Israel and the West’s rhetoric has been – to put it lightly –heated when it comes to Iran and it has only intensified over recent days and weeks.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, issued a grim warning to Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom, which have all reportedly been weighing an unprovoked strike on Iran.
Lavrov said that taking military action against Iran would be a “very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences”.
Indeed the consequences would be unpredictable to a degree, yet predictable in that the fallout would be far from positive for the region and the world.
This comes directly after Israeli President Shimon Peres made some grim statements on the Iran situation himself.
“The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option”, Peres said to Hayom, an Israeli news agency.
Yet Peres claims that the decision has not already been made, but the IAEA’s report due to be released tomorrow will likely be a deciding factor.
Leaked information I covered in this article purportedly shows that Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapons program despite their fervent denials and the IAEA report will allegedly show proof of their weapons program.
Echoing the constant denials of any military applications to their nuclear program, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said the evidence against them has been contrived and is part of a large-scale smear campaign against Iran.
This is not wholly improbable given that Israel has been claiming that Iran wants to wipe them off the map for years now and Neocon elements in the United States and throughout the West openly support such action.
Russia holds the position that the only way to solve this problem – be it real or perceived – is through six-party talks that include both Iran and Russia which had broken down in December of last year.
“[T]he only path for removing concerns is to create every possible condition” to resume the six-party talks, said Lavrov.
Lavrov seems to be a voice of reason, urging diplomacy in an age of saber rattling and warmongering.
Yet the Western media continues to promote the claims made by anonymous diplomats who claim that the IAEA report to be issued tomorrow will include evidence that Iran has developed computer simulations of a nuclear warhead and satellite images which allegedly show a steel container used for tests related to nuclear weaponry.
Last time I checked creating a computer simulation isn’t a breach of international law and a non-descript steel container is far from the ironclad proof one would hope to get before authorizing a preemptive strike.
Then again, as I covered in this article, the intelligence leading into Iraq was just as questionable and based on alleged mobile laboratories and other fantastical claims of a program seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) which obviously failed to materialize.
One anonymous Western diplomat told Reuters, “There are bits of it [the IAEA report] which clearly can only be used for clandestine nuclear purposes. It is a compelling case.”
One of these “bits” is likely going to be the underground facility near Qoms which is far from a menacing facility as I previously reported.
Even if it housed nuclear weapons, it would represent a second strike capability. However, there is no proof to show that it does house nuclear weapons or that Iran is even seeking such weapons.
Iran is likely just trying to shield their peaceful nuclear program from a warmongering Israel that bombed Syria in 2007 for simply seeking to develop a nuclear reactor.
The preemptive unilateral Israeli strike on Syria known as “Operation Orchard” and it resulted in the alleged deaths of 10 North Korean workers.
The U.S. government and the Israelis of course insisted that the nuclear facility in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria had military applications but, just like Iran, Syria denies the allegations completely.
The IAEA later said that the site was indeed a nuclear reactor but the military nature of the site was not verified.
The IAEA claims it is because the Syrians wouldn’t provide the necessary levels of cooperation but the Syrians have also disputed this allegation.
Could the intelligence presented in the IAEA report tomorrow be just as unreliable and unsubstantiated as that used to push America into invading Iraq?
What are the consequences Lavrov spoke of? Could he be implying that a strike against Iran would bring about World War 3?
|Liveleak on Facebook|