Guest Post: Does the Iranian Government Have A Right To A Nuclear Bomb?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

As Reuters reported last week, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has confirmed that while the Iranian government is still enriching uranium at an increasing rate, there is no evidence of a weapons program under development.  Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei still maintains that the nuclear program is entirely peaceful.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, senior Obama administration officials say the 2007 intelligence report which confirmed that Iran’s government put a stop to its efforts to create a nuclear bomb in 2003 is still accurate.  Just last February, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also confirmed that the government is not pursuing a weapons program.

The nonexistence of a nuclear weapons program hasn’t stopped the neoconservatives in Congress and the press or the Obama administration from denouncing Iran publicly in the name of American hegemony.  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney remains willing and eager to use military force to halt the country’s nuclear development.  At a speech before the Veterans of Foreign War convention in July, Romney called the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon the greatest “danger in the world today” and castigated President Obama for not doing more to stop the continuing enrichment.  The Obama administration hasn’t been sitting idly by however when it comes to Iran.  Under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, perhaps the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, Obama signed into law the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act in July which would give “a blank check drawn on the U.S. taxpayer” to Israel “to maintain its qualitative military edge” according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi.  With Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a game of nuclear blackmail with the White House in an effort to goad Obama into launching a preemptive attack on Iran, U.S. National Security Director Tom Dinilon reportedly presented an attack plan to the war-ready Netanyahu recently.

Should Netanyahu pull the trigger and strike Iran before the U.S. elections as he is rumored to be determined to do, it is highly likely that both President Obama and the U.S. Congress will come to the rescue by ordering the deployment of the military.  The Israeli news source Yediot Ahronoth recently reported that the White House told the Iranian government they would not assist in an Israeli strike if American interests were let be in the Persian Gulf yet the Obama administration has denied the allegation.  The U.S. military literally has the country surrounded with bases; as if already prepared for a full blown assault.  A campaign in Iran will be added to the lengthy list of Middle East excursions this decade that include Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Libya.  The drums for war are indeed being pounded upon not by the general public but by well-connected interest groups looking to profit from bloodshed.

The United States isn’t the only country whose leaders are opposed to Iran’s government possessing nuclear arms.  The European Union’s embargo of Iran’s oil exporters came into effect on July 1st in an effort to curb the nuclear program.  In fact, many Western nations including Canada and Japan have colluded to ban their citizens from doing business in Iran.  Following the U.S.’s lead, it has been decided by the power players in the international community that Iran is not allowed to have nuclear arms.

The idea that the U.S. government should be the sole decider of what governments are allowed to own what weapons is demonstrative of the hegemonic desires of the ruling establishment.  It is automatically assumed that because the government of Iran refuses to bow down to the American empire, it should be stripped of its sovereignty.  There is no consideration of the question at the heart of the matter:  should people have the right to own nuclear weapons in a free society?

It is certainly not outside the bounds of moral considerations to agree that people should have the right to defend themselves from harm’s way or if they feel genuinely threatened.  This includes the right to own small arms for defensive purposes.  Denying someone the right to own arms is denying them the right to protect their own life.  In the context of violent behavior, the act of simply owning a firearm or weapon in no way constitutes a threat towards another.  In a society where property rights are respected and upheld, gun control is a coercive intrusion into peaceful living.

But does the notion that man has a natural right to own the means to protect his life apply to nuclear weapons?

At first glance it may appear so since the mere possessing of a nuclear bomb does not constitute a threat toward anyone.  There is a clear difference between owning a gun and a thermonuclear device however.  As Murray Rothbard explains:

…while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even ‘conventional’ aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are bound to kill innocents just because the radius of damage is so encompassing.  Since they can’t be pinpointed, nuclear weaponry can’t be used purely for defensive purposes on Earth.  The only plausible scenario for the justified stockpiling of a nuclear bomb is if there exists a threat beyond Earth.  Economist Walter Block calls this the proportionality thesis.  Because the universe is conceivably wide enough where the setting off of a nuclear device may not harm an innocent person, ownership of an atom bomb can be permissible.

Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property.  There is no other use.  In a free society on Earth (which is thus far the only planet known to have the resources to sustain rational beings like humans) there would be no need for anyone to own nuclear arms.  For the state that operates off of the power-lusting of its controllers, the incentives change.  Through educational indoctrination and media propaganda the nation-state becomes synonymous with its inhabitants.   Americans, Canadians, Brits, etc., are affiliated with their government even when certain atrocities are committed solely by individuals of authority.  This mistaken identify provides the perfect cover for the various political classes to scheme for further power grabs.  Wars between states are often fought not for the defense of the citizenry but for other motives outside of protecting life.  They are neither an economic stimulant nor a dignified crusade; they are destructive and horrifying.  War is really mass murder financed through violent means; both of which are unlawful under natural law.  Ultimately it is the various minions of the state seeking national glory and resources located in the jurisdiction of another nation-state who conduct war.

For the U.S. government to even begin to lecture Iran’s on whether or not it should have the right to develop a nuclear weapon ignores the very fact that it remains the one and only government on the planet to ever used the atom bomb to exterminate millions.  American school children are often told that the use of the nuke was necessary to save the troops who were going to invade Japan during World War II even though such an explanation is dubious.  As John V. Denson points out, President Truman kept to a policy of no-surrender even while the Japanese government was willing to admit defeat as long as the emperor could remain in power.  The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carried out as a demonstration of force to the Russians.  Many of his advisers, including General Eisenhower, had pressured him to not go ahead with the nuking but Truman would have none of it.  Establishing the United States government as a supreme world power was more important than the lives of innocent women and children.

It should also be noted that while it is widely believed that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatened to wipe the nation of Israel “off the map,” this was a mistranslation.  On October 25, 2005, Ahmadinejad reportedly gave a speech titled “The World Without Zionism” in which he supposedly uttered the infamous remark.  But as Arash Norouzi, co-founder of the Mossadegh Project, explains, the words “Israel,” “map,” and “wipe out” were never actually uttered.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase ”rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing.

None of this is to say that Iran’s government is filled with respectable men trying to do what is best for Iranians.  It has its own history of brutal murders and political suppression.  This despicable behavior is not an excuse to distort facts however.  As history has shown, campaigns of misinformation are often orchestrated to make way for war.  And unfortunately for Americans and Iranians alike, war may very well be on the horizon.

The heightening tension between the United States government and Iran’s is based off of the fallacious notion that nuclear weapons have a legitimate purpose outside of killing enormous amounts of people.  Yet they have no other real purpose in the end.  Governments possess nuclear weaponry because there is little recourse for state-sanctioned murder.  The millions of innocent lives that stand to be vanquished off the face of the Earth have little meaning to the power-tripping political elite.  So while the Iranian government’s pursuance of nuclear weapons should be condemned, the United States government, the Israeli government, and others capable of waging nuclear war are in no place to criticize.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LongBalls's picture

All peoples and countries have a right to protect themselves but no right to harm others. Alas the problem; no man can know what is in anothers heart.

Michael's picture


Israel has over 300 nukes and Iran will target the Dimona reactor facility contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum if attacked by Israel making Japan look like an eco-sanctuary.

An Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities could endanger Israel's Dimona reactor

Ahmeexnal's picture


The United States under a Presidency which has openly declared disdain for the Israeli government and openly embraced its enemies as well as causes contrary to the interests of the West has caused the Israeli government to prepare for life without an American ally over the next decade barring the election of Mitt Romney or dissolution of the United States into several smaller nations. This pressure to act before Iran demonstrates a successful offensive capability to deploy at minimum an effective EMP device over Western Europe and Israel and worse, a primitive low yield nuclear weapon to attack Israel’s cities means that time is running out before they succeed.

otto skorzeny's picture

jew boot-licker- didn't you read the article- Bamster basically signed a blank check to provide US support for Israeli security.

Ahmeexnal's picture

Yeah, right. He also created millions of jobs and has lifted the world from recession.

Popo's picture

Every country has the right to do whatever the fuck they want to do, as that's the nature of being sovereign. If you've signed treaties however, then you're bound by treaty.

