By: Fidel Castro Ruz

Cuba Debate - Those persons who deal with these issues know that on September 11 of 2001 our people expressed its solidarity to the US people and offered the modest cooperation that in the area of health we could have offered to the victims of the brutal attack against the Twin Towers in New York.

We also immediately opened our country’s airports to the American airplanes that were unable to land anywhere, given the chaos that came about soon after the strike.

The traditional stand adopted by the Cuban Revolution, which was always opposed to any action that could jeopardize the life of civilians, is well known.

Although we resolutely supported the armed struggle against Batista’s tyranny, we were, on principle, opposed to any terrorist action that could cause the death of innocent people.  Such behavior, which has been maintained for more than half a century, gives us the right to express our views about such a sensitive matter.

On that day, at a public gathering that took place at Ciudad Deportiva, I expressed my conviction that international terrorism could never be erradicated through violence and war.

By the way, Bin Laden was, for many years, a friend of the US, a country that gave him military training; he was also an adversary of the USSR and Socialism.  But, whatever the actions attributed to him, the assassination of an unarmed human being while surrounded by his own relatives is something abhorrent. Apparently this is what the government of the most powerful nation that has ever existed did.

In the carefully drafted speech announcing Bin Laden’s death Obama asserts as follows:

“…And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.”

That paragraph expressed a dramatic truth, but can not prevent honest persons from remembering the unjust wars unleashed by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of children who were forced to grow up without their mothers and fathers and the parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace.

Millions of citizens were taken from their villages in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba and many other countries of the world.

Still engraved in the minds of hundreds of millions of persons are also the horrible images of human beings who, in Guantánamo, a Cuban occupied  territory, walk down in silence, being submitted for months, and even for years, to unbearable and excruciating tortures.  Those are persons who were kidnapped and transferred to secret prisons with the hypocritical connivance of supposedly civilized societies.

Obama has no way to conceal that Osama was executed in front of his children and wives, who are now under the custody of the authorities of Pakistan, a Muslim country of almost 200 million inhabitants, whose laws have been violated, its national dignity offended and its religious traditions desecrated.

How could he now prevent the women and children of the person who was executed out of the law and without any trial from explaining what happened? How could he prevent those images from being broadcast to the world?

On January 28 of 2002 the CBS journalist Dan Rather reported through that TV network that on September 10 of 2001, one day before the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Osama Bin Laden underwent a hemodialysis at a military hospital in Pakistan.  He was physically unfit to hide and take shelter inside deep caves.

Having assassinated him and plunging his corpse into the bottom of the sea are an expression of fear and insecurity which turn him into a far more dangerous person.

The US public opinion itself, after the initial euphoria, will end up by criticizing the methods that, far from protecting its citizen, will multiply the feelings of hatred and revenge against them.

Fidel Castro Ruz – May 4, 2011

Cadena Gramonte – Havana, April 29.- Leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, warned that the violent, Nazi-Fascist aerial attacks of NATO against the Libyan people could be used against any country in the Third World.

In his most recent written reflections, entitled, ¨A Fire that Could Burn Us All,¨ Fidel expressed his surprise about the resistance of the North African country, and emphasized that Libyan leader Al Gaddafi is not accepting the demands of the militaristic organization, and will remain in history as an important figure in this Arab country.

Fidel Castro affirmed that no one has the right to question the existence of Libya as an independent state and member of the United Nations, even if they do not agree with the political ideas of Al Gaddafi.

The Leader of the Revolution continued to express his disbelief about the public behaviour of British Defense Minister, Liam Fox, during his recent meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Fidel said that when observing the television transmissions of their discussions about the criminal war in Libya, he thought that he had never seen a more horrible attitude of hatred, frustration, and nervousness as that which the British Defence Secretary expressed.

Fidel said that Fox seemed absolutely indignant that the powerful NATO planes had not been able to fold the resistance in Libya in 72 hours.  (Taken from Radio Habana Cuba)

News.com.au – February 23, 2011 - Cuba and Nicaragua have sprung to the defence of embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, with Fidel Castro claiming Washington plans to order a NATO invasion of Libya to seize oil interests.

