Our first dispatch on methyl hydrate:What drives the bloodshed

Italy

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf

Focused ongoing fluid effluent from the sediment into

the ocean generates a structure known as a mud volcano.

Approximately 1800 mud volcanoes have been discovered

around the world, above and below sea level, mostly in a belt

beginning in the Mediterranean Sea and winding across Asia

to Indonesia (Dimitrov, 2002). Submarine mud volcanoes

are often associated with methane hydrates...

...The tendency for slope failure can be amplified if the sediment

accumulates so quickly that the excess high porosity

of surface sediments cannot be squeezed out. This can

lead to instability of the sediment column, causing periodic

Storegga-type landslides off the coast of Norway (see below),

in the Mediterranean Sea (Rothwell et al., 2000) and

potentially off the East coast of the United States (Dugan and

Flemings, 2000).

Climate Treaty
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/methane-seepage-heightens-pressure-climate-treaty/article-184892

"Scientists have predicted that as ocean temperatures rise as a result of climate change, methane hydrates would begin to break down at greater depths. But the fact that the process has begun already surprised the team."

(they are not surprised they have known this since the 90's see the "Bush Hill" and "Caspian Sea" documents below)

K-T Event
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26624
Recently BP-Amoco discovered how to bring these frozen fireballs to the surface intact...

...Ever since the discovery of these hydrates one of the big questions has been "can we mine them without triggering a disaster that makes the K-T event look mild by comparison"?
(21 Feb 2007)

(The K-T event was the Cretacious Tertiary extinction event in the geological record.)


Bush Hill document

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/898807-j56c5r/

Methane fluxes from the surface ocean (mixed layer) to the atmosphere at the three seep sites in the Gulf of Mexico have been computed using air-sea gas exchange models presented in Wannikof (1992) and Wannikof and McGillis (1999)...

...The areas affected by seepage where gas hydrate is found are often on the order of a square kilometer or more......Side scan sonar, and satellite remote sensing (Figure 12) were used to detect thelocations where escaping gas reaches the sea surface to carefully determine the number of

gas vents at a “typical” seep (De Beukelaer et al., 2003). 

The main objective of our attempts to quantify CH4 flux into the atmosphere at Bush Hilland vicinity and extrapolate it over the entire Gulf of Mexico basin was to asses the contribution of this oceanic basin methane source to the atmosphere.

If significant, it would be important to conduct similar studies at other regions with active methane seeps and natural oil, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Black Sea, and Caspian Sea, in order to better constrain/quantify the flux of oceanic methane to the atmosphere.

Caspian Sea (Iran)

The original link I found to this info has been blocked but I found an html version saved by google. Can you see why Saudi Arabia urged the US to start a war with Iran which borders the Caspian?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iWm4cq06Sh0J:rainier.seis.sc.edu/camelia/Pubs/Diaconescu-OTC2002.pdf+/rainier.seis.sc.edu/camelia/Pubs/Diaconescu-OTC2002.pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The presence of both thermogenic and biogenic gas, identified from coring at the seafloor, suggests that gas hydrates in the South Caspian Sea may be stable in water depths as shallow as~150 m, much shallower than other areas reported worldwide.

The maximum predicted thickness is 1300 m, considerably

thicker than other known hydrate occurrences. Accumulation of these hydrates near the base of the continental rise appears to control a large region (>200 sq. km) of shallow deformation, including shallow faulting evident on the detailed bathymetry of the seafloor. The gas hydrates of the South Caspian region prove to be widespread features of the deepwater of the South Caspian Sea, buried deposits well beneath the seafloor, and accordingly, they may represent significant and previously underestimated geo-hazards.

Primary among these hazards are (1) uncontrolled release of free gas trapped beneath the hydrate seal, (2) disruption of the gass hydrate stability field leading to either explosive dissociation of the gas hydrate, or reduction in sediment strength, and (3) slope instability, and mass sediment transport. The association of gas hydrates with active mud volcanoes in the South Caspian Sea increases the potential for offshore flaming eruptions.

Korea

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

(same day as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico same day S. Korea claimed the island of Dokdo in 1953 Dokdo is the island Japan and China both want which is surrounded by methane hydrate. You can bet the US wants it too and is behind this conflict between N and S Korea. The US left ownership of the island in question at the end of the Korean conflict as a loophole to start another war.)

