New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association

51a, Parklands Drive, Christchurch.  or: Box 18541, Chch, NZ. Ph. 03 337 0118
email: nuclearfreenz@lynx.co.nz
        web: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz


Rt. Hon. Helen Clark
Prime Minister


Dear Helen,

I compliment your handling of foreign policy, particularly relations with the US during this time of crisis and threat.


Historically, New Zealand has always followed the dictum "Where the US, UK and Australia goes, New Zealand will follow" justifying to their poorly informed and sometimes disinterested public that this is the right thing for New Zealand to do.


However during the Helen Clark era, following the Lange era and nuclear free NZ initiative of 1984, New Zealand has based its foreign policy on New Zealand real interests, reason, accurate appreciation of the real world situation and real threats to human survival on the planet, of which the nuclear threat is the greatest.


You were willing to take the risk of going against traditional and emotional impulses to follow the US-UK-Australia direction without serious question.You went beyond US propaganda handouts, false or doctored US 'intelligence' so-called "secret reports' and the other nonsense of imperial manipulation of allied governments.


For example in the case of the Iraq war: Instead of the 'official' Bush Administration story, you found the facts: That Saddam had (1) No weapons of mass destruction (2) No links to al-Qaeda (3) No links to the 9/11 attack (4) No nuclear weapons or plans to make them (5) No plans and no means to attack the US or UK, with their large nuclear weapon arsenals. This means there was never any reason to make war on the Iraq dictatorship which the US had supported and given military aid to from its inception.


Allegations to the contrary were made to encourage support from allies and their publics for a US war of aggression on Iraq. In the case of Australia and Britain, there was complete capitulation to the lies and falsehoods, followed by participation in the illegal war.


You said "no" to armed support but offered other concessions and humanitarian aid instead.


I don't think people understand the great internal and external pressures you must have been under to join the Western war alliance against Iraq.


I informed my audiences of this view during my recent lecture tour of NZ on "The Dangers of a US nuclear war with Iran" and how we might help prevent it. I suggested that NZ foreign and nuclear free policies could be reversed if they lost your participation in policy decisions. That almost happened in the last election and could happen in the next, if not enough people are aware of your contribution to a rational foreign policy for New Zealand.


Although I believe in fostering good relations with all states, including the USA, I  have concerns about your visit with Hon Winston Peters to the US and President Bush. I have a large number of worries about this, what's really going on, how you see the purpose of this visit, and whether Winston Peters sees it in the same way. What we do know is that your visit coincides with Bush's stepped up demonization campaign against Iran, and that he plans on war with Iran, probably before the end of April 2007. He wants allies in the attempt to lend legitimacy and credibility to his new war. That means allies who will sacrifice truth and buy into a series of new lies about Iran similar to those used against Iraq in the build-up to the 2003 invasion.


The consequences this time could be much more horrific and long-lasting than with the Iraq war.


Has there been any serious consideration in NZ Government departments of potential consequences of a US-led war on Iran?


Has there been any serious consideration of the potential tools and arguments President Bush may use to try and persuade New Zealand to participate or give its support to a new war on Iran? How will New Zealand respond to such arguments without offending the host government?


How might New Zealand respond in a positive manner, to both decline the invitation to war, while offering various attractive peace initiatives to prevent war, or deal with some of the possible horrific consequences such as a nuclear war.


I realise that it is a very, very, very long shot. But it is possible that a "very, very, very good friend" like New Zealand might be listened to and perhaps penetrate the fog of war in Washington?


Yours sincerely,



Larry Ross (Q.S.M.)


New Zealand Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association




P.S. to Prime Minister Helen Clark


I decided to send you one of the most authoritative articles we have posted on our website: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz on war with Iran.

I am sure that if you read it, you will consider the time well spent.





Russian Defence Chief Warns About US Nuclear Attack on Iran



Comment by Larry Ross, January 25, 2007,
Secretary/Founder of The New Zealand Nuclear Free Peacemaking Association (1981)


 Russian Ex-Chief of Defence, General Ivashov's analysis is very similar to many articles on our website and in my comments.


