What Options on Whose Table?
by C. L. Cook
The incessant saber rattling for yet another war, this time against Iran, continues this week in the western press.

 

The serial disregard for international law as regards Iran culminated last week with that all too familiar promise made again by the president of the United States, this time Barak Obama, reminding any who might have forgotten America's world-wide imperative regarding Iran that, "All options are on the table."

The Obama sentiment was quickly echoed by Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak who said of the Iranian nuclear program, which Israel insists is not peacefully intended as Iran maintains but is a "military" nuclear program, "As far as Israel is concerned, all options must remain on the table."

This unflinching, unambiguous policy is often cited in the press, but seldom explained.

"All options" is assumed to mean: "U.S.A./Israel asserts its "right" in this or that instance to deploy any or all of its military might against those intransigents defying its will. In that case, are we to then expect U.S.A./Israel reserves the "right" to a first strike nuclear attack using multiple warhead missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and the full utilization of Depleted Uranium weaponry and other experimental weapons as yet unknown to the world at large?

In turn, are we to accept as legitimate the deployment of these weapons against the civilian population of Iran, or whomever, simply because the U.S.A./Israel warned its enemies beforehand? Incidentally, to threaten offensive war is a crime against the peace as laid out in international law, though one of the many laws that apply only to those without the ability to credibly make that threat.

For Israel's part, Ehud Barak spoke to the press following meetings Monday with U.S. defense secretary, Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Barak said of Iran's insistence to continue its efforts to develop atomic power, "[W]e should view seriously Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear capability and the fact that it continues to deceive the world regarding its intentions."

Barak is well aware of the dangerous ramifications secrecy combined with nuclear development pose; Israel's believed between two and three hundred nuclear weapons were all developed secretly, outside the purview of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, Israel has yet to officially acknowledge its nuclear arsenal, or any of the other weapons of mass destruction it is believed to possess.  

Ehud Barak insists the "no option left off the table" reaction to Iran's nuclear ambitions is justified, saying, "We are talking about a threat that does not affect (just) Israel, but the entire world."  

That is not to say Israel or the U.S.A. is willing to abide the judgment of the world, or in their nomenclature, the "international community."

 

Which begs another point: Just who is the "international community?" Where are their offices; what is their mandate? If this is a reference to the United Nations, then why not just say so? It's becoming increasingly clear, the I.C. is not the UN, but is more properly meant to refer to the countries yoked to NATO, the organization that has effectively morphed from its original purpose of checking Soviet ambitions in western Europe following the Second World War into America's Foreign Legions.

How many tables are there? Do all nations now set tables upon which they place all their options? And if so, how far will they go before resorting to their "all in" option; is there room left on a crowded table for diplomacy at all?   

The more I hear "all options are on the table" the more convinced I am that what that means is: War is the only thing on the menu; and, the only option on the table is whether it will be set to be served cold, or hot.   

Bon Appetite!