Sam Ghandchiسام قندچيPreemptive Strike on Nuclear Sites is Genocide

Sam Ghandchi


Persian Version نسخه فارسی


I have previously written about Iran-Israel conflict and what I believe should be done about it (1).


Also I have written my opinion about Iran's nuclear program and the danger of a new war because of it, in an article in Persian in the past (2).

In this article, I would like to discuss the notion of preemptive strike on nuclear facilities of any country and show that it cannot be regarded as a deterrent, rather it should be regarded as genocide, regardless of what country does it and whether it is done with good will or out of ill will.


Let's imagine if Islamic Republic of Iran started advocating a preemptive strike on Israeli nuclear facilities and went around everywhere in the world and said they are doing it for the sake of humanity - because they perceive a possible threat by Israel to take the world hostage by its nuclear power, basing their argument on the way Palestinians have been treated in Israel for the last 50 years.  How would the world react to such an action by IRI?


My response would be simple - any attack on nuclear sites of any country means that we are opening the risk of radioactive radiations first in one country, and it can easily go beyond it, to its neighboring countries, and with the current reserves of nuclear materials at any major nuclear site, when attacked by missile, the radiation damage can be worldwide. In short, such an attack is committing genocide rather than preventing a future disaster.


One may argue that at the time of Hitler's rise to power, Chamberlain's appeasement which symbolized the attitude of European leaders, allowed Fascism to spread and grow more later. One may use that argument about any potential evil force in today's world.  My response is that at the time of Hitler's rise to power, even if we knew about what Hitler would end up to be, still a preemptive strike on his nuclear facilities would have been wrong and a genocide.  Does this mean that I agree with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler? Not at all.  I believe European leaders should have been steadfast about stopping the growth of Fascism in the 1930's but definitely a preemptive strike on nuclear facilities of Germany would not have been the way to do it.  Even at the end of WWII, the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong.


There are many ways to stop the rise of military powers but preemptive strike on nuclear facilities is not one of them. Such an action itself is a genocide.


Frankly the Iran-Israel conflict is a serious issue in the Middle East and needs to be addressed.  US-Soviet conflict was actively being defused by peace loving people around the world till the last day of Soviet Union.  Defusing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was the main focus of Camp David and has been continued for decades.  Unfortunately US at this time because of the status of US-Iran relations cannot play the same role for Iran-Israel conflict as it has done about Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to defuse it.  But definitely the task of preventing a nuclear war because of this conflict should be addressed by the United Nations before it is too late.

Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/Editor

November 23, 2011



1. Danger of IRI-Israel War (and What Iranian Opposition Needs to Do)

2. Reason for War Because of Atomic Program