“To me, it’s absolutely clear that the Government of the United States is not interested in peace in Libya,” said the 84-year old former Cuban leader, who still heads the Cuban Communist Party.

Washington, he said, “will not hesitate to give the order for NATO to invade that rich country, perhaps in the coming hours or days.”

There has been no immediate reaction to turmoil in Libya from Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, Mr Gaddafi’s closest ally in the region.

But Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega defended his friend, saying he had spoken with Mr Gaddafi, who is “waging a great battle … and in these circumstances is trying to dialogue, and defend the integrity of the nation so that it does not break up, and so that there is no anarchy.”

Libya is confronting a growing diplomatic backlash against the bloody crackdown on protesters, denouncing charges it was carrying out massacres.

The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.

Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.

Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!

Fidel Castro Ruz

Global Research

October 15, 2010

By Fidel Castro

September 22, 2010 “Escambray ” — The new START treaty, signed in Prague in April 2010 by the biggest nuclear powers, only represents an illusion with regards to the situation threatening humanity.

The nuclear winter theory, developed and brought to its current stage by the eminent researcher and professor from Rutgers University, New Jersey, Dr. Alan Robock (a modest scientist who prefers to recognize the merits of his colleagues rather than his own), has proven its veracity.

The theory postulates that the only way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is by eliminating them. Living in a privileged place on the planet, which allows them to enjoy the highest standards of living and the world’s riches despite the their incredible waste of non-renewable resources, the American people should be the ones most interested in the information provided by the scientists. But how much time does the mass media devote to this task?

According to Robock, “If such weapons did not exist, they could not be used. And at present, there is no rational argument to use them at all. If they cannot be used, they must be destroyed and in this way we would protect ourselves from accidents, mistaken calculations or any bouts of insanity.”

“Computers that used ultramodern models became the only available laboratory, while historical events, including cities ravaged by fires caused by earthquakes and war time bombardments, smoke columns produced by forest fires, and clouds from volcanic eruptions, became the yardstick for scientific evaluations.”

The proliferation of nuclear weapons at a time when Israel, India and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club, and other countries aspire for membership, have forced Robock and his colleagues to review their initial research projects. The results of these revisions, published in recent articles, are astonishing.

While the United States and Russia each committed to reducing their operative nuclear arsenals down to some 2,000 weapons in April 2010 in Prague, the only way to prevent a global climate catastrophe from taking place would be by eliminating nuclear weapons.

“…any country that at present may be considering the nuclear option must acknowledge that by adopting such a decision, it would be endangering not only its own population but the entire world. It is time for the world to once again reflect upon the dangers of nuclear weapons, and this time follow the path to peace and eliminate the possibility of a global climate catastrophe induced by nuclear energy, for the first time since mid-last century.”

“… the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a total attack against an enemy would be a suicidal action due to anomalous cold and darkness caused by the smoke from the fires generated by the bomb. In fact, it has been evidenced that the more nuclear weapons a country possesses, the less secure it is.”

Albert Einstein said: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Carl Sagan has said that our nuclear arms policy was “a path where no man thought.”

At the end of the lecture I asked Professor Alan Robock, “How many people in the world are familiar with this information?” He replied, “Very few.” I went on, “In your country, how many?” “The same,” he answered, “it is not known.”

I had no doubt that this was the sad reality, and added: “It makes no difference if we know about this, the world needs to know. Perhaps psychologists need to be brought in to explain why the masses do not understand.”

“I have an answer —said the scientist— it’s called denial. It is so horrible, that people do not want to think about it. It’s easier to pretend it does not exist.”

During his nearly one-hour lecture, aided by charts, figures and photos projected on a screen, Robock’s words were clear, precise and eloquent. And I said: “What does it mean to raise awareness, which we talk so much about? What does it mean to create culture? And how discouraging it must be for you scientists that people don’t even know what you are doing; so many hours invested.”

I told him that back then, when there was no radio, television or Internet, it was impossible to broadcast a lecture like this one taking place in Cuba or in the world. Much less when many people did not know how to read or write.

We promised the professor that we would spread the information he had provided us about the nuclear winter theory —a topic we know a little about due to our concern over the possible outbreak of a global nuclear war, a concern that drew us to his lecture— in a language that even eight-year old Cuban children could understand.

