“What’s that old Beach Boys song? Bomb Iran? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb.”
-Senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain
A nuclear weapon is a weapon that is used, as a deterrent against attack from other countries, nations, and empires. Pakistan is a nation that has already developed nuclear weapons, and there is certainly great potential for a regime that is virulently “anti-American”, and Islamist in nature to come to power there.
The issue of Iran, and the potential of Iran to develop a nuclear munition is all about the Revolution of 1979 (and also about the permanent warfare state and the persistent American “need” for war). When vassal states of the United States empire get uppity, or establish a unique and singular victory, then the United States can become very fervently angry, and continue to insistently hold on to — a petty, time-worn, thoughtless, catty and mean-spirited grudge. It can even not get over such “intolerable” losses, and persist with a fire that rages of a thousand suns.
Need I remind anyone that Israel has a stockpile of anywhere between 150 to 500 nuclear bombs? The answer to this question is, clearly, a Middle East that is free of all WMDs (or at least a nuclear free zone). In late 2011, in fact, the Israeli public was polled, as embracing this enlightened policy (NFZ) by a vote of 64%. Sadly though, the Israeli government has long ago surreptitiously, and unilaterally escalated the situation, and it should, probably, be taken to task; veritably, for all of its manifold, versicolor and innumerable sins. Israel is the nation that should be in question, at present, over its nuclear program, and the Islamic Republic of Iran; as a fact of the matter, should not be the one in the frying pan.
For instance, international law scholar Dr. Francis Boyle has said that all nuclear nations are essentially — from their inception — inherently guilty of the crime to commit a threat of all-inclusive, indiscriminate, far-reaching, and comprehensive extermination of human lives. And furthermore, Israel has also rejected efforts for inspection of its nuclear weapons program, from the sole international nuclear governing authority of their activity (the IAEA). Moreover, Israel, like India and Pakistan, never received any UNSC (United Nations Security Council) sanctions for its nuclear development ambitions.
Therefore, I think that we can clearly see a lack of objectivity in such sanctions, especially considering that Iran (as well as North Korea) did receive these sanctions, in the development of their nuclear programs — in the case of Iran we are, of course, referring to the alleged/intuited development of a nuclear weapons program. In fact, American international affairs scholar, Lawrence Scheinmann, has described the true United States policy towards burgeoning nuclear nation-states/powers as one in which, “…the United States has always opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons; [however], in cases where this could not be prevented the basic determinant of our attitude, toward the possession of these weapons by other countries is whether the regime is supportive of, or antagonistic to U.S. interests.”
Above and beyond the residually existing rancor, over the removal of the reliably compliant puppet (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) the United States fancy/pretension is, generally, always looking for additional nations — outside of its primary sphere of influence — to abrade against, and to act in a very belligerent way towards. This ethos is not only about the permanent warfare state (and keeping the wheels greased on the MIC), but simply about — what has already been stated, that is expanding the number of nations that are wholly subordinate to it, and indeed, expanding its overall hegemonical/imperial sphere and reach.
Human rights and other ultra-idealistic (and even utopian ideas and rhetoric) may be applied at times, toward these efforts, but these concerns are actually of no consequence, to the individuals who utter fealty and phony indulgence towards these concepts — via their forked-tongued tropisms, fairy stories, wild musings, anger-filled bombast and extemporaneousness diatribes. Not to say that the human rights of a particular “anti-American” nation-state is never an issue, but it is, certainly, also an issue that pervades a plethora of America’s “finest” client regimes.
When such violations occur in US client nations, the MSM may black out, and/or exhibit little to no interest, at all, towards them. If or when reported, the US State Department will assure its interlocutors that reforms are imminent, that will militate against the purported egregious acts of wrongdoing. One such “reform” occurred in Yemen, where the right-hand man of the former autocratic dictator, came to power via a non-contested “election“. The US State Department, not only signed off on this absurdist and fraudulent “election”, but registered its warm feelings toward the result of such a “reputable”, and notable occurrence/event.
Interestingly enough, virtually all of the reforms proposed in Syria, seem to be met askance by the US State Department. And in contradistinction, in a nation — like the chain of islands, Bahrain — not even an “election” with a single candidate, has, as of yet, been allowed to occur. Still, the US has continued to supply a varying array of dynamic, effective, and potent items, to the (serial human rights violating) monarchical and authoritarian regime. Materiel that United States government insists, are to be used solely, for “external defense” purposes. And moreover, Secretary of State Clinton was only just in Egypt recently (July) where she praised the uber murderous SCAF (Supreme Council of the Armed Forces) military clique for its “virtuous” practices, during the transitional period between the US-backed authoritarian dictator Mubarak, to that of the government of the newly elected President Dr. Mohamed Morsi.
How such widespread, dubious and rank hypocrisy can lead to anything, but a credibility gap between what the United States says, and what it does — simply averts believing! Any rational observer, one would think, must view this, as perhaps the highest priority in reforming world/universal dynamics and, indeed, global international strictures. For America to continually stand on its high horse, and reprimand alleged rogue actors, it must, certainly, face up to the hard truths that it has brought upon itself, and its once highly thought of exterior picture. In not doing so this will inevitably, catapult (and furthermore invariably boomerang) allegations of rogue state — consistently, pointedly and indelibly back — towards the originally progenitor of the term, which is, of course the United States itself.