I think it is one of the most informed professional analysis so far of US intentions to nuclear bomb Iran. He even refers to a "provocation" (or False Flag incident staged by the Bush regime) to fool the Senate and Congress into giving their approval for a nuclear attack on Iran. Bush has already fooled them with a string of lies into approving his war on Iraq. Now Bush is ready to do it again - but this time the Bush regime is likely to stage a very serious "provocation", as General Ivashov has stated, and blame it on Iran as a justification for a nuclear attack.


The article should convince people that now is the time to take action if they wish to prevent a US nuclear attack on Iran and all the disastrous consequences that can follow. There would be many. Waiting for this insane nuclear event before taking any action, would be like waiting for your house to burn down before you called the fire department, turned on the hose, or got fire insurance. According to Ivashov and others, we may have only about 2 months to stop Bush. Things that people and groups can consider doing to help prevent an attack are shown on our website below.


If Bush is not stopped and launches the attack, the war momentum and slaughter can trigger a sequence of disastrous actions and reactions that can spiral out of control. There are 8 to 9 nuclear weapon states, some may be drawn into a major war that could spread beyond the Middle East. Both Russia and China have strong defence links with Iran and each have nuclear weapon arsenals. I doubt if they would stay idle while the US conquered Iran, leading to US control of Middle East oil resources. Also, Pakistan and other Islamic states may erupt if the US slaughters millions of Muslims with nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the Bush regime has no legitimate reasons for attacking Iran, anymore than it had for attacking Iraq. It manufactured excuses and lies to attack Iraq and is now engaged in doing the same to justify the attack on Iran. The Iraq war made the Bush regime war criminals. They are now desperate and self-justifying criminals wrapped in the flag and other symbols of patriotism. Bush claims God directs him. Even so, they have less than 30% of Americans supporting them. The Bush-Chaney regime has been compared to desperate cornered animals that will resort to any crime to survive.


They will go on to bigger crimes unless stopped. It is part of their plan. The only big difference is that the US is likely to create a much larger and much more convincing excuse to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state - Iran. If a convincing event is staged, Americans will believe Bush and be fooled again. They will support Bush's use of nuclear weapons against the 'treacherous evil Iranians' and his popularity rating will soar. Few Americans are aware of potential 'false flag' operations against Iran and other provocations with the purpose of providing Bush with justifications to attack Iran.


The Washington neoconservative Bush regime, so far supported by Tony Blair and UK forces, and John Howard and Australian forces, and their mass media collaborators, seem willing to take any risks to further their military objectives and conquests.

There may be only 2 months to prevent this nuclear doomsday scenario.   ~~~




Global Research Feature Article     (Strategic Cultural Foundation -Russia)



Iran Must Get Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack
by Leonid Ivashov  
Global Research, January 24, 2007  

In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by “any Persian Gulf country”.

“Any country” mostly refers to Iran. The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots.

So, the preparations for a new US aggression entered the completion phase. The executions of S. Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a “disguise operation” for the efforts of the US strategists to deliberately escalate the situation both around Iran and in the entire Middle East.

Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US did order to hang the former Iraqi leader and his associates. This shows that the US has adopted irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into three warring pseudo-states – the Shiite, the Sunnite, and the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that the situation of a controlled chaos will help it to dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and other strategically important oil transportation routes.

The most important aspect of the matter is that a zone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at the core of the Middle East, and that the countries neighboring IraqIran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) – will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve the problem of completely destabilizing the region, a task of major importance for the US and especially for Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge.

However it is not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign while Iraq and Afghanistan are not “pacified” (the US lacks the resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of the above, the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan.

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran.

How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia, at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes, and at worst – as in the case of the aggression against Yugoslavia – its response will be something like “though by this the US makes a mistake, the victim itself provoked the attack”.

Europe will react in essentially the same way. Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several other countries to the nuclear aggression will be stronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutely sure of this).

The UN means nothing in this context. Having failed to condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council effectively shared the responsibility for it. This institution is only capable to adopt resolutions which the Russian and also the French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactly the opposite sense – as authorizing their aggression.

Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under the Iranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance will become more active. Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to provocations to justify their aggression, suffer some tolerable damage, and then the outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution.

Some people tend to believe that concerns over the world's protests can stop the US. I do not think so. The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: “Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they have to do it?”

But they did it. They ignored the international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes, there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly what the aggressors wanted – Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, and Serbia is colonized – NATO officers have set up their headquarters in the country's ministry of defense.

The same things happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the revenues of their military-industrial complex.