No other time in human history comes close to the present. Certainly, if these risks are not understood by those who make decisions in the heights of the immense power that science and technology have placed in their hands, the next world war will be the last one, and it would take, perhaps, tens of millions of years before new intelligent beings would attempt to write their history.

As chance would have it, yesterday, September 20, I received news that the Peace Boat passenger ship was to arrive in the Port of Havana at dawn on September 21 after being delayed several hours by cyclones on its voyage from the Canary Islands. The peace boat is a Non-Governmental Organization with Special Consultative Status to the United Nations. Since 1983, it has been organizing cruises around the world to promote peace, human rights, and the fair and sustainable development of the environment. In 2009 the organization was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for its global campaign to prevent war.

In a letter written to me by Peace Boat director Yoshioka Tatsuya and presented by Nao Inoue, the head of the group of visitors, Tatsuya states: “Our organization has been working for years, recently in cooperation with the ALBA countries […] which have clearly expressed their commitment to nuclear abolition, the prohibition of foreign military bases and peaceful resolutions for international controversies […] Japan, as you know, the only country that has endured an atomic bombardment, to this day maintains a pacifist Constitution that, by virtue of Article 9, formally renounces war and prohibits the use of force in international disputes…

“A focal issue in our activism is the removal of foreign military bases: a situation that affects Japan and several countries around the world. These foreign bases, such as the ones in Guantánamo and Okinawa, cause irreversible environmental damage and encourage war instead of world peace.

Including this voyage, Peace Boat has organized 70 trips around the world beginning in 1983 with the participation of no less than 40,000 people who have visited more than 100 countries. Their slogan is “Learn from Past Wars to Build a Future of Peace.”

Over 20 years, the Peace Boat has visited our country 14 times, overcoming obstacles and hurdles imposed by the United States. During this time it has promoted campaigns to raise significant amounts of money to donate towards the health and education sectors primarily. It is active in the numerous international forums and solidarity with Cuba gatherings. They are truly proven friends of our country. In May 2009, responding to a proposal by the Cuban Friendship with the Peoples Institute (ICAP), the organization was decorated with the Order of Solidarity granted by the Council of State of the Republic of Cuba.

It was a great honor for me to receive an invitation to meet with a group of the visitors which I proposed holding at the Havana Convention Center. Mr. Nao Inoue and Ms. Junko Watanabe both addressed participants. Junko Watanabe is a survivor who was just two-years-old when the first atomic bomb was launched on the city of Hiroshima. She was with her little brother in the yard of a house located 18 kilometers from the place where the bomb was dropped; an event that made the majority of the city vanish, instantly killing more than 100,000 people and seriously injuring the rest of the inhabitants.

Junko Watanabe shared her dramatic memories, when years after the attack, she saw the images and learned about the details of the bombing that caused so much suffering in so many innocent people who had nothing to do with that brutal event.

It was a deliberate act to terrorize the world with the unnecessary use of a weapon of mass extermination at a time when the Japanese empire was already defeated. The bomb was dropped, not on a military installation but rather a defenseless civilian objective. The images that documented that horrifying crime do not express what the voice of Junko Watanabe narrated about the events. The meeting was an opportune time to exchange our points of view and tell our friendly Japanese visitors —ardent combatants in the struggle to abolish nuclear arms, military bases and war— about the efforts carried out by our country to stop a nuclear conflict that could bring about an end to the existence of our species.

Fidel Castro Ruz – September 21, 2010

By Fidel Castro Ruz

Global Research, September 16, 2010

Cuba Debate – 2010-09-10

We Are Living Through an Exceptional Moment in Human History.

The deadlines established by the United Nations Security Council for Iran to yield to the demands imposed by the United States regarding nuclear research and uranium enrichment for medical purposes and to generate electricity will be expiring in these days.

This is the only nuclear use that has been documented in Iran.

The fear that Iran is looking forward to producing nuclear weapons is only based on an assumption.

With regard to this delicate issue, the United States and its western allies, among them two of the five nuclear powers with veto power -France and the United Kingdom- supported by the richest and most developed capitalist powers of the world, have promoted an increasing number of sanctions against Iran, a rich, oil-producing Muslim country. Today, the measures adopted include the inspection of Iran’s merchant vessels and severe economic sanctions aimed at suffocating its economy.