 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100420mr.html

Methane has scent of potential

 By MICHAEL RICHARDSON

SINGAPORE — Starting this month and extending through May, South Korea will resume exploratory drilling in waters off its east coast to find out whether a long-hidden energy resource can be turned into a new wellspring of natural gas. Other major energy users and importers, including the United States, China, Japan and India, are in the midst of similar research and development programs to unlock what they hope will be a treasure trove of methane hydrates on land and at sea. All of them aim to be in commercial production by 2020 at the latest.

 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100420mr.html

 A team of Russian, American and Swedish scientists last month reported that a relatively shallow section of the Arctic Ocean seafloor that holds vast stores of gas hydrate is showing signs of instability and widespread venting of methane into the atmosphere. However, it is not clear whether these emissions are new and are being triggered by the increasing temperature of bottom waters, or whether they have been there unnoticed for decades or longer.

And Finally here is the sickening truth of why America really attacked Afghanistan. Do people in Italy think 911 was a professional demolition designed by our own leaders to justify economic acquisition in Afghanistan and Iraq? I do, especially after I watched a documentary that showed the Pentagon before the roof collapsed and the news started filming it. The hole they claim a jetliner went through was only 15 feet wide before the roof collapsed and the cameras pointed at it.

This survey of Afghan mineral wealth was conducted in the 80's and 90's. Many  people in the US are stupid, but some of us know what kind of evil we are ruled by. That is why I was not offended at all when you suggested American wars are rich bastards getting richer while Americans like me get poorer. I know it is true. Thank you for your time in reading all this please pass it on. People need to know what is really driving all the bloodshed.

http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/oil.php

Power struggles show 'it' is coming soon

Power struggles show 'it' is coming soon
March 7, 2008

As the presidential election draws nearer, it is surprising to have so many persons tell me of their fears that this administration might pull some stunt to keep power (drumming up some pretext for declaration of martial law and cancellation of elections).

These people are not the usual suspects (UFO enthusiasts, JFK conspiracy experts). Just middle-class working slobs who have watched this administration's cynical use of power to increase executive prerogative, declare an illegal war, unapologetically use torture and rendition and attack civil liberties and the middle class.

My retired Christian friend, a 30-year military man with three tours of Vietnam under his belt, tells me "it" is coming and to be prepared. He thinks it's important to have the right weapon for protection when "it" arrives. I have no clue what the "it" is, and he won't tell me.

"What would Jesus do," I wonder, "with 'it' coming?" And then I ask myself, "Which Jesus? Blackwater Jesus or Prince of Peace Jesus?"

If "it" really is coming, then "it" will be an interesting coming to observe, if no other reason than to see just which Jesus exerts the greater influence.

Dueling Jesuses.

The only thing more American is the Monster-Truck Car Crusher.

— John Hofer, Salem

The Question of a Nuclear Iran

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/2021/

By Stephen Tash

The Michigan Socialist

In 2003, President Bush accused Iraq of attempting to start a nuclear program by acquiring yellowcake from Niger; it was pretext to war. America was stricken with fear that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies; which one they feared depended heavily on how much they knew of Iraq’s missile range. Nearly five years later, at the prompting of Israel, he echoes the same fears with Iran. The difference is that this time Iran admits to its nuclear program.

For many, the same fears apply. Meanwhile, the stresses of war with Iraq make many others wary of diluting US forces any thinner than they already are. Saddam Hussein, despised by Osama bin Laden as the primary reason for US forces in Islamic holy land, was drummed up as an Al Qaeda mastermind and close confidant. Similarly, Iran’s President Mohammed Ahmadinejad was reviled by New Yorkers when he attempted to lay a wreath upon Ground Zero with a vague sense that he too was behind this plot. Such feelings lack the understanding that Sunnis and Shiites hold great mutual animosity; and accordingly, a radical form of Sunni Islam (Al Qaeda) is not going to, and did not, work closely aside a theocratic and periodically fundamentalist Shia state (Iran). In fact, Iran denounced the attacks and its citizens were outraged at the attack, even if it was upon the “Great Satan.” One way or another, however, few believe that another nuclear armed state would have a positive effect upon world security.

