ALtaf Hussain :What was the basis for the unprovoked and unjustified attack on Iran by US and Israel ?
|
|
Posted on: 3/7/2026 1
|
What was the basis for the unprovoked and unjustified attack on Iran by US and Israel ?
#IranWar #IranIsraelUSWar
In the recent diplomatic negotiations involving #Iran and the United States under the mediation of Oman, it was reported that Tehran had shown readiness to halt its nuclear weapons program and had accepted the idea of permitting inspections of its nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
. These actions are typically seen as steps aimed at building trust and alleviating tensions while ensuring greater transparency. Nevertheless, in spite of these pledges, military strikes were executed against Iran by the United States and Israel. This situation prompts a critical inquiry: if talks were in progress, what was the true rationale behind initiating an assault?
President
justified the strikes by asserting that Iran was mere weeks away from obtaining nuclear weaponry. He argued that permitting such capabilities to be controlled by individuals he labeled as “irrational” could yield disastrous outcomes for international security. This reasoning leads to an uncomfortable reflection on our historical actions.
During WW2, In August 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cites of Japan, a decision made by the then American President Harry S. Truman. This act caused immense suffering, resulting in the deaths of countless civilians and leaving a painful legacy that continues to influence the worldwide discussion surrounding nuclear arms. When deliberating the morality of nuclear weapons possession or use, history compels us to apply consistent ethical standards to all actions. A selective approach to moral reasoning can diminish the credibility of international standards and weaken the global non-proliferation framework.
The restrained response from many Muslim countries following the attacks and the devastation inflicted on Iran is also troubling. In a time when international law, national sovereignty, and regional stability are under threat, silence may be interpreted as consent. This raises uncomfortable questions about political bravery and the readiness of governments to defend principles they frequently assert to champion.
The lack of response from Pakistan, in particular, is profoundly disappointing.
Many citizens are left wondering why Pakistan is hesitant to speak out in such a pivotal moment. Currently, the world finds itself at a precarious juncture where geopolitical tensions, and regional disputes converge. In these circumstances, it is vital that diplomacy, transparency, and adherence to international laws take precedence over unilateral military attacks and interventions.
In the end, the core question lingers: if discussions and inspections were already taking place, what remaining justification existed for war?
(In remarks delivered on the night between March 4 and 5, 2026, President Donald Trump stated this. Viewers are urged to watch his video before tuning in to my video log.)
Altaf Hussain.
London. [UK].
March 5, 2026.
|
3/9/2026 6:48:45 PM
|
|