I have been following very closely the grave dangers that may result from that situation, because if a war breaks out in that region, it could very quickly go nuclear, and this will have lethal consequences for the rest of the planet.

In referring to such danger I was not looking for publicity or sensationalism. I just wanted to warn the world public opinion hoping that, being advised of such grave danger it could contribute to avoid it.

At least we have managed to draw attention to a problem that was hardly mentioned by the big world media.

This has made me use part of the time scheduled for the launching of this book, on which we worked diligently. I did not want this to coincide with the dates of September 7 and 9. September 7 marks the end of the 90 days term established by the Security Council to know whether Iran complied or not with the requirement of authorizing the inspection of its merchant vessels. September 9 marks the expiration of the three months term fixed by the Resolution adopted on June 9. Quite possibly the establishment of this last term was what the Security Council intended to do originally.

So far we have only had the weird statement made by the Director General of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the Japanese Yukiya Amano, a man who serves the interests of the Yankees. He added all the fuel to the flames and then, like Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of the issue.

A spokesperson from the Foreign Ministry of Iran commented his statements with a well earned contempt. According to a news report published by EFE, Amano’s assertion that “‘our friends should not worry, because we don’t believe our region is in the position to engage in new military adventures’ and that ‘Iran was fully prepared to respond to any military invasion’ was an obvious reference to the Cuban leader Fidel Castro, ‘who warned about a possible Israeli nuclear attack against Iran with the support of the United States’”.

News on this topic are pouring and get mixed with others of remarkable repercussion.

The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine, already known by our people, has been publishing some excerpts of the long interview he made with me. He has been discussing some interesting aspects of it before he finally writes a future and long article.

“There were many odd things about my recent Havana stopover, [...]“, he wrote, but one of the most unusual was Fidel Castro’s level of self-reflection [...] but it seemed truly striking that Castro was willing to admit that he misplayed his hand at a crucial moment in the Cuban Missile Crisis [...] that he regrets asking Khrushchev to nuke the U.S.” It is true that he addressed the topic and he asked me that question. Literally, as he wrote in the first part of his report, his words were the following: “I asked him: At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?” He answered: “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth it all.”

I had thoroughly explained to him -and there is written evidence of that- the content of that message: “…if the United States invades Cuba, a country with Russian nuclear weapons, under such circumstances Russia should not allow to be dealt the first strike, as the one dealt against the USSR on June 22, 1941, when the German army and all European forces attacked the USSR.”

As can be observed from that brief reference to the issue, from the second part of his report to the audience on that news, readers could not realize that “if the United States invaded Cuba, a country with Russian nuclear weapons”, under such circumstances, my recommendation was to prevent the enemy from launching the first strike; nor the profound irony embedded in my response – “…and knowing what I know now…”, which was an obvious reference to the betrayal by one Russian President who saturated himself with some ethylic substance and revealed to the United States the most important military secrets of that country.

Further on Goldberg wrote about another moment of our conversation: “I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.” Obviously, that question implicitly suggested the theory that Cuba exported the Revolution. So I responded: “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore”. I said this to him without any bitterness or concern. And now I laugh at the way he literally interpreted what I said and how, according to him, he consulted it with Julia Sweig, a CFR analyst who accompanied him and worked out the theory he described. But the truth is that the meaning of my response was exactly the opposite of the interpretation made by both American journalists of the Cuban model.

My idea, as everybody knows, is that the capitalist system does not work anymore either for the United States or the world, which jumps from one crisis into the next, and these are ever more serious, global and frequent and there is no way the world could escape from them. How could such a system work for a socialist country like Cuba?

Many Arab friends worried when they knew I had met with Goldberg, and sent some messages describing him as “the staunchest advocate of Zionism.”

From all of these we can infer the big confusion that exists in the world. Therefore I hope that what I am telling you about my thoughts could be useful.

The ideas I expressed are contained in 333 Reflections -see what a coincidence. The last 26 refer exclusively to the problems affecting the environment and the imminent danger of a nuclear war.

