President Barack Obama obviously is on a quest for a defining legacy – and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.
But it must not come at the expense of the long-term security and survival of an entire people and nation.
Before he acquired the means to do it, Adolf Hitler made annihilationist threats against Jews.
At the time many thought he was just indulging in bitter rhetorical flamboyance that he never really meant to carry out.
History teaches us better.
It tells us that when he acquired the means he made good on his threats.
Iranian rulers like Hitler have openly, repeatedly gone on record making annihilationist threats against Israel and its Jewish people.
It would be folly of the first order to ignore all the warning lessons of history and think they do not really intend to actualize those threats once they acquire the means to do so.
Date: September 5, 2015
From: Mr. Chikeluba Kenechukwu
Founder, The 21st Century Global Reformation Movement
El Paso, Texas
Phone: 915.241.1570
Twitter: @chikeluba51; @chikeluba50
Press Statement: A Call For The Rejection Of The Iran Nuclear Agreement And For Re-negotiation
On behalf of the 21st Century Global Reformation Movement we strongly urge the United States Congress and people to reject the Iran nuclear deal signed on to by the Obama administration and awaiting ratification by the United States Senate.
We have listened to some of the arguments put forth by those who are for and against the agreement.
Without getting too deep into the details, the “Yes” camp claims the agreement is the best and most practical path forward to deny Iran the ability to produce nuclear weapons any time soon—and to avoid war with it.
They assert the only alternative to the agreement is the inevitability of war.
They also tout another benefit of the deal: they claim the role it will play in the de-escalation of tension with the West and normalization of relations with it will be pivotal in transforming the Islamic republic from an avowed anti-West regional power to a politically and culturally Western-aligned nation.
Anti-agreement forces counter that instead of producing a moderated, peaceful and cooperative Iran the agreement, by unlocking resources for it, would more strongly arm Iran to pursue its imperialist and hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East and beyond and its anti-West and anti-Israel policies.
We trust the caution of the “No” camp.
Contrary to the claims of the “Yes” camp rejection of the deal does not have to lead to war.
As some in the “No” camp insist Iran can be compelled to re-negotiate to obtain an agreement that makes it a virtual impossibility for it to ever acquire nuclear weapons and pose an existential threat to Israel.
The most powerful and influential Iran leaders have gone on record, repeatedly, calling for the wiping of Israel off the map, off the face of the earth.
They mean it.
Thus why they must never be allowed to acquire the weapons of mass destruction with which they can actualize that genocidal threat.
Rejecting the agreement is one way of denying Iran the nuclear weapons capability to carry out that threat.
The deal should be rejected and re-negotiated.
The question then is: What should wiser negotiations with Iran produce as adequate agreement that ensures that the country under its present set of annihilation-threatening rulers or future ones can never use nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, etc) to pose an existential threat to Israel?
Briefly, part of the answer:
--Re-negotiation must compel Iranian leaders and people to permanently forswear in their constitution the possession of nuclear weapons initiation of nuclear warfare.
--Alternatively, or additionally re-negotiations will generate an agreement binding Iranian leaders to a commitment deposited before the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, that it will NEVER BUILD AND ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOR INITIATE WARFARE USE OF THEM AGAINST ISRAEL.
Skeptics will most likely scoff that such commitments are unenforceable and unworkable because Iran will never agree to them.
The counter-response would be that such commitments are both workable and enforceable—and that they have precedents.
One historically relevant and analogous precedent is that of the victorious allied forces led by America compelling then militaristic Japan to permanently renounce in its constitution initiation of military aggression against other countries.
That constitutionally enforced pacifism has stood the test of time for more than 70 years now. Perhaps without it post-WWII Japanese leaders would have continued to roil their global neighborhood and beyond with militaristic aggression that would have cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives.
It may credibly be claimed that that constitutionally enforced pacifism imposed on Japan may be one of the major factors why Japan channeled its resources, creative energy and focus away from bloody military adventurism to peaceful internal development.
