@@ Decision 2004: Iran or Sudan @@
Arash
July 31, 2004
Decision 2004: Iran or Sudan?
By James Gordon Prather
Nuclear weapons physicist
Well, now we know that no matter who wins in November, we're going to stay
in Iraq as long as it takes and do whatever it takes to achieve final
victory - whatever "victory" means.
The election will, however, decide which country is next to have its "regime
changed."
If Kerry is elected, it'll be Sudan. If Bush is reelected, it'll be Iran.
The goal of U.S. foreign policy has long been the substitution of U.S.
sycophantic regimes for existing "criminal" regimes.
What makes a regime criminal?
Well, for the loony Left, it's human rights abuse, ethnic cleansing and
genocide. For the neo-crazies, it's just thinking about acquiring nukes or
the makings thereof and having missiles that can reach Israel.
Egged on by the loony Left, Clinton attempted to achieve regime change in
Bosnia and Kosovo from 20,000 feet. He accused the existing Serbian regime
of genocide and the neo-crazies went along, figuring that Clinton's attacks
on the Serbs might cause their Russian allies on the scene to start another
World War in the Balkans.
Egged on by the neo-crazies, Clinton also attempted to achieve regime change
in Iraq from 20,000 feet. He accused the United Nations inspectors of being
incompetent or worse for failing to find the missiles and "weapons of mass
destruction" U.S. "intelligence" said Saddam had. The loony Left went along
with that fiction because they knew that Clinton's real rationale for the
bombing was Saddam's "human rights" abuses.
Congress even went along, passing the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the
removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove
the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
But when it came to actually effecting regime change, the neo-crazies and
the loony Left discovered that the only rationale the American public would
buy for invading Iraq was an imminent threat by Saddam to our national
security. So Bush "determined" that Saddam already had or soon would have
nukes to give to Islamic terrorists.
Congress went along with that "determination."
Now, Congress has already established the basis for Bush doing unto Iran
what he did to Iraq
Concurrent Resolution S.81 "concurs with the conclusion reached in the U.S.
Department of State's Annual Noncompliance Report that Iran is pursuing a
program to develop nuclear weapons."
It calls for Iran to
a.. Immediately and permanently cease all efforts to acquire sensitive
nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, and in particular, all uranium enrichment
activities, including related importing and manufacturing activities and the
testing of related equipment;
a.. Comply with its international commitments and to rescind its decisions
to: manufacture and construct centrifuges, produce feed material that could
be used in those centrifuges, and construct a heavy water moderated reactor
that could be used for plutonium production;
a.. Honor its stated commitments and legal obligations to: grant IAEA
inspectors prompt, full and unrestricted access, to cooperate fully with the
investigation of its nuclear activities, and demonstrate a new openness and
honesty about all its nuclear programs.
And, Congress has already established the basis for Kerry's doing unto Sudan
what Clinton did to Bosnia and Kosovo.
Concurrent resolution H.467:
a.. declares that the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide;
a.. reminds the international community, including the United States
Government, of their international legal obligations, as affirmed in the
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide;
a.. calls on the Bush Administration to lead an international effort to
prevent genocide in Darfur, Sudan;
a.. urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even
unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations
Security Council fail to act.
So, there you have it. No matter who's elected we're going to unilaterally
effect regime change in at least one more Islamic country.
Why unilateral? Why can't we get the UN Security Council to authorize our
regime changes? Well, there's those pesky Chinese.
You see, a Chinese company, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, has just signed a
long-term agreement with the current Iranian regime to buy $20 billion worth
of liquefied natural gas. Zhenrong also imported 12.4 million tons of crude
oil from Iran last year and expects to complete deals soon to develop three
Iranian oil fields.
As for Sudan, it is also oil rich, and the holder of the biggest oil
development concession from the current regime is China.
Needless to say, China will veto any Security Council resolution calling for
regime change in either Sudan or Iran.
* Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal
Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the
Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for
national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy
Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a
nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/prather.php?articleid=3214