Ex-US-UN ambassador says America ‘must attack Iran’ Just what the world needs, another cowboy sabre rattler. It is no wonder that he is now an "ex-UN Ambassador".
We offer this story, and quote much of his actual words. It is our way of allowing readers to judge for themselves, how men who get some authority, can often show little wisdom. Is this man off of his rocker?
By Kaleem Omar INTERNATIONAL NEWS Sourced from Google News
Of all the loose canon that have passed through the portals of President George W. Bush’s administration, one of the loosest has been John Bolton, who until recently was America’s ambassador to the United Nations and still has close links to the White House.
Bolton belongs to the redneck school of thought – a school whose guiding principle in international relations seems to be: “Let’s kick some butt.” He was one of the staunchest supporters of the US’s utterly illegal and morally reprehensible invasion and occupation of Iraq, and is now advocating an equally hawkish line against Iran.
On Tuesday Bolton came right out with it and said that the United States “must attack Iran before it gets the bomb.” In an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, Bolton said that the European Union had to “get more serious” about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme had failed. “Iran has clearly mastered the enrichment technology now…they’re not stopping, they’re making progress and our time is limited,” he said. Economic sanctions “with pain,” he said, had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the “theocratic regime” and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.Bolton said: “It’s been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.”Warming to this theme, Bolton added: “If we can’t get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we’ve got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that’s the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it’s safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so.
And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force.”Iran has repeatedly denied that its uranium-enrichment programme is aimed at making nuclear weapons. It says the programme is designed to produce fuel for the nuclear power plant it is building with Russian help.
An inspection carried out by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran’s main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday reportedly found that Iran’s scientists were operating “1,312 centrifuges,” the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000 centrifuges, it will need about “one year” to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for “one nuclear bomb.”
But the IAEA inspection found that Iran has so far managed to enrich uranium only to the four per cent purity needed for nuclear power stations.
This suggests that Iran is still a long way off from producing weapons-grade uranium, which must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.
Iran, for its part, says it has no intention of making nuclear weapons and that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful in nature.
Neither the IAEA nor the United States, however, have ever expressed any concern over Israel’s nuclear weapons programme. Israel has been developing nuclear weapons since the early 1960s and now has more than 400 nuclear bombs in its arsenal, along with a whole range of missile- and aircraft-delivery systems. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons.
When Syria, in January 2003, called for a nuclear-free Middle East, its call was met by silence from Washington. The American response