We want to highlight an article, “Iran’s Limited Enrichment Plan Can Work: The West Should Take It Seriously”, published last week by our friend and colleague, Alastair Crooke. Some critical passages are provided below:
“With the recent activation of the Bushehr nuclear reactor—a fully International Atomic Energy Agency-safeguarded facility—Iran has crossed the line. The Islamic Republic is no longer an aspirant member to the nuclear “club,” but a nuclear state.
It is therefore no longer realistic for the West to propose to negotiate with Iran while applying coercive sanctions as if it were a pre-nuclear state. Bushehr’s fuel presently is supplied by the Russians, but this foreign fuel soon will be exchanged for Iranian fuel. And Iran plans many more reactors. No state in such a position—with its domestic industry becoming heavily dependent on nuclear-generated electricity—is likely to continue to allow a foreign state to be the sole supplier of its fuel. That would effectively hold hostage the greater part of its domestic economy, with foreigners able, on a whim, to bring it all to a halt by pulling the plug on further supplies.
Since the context to the nuclear issue has changed, inevitably the substance of negotiation must change as well.
The US arrives at this Bushehr moment in the midst of a long debate about what to do if Iran were to reach nuclear “break-out capability.”
Defense Secretary Robert Gates argued earlier this year that low-enriched uranium (LEU) might covertly be turned the into weapons grade material—thus attaining so-called “break-out capability.” This, he suggested, could occur without US intelligence becoming aware of such a shift and therefore would risk the US being caught unawares. Secretary Gates has argued that the only solution to this dilemma would be for the US to acquire sufficient leverage over Iran to force it to “give up” most of its LEU—thus eliminating the possibility of Iran having sufficient LEU to “break out.”
This argument harkens back to an old US doctrine that there is essentially no substantive difference between peaceful and weapons-oriented enrichment since, the argument goes, the two paths are technically identical. Of course, if this holds true, Iran by definition is bound to reach “break-out”—just as any state such as Japan that is enriching quantities of LEU will have a technical “break-out” capacity. It goes with the territory of nuclear energy. But when Mr. Gates uses that other loaded word, “leverage,” we are talking something different. “Leverage” over a state already possessing a reactor and a fuel cycle can only mean threatening Iran with war or robust military containment should its fuel stocks not be duly “relinquished”…
For its part, Iran insists that the long-standing US doctrine of indistinguishability in enrichment is a false one. In the Iranian view, the peaceful use of enrichment can indeed be distinguished from a weapons-dedicated process: One can be safeguarded, whereas the other cannot be. As long ago as 2005, the then-Iranian negotiator on nuclear issues, Ali Larijani, proposed a three-track solution to the Europeans: 1) centrifuges that are incapable of enrichment beyond a low limit, 2) joint ownership with Europe of the enrichment facilities themselves, and 3) additional intrusive surveillance. The European “Three” did not deign to give a response. Under former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s influence they were dead-set on only a permanent end to enrichment.
In this new post-Bushehr reality, it is no longer realistic for the West to be stuck in a “no enrichment,” “no break-out” posture. Now, Iran is signaling a readiness to negotiate its nuclear posture with a proposal for Russia or China, or even others, to jointly participate in an enrichment facility based in Iran. This constitutes a clear pointer in the direction of a safeguarded solution. But can the US and Europe take the hint this time?”
Of course, we agree very strongly with Alastair’s point that a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue will require U.S. and Western acceptance of both the principle and reality of uranium enrichment inside Iran. It is a point that has been made to us in numerous conversations with Iranian officials over several years—and was reiterated by President Ahmadinejad in New York last week. Alastair’s question is well put—can the United States and Europe take the hint this time?
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
fyi,
Good points. I agree the US is preposterously over-extended in its global military deployments, at grotesque expense.
Good relations with Iran are obviously in the best interests of the US, Iran, and all the countries in the Gulf (which could save scores of billions of dollars that will be spent on weapons in coming years, per current plans).
I think the US erodes its strength, by squandering trillions of dollars on utterly unnecessary “defence”. Meanwhile, industrial infrastructure is neglected, debts are mounting to an alarming degree, etc etc etc etc.
James Canning:
You asked my opinion of US military expenditures.
I think, after the collapse of the Peace of Yalta, it was foolish for US to continue to base her political economy on the artificial stimulus of military expenditure. The reason was that prior to that time, US had allies that were willing to defray that cost through purchase of US government financial instruments as well declining purchasing power of the dollar.
That vanished; US no longer had allies that follow her unquestionably and willing to carry the burden in pursuit of questionable policies (Wars against Yugoslavia and Iraq) with dubious geopolitical gains.
So US began a process of selling her jobs abroad to pay for her consumption – both civilian and military. There were 2 hopes beyond it: selling advanced industrial goods to China and India and selling financial products to compensate for the loss of these jobs. (And “Hope” as they say, is not a strategy.)
But Chinese and Indians of this world do not have any incentive to upgrade their factories, making them less labor intensive, due to their overriding need for creating jobs. And the financial products business collapsed 2 years ago.
US, in fact, would be better off removing her military assets from Europe, Korea, and Japan. She will be better off reaching an accommodation with Iran that would reduce her expenditures in the Middle East. But American leaders, mostly because of their mental inertial as well as US institutional inertia, are unwilling and unable to accept that the world has changed around them. The most likely scenario will be one analogous to the gradual decline of the General Motors Corporation before bankruptcy: half-hearted attempts at reform while hoping to postpone the inevitable reckoning until the event will force their hands– in my opinion.
US could benefit by a “Surge” inside the United States. Heaven knows that there are areas of US that have no “Homeland Security”.
Paul says “this conflict is not now, and has never been, about Iran’s nuclear program. And that was just one incident. We can point to as many others as we have time for.”
And BOY do I EVER agree!
fyi,
Tunisia would have become independent, whether it was under Italian control, or under French control.
What difference would it make, if Corsica were part of Italy instead of France?
Do you think the US is stronger, because it spends $1 trillion per year on armaments etc? Or in fact, is the US weaker for doing so?
fyi,
That the US squanders scores of billions of dollars each year, keeping a large military force in Japan (and Okinawa), does not make Japan a slave or weaker; in fact, the money poured out of the US Treasury for this foolish enterprise, goes into the Japanese pocket.
South Korea’s accomodation of the US demands regarding trade with Iran, has much to do with a desire for contining US support in dealing with North Korea. So, perhaps you can say that North Korean stupidity is working against Iran to some degree.
James Canning:
Things are not passe on your say so.
fyi,
You are quite right that Mussolini attacked France because he thought the pickings would be easy (and he assumed Britain would be defeated by Germany). I think he wanted Tunisia, and parts of France that had been “Italian” in the 19th C. Maybe Corsica too.
That said, the entire concept of “master” states and “slave” states is passe.
James Canning:
Every thing that il Duce did, he did for Italy.
He just chose the wrong alliance.
But consider this: at the time that he chose to throw his lot with the Central Axis Powers, those powers were ascendant in Europe. He was trying to get a better deal for Italy.
That he has not been rehabilitated in Italy is because, under intense German pressure, he rounded up the Jewish Italians and shipped them to be murdered.
Nasser:
I do not wish to debate, least of all with you.
I have power and legitimacy are not absolute qualities; there are gradations.
And if Iranian leaders crave respectability, they are being foolish.
Which they are not.
And let us stop this discussion regarding insults – if you cannot grasp my point already I cannot further elaborate it.
Based on your statements, I am led to believe that you are seriously misjudging the world’s reality. Korea, Germany, and Japan are still under occupation. Their actions are not those of an independent state. What quarrel, if any, does Korea or Japan have with Iran that warrants their position vis-a-vis Iran? In fact, they have no dog in the US-Iran confrontation but are being kicked into line by US.
In regards to the military might of Iran’s neighbour’s – I cannot think of any states except Turkey and Pakistan that might be considered a serious thread to Iran. And they could be but they are not at the moment.
fyi,
Didn’t Mussolini end up hanging upside down dead, in a public plaza? What total nonsense, master states and slave states, at this time. Very much out of date.
Nasser,
I think Iran is better off for not having a vastly expensive war machine. And I think the Gulf monarchies are being foolish if they proceed with plans to buy $120 billion worth of weapons.
I think Iran would be stronger if it spoke more softly, in international affairs.
fyi,
“US & EU have offended Iranians everywhere – men who have lived 50 years in US have been offended.”
- How did they offend these men?
fyi,
“I do not believe in “International Respectability” as a goal to which states should aspire.”
- But Iran does! It has a craving for recognition that drives many of their actions in the international scene. They can believe themselves to be a “great nation” and “Ancient civilization” and all that crap all they want but when they try to gain recognition as such from the international community, people laugh at them.
“In the international arena, power and legitimacy go hand in hand.”
- Iran is not a powerful country in any sense. It is basically a medium sized country both in terms of population and territory. Its economy is undeveloped and small. Its military cannot match those of its neighbors, let alone those of the Great Powers. What gives Iran its importance is its hydrocarbons reserves and its location on a geostrategically crucial body of water. This is not enough for it to challenge the international system. There’s plentiful other sources of oil! Yet, it takes up positions that are just not in line with their capabilities. It is this that leads people to question their rationality.
“I am satisfied with the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not accepted and will not accept a situation in which her independence is impinged upon; and rightly so.”
- I get that. Iranians have an EXTREME definition of independence as evidenced by your absurd labeling of “Korea, Italy, Germany, and Japan” as not being independent. Your argument is similar to that of North Korea calling South Korea a colony; most Koreans laugh at this. There is a price for this which you acknowledge as a “great cost.” Iran has enough hydrocarbons wealth so that they can remain isolated and yet not completely starve. But this also means that they will remain militarily weak, economically backwards and ostracized by the international community. It seems Iran is willing to pay this price. What Iranians need to realize is that this does not represent a fundamental threat to the international system and they should not flatter themselves into thinking that their self mutilation does in any fashion harm the West.
Any negogiations with Iran must grasp this salient feature of that polity for it to have any chance of success.
- No concessions will ever be made to such a weak state! There’s no need for it.
Nasser:
I do not believe in “International Respectability” as a goal to which states should aspire.
In the international arena, power and legitimacy go hand in hand.
I am satisfied with the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
There have been mistakes, such as lack of support for Dr. Najib – but Iran was not alone in making that mistake.
In regards to your opinion regarding France & UK – you are entitled to your opinion.
Iran has not accepted and will not accept a situation in which her independence is impinged upon; and rightly so. This has been a deep desire of the Iranian people to be masters of their own country’s destiny. This has been achieved at great cost to Iran and the Iranian people over the last 33 years.
There are semi-sovereign states such as Korea, Italy, Germany, and Japan that have done better economically, no doubt. But they are not independent the way Iran is and let us not kid ourselves about that.
Mussolini, whose name you might have heard, stated once that there are Master States and Slave States in the world. Well, Iranians do not want to have their country be a Slave State.
Any negogiations with Iran must grasp this salient feature of that polity for it to have any chance of success.
In regards to the fair EU offer to Iranians to teach them how to collect and treat their own excrement to produce water melons; you are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you could recommend that to your fellow countrymen.
“Iran is not attacking UN or UNSC; that structure is decaying as its foundations have decayed or outright vanished.”
- Iran has been unable to come to terms with the international system as has been explained so well by Shireen Hunter. It is a pretty weak state but it still chooses to have a confrontational relationship with the dominant power in the international scene.
“Certainly France or UK should not be there.”
- These countries have large developed economies and global military reach. Their inclusion is entirely justified. Germany and Japan do not have that kind of military capability. Neither does India or Brazil who also face the added burden of being developing countries.
fyi,
“US & EU have offended Iranians everywhere – men who have lived 50 years in US have been offended.”
- How?! They have good reasons to fear proliferation of nuclear technology.
“The insult is there – you can replace the word Iranian with Chinese or Indian and the same thing will apply.”
- International respectability these days is largely determined by scientific advancement, economic development and democratic legitimacy. In other words the ability to make progress and provide a decent quality of life for your people. Iran has done NOTHING to earn their respect. The East Asians; the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese have earned the Westerners’ respect. If the Indians manage to seriously develop their economy they too would join that rank. Most people though do not find just sitting on top of large reserves of hydrocarbons couple with self important rantings and religious fanaticism to be particularly worthy of respect.
James Canning:
Iran is not attacking UN or UNSC; that structure is decaying as its foundations have decayed or outright vanished.
Certainly France or UK should not be there.
But the crucial fact is that the Peace of Yalta is over and with it so is UN in its current form.
Nasser:
Both the EU negogiators and the sitting US President had stated, publicly and privately, that Iranians should not have nuclear knowledge.
Just like NAZIS who went into villages in USSR and shot any Russian male who could even barely read and write.
