Nuclear non-proliferation is a failure in the Middle East
After John F Kennedy's ultimatum for safeguards, Israel accepted six inspections, until Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger condoned its nuclear status outside the NPT, provided Israel maintained nuclear ambiguity, playing down its strategic advantage. Israel concealed its nuclear status, refused to adhere to the NPT as contrary to its national security interest, and adopted the 'Begin doctrine' of counter-proliferation, envisaging preventive strikes against Middle Eastern countries installing nuclear reactors that might produce nuclear weapons. Accordingly, it destroyed Iraq's and Syria's nuclear reactors (in 1981 and 2007 respectively) and, in cooperation with the US, damaged the Iranian nuclear facilities with the Stuxnet malware (which leaked and spread).
Ambiguity allowed Israel to avoid legal restrictions on American military and economic support towards nuclear-armed states (except NPT members). The current crisis arises because, as Tisdall writes, Donald Trump trashed the previous nuclear agreement (which Tehran had respected) and fell into Benjamin Netanyahu's trap. If, eventually, a nuclear showdown is to be avoided in the Middle East, all countries must have the right to develop nuclear energy for civil purposes and the duty to submit to NPT rules. Even if the present conflict ends, unless Israel joins the NPT, Iran will eventually have the bomb. In western media there is a conspiracy of silence on this.Corrado Pirzio-BiroliBrussels, Belgium
Jonathan Freedland, noting Israel's longstanding contention that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would constitute an existential threat, rightly concludes that the latest extension of conflict in the Middle East may paradoxically lead to nuclear proliferation (Netanyahu attacked Iran to avert an 'existential threat'. He may have made it worse, 13 June). He cites North Korea as an example, for Iran, of a country that has ensured its safety by retaining nuclear weapons, but here the theory of deterrence breaks down. If North Korea is secure, why not Israel, which has significant nuclear weapons capability?
If it is contended that Iran is a rogue actor, unwilling to follow the 'rules' of mutually assured destruction, why is any nuclear-armed country safe from rogue actors? Every effort must be put into developing an internationally enforceable inspection, control, reduction and elimination regime to which all countries are subject, rather than unilateral pre-emptive acts, with all their appalling and unpredictable consequences.Dr Anthony IsaacsLondon
Re 'three angry old men who could get us all killed', what about Vladimir Putin? That would make up the four horsemen of the apocalypse Simon Tisdall predicts.Hubert CasselFarnham, Surrey
Apropos your report (Israel and Iran broaden strikes during third day of escalating war, 15 June), it has to be said that Iran was quite content with its nuclear deal with the west. In fact, the nuclear deal was President Barack Obama's biggest gift to both the US and Iran. But President Donald Trump, instead of building on the deal via establishing diplomatic relations, decided to crush it, thereby turning the clock of the US-Iran relations back to the pre-2015 level.
Furthermore, Washington, not merely content with withdrawing from the deal, chose to spin the alleged Iranian nuclear threat into a rationale for military action against Iran. Was it not a similar Iraqi nuclear threat that President George HW Bush evoked to win congressional authorisation for US military action against Saddam Hussein, resulting in the deaths of more than 461,000 people, including 4,598 US soldiers and 179 British service personnel?Randhir Singh BainsGants Hill, London
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Stunned Melania flinches as Trump urges stealth bomber pilots to reveal their identities on live TV
First lady Melania Trump gave President Donald Trump a pointed glance when he asked the B-2 pilots involved in the Iran strike to reveal their identities as they were feted at the Fourth of July celebration Friday. The White House had invited those involved in the June 22 bombing campaign to enjoy the annual picnic on the South Lawn, which is traditionally held for military families. The pilots' names have remained secret as the Iranian regime had previously vowed to assassinate Trump and other top Trump officials after the U.S. killing of Iran's Quds Force leader, Gen. Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. 'We're honored to be joined by 150 airmen and their families from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, the home of the B-2 bomber,' Trump said from the Truman Balcony Friday to cheers from the crowd. 'And we've kept them a little bit on guard, we've kept them a little bit - let's be a little bit quiet about it. If you want to raise your hand very quickly, raise your hand, because you people are just incredible,' the president instructed. Melania Trump, dressed in a white shirt-dress, could be seen shaking her head and then laughing. At least one member of the crowd appeared to raise his hand at the president's request. 'We don't want to be in disguise, we don't have to do that,' the president continued. 'They're looking at us like we're a bunch of babies.' 'We don't have to be in disguise. We saw all those hands go up,' he added. 'Thank you very much. We owe you everything.' The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Mail's request on whether the servicemembers would receive protection if Iran decided to retaliate against them. Before the president made his remarks, there were three military flyovers the White House, two which featured the giant B-2 stealth jets - which dropped 'bunker buster' bombs onto the Iran nuclear site Fordow. Tomahawk missiles fired from a submarine were used to attack the Iranian nuclear sites of Natanz and Isfahan as well. As Iran woke up to the news, Trump addressed the bombings from the White House that Saturday night, saying the sites were 'completely and totally obliterated.' He railed against CNN and The New York Times for reporting on an initial assessment that didn't paint as rosy a picture about the destructive nature of the attacks, suggesting they only set the Iranian nuclear agenda back by a number of months. Trump said the B-2 pilots needed to be 'respected' by news outlets. 'Very unfair to the pilots that risk their lives for our country, and then they get fake news and CNN make up a phony story to get some hits. That's the only reason I care about it, because those pilots were so brave, I've never seen anything like it,' Trump said last week while attending the NATO Summit in the Hague. 'They flew into the hornets' nest and then they got hurt so badly by what the fake news wrote,' Trump argued. Iran retaliated by sending missiles toward the Al-Udeid Air Base located outside of Doha in Qatar - the U.S.'s largest military installation in the Middle East, which Trump had visited the month before. Those missiles were all intercepted and later that day, the president announced a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel - which has since held, after a few initial missile firings and some strong language about the conflict out of Trump's mouth. The president was in a much better mood on Friday, celebrating both the servicemembers in the South Lawn and what he called his 'greatest victory yet' - Congressional passage of the so-called 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' After the flyovers and a brief speech, Trump walked down onto the South Lawn and signed the bill into law, surrounded by Republican lawmakers. He gleefully tapped the gavel presented to him by House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was standing along Trump's side. The crowd was interspersed with Cabinet members and top Trump officials including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan 'Razin' Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin and more.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action loses appeal hours before terror ban due to start
