By Dimitris Konstantakopoulos (*)
The issue of the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran has been raised for twenty years. In an article we wrote as early as 2006 together with the late Gilbert Marquis, we underlined that “the scenario of an American-Israeli war against Iran, possibly involving the use of nuclear weapons, according to the planning of the U.S. armed forces, is not an accident, an irrationality, or a personal whim. It is the organic and systemic product of Western and Israeli imperialism. That is why the war will eventually take place unless enormous political forces very quickly realize what is at stake and mobilize—within the American state, Russia, China, and global public opinion—to stop such a global catastrophe.” (Utopie Critique review, no. 37, 2nd quarter 2006; no. 42, 4th quarter 2007).
In our writings at the time, we explained that the problems encountered by the Empire in Iraq placed it before three choices:
– To abandon the neoconservative program (drawn up with the inspiration and financing of Netanyahu), a program aimed at conquering the entire Middle East (and North Korea), dismantling all its states, controlling hydrocarbons and ultimately controlling Europe, Russia, and China. The program was not only Zionist. It incorporated the Zionist perspective into the broader objective of maintaining global Western dominance and proposed the Zionist project as the best instrument of global supremacy (in contrast to Brzezinski and Soros, who at the time proposed an alliance with Iranian nationalism against Russia). Such a move would have amounted to an admission of strategic defeat in the Middle East and would have been very difficult to accept.
– To enter into negotiations with Iran for the development of its uranium enrichment program within a controlled framework.
– To embark on a fuite en avant similar to that undertaken by the Athenians in Sicily, Napoleon and Hitler in Russia. Since it was almost obvious that a successful ground invasion of Iran—similar to the one in Iraq—would be very difficult, we considered it quite likely that recourse to weapons of mass destruction might occur.
Of the three scenarios, History—in this case Barack Obama—chose the second, intermediate and safer one, signing the agreement with Tehran, much to the sorrow of Mr. Netanyahu, and preventing at the last minute the invasion of Syria. But subsequently the arrival of Trump, an instrument of the Netanyahu–Epstein empire, overturned the situation and made the war we are witnessing today a reality.
From the Bankruptcy of “Globalization” to War and Fascism
However, it is not only Trump, the increase in Netanyahu’s power, the penetration of Israeli lobbies (which control many governments of powerful states), and the constant strengthening of the Zionist component of Financial Capital that explain this outcome. It is also the dead end of the other alternatives. The Left and any socialist perspective have virtually disappeared.
Globalization—that is, the generalization of capitalist relations of production and distribution and of their cultural superstructure—has gone bankrupt as an instrument of Western global domination. It now serves the rise of a non-capitalist planned economy, China, while the Global South is experiencing in some cases economic and demographic growth, Russia has re-emerged militarily, Western financial capitalism has been in crisis since 2008, and Western regimes themselves face a crisis of legitimacy.
What remains?
The abandonment of the democratic ideology and international law that prevailed after 1945; Huntington’s “clash of civilizations”; economic coercion such as sanctions; hyper-imperialism, fascism, and war—the same instruments used by German capitalism to overcome its crisis in the 1930s.
For two years now, Netanyahu has been using clearly Nazi methods—and even worse—in Palestine, legitimizing them to the extent that they do not encounter serious reactions from what has become the so-called “international community.”
This may include the use of nuclear weapons, either as the result of deliberate planning or as the result of miscalculation or entrapment in dead-end situations. Mr. Trump, moreover, loves nuclear weapons very much, as was already demonstrated during his first term. The most impressive fact, however, is that this man—together with Mr. Netanyahu—managed to deceive so many millions of people, as well as analysts and political leaders both inside and outside the United States.
Nuclear Weapons in American Planning
His intention to strangle Cuba and to acquire Greenland is connected with the plan for a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia and China and with the construction of an anti-ballistic shield that would protect the United States.
Since the revolution, Cuba has constituted an essential element of the U.S.–Russian strategic balance (as well as a symbol of the limits of American power).
