Attacking Iran's nuclear program is NOT "PRE-EMPTIVE"

Kayhan Berzegar, writing from Tehran in the latest issue of the World Policy Journal, points out that Iranians are united in their support for their nuclear program:

Though from American shores it may seem as if Iran’s recent election tumult speaks of deep divisions in society and politics, there is one policy issue on which public opinion remains nearly unanimous: the nuclear program. Among the Iranian political elite, there is a clear internal consensus—in the run-up to the recent elections, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Moussavi, professed his support for the nascent program.

I have two quibbles with this article though:

1- I objec to the repeated references to an Israeli attack on Iran as being "pre-emptive". I don't know why it is that every Israeli attack is always automatically labelled as "pre-emptive". Under international law, an attack is only truly preemptive if it is defensive, proportional measure against an immediate threat. The necessity for forcible reaction must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".

Attacking a CIVILIAN, IAEA-MONITORED, NON-WEAPONS PRODUCING nuclear energy site does NOT constitute a "pre-emptive" attack. It is rather a blatant aggression and would constitute a crime of war and a violation of the UN Charter.

So could we please stop automatically qualifying an Israel attack on iran as "pre-emptive" in nature?

2- The article does not consider the fact that the whole nuclear weapons proliferation issue raised by Washington against Iran is simply a pretext for the monopolization of the nuclear fuel cycle, and so Iranian concessions which include intensive monitoring of their nuclear program will never be accepted by Washington since Washington's goal is not simply to deprive Iran of nuclear weapons but also the capability to make nuclear fuel -- which also explains why repeated Iranian compromise offers that would have addressed any legitimate concern about weapons proliferation were simply ignored, and why US Sec of State Clinton has plainly declared that Iran does not have the right to have the full nuclear fuel cycle.

Comments

[Pirouz]

You know, Cyrus, your work here is far superior to that put out officially by the government of Iran or its state controlled media. For its part, the government of Iran has not put forward its case (in english) in such a clear and defensible manner.

Your talent is not being properly utilized.

Have you at least considered a contributing position at PressTV?

[Thanks I just say whats on my own mind & have a habit of going up against "conventional wisdom." I don't think the govt of Iran particularly likes me because people like me make it hard for them to sell out on the nuclear issue to keep themselves in power. I got asked for interviews and was on Press TV once in addition to BBC, Channel 4, AlJazeera, etc. I'm refusing additional interview requests. Im used to being behind the camera & have no aspirations for punditry.]