The United States was once loved by Iranians. They were under brutal imperialist rule of Great Britain for decades and the United States seemed the model of freedom, democracy, and overthrowing colonial British rule. When President Truman was approached by British diplomats requesting help in overthrowing the popular, nationalist and democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh who dared nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he turned a deaf ear. However, the same was not to be said of President Eisenhower shortly thereafter. In 1951, a CIA operative named Kermit Roosevelt Jr, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, successfully overthrew Mossadegh’s government in Operation AJAX. Mohammed Reza Shah, son to the previous Shah, was installed and led a brutal, extravagant, and pro-Western reign. Radical Islamic mullahs deposed of the Shah in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and formed a semi-democratic and theocratic Shia state, holding American diplomats hostage until the day Jimmy Carter left office. A once beautiful relationship turned bitter.

Within the Middle East itself, several Sunni-dominant states are deeply concerned about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran. King Abdullah of Jordan has stated concern about Iran attempting to bring about a Shiite Crescent by supporting Shiite militants in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has stated that they will arm Sunni militants in Iraq if the US withdraws and is believed to likely attempt acquiring nuclear arms if they believe Iran is equipped. Israel, which is believed to already be nuclear armed, has already threatened military action against Iran despite the verification process; a military action which Sunni-dominant states have expressed an openness to.

On an international scale, the proliferation of nuclear weapons has raised concerns world-wide as India, Pakistan, North Korea, and several ex-soviet states have been added to the recognized nuclear powers. Such tensions have made it possible for the United States to invade Iraq despite a lack of international support and deter current nuclear powers from engaging in nuclear disarmament. If it weren’t for the insubordination of a soviet naval officer, the United States would have begun a nuclear war in 1962. Both the prevention of the rise of new nuclear-armed states and the disarmament of those states which already possess nuclear weapons are of vital importance to the security of the entire world.

Now Iran wishes to build a nuclear program, something the United States had promoted as late as 1973 as vital to the Iranian economy’s well-being, while under the Shah. In fact, the Arab League has strongly promoted the idea of all its members forming nuclear programs for just that peaceful purpose. This is not a trend unique to the Middle East either; European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has been speaking up for European nations to enter a “third industrial revolution” towards a carbon-free economy via peaceful nuclear programs despite the fears of some European states. President Bush and Israel are immediately accusing Iran of being motivated with a desire to be nuclear armed, while Iran defends its program as peaceful purposes. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) turns out to be a vital tool in navigating through the storm of misinformation.

Signed July 1, 1968, the NPT was the child of a world where promising nuclear energy was desired by various non-nuclear states and various nuclear powers feared the proliferation, or spread, of nuclear weapons that would diminish their own power, much like today. Brokered by the UN and with the support of the United States, a signatory, the treaty outlines how nations may exercise their “inalienable right… to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination” without endangering the hegemonic power of the preexisting nuclear states.

The NPT holds signatory nations, in general, subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and requires specific agreements to be reached between the IAEA and the non-nuclear states. It printed off in a mere 5 pages. The agreement between Iran and the IAEA, cleverly named The Text of the Agreement between Iran and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, prints off in 27 pages. Some highlights are the strict set of protocol as to how Iran shall account for every bit of radioactive uranium, plutonium, depleted uranium (used in US bombs), and thorium within its borders, every concerned facility, the rights of both inspectors to be unimpeded and Iranian facilities to be uninterrupted, periodic checks with little to no notification to Iran, and reasonable suspicion rights of inspectors to seek out suspected facilities. Use in ceramics, yes it does happen, and minute quantities used in scientific measurement instruments must also be accounted for, contact information of the scientist included.

Close examination shows that there is little leeway for Iran, and only as reasonable for their ability to operate efficiently. The only possible loopholes are if the agency lacks the funding to properly operate in Iran or the amounts of nuclear material that are allowed to go unaccounted for. For example, one kilogram of special fissionable material may go unaccounted for, it takes 4 kilograms to make a nuclear chain reaction in a fission bomb according to the Department of Energy, and that’s a small bomb. Fusion bombs, which are much more advanced, require less fissionable material but are not likely to be any nations initial nuclear weapons. With very careful years of plotting, Iran might hoard enough fissionable material and successfully produce a single, small, nuclear weapon which would likely prompt a war when tested. The less refined uranium or plutonium is useless as fissionable material must be in the form of Uranium-235 (92 protons + 143 neutrons) or Plutonium-239 (94 protons + 145 neutrons).