In this case, Iran IS bound by the treaty they signed. That treaty gave them nuclear technology in return for a pledge of peaceful-only development. Israel isn't a signatory.

So politics aside, no matter how you feel about either country -- there is the fact that of the two sovereign nations -- Iran *is* bound by their own agreement to not develop nukes. And they were given massive amounts of technology and support for their agreement.

This isn't a question of sovereign rights or even human rights at the end of the day: it's a question of law. And a nation is bound by its treaties.

A lot of people are thumbing down out of emotion, because they have a political leaning on this issue. But remember -- Iran would never even have nuclear capacity of any kind if they hadn't signed the treaty.

Precious's picture

Nobody, nowhere, no how, has the right to a nuclear bomb or anything else that indiscriminately destroys human lives.

Oppenheimer and the rest of the rabbit juice are buring in hell for having built it.  

Truman the Freemason is burning in hell for having used it.

They wanted a test run.  Japan was a good candidate.  Both atomic bomb models, uranium and plutonium, surpassed their expectations.

By dropping these bombs, the USA created a nuclear nightmare scenario for the entire world, for generations.  A great moral failing.  Even the scientists responsible for fission bomb research and development, pleaded with Truman not to drop the bombs on Japan.

Michael's picture

Food for thought;


Davalicious's picture

"[to Truman] Establishing the United States government as a supreme world power was more important than the lives of innocent women and children." And then Jewish spies stole the technology for the Soviets and wasted the domance that Truman had gained for the United States, thereby throwing us into a "Cold" War that cost millions of lives in Korea, Vietnam and beyond. The Jews are the number one enemy of the US, and of the world.

Matt's picture

"Nuclear weaponry has only one function; the annihilation of vast amounts of people and property.  There is no other use. "

That is incorrect. The primary purpose of having nuclear weapons is to create Mutually Assured Destruction. No country that has a nuclear arsenal has ever been directly invaded. Nuclear weapons allow peace, where otherwise there would be conventional war.

"contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum if attacked by Israel"

Now that's the kind of contamination I would love to have, Platinum raining down from the sky. Except, since there would suddenly be a greater supply, the value would be reduced. Hmm, bit of a cunundrum there.

Cloud9.5's picture

That window closed in 1945.  You either have them or submit to those that have them.

Give up the U.S. stockpile and Europe will be speaking Russian and Australia will be speaking Chinese.

fredquimby's picture

So politics aside, no matter how you feel about either country -- there is the fact that of the two sovereign nations -- Iran *is* bound by their own agreement to not develop nukes. And they were given massive amounts of technology and support for their agreement.

Yes, and they have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have no bombs.

Unlike Israel, who has NOT signed and does have nuclear weapons.


I certainly know who I am more worried about fucking up the world.


GoldenTool's picture

@ popo

Run this statement by some american indians sometime and let me know what they say...  Libya would be another good example.  Treaties are negotiated to give nations buffers, either to cover up a weakness or as an agreement so a certain group does'nt lose power.  When those buffers aren't needed any more the treaties are held together through honor.  The law is for the little people the big people, sovereigns, live and deal through force.

Emotion has little to do with it.  Logic and BS don't mix well.  Most people can smell this even if they can't quite put their thumb on what they smell.


"Do unto others."

otto skorzeny's picture

Ahmeex- every GD thing you write on ZH you manage to stick something pro-israeli in- even shit that is totally not on the subject. give it a rest. I didn't say shit in my post that was pro-Obama- only the fact that he is slightly less of a hebe water carrier that that POS cultist Romney. either one of these d-bags are gonna cut loose with the goods for Israel after the election

redpill's picture

No.  Countries don't have rights.  Individuals have rights.  Can we have some fucking philosophical discipline here please? Bickering between authoritarian governments over who should have the power to murder millions with a press of a button and who should not has nothing to do with rights except for the fact that millions of individuals would have their rights violated in the process no matter who employs the goddamn thing.

ParkAveFlasher's picture

+1 Can't improve upon this comment.  I can only add my opinion that nuclear weapons were never and won't ever be about "right".

spanish inquisition's picture

But it will help, by keeping the US from invading it and save millions of lives from drone strikes. If you were to compile a list of crazy countries that would use the thing, the US and Israel would be at the top of the list. For the rest, it's a defensive weapon.

