By Kourosh Ziabari


Israel has desperately renewed its outworn war threats against Iran, indicating that it’s getting prepared to launch a military strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.

Last week, the Zionist regime successfully test fired a missile which is said to have the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead and reach Iran, as well as Russia and China. On November 2, the TV stations around the world screened footages of a rocket-propulsion system being launched from somewhere around Israel coastal Palmachim military base. The missile’s range is claimed to be 10,000 kilometers and therefore, Iran will be easily within its reach, in the case that a military attack on Iran is opted for.

However, now even the most optimistic advocates of war with Iran within the fractured cabinet of Benjamin Netanyahu know that “empty vessels make the most noise” and that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities will be practically the same as the evaporation of the Zionist entity. They are well aware of Iran’s unequaled military might and the recent advancements and progresses in Iran’s weaponry industry. Although the hawkish Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman has boasted of “keeping all the options on the table” with regards to Iran’s nuclear program, he dismissed the reports that the Israeli cabinet members have reached an agreement over launching an attack against Iran.

The deceptive and illusory claims of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he is lobbying to persuade the cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations has even evoked the surprise and astonishment of the American media, who reacted to the war threats skeptically. In a November 2, 2011 report published just a few hours after Israel test fired its nuclear missile, CBS News wrote that the international community is used to hearing Tel Aviv’s war threats against Iran and that the recent warmongering statements of Netanyahu are nothing new. “It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran. Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike and the risk of regional mayhem.”

The words of Israeli officials, even though disproportionately aggrandized and exaggerated by the mainstream media, cut no ice anymore. The Israeli regime is too fragile and small to pose a threat to Iran’s security. Over the past 10 years, the White House, with the unreserved assistance of its client state, Israel, has repeatedly threatened Iran against the possibility of a military attack. Even Barack Obama who is unquestionably a wolf in the sheep’s clothing and understands nothing of peace and cordiality has once in 2010 talked of the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iran; a reckless statement which was condemned by many politicians and pundits around the world.

It’s now clear to the international observers that Israel talks through its hat. It only runs a psychological operation against Iran to force it into giving in its nuclear rights. The irony is that Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is hell bent on disrupting Iran’s nuclear program which it impetuously and irrationally claims to be aimed at military purposes.

The Israeli officials, however, frequently direct war threats against Iran with impunity and in breach of several internationally recognized treaties, conventions and charters. From one hand, any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities can be considered a war of aggression, which is “a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense” and since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war is a crime under the customary international law. It’s conventional for the criminal state of Israel to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity; however, if it frantically makes such a decision, it will be committing a crime which the international community should categorically respond to.

On July 3, 1933, the first convention that defined aggression was signed in London by the representatives of Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, USSR, Iran and Afghanistan. It was initiated by Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov in response to the threats of using force by the German government following Hitler’s rise to power. The government of Finland acceded to the convention on January 31, 1934. These countries decided that any kind of aggressive behavior on behalf of the members of the League of Nations would be illegal and illegitimate.

On the other hand, if Israelis madly attack Iran’s nuclear facilities while no serious threat is posed against them on behalf of the Persian Gulf country, their assault can also be categorized as a “preemptive war” which is illegal without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. “The initiation of armed conflict, that is being the first to ‘break the peace’ when no ‘armed attack’ has yet occurred, is not permitted by the UN Charter.”

Israel’s war threats against Iran also violate the UN Charter and so far, the UNSC has given no decisive response to this flagrant breach of international laws. According to Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter which is generally considered to be ‘jus cogens’ (compelling law), all UN members are prohibited from exercising “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The Article 51 of UN Charter stipulates that defense by a member state is justified only if, “an armed attack occurs,” against the attacking country.

Moreover, it’s crystal clear that Israel is not in a position to threaten Iran against a military strike over its nuclear program. Israel that possesses 300 atomic warheads does not have the credibility of asking Iran to halt its nuclear program. It has been repeatedly clarified by the international organizations, including the NIE 2007 report, that Iran does not possess any nuclear weapons and is not intending to build such weapons. Of course, dismantling the nuclear arsenal of Israel should be put on IAEA’s agenda, not Iran’s program which has been clearly demonstrated to be for civilian purposes.

Hopefully, there are prudent people in Israel who know that taking any aggressive action against Iran will be equivalent to the disappearance of the Zionist regime. Furthermore, even the closest friends of the Israeli regime know that Netanyahu’s war threats against Iran are sheer hollow propagandas!