Iran correctly points out that the state threatening to strike immediately, Israel, has refused to submit to the treaty or similar treaties for WMDs and is commonly believed to have a nuclear arsenal of its own, by its enemies and allies alike. They, however, have submitted to a treaty along with the United States and various other political states to be heavily inspected. Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, IAEA Director General, has spoken to UN General Assembly on October 29th about Iran, noting that they have been able to verify that Iran has not diverted any declared nuclear material and that Iran has been very forthcoming with information and cooperative in working with the IAEA to discover the full scope of its nuclear operations.

There is no reason to assume that Iran is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons through its nuclear initiative. Protocols are already in place as recognized to be both prudent and proper by the international community for all states, not only those who are friendly to American interests. Other Middle Eastern states such as Egypt have reinstituted their previously abandoned nuclear programs as well. Though there is a valid concern for a nuclear-armed Iran, just as there would be valid concern for the addition, rather than subtraction, of any nuclear-armed states, these protocols are capable of ensuring a peaceful Iranian nuclear program. The motivations of the current detractors: Israel and the United States are much more dubious to the informed.

Israel is likely to feel it has more to be concerned with than a nuclear-armed Iran, a peaceful nuclear program in Iran could mean an economically prosperous Iran as well. The Shiite-Sunni conflict in the Middle East has meant funding of various sectarian religious militias throughout the Middle East, including the Shiite militia Hezbollah, with which Israel has had recent conflict with. The immediate concern of Israeli leadership is that Iran may increase funding to its immediate enemies. However, police states such as China have been finding, as well as the historical results of economic sanctions, that economic prosperity strengthens the average citizen and poverty weakens them. The theocratic nature of Iran is challenged more and more by its citizens and an economically viable Iran will only empower them to create a lasting secular democracy the only workable way, the old fashioned way, from the inside, from the grass roots. If this indeed catches on among the various Sunni and Shiite states, the sectarian warfare so precisely characterized by Iraq may cease to be in the relatively near future.

The United States is not interested in oil this time. Iraq had the second most plentiful oil reserve and the cheapest to pump; Iran doesn’t have nearly as productive an oil industry these days. Iran does, however, possess the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas, which the United States quickly took advantage of in Afghanistan in the economically feasible form to transport, liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG is seen as the likely next step in the energy economy, rather than hydrogen fuel or ethanol. We already know that the Bush Administration was already picking fights with Iran for a long while and would have likely invaded already by now if it weren’t for the failure to maintain order in Iraq.

To threaten a war with Iran over its attempt to develop an economically stable energy source in an exceptionably cooperative manner through an international negotiation process that the United States has agreed to is a clear violation of international law. Of course, the Bush Administration does not care much for international law and cooperation as seen in its failure to adhere to the Geneva Convention, its aversion to working with the Russians on nuclear limitation, and its refusal to sign onto other international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. But now is the time for the US to adhere to international law and not repeat the mistake of Iraq. Every step taken by the Bush Administration to ignore international law makes it one step harder to restore the credibility of the US and convince the world to participate in future agreements.

Diplomatic missions must be begun to work with the IAEA and Iran to fully explore Iran with inspectors whom cannot reveal sensitive information not pertinent to a nuclear program. One great way to do this and ensure that the inspectors succeed is to offer to fund both the IAEA and Iran in performing these investigations and inspections. Military Action should not be even considered over this issue. 

See the IAEA’s Iran in Focus:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

What is going on in the nuclear arms race??

By PYOTR GONCHAROV
UPI Outside View Commentator

MOSCOW, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- The national ABM has crossed the boundaries of Russian-U.S. relations and, to all appearances, will soon acquire larger global significance now that Japan is following the American footsteps to establish its own sea- and land-based ABM system.

The plan was already announced and is rapidly being built up.

Only one Japanese destroyer will be on combat duty in the Sea of Japan for now. It carries U.S.-made SM-3 missiles, which successfully completed recent tests. Japan intends to have four similar ships with anti-missiles and Aegis systems designed to detect a big number of flying targets by the spring of 2011.