Just like Plato, for whom, the Republic would be the Ideal City as long as the Rulers ruled justly and the slaves learnt to be content being slaves.
US & EU have offended Iranians everywhere – men who have lived 50 years in US have been offended. The insult is there – you can replace the word Iranian with Chinese or Indian and the same thing will apply.
Nasser,
I take it you are saying that Iran tends to damage its own position by trying to address issues that are too large at this time. This seems clearly to be the case.
Maybe a certain frustration explains things.
I think Iran occupies the moral high ground, and it would better its cause by keeping the message simpler.
“Astonishing how these states could insult an entire country in a few short sentences.”
- Whats astonishing is how this country can perceive insults in even the most friendly and harmless gestures as offers of cooperation in agriculture and environmental matters.
“In practice, I suppose, Iranians were to be trained to treat their own sweage and use that waste as fertilizer to grow water melon. And they were not to learn nuclear sciences.”
- Pretty funny though.
James Canning,
“Is attacking the structure of the UN a practical approach for Iran to take at this time?”
- It is not within Iran’s capabilities to overturn the international system! The heart of the problem is Iran’s sense of self importance that motivates them to take up positions that is just not within their capabilities.
fyi,
There are three UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to stop the illegal colonisations of the West Bank. Is attacking the structure of the UN a practical approach for Iran to take at this time?
kooshy:
You, like many others, are giving too much weight to UN and UNSC.
UN IUNSC) are in the process of disintegration since its foundation, the Peaxe of Yalta, crumbled during 1990-1991 period.
A new UN Charter may be negogiated and might even prove to be viable but the current state of UN is not sustainable.
Paul:
I agree with you.
I would like to also add that US and EU’s offer to Iran consisted of “cooperation on environment and agriculture”. In practice, I suppose, Iranians were to be trained to treat their own sweage and use that waste as fertilizer to grow water melon. And they were not to learn nuclear sciences.
Astonishing how these states could insult an entire country in a few short sentences.
Alan,
Iran has made it clear in recent weeks it wants to pursue the TRR deal, and it makes clear the suspension of enrichment to 20% can be part of the arrangements.
I think it is foolish in the extreme, not to proceed with a workable deal. It is imperative not to get bogged down in something complex, where the Israel lobby f*cks it up.
Alan,
Are you suggesting it was not the US that in effect made the decision to spurn the opening made available by the May 17th Tehran Declaration?
Alan,
Who made the request to Iran, to commence negotations re: the TRR deal?
James – There have been several statements from the Iranian foreign ministry recently, indicating suspension of enrichment to 20% could/would be part of a TRR deal. The Russians have said this for months.
It means nothing. Who are they talking to? Why don’t they respond to the requests for a meeting? If they don’t want to negotiate, that’s fine, say so. If they do, that’s fine too, but respond via diplomatic channels, not via a comment to Press TV.
Was it not a mistake by the US, not to seek to push the TRR deal through, after the May 17 Tehran declaration?
This was the response of the Vienna Group, including Russia, to the Tehran Declaration:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6582W120100609
They list their objections as concerns, and do not reject it out of hand. It seems clear to me that they were inviting an Iranian response to their concerns. There has not been one, to the best of my knowledge.
The other point here is who really cares about the TRR any more? Neither Iran or the P5 it seems. It was supposed to be out of fuel by now, and Iran, according to the latest IAEA reports, will not be in a position to make the fuel for at least another 2 years, by which time Arak is scheduled to be up and running, making the TRR superfluous. As I have said before, some think the TRR has up to 8 years of fuel remaining anyway.
A western constructed myth. Iran has never purchased weapons from Israel.
Humanist,
As I said before, the story is completely untrue. Iran never bought weapons from the Israeli regime and these people have never had bank accounts in Europe.
Alan,
There have been several statements from the Iranian foreign ministry recently, indicating suspension of enrichment to 20% could/would be part of a TRR deal. The Russians have said this for months.
Was it not a mistake by the US, not to seek to push the TRR deal through, after the May 17 Tehran declaration?
Imho, Liz
Every Iran-analyst MUST read ‘Profits of War’ by Ari Ben Menashe.
Half of the book is about Israel’s arms sales to Iran in the 80s. The total sale was about $80bn, where Israel’s profit was a colossal $60bn. (As an example Israelis bought Chieftan tank motors for $30,000 each and sold to Iran for $140,000).
In this book you read how Israelis and Rafsasanji ganged up against American delegation (as referred to in Iran-Conta affair) and stopped them in the airport (The Bible and Cake were never delivered to Iranians?).
It is a revealing and thought provoking book.
Its Farsi translation is downloadable free from efsha dot co.uk “ketab sara”, “pool e khoon”.
Most probably Ari is the one who told Dr. Massoud Ansari (the translator of the book) the details of the Swiss and other European bank accounts of Rafsanjani, Kamenei, and Ahmad Khomeini (the volume being around $1.5bn !! by early 90s).
Dr Ansari is an expert (mass) hypnotist who could tell who is telling a lie. He has met Ari and firmly believes his incredible assertions in the book are all believable.
While hypocritical Americans voice concern for human rights in Iran…
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/09/201093011464564228.html
The New York Times reports a file inside the Stuxnet code, which attacked Iran’s nuclear facility, is named ‘Myrtus’ – a reference to the Hebrew word Esther. She was the Jewish Queen of Persia who was responsible for the Holocaust of 72,000 Persians 2,000 years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316747/Stuxnet-worm-attacking-Irans-nuclear-facilities-includes-Biblical-link-Israel.html
Alan Cooper
A very strong and comprehensive comment , thanks.
Your statement ..
“Iranian opposition are seeing with their own naked eyes, what the USA, Israel and the west are doing to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet to my total astonishment they are still willing to collaborate with the enemy for a regime change. They are totally oblivious to the danger that their country is in.”
.. is sadly true and in the eyes of foreigners it must be absurd to see the Iranians openly running into the knife.
James – I think Mottaki has made clear Iran is willing to negotiate. I take this to mean suspension of enrichment to 20% can be part of the deal (it was not part of May 17 Tehran declaration).
Possibly. I guess we won’t know until there is a formal Iranian response to the meeting request. The ball still seems to be in their court.
The unnamed US official in the FT report today “conceded there was ‘not sufficient trust’ to move straight to negotiations aimed at settling the confrontation over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” I take this as an admission it was a mistake not to move forward with the TRR deal, immediately.
This was their position before the TRR negotiations started, and the purpose behind El Baradei’s initiatives in that respect – to create “space” for a comprehensive negotiation. Remember it was Iran that didn’t move forward with that deal, and I think that is the one he is referring to, not the Tehran Declaration.
an article about American arms shipment to Iran dated Monday, Nov. 17, 1986
The U.S. and Iran
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,962858,00.html
It could not be made any clearer that, as with the US invasion of Iraq, a military attack on Iran has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. An “Iranian nuke” is just another canard behind which hides an undeclared agenda.
One wonders about Kuperman’s non-proliferation credentials. How does a wanton military attack on a country encourage non-proliferation? Aren’t America’s bullying, threats and acts of war more likely to encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons?
At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the United States has wars ongoing in Iraq where the ancient Chaldean Christian community was destroyed—not by Saddam Hussein but by the neoconservatives’ illegal invasion of Iraq—in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Sudan. The US initiated a war, which it lost, between its puppet ruler in the former Soviet province of Georgia and Russia.
The US, the world’s greatest supporter of terrorism, is the main financier of terrorist groups that stage attacks within Iran, and US money succeeded in financing protests against President Ahmadinejad’s re-election and in dividing the ruling Islamic clerics. It was American money, weapons, and diplomatic cover that enabled the Israeli war crimes against the Lebanese people during 2006 and against Palestinian civilians in Gaza during 2008-2009, crimes documented in the Goldstone Report.
Iran has never interfered in US internal affairs, but the US has a long record of interfering in Iranian affairs. In 1953 the US overthrew Iran’s popular prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed a puppet who tortured Iranians who desired political independence.
Despite this and other American offenses against Iran, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed Iran’s interest to be on friendly terms with the United States, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. The US wants war with Iran in order to expand US world hegemony.
One might expect a non-proliferation expert to take history into account, but Kuperman fails to do so. Kuperman also has nothing to say about Israel’s, India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Unlike Iran, none of these countries are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Israel, India, and Pakistan all developed their nuclear weapons in secret, and many experts believe Israel had American help, an act of treason.
All three countries have been rewarded by Washington despite their perfidy.
Why is Kuperman concerned about Iran, which submits to the IAEA inspections, but is unconcerned with Israel, a country that has never permitted a single inspection?
The answer is that the Israel Lobby, the US military-security complex, and the “Christian” Zionists have succeeded in demonizing Iran.
Every real expert knows that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have no function other than deterring an attack on Iran.
Ever since the US lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, after using them offensively and pointlessly against a defeated Japan, nuclear weapons have served no purpose other than deterrence.
The US has no conflicting economic interests with Iran.
Iran is simply a supplier of oil, an important one. A US attack on Iran, such as the one advocated by Kuperman, would most likely shut down oil flows to the West through the Strait of Hormuz. This might benefit refiners, who sell gasoline to the West and could charge enormous prices, but no one else would benefit.
Adding to the war cry are congregations of fake Christians. A great number of them, organized by someone’s money under the banner, “Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-free Iran,” has written to Congress demanding sanctions against Iran that amount to an act of war.
The roll call includes the “Christian” Zionist John Hagee, who, according to reports, denigrates Jesus Christ and preaches to his illiterate congregation that it is God’s will for Americans to fight and die for Israel, the oppressor of the Palestinian people.
Among the signatories of the “Christians” demanding an act of war against Iran, are Dr. Pat Robertson, president of Christian Broadcasting Network, Nixon-era criminal Chuck Colson, and Richard Land, president of Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention. Obviously, for southern Baptists ethics means murdering Islamists, and religious liberty excludes everyone but “Christian” Zionists.
It is a simple matter for an educated person to make fools of these morons who profess to be Christians. However, these morons have vast constituencies numbering in the tens of millions of Americans. There are, in fact, more of them than there are intelligent, informed, moral, and real Christian Americans.
The votes of the morons will prevail.
In the second decade of the 21st century, America’s Zionist wars against Islam will expand.
America’s wars in behalf of Israel’s territorial expansion will complete the bankruptcy of America.
The Treasury’s bonds to finance the US government’s enormous deficits will lack for buyers. Therefore, the bonds will be monetized by the Federal Reserve.
The result will be rising rates of inflation.
The inflation will destroy the dollar as world reserve currency, and the US will no longer be able to pay for its imports. Shortages will appear, including food and gasoline, and “Superpower America” will find itself pressed to the wall as a third world country unable to pay its debts.
America has been brought low, both morally and economically, by its obeisance to the Israel Lobby.
Even Jimmy Carter, a former President of the United States and Governor of Georgia recently had to apologize to the Israel Lobby for his honest criticisms of Israel’s inhumane treatment of the occupied Palestinians in order for his grandson to be able to run for a seat in the Georgia state senate.
This should tell the macho super-power American tough guys who really runs “their” country.
Israel Rules
By Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/091228_israel.htm
Nonsense, Iran never bought arms from Israel. They often bought from the black market and as Israeli citizens are famous for being corrupt (human trafficking, money laundering,…), there are quite a few of them involved in the black market trade of weapons, but that has nothing to do with the Zionist state and Iran. Arab regimes would love to see some sort of relationship between the two countries, because they are having a tough time selling out the Palestinians.
Iran supported neither the USSR or the US, because they were both immoral and murderous regimes.
M.Ali,
This whole discussion on the Iran Contra started because I posted a link to an interview of Graham Fuller who was the CIA station chief in Afghanistan during the time of the Soviet occupation. This whole Iran Contra thing happened because he wrote a memo advising that Iranians were extremely vulnerable and isolated and thus in a position to be influenced by the Soviets. He thus recommended that the US should sell some weapons to Iran to regain some influence in that country. This memo was then picked up by Robert Gates and later taken up to the White House. Graham Fuller tries to explain in this segment how his idea mutated into the Iran Contra scandal. He admits that he might have been wrong in his recommendation because like I point out several times the Iranians were too stupid to even back the Communist government in Afghanistan; and thus ended up alienating both Superpowers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkJ9h75-24&feature=related
M.Ali,
“Nasser, are you saying that the Arabs were disappointed with Iran for buying arms from Israel? That doesn’t make any sense since they were siding with Iraq and attacking Iran, so I doubt they liked Iran very much before the incident.”
- I am saying the Arabs were shocked when they found out! This whole time Iran was voicing increasingly anti Israeli rhetoric but that didn’t prevent them from taking help from Israel. This just reinforced their perceptions that Iran is just exploiting the Palestinian issue and “hijacking” the Arab cause.