As far as rights go, does a sovereign nation have the right to exist and go about its business with other sovereign nations without interference by the US?

UGrev's picture

Could we say that corporations are not people then as well? just sayin.. philsophically-n-shit. 

Element's picture

Even with out my text reader finishing reading this to me, I'll just say:

Iran and Israel are in a strategic competition to the death.

Israel is threatening to attack Iran, with no options off the table.

Iran is determined to defend itself and to match Israeli capabilities to achieve equitable and stable deterrence that keeps both Israel and the USSA and NATO in-check.
Sorry have to spell it out, but the real-politic of this strategic competition means matching Israeli capability in all areas.

That people still believe Iran abstains from nuclear arms, or any variety of arms for that matter, due Muslim religious grounds, or some supra-ethical national basis, well, snap the fuck out of it is all I can say!

Look next door at nuclear armed Muslim Pakistan and see if you can engage cerebral first-gear.  You are being lied to, sorry to burst your bubble.  When strategic oblivion is starring you right in the face you will say and do anything to change that, and moral niceties can go take a running jump.  That is what really happens.

It is also rather child-like and fricken feeble as hell, to be honest, to imagine US intelligence knows shit about much of anything and then discloses it publicly.  Take a look at the US farce over Iraqi WMDs.  I am amazed anyone quotes a western intelligence source to as substantiation after that.  And yet they still do!  

Phualeeease!  Snap the fuck out of it.


Western intelligence is a pack of lies.  Write that down somewhere, as you're bound to forget it in about five minutes, and you really shouldn't.

That's the plain truth, for if they do know shit, at any point, you'll never know or hear about it, because they'll cover any fragment of truth that momentarily emerges, under a mountain of public lie-baiting, faster than you can say "bomb Iran".

You'd do much better, to do your own research and analysis.


It's not about "a right to have", it's about going ahead and doing it because you can, sorry if someone didn't realise that.

Glasater55's picture

I would agree regarding the US breaking into smaller portions if Obama is re-elected. I would think that walling off the blue hells and letting them deal with their descisions would be a worthwhile lesson for the whole world.

Ar-Pharazôn's picture

and do you really think that the US army will let this happen?

Michael's picture

9/11 caused a war on Iraq and a war on Afghanistan that the American people, not involved in it, had to pay for in many ways.

I want the people who were responsible for this brought to JUSTICE!

I want REVENGE, on the real perpetrators, within the RULE OF LAW!

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.

Davalicious's picture

Three Jews were caught filming the destruction of the twin towers, dancing around in Arab costumes. They were never put on trial. Numberous Mossad agents were picked up and ejected from the country. Jews staged 9/11. How obvious do people have to make it?

Vlad Tepid's picture

Really?  I want to live somewhere contaminated with platinum.  How do I go about achieving this alchemy?

mick_richfield's picture

Maybe if you wait long enough ... beta decay ...

palmereldritch's picture

  Iran will target the Dimona reactor facility contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum

I'm not sure if you're short on PMs or short on Spellchek...

Michael's picture

Perhaps the mistake had more meaning then a non-mistake, because you noticed.

JuliaS's picture

Maybe they could target Fort Knox. We could sure use some contaminatin'.

Ben Dover's picture

Wait. There's gold in fort Knox???

JuliaS's picture

Sean Connery told me so.

stacking12321's picture

fort knox is already contaminated.

it's full of nerve gas cannisters, and the gold is all gone.

i know this because i heard it from jim willie, who heard it from his source, who heard it from HIS source.

but, wouldn't surprise me if it were true...

brown_hornet's picture

Spellcheck would not catch that error.

