Posts Tagged ‘nuclear

04
May
18

Who Are We To Believe?


FLAGS

Since the 2016 election of Trump, 45th President of the United States, a component to his winning campaign is the allegation that the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), adopted by all participating nations of the United Nations Security Council in 2015, is a poorly negotiated agreement principally for reason that it would cease to curtail Iran from re-instituting its former nuclear weapons development, deemed to have ended as earlier as 2009, in fifteen years from date of its coming into effect.

Now, several months since his inauguration, during which period saw the hiring and firing of several senior members of his cabinet, Trump has strategically or otherwise, surrounded himself with well know Neocons such as John Robert Bolton, an American politician and attorney who is now National Security Advisor of the United States as of April 9, 2018. Bolton served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations and widely known for his hawkish war posturing during the uptake to the attack on Iraq in 2003. And most recently, to replace fired Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, Trump has appointed Michael R. Pompeo, an American politician, lawyer, and former army officer to serve as the 70th United States Secretary of State. Previous to this appointment, he was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The point of this essay is to highlight the political posturing and strategies being put into the public space by the media in preparation for President Trump’s decision to the future of the JCPOA, scheduled for on or before May 12, 2018, however, it is relevant to point out, at the present moment, the Trump presidency, and his administration’s credibility, is being challenged on the following three, widely publicized fronts:

  • First, domestically, is Special counsel, Robert Mueller’s and F.B.I.’s investigations related to purported Russian interference in his election campaign and more; and, the allegations related to a sexual affair with porn-star Stormy Daniels.
  • Second is North Korea: it’s leader Kim Jung Un’s highly publicized willingness to meet with Trump to negotiate for the dismantling of its nuclear missile program, to pursue re-unification with the South for the removal of economic stifling sanctions;
  • Third is Trump’s voiced threat to withdraw from the JCPOA with Iran if it is not renegotiated, to the satisfaction of the United States.

The need for Trump to divert public attention from the Mueller and F.B.I. investigations could suggest heightened emphasis, through media channels such as FOX News and conservative pundits, on the latter two major issues challenging the Trump administration.

Recent coverage of Kim Jung Un’s crossing of the North-South Demilitarized Zone to meet with South Korea’s President Moon Jae-In, in the latter part of April, 2018, is for the short term, de-emphasizing Trump’s role for the present moment, however, the appointment of Mike Pompeo, who has public voiced his discontent, and current mistrust of the North Korean regime’s willingness to dismantle its nuclear program for a lifting of sanctions and possible re-unification, has the potential to put that effort into jeopardy.

This leaves the United States posturing leading up to the self-imposed date of May 12, 2018 for its decision on the Iran deal (JCPOA).

To date, the leaders of all consenting countries to the JCPOA, have stated their continued support for the deal, and Iran’s compliance as demanded. The only dissenter is the United States and, to that end, the forces to make its case, now being front and center.

First, there is John Bolton, National Security Advisor. To firmly establish his advice on the JCPOA, is to Google or YouTube: “John Bolton on Iran deal” to view a litany of recent interviews where he states the case on behalf of the President. Here is one recent example: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/

As early as July, 2017, Bolton tweeted: “Withdrawing from the Iran #NuclearDeal should be a top @realDonaldTrump administration priority.”

Most recently, in a move to discredit the Iranian governments role in the original negotiations, and its current commitment to meet its obligations as detailed by the JCPOA; Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, by way of YouTube video presentation, purports to have secured physical, documentary evidence, captured by Israeli secret services, that undeniably proves Iran lied leading up to the negotiated deal, and continues to deceive participating nations on its intent to reconstitute its nuclear ambitions, if not before the end of the fifteen year limitation.

Netanyahu Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrPFH_KIqSc

In response to Netanyahu’s video claim is Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister:

Iranian Foreign Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHXpzHIwW1M

What should be of concern is the statement that Trump is prone to believing what Netanyahu is making claim to by his presentation even though the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the watchdog to the advancement of nuclear development, has indicated Iran has been, and continues to be, compliant with the agreement contrary to that of the United States.

Trump in Agreement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aU2bckMD_g

IAEA Report of Key Events: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/chronology-of-key-events

So, these are the facts as best known, and as conveyed, through the various public media platforms.

What is at stake is the potential for another contrived conflagration instigated by the United States premised upon unfounded, but highly publicized, misinformation, or is it?

The point to be made by this essay is to highlight the different claims being made on this very important issue, and to suggest who might have the most to gain, or lose, by the various, outcome potentials. Certainly, Iran and its Peoples stand to lose the most in much the same way those of Iraq, Libya, and currently Syria and Yemen have lost. But, for the United States, and its supporting allies, and their citizens; may be impacted by an increase in their taxes to pay for the carnage they seem willing to support being imposed on foreign nations’ regimes that are not willing to march to the tune of western governments, or at best, maybe just to serve as a major distraction to events occurring or not, domestically.