“Although, Arabs like Iran a lot more now. As evidence by polls, which I argued in the last thread in this site which you ignored.”
- I didn’t ignore your comments. I strongly disagreed.
But you can just ignore my arguments, and instead celebrate the day the Iranian passenger plane was shot down by your heroes.
Nasser, are you saying that the Arabs were disappointed with Iran for buying arms from Israel? That doesn’t make any sense since they were siding with Iraq and attacking Iran, so I doubt they liked Iran very much before the incident.
Although, Arabs like Iran a lot more now. As evidence by polls, which I argued in the last thread in this site which you ignored. Latest polls for example show that Arabs are okay with Iran being a nuclear state. These are Arab people, not Arab governments, who obviously aren’t that chummy with Iran for obvious reasons.
Canadian professor crucified for attending Tehran holocaust Conference
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/canadian-professor-crucified-for-attending-tehran-holocaust-conference/
From the late 1980’s to the present, The Israel Lobby has been in the forefront of a campaign to promote a US military confrontation with Iran in collaboration with Israel.
The Zionist military proposals gained tremendous momentum during the 8 years of the Bush Administration.
The Israel Lobby mounted an unrelenting mass media propaganda campaign demonizing Iran, fabricating and disseminating falsified accounts of its nuclear programs, infiltrating and occupying key positions in the US Treasury Department, aggressively bludgeoning other governments, industries, banks and investors to boycott Iran.
Zionist Treasury Department officials hope to strangle and weaken Iran’s economy in order to soften it up for a military strike.
No other single or combined force in North America, or, for that matter, any place in the world (except Israel) has played as big a role in promoting an offensive war against Iran as the Zionist politicians and officials in the US government.
They were aided and abetted by Jewish lobbies, Zionist propaganda centres, multi-billionaires and hundreds of Jewish community organizations.
The most important foreign policy of US and Israel is to prevent Iran from becoming a super power in the Middle East. Their objective is to protect Israel at any cost and in doing so; they do not care if they destroy Iran.
Their sole aim is to destabilise Iran’s government and replace it by a US puppet government that protect the US and Israel interests in the region, and not the interest of Iran or Iranian people.
USA and Israel are aware that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences”; instead, and for the time being, The CIA and Mossad plan for Iran is an agenda to maintain division and instability.
By imposing unfair sanction, they intend to Damage Iran economically in order to turn more people against their government, which in turn they hope would destabilise and divide Iran.
In other words, bloodshed and chaos equals control.
So far, American government has lost nearly 5000 soldiers, spent over 900 billion dollars, killed, and maimed over one million Iraqis.
This is the price American government is prepared to pay in order to change a regime in Iraq and replace it by a puppet government to look after the interests of US and Israel in the region.
You do not have to be a genius to realize that “Iran” is worth much more than “Iraq” to American government.
CIA and Mossad’s sole aim is to destabilise Iran’s government and replace it by a puppet government that takes the interest of the Israel and the US in the region, and not the interest of Iran and Iranian people.
The people of Iran must always remember, what CIA and British agents did to their country in 1953.
The green movement and the oppositions to The Iranian government must realize that the CIA and MOSSAD do not care about Iran or Iranian people.
They must not let their differences with their government allow USA and Israel to interfere with Iran’s internal affairs and turn their beautiful country into another hell like Iraq In the name of freedom and democracy.
Iranian opposition are seeing with their own naked eyes, what the USA, Israel and the west are doing to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet to my total astonishment they are still willing to collaborate with the enemy for a regime change. They are totally oblivious to the danger that their country is in.
Iranian people must also be aware that another revolution will have catastrophic consequences for Iran and its people.
If the USA and Israel manage to divide the Iranian people and to destabilise the Iranian government, this will trigger another revolution and bloodshed far greater than what we have witnessed in Iraq and Lebanon. There will be bombing, street fighting, etc, the like of which we have not seen before.
There is also a good possibility that Iran will be divided, as did Soviet Union, into smaller countries, such as: Kurdistan, lorestan, blouchestan, Azerbaijan etc
The only looser will be the Iranian people.
The last thing Iran needs is another revolution and bloodshed, however, Iran does need reform which can only be achieved by civil and peaceful none violent demonstrations and without the CIA and Mossad’s backings.
Alan,
I think Mottaki has made clear Iran is willing to negotiate. I take this to mean suspension of enrichment to 20% can be part of the deal (it was not part of May 17 Tehran declaration).
The unnamed US official in the FT report today “conceded there was ‘not sufficient trust’ to move straight to negotiations aimed at settling the confrontation over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.” I take this as an admission it was a mistake not to move forward with the TRR deal, immediately.
Nasser,
Thanks for response. Iranian crude is harder to refine than the Saudi alternative, which is one one reason China is buying more crude from SA. Plus, US is encouraging this trend, to put pressure on Iran.
I think Iranian financial support has been of considerable importance in Gaza.
I too regret some of the “loose cannon” aspects of Iranian foreign policy, and I think Iran works against the best interests of the Palestinians when it is hostile to Arab countries. I think this is a major tactical error.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/09/201092993840748931.html
Israel never helped Iran. Iran was supporting the resistance in Lebanon. Again you are addicted to western material and sources.
“After reading Bergman’s book that contained numerous declarations of the way Israelis betrayed, cheated and killed Iranians, I scratched my head trying to figure out why anyone would boast of such ugly behavior that is contrary to the values that Western civilization at least professes to uphold, even if it does so mainly in the breach…”
- Israel didn’t betray, kill or cheat any Iranians? Along with North Korea, Israel was the only country helping Iran while just about the rest of mankind was helping Iraq. When the Arabs found out about this they were shocked! And ever since then been extremely cautious of Iranian duplicity and accuse them of only exploiting the Palestinian cause. Iranians try to overcompensate for this “embarrassing affair” by voicing increasingly more extremist rhetoric. Israelis hit themselves over the head for helping those “ungrateful bastards” and try to cover up their embarrassment by writing these books that supposedly shows how clever they were in that whole affair.
James Canning,
“China wants to enlarge its trade relations with Iran, and China supports Iran’s domestic nuclear programme and wishes to help develop Iran’s economy and to promote stability in the country.”
- Takes two to tango. But you are deviating from the issue. I merely pointed out the fact that China has lessened its oil imports from Iran (whose production capacity is declining and domestic consumption rising anyway) and have been increasing its imports from others such as Angola and Saudi Arabia. Do you factually dispute this?!
“Turkey’s trade with Iran was $10 billion last year, up from $1 billion ten years earlier.”
- Turkey has been trying to enlarge its trade with Iran for a long time now. There have been a lot of harassment of Turkish businessmen because supposedly the IRGC didn’t want them to control “strategic” industries! Again it takes two.
“Do you dislike Iran’s support for the Palestinians? Or is it related to religious issues in Arab countries?”
- First, the “help” is not really substantial as evidenced by their empty promise to deliver naval escorted aid to Gaza. Second, I dislike the fact that Iran gains nothing and risks a lot from foolishly fostering enmity with Israel! Third, the Arab governments themselves hate it very much. Just the other day King Abdullah of Jordan blamed Iran for hijacking their “cause;” on an American comedy show!
Binam:
“….I find it very comforting that support for the Ahmadinejad government is limited to this blog and a handful of others. …
….. They are countless and you’re just a handful…
The furious intellectual REBOUND to the permanent and toxic propaganda machine both through western mainstream media and domestic ‘ fools ‘ , has already begun.
How long do you think the masses will be influenced by VOA , BBC Persia and Royalists etc.
You should value the real intellectuals and masses in iran ( compromising of all groups you mentioned in your comment ) much more than in your ignorant comment.
James – I don’t think the unnamed official does say that. He wants a TRR deal on the November terms basically, but with Iran exporting more LEU.
Is Mottaki saying he wants to negotiate, or is he saying he wants to proceed with the Tehran Declaration? I don’t think it’s the same thing.
Nasser,
China wants to enlarge its trade relations with Iran, and China supports Iran’s domestic nuclear programme and wishes to help develop Iran’s economy and to promote stability in the country.
Turkey’s trade with Iran was $10 billion last year, up from $1 billion ten years earlier.
Do you dislike Iran’s support for the Palestinians? Or is it related to religious issues in Arab countries?
“NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION TO NASSER.
HE IS EITHER A CIA AGENT OR A KURDISH PAWN OF ISRAEL WHICH IN REALITY MEANS BOTH.
DOWN WITH ENEMY OF IRAN. DOWN WITH THE KURDISH TERRORISTS, THE ZIONIST PAWNS.”
- DWZ first you need to get yourself checked for rabies. Second NOONE pays any attention to this site period. Its considered fringe opinion.
James Canning,
“China is the #1 buyer of Saudi crude, but China wants continuing strong economic relations with Iran.”
- China wants diversified sources of oil imports and considers Iran to be somewhat unstable. They have been thus reducing their dependency on Iranian oil.
“Are you hostile toward Iran because you dislike the Iranian government, or are you hostile toward Iran for other reasons?”
- I am mainly hostile towards their foreign policy ineptitude and diplomatic misconduct. Don’t like their government either.
Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, has once again chastised the US for failing to support the May 17 Tehran declaration. Clearly Mottaki is on solid ground here, and the unnamed Obama official who, according to the FT today, called for going forward with the TRR deal, in effect admits the prior mistake of the US.
Rehmat,
Russia supports a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. And Russia supports Iran’s domestic nuclear power programme. Does it make sense to be so hostile toward Russia when Russia is trying to help Iran go forward with its domestic nuclear power programme, and avoid another insane war in the Middle East?
A warmongering Jewish Democrat in the US Congress, Howard Berman (chairman off foreign affairs committee), is quoted in the FT today as saying Obama had “months, not years” to make sanctions work. And he also said that war with Iran was better than accepting an Iran with nuclear weapons.
The damage to US national security interests, caused by irresponsible comments of Henry Kissinger recently, can be seen. Is Kissinger a stooge of the warmongers?
Nasser,
China is the #1 buyer of Saudi crude, but China wants continuing strong economic relations with Iran.
Are you hostile toward Iran because you dislike the Iranian government, or are you hostile toward Iran for other reasons?
The Financial Times has a report today by Daniel Dombey: “Obama faces pressure over Tehran policy”. The FT quotes a “senior administration official” as saying the US wants to move forward with the TRR exchange, but will seek to modify the deal so that most of Iran’s LEU goes to Turkey (or other third party).
A shift to Human Rights:
Obama Imposes New Iran Sanctions as War Chorus Rises
By Jim Lobe
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53009
NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION TO NASSER.
HE IS EITHER A CIA AGENT OR A KURDISH PAWN OF ISRAEL WHICH IN REALITY MEANS BOTH.
DOWN WITH ENEMY OF IRAN. DOWN WITH THE KURDISH TERRORISTS, THE ZIONIST PAWNS.
You make an interesting point, Nasser: - Looks like Ronen Bergman is too embarrassed to admit how his country stupidly provided support to a duplicitous and ungrateful nation that would come to haunt them later.
After reading Bergman’s book that contained numerous declarations of the way Israelis betrayed, cheated and killed Iranians, I scratched my head trying to figure out why anyone would boast of such ugly behavior that is contrary to the values that Western civilization at least professes to uphold, even if it does so mainly in the breach.
M J Rosenberg provided an explanation: Israel’s 11th Commandment: Don’t be a freier
Rosenberg explains: Netanyahu was speaking to the ambassadors in English. If he was using Hebrew, he would say that he didn’t want to be a “freier” which is Hebrew (really Yiddish) for sucker. Ha’aretz says that “thou shalt not be a freier” is Israel’s 11th commandment. Above all, an Israeli does not want to be taken advantage of which is why he often will take advantage of the other guy first. (The Palestinians have almost always been freiers in their dealings with the Israelis).
Americans don’t spend much time worrying about being suckers. The equivalent “thou shalt not be” for us is not to be an “a-hole” which is what we would call the people who make other people into freiers. In my experience, most Americans would rather be accused of being a sucker than of being an a-hole. For Israelis, it is just the opposite.
Bergman’s book is a paean to Israel’s 11th Commandment activities in Iran: Israel was not the sucker, Israelis made Iranians the suckers.
Amricans should take a lesson . . .
“- Looks like Ronen Bergman is too embarrassed to admit how his country stupidly provided support to a duplicitous and ungrateful nation that would come to haunt them later”
extract: “. . .Khomeini’s regime openly endorsed the destruction of Israel, yet there were enough people in Israel who thought they should sell arms to him”
no comment
The US never touches on the realities of the Iran nuclear program. Suggesting that actual enrichment procedures and actual surveillance safeguards enter into the discussion is probably fruitless.