Palestine Action has lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge to temporarily stop it being banned as a terror group, less than two hours before it was due to come into force. Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is due to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, judges refused to grant the temporary block. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: 'The judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified… would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order.' She added that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid. Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: 'You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.' The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In their 11-page written judgment, the judges said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Palestine Action lose 11th-hour appeal to stop being banned as a terror group after High Court judge refused a bid to temporarily halt them being outlawed
Palestine Action has lost its 11-hour appeal to stop it from being banned as a terror group, less than two hours after losing a bid to halt it come coming into force. Earlier today, Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, failed in her bid to get the High Court to temporarily block the Government from classifying the group as a terrorist organisation. This came before a potential legal challenge to the decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000. The ban is set to take effect at midnight after Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain denied the request for a temporary block. In a late twist, Ms. Ammori's legal team appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal on Friday evening. However, around 10:30pm, the Court also refused to grant the temporary injunction, paving the way for the controversial move to proceed. The founder's representative told the court that the ban would have a 'chilling effect on free speech'. But Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: 'The judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified... would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order.' She added that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid. Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: 'You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.' The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid for a stay. In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added. The proposal for the ban which had been approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week, will make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Ms. Ammori's legal team was also denied permission to appeal and was advised to take their case directly to the Court of Appeal. Currently, 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida, and National Action. During the hearing, Raza Husain KC, representing Ms. Ammori, argued for the suspension of what he called the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing scheduled for around July 21. Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.' The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect. She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action. 'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?' 'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked. In his written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was 'ambitious' for Palestine Action to claim it was not 'concerned in terrorism', as the 'action which immediately preceded the announcement of the decision to lay a proscription order was against an RAF base'. He also said that Ms Ammori's arguments 'contain at least one serious issue to be tried, namely that the order is a disproportionate interference with the rights of the claimant and others' under the European Convention on Human Rights. But he ruled that issuing a temporary block on the ban 'even for a short period' would 'deny the public important protections which the order is intended to confer'. He said: 'In my judgment, some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated.' He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'It follows that it is hyperbole to talk of the claimant or others being "gagged" in this respect, as the claimant has alleged. 'They could not incur criminal liability based on their past association with a group which was not proscribed at the time. 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' In a statement issued following the judgement, the co-founder said the public were being left 'in the dark about their rights to free speech'. She said the 'We are seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making which would see thousands of people across Britain wake up tomorrow to find they had been criminalised overnight for supporting a domestic protest group which sprays red paint on warplanes and disrupts Israel's largest weapons manufacturer to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel's genocidal war machine. 'We will not stop fighting to defend fundamental rights to free speech and protest in our country and to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people. 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect.' She went on to say: 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be. 'As Justice Chamberlain acknowledged in court today, it is unclear what expressions of support could lead to arrest and potential prosecution with sentences of up to 14 years in prison. 'We would only have only a few hours to disband our entire organisation and dismantle all of our infrastructure, including closing bank accounts and deleting our mailing list and social media platforms. 'This is despite the fact that we have not had the opportunity to defend our fundamental rights in court and challenge this unlawful, authoritarian and utterly absurd proscription. 'If we ultimately succeed in overturning the proscription, we would have to start from scratch, having lost everything we have painstakingly built over five years.' Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action. The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'. He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22, are accused of conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage. They were remanded into custody after appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court and will appear at the Old Bailey on July 18. The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain will conclude later on Friday, with the High Court judge expected to give his decision at the end of the hearing. A further hearing to decide whether Ms Ammori will be given the green light to challenge the decision to ban Palestine Action is expected to be heard later this month. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'.