They will comprise a national sea-based ABM. The second, land-based echelon will be armed with the latest Patriot air-defense systems. Two air-defense batteries have already been deployed near Tokyo. The Japanese ABM will spread much wider by 2010, with approximately 30 such batteries in 11 bases in every part of the country.

The Japanese plan alarm Russia and China, who say it will inevitably trigger an arms race in the region. Tokyo is turning a deaf ear to the warnings. It has something worse to think of -- North Korea with its 200 ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in the whole of Japan. But then Russia and China are larger and stronger than North Korea and have formidable missile arsenals of their own, so it is unwise to ignore them.

Moscow and Beijing have no legal grounds to protest such plans, Japanese or any other country's, with the United States being the only exception, to a certain extent. The Moscow-Washington controversy over U.S. intentions to deploy its missile defense elements in Europe is widely known, as well as both parties' arguments for and against it. In particular, Russia points to the ABM Treaty, which is no longer in effect because of U.S. actions. A similar treaty would provide a sound alternative to missile defense shields, Moscow insists.

The Soviet Union and the United States signed the ABM Treaty in 1972. It bound the signatories, each with a huge offensive nuclear potential, to limit the use of ABM systems. As they saw it, mutual rejection of missile defense systems was the best barrier to the strategic offensive arms race. ABM limitations reduced the motivation for SNF buildup. That was the idea. Thus, the treaty was a practical reflection of the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Japan was not part of the treaty, but then it has no means of nuclear deterrence, though it certainly needs protection against tentative missile attacks. Its emergent ABM system is strictly within the realm of self-defense.

This situation can be repeated elsewhere. Israel intends to establish its own ABM system, the Iron Dome, to intercept short-range missiles from the Gaza Strip and longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria. In doing this, Tel Aviv proceeds from national, not Russian or American, interests.

European NATO countries may also follow suit. The European ABM idea comes from them. Whether Moscow likes it or not, a continental ABM system can appear tomorrow, if not today.

Now, the Luxembourg Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe, recently drafted by a team of international disarmament experts, Russians among them, recommends urgent measures to ward off a nuclear crisis -- in particular, to place smaller emphasis on nuclear deterrence and step up international cooperation for ABM development.

The Russian-U.S. Joint Declaration on a New Relationship, signed in 2002, bound the signatories to take stock of the opportunities for practical ABM partnership in Europe. They also announced their intentions to reduce their strategic offensive forces to a minimum.

In other words, Moscow and Washington concluded in the declaration that the nuclear deterrence principle -- the basis of the ABM Treaty -- was outdated. The world situation instead demanded new instruments to provide national security and reflect the new Russian-U.S. strategic relations.

see also,

The Pacific Arms Race

by Robert Maginnis

Posted: 01/04/2008

and


Russia to set up missile shield for Iran Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW: Russia will set up a massive anti-missile shield in Iran that will virtually guarantee the country against military attacks.

George Monbiot on nuclear proliferation and nuclear Israel

Ban the Bomb - But Only in Iran

Posted November 20, 2007

When will Bush and Brown acknowledge that there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th November 2007

George Bush and Gordon Brown are right: there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The risk of a nuclear conflagration could be greater there than anywhere else. Any nation developing them should expect a firm diplomatic response. So when will they impose sanctions on Israel?

Like them, I believe that Iran is trying to acquire the bomb. I also believe it should be discouraged, by a combination of economic pressure and bribery, from doing so (a military response would of course be disastrous). I believe that Bush and Brown - who maintain their nuclear arsenals in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty - are in no position to lecture anyone else. But if, as Mr Bush claims, the proliferation of such weapons “would be a dangerous threat to world peace”(1), why does neither man mention the fact that Israel, according to a secret briefing by the US Defense Intelligence Agency, possesses between 60 and 80 of them?(2)

Officially, the Israeli government maintains a position of “nuclear ambiguity”: neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. But everyone who has studied the issue knows that this is a formula with a simple purpose: to give the United States an excuse to keep breaking its own laws, which forbid it to grant aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction(3). The fiction of ambiguity is fiercely guarded. In 1986, when the nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu handed photographs of Israel’s bomb factory to the Sunday Times, he was lured from Britain to Rome, drugged and kidnapped by Mossad agents, tried in secret and sentenced to 18 years. He served 12 of them in solitary confinement and was banged up again - for six months - soon after he was released.