Instead the US charges always concern intentions. This allows the US to focus on something that can’t be disproven, and so continue its assaults against Iran. President Obama at the UN recently: “Iran is the only partner to the [nonproliferation treaty] that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program,” he said. “And those actions have consequences.”
It was the same with Iraq. October 8, 2004: “As soon as the sanctions were lifted, [Saddam Hussein] had every intention of going back” to his weapons program, Cheney said. . .The Iraq Survey Group also found that Saddam had the intention to revive Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs once the sanctions were ended.. .etc.
Nasser,
Instead of relying on western books about Iran, try to take a look at Iranian sources. You will see that the history of the Iran-Iraq war and the Revolution was very different from what you think it is.
“U.S. sanctions 8 Iranian officials accused of rights abuses’
Who’s there to sanction US officials for Abu-Gharib , Gitmo, Obama’s wedding bombing receptions, etc. etc. etc. infinite etc’s. unless the rest of planet has to learn that in American (you should believe that it means international community) logic of law only human right violations against white American citizens are accountable for violation of A Human’s Right, I guess if there was to be a fair judgment every American administration in recent history including the opaquely white Obama’s had to be sanctioned for violating humanity.
“Ronen Bergman, an Israeli journalist, writes a different version…”
- Looks like Ronen Bergman is too embarrassed to admit how his country stupidly provided support to a duplicitous and ungrateful nation that would come to haunt them later.
“IRI imprisoned many of their air-force personnel for that collective treasonous act. During the Iran-Iraq war Bani-Sadr (the president) made some of the imprisoned pilots swear loyalty to IRI when they were swiftly freed.”"
- Their was no treasonous act! The Islamists in Iran were a bunch of idiots who executed most of the Western trained officer corps and the rest were put in prison. Hence, their sorry performance in the war. Saddam thus saw his chance and attacked.
Gary Brecher writes: “The Iranian Air Force used to be feared all over the Middle East. It was the only AF outside the US to have the F-14, the most advanced interceptor in the world. Iran had some of the best pilots east of Israel and a big fleet of F-4s. But after Khomeini’s mullahs started butting in, the elite pilots fled or got executed, the US put an embargo on spare parts (the one effective thing we did against Iran) and soon most of the Iranian AF was expensive scrap rusting in the hangars…Just like Stalin after the Nazis attacked, Khomeini had to release dozens of pilots from death-row cells, shove instant rehabilitation and pardon certificates into their hands, and beg them to get into the cockpits and win one for the Imam.”
R.d.
“Are you implying that the Chinese are buying more oil from the Saudis so that they can pipe it to the gulf via Iran?? Just to appease US?”
- I am saying China has has been reducing its imports from Iran and have been buying more from the Saudis amongst others. You are mixing up two completely unrelated things!
- I am also saying there’s no strategic necessity at the moment to pipe anything to the Gulf (hence no need for Iran) because China’s maritime dependency has been reduced thanks to pipelines linking it to hydrocarbons of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
Fiorangela (Re: your 4:44 PM comment)
On the topic of “Israel’s relation with Iran in the 80s” I found the following book ‘very’ interesting:
Profits of War by Ari Ben Menashe (The Israeli insider who was a chief arms dealer).
There are ‘many’ amazing stories in this book In one of them he explains how just before the crumbling of the Shah’s regime an El-Al plane took dozens of Israeli fighter-jet pilots to Tehran to steal Iranian F4 planes. Everything was arranged. The Israelis managed to fly not one or two but 48 F4s to Israel. Later they sold them to Taiwanese (without paying a penny to Iran).
I (sort of) investigated the above incredible story. I was told it is true. IRI imprisoned many of their air-force personnel for that collective treasonous act. During the Iran-Iraq war Bani-Sadr (the president) made some of the imprisoned pilots swear loyalty to IRI when they were swiftly freed.
Those pilots flew many combat missions to Iraq where many of them were shot down losing their lives.
In that tragic brutal war the story of how some guilt-ridden ex-traitors became the war’s respected martyrs stands out as a remarkable annotation.
Read the book, you wont regret it. As far as I understand it confirms the Bergman’s observations quoted in your comments (and probably much more).
—
Iranians can download the the Farsi version of the above book (over 300 pages) free from efsha dot co dot uk “ketab sara”, “Pool e Khoon”.
Former Joint Chief of Staff of Russian Armed Forces, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, has called Kremlin’s banning of S-300 delivery to the Islamic Republic – a death blow to the country’s strategic interests, throwing itself into the arms of its enemy.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/no-s-300-for-iran-in-the-interests-of-israel/
Binam, there are two conflicts taking place regarding Iran; one is internal and, as you say, it is apparently being pursued actively. That’s great. From my point of view as a non-Iranian American, that’s as it should be — that Iranians are contending and each side is making its case. Not for me to say whether Ahmadinejad or another will or should win that contest, but may the best (wo)man win.
The other conflict involves American and Israeli attempts to subvert Iranian political and economic sovereignty, which would undermine the democratic contest that is taking place internally. On this front, it is my impression that Ahmadinejad defends the Iranian state from the incursions of those who seek to harm Iran. I support his efforts to keep the US and Israel out of undue and onerous involvement with Iranian political and economic affairs. I would like to see the government of my country, the US, engage in respectful and honest trade and cultural relations with Iran.
As keynote speaker at the IISS Security Conference in Geneva earlier this month, Henry Kissinger accused North Korea and Iran of being “the major [nuclear weapons] proliferating countries at this moment. . .” Does anyone think Kissinger has the slightest bit of evidence the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons? Or is he just running his mouth?
Fiorangela,
Excellent points re: pernicious effect of pervasive lobbying, and structural issues. The Israel lobby has the wild card of being able to claim someone is “anti-Semitic” if they oppose anything sought by Israel or by Jewish interests. Quite a number of rich, well-connected Americans have told me this tends to force them to keep their mouths shut when they would prefer to voice an aggressive opinion.
Alan,
Reuters reports that Lady Ashton said the P5+1 talks with Iran could begin within weeks. Mottaki met with the Brazilian foreign minister yesterday, in part to set stage for proceeding with the TRR deal as announced May 17. I assume the suspension of enrichment to 20% would be agreed at the upcoming talks.
I find it very comforting that support for the Ahmadinejad government is limited to this blog and a handful of others. While you’re busy being unable to convince even those of us who post here more for amusement and to get your blood boiling, the real movements inside Iran are behind the opposition and will eventually win out. And the world is on their side… Not just the abstract Green Movement, but also the Student Movement, the Women rights movement, the human rights activists, the journalists, artists, filmmakers, factory workers, even the religious folks including high ranking Grand Ayatollahs and their supporters, families of the martyrs, out-of-work farmers and not to mention your average citizen… All these people will prove you all wrong. You can justify human rights violations and lack of freedom in Iran for so long. Eventually they will prevail for they outnumber you by millions. They are countless and you’re just a handful…
from “Why Doesn’t the US Talk to Iran?
By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH and KARLA HANSEN” (h/t kooshy)
“the hard-line Zionist proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the Promised Land. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders, that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But because proponents of “greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are therefore fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with their Arab neighbors—hence, their continued disregard for UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations.”
Not only that, according to Jonathan Cook, were peace to break out in Israel, deeply entrenched Israeli financial interests would be disrupted:
Peace might upend wealth of Israelis
“Even many Israeli Jews living within the recognised borders of Israel privately acknowledge that they are the beneficiaries of the seizure of another people’s lands, homes, businesses and bank accounts.
Most Israelis profit directly from the continuing dispossession of millions of Palestinian refugees.
Israeli officials assume that the international community will bear the burden of restitution for the refugees. The problem for Israel’s Jewish population is that the refugees now living in exile were not the only ones dispossessed.
The fifth of Israel’s citizens who are Palestinian but survived the upheaval of 1948 found themselves either transformed into internally displaced people or the victims of a land-nationalisation programme that stripped them of their ancestral property.
{snip}
But the threat to the economic privileges of Israeli Jews would not end with a reckoning over the consequences caused by the state’s creation. The occupation of the Palestinian territories after 1967 spawned many other powerful economic interests opposed to peace.
The most visible constituency are the settlers, who have benefited hugely from government subsidies and tax breaks designed to encourage Israelis to relocate to the West Bank. Peace Now estimates that such benefits alone are worth more than US$550 million (Dh2 billion) a year.
Hundreds of businesses serving the settlers are booming in the 60 per cent of the West Bank, the so-called Area C, which falls under Israel’s full control. The real estate and construction industries, in particular, benefit from cut-price land – and increased profits – made available by theft from Palestinian owners.
Other businesses, meanwhile, have moved into Israel’s West Bank industrial zones, benefiting from cheap Palestinian labour and from discounted land, tax perks and lax enforcement of environmental protections.
Much of the tourism industry also depends on Israel’s hold over the holy sites located in East Jerusalem.”
Nasser wrote:
“While Iran never failed to voice opposition to Israel it didn’t stop them from taking help from Israel. Israel was largely responsible for keeping Iran’s air force operational throughout the war as most of the western trained technicians were murdered by the Khoemenists. In hindsight, it was completely foolhardy of Israel to support the ungrateful Iranians in their life and death struggle.
that’s Nasser’s version.
Ronen Bergman, an Israeli journalist, writes a different version: Israel was in it for the money, and the US and Israel deployed some of their finest thieves as middle men to sell to Iran faulty weaponry in exchange for Iranian cash AND the release of hostages — a twofer, from the American perspective. Israel had extensive practice at looting Iran’s defense budget, having engaged in the practice throughout the shah’s reign.
Bergman: “The first shipment, in August 1985, consisted of 504 TOW antitank missiles, taken from Israeli stockpiles. The next contained eighteen Hawk antiaircraft missiles, which later turned out to have been faulty after one of them exploded on an Iranian launcher. . . .Time and again [the Iranians] received consignments of missiles whose use-by date had expired, or which simply nose-dived off the launchers. . . .
“In exchange for the weapons it shipped to Iran, Israel received supplies from the United States.”
Earlier, Bergman wrote:
“They closed a deal, code-named “Cosmos,” for a $50 million sale of combat equipment to Iran. Aside from the profit, Israel had political motives as well . . .but in sum, those involved on the Israeli side admit that the chief motive was financial.”
Still earlier, Bergman explains the motives for Operation Seashell:
. . .Khomeini’s regime openly endorsed the destruction of Israel, yet there were enough people in Israel who thought they should sell arms to him, in secret, for the operation code-named “Seashell” to be born. It puts the later Iran-contra scandal to shame.
“There were four main reasons why Operation Seashell went forward. First, Israel could not come to terms with the military, intelligence, and diplomatic losses that it had sustained with the disruption of relations with Iran after the revolution. Arms exports would at least give it a foothold in Tehran. In Israel’s defense establishment, the lesson had been learned from many cases over the years that swiftly supplying weaponry and military know-how to a totalitarian state would bring the supplier as close as possible to the rulers . . .
“Second, it was hoped that the infusion of weaponry would intensify the Iran-Iraq War and lead to the mutual destruction or, at least weakening, of two enemies.
“Third, Israeli officials feared a victorious Saddam Hussein. Finally, more than anything else, the weapons industry wanted to make money. As one Israeli Defense Ministry official, a key figure in Operation Seashell, recalls: “I do not remember even one diswcussion about the ethics of the matter. All that interested us was to sell, sell, sell more and more Israeli weapons, and let them kill each other with them.”"
Nasser says: “- Iran doesn’t have as much oil as the Arabs. The reason China cares about Iran is because China eventually wants to run pipelines to the Gulf via Iran to”
“This is not true. At US urging China has slowly been reducing its imports from Iran and have instead been increasing imports from Angola and the Saudis.”
Are you implying that the Chinese are buying more oil from the Saudis so that they can pipe it to the gulf via Iran?? Just to appease US?
“. Point being Iran’s worth in their eyes have been diminished.”
A slightly different view point than your by Ilya Kramnik re Iran’s military status and the Chinese involvement.
Technology for oil
“Chinese-Iranian military-technical cooperation will obviously continue into the future. Both partners need each other because Iran requires state-of-the-art military equipment, while China is hard pressed for natural resources. The main aspects of bilateral cooperation are as follows.”
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100929/160770038.html
“Iran-Contra, another Zionist joke, eh!
Israel being intermediary during Iran-Contra affair is an official lie invented to isolate Islamic regime from the Arab world. The spare-parts delivered to Iran were part of the arms purchase paid by Reza Shah Pahlvi long before the Islamic Revolution in 1979.”
