Iran : What's Really Going On?
For some time now the mainstream media have been regurgitating the finger-wagging, threat-filled discourse of the Bush administration in regards to Iran's reported efforts to enrich uranium, and possibly to develop the technology which will enable them to produce nuclear weapons.
As recently as Saturday the N.Y. Times published a story exploring the United States' position on engaging in talks with Iranian leadership, namely President Ahmadinejad, on the issue of their nuclear aspirations. Although the title of the Times story by Steven R. Weismann ( U.S. Debating Talks With Iran On Nuclear Issue, N.Y. Times , 5/27/06) implies that U.S. leadership is actively considering the possibility of talks with Iran, the body of the article makes it clear that top government officials do not want to pursue this option, despite the pleadings and recommendations of European diplomats as well as past and present U.S. foreign policy experts.
The Times piece suggests that the possibility of direct talks with Iran "is so politically delicate within the Bush administration that officials who described the emerging debate would discuss it only if granted anonymity." Apparently State Department officials have even refused to talk about the issue. European diplomats such as Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana have reportedly urged Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice to make contact with Iran on this issue (N.Y. Times , 5/27/06).
Thus far the U.S. position has been that initiating talks with Iran would be a sign of "weakness." Further, senior administration officials have expressed concern that talking with Iran is not a good idea because they are not certain that Iranian leadership would respond positively, and might even rebuff them; and that a rebuff from Iran is to be avoided at all costs (N.Y. Times, 5/27).
Are these legitimate concerns when faced with an issue as important as nuclear proliferation and protecting not only America, but the world, from any possible nuclear threat? These comments from U.S. leadership seem to be a smokescreen for the true issue here, namely, if the U.S. did engage in talks with Iran, in good faith, and in sincerity, they might actually be able to come up with a reasonable compromise and/or solution to the current stand-off. If such a compromise or solution were reached, then it would become more difficult, if not impossible to continue to demonize Iran and include them in the "Axis of Evil," depicting them as a nation to be feared, and perhaps, like Iraq, dismantled.
In a recent speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Vice President Dick Cheney hinted at, without explicitly saying, that American military intervention or overthrow of the government of Iran could be options:
"For our part, the United States is keeping all options on
the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the
regime..... And we join other nations in sending that regime
a message: We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons."
(Cheney Warns of 'Consequences' for Iran on Nuclear Issue ,
N.Y. Times, 5/8/06)
For his part, President Bush has said (in response to reports that the U.S. has been planning an attack on Iran) that military intervention by the U.S. is "wild speculation" and added that:
"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't necessarily mean force. In this case it means diplomacy." (BBC News, updated 4/10/06).
If indeed, prevention means diplomacy, then why are the U.S officials refusing to talk to Iran? It appears this is another case of Bush saying one thing and then doing (or not doing in this case) something completely different. He says diplomacy is being pursued, and yet the administration is refusing to sit down and talk with Iran.
According to the Times article of 5/27 Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have opposed direct talks, "even through informal back channels."
While it is true that U.S. relations with Iran have been strained and characterized by distrust for some time now -- going back to the hostage crisis of 1979 -- with so much at stake, and with so much international support and backing for diplomacy, one would think that the U.S. could overcome such prejudice. Indeed, even decades of the Cold War didn't prevent U.S. leadership from subsequently engaging the leadership of the former Soviet Union.
As former deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell, Richard L. Armitage , has pointed out:
"Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends. You've got to talk people who aren't your friends, and even people you dislike. Some people in this administration think that diplomacy is a sign of weakness. In fact, it can show that you're strong." (Times, 5/27)
The most logical explanation for the U.S. leaderships' refusal to sit down at the table with Ahmadinejad and Iran is that, as stated previously, a "solution" or resolution is not what they actually want. Just as they do not really want to end the war in Iraq, and thus the occupation of that country, they similarly do not want to reach an accord or agreement with Iran.
Presently, the demonization of Iran, and particularly of President Ahmadinejad, serves the neo-con agenda. A little investigation however reveals the exaggeration and misinformation used by the U.S. leaders and the mainstream media in their campaign against Iran's president. For instance, in regards to Ahmadinejad's comment in the Fall of 2005 that "Israel must be wiped off the map", there has been alot of ink spilled and many outrageous comparisons made. The mainstream media has taken this comment out of context and used it to create an image of Ahmadinejad as a madman , a religious zealot, a little Hitler, who is bent on destroying Israel.
Most media outlets failed to mention that this comment was made at a conference entitled a "World Without Zionism." An article by Dan Murphy in The Christian Science Monitor from 11/1/05 ("What's behind Iranian leader's anti-Israel rant") explores the background and history of Ahmadinejad's comment. Murphy points out that "in the context of modern Iranian history, the fiery rhetoric of the populist leader at 'World Without Zionism' conference was hardly surprising." Murphy also says that Ahmadinejad's supporters are drawn to him because of "the zeal with which he advocates both anti-imperial claims and social justice goals of Iran's Islamic revolution(.)"
Murphy also quotes William Beeman, an anthropology professor at Brown University ( and author of 'The Great Satan' vs. The Mad Mullahs:' How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other) who explains that Ahmadinejad is "appealing to his base and his base are a group of people who are involved with a revolutionary rhetoric." Murphy also quotes Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick, who likens Ahmadinejad's appeal to voters to the appeal of President Bush in the United States.