That constitutionally enforced pacifism has for more than seven decades re-habituated Japanese leaders and made Japan one of the most peaceful nations in the world – in stark contrast to its incessant pre-pacifist constitution bloody militarism.
No less a remedy is needed with Iran if the world does indeed will to prevent it from ever translating its annihilationist rhetoric against Israel into attempted or actualized reality.
Nothing less than such an extraordinary remedy will suffice to neutralize such extraordinary ominous threats.
If the world would marshal the will to enforce such a permanently preventive measure it will greatly benefit everyone: Iran, Israel, the Middle East, the world.
It will greatly advantage Iran by forcing it off its course of genocidal militarism and hegemonic adventurism to a peaceful focus on internal economic and social development to the benefit of present and future generations of Iranians.
It will be a boon for the Middle East and the world by setting a precedent of effective de-nuclearization of dangerous would-be nuclear powers which in turn helps reduce the risk of future nuclear war bloodbaths.
The present agreement, as pointed out by some skeptical observers, merely puts off by about 15 years, if at all it can achieve that, Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons and possibly use them against Israel.
Possess and use it in the immediate or in 15 years – what is the difference?
Whether Iran acquires and uses nuclear weapons against Israel today or in 15 years --- untold numbers of lives stand being destroyed, a whole people risk being put under a real threat of annihilation, a nation faces the terrible danger of being wiped off the map and the face of the earth.
Given the oft repeated genocidal threats of Iranian leaders against Israel, Iran must never be allowed to possess or have the possibility of possessing nuclear weapons.
The present nuclear agreement with Iran is but a case of an incautious, insufficiently wise and far-sighted Obama administration that refuses to learn hard and cold lessons from cruel history playing “Iranian roulette” with the existence of Israel and the long-term safety and security of its people.
Iran can be forced not just to temporarily suspend the acquisition of nuclear arms – which is all that the present agreement can realistically achieve – but to permanently renounce their production, possession and amassment.
Only the latter can durably and adequately protect Israel and its people from a future nuclear holocaust at the hands of the would-be annihilationists.
War with Iran must be avoided.
But even without war it can still be forced to return to the negotiating table and agree to permanent renunciation of nuclear arms.
President Barack Obama obviously is on a quest for a defining legacy – and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.
But it must not come at the expense of the long-term security and survival of an entire people and nation.
Before he acquired the means to do it, Adolf Hitler made annihilationist threats against Jews.
At the time many thought he was just indulging in bitter rhetorical flamboyance that he never really meant to carry out.
History teaches us better.
It tells us that when he acquired the means he made good on his threats.
Iranian rulers like Hitler have openly, repeatedly gone on record making annihilationist threats against Israel and its Jewish people.
It would be folly of the first order to ignore all the warning lessons of history and think they do not really intend to actualize those threats once they acquire the means to do so.
Never again.
Better safe than sorry.
That is why we call on the senators who have already publicly indicated ratifying support for the agreement to rethink it before they make what could prove a historically fatal decision.
Better another round of protracted, sustained, firmly-driven negotiations with Iran that ultimately forces it to permanently forswear the production, possession and use of nuclear arms than the present hurried deal that only limits Iran’s ability to produce these weapons of mass annihilation but does not definitively destroy that ability.
P.S: We salute the extraordinary efforts that the U.S. Secretary of State Mr. John Kerry put into brokering the current agreement, defusing tension and risk of conflict in the Middle East and fostering peace in the world. Mr. Kerry has proven himself an American patriot of the highest order, a very able, indefatigable and skilled chief diplomat of the United States and a global statesman of great stature and repute. Whatever deficiencies the current Iran nuclear deal may have derives not from any failings on his part as Secretary of State but rather from those of the chief policymaker of the United States, President Barack Obama who holds ultimate responsibility for all internal and foreign policy decisions.
Signed: Mr. Chikeluba Kenechukwu
Founder, The 21st Century Global Reformation Movement
El Paso, Texas
September 5, 2015