It is also worth noting that, almost simultaneously with the launch of the war against Tehran, the United States carried out a test of the Minuteman III intercontinental missile, also known as the “Doomsday missile.” It can strike any point on Earth and could end life across the entire planet through the dispersion of radioactivity.
At the same time Finland has decided to allow the deployment of American nuclear weapons, Mr. Macron is discussing with various European countries the deployment of nuclear weapons, and Greece has decided to move forces to Northern Greece to protect Bulgaria—a move that logically can only be linked to expectations of a war with Russia and not to the crisis with Iran or Turkey.
Well-informed diplomatic observers in the Middle East believe that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon may also be connected with Israeli fears that the Iranians may have stored weapons there in order to “retaliate” against Israel in the event of their own destruction by nuclear weapons.
And the deep expert on Middle Eastern affairs Paul Larudee explains in an interesting article how a division of roles between the United States and Israel could take place.
The Samson Logic and the Madman Strategy
We posed the question of whether a nuclear strike by Israel against Iran is possible to Professor Marios Evriviades, one of the few truly deep and serious experts on the history and analysis of US foreign policy, and the author—among other works—of one of the best international studies on neoconservatism. We reproduce his reply here:
“I do not rule it out. Do not forget their (Israeli) doctrine: ‘Never again,’ which is why they built nuclear weapons. In 1973 they had them on aircraft ready to strike because they were losing on the Golan Heights. The United States and the Soviets went on nuclear alert, first the Soviets who realized what the Israelis were preparing.
If missiles fall on Israeli cities with devastating results, the Israelis will use tactical nuclear weapons. The ‘bright minds’ of the West—neoconservatives and others—have repeatedly spoken of using such weapons during and after the Cold War.
Do not forget also that using them against non-white populations would ‘legitimize’ nuclear use, as happened in 1945.
During the Cold War they constantly spoke of tactical use in Europe. And the same refrain continued in the post-Cold War period among neoconservatives and warmongers in the United States.
During the Cold War the Soviets said there were no tactical nuclear weapons. If such weapons are used, the response will be full nuclear war.”
Cuba, Iran, Nuclear Weapons: The Terrible Stakes
The confrontation with Iran and Cuba is of decisive importance and will determine its future, its civilization and perhaps even whether humanity will have any future at all.
And this will not happen in some distant future. It will occur within weeks or a few months. That is the critical time frame.
The outcome of these two confrontations may prove more important than China’s economic and technological progress or the war in Ukraine. The outcome of these conflicts—in Iran and Cuba—both parts of an ongoing “modular” global war through which the collective West seeks to secure its global dominance, may determine by as much as 80% percent whether the totalitarian Empire of Finance and US weapons will ultimately prevail over humanity, and whether we will face nuclear holocaust.
There is nothing inevitable in human history—nor in the supposed “decline” of the West, particularly of the United States. Various observers have predicted America’s decline five or six times since 1945, yet each time those predictions were quickly forgotten.
Often the supposed inevitability of Western “decline” mainly serves to justify the lack of real will to resist—a resistance that must of course be intelligent rather than adventurist, and undertaken not in the name of narrow nationalisms but in the interests of all humanity. Without such resistance, the Empire will either prevail or destroy us all.
If Netanyahu and Trump are indeed kinds of “Hitler” as I have argued for a long time, then only the most determined stance can stop them. This was proven by the tragic mistakes made before 1941 by all the European powers without exception. We do not need a repetition of that history.
Only Khrushchev’s decisive stance prevented the developing plans for a nuclear attack against the USSR, safeguarded Cuba from a possible invasion, removed American weapons from Turkey, and laid the foundations for arms control.
In 1973 it took a Soviet nuclear alert to halt Israel’s advance in Egypt.
China and Russia should long ago have drawn their own inviolable red lines regarding both Iran and Cuba. The longer they delay, the more dangerous the situation will become. And the more the rest of us continue to sleep the sleep of the just, the closer we bring our own destruction.
We also addressed Professor James K. Galbraith, asking him how he assesses the situation. We will publish soon his very interesting text
(*) Former Special Adviser in the Office of Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou on arms control and East–West relations former correspondent in Moscow.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