- The Arabs were shocked, shocked to learn of the Iran contra. It just proved to them just how duplicitous the Iranians really are and that they are just exploiting the Palestinian issue. While Iran never failed to voice opposition to Israel it didn’t stop them from taking help from Israel. Israel was largely responsible for keeping Iran’s air force operational throughout the war as most of the western trained technicians were murdered by the Khoemenists. In hindsight, it was completely foolhardy of Israel to support the ungrateful Iranians in their life and death struggle.
imho,
“This is very important, as the Russian pipeline to the western Europe that Reagan tried to cancel. I’d like to know how the US played in that and if they tried to oppose it and how.”
- It might surprise you but the US was completely irrelevant in this. Chinese Japanese rivalry was the important thing to watch here. I thought the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline had a little relevance to the IPI situation. The pipeline at Japanese urging (and funding) was rerouted to Russian port of Kozmino as well as having a branch off to China. It would have cheaper to just go through China. Now relations between China and Japan are nearly not as bad as that between Pakistan and India; hell Japan has territorial disputes with Russia. But they were unwilling to let Beijing control such a vital piece of economic infrastructure. India will not let Pakistan control its pipeline either; if a pipeline ever is built from Iran it will have to be an underwater one.
“That said, I don’t think Russia will satisfy all China’s energy needs and even if it could, it wouldn’t be obviously very wise from China’s angle to rely only on Russian oil. China has been trying to diversify its oil supply for the same reason Europeans always tried to negotiate directly state-to-state with Persian Gulf countries and elsewhere to get rid of US blackmails.”
- Iran doesn’t have as much oil as the Arabs. The reason China cares about Iran is because China eventually wants to run pipelines to the Gulf via Iran to reduce its dependence on maritime transport. But there’s no need for that at the moment. China has pipelines bringing it oil and gas from Russia, oil from Kazakhstan and gas from Turkmenistan. Point being Iran’s worth in their eyes have been diminished. They never wanted to completely cease maritime energy supplies, they just wanted some diversified access and they have that now.
“The fact that China refused to buy more Saudi oils in exchange of more sanctions for Iran shows how independence is key in energy supplies.”
- This is not true. At US urging China has slowly been reducing its imports from Iran and have instead been increasing imports from Angola and the Saudis.
“Russians also are playing the same American game with Iran regarding its potential gas export to western Europe. They want to be their unique supplier, a good position to blackmail them on various issues (as done recently).”
- The Europeans know this but they find the Iranians to be even more unsavory than the Russians! The Iranians were very excited about possible participation in Nabucco or their own proposed Persian Pipeline but the Europeans are completely unwilling to give the Iranians that kind of leverage over them. This is NOT just due to American pressures.
James – all Mottaki needs to do is contact Cathy Ashton. What’s he waiting for?
Kooshy
Hosseinzadeh’s sharp analytical mind dissects the problem of “Why Doesn’’t the US Talk to Iran?”with outstanding clarity. His writings are always very enlightening. I am going to read this one once more.
Thanks a lot for posting his article here.
kooshy, Yes, indeed, RFI is worth its weight in pixels. It is delightful and tremendously educational to read the insights into Iranian life as experienced by Iranians who post comments here.
James Canning, The Israel Lobby is a major impediment to sound policy in the US, but it is not the only impediment. There are systemic misalignments in the US legislative process, from the way legislators are elected to the influence brought to bear on them by all manner of lobbyists, from defense contractors to energy and transportation, etc. US is firmly in the clutches of a corporatocracy; Israel plays as many angles of that situation as it can get away with.
You might be interested in this set of videos on the influence of Israel on US, and how bloggers are beginning to break that grasp: Blogging Israel-Palestine: Walt, Rosenberg, and Horowitz
Mike Mullen, the US admiral in charge of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, was in Turkey early this month, trying to persuade the Turks to join in the foolish additional sanctions so stupidly applied by the Obama administration. Turkey has made clear it will no knuckle under to stupid policies urged by the US (and the Israel lobby).
An interesting side issue, receiving too little attention, is whether the Israel lobby in the US is subverting the national security interests of the UK, by preventing a resolution of the Iranian nuclear dispute. Tony Blair’s idiotic willingness to follow the US down a rabbit hole caused immense damage to the UK. And in Britain, the press is not muzzled by the Israel lobby the way it is in the US.
Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, says yet again Iran is ready to negotiate the TRR exchange, with the P5+1. So what is the problem? Could it be that Hillary Clinton wants to hide the degree of subservience she urges Obama to observe, regarding the demands of the militarist side of the Israel lobby?
kooshy,
Excellent story re: Bush administration’s arrogant and foolish spurning of Iranian proposal of May 2003.
The fat-headed, vicious, arrogant neocons and other militarists in charge of Bush’s Middle East policies thought they could install a stooge regime in Baghdad that would then open the way to overthrowing the government of Syria (or forcing and change of policy toward Israel, so Israel could keep the Golan Heights). And then deal with Tehran.
Most Americans are far too ignorant, and in fact rather stupid, to see the obvious linkage between the Israel lobby and the snout-in-the-trough “defence” structure. The middle classes in America are being raped by the idiot “supporters” of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians – - in league with “defence” contractors (and their tens of thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, other influence peddlers, etc etc etc).
iran,
Yes, I agree completely that educated Iranians have a far better understanding of the US, than educated Americans have of Iran.
And for the bulk of the US population, ignorance of the outside world is the rule, not the exception. A Pew poll the other day revealed most Americans are not aware that Indonesia is a Muslim nation.
I think it is dangerous that so many well-educated Americans are so passive in the face of the relentless “pro-Israel” and anti-Iran propaganda that permeates US news media. Much of the explanation for this state of affairs lies at the feet of the Israel lobby, of course.
Alan, Thank you for your reply and thanks to all the informed commentators on this site is jolly (bloody) encouraging to see that RFI, is more and more a medium to exchange ideas and information for a better understanding of Iran and West’s foreign policy and strategic standing.
Cheers
Wondering when Lawrence O Donnell , Rachel Maddow or anyone else on MSNBC will have former Bush administration official and former CIA middle east analyst Flynt Leverett (Race for Iran) or Prof Juan Cole (Informed Comment) on their programs to discuss the situation with Iran instead of repeating the unsubstantiated talking points of the same people who lied this nation into Iraq?
Dylan Ratigan is the best thing going on MSNBC. Stepping out of the off limits territory. Bet he has been slammed by the Israeli lobby.
He would be the most likely person to have some sane dialogue and information on about Iran.
Rachel and O’Donnell drank the kool aid on Iran
On Tuesday evening (Sept 28th)on Lawrence O’Donnell’s new program “Last Word” he sounded as if we was channeling Micheal Ledeen, Cheney, Bolton and Reuel Marc Gerecht on Iran. He was ranting. Repeating the debunked claim (Prof Juan Cole at Informed Comment) that “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” hogwash.
O’ Donnell has clearly drank the neo con kool aid on Iran. So has Rachel Maddow. Have heard her help set the stage for an attack on Iran by repeating this bullshit.
Who needs to watch Fox News lie about Iran when Rachel and now Lawrence O’Donnell are more than willing to repeat the lies and set the stage for an attack.
So dissapointing. So dangerous and irresponsible
A new hedge fund’s question: Where to invest if Israel strikes Iran?
“. . .It’s nightmarish: A non-official nuclear power attacking a regional enemy before it too has the bomb. Even were Israel to be successful, side-effects would almost certainly include death and global economic disruption.
For Randy Slifka, however, war could equal returns.
Fortune has learned that the New York fund manager, whose father formed Halcyon Investment Management in the early 1980s, may raise a “geopolitical volatility fund” based on an investment thesis that Israel will strike. It’s called GeoVol, and draft marketing documents suggest a bifurcated structure of two long/short portfolios in commodities, equities, currencies and debt: . . .
“. . .a revised page of marketing materials, which claimed that at least 20% of fund profits would be distributed to Israelis affected by a possible counter-attack.”
Ahmadinejad in New York
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Dr. Kayhan Barzegar
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to New York City was a good opportunity to raise Iran’s perspective on regional and global issues. His views this time around were more focused on the regional issues in which Iran can play an accommodating role. This policy should be enhanced. Individual nations like Iran are expected to play their own national role in solving regional and global problems. Therefore, playing an accommodating role on the part of solving regional issues in the Middle East will further bolster Iran’s international standing.
The most pressing regional issues with international dimensions which Iran can play an effective and accommodating role include: first, helping to solve regional crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine; second, fighting regional and international terrorism; and third, comprehensive nuclear disarmament in the region. These issues are the main concerns for international peace and security in September 2010. Iran’s geopolitical and ideological characteristics make it the most effective and prominent regional player in solving the aforesaid problems.
Iran should take advantage of this exceptional opportunity. It can work with the international community to solve crises in Iraq and Afghanistan and fight Al Qaeda terrorism at the regional and international levels. Iran’s vital role in accommodating the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is also of the utmost importance. Furthermore, Iran’s policy and activities in initiating and supporting all-out nuclear disarmament in the region is important for regional and global peace and security. The latter policy has even drawn support from other important regional players like Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
President Ahmadinejad usually pursues two aims in his travels to New York. First, is to make direct contact with the American public in order to align the U.S. and Iran’s perspectives on issues of mutual concern and interest to the greatest extent possible. Second, to delineate Iran’s standpoints at the UN General Assembly. Both elements are of high significance. American media account for the lion’s share of international propaganda shaping the international community’s policies for or against Iran. The General Assembly is also a very important place for lobbing and making contacts among heads of state where they can discuss global issues from a critical standpoint.
In his recent visit to New York, President Ahmadinejad highlighted Iran’s accommodating role in the region. His proposal for holding a conference on the roots and ways of fighting global terrorism in Tehran during next year and his critical approach toward the sources of insecurity and instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Finally, his proposal for designating 2011 a year for all-out nuclear disarmament, with the motto “nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none” in order to promote the peaceful use of the nuclear energy are all indicators of Iran’s pragmatic policies aiming to solve regional problems which have international significance. Discussing such issues, even in a critical tone, will logically appeal to member states of the United Nations and international public opinion, and will consequently enhance Iran’s accommodating role beyond simple rhetoric or cynical criticism.
Irrespective of the ideological reasons behind President Ahmadinejad’s decision to challenge the cause of the events of September 11, by raising this issue he also attempted to theoretically and practically connect these events to the conception of regional crises, and thereby challenge the Obama administration’s policies in the region, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, emphasizing the U.S’s inability to solve these crises. This would make Iran-U.S. cooperation in solving regional issues more reasonable.
By taking this critical stance, President Ahmadinejad has also reacted to Obama’s policy of imposing tough sanctions against Iran to instigate negotiations. This misconceived policy seems to weaken President Ahmadinejad’s policy of initiating direct talks in Iran’s domestic politics. His conservative critics have always confronted him on initiating direct talks on unequal terms, arguing this only weakens Iran’s position since the Obama administration is unlikely to change the U.S’s confrontational policy towards Iran. With this intractable position, the President has convinced these critics he is strong enough to deal with the U.S. Nearly 200 Iranian MPs and several influential political figures like Mohsen Rezaei supported President Ahmadinejad’s new stance perceiving it as a significant foreign policy achievement.
Although President Obama’s positive remarks in the General Assembly stated that the U.S. was ready to enter into negotiations with Iran, the existing atmosphere in Washington, which is heavily influenced by the administration’s current strategy of “sanctions to spur negotiations”, and is bidding time waiting for signs of change in Iran’s policy, has again proved a serious obstacle to any form of direct contacts between Presidents Ahmadinejad and Obama. Secretary Clinton’s remarks about the increased power of the military in Iran’s policies prior to President Ahmadinejad set off for New York should be construed along the same lines. Later on and with an exclusive interview with BBC Persian, President Obama once again stressed this policy. What one can glean from such statements is that President Obama’s reluctance to engage with Ahmadinejad’s government could potentially radicalize Iran’s position on regional and global issues.
Despite the increased controversy regarding the causes of 9/11, President Ahmadinejad’s active presence in New York was another step toward a greater proximity between the conflicting visions currently dividing Iran and the United States. This may leave its mark on the forthcoming nuclear negotiations. Instead of over-emphasizing on general and international issues, Iran should focus on an accommodating role to solve regional issues which have international dimensions.
Kayhan Barzegar is a faculty member at the Science and Research Campus, Islamic Azad University and Director of International Affairs at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran
The Alastair Crooke article shows that the Leveretts are not alone. Too bad there are so few people like the Leveretts and Crooke.
Nasser – Iran-Contra, another Zionist joke, eh!
Israel being intermediary during Iran-Contra affair is an official lie invented to isolate Islamic regime from the Arab world. The spare-parts delivered to Iran were part of the arms purchase paid by Reza Shah Pahlvi long before the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/zionist-deja-vu-over-iranian-election-09/
again Kooshy’s post:
“Labeling President Ahmadinejad’s policies as “rash,” “adventurous” and “confrontational,” Mir Hossein Mousavi and other leaders of the “greens” frequently blame those polices for external military and economic pressures on Iran. Accordingly, they seek “understanding” and “accommodation” with the United States and its allies, presumably including Israel, in order to achieve political and economic stability”
Since the authors argue that a number of overtures done in Khatami period did not succeed to make a deal, I suppose that the words “understanding” and “accommodation” have no other meaning that giving up on the independence and sovereignty.