It is also significant that shortly after his inflammatory comments about Israel that Ahmadinejad "appeared to backpedal" and reportedly told the state news agency that "political steps are the only ones that can solve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis." (Christian Science Monitor, 11/1/05). Further, Ahmadinejad has also stated that it is not the Jewish people or Israel in general that he has a problem with, but with Zionism.
Ahmadinejad, whom the same article referred to as "a sort of Middle Eastern Hugo Chavez minus the full control to put his ideas into action" is hardly a man the entire Western World should fear as the next Adolf Hitler.
For these reasons, we need to look elsewhere to discover the roots of America's stance on Iran and nuclear weapons, and the refusal to open dialogue on the issue. In a recent article Zoltan Grossman (The U.S., Iran, & Khuzestan, Z Magazine, January, 2006) suggests that a confrontation with Iran has "long been in the cards." He points out that the Project for the New American Century claims that Iran "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has."
Grossman takes a historical look at American and British dealings with Iran and sees a pattern of imperialistic policy;
"British troops occupied Khuzestan during World War II, but after the war Iranians grew more concerned that Westerners had a stranglehold on their oil wealth. In 1951 the Iranian nationalist leader Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry based mainly in Khuzestan (including Anglo-Iranian holdings), drawing the wrath of Western powers. Two years later a CIA-engergized coup ousted Mossadegh and installed Shah Reza Pahlevi, who opened Khuzestan to a U.S. -British oil concession. " (Z Magazine, 1/06).
Grossman goes on to detail how in 1978 Arab oil workers went on strike against the Shah and played a big role in the Iranian Revolution that toppled him in 1979. Subsequently, Saddam Hussein was encouraged by Western powers in his brutal invasion of Khuzestan in 1980, and ended up occupying the oil region in the west.
So, we can see that the United States history with Iran is much deeper and exploitative than is typically portrayed in the American media, who invariably focus on the taking of U.S. hostages without refering to the background of this event. It is not hard to see how Iran could and would be afraid of the government of America and their imperialistic agenda. They have lived through and experienced it.
In terms of the region's more recent history, it was undoubtedly true that Iran was pleased to see Saddam Hussein toppled and removed from power, however, the violence, destruction and ongoing carnage being perpetrated in Iraq by Bush & Co. probably hits a little too close to home for the Iranians to feel safe and secure. A BBC news report suggested recently that having witnessed two major wars in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranian people are increasingly fearful that they may face a similar fate if the nuclear crisis is not solved by diplomatic means.
Respected American journalist Seymour Hersh recently created a stir at home when he published a story about U.S. intentions in Iran (The Iran Plans : Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? , The New Yorker, 4/17/06). In the piece Hersch reported that the Bush administration had "increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack." He added that "teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups."
This alleged activity, if true, would of course have contradicted claims Bush had made about diplomacy being the means by which America would dissuade Iran from continuing their plans to enrich uranium and perhaps build a nuclear weapon/s. But maybe Iran's uranium enrichment and potential nuclear capabilities are not what concerns and interests America the most about this country. To return to the discussion of American political strategy in the region, it is significant that a "high ranking diplomat" in Vienna was quoted by Hersh as saying:
"This is much more than a nuclear issue. That's just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years." (The New Yorker, 4/17/06)
Hersh also quoted a senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror who stated that:
"The White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war. The danger (is that) it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have nuclear capability." (The New Yorker, 4/17/06)
This quote is very significant, and I believe tells us in the most accurate and succinct manner, what is really going on right now between the United States and Iran. It is my contention that the push of Ahmadinejad to develop nuclear capabilities is not about his religious convictions and the Imam Mahdi, not really about the general technological development of Iran (though no doubt this would benefit the people) , and not about punishing or getting rid of Israel. Quite simply, the possession of a nuclear weapon/s would act as a deterrent to the United States or Israel or any of their allies invading and/or occupying Tehran. It is in fact amazing to me that this fairly obvious theory hasn't been put out front by any of the major media outlets (at least not that I have read or heard; if someone finds this point prominently presented in a major media organ please share it).
Is it not ridiculously hypocritical for the United States of America (who possesses 30,000 tons of chemical weapons and the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the globe) to chastise another country, any country, about their national defense and deny them the right to protect their sovereignty by moving to develop nuclear technology as a deterrent to potential attack and/or occupation?
In a story from 5/16/06 Zia Mian (America, Iran and the Nuclear Option, ZNet) discusses the current state of affairs and highlights America's global military dominance and how both nuclear weapons and the nuclear option counteract that power, explaining that the spread of nuclear weapons to certain parts the world jeopardize America's ability to impose its' otherwise overwhelming military power. The story also quotes former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski from a piece in the Los Angeles Times. He says:
"If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there also will be immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate hysteria in favor of military action."
Brzezinski is further quoted as saying:
"If undertaken without formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrators as international outlaw(s). (L.A Times, 4/17/06)
If past actions are any indication of future behavior, then it is true that we indeed have something to fear. In the current debate over Iran and their reported nuclear program we are again, just like Iraq, not being told the truth. We do have something to fear. The twist is that what and who should be feared is alot closer to home than most Americans would ever imagine.
Great site lots of usefull infomation here.
»
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:35 PM
I'm impressed with your site, very nice graphics!
»
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:00 AM