But in December last year, the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert accidentally let slip that Israel, like “America, France and Russia” had nuclear weapons(4). Opposition politicians were furious. They attacked him for “a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility.”(5) But US aid continues to flow without impediment.

As the fascinating papers released last year by the National Security Archive show, the US government was aware in 1968 that Israel was developing a nuclear device (what it didn’t know is that the first one had already been built by then).(6) The contrast to the efforts now being made to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb could scarcely be starker.

At first, US diplomats urged the government to make its sale of 50 F4 Phantom jets conditional on Israel’s abandonment of its nuclear programme. As a note sent from the Near East Bureau to the Secretary of State in October 1968 reveals, the order would make the US “the principal supplier of Israel’s military needs” for the first time. In return it should require “commitments that would make it more difficult for Israel to take the critical decision to go nuclear.”(7) Such pressure, the memo suggested, was urgently required: France had just delivered the first of a consignment of medium range missiles, and Israel intended to equip them with nuclear warheads.

Twenty days later, on November 4th 1968, when the assistant defense secretary met Yitzhak Rabin (then the Israeli ambassador to Washington), Rabin “did not dispute in any way our information on Israel’s nuclear or missile capability”(8). He simply refused to discuss it. Four days after that, Rabin announced that the proposal was “completely unacceptable to us”(9). On November 27th, Lyndon Johnson’s administration accepted Israel’s assurance that “it will not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons”(10).

As the memos show, US officials knew that this assurance had been broken even before it was made. A record of a phone conversation between Henry Kissinger and another official in July 1969 reveals that Richard Nixon was “very leary of cutting off the Phantoms”(11), despite Israel’s blatant disregard of the agreement. The deal went ahead, and from then on the US administration sought to bamboozle its own officials in order to defend Israel’s lie. In August 1969, US officials were sent to “inspect” Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant. But a memo from the State Department reveals that “the US government is not prepared to support a “real” inspection effort in which the team members can feel authorised to ask directly pertinent questions and/or insist on being allowed to look at records, logs, materials and the like. The team has in many subtle ways been cautioned to avoid controversy, “be gentlemen” and not take issue with the obvious will of the hosts.”(12) Nixon refused to pass the minutes of the conversation he’d had with the Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir to the US Ambassador To Israel, Wally Barbour(13). Meir and Nixon appear to have agreed that the Israeli programme could go ahead, as long as it was kept secret.

The US government has continued to protect it. Every six months, the intelligence agencies provide Congress with a report on technology acquired by foreign states that’s “useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction.” These reports discuss the programmes in India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and other nations, but not in Israel(14). Whenever other states have tried to press Israel to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US and European governments have blocked them(15). Israel has also exempted itself from the biological and chemical weapons conventions(16).

By refusing to sign these treaties, it ensures that it needs never be inspected. While the IAEA’s inspectors crawl round Iran’s factories, put seals on its uranium tanks and blow the whistle when it fails to cooperate, they have no legal authority to inspect facilities in Israel(17). So when the Israeli government complains, as it did last week, that the head of the IAEA is “sticking his head in the sand over Iran’s nuclear programme”(18), you can only gape at its chutzpah. Israel is constantly racking up the pressure for action against Iran, aware that no powerful state will press for action against Israel.

Yes, Iran under Ahmadinejad is a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad. The president is a Holocaust denier opposed to the existence of Israel. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran responded to Saddam Hussein’s toxic bombardments with chemical weapons of its own. But Israel under Ehud Olmert is also a dangerous and unpredictable state involved in acts of terror abroad. Two months ago it bombed a site in Syria (whose function is fiercely disputed). Last year it launched a war of aggression against Lebanon. It remains in occupation of Palestinian lands. In February 2001, according to the BBC, it used chemical weapons in Gaza: 180 people were admitted to hospital with severe convulsions(19). Nuclear weapons in Israel’s hands are surely just as dangerous as nuclear weapons in Iran’s.

So when will our governments speak up? When will they acknowledge that there is already a nuclear power in the Middle East, and that it presents an existential threat to its neighbours? When will they admit that Iran is not starting a nuclear arms race, but joining one? When will they demand that the rules they impose on Iran should also apply to Israel?

