'Iran needs nukes for self-defense'
Media speculation is rife over an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities ahead of a key UN nuclear watchdog report. On Tuesday, Israel's defense minister, Ehud Barak, said the possibility of a strike should not be "taken off the table."
Political analyst Adrian Salbuchi says any nuclear threat posed by Iran is the logical consequence of Western aggression.The crucial status report is expected to be released on Tuesday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) watchdog amid rumors that it may provide “new evidence” that Iran has a militarized nuclear program. Although the Iranian leadership denies this, the idea must surely be very much in their minds.Iran lives under permanent threat from Israel and the West, and its shared border with two countries that have been ransacked by the West in the recent past – Afghanistan and Iraq – does not make them feel more secure.
Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina
Western governments and the mainstream media take it for granted that “the international community” feel comfortable and happy knowing that the US, UK, France (and most likely Israel) have nuclear weapons. At the same time, if Iran were to develop a matching nuclear capability, they call for sanctions and even war. One should thus look beyond today’s double standards and ask the question: Why?Over the past century, Iran has never attacked nor invaded any of its neighbors, nor taken part in any imperial war of conquest. Quite the contrary: It was Persia/Iran that was repeatedly invaded by the United Kingdom during World War I; and then again invaded by Britain and the Soviet Union in 1941 because Churchill and Stalin needed Iranian oil to fight World War II.When in 1953 Iran’s popular and democratically-elected President Mohamed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (better known today as British Petroleum), the US and Britain orchestrated a violent military coup that ousted Mossadegh from power and imposed on the Iranians a quarter century of authoritarian rule by Shah Reza Pahlevi. The 1979 Iranian Revolution merely rid the country of the Shah’s pro-US/UK oil company-backed regime.Immediately after that, in 1980, the US armed their then-key ally in the region – Saddam Hussein – to the teeth. Iraq started a horrendous war of attrition on Iran that lasted eight years and killed over a million people.So who has been the aggressor in the region for almost a century? Who poses the real threat to peace? American, British, French and Israeli behavior over recent decades has been deplorable, violent and irresponsible, destroying entire nations including Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya on the basis of flagrant lies and relentless psychological warfare.And if it is nuclear attack that is to be feared, then let us not forget that the only nation in history to have ever launched nuclear bombs on undefended cities was the US.Israel is clearly playing with fire. If it carries out a pre-emptive strike against Iran, as their leaders are threatening to do, they know that Iran’s counter attack will be devastating.It would doubtless unleash Western mainstream media reports so dramatic that they would be certain to sway US, UK, and European public opinion to “help little Israel” against the “big bad Iranians.” Would the Israeli leadership do such a thing? A look at Israeli behavior over the past 60 years speaks eloquently in this respect. Perhaps they have their “Samson Option” always ready to use.
Adrian Salbuchi for RT