“These include Iran’s giving up its lawful and legitimate right to civilian nuclear technology, opening up its public domain and/or state-owned industries to debt-leveraging and privatization schemes of the predatory finance capital of the West, as well as its compliance with the U.S.-Israeli geopolitical designs in the Middle East”
Exactly. But again, what is the alternative ? Is Iran alone able to change the world’s financial order, the pillar of the empire ? Why she would be able while neither Russia, China, nor Europe don’t dare to do it, or they did try but backed off under blackmail, threat and pressure ?
Often, contrary to the propaganda, Iranian leaders are credited with realism. They seek compromise on various issues, if the US are ever sincere for having such a deal. So I wonder what card they have letting them to think they can stand up to the imperial will.
Once again in history, Iran is fighting for its independence and the US is making an example out of it so no other country dare to chose the same path. However, independence being very relative, one can wonder how independent are big industrial powers as European countries, Russia, Brazil, etc. and what degree of independence can be compromised with Iran acceptable to both parties.
Another problem is, can US and Iran compromise in the first place given that they both risk losing credibility and legitimacy with lots of political careers on both camp at stake.
it seems as though Iran will not be in a position to manufacture fuel for the TRR for at least another 2 years, and nobody seems all that bothered about it
And all that bothered means bothered enough to submit to US demands to suspend enrichment for it.
James:
Do I take it you support the American interference in Iran’s application for fuel for the TRR? I’m surprised you do not see the merits of getting the fuel to Iran, and achieving suspension of Iranian enrichment to 20%. Is it realistic to expect Iran to do more than this, as an initial deal between the P5+1 and Iran?
No, I don’t support it.
The P5+1 will not OK a stand-alone deal that commits to the suspension of 20% enrichment, because it OKs lower levels of enrichment, which they will not endorse without addressing the UNSCRs.
The urgency of this TRR thing seems to be ebbing too. The year until they were due to run out of fuel must be up soon, it seems as though Iran will not be in a position to manufacture fuel for the TRR for at least another 2 years, and nobody seems all that bothered about it.
kooshy –
Alan thanks for your reply, does your assertion above mean that “you Alan do solemnly agree with Iran’s sovereign right to a full nuclear fuel cycle on her soil in conformation with her ratified NPT agreement rights which were signed by Iran in 1974”, if you do,……. then it shouldn’t matter how much Iran enriches and what stock pile it holds, if you agree with Iran’s NPT rights then it shouldn’t be an issue why Iran is stockpiling 1 ton or 10 tons or to what percentage of purity it enriches.
Smile. I do so solemnly agree, sir.
Well Alan – pointing out to the world, the west’s dual standard hypocrisy, was not done at the expense of not agreeing with your own declarations, this was rightly done simultaneously for the future benefit of the rest or nations on the planet, and I understand West did not had any choice as explained on my last post but to admit to her hypocrisy.
Or it could be done knowing they would never have to ship out the LEU.
kooshy’s post : September 29, 2010 at 3:46 am, is highly Recommended.
Why Doesn’t the US Talk to Iran?
Blaming the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator.(This statment is very true both in the case of what Israelis are doing to Palestinians and what Americans are doing to Iranians)
“So, the answer to the question “why is Iran targeted?” boils down to this:
because Iran has broken the mold, so to speak, the pattern of imperialist domination in the Middle East (and beyond).
Iran’s only “sin” (from the viewpoint of imperialist powers) is that it tries to be an independent, sovereign nation.
All other alleged “offenses” such as pursuit of nuclear weapons or support for terrorism have proven by now to be harebrained excuses that are designed to punish Iran for trying to exercise its national rights as a sovereign country.
Under the influence of the hawkish Neoconservative pressure groups (representing the interests of the military-industrial-Zionist forces) the U.S. has cornered itself into a position that is afraid of talking to Iran because if it does, all of its long-standing accusations against that country would be automatically exposed as lies and baseless allegations.
It is in the nature of lying that forces the liar to continuously tell more lies in order to cover the previous lies;
more or less similar to the situation of a bike rider who needs to keep pedaling ahead in order to keep from falling down.
Furthermore, the powerful military-industrial-security-Zionist interests need Iran as an enemy in order to justify continued increases in military spending and continued occupation of Palestinian land.”
Kooshy,
thanks for the article, here is the link: http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh09282010.html
How true!
These arguments explain mostly the current situation but one more question would be worth to ask. Why Iran ? Iran is not the only country defying the American imperialism. Each time I ask this question I couldn’t find any other answer than oil and the geopolitical position of Iran. Otherwise, it wasn’t even worth so much talk and the US wouldn’t bother to deal with it until some time in the future.
This is just like the press and media. What is of most importance is to control the big ones like New York Times, Washington Post, etc. while letting small ones in small cities and in the countries to say what they want. Who cares. Nobody (relatively) read them. This is a question of numbers. If they get big they’ll be put under control.
The Iranian case is important not just because they defy the imperialism but because as a rich-oil country, if not dealt with, it can be the beginning of the end for the empire as others will want to do the same and ask for the same i.e. independence and sovereignty, while the financial empire is mostly funded on oil. And the domino effect will soon be out of control.
Looking back to the history, that was the main reason of the coup against Dr. Mossadegh while Britain could still have a good deal with BP over Iranian oil. Ironically, the Shah who opposed Mossadegh at the time, wanted to get rid of BP in the end of his reign and had the same fate.
Nasser,
thanks for the foreign policy link. This is very important, as the Russian pipeline to the western Europe that Reagan tried to cancel. I’d like to know how the US played in that and if they tried to oppose it and how.
That said, I don’t think Russia will satisfy all China’s energy needs and even if it could, it wouldn’t be obviously very wise from China’s angle to rely only on Russian oil. China has been trying to diversify its oil supply for the same reason Europeans always tried to negotiate directly state-to-state with Persian Gulf countries and elsewhere to get rid of US blackmails. The fact that China refused to buy more Saudi oils in exchange of more sanctions for Iran shows how independence is key in energy supplies. Something Indians also has/had in mind.
Russians also are playing the same American game with Iran regarding its potential gas export to western Europe. They want to be their unique supplier, a good position to blackmail them on various issues (as done recently). I wonder if Turkish position today has anything to do with a new gas route to Europe.
Why Doesn’t the US Talk to Iran?
By ISMAEL HOSSEIN-ZADEH and KARLA HANSEN
The unrelenting diplomatic and geopolitical standoff between Iran and the United States is often blamed on the Iranian government for its “confrontational” foreign policies, or its “unwillingness” to enter into a dialogue with the United States. Little known, however, is the fact that during the past decade or so, Iran has offered a number of times to negotiate with the United States without ever getting a positive response from the U.S.
The best known of such efforts at dialogue, which came to be known as Iran’s “grand bargain” proposal, was made in May 2003. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. understanding, covering all issues of mutual concern, was transmitted to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran. Not only did the State Department not respond to Iran’s negotiating offer but, as reporter Gareth Porter points out, it indeed “rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.”
Since then Iran has made a number of other efforts at negotiation, the latest of which was made by President Ahmadinejad ahead of his recent (2010) trip to the United States to attend the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly. Regrettably, once again the United States ignored President Ahmadinejad’s overture of meeting with President Obama during his UN visit.
The question is why? Why have successive U.S. administrations been reluctant to enter into a conflict-resolution dialogue with Iran, which could clearly be in the national interests of the United States?
The answer, in a nutshell, is that U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, is driven not so much by broad national interests as they are by narrow but powerful special interests—interests that seem to prefer war and militarism to peace and international understanding. These are the nefarious interests that are vested in military industries and related “security” businesses, notoriously known as the military-industrial complex. These beneficiaries of war dividends would not be able to justify their lion’s share of our tax dollars without “external enemies” or “threats to our national interests.”
Embezzlement of the lion’s share of the national treasury was not a difficult act to perform during the Cold War era because the pretext for continued increases in military spending—the “communist threat”—seemed to conveniently lie at hand. Justification of increased military spending in the post–Cold War period, however, has prompted the military-security interests to be more creative in inventing (or manufacturing, if necessary) “new sources of danger to U.S. interests.”
Thus, when the collapse of the Soviet system and the subsequent discussions of “peace dividends” in the United States threatened the interests of the military-industrial conglomerates, their representatives invented “new threats to U.S. interests” and successfully substituted them for the “threat of communism” of the Cold War era. These “new, post-Cold War sources of threat” are said to stem from the so-called “rogue states,” “global terrorism” and “Islamic fundamentalism.” Demonization of Iran and/or President Ahmadinejad can be better understood in this context.
Now, it may be argued that if it is true that beneficiaries of war-dividends need external enemies in order to justify their unfair share of national treasury, why Iran? Why of all places is Iran targeted as such an enemy? Isn’t there something wrong with the Iranian government and/or President Ahmadinejad’s policies in challenging the world’s superpower knowing that this would be a case of David challenging Goliath, that it would cause diplomatic pressure, military threats and economic sanctions on Iran?
These are indeed the kind of questions that the “Greens” and other critics of Ahmadinejad’s government ask, rhetorical questions that tend to blame Iran for the brutal economic sanctions and military threats against that country—in effect, blaming the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. Labeling President Ahmadinejad’s policies as “rash,” “adventurous” and “confrontational,” Mir Hossein Mousavi and other leaders of the “greens” frequently blame those polices for external military and economic pressures on Iran. Accordingly, they seek “understanding” and “accommodation” with the United States and its allies, presumably including Israel, in order to achieve political and economic stability. While, prima facie, this sounds like a reasonable argument, it suffers from a number of shortcomings.
To begin with, it is a disingenuous and obfuscationist argument. Military threats and economic sanctions against Iran did not start with Ahmadinejad’s presidency; they have been imposed on Iran for more than thirty years, essentially as punishment for its 1979 revolution that ended the imperial U.S. influence over its economic, political and military affairs. It is true that the criminal sanctions have been steadily escalated, significantly intensified in recent months. But that is not because Ahmadinejad occasionally lashes out at imperialist/Zionist policies in the region; it is rather because Iran has refused to give in to the imperialistic dictates of the U.S. and its allies.
Second, it is naïve to think that U.S. imperialism would be swayed by gentle or polite language to lift economic sanctions or remove military threats against Iran. During his two terms in office (8 years), the former president of Iran Muhammad Khatami frequently spoke of “dialogue of civilizations,” counterposing it to the U.S. Neoconservatives’ “clash of civilization,” effectively begging the Unites States for dialogue and diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and the United States. His pleas of dialogue and friendship, however, fell on deaf ears. Why?
Because U.S. policy toward Iran (or any other country, for that matter) is based on an imperialistic agenda that consists of a series of demands or expectations, not on diplomatic decorum, or the type of language its leaders use. These include Iran’s giving up its lawful and legitimate right to civilian nuclear technology, opening up its public domain and/or state-owned industries to debt-leveraging and privatization schemes of the predatory finance capital of the West, as well as its compliance with the U.S.-Israeli geopolitical designs in the Middle East. It is not unreasonable to argue that once Iran allowed U.S. input, or meddling, into such issue of national sovereignty, it would find itself on a slippery slope the bottom of which would be giving up its independence: the U.S. would not be satisfied until Iran becomes another “ally” in the Middle East, more or less like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the like.
It is ironic that Green leaders such as Mousavi, Rafsanjani and Khatami blame Ahmadinejad for the hostile imperialist policies toward Iran. For, as mentioned above, U.S. imperialism showed its most venomous hostility toward Iran during the presidency of Khatami while he was vigorously pursuing a path of friendship with the United States. While Khatami was promoting his “dialogue of civilizations” and taking conciliatory steps to befriend the U.S., including cooperation in the overthrow of the Taliban regime in the neighboring Afghanistan, the U.S. labeled Iran as a member of the “axis of evil.” This outrageous demonization was then used as a propaganda tool to intensify economic sanctions and justify calls for “regime change” in Iran.
In the face of President Khatami’s conciliatory gestures toward the United States, many Iranians were so outraged by its unfair and provocative attitude toward Iran that they began to question the wisdom of Khatami’s policy of trying to appease U.S. imperialism. It is now widely believed that the frustration of many Iranians with Khatami’s (one-sided) policy of dialogue with the United States played a major role in the defeat of his reformist allies in both the 2003 parliamentary elections and the 2005 presidential election. By the same token, it also played a major role in the rise of Ahmadinejad to Iran’s presidency, as he forcefully criticized the reformists’ attitude toward U.S. imperialism as naïve, arguing that negotiation with the United States must be based on mutual respect, not at the expense of Iran’s sovereignty. (For a detailed discussion of these and related issues please see “Reflecting on Iran’s Presidential Election.”)