And now I should very briefly add something.

I have always condemned the Holocaust. In my Reflections entitled “Obama’s Speech in Cairo”, “A Swipe Waiting to Happen”, and “The Opinion of an Expert” I expressed this very clearly.

I have never been an enemy of the Jewish people, which I admire for having resisted dispersion and persecution during two thousand years. Many of the most brilliant talents, such as Karl Marx and Albert Einstein, were Jews, because that was a nation where the most intelligent managed to survive by virtue of a natural law. In our country and in the whole world they were persecuted and slandered. But this is just pat of the ideas I defend.

They were not the only one who were persecuted and slandered for their beliefs. Muslims were attacked and persecuted for their beliefs by the European Christians for much more than 12 centuries, just as the first Christians were in ancient Rome before Christianity became an official religion of that empire. History should be accepted and remembered just the way it happened, with all its tragic realities and its fierce wars. I have spoken about that and that is why I have all the more reason to explain the dangers jeopardizing humankind today, when wars have become the biggest suicide risk for our fragile species.

If we add to this a war against Iran, even if it were of a conventional nature, the United States would rather turn off the light and say goodbye. How could the US put up with a war against 1.5 billion Muslims?

For any true revolutionary, defending peace does not mean to renounce to the principles of justice, without which human life and society would be meaningless.

I still believe that Goldberg is an excellent journalist who is able to set out, in an enjoyable way and masterly way, his views, which promotes debate. He does not invent phrases; he transfers them and interprets them.

I will not refer to the content of many others aspects of our conversation. I will respect the secrecy of the issues we discussed and I eagerly await his future long article.

The current news that have started to pour from all sources make me to complement his presentation with these words whose essence is contained in the book “La contraofensiva estratégica” (The Strategic Counteroffensive), which I have just presented.

I believe that all peoples have the right to peace and enjoy all the goods and natural resources of the planet. What is currently going on with peoples in many countries of Africa, where there are millions of emaciated children, women and men out of lack of food, water and medicines is a shame. We feel astonished by the images we see from the Middle East, where Palestinians are deprived from their lands, their homes are demolished by gigantic equipment, and men, women and children are bombed with white phosphorus and other extermination means; the Dantesque scenes of families exterminated by the bombs dropped over Afghan and Pakistani towns by drones; the Iraqis who are dying after years of war; and the more than one million lives lost in that conflict imposed by a US President.

The last we could expect to see were the news about the expulsion of the French gypsies, who are victims of a new sort of racial Holocaust. The strong protest by the French is only logical. At the same time, the millionaires restrict French citizens’ rights to retirement while reducing the possibilities to get a job.

From the US we have heard the news of a pastor in Florida that intends to burn the Holy Book of the Quran in its own church. Even the Yankee and military chiefs engaged in punitive war missions were disturbed by the news which they believed would put their soldiers in jeopardy.

Walter Martínez, the prestigious journalist who conducts the Venezuelan TV program Dossier, was amazed at such madness.

Yesterday, Thursday 9th in the evening, some news asserted that the pastor had relinquished his idea. It might be necessary to know what the FBI agents who visited him told him to “persuade him”. That was a colossal media show, a chaos. Those are things proper of an empire that is sinking.

I thank all of you for your attention.

That was the purpose of the Cuban Revolution leader’s address to the Cuban parliament summoned for an extraordinary session in Havana, due to the urgency of mobilizing the world, faced with the danger of a nuclear war that would be triggered by a US-Israeli led aggression on Iran.

Standing on a podium, in the presence of President Raul Castro, Fidel read a message to the Cuban legislative body making emphasis of the threat of an armed conflict in the Arabian-Persian Gulf, for which he held the American president responsible.

Fidel said men’s pretensions must have a limit that can’t be surpassed and added that in this critical case President Obama would have to give the order of the so much announced attack “in tune with the standards of the gigantic empire.”

“But, in the instant he gives the order, which is the only one he could give due to the power, speed and countless number of missiles accumulated in an absurd competion between powers, he would be ordering the instant death not only of hundreds of millions of people, including, an immeasurable number of inhabitants of his own country, but also the crews of all US ships in the seas near Iran.”

