing Musharraf to date? It seems to be just a matter of time there.