It is disappointing that European leaders at the G7 meeting in Canada thought that Israel was doing their 鈥渄irty work鈥 by attacking Iran. Since then, the compliment was extended to the United States President by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation chief.
But the consensus that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons is sheer hypocrisy.
Those countries which possess nuclear arms tell us that our nukes are 鈥済ood鈥, but theirs are 鈥渂ad鈥.
In fact, all nukes are bad.
The nuclear doctrine of deterrence based on Mutual Assured Destruction is indeed insane but, for those who spruik it, there is an implication that having nuclear weapons prevents nuclear war. Not only that, nuclear capability supposedly prevents all wars.
The argument about 鈥渘uclear peace鈥 is nonsense. Russia has nuclear weapons, but is engaged in war with Ukraine. Israel almost certainly has nuclear weapons, but is involved in multiple wars. Nevertheless, if a country has nuclear weapons, it must believe in deterrence or it cannot justify having them.
Why then, do nuclear-armed countries not recommend placing these weapons into the hands of every military worldwide? Surely, if deterrence is good, why not spread it around?
The deterrence doctrine is useful for keeping domestic populations complacent and essential for justifying nuclear capability internationally.
George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard used the spectre of weapons of mass destruction to justify slaughter in Iraq. We knew that the arrogant trio were not just being misled by intelligence agencies, but they were lying to us.
Similarly, talk of regime change in Iran is specious.
While Iran certainly has faults, so too does the US. Pursuit of governments which abuse their citizens鈥 rights is best left to multilateral agencies and non-government organisations. It is a pity that a nuclear country, such as the US, has a veto on United Nations Security Council resolutions and refuses to cooperate with the International Court of Justice.
The logical outcome of the push to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be that the world stopped the hypocrisy and insisted on complete nuclear disarmament.
The effects of having a nuclear armed world are many and horrible.
Nuclear obsession warps our thinking about truth.
Nuclear armed countries establish so-called red lines around their weapons. Consequently, they accept genocide, like that being committed in Palestine, aggression, like that happening in Ukraine, and civil wars in numerous other countries.
The garrison state bankrupts nuclear powers and peripheral states, creating perfect conditions for rebellions and wars. The nuclear arms race causes the disintegration of health and education services, and increases domestic violence, ecocide and environmental destruction.
When the powers-that-be think the only line that cannot be crossed is the acquisition of nuclear arms, is it any wonder that they accept children being slaughtered en masse by more conventional means?
Consider Israel鈥檚 latest grotesque accusation that Iran is committing war crimes by targeting civilians.
How can satirists embarrass Benjamin Netanyahu when he says such things without blushing?
The International Atomic Energy Agency has been able to inspect Iran鈥檚 nuclear sites, such as uranium enrichment plants, but it has no authority to carry out inspections in Israel.
It seems likely that Israel has nuclear weapons, but the US does not insist Israel open up to inspections.
Everywhere the world is over armed and governments impoverish us to obtain more weapons.