In its drive to provoke, destabilize and (ultimately) change the Iranian government to its liking, U.S. imperialism finds a steadfast ally in the Zionist regime of Israel. There is an unspoken, de facto alliance between the U.S. military-industrial complex and militant Zionist forces—an alliance that might be called the military-industrial-security-Zionist alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is based on a convergence of interests on militarism and war in the Middle East, especially against Iran; as Iran is the only country in the region that systematically and unflinchingly exposes both the imperialist schemes of Western powers and expansionist designs of radical Zionism.
Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability inimical to their business interests, so too the hard-line Zionist proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the Promised Land. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders, that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But because proponents of “greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are therefore fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with their Arab neighbors—hence, their continued disregard for UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations.
So, the answer to the question “why is Iran targeted?” boils down to this: because Iran has broken the mold, so to speak, the pattern of imperialist domination in the Middle East (and beyond). Iran’s only “sin” (from the viewpoint of imperialist powers) is that it tries to be an independent, sovereign nation. All other alleged “offenses” such as pursuit of nuclear weapons or support for terrorism have proven by now to be harebrained excuses that are designed to punish Iran for trying to exercise its national rights as a sovereign country.
Under the influence of the hawkish Neoconservative pressure groups (representing the interests of the military-industrial-Zionist forces) the U.S. has cornered itself into a position that is afraid of talking to Iran because if it does, all of its long-standing accusations against that country would be automatically exposed as lies and baseless allegations. It is in the nature of lying that forces the liar to continuously tell more lies in order to cover the previous lies; more or less similar to the situation of a bike rider who needs to keep pedaling ahead in order to keep from falling down. Furthermore, the powerful military-industrial-security-Zionist interests need Iran as an enemy in order to justify continued increases in military spending and continued occupation of Palestinian land.
It is worth noting here that while the powerful special interests that are vested in the military-security capital benefit from (and therefore tend to advocate) war and military adventures in the Middle East, the broader, but less-cohesive, interests that are vested in civilian, or non-military, capital tend to incur losses in global markets as a result of such military adventures. Evidence shows that foreign policy-induced losses of the U.S. market share in global markets are huge. Militaristic American foreign policy is viewed by international consumers as a significant negative. Representatives of the broad-based civilian industries are aware of the negative economic consequences of the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. And that’s why leading non-military business/trade associations such as The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) and U.S.A*Engage (a coalition of nearly 800 small and large businesses, agriculture groups and trade associations working to seek alternatives to the proliferation of aggressive U.S. foreign policy actions) have expressed disappointment at the recently expanded U.S. sanctions against Iran on the grounds that such sanctions would significantly undermine U.S. national interests.
Sadly, however, U.S. foreign policy decisions, especially in the Middle East, seem to be driven not so much by broad national interests as they are by narrow (but powerful) special interests, not so much by “peace dividends” as they are by “war dividends.” These powerful special interests, represented largely by the military-security-AIPAC forces, tend to perceive international peace and stability, especially in the Middle East, as detrimental to their nefarious interests. Instead, they seem to prefer an atmosphere of war and militarism in order to justify their lion’s share of our national treasury, or their occupation of Palestinian land. This explains, perhaps more than anything else, the unjust demonization of Iran and the relentless preparations for an all-out war on that country. If this argument sounds like a conspiracy theory, it is not because it is false; rather, it is because the U.S.-Zionist policies in the Middle East are so evil that they defy tender logic, civilized comprehension, or decent human intuition.
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), teaches economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.
Karla Hansen, director-producer of Silent Screams, is a social worker and peace activist from Des Moines, Iowa.
Graham Fuller on what led to the Iran Contra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkJ9h75-24&feature=related
This, he suggested, could occur without US intelligence becoming aware of such a shift and therefore would risk the US being caught unawares.
I’m not sure Gates ever made that suggestion. At least for the material under safeguards that is pretty much physically not true.
What the US is trying to prevent by pressuring to terminate its enrichment program is Iran being in a position, the way Japan is, to overtly leave the treaty and at that point, with the US fully aware, build a weapon.
If the problem was the US being caught unaware, rather than Iran having capabilities that the US is aware of, then the additional protocols would be more important than pressuring Iran to suspend. Iran was clear in 2005 and early 2006 that sanctions would mean the West gives up the additional protocols and the US willingly made that trade.
President Ahmadinejad’s New York Meeting with U.S. Activists
by Phil Wilayto (source: CASMII)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The opening week of the United Nations’ 65th session was a busy one for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In addition to giving his annual address before the U.N. General Assembly and granting interviews with everyone from ABC’s Charlie Rose to Fox News’ Eric Shaw, he also found time to meet with groups of Iranian-Americans, Muslim leaders, academics and members of think tanks.
On Sept. 21 – the annual U.N.-declared International Day of Peace, he held a particularly interesting meeting at a midtown hotel with some 130 members of the U.S. peace and social justice movements, including major figures in the Black activist community.
The invited guests included leading members of most of the major U.S. anti-war coalitions and organizations, including the International Action Center, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, National Assembly to End U.S. Wars & Occupations, United National Anti-War Committee, Code Pink, Fellowship of Reconciliation, United for Peace & Justice, Al-Awda-New York and Women Against Military Madness of Minneapolis.
Also, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark; Just Foreign Policy Director Robert Naiman; MRZine.org Editor Yoshie Furuhashi; David Swanson of War Is A Crime.org; and Kenneth Stone of Hamilton, Ontario, representing the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War and the Canadian Peace Alliance.
Organizations that specifically focus on Iran included the Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), Women for Peace & Justice in Iran, StopWaronIran.org and the American Iranian Friendship Committee.
But while the president had met before, in 2008, with representatives of the peace movement, this was his first real opportunity to meet with longtime leaders in the Black struggle.
Poet/activist Amiri Baraka, a near-legendary figure in the Black liberation movement, was there with his wife Amina. Ramona Africa, a leading supporter of U.S. political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal and Minister of Communication in The MOVE Organization, came with two other MOVE members.
Also Cynthia McKinney, the former U.S. Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate; New York civil rights attorney Alton Maddox and his wife; longtime North Carolina community activist Shafia M’Balia; Washington, D.C., minister/activist Rev. Graylan Scott-Hagler; Million Worker March Movement Northeast Region Co-organizer Brenda Stokely; Pan African News Wire Editor Abayomi Azikiwe; and Boston Rosa Parks Human Rights Day Committee leader Anthony Van Der Meer.
After a traditional Persian meal, buffet-style, the guests moved to a conference room where Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Khazaee, welcomed the activists, noting that some had come from as far away as Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Carolina.
Six activists, including three African-American women, were invited to give opening remarks: Cynthia McKinney, who was introduced by the ambassador as “a greatest defender of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination;” Ramsey Clark; Shafeah M’Balia; Brenda Stokely; Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center; and this writer, representing CASMII.
Some 16 other activists then took the podium, offering comments and asking questions of the president.
Finally it was time to hear from President Ahmadinejad. Consistently caricatured in the Western media, the former university professor and mayor of Tehran comes across in person as an intelligent, thoughtful and deeply religious leader trying to find a common ground with his audience, while upholding the right of his country to be treated with respect in the international arena.
“We have a treasure chest full of views,” the president opened, referring to his guests’ presentations. “I agree with everything you have said, and therefore you have spoken from my heart also. Now I will speak in my own way.”
The talk the president gave carried the same message he presented the next evening at a dinner with 57 academics, former diplomats, authors and members of various think tanks, and again the following day before the General Assembly.
His argument was that, for hundreds of years, the dominant system of capitalism has wreaked havoc on the earth, resulting in the genocide of indigenous peoples, the enslavement and exploitation of millions of Africans and constant wars and oppression.
At the same time, the present system of what he called “world management,” in which a handful of countries hold veto power over global policies through their permanent positions on the U.N. Security Council, has produced an unequal and undemocratic system in which poorer countries are at the mercy of the more affluent.
As a solution to this system of global economic and political inequality, the president called for a new world order in which profit-driven capitalism would be replaced with a system of mutual respect, cooperation and love for humanity, one in which collective decision-making power would reside in the U.N. General Assembly, with each country having an equal say.
Originally scheduled for two hours, the meeting was extended another 30 minutes. According to one member of the Iranian Mission, President Ahmadinejad and Ambassador Khazaee were “very pleased” to be able to hear directly from people in the peace movement and from a “cross-section” of the U.S. public, rather than just the “political elite.”
Amiri Baraka, one of those who addressed the president, agreed.
“I thought the meeting was a good opportunity to clarify Iran’s position in relation to the United States,” he said. “We only hear what the U.S. government thinks about Iran, but it’s important for us to hear from Iran. So it was an opportunity to have a meaningful presence in that whole dialogue, that whole clash, so that people who have been fighting against imperialism will have more substantial positions on U.S.-Iranian relations.”
Abayomi Azikiwe of the Pan African News Wire had a similar assessment.
“I thought the significance of the meeting was that the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran had an opportunity to hear directly from people from the oppressed communities, from anti-war activists, about the plight of the people of the United States, and that that wasn’t filtered through the corporate media,” he said.
“He heard directly about how they felt not only about conditions here, but about relations between the United States and Iran. Most of the speakers spoke in solidarity with the people of Iran, from the standpoint that they saw the plight of the Iranian people as being similar to the plight of the people of the United States, that the people of Iran had been oppressed by and are still under attack by the U.S., just as African-Americans and other people opposed to U.S. policy are under attack here in the United States.”
On Sept. 24, the president met with recently freed American hiker Sarah Shourd and her mother, Nina Shourd. According to the Reuters news agency, Ms. Shourd described the meeting as a “very human encounter, very personal.”
“I’m very thankful for this and hopeful it will make a difference for Shane and Josh,” she was quoted as saying, referring to her two fellow hikers, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, who remain in prison in Tehran. The three were detained in July 2009 near Iran’s border with Iraq, an area that has seen recent military attacks on Iranian forces by the PKK, an anti-Iranian military organization.
Under the Iranian judicial system, the president has no power to interfere in court proceedings. However, President Ahmadinejad has expressed his desire that the three hikers be treated “leniently.”
Phil Wilayto is a Board Member of the Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) and author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic.” He was instrumental in helping to arrange the activists meeting with President Ahmadinejad.
james,
i agree that most educated americans don’t see iran as the enemmy but most educated amercans don’t run the U.S gouv hence the option(ATTACK) is on the table!
and the same goes for Iran most educated Irannian don’t see the us as the enemy but the advantage they have is that they understand the american cultue better or they have some kind of a tie to it
Alan,
Do I take it you support the American interference in Iran’s application for fuel for the TRR? I’m surprised you do not see the merits of getting the fuel to Iran, and achieving suspension of Iranian enrichment to 20%. Is it realistic to expect Iran to do more than this, as an initial deal between the P5+1 and Iran?
Alan
“By the way, you make the mistake, again, of assuming that my view is same as the US or P5+1 view. It’s not. I am just trying to point out the way I think the US/P5+1 will approach this.”
Alan thanks for your reply, does your assertion above mean that “you Alan do solemnly agree with Iran’s sovereign right to a full nuclear fuel cycle on her soil in conformation with her ratified NPT agreement rights which were signed by Iran in 1974”, if you do,……. then it shouldn’t matter how much Iran enriches and what stock pile it holds, if you agree with Iran’s NPT rights then it shouldn’t be an issue why Iran is stockpiling 1 ton or 10 tons or to what percentage of purity it enriches.
Alan
“Also, if all you say is true, it’s a bit of a hoot because it would mean Iran was never sincere about the Tehran Declaration in the first place. Which is a tad ironic, as the popular view round here is that it’s the US who are not making sincere offers.”
Well Alan – pointing out to the world, the west’s dual standard hypocrisy, was not done at the expense of not agreeing with your own declarations, this was rightly done simultaneously for the future benefit of the rest or nations on the planet, and I understand West did not had any choice as explained on my last post but to admit to her hypocrisy.
Israelis “Executed” US Citizen Furkan Dogan
The report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla released last week shows conclusively, for the first time, that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.
The report reveals that Dogan, the 19-year-old US citizen of Turkish descent, was filming with a small video camera on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara when he was shot twice in the head, once in the back and in the left leg and foot and that he was shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground.
The report says Dogan had apparently been “lying on the deck in a conscious or semi-conscious, state for some time” before being shot in his face.