The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.

The US command is trying to exclude a ground operation: Iran has a strong army and the US forces are likely to suffer massive casualties. This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already finds himself in a difficult situation. It does not take a ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran, to reverse the development of the country, to cause panic, and to create a political, economic and military chaos. This can be accomplished by using first the nuclear, and subsequently the conventional means of warfare. Such is the purpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer to the Iranian coast.

What resources for self-defense does Iran have? They are considerable, but incomparably inferior to the US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems. Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran has no guaranteed protection from air raids.

The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks.

Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.

At the same time all of the above sends a signal to the pro-Western opposition and to a fraction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's elite to get ready for the coming developments. The US hopes that an attack on Iran will inevitably result in a chaos in the country, and that it will be possible to bribe some of the Iranian generals and thus to create a fifth column in the country.

Of course, Iran is very different from Iraq. However, if the aggressor succeeds in instigating a conflict between the two branches of the Iranian armed forces – the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the army – the country will find itself in a critical situation, especially in case at the very beginning of the campaign the US manages to hit the Iranian leadership and delivers a nuclear strike or a massive one by conventional warfare on the country's central command.

© Copyright Leonid Ivashov , Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia) , 2007                    



Our web site has many articles on nuclear war plans against Iran and related issues: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz/USWarIran.htm


Another War on Iran Warning     


Here is another warning about Bush's intention to make an attack on Iran, using the same kind of lies and accusations he used before he made war on Iraq. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is the latest in a long line of journalists, politicians, academics and geo-political analysts who have made such warnings.

A Washington Post article quoted a senior US intelligence officer"...that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States increasing inability to staunch the violence there."



   President's Actions Could Lead to Impeachment
    By Dennis J. Kucinich
    t r u t h o u t | Press Release

    Friday 26 January 2007

"The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding."
- Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich: The White House is up to its old tricks; is preparing the United States for an attack on Iran.

    Washington - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) accused the White House of mounting a media blitz to prepare the U.S. public for an eventual attack on Iran. Today The Washington Post reported the Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East.

    "The White House is up to its old tricks again: Providing information by anonymous sources and portraying Iran as an aggressor in Iraq," Kucinich said.

    "The President is mischaracterizing U.S. action vis-à-vis Iran. In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in offensive and provocative acts against Iran. The President's strategy, by portraying our involvement as only being on the defensive, is laying out the groundwork for him to attack Iran and bypass authorization by Congress," Kucinich said.

    The Washington Post article stated:

"A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy. 'This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political.' The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there."

    Kucinich said, "The White House spin machine is at it again: this time providing justification for a new war - a war against Iran." Kucinich pointed out that while the term 'officials' is mentioned 21 times in the Post article - not once are the officials identified by name.

    In his January 10 address to the nation, President Bush asserted that succeeding in Iraq begins with addressing Iran and Syria. "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," Bush said.

    "The Washington Post is quoting strategically placed Administration sources who are providing justification for an attack against Iran," Kucinich said. "This new twist on Iran, a country this Administration refuses to have free and open diplomatic talks with, is stating the Administration's case for war."

    "The degree to which this President continues to take steps to go to war against Iran without consulting with the full Congress is the degree to which he is increasingly putting himself in jeopardy of an impeachment proceeding," Kucinich said.






More “War on Iran” articles on: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz/USWarIran.htm


The Coming War Against Iran

By Daan de Wit
Given the presence of four American submarines off the coast of Iran, Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Russian fleet, reasons that the U.S. is planning to attack Iran.

Poking his stick in a hornet's nest
By Daniel M Pourkesali

In a speech reminiscent of the one delivered in January 2003 when he portrayed Iraq as the most imminent threat to the security of the United States, Mr. Bush named Iran no less than 5 times as the new "determined enemy": http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/105/2/

The World Agrees: Stop Bush Before He Kills Again
By Robert Scheer

Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our president, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict. http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/111/2/



Comment: One of the best articles on this subject is:
More Deception from the War Criminal
By Paul Craig Roberts, Thursday, 25 January 2007

Bush's state of the union address did not describe the deplorable state of the union. The speech's importance consists of Bush's plea to Congress to please let him fool them one more time in order that he can attack Iran and start a bigger war that Congress will have to support in order to support Israel.




Home     Disclaimer/Fair Use