Proof positive - Bush is The World's No 1 Nuclear Terrorist

If one had any doubt at all regarding the popular image of Bush as the 'Worlds No1 Terrorist' those doubts disappeared today when Bush, asked whether or not he would consider a nuclear strike against Iran stated that 'all options are on the table'. Only a terrorist would consider such a move an option.

You may argue that he is only kidding - that he needs to scare the shit out of Iran in order to coerce them into bending to his will - however this argument does not alter the fact that he has flagrantly crossed a red line. And given the man's history, such an assumption, when considering the implications of it being false, is reckless indeed.

In February 2003 Senator Edward M. Kennedy and others were alarmed by Bush's previous threat to unleash nukes - in that case against Iraq. They sent a letter to Bush highlighting their concern. In it they quoted the classified version of National Security Presidential Directive 17 - dated December 2002 - [as reported in the Washington Post] in which the Bush administration stated the following:

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons - to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

Kennedy et al. stated rightly that "This apparent shift in U.S. nuclear policy threatens the very foundation of nuclear arms control as shaped by the 1970 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which has helped stem nuclear proliferation for over 30 years". They pointed out that NSPD 17 was in clear conflict with the Negative Security Assurance - a commitment first made in 1978. As recently as 2002 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher restated a 1995 version:

"The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon state parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT], except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies or on a state toward which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state."

This was subsequently qualified with the following from Boucher:

"We will do whatever is necessary to deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its allies, and its interests. If a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type of military response."

The other four nuclear weapons states [NPT signitaries] made similar pledges and this was noted in a UN security council resolution.


Today's implicit threat by Bush to strike against Iran with nuclear weapons goes much further than the threat made against Iraq. Clearly, Iran has not attacked any country with WMD [the NSPD17 trigger], neither has it threatened to do so - but it appears that in the case of Iran such actions are not required to justify a nuclear attack. The mere suspicion of an intent to acquire a nuclear weapons capacity appears to be sufficient justification.

The IAEA's latest report highlights little more than it's failure thus far to conclude "that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" - they have not as yet been able to prove a negative. By acknowledging that a nuclear strike is being considered to deal with this non-situation Bush also acknowledges the veracity of Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker - which he had earlier dismissed as 'wild speculation'.

Contrast the approach of the Bush administration towards Iran with it's approach towards N Korea and you will conclude that which other nations must themselves be thinking - that in a unipolar world, where might is right, and non-nuclear states - and their utterly innocent populations - can be terrorised with nuclear weaponry [regardless of the bluff factor] - the only option is to do a N Korea - get tooled up and only then announce to the world a fait accompli.

Whether or not Bush is 'bluffing' nobody knows. But his habit of threatening to use nukes against [Muslim] non-nuclear states, who are not themselves threatening the blessed security of the U.S, is a crime. The puzzling thing is - where's the outcry?

Def Brain