“Simultaneously, the war would break out in the Near and Far East and across Eurasia,” said Fidel.

He also explained that fate decreed that at this precise moment, the President of the United States is a descendant of an African and a white, of a Muslim and a Christian and that he will not give the order if he becomes aware of the problem.

After reading his message, Fidel encouraged a dialogue with the Cuban deputies to find solutions to the issue and called on them to think of ways to spread the call for peace.

Cuban News Agency

Fidel Praises Global Research

by Fidel Castro Ruz

Global Research, August 1, 2010
Cuba Debate

For 57 years, two generations of Cubans, the one that came before us and our own, which led both from January 1 to today, have fought against the most powerful empire humanity has ever known.

I do not harbor the slightest fear of seeming to exaggerate; I say this with modesty, even embarrassment. It hurt to see how hundreds of millions of young people in the world were not even able to learn how to read and write, or are semi-illiterate, or do not have jobs, and are ignorant of everything related to the inalienable rights of human beings.

A colossal crime is being committed against thousands of millions of adolescents and young people of both sexes, whose wonderful intelligence is manipulated by the mass media, and in fact, many of them, especially males, are turned into soldiers to die in unjust, genocidal wars carried out all over the planet.

The economic system that has prevailed is incompatible with the interests of humanity. It must end and it will end.

The new generations of young Cubans will make their message be heard, the one born from their country’s experiences; they will fulfill a sacred duty imposed by the era in which it befell them to live. They will do so with humility, and brandishing the truth, without any stupid beliefs in racial or national superiority of any kind.

I have asked myself many times, why do our children and adolescents have to die?

Why do our young people have to die? Why does all this intelligence, where so many virtues could be implanted and cultivated, have to disappear?

Why do their parents have to die in fratricidal wars?

Imagine that the website Global Research deserves no credit at all; that the theory of Gregory Ryskin, a biochemical engineer at Northwestern University, regarding the methane bubble that article writer Terrence Aym associated with the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, deserves no attention at all, inviting us to sleep peacefully.

The Global Research site published the only explanation possible for the sinking of the Cheonan, a sophisticated antisubmarine ship capable of detecting a ship of that type from 185 kilometers away. Obviously, it could not be sunk by an old, Russian-made submarine built more than 50 years ago.

We prefer to cling to the hope that the arguments used in the “Reflection” to be published on Tuesday, August 3, fit reality.

Otherwise, the other danger of a war breaking out, of immediately becoming a nuclear one, would be the only alternative, and therefore, this message will be more important than ever.

There is not a chance of one in a thousand, in ten thousand, or any number you like, that the United States or Israel will drop the sanctions established by the United Nations Security Council, with strict time limits; nor is there one of Iran accepting the inspection of its ships.

Even a blind man would see it is crystal clear.

We will not surrender, nor will we allow the empire to deceive the world.

By Fidel Castro Ruz – granma.cu – July 11, 2010

I affirmed on July 4 that neither the United States nor Iran would give in; “one, due to the pride of the powerful, and the other, out of resistance to the yoke and the capacity to fight, as has occurred so many times in the history of humanity…”

In almost all wars, one of the parties wishes to avoid them, and sometimes, both. On this occasion, it would come about even though one of the parties does not wish it, as happened in the two World Wars in 1914 and 1939, with only 25 years of distance before the first outbreak and the second.

The slaughters were horrific, they would not have been unleashed without prior errors of calculation. The two parties were defending imperialist interests and they believed that they would obtain their objectives without the terrible cost that that implied.

In the case that concerns us: one of them is defending national, absolutely just interests. The other is pursuing illegitimate intentions and crude material interests.

If we analyze all the wars that have taken place, starting from the known history of our species, one of the parties has sought those objectives.

Any illusion that, on this occasion, such objectives will be reached without the most terrible of all wars is absolutely vain.

In one of the best articles published by the Global Research website on Thursday, July 1, signed by Rick Rozoff, he provides abundant indisputable arguments on the United States intentions, of which any well-informed person must be aware.

“… Victory can be attained when an adversary knows it is vulnerable to an instantaneous and undetectable, overwhelming and devastating attack without the ability to defend itself or retaliate,” is what the United States thinks, according to the author.

“… A country which aspires to remain the only state in history to wield full spectrum military dominance on land, in the air, on the seas and in space.”

“… To maintain and extend military bases and troops, aircraft carrier battle groups and strategic bombers on and to most every latitude and longitude. To do so with a post-World War II record war budget of $708 billion for next year.”

It was “… the first country to develop and use nuclear weapons…”

“… the U.S. retains 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 2,200 (by some counts 3,500) more in storage and a triad of land, air and submarine delivery vehicles.”

“The non-nuclear arsenal used for disabling and destroying the air defenses and strategic, potentially all major, military forces of other nations will consist of intercontinental ballistic missiles, adapted submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and bombers, and super stealthy strategic bombers able to avoid detection by radar and thus evade ground- and air-based defenses.”

Rozoff lists the many press conferences, meetings and statements of Joint Chiefs of Staff and high-ranking members of the government of the United States in the last few months.

He explains the commitments to NATO and the reinforced cooperation with Near East allies, primarily, read Israel. He says, “The U.S. is also intensifying space and cyber warfare programs with the potential to completely shut down other nations’ military surveillance and command, control, communications, computer and intelligence systems, rendering them defenseless on any but the most basic tactical level.”

He speaks of the signing in Prague, on April 8 of this year, of the new START Treaty between Russia and the United States, which “does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.”

He refers to countless news items on the subject and illustrates the intentions of the United States with one overwhelming example.

He notes that “… ‘The Department of Defense is currently exploring the full range of technologies and systems for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) capability that could provide the President more credible and technically suitable options for dealing with new and evolving threats.”

I maintain the opinion that any president whosoever, not even the most expert military chief, would not have one minute to know what should be done if it was not already programmed on computers.

Imperturbably, Rozoff relates what the Global Security Network affirms in an analysis titled: “‘Cost to test U.S. global-strike missile could reach $500 million,’” by Elaine Grossman.

“‘The Obama administration has requested $239.9 million for prompt global strike research and development across the military services in fiscal 2011… If funding levels remain as anticipated into the coming years, the Pentagon will have spent some $2 billion on prompt global strike by the end of fiscal 2015, according to budget documents submitted last month to Capitol Hill.’”

“A terrifying scenario comparable to the effects of a PGS attack, in this case the sea-based version, appeared three years ago in Popular Mechanics:

“‘In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president’s command to launch. When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles.

“‘At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident’s four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet.

“‘Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel.

“‘Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3,000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.’”

Rozoff immediately explains the April 7 statement of General Leonid Ivashov, joint chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, made in a column entitled “Obama’s nuclear surprise.”

In that same column Ivashov, refers to the speech by the U.S. president in Prague last year: “The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War” and his signing of the START II agreement in that same city on April 8, Rozoff quotes the author, who stated:

“‘No examples of sacrificial service of the U.S. elites to mankind or peoples of other countries can be discovered in the U.S. history over the past century. Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an African-American president to the White House to change the country’s political philosophy traditionally aimed at achieving global dominance? Those believing that something like that is possible should try to realize why the U.S. the country with a military budget already greater than those of all other countries of the world combined continues spending enormous sums of money on preparations for war.’”

“… ‘The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a concentrated strike using several thousand precision conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the target country and thus force it to capitulate.’”

“‘The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to sustain the U.S. monopoly in the military sphere and to widen the gap between it and the rest of the world. Combined with the deployment of the missile defense supposed to keep the U.S. immune to retaliatory strikes from Russia and China, the Prompt Global Strike initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern era global dictator.’”

“‘In essence, the new U.S. nuclear doctrine is an element of the novel U.S. security strategy that would be more adequately described as the strategy of total impunity. The U.S. is boosting its military budget, unleashing NATO as the global gendarme, and planning real-life exercise in Iran to test the efficiency of the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At the same time, Washington is talking about the completely nuclear-free world.’”

In essence, Obama is trying to deceive the world by talking of a humanity free of nuclear weapons, which would be replaced by other extremely destructive ones, ideal for terrorizing state leaders and achieving the new strategy of total impunity.

The yankis believe that Iran’s rendition is already close. The European Union is expected to announce a sanctions package of its own to be signed on July 26.

