The article doesn't shock me. It's just more from the hawks who want to realise the dream of the Project for the New American Century. This is
more or less the same group of people who wrote "A Clean Break: Securing the Realm" for the Israeli government in the late nineties, and their ideal
is essentially to knock down and completely rebuild the middle East. Knock down a few walls, split this big room (Iraq) into three smaller rooms
(with the oil bath behind the door marked PKK)... and so on.
There are people within the Government who realise what a mess Iraq is and was always destined to be. There are also ideologues, blind to the
appalling reality, who want to continue knocking over countries in the ME.
Just as in the run up to the Iraq war with its groundless assertions about Weapons of Mass Destruction,
the White House is refusing to listen to the intelligence professionals
in the CIA who say Iran has
no nuclear programme.
Remember, Iran's line is that their programme is for peaceful purposes only. US attempts to show otherwise have been shown to be full of bluster.
The only people who agree with the US assessment are, surprise surprise, Israel, who have their own little propaganda war going against Iran. You
might have heard that Ahmedinejad wanted Israel "wiped off the map": well, the translation was provided by Israeli think-tank MEMRI, and a more
neutral translation finds that what he said was distorted to make it look threatening - the phrase "wiped off the map" doesn't even appear. What
he actually said was that he could envisage a day when there was regime change in Israel. This is actually less aggressive than Bush's rhetoric on
Iraq or Iran - and Iran certainly doesn't have the muscle to succeed in this aim.
This is only one example of disinformation spread by Israel. Another notable one was about
non-Muslims in Iran having to wear badges.
Surprise, this turned out to be disinfo,
Anyway, on to the article.
WE MUST bomb Iran.
It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led
Is Iran posing a clear and present (i.e., imminent) danger to the US? If not, then it would be a war crime to bomb Iran. Not that this matters to
people who find international law an inconvenience. As for the secret nuclear programme, the CIA has no evidence it exists. Does this seem familiar
to someone whose memory stretches back more than four years? It does to me.
First, we agreed to our allies' requests that we offer Tehran a string of concessions, which it spurned.
Actually, the Iranians voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment
for peaceful purposes - enrichment they were entitled to perform as long as it
was only for making nuclear fuel for a reactor. Weapons-grade uranium requires something like 95% enrichment - but the process Iran was pursuing was
producing fuel-rod grade enrichment of less than 10%.
Iran allowed the IAEA to investigate for several months, during which time the US made noises about how Iran was blocking them, with which the IAEA
disagreed, as I recall. Eventually, losing patience with consistent bullying and filibustering tactics, Iran unilaterally reinstated enrichment, to
predictable furore from the US. They're entitled to do this, because they're a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty
I don't recall the US offering any concessions at all
. If any poster here can point them out, I shall be glad to add them to my small store
of inadequate knowledge on this subject.
It is now clear that neither Moscow nor Beijing will ever agree to tough sanctions.
Well, they each have their own interests in maintaining friendly contacts with a source of oil. Unlike the world's "sole superpower", which just
loves to throw its weight around, they seem to prefer to forge trade agreements rather than just invade and take the oil.
And, of course, like the EU, they might have some scruples about imposing sanctions on a country without any real evidence of a secret nuclear
There's then a quote designed to show Ahmedinejad as a zealot. Well... frankly, the guy's been so extensively misquoted it wouldn't surprise me if
this were just one more occasion... but even if not, this is just rhetoric for home consumption. I mean, no-one outside the US really believes that
the US is bringing democracy to Iraq. Chaos, that's what the US has brought - chaos and violence.
So if sanctions won't work, what's left? The overthrow of the current Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet
Hmm... we can't get other countries to go in on the sanctions bandwagon (mainly for lack of evidence)... how about another coup just like
when we overthrew the democratically elected President Mossadegh (who just happened to want to nationalise the oil and throw out the
multinationals) and installed the despotic Shah, for whom we trained and equipped SAVAK, one of the nastiest secret police forces on the planet?
Torture, death squads, disappearances?
but with hard-liners firmly in the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more remote today
...because it seems likely that Iranians would far rather endure their own hard-liners than a US puppet government. They know what that looks like,
and they know how to fight it.
Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.
Where is this nuclear-armed Iran you're talking about? In cloud-cuckoo-land, that's where. Nestling right alongside the mythical EyeRakLand, which
as we know, is cram full of WMDs.
Therefore your options also include waking up to reality and acknowledging that this is just propaganda designed to allow you to destabilise a regime
you've never forgiven for storming the US Embassy (or, as the locals used to call it, with some justification, "the nest of spies".)
We then get the whole "Liberals are soft on terror and think everyone should have nukular weapons" spiel. Well, we have kind of a false premise in
the first place as we just don't have any evidence that Iran is arming itself at all. And of course, the card to play is nuclear terror
"the smoking gun that comes in the form of a mushroom cloud".
Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to
become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?
Well... possibly because if there ever were a nuke going off in the USA, they know their country would be the target of immediate and massive
retaliation. Israeli politicians have stated that Ahmedinejad would be prepared to martyr their whole country. I find this simply not credible -
except as propaganda from Israel, which, as we have seen, they're prepared to deploy.
As for the Daily Telegraph... it is well-known in the UK that the Torygraph
is often used as a mouthpiece for the security services. And one
has to admit that MI6 knows a thing or two about Al Qaeda. They did, after all, pay that organisation 100,000 GBP to assassinate Colonel Gaddaffi.
Which attempt failed, btw, resulting in the loss of several (in theory at least) innocent lives. And do we really think that OBL is actually still
alive? The French don't and I'm inclined to agree.
But would any U.S. president really order a retaliatory nuclear strike based on an assumption?
Of course not. He'd say that there was conclusive proof that Iran was behind the terrorist nuke
before bombing the population centres flat.
And a supine media would back him up.
I mean, would any US president really order the invasion of a country based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction procured through
torture and bribery? Oh, that's right, they already did.
We then get a quote from Rafsanjani talking about an atomic bomb destroying Israel, while one bomb would only "damage" the Islamic world. First of
all, I'd really like to see an independent translation of that speech because there have been so many mistranslations and exaggerations that I don't
trust these kind of quotes unless I can refer the original Arabic to a friend who speaks it relatively fluently.
Second... any Islamic-world politician knows that Israel has at least 200 nukes, enough to make the entire ME and beyond glow for several decades to
come. This kind of rhetoric, if it is even real, is there to comfort the masses only.
But such ethnic-based analysis fails to take into account Iran's charisma as the archenemy of the United States and Israel and the leverage it
achieves as the patron of radicals and rejectionists.
If you took the time to actually read any of Ahmedinejad's letters to Bush, they're actually quite conciliatory. What winds people up is that
Ahmedinejad doesn't allow the US any room for BS of the kind this guy's spewing. He actually is far more truthful in his speech than Bush.
Another way to read the information contained in the succeeding paragraphs is: by invading Iraq and Afghanistan the US is succeeding in uniting the
Arab world against them
This would thrust us into a new global struggle akin to the one we waged so painfully with the Soviet Union for 40-odd years. It would be the
"clash of civilizations" that has been so much talked about but so little defined.
Be afraid of Muslims NOW!
I'm running out of room: I could go on for the rest of the article... but I think you get the picture.
[edit on 22-11-2006 by rich23]