sangell's picture

"Target" can be a verb or a noun. Iran's ability to target a facility exceeds its ability to actually hit it. OTOH the act of trying to hit it exposes itself to a far more capable counterattack. A nuclear attack is like a duel where Iran has a single shot pistol of uncertain reliability whereas Israel has high caliber, semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine and telescopic sight. Further Israel has a bullet proof vest so Iran has to hit the head with its sole shot at the 'target'. Even in the nuclear bomb arena there is also a thing called 'yield'. Japan didn't surrender because of Hiroshima. It was their uncertainty over how many other Hiroshimas it would have to suffer. Nagasaki revealed there was more of where the first came from. Otoh, a thermonuclear device can produce many Hiroshimas in a single event. Israel has been at this long enough to probably have thermonuclear devices of sufficient size to not hit Iranian cities but to eliminate them including metropolitan Tehran. Killing 100,000 Jews and losing 50 million Iranians is the math of madmen.

intric8's picture

It used to be Isreal as the one all alone and surrounded by enemies. Iran now has that distinction. There is no way in hell that Isreal will allow it to happen.

Reptil's picture

Moreover, in case the Dimona reactor is NOT hit, the DU (Depleted Uranium shot at Iranian armour), will cause the population of ISRAËL to become INFERTILE in 20 years (along with everyone else in the region). On top of that, there's the emissions of mentioned Dimona reactor, and nuclear waste buried in the Sinaï.

The alpha emitting nano dust of DU cannot be cleaned up. The congenital malformation will INCREASE from generation to generation. The DU nano dust will spread with air currents over a wide area, eventually around the whole planet. DEPLETED URANIUM PARTICLES WILL CONTINUE TO EMIT ALPHA RADIATION FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS (half life) AND IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CLEAN THEM UP.

On top of that, Prof. Christopher Busby made the claim, after he had soil samples from Lebanon and Fallujah examined, that he found ENRICHED uranium. Meaning that most likely a new weapon was invented using a partial nuclear detonation, most likely an anti-personell weapon. He had these results verified by independent laboratories. The guy is often marginalised, ridiculed, but I think this real, and means THE ISRAËLI DEFENCE FORCE AS WELL AS THE US OCCUPATION FORCE IN IRAQ USED A NUCLEAR WEAPON ON UNARMORED TARGETS.

This will affect future generations in the USA as well: It's not like this coming war will be fought "somewhere else".

Draw from this, whatever conclusions you might have. To me it's fairly simple but also very bleak; The political elite, in the persons of Netanyahu, Obama, Romney, Khamenei want to destroy this planet as a habitable place for the human race. I think the "blowback" (literally) of DU is well known to them. They might have some "plan b" for themselves but I think it'll be based on "hope and change", i.o.w. it won't work, unless they've got a different planet and the means to transport human beings to it.

Remains the question; WHY?! Neither Israël nor the USA have to use Depleted Uranium, or this new nuclear weapon. Iran's powermongers are just as guilty of self-overestimation, human beings have proven to NOT have enough moral fiber to be able to safely handle nuclear fission or it's products. I think the power went to their heads an unbalanced their already psychopathic tendencies, i.o.w. I expect them to be INSANE.

Michael's picture

The Jewish community needs to step up and stop the war on the American people.

We welcomed the Jews with open arms to our shores with no perconditions, and look what they've done to the place.

The Jewish community needs to step up and start policing their own, stop the happy horse shit, and monkey business before we all burn.

Defamation: True Stories

Colonel Klink's picture

"Israel has over 300 nukes and Iran will target the Dimona reactor facility contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum if attacked by Israel making Japan look like an eco-sanctuary."


If they blow up, what will happen to the price of platinum?  Will it crash?


Just had to bust your balls for the obvious error.


EDIT:  Just saw someone else caught it too.

Matt's picture

Maybe Hydrogen-powered cars would suddenly become viable, with affordable catalysts for seperating and re-joining hydrogen and oxygen?

AGuy's picture

"contaminating the entire country of Israel with platinum"

Only if the Israel could be so lucky to be containmated with platinum! I think you meant Plutonium.


midtowng's picture

All this saber rattling has nothing to do with Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program.

dick cheneys ghost's picture

Does Iran have the right to sell their OIL outside the US Petro Dollar system?

ersatzteil's picture

Iraq and Libya did not...third time's a charm?

palmereldritch's picture

Euro asking for trouble...although gold is less flammable...not that that will help....

mick_richfield's picture

Yes, they did.

Tyrants violated their rights.