The last meeting of the 5+1 took place on July 2, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad affirmed that “his country would return to talks at the end of August with the participation of Brazil and Turkey.”

A high-ranking E.U. official “stated that neither Brazil nor Turkey will be invited to take part in talks, at least not at this level.”

“Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that he was in favor of defying international sanctions and continuing with the enriched uranium program.”

From Tuesday, July 5, in the face of the European reiteration that they are to promote additional measures against Iran, this country has responded that it will not negotiate until September.

Every day the possibilities of overcoming the insurmountable obstacle are reducing further.

What is going to happen is so evident that it can be foreseen in an almost exact form.

For my part, I must make a self-criticism; I committed an error in affirming in the June 27 Reflection that the conflict would break out on the Thursday, Friday or at the latest Saturday. It was already known that Israeli warships were navigating toward that objective together with the yanki naval forces. The order to search Iranian merchant ships was already given.

However, I did not realize that there was a prior step: confirmation of the negation of permission for the inspection of its mercantile fleet on the part of Iran. In analyzing the torturous language of the Security Council imposing sanctions on that country, I did not notice that detail to give the inspection order full effect. It was the only thing missing.

The 60-day period given by the Security Council on June 9 to receive information on compliance with the Resolution expires on August 8.

But something really most lamentable happened. I was working on the latest material on the delicate issue drafted by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the said document did not contain two key paragraphs the last two of the abovementioned resolution which textually state:

“Requests within 90 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors and with other provisions of resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration;

“Affirms that it shall review Irans actions in light of the report referred to in paragraph 36 above, to be submitted within 90 days, and:

(a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations in good faith in order to reach an early and mutually acceptable outcome;

(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of resolution 1737 (2006), as well as in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of resolution 1747 (2007), paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of resolution 1803 (2008), and in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 above, as soon as it determines, following receipt of the report referred to in the paragraph above, that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board of Governors;

(c) that it shall, in the event that the report shows that Iran has not complied with resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with these resolutions and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary…”

A compañero from the Ministry, after the exhausting work of many hours at the machine making photocopies of all the documents, fell asleep. My eagerness in seeking out information and exchanging points of view on these delicate issues, made it possible for me to discover this omission.

From my point of view, the United States and its NATO allies have said their last word. Two powerful states with authority and prestige did not exercise their right to veto the perfidious U.N. resolution.

It was the only possibility of gaining time to seek some formula for saving the peace, an objective that would have afforded them greater authority to continue fighting for it.

Today, everything is hanging from a tenuous thread.

My principal intention was to advise international public opinion of what was occurring.

I have in part achieved that by observing what was taking place, as a political leader who, for many years, has been confronting the empire, its blockades and its indescribable crimes. But I am not doing it out of revenge.

I am not hesitating to run the risks of compromising my modest moral authority.

I shall continue writing Reflections on the subject. There will be a number more after this one in order to continue going more profoundly into it in July and August, unless some incident occurs to trigger the deadly weapons currently pointed at each other.

I have very much enjoyed the final games of the World Cup and the volleyball games, in which our valiant team is marching at the head of its group in the World League of that sport.

Fidel Castro Ruz – July 11, 2010 – 8:14 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

The ex President of Cuba, Fidel Castro noted in his recent writings titled “The impossible happiness,” that a confrontation with the United States and Israel against Iran will unleash a “catastrophic” nuclear war.

Castro questioned the presence of warships in the Persian Gulf, asking “What are the Israeli warships doing for the first time in the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the maritime areas of Iran?”

“The empire is about to commit a priceless error and nothing can stop it.” referring to the growing buildup of military force around Iran.

Castro sees the conflict between the U.S. and Iran as a dangerous corssroad where “neither parts will cede,”

The ex-Cuban leader discusses the possibility of nuclear war breaking out “before the World Cup finals.” and concludes his letter addressing the “poor people of the world,” who have no fault in this “collosal mess created by imperialism”, “we have no alternative than to confront the consequences of the catastrophic nuclear war which will break out very shortly.

Fidel Castro has been away from public life since 2006 when an illness led him to cede power to his brother Raul.

Source.