The forensic evidence that establishes that fact is “tattooing around the wound in his face,” indicating that the shot was “delivered at point blank range.” The report describes the forensic evidence as showing that “the trajectory of the wound, from bottom to top, together with a vital abrasion to the left shoulder that could be consistent with the bullet exit point, is compatible with the shot being received while he was lying on the ground on his back.”
Based on both “forensic and firearm evidence,” the fact-finding panel concluded that Dogan’s killing and that of five Turkish citizens by the Israeli troops on the Mavi Marmari May 31 “can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions.” (See Report [.pdf] Page 38, Section 170)
The report confirmed what the Obama administration already knew from the autopsy report on Dogan, but the administration has remained silent about the killing of Dogan, which could be an extremely difficult political problem for the administration in its relations with Israel.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26470.htm
Americans Living in a Police State?
Interview With Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26475.htm
The FBI raided the homes of a number of anti-war activists in Chicago and Minneapolis.
The Activists are planning demonstrations against the FBI.
Is this a sign of a growing American police state?
Former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts argued that the US government is establishing in the mind of the public that anyone who criticizes the War on Terror is aligned with terrorists.
He further argued that under the rubric of terror the government has stripped American’s of their civil liberties.
Will They Raid My Home For Writing This?
It’s like McCarthyism all over again.
On September 24, FBI agents raided the homes of some anti-war activists in Chicago and Minneapolis on suspicion that they were providing material support to terrorism.
This follows only a few weeks after it was discovered that Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security had been spying on activist groups in the Keystone State.
The Chicago Tribune quotes one of the harassed activists in Minnesota as calling the searches “an outrageous fishing expedition.”
Indeed. But this is apparently how our tax dollars are being used.
Apparently the authorities still subscribe to the George W. Bush-style assumption that if you’re not in lockstep with the government’s policies, then you must be with the terrorists.
And the Bush administration’s knee-jerk, fear-based policies in response to 9/11 have arguably made it legal for agencies to conduct these witch hunts.
The Patriot Act broadened the definition of domestic terrorism to an extent that it “may have a chilling effect on the U.S. and international rights to free expression and association,” says Amnesty International USA.
Amnesty continues: “The law defines ‘domestic terrorism’ as acts committed in the United States ‘dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws,’ if the U.S. government determines that they ‘appear to be intended’ to ‘influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,’ or ‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.’ Such ambiguous language allows for loose interpretation that might violate civil liberties and international human rights.”
As we’re seeing right now.
To further complicate things, as I wrote back in June regarding Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the government to block speech and other forms of advocacy supporting a foreign organization that has been officially (and arbitrarily) labeled as terrorist, even if the aim is to support such a group’s peaceful or humanitarian actions.
Coincidentally, the Justice Department’s Inspector General released a timely report last week after a review of FBI crackdowns on peace and social justice activists during the George W. Bush administration. The report is rather critical of the FBI.
The ProPublica Blog summarizes:
“The FBI activities reviewed by the Justice Department took place from 2001 to 2006, and involved groups including the Thomas Merton Center (a Pittsburgh social justice center), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Greenpeace, The Catholic Worker (communities of religious pacifists) and a Quaker peace activist.
“The report by the Justice Department watchdog didn’t find that the FBI targeted these groups on the basis of their free speech activities – which would be a serious violation of FBI guidelines – but did fault the agency for other reasons, most notably a ‘factually weak’ basis for opening investigations.
“‘FBI agents and supervisors sometimes provided the [Office of the Inspector General] with speculative, after-the-fact rationalizations for their prior decisions to open investigations that we did not find persuasive,’ the report said.
“The report also found that that the FBI unnecessarily classified its probes as domestic terrorism investigations, even though some of the potential crimes were trespassing or vandalism – acts not normally considered to be terrorism. This classification resulted in several individuals improperly being placed on terrorism watchlists.
“The Inspector General also found that the FBI gave ‘inaccurate and misleading’ explanations to justify its attendance at a 2002 rally against the Iraq war organized by the Merton Center.”
How much farther will they have to go before this becomes an actual police state?
Or is it already?
And will they raid my home for writing this?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26472.htm
James – maybe. Iran has a choice too.
kooshy – This also is the reason that enrichment rights based on NPT for all nations was the first item on the Tehran declaration and insisted by Iran, this same item is what Alan first tried to ignore by way of indifference to it, and now wishes to work around it if at all possible. My comment: too late.
Iran didn’t “insist” on enrichment rights in Geneva though, or as far as I’m aware, in Vienna either. Ahmadinejad took the line that it was implicit in the original TRR deal, but his opponents back in Iran weren’t having it. That’s why it showed up in the Tehran Declaration.
Meanwhile, the P5+1 never considered it implicit either. It was intended to be discussed at the “other” meeting that was supposed to happen at the end of October 2009 alongside the TRR negotiation. That of course never took place, and the Tehran Declaration failed to offer one, which was its other unacceptable factor.
By the way, you make the mistake, again, of assuming that my view is same as the US or P5+1 view. It’s not. I am just trying to point out the way I think the US/P5+1 will approach this. Also, if all you say is true, it’s a bit of a hoot because it would mean Iran was never sincere about the Tehran Declaration in the first place. Which is a tad ironic, as the popular view round here is that it’s the US who are not making sincere offers.
Alan,
I think Russia views the suspension of enrichment to 20% as part of the TRR deal. And Iran has suggested this is the way forward.
I think it is needlessly dangerous to hold up delivery of the TRR fuel and in effect force Iran to continue to enrich to 20% – - when Iran says such enrichment is solely because the TRR fuel is being withheld.
Why give the neocon warmongers an opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the gears?
iran,
I doubt most educated Americans look upon Iran as an “enemy”. The idea is essentially absurd.
this is a long game of chess. we have to look a the moves very carfully to understand them.
at this point Iran cannot live without enrichement.
but one advantage Iran has over its enemy that no one seems to notice is that many Irannians speak and/or understand english whereas not many americans do Farsi.
did u notice that ahmadi brougth with him a list of women going on deathrow to mr.Rose’s interview.he learned from his last interview but larry asked him almost the same question as the last time.
In reality, Iran is now directly challenging the decisions made by UNSC, for imposing UNSC resolutions that in realty limits Iran’s sovereign national rights, Iran’s opinion based on an outdated and an unfair structure of UNSC made by the WW2 warring parties, this was pointed to the world by Ahmadinijad’s UN speech and in other numerous events attended by him. For P5 accepting the Tehran’s declaration without the suspension means that UNSC resolutions demanding suspension is no longer valid by its own authors, and in fact pointing to a real need for a fairer restructure of UNSC due to the realty of current world power structure, this was the real focus of Iran’s last trip to NY, and every other attendance since the Iran – Iraq war of 1980’s where the UNSC failed to condemn Iraq for starting that war. This also is the reason that enrichment rights based on NPT for all nations was the first item on the Tehran declaration and insisted by Iran, this same item is what Alan first tried to ignore by way of indifference to it, and now wishes to work around it if at all possible. My comment: too late.
James – the TRR deal is just a fuel exchange. Iran agreeing to cease enrichment to 20% would be part of a wider deal, but the P5+1 will only agree to ongoing enrichment if the UNSC Resolutions are cleared up, so that will mean settling the compliance issues with the IAEA, the AP, the modified 3.1 etc. Iran for their part will want to see the end of sanctions and some serious commitment from the P5+1 to bring Iran in from the cold and to provide significant assistance with their nuclear program.
As I have written many times – The US leaders know very well that a freindship with the Islamic regime in Tehran would be more beneficial for the US interests in the region, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon – but they cannot admit it in the open without risking their political career and even their private lives. Therefore, they have to dance to the tune of the powerful Israel Lobby (with apology to Dr. Chomsky).
If a regime-change do occur in Tehran and it pull-off its support to Hizbullah and Hamas and recognize Israel – like in the past – Washington will be the first nuclear power to endorse Iran’s right to build nuclear plants for civilian usages. Until then, Iranian, like the Gaza citizens have to live under a bloody rain of sanction.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/iaea-and-western-moral-bankruptcy/
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/27/how_to_read_the_russia_china_pipeline_deal
“I think Gates’s record demonstrates a serious lack of judgement and inability to assess the reality on the ground.”
- Robert Gates and Graham Fuller suggested selling weapons to Iran then as a means of blocking Soviet influence there.
- Ofcourse the Iranians were too dumb to support the communist government in Afghanistan and ended up alienating both superpowers.
Alan,
What is the “wider programme”? Iran has indicated it will suspend enrichment to 20% What else ought to be part of an agreement?
The UN Secretary General has praised Iran’s efforts to fight terrorism and illegal drugs trafficking. Of course, we won’t see Hillary Clinton or Bob Gates offer such comments. Even if they are warranted.
James – no, they won’t, because the Turkey/Brazil deal declares a right to enrich. I think it would have to be modified to exclude an explicit statement like that, and to include an explicit undertaking by Iran to negotiate the wider issues.
I suppose it may be possible to acknowledge the right to enrich provided Iran is in full compliance with international obligations and all that palaver, but I still think it unlikely. I don’t think there is any chance they would leave it open ended – for example, agreeing to front up with all the fuel without movement on the wider program.
I think Robert Gates is delusional if he actually believes Iran will send almost all of its LEU out of the country, because the US is making veiled threats of attacking in the event Iran does not do so. This is an issue of national pride. And Gates should be able to comprehend it as such, and adjust his programme accordingly.
Let’s remember that Gates had no idea the Soviet Union was going to pull out of Afghanistan, even as late as the fall of 1988. And he was sitting at the top of the CIA! On the other hand, I had known for years the USSR would be pulling out, just from reading newspapers and talking to people in London and elsewhere.
I think Gates’s record demonstrates a serious lack of judgement and inability to assess the reality on the ground.
Alan,
Surely the US should do what it can to expedite the nuclear exchange, so that Iran proceeds with the deal arranged by Turkey and Brazil. As Iran has made clear it is prepared to do.
I agree Iranian enrichment of LEU will have to be accepted by the US. Is it possible the enrichment could be undertaken in the context of a joint venture with Russia?
Alan:
but Iran is likely to have to include the wider nuclear issues
That is a meaningless group of words in itself. Possibly you mean Iran will have to agree to suspend enrichment or at least accept a US imposed limit on the amount of uranium it can hold in its stock.
Why not say that? Or if you mean something else, why not say whatever you really mean?
Wider nuclear issues are not inherently related to the delivery of TRR fuel. Even you didn’t claim there were additional conditions until the US formal response the the Brazil/Iran/Turkey declaration exposed as a lie the idea that the West had ever offered to actually deliver fuel in exchange for 1200 kgs of Iranian LEU.
Yes. Iran refuses to discuss “wider nuclear issues” if by wider nuclear issues you mean a suspension or effective suspension of enrichment. That has been Iran’s position since before 2005.
When the US abandons that goal – and no Obama administration official has failed to reaffirm that the US position on Iranian enrichment has not changed since under Bush – it is possible that talks could be productive. Until then talks are not harmful in themselves, but they are a waste of time at best.
Unless, as is likely, when the administration says “talks” they mean “talks with suspension as a pre-agreed outcome” in which case “talks” not only would be a waste of time, but probably will not happen.
Paul – in 2005, it was certainly the case that the US was blocking any progress between Iran and the EU3, and had what seemed very clear designs on creating a pretext for war. I don’t think that is the case under Obama.
The Turkey/Brazil Tehran Declaration is to all intents and purposes still alive as a platform to start further negotiations, but Iran is likely to have to include the wider nuclear issues. This is what they currently refuse to talk about.
As far as the article itself is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly, and think I have said here before that this could be the basis of a nuclear settlement. One thing though – I think the 2005 Iran offer revolved around limiting enrichment to 5% and converting all LEU to fuel rods, and not using a restrictive type of centrifuge. I understand that such a beast may not even exist.
What continues to amaze me is that even relatively moderate and insightful commentators continue, apparently, to fixate on the trees so as not to see the forest, it would seem. Just the one situation Crooke describes, where Larijani made a reasonable nuclear program compromise offer, only to be ignored by countries that supposedly are so worked up about Iran’s dreaded nuclear program, makes it quite clear that this conflict is not now, and has never been, about Iran’s nuclear program. And that was just one incident. We can point to as many others as we have time for. Another obvious example was Obama’s punch in the face to Turkey and Brazil at the beginning of this summer for presuming to negotiate in good faith with Iran, thus producing an agreement that would have done much to calm nerves, IF THOSE AGITATED NERVES WERE REALLY ABOUT IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM. It’s perfectly clear that Iran’s nuclear program is not now and never was the issue.
We need to talk about the real issues. As long as we continue to evade those, gazing lovingly and long at individual trees and never seeing the forest, it’s all just a bunch of scholars having a chatty picnic and watching as armies prepare for battle.