You decide who to believe!

FLAGS

 

 

 

Advertisements
15
Nov
15

Food-chain to War


Let’s be gloriously optimistic and suggest that war of any definition comes to a sudden and abrupt end tomorrow. What would be the outcome?

Face it, like any organism of which conflict is no different, it must be fed, it needs replenishment as do all organisms. It digests and expels. Well, in war, things get destroyed, blown up, etc.. Therefore it creates a need; the necessity of a supply-chain to replenish that which has been lost or expended.

So where does this material come from? Who manufactures these specialized tools of conflict?

It does not take a leap of faith to suggest that ONLY developed nations of the world have the manufacturing and technological capacity to produce the diverse and robust cornucopia of military hardware to meet the insatiable digest of war in all its diverse forms of conflagration.

The challenges the proposition of ending militarism through the ending of development and procurement of military hardware in all its configurations spanning from nuclear to hand-held guns and their bullets has been duly addressed by the Department of Disarmament of the United Nations by its 1989 report titled: Study on the Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and Military Expenditures. It was prepared `in response to mandates of the General Assembly, on the economic and social consequences of the arms race’. It is a comprehensive examination of the socio-political and economic impacts the arms race has for both developed and developing nations.

The findings of the report on such a complex matter are not easily summarized in this essay and therefore for those truly interested seek out the report to be found here: UN Report

However, of the many, the following conclusion effectively conveys the intent of this essay:

164. The complex relationship between disarmament, development and security has been thoroughly explored in the Final Document of the International Conference On the Relationship between Disarmament and Development, as follows:

“Security is an overriding priority for all nations. It is also fundamental for both disarmament and development. Security consists of not only military, but also political, economic, social, humanitarian and human rights and ecological aspects. Enhanced security can, On the one hand, create conditions conducive to disarmament and, on the other, provide the environment and confidence for the successful pursuit of development. The development process, by overcoming non-military threats to security and contributing to a more stable and sustainable international system, can enhance security and thereby promote arms reduction and disarmament. Disarmament would enhance security both directly and indirectly. A process of disarmament that provides
for undiminished security at progressively lower levels of armaments could allow additional resources to be devoted to addressing non-military challenges to security, and thus result in enhanced overall security.” ‘

This conclusion leads to the obvious question: Why is this recommendation not constructively pursue?

Unfortunately, part of the answer resides in the same report which also concludes:

“172. The present study shows that military expenditures have extensive social and
economic consequences. Economic effects are most pronounced in leading military
spenders, and in particular in those areas of their economies which are dominated
by modern science and technology, which is a key factor in the present arms race.”

Since the invasion and conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq commencing in 2003 and now predominates most of the Middle East and North Africa, the style of war has dramatically altered from `field war’ as was fought in the Second World War and even Vietnam to some extent; to an `urban war’. Urban wars are fought amidst civilians often held as shields by terrorist elements. In this latter situation, the enemy combatant is often difficult to differentiate from their civil surroundings making the instance of innocent lives, collateral casualties to the conflict.

This all said what seems to be overshadowed is the fact that whether an organized battalion of trained, professional military personnel or `ragamuffin’ informal, untrained terrorist groups; they all demand a steady flow of material and armament to sustain their position in battle.

At present the terrorist groups such as Al Quida and its cohort: ISIS, ISIL, IS (Islamic State) pose formidable resistance to western allied nations’ attempts to end their brutal assault and advancement leaving the slaughter of countless innocent citizens in the wake of their push and capture of territory throughout Iraq and in Syria.

What is difficult to understand, as evidenced by nightly media reports of the conflict, are the parades of ISIS combatants (terrorists) in lines of Toyota pickup trucks, at times in the hundreds. Too, the thousands of their kind equally attired in black uniforms armed with similar weapons. Though this organization is defined as a terrorist organization, they appear by all accounts, to be organized, military army battalions.

So who is supplying them and why are these chains of supply NOT the first line of attack by western allies? By cutting off the chain of supply and starving the enemy into defeat.

This brings the discussion full circle forcing the question: Do the powers-that-be who reap the DIRECT financial benefit derived from the expenditures of military conflict in any of its conflagrations, desirous to see the end of such conflict and, the assured decline of their future prosperity in `blood money’?

It is difficult to conceive of individuals who are willing to see innocent lives lost both in the theatre of battle or far removed, such as has just happened in Paris, for the sake of power of position and politic derived by enrichment through production and sale of arms and technology but, history clearly speaks to this being the case.

Again to quote the UN report on disarmament:
“The ending of the arms race and the achievement of real disarmament are tasks
of primary importance and urgency. To meet this historic challenge is in the
political and economic interests of all the nations and peoples of the world
as well as in the interests of ensuring their genuine security and peaceful
Future.”

The report published in 1989, it is now 2015: what is the true and real impediment to this becoming a reality any time soon?




Categories

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: