Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2007, page 28

Outside the Beltway

How Real Is George Bush’s Fear of Nuclear Weapons?

By James G. Abourezk

In an effort to start another war in the Middle East, President George W. Bush apparently tired of accusing Iran of having nuclear weapons. He now is focusing on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who, the president says, are furnishing weapons to insurgents in Iraq that are killing American soldiers.

First of all, permit me to take a stand against anyone furnishing weapons—nuclear or non-nuclear—that kill Americans. But having started an unnecessary war in Iraq, and having placed American troops in harm’s way there—unnecessarily, I might add—should the president be allowed to blame others for the tragedy, or should we insist that he point the finger at himself for what is happening?

Nevertheless, a discussion of nuclear weapons in the hands of Middle East governments is in order. We know that Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads, plus the missiles to deliver them. We also know that both India and Pakistan are in possession of such weapons.

An Unusual Silence

We also know, from reports of experts, that if Iran continues on its path, within five to ten years it will have nuclear weapons. Moreover, Israel has leaked a story that it bombed a nuclear site in northern Syria in early September—one that had the North Koreans bringing nuclear technology to Syria. Even Damascus is saying nothing about the bombing, which I find unusual. Normally, a country would complain to the United Nations when one country commits an act of war against it, in violation of the U.N. Charter.

What the public does not know, and what neither the American media nor the president nor Congress will tell the public, is that both Syria and Iran have called for a “nuclear weapons-free Middle East.” That is my choice for a solution to everyone’s fear that Middle Eastern countries are arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush need only take them up on their offer.

And why, we may ask, does not President Bush at least discuss such a weapons freeze with the Iranians and the Syrians? We do not know the answer, unless Mr. Bush does not want to jeopardize his faulty reasons for attacking Iran.

We also know that Israel does not fear Iran having a nuclear weapon. We know that from a statement by Ephraim Sneh, a high Israeli official—in fact, a deputy defense minister—who said that the Israeli government’s primary concern was not any nuclear threat posed by Iran, but the fear that people will de-populate Israel, and that Jews will stop coming there.

Both Syria and Iran have called for a “nuclear weapons-free Middle East.”

Sneh said: “…Ahmedinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That’s why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.”

What’s amazing about this statement is that, as Jonathan Cook has written (see March 2007 Washington Report, p. 19):

“…the Israeli government is considering either its own strike on Iran or encouraging the United States to undertake such an attack—despite terrible consequenses for global security—simply because a nuclear-armed Iran might make Israel a less attractive place for Jews to live…”

And Haaretz Magazine reports that Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni,

“…a few months ago in a series of closed discussions [said] that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel…”

Of course, this would not be the first time that Israel has sold a bottle of snake oil to George W. Bush. While Ariel Sharon’s military was busy slaughtering Palestinians in Jenin in 2002, Mr. Bush announced that Sharon was “a man of peace.”

Would President Bush be stupid enough to begin bombing Iran? I’m afraid so. Some of my more conspiratorial minded friends claim that Bush and Ahmadinejad have a deal—keep tensions high with respect to Iran and oil prices will inflate, thereby helping both Ahmedinejad’s and Bush’s friends in the U.S. oil industry. I have long ago stopped having visions of sugar plums dancing in my head, and I am now a cynic. I think Mr. Bush is capable of anything.

Presidential Obliviousness

The reason I say that is because in the face of our mounting debt from war spending, and the mounting casualty figures of American soldiers, and the mounting death toll of Iraqi civilians—the surge notwithstanding—he displays nothing but obliviousness to the destruction of our country toward which he is leading us.

So far as the Democrats in Congress are concerned, he can have his way. They are proving to be political wimps, afraid to use their power of the purse to stop funding the war. It would be a very simple thing to refuse to appropriate what Mr. Bush requests for war spending. The Democrats could easily provide just enough money to bring the troops home, and nothing more. If Mr. Bush, as commander-in-chief, refuses to bring them home, then whatever damage is done to the troops will be on his head. That’s something the Democrats in Congress have not been able to understand.

When Congress cut off the money for Vietnam, the war ended very quickly, and all the predictions about chaos never came true.

America needs better leadership. Our leaders now have failed us—miserably.

James G. Abourezk is a former U.S. senator (D-SD) and founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. He now practices law in Sioux Fall, SD.

< Prev		Next >