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. George Bush, 17th October 2007. Press Conference by the President. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

2. US DIA, July 1999. The Decades Ahead, 1999-202. Extracted at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

3. Luke Harding and Duncan Campbell, 13th December 2006. The Guardian.

4. Greg Myre, 12th December 2006. In a Slip, Israel’s Leader Seems to Confirm Its Nuclear Arsenal. New York Times.

5. Yossi Beilin, quoted by Luke Harding and Duncan Campbell, ibid.

6. The archive can be viewed here: http://www.gwu.edu:80/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/index.htm

7. Parker T. Hart, NEA, 15th October 1968. Memo to the Secretary of State. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-02.pdf

8. Department of Defense, 4th November 1968. Memorandum of Conversation. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-03a.pdf

9. Department of Defense, 8th November 1968. Memorandum of Conversation. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-03b.pdf

10. Paul C Warnke, Assistant Secretary of Defense, 27th November 1968. Letter to Yitzhak Rabin. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-03d.pdf

11. Henry Kissinger and Elliot Richardson, 16th July 1969. Phone conversation. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-12.pdf

12. Department of State, 13th August 1969. Memorandum of Conversation. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-16b.pdf

13. Harold H. Saunders, the White House, 8th December 1969. Record of the President’s Talk with Golda Meir. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/IN-26.pdf

14. Joseph Cirincione, 11th March 2005. Iran and Israel’s Nuclear Weapons.
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3217

15. No author given, 20th September 2006. Arab states urge IAEA to slam Israel for atomic arsenal. Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/765538.html

16. It has signed but not ratified the CWC. It has not signed the BWC.

17. Mohamed ElBaradei, 27th July 2004. Interview with Al-Ahram News. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2004/alahram27072004.html

18. Shaul Mofaz, deputy prime minister, quoted by Tim Butcher,12th November 2007. Israel calls for sacking of IAEA’s ElBaradei. Daily Telegraph.

19. Correspondent, 17th March 2003. Israel’s Secret Weapon. BBC Two. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/correspondent/transcripts/17_03_2003.txt

Britain's Prime Minister Considers Saudi Plan To Give Iran Limited Supply Of Uranium

Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown is considering a Saudi plan to limit the supply of uranium to potential nuclear weapons states and will call for new European Union sanctions against Iran in the next few weeks, most probably in the form of an end to export credit guarantees. U.S.-allied Gulf states said Thursday they are planning a consortium to provide enough enriched uranium for Iran's civil nuclear program, which they believe could be a deterrent against the development of nuclear weapon. The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who announced the plan, discussed it with his British counterpart, David Miliband, during the Saudi state visit this week. The prince also held talks with Brown. The prime minister, who is concerned that the technological division between civilian and military nuclear use is starting to blur, has been struck by the potential of using supply quotas to limit weapons technology. The Bush Administration believes that Iran's stated aim of developing a civilian program is a smokescreen for development of a nuclear weapon. The five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany are due to meet in London Friday to discuss a fresh round of sanctions against Iran over its failure to comply with previous U.N. resolutions. Britain is not optimistic that either Russia or China will agree to a third round of U.N.-sponsored sanctions, but believes the alternative of fresh E.U. sanctions is necessary. Germany, seen as one of the least enthusiastic supporters of fresh sanctions in the E.U., said it was willing to look at the issue in the middle of December. Brown believes diplomatic and economic pressure is having an impact on the Iranian regime, but would like the E.U. to agree to tighten sanctions, in part to head off any faction in Washington, D.C., arguing for some kind of military assault. The prime minister has refused to publicly rule out military force against Iran. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries - Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates - agree with the western assessment that Iran's nuclear energy program could lead to it acquiring atomic bombs. "We have proposed a solution, which is to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East," Prince Saud told the Middle East Economic Digest. Prince Saud said Iran was considering the offer, which involves building a plant in a neutral country such as Switzerland. "Any plant in the Middle East that needs enriched uranium would get its quota. I don't think other Arab states would refuse. Other Arab countries have expressed a desire to be part of the proposal." Britain's Foreign Office said any proposal on the controlled supply of enriched uranium did not lift the responsibility on Tehran to comply with previous U.N. resolutions. politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2203909,00.html