Nobody seems to care about the consequences of a US or Israeli strike
on Iran, which could include the release of radioactive materials into
the Middle East.
-by Marsha B. Cohen
A grim joke made the rounds in late 2002 and early 2003, in
the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq. The version I recall went
something like this:
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney go into a
Texas bar. Over a couple of beers they plan the invasion of Iraq,
taking out Saddam Hussein and taking control of Iraq's vast oil
reserves. The big question, though, is how Americans might react to
their starting another war, with victory still elusive in Afghanistan.
They decide to do an impromptu sampling of public opinion, and invite
an average, all-American looking guy standing at the bar to join them
for a friendly drink.
"What would you think of us invading Iraq and taking over their oil
fields, if you knew that 30,000 Iraqis and one American bicycle
mechanic would be killed if we do it?" Bush asks.
The fellow slowly sips his beer, his brow furrowed. He mulls the
question and looks troubled. Finally he asks, "Why should an American
bicycle mechanic have to die?"
Cheney slaps the table and grins triumphantly at Bush. "I told you no
one would give a damn about the 30,000 Iraqis!"
A decade later, no one seems to give a damn about Iranian lives either.
The U.S. legacy in Iraq
As we now know, far more than 30,000 Iraqis and one American have died
since the US invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. The number of
documented Iraqi civilian deaths from violence since the onset of the
"Second Iraq War" now totals between 105,000-115,000, according to the
continuously updated Iraq Body Count database. It also notes that
according to the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs, the figure may be 13,750
higher still. Official Department of Defense statistics as of
mid-December, as compiled by Margaret Griffis at Antiwar.com, reveal
that 4484 members of the US military deaths and 1487 private military
contractors have lost their lives since the war began, as well as 319
"Coalition" troops, 348 journalists and 448 academics. Estimates of
the number of Americans wounded range from an official count of 33,000
to estimates of over 100,000.
Iraqi physicians are seeing an upsurge in cancers and birth defects,
which they blame on the usage of depleted uranium in the shells and
bombs used by US and British forces in the 1991 Iraq war and the 2003
invasion. An estimated 300 tons of depleted uranium were used to
attack Iraq in the First Gulf War. Abdulhaq Al-Ani, co-author of
Uranium in Iraq: The Poisonous Legacy of the Iraq Wars, has been
researching the health effects of depleted uranium weaponry on Iraq's
civilian population since 1991 and explained in an interview with Al
Jazeera that the effects of depleted uranium on the human body don't
even begin to manifest until 5-6 years after exposure. Al-Ani points
to a spike in Iraqi cancer rates in Iraq in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.
Dr. Ahmad Hardan, who has served as a special scientific adviser to
the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Health
Ministry, has been monitoring the effects of depleted uranium exposure
on adults and children, which include multiple cancers and serious
birth defects. He told reporter Lawrence Smallman that "Depleted
uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years and that means thousands
upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of
years to come." Leukemia has become the third most common cancer
throughout Iraq, with children under 15 especially vulnerable. "This
is what I call terrorism," he said.
The BBC reports that babies born in Fallujah now have 13 times the
rate of congenital heart deformities than European-born infants. While
visiting Iraq, World Affairs editor John Simpson was told many times
that women in Fallujah have been advised not to bear children. The
director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, Dr. Daud
Miraki, has found that increasing numbers of infants in eastern and
southeastern Afghanistan are being born without eyes or limbs, and
have tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes. The Pentagon denies
any connection with the US military's use of depleted uranium, even
though (or perhaps because) these same effects are endangering
veterans returning to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, whether from the right, left or the center, the
potential "consequences" of military strikes (a euphemism for war)
against Iran are being assessed almost exclusively on the basis of the
potential impact on Israel, the US and Europe: a spike in the price of
oil wreaking havoc in the global economy–Hezbollah launching missile
strikes from Lebanon into Israel and carrying out acts of terrorism
against "soft western targets"–rather than the disastrous consequences
for Iran, its neighbors and the global ecosystem.
One exception is a 114 page "Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on
Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities," produced in 2009 for the
Center for International and Strategic Studies. It devotes all of two
pages (90-91) to the human and environmental human catastrophe that
would result just from an attack on the Iranian nuclear power plant in
Bushehr:
Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor will cause the immediate
death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and
thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of
thousands depending on the population density along the contamination
plume.
The authors also warn that "Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily
affected by the radionuclides." (Are the Arab states of the Gulf who
supposedly are so eager for Israel to contain Iran's regional
ambitions aware of this?)
The ever-smirking Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, has
calculated that the casualties of a war with Irancould be limited to
fewer than 500. "There won't be 100,000 dead, not 10,000 dead nor
1,000 dead. Israel will not be destroyed," Barak said reassuringly
during a November radio interview quoted by the Washington Post. "If
everyone just goes into their houses, there won't be 500 dead,
either," he said.
Barak means Israelis. As for Iranians, who's counting? Who cares?
The human cost of attacking Iran
No one is talking about the harm that "surgical air strikes" against
"suspected Iranian nuclear facilities" with GBU-28 "bunker-buster"
bombs, which derive their ability to penetrate concrete and earth from
depleted uranium, would inflict on 74 million Iranians, nearly a
quarter of whom are under the age of 14 and under and half of whom are
under the age of 30. (Where are those self-designated "pro-life"
voices that should be expressing outrage? Or does "the right to life"
evaporate as soon as a fetus exits the womb?)
No worries are being expressed about the release of radioactive
materials into the biosphere of Central Asia (and by eventual
extension, the entire earth). If the depleted uranium in the bombs
comes into contact with radioactive nuclear materials present in the
targeted nuclear research sites–nearly all of which operate under
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision–the potential
for disaster would be magnified exponentially.
Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi grimly
told the hawkish Herziliya Conferencerecently that Iran possesses more
than 4 tons of low-grade enriched uranium as well as almost 100
kilograms of uranium enriched at 20%. If true, is it really a good
idea to send these radioactive materials spewing into the air and
water of Central Asia and beyond? Is it any wonder that Russia, China
and India–all whom are much closer geographically to Iran, as well as
downwind of the direction in which radiation and toxin-tainted winds
would initially blow–are the UN Security Council members most opposed
to attacking Iran?
Nor is anyone questioning the wisdom of dropping unprecedented numbers
of 5000 lb. "bunker busters" capable of penetrating 100 feet of earth
or 20 feet of concrete into the bowels of an already earthquake-prone
region. No one seems to care about the irreparable and uncontainable
environmental damage that could be done to miles of Iranian coastline:
the adjacent Caspian Sea to the north, the Arabian Sea to the south,
and the Persian Gulf to the west. What about the permanent damage to
the underground aquifers of Central Asia, where water is already
scarce? If fracking for natural gas can render US drinking water
flammable, imagine what pounding some of the most plentiful natural
gas fields with bombs could do.
The unforeseeable consequences
Prognosticating the full extent of the damage that could and would be
inflicted upon Iran and upon Iranians is difficult to impossible. No
one outside of top security circles can even guess the number of
targets of an Israeli and/or US attack (the BBC suggests five in
addition to Bushehr). Other variables include the quantity or capacity
of the weaponry that would be employed, whether Israel plans on using
nuclear weapons, whether so-called "precision surgical strikes"
reached or missed their intended targets, all of which would affect
the scale of "collateral damage"to human beings, infrastructure, homes
and apartments, schools, mosques and World Heritage sites as a
consequence of "bomb-bomb-bombing" Iran's suspected nuclear research
facilities.
Almost assuredly an attack on facilities buried deep within the earth
would utilize "bunker busting" guided bomb units (GBUs) that gain
their power to penetrate from depleted uranium. The cost in lives,
injuries, and long-term dangers to the health of civilians, including
genetic damage to unborn future generations from toxins and
radioactive materials in the depleted uranium bombs dropped and
nuclear materials leaked is also incalculable.
Is war worth it?
Contrary to misleading media reports, there is no evidence that Iran
is presently attempting or even planning to build a bomb. But even if
there were, an Israeli and/or US attack would merely postpone its
development for a few years, and perhaps even spur and speed up
nuclear weapons research for deterrence.
Returning to public opinion polling, a recent Pew Research Center
telephone survey (Feb. 8-12) asked a sampling of 1500 adults in all 50
states, "How much, if anything, have you read or heard about the
dispute over Iran's nuclear program?"
38% said "A lot"
39% said "A little"
23% said "Nothing at all"
Yet asked whether it was more important "to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action"
or "to avoid a military conflict with Iran even if it means they may
develop nuclear weapons," 30% of respondents prioritized avoiding a
military conflict, while 58% said military action might be necessary
(20% more than the number who had said they "knew a lot" about the
dispute over Iran's nuclear program). This isn't a fluke: the same Pew
survey asking the same question of different respondents Sept. 30-Oct.
4, 2009 found that only 41% said they "knew a lot" while 61% would
approve of military action–the same 20% differential.
(In the most recent survey, respondents were also asked whether the US
should support or oppose an attack on Iran by Israel "to stop its
nuclear weapons program." 39% said the US should support Israeli
military action, 5% said the US should oppose Israeli military action,
and just over half (51%) said the US should "stay neutral.")
But what if the questions were framed differently? What if the
pollster were to ask, "Would you approve or disapprove of Israel or
the US delaying progress in Iranian nuclear research (not necessarily
in pursuit of a nuclear weapon) by 3-5 years at most, by dropping
spent uranium bunker-busting bombs on a country of 74 million people,
a quarter of them younger than 14, if tens or even hundreds of
thousands might die and perhaps millions more might suffer from
genetic damage causing birth defects and cancers for generations to
come?
And what if the follow-up question was, "If depleted uranium bunker
busters were unable to penetrate Iranian underground facilities where
nuclear research was allegedly taking place, much of it under the
supervision of the IAEA, would you approve of Israel using nuclear
weapons that would magnify death and destruction a hundredfold and
result in what some might call 'a holocaust'"?
Frankly, I have no idea what the pro and con percentages would be to
questions asked in this way. But it's time for the pollsters gauging
public opinion to speak more forthrightly about what the real
options–and the real consequences–of attacking Iran are. They can
start by shedding the sanitized references to "military action" and
"surgical strikes" and calling them what they are–acts of war that
will inflict death and destruction on tens of thousands, perhaps
hundreds of thousands, of Iranians. Iranians like the characters in
the Oscar-winning film "A Separation," who love their children and
want the best for them, who worry about their aging parents, who
struggle to make ends meet in the face of high unemployment and
economic stress. As the film's director Asghar Farhadi stated in his
acceptance speech for 2011's Best Foreign Language Film:
At a time of talk of war, intimidation and aggression is exchanged
between politicians, the name of their county, Iran, is spoken here
through her glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been
hidden under the heavy dust of politics.
Should that heavy dust be poisoned with toxic radioactive contaminants
from depleted uranium and perhaps even nuclear fallout? War on Iran is
no joke.
More:
http://www.alternet.org/world/154377/what_no_one_is_saying%3A_the_horrors_that_would_be_unleashed_by_a_strike_on_iran/?page=entire
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment