WAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Will the US attack Iran?
09-Mar-2008
Bravado, posturing and gnashing of teeth have long characterized US-Iranian relations. For almost thirty years, and in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution which brought Ayatollah Khomeini and his small coterie of disciples to power there has been a string of events that have gone to ensure the bad-blood and rancor between these erstwhile allies has continued unabated. Prior to the revolution, Iranians resented the US for the CIA-MI6 orchestrated coup d’etat of 1953 which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq and later US support for the dictatorship of the Shah Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi.
Since the revolution, the Iran hostage crisis, US support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran’s alleged involvement in the 1983 Beirut US Embassy and barracks bombings, the Iran-Contra Affair, and Iran Air Flight 655, have ensued and only gone to sour relations and entrench mutual hostility further. The US-led invasion of Iraq moreover, has opened up a whole other dimension to what many have likened to an ongoing war of attrition, replete with all the necessary accoutrements: mutual vilification and unrelenting of rhetoric.
The title of William O. Beeman’s recent book The Great Satan Vs the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other is more than apposite given the episodic tirades emanating from both Washington and Tehran, each with its own sense of righteous indignation, railing against the evils committed by the other. There was a period of relative calm, however. With the election of the reformist President Mohammad Khatami, a modus vivendi however distant and obscure became a distinct possibility. Perhaps fearing Iran would be next on the Bush Administration’s hit-list after an unparalleled display of military strength, which eviscerated Saddam Hussein’s crumbling regime in a matter of weeks, Khatami’s government made the offer of a ‘grand bargain’ in which everything was on the table; from Iran’s nuclear program, to recognition of Israel and the cessation of support, financial and otherwise to Lebanese and Palestinian militants.
Whether the offer was the result of benevolence or fear is really beside the point – what it does show is that the Iranian government is ultimately rational in an instrumental sense, and foremost interested in procuring its survival. This instrumentalist behavior has remained in evidence even since the election of the markedly more hard-line president in the form of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been castigated on more than one occasion by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei who ultimately holds all the cards and the keys to every door.
The Jacobin period of the Islamic Revolution has subsided, even if it continues to rear its ugly head on occasion, and some time ago entered its Thermadorian phase where far more worldly interests act as the prime motivators governing the regime’s behavior. The regime’s old-guard is far more akin to the Soviet Politburo whose political machinations were strictly motivated by Realpolitik and often underwritten by jaded cynicism and whose foremost objectives were self-preservation and regional self-aggrandizement. The Islamic Republic corresponds well to such a paradigm and can hardly be called an exception in this regard. The infamous chant of ‘Death to America’ is but a stale nod to official ideology and rings hollow amongst the vast majority of Iranians, especially those born in the baby boom post-1979, and whom can be counted amongst the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Ahamadinejad’s inflammatory and arguably anti-Semitic rhetoric has of course fanned the flames of controversy and in its shortsightedness acted as a boon for those elements in Washington, most notably Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office whose activities are about as obscure and elusive as Alice in Wonderland’s Cheshire Cat, where only the vestiges of a menacing grimace remain. They know full-well that an enemy who bares his teeth can be exploited to brilliant effect and whose bearded visage can ably perform the role of ‘imminent threat’ personified, striking fear into the heart of the American and European publics.
While the reformists were at the helm the conventional wisdom held that the Iranian president was merely a figurehead, and thus the creature of subterranean forces at work within the Islamic Republic. The election in August 2005 of a little-known firebrand in the form of Ahmadinejad claiming to represent Iran’s disenfranchised and destitute underclass with all of the appropriate demagogic trimmings has led to the Iranian president’s transformation by these selfsame politicians and pundits into a Hitlerian incarnation with a raging desire to inaugurate WWIII.[i]
While Khatami was cast as a pathetic stooge incapable of making any impact upon the dogmatic values of the Islamic Republic, Ahamadi-Nejad, we are told, has his finger on the button and is itching to hasten the Twelfth Imam’s return by means of nuclear Armageddon. The Orientalist and neoconservative ally, Bernard Lewis, in an article written for the Wall Street Journal, even cooked up the bizarre theory that Ahmadinejad would launch Iran’s nuclear weapons on August 22 2006 so as to coincide with the prophet Mohammad’s ascension from the Dome of the Rock! The tactic employed here is very simple and extremely effective. By imposing on your enemy the category of the ‘irrational’ as opposed to the ‘rational’, negotiation and diplomacy necessarily emerge as futile and thereby precluded a priori.
If a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is unable to deter the Iranian government the only available option is preemption by means of military force. The result is Bush’s refrain ‘that no option is off the table’ when it comes to dealing with Iran, even if that means a ‘tactical’ nuclear strike. We are admonished further that force is the only language ‘these kinds of people’ understand.
Lewis and dilettantes such as the British novelist Martin Amis and neoconservatives such as Michael Leeden and David Frum in their efforts to snuff out the path of diplomacy have endeavored to cast Iran beyond the pale of rational debate. Not surprisingly, it was Frum who was responsible for the subsumption of Iran, Iraq and North Korea under the banner of ‘an axis of evil’ in Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union address.
The reality is slightly more nuanced however. Not only has there been no hard-evidence that Iran is currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program [i], there is the additional caveat that even if the regime were in possession of a nuclear arsenal, the Iranian president, who unlike the US president, isn’t commander-in-chief of the armed forces and so cannot launch any kind of military attack without the Supreme Leader’s authorization.
Another point that is often purposely overlooked is that Ahmadinejad is ultimately elected and thus not a permanent fixture of the Iranian political scene. Whatever the limitations and gaping flaws of Iran’s few democratic processes, the Iranian president can be removed electorally. Ahmadinejad was himself an underdog and few if any foresaw his electoral victory. Those who abstained from the last Iranian presidential elections out of disillusionment at the failure of Khatami’s government to change the status quo in 2009 may well kick Ahmadinejad out of power and back into the obscurity from whence he came. Even his core-constituency to whom he had promised to uproot corruption and alleviate poverty have been left out in the cold and rightly resent the current president for promises he hasn’t kept.
The release in December 2007 of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in which all sixteen US intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Iran had ceased its efforts to build a nuclear weapon back in 2003, came to the relief of many and it was subsequently argued by a slew of commentators that the NIE would provide Iran with some much needed breathing room; putting a damper on any plans for an imminent US strike against Iran.
Unlike Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a treaty which guarantees ‘the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination’.[ii] Iran, however, has refused to halt its nuclear enrichment program and as a consequence elicited three rounds of sanctions. The most recent set embodied in UNSC Resolution 1803 extends beyond Iran’s nuclear program, and calls for vigilance regarding Iranian financial institutions.
The impact of existing sanctions is already being felt in Iran, making it ever more difficult for Ahmadinejad to hitch his wagon to the nationalist star. Every time it is invoked its emotive force is assuaged and it is likely if things continue in this manner Iranians will elect a more pragmatic leader in the 2009 presidential elections, even though they are fully within their rights as delineated in the NPT to domestically enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran’s abysmal human rights record and suffocation of personal freedoms guarantees, moreover that the manipulation of nationalist sentiment will only have a limited shelf life. If the Bush Administration is preparing the ground for regime change in Tehran as the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh has argued, it seems to be running in tandem with the ongoing commitment to isolate Iran economically and politically by means of UN sanctions.
Professor Hamid Dabashi, Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, like Hersh affirms the possibility of a US strike against Iranian nuclear targets and Revolutionary Guard bases at the end of Bush’s second term. An attack, he says, ‘continues to remain very much alive – particularly in this US election year when the possibility of an ‘October surprise’ is always there…the Republican president might do something to prolong the state of war and make it easier for Senator McCain to have an upper hand in the November election’.[iii]
A disinformation campaign has been waged in the face of the American public’s skepticism as to the merits of an attack against Iran,[iv] in order to reframe the US’s ‘issues’ with the Islamic Republic from one of counter-proliferation to counter-terrorism.[v] After the Bush Administration’s clear manipulation of intelligence in pursuit of a political agenda in the run up the US-led invasion of Iraq, the American public and world at large are no longer willing to take US intelligence claims at face value.
To this end, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has been placed on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations and been accused of instigating sectarian violence in Iraq and supplying ‘explosively formed perpetrators’ (EFP) responsible for killing Coalition soldiers. To what degree they are involved however, remains nebulous, especially since it is in the Islamic Republic’s interests to have an empowered Shia majority heading the present Iraqi government.
This was most recently highlighted by Ahmadinejad’s two-day state visit to Iraq earlier this month during which Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maleki greeted the Iranian president with brimming smiles and much pomp. Iran has a vested interest in seeing the present Iraqi government succeed and is unlikely to throw in their lot with the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose view of Iran is itself shot through with skepticism and secondary to the causes of Iraqi and Arab nationalism, which he skillfully manages to blend with a radical brand of Shi’ism. Middle East expert and editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, Alain Gresh, has further written that US commandos have been active in Iran since 2004 and that the US has substantially increased aid to Kurdish, Arab, Azeri and Baluchi minorities in an bid to destabilize the country.
Although Iran is not by any definition a ‘new state,’ and possesses a fairly cohesive national identity, consolidated in the course of Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic’s rule, given the right combination and concatenation of causes and effects, its territorial integrity is far from impervious to the exploitation of age-old ethnic and tribal loyalties, which have been systematically suppressed since the rise to power of Reza Pahlavi Shah in the 1920s. The vertiginous balancing act of forestalling Iraq’s total disintegration is a telling example of where such tactics can lead. US secret assistance, flirtation and unabashed support to groups such as the Baluchi Jund al-Islam, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Free Life Party in conjunction with a wide-ranging aerial strike could make for a dangerous cocktail with potentially devastating consequences for the Iranian people; consequences that would almost certainly spread to Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, engulfing the region as a whole with catastrophic results.[vi]
NOTES
[i] The Politics of Non-Proliferation, Mohammad Kamaali, Iranian.com, 7/3/2008.
[ii] Article IV, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, International Atomic Energy Agency, INFCIRC/140, 22 April 1970
[iii] Correspondence with the author, 6/3/2008
[iv] For a thorough account of this disinformation campaign see, Iran: A Chronology of Disinformation, Gary Leupp, Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, February 17/18, 2007
[v] Shifting Targets, Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, October 8, 2007
[vi] The Mujahedin-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Free Life Party’s sister organization, the Kurdish Workers’ Party are both listed by the State Department as terrorist organizations.
©Eskandar Sadeghi
| Recently by sadegh | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Optimism and Nightmares | 2 | Jun 18, 2009 |
| The Quest for Authenticity | 6 | Mar 18, 2009 |
| Thirty Years On | 39 | Feb 01, 2009 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Gorg Wahabi
by Daryush on Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:58 AM PDTGorg Wahabi (Al george al W albush) is too STUPID with an S to be able to do anysing. I say wis all rezbekt:
BIYAkh
Waite a moment. I have this
by azarafshan (not verified) on Tue Mar 11, 2008 09:20 AM PDTWaite a moment. I have this friend who is lover of democray and human rights and tells me he wants me to have them both and is willing to spend 70 mils this year so i get it. We go back a while as if it was yesterday he toppelled my democracy and installed his guy as my dictator who turtured me a while and just as i got rid of him by luck he took him in and helped my nighbor devistate me fo eight bloody years until he not me got rid of the bad dud by coming to my nighberhood. The other nighbor was also helpped by a gange created by those who got rid of my man then attacked him. In any rate this "Friend". this bully is now on both side of me * stucked in mud like mule* Sends his jocker to go around the neighberhood scaring people off me and bribing them into ganging up which they are eager to do, not only to me to themselves to the jews the other good guys, etc. not that they have been any good. Now this old body good ol guy wants me to trust him. Should I?. P.s. His budies Sodies are dum as rock with s.. load of money and oil. Thug Parviz is all for Democracy and has some NUk so do our only democracy in New York opps in Middle East and od course india and chaina and Russia and we saw Dicks Face on waters of the Gulf chewing his taboco spidding in there good ol cawboy. Trustme he says Should I?
nice info....
by ali (not verified) on Mon Mar 10, 2008 08:16 PM PDTthanks for the article....
although I am NOT for war, it is very unlikely that these butchers will go quietly....
perhaps the shah's mistake was his tolerance for these monsters, and NOT eliminating the mullahs while he had the chance....the mullahs certainly did NOT return the favor- they executed and purged any military and government personnel whom they felt remotely presented a threat- without any trial or justification.
the mullahs only respect force- and that is what may ultimately be needed to "cut the head of the monster"
I just hope iran and our people will soon be rid of these butchers once and for all....
the mullahs are the true embodiment of EVIL ON EARTH!!!
Eskandar
by programmer craig on Mon Mar 10, 2008 02:53 PM PDTEnjoy the converstaion you are having with yourself :)
Mr. Sadeghi....
by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 02:52 PM PDTThe idea of a surgical strike is one that I'm pretty sure has been considered, so it's definitely reasonable to be concerned. It's also safe to say that the U.S. military realizes that they are dealing with an adversary with the collective mindset of "we have nothing to lose", which is of course makes them extremely dangerous. That, in turn has caused the U.S. to think twice.
But we have to remember that, no matter what our opinion of the IRI may be, the concerns we share regarding military action are based mostly upon our emotions, rather than logic. It doesn't make our concerns any less significant or real, but we just have to maintain proper perspective.
Right now, the Bush administration is in "lame duck" status, as there are 10 months left in his final term. They are just keeping the chairs warm for the next occupant. Naturally, they do not want a Democrat occupying the White House at the end of January 2009, and any (first-strike) military action will result in a guaranteed win for the Democrats in November.
My greater fear is that with a Democrat in the White House, the military and subsequently the rest of the world will actually become more vulnerable to terrorism, funded by the IRI, who will be laughing hysterically the whole time.
This is the same
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:54 AM PDTThis is the same Administration who thought that Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of Baghdad was a good idea! - I wonder what would be the response to someone who suggested Qalibaf for mayor of New York? Probably not too favorable...
Nice comment Mr. Nouraee.
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:48 AM PDTNice comment Mr. Nouraee. My main worry, which I still don't think can be definitively ruled out, is that the Bush Administration might attempt a 'surgical' strike against a number of targets within Iran, thinking that it will end there (much like Israel's strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor in the early 80s). Iran will then respond in kind, striking US assets within the region, thereby escalating the conflict, and then who knows? I really don't think that the Bush Administration's hubris should be underestimated. Your point is a trenchant one nonetheless, hysteria doesn't help anybody. Thank you.
Short Answer?
by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:26 AM PDTMr. Sadeghi, the short answer to the question of whether or not the U.S. will attack Iran is simply, "no".
The U.S. at this moment lacks the the personnel and the hardware required to carry out any such attack. They are barely able to maintain the hardware and personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is. Let us not forget the peacetime contingents located at large military bases elsewhere throughout the world: Germany, England, Turkey, Korea, Okinawa, (to name a few).
All of this attack talk (not yours specifically, but in general) has really done nothing more than to inflame already hostile rhetoric, similar to two loudmouths in a sports bar arguing over the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox after filling up on pitchers of cheap beer and buffalo chicken wings. Both sides threaten each other, but any reasonable person can tell that it's really all talk.
Thanks Anonymousza...That
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:15 AM PDTThanks Anonymousza...That all sounds good to me, even if our options are 'not-so-bright' as you so aptly put it.
Good to see that like the
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:11 AM PDTGood to see that like the IRI and the Bush administration Fred sees no need to provide evidence or rational argument for his allegations and accusations. Fanatics are the same no matter what side of the ideological spectrum they claim to stand on...
Anti-semitic??? The
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:04 AM PDTAnti-semitic??? The dimwitted slanderers are in full force today...
Not so easy a metamorphosis
by Fred on Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:55 AM PDTOnly if a conversion from an Anti-Semitic, Islamist Iranian, lefty Edward Said wannabe to a secular liberal like Mossadegh was as simple as displaying an appropriate avatar then Soroush, Dabashi and alike could go through the metamorphosis too.
Dear Mr. Sadeghi: I guess I
by Anonymousza (not verified) on Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:36 AM PDTDear Mr. Sadeghi:
I guess I failed to make my points clear. War against Iran would be counterproductive on all levels both for Iran and the U.S. And I do think that the U.S. has finally begun to see that when Nicholas Burns resigned from his position. I don't think the threat of war exists whatsoever.
However, efforts to topple the regime in other forms or shape are forthcoming and planned as we speak whetehr with nuclear weapons or without.
The Royalists and MKO are two not-so-bright entities that we have to live with for good. We need a new realistic paradigm that will take into account all these pieces on the chess board and is able to ward off all threats from all sides.
The Islamic Republic as is or any future government of Iran will not be able to do that unless it diversifies its economy and compromises with the West while not allowing itself to be exploited. A bit of multi-tasking is in order here. This is what China is doing right now.
Indpendence when most of the economy is based on oil is meanignless and hollow.
Thanks for the comment.
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:38 AM PDTThanks for the comment. The answer to your question is very simple. The IRI is NOT the right ally for anti-imperialist struggles – I have made my criticisms of the IRI more than reasonably clear. Comparing it to the Soviet Union which was itself an imperialist and authoritarian regime, denouncing the IRI's human rights record, institution of gender apartheid, and machinations for regional self-aggrandizement can hardly be called compliments. The level of fanaticism of some royalists, Mujahedin-e-Khalq affiliates etc…is worrying – only if you as fanatical and hateful as they are i.e. hold the view: raze Iran to the ground, it doesn’t matter how many innocents perish, we are all out of the country anyway, all that matters is that the IRI goes. The premise of your argument is flawed from the outset. The attempt by so many of the comments regarding my article to corral me into alliance with the IRI is deeply disturbing and unfortunate. I support the LIBERAL cause of an independent Iran which determines its own fate, the cause of Mossadeq and Jebhe Melli – the IRI is not the agent to deliver self-determination to Iran, but neither will bombing Iran back into the stone-age, which will leave our country irreparably damaged and destined to be a protectorate with a government that subjugates the interests of its own people to those of foreign powers. The delusion that the Bush administration has the Iranian peoples’ interests at heart is absolutely laughable and too shortsighted and lacking in historical insight to be taken seriously.
Mr. Sadeghi: Do you think
by Anonymousza (not verified) on Mon Mar 10, 2008 09:21 AM PDTMr. Sadeghi: Do you think Iran is a non-imperialist entity? How could you morally justifies Iran's action in collaborating with the "imperialist" U.S. in Iraq? Is that the best partner for your anti-imperialist struggles???
//www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01....
The Islamic Republic is being given enough ropes to hang itself with both by the U.S. and the EU. In fact, this fact applies to all the Islamist/jihadist in the ME region. On the other hand, the U.S. cannot afford to let the Islamic Republic become Russia's or China's nuclear proxy. The issue is not really the Islamic Republic in the geopolitical/economic calculation.
I think the left should focus on supporting principles rather than groups or entities. You sleep with dog, you wake up with flees.
Why the "Politics of Class" Leads to Moral Relativism:
//hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/cat_the...
Saddam-era spies expert on Iranians at work in Iraq:
//www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-10...
The record is far from
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 07:41 AM PDTIf it is true (and it may well be) the record is far from definitive and transparency demands that we acknowledge that:
'At the time of the bombing, several radical Shiite militant groups claimed responsibility for the attacks, and one, the Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, identified the two suicide bombers as Abu Mazen and Abu Sijaan. After some years of investigation the bombing was thought to have been committed by the Lebanese Shia militant militia and political party Hezbollah while it was still "underground," though opinion is not unanimous. Hezbollah did not formally announce its existence until 1985 when it published a manifesto condemning the West and proclaiming "Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies." The U.S. government believes that elements that would eventually become Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, were responsible for this bombing, as well as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut earlier in April. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have denied any involvement.' - Wikipedia, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing
US state sponsered terrorism
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 07:34 AM PDTOn 8 March 1985, a car bomb exploded 9-45 metres from the house of Islamic cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah in Beirut, Lebanon, in a failed assassination attempt. The bombing, later discovered to be the work of CIA-trained Lebanese mercenaries, killed more than 80 people and injured 200. - Wikipedia, 1985 Beirut car bombing
I suggest you educate yourself...
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 06:44 AM PDTThe nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. - Wikipedia
I said we shouldn't take US
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 07:32 AM PDTI said we shouldn't take US allegations and accusations at face value, since they have proven themselves to be liars on more occasions than I am prepared to point out. The Iranian government's claims should not be taken at face value either because they have been proven to be liars also - that is why we have the NTP and the reason I hope the US in its brazen stupidty ceases its attempts to goad Iran into recusing itself from the treaty in order to create a pretext for war.
Of course Iran played a part in setting up Hezbollah (that is clearly verifiable) and like I said Iran may well have had been involved in the Beirut bombings, though these bombings were committed by a group called 'Islamic Jihad' thought to be an earlier incarnation of Hezbollah - this all may well be true - but 'may be true' isn't good enough. Also I think your evaluation of Hezbollah is a little naive - they arose out of the legitimate grievance towards Israel's occupation and systematic destruction of Lebanon, as well as the Shia majority's exclusion from political power since the confessional system was established by the European colonial powers in the aftermath of WWII. Iran surely manipulated this grievance to the end of its own regional prowess. But Iran is no exception in that regard.
Finally, I will never accept lies and falsehoods as a pretext to bomb, obliterate, murder my family members and tear our country to shreds, only to be turned into an American protectorate under the yoke of foreign domination in perpetuity. Thank you for your comment though - it was certainly constructive.
Eskandar
by programmer craig on Mon Mar 10, 2008 06:39 AM PDTIran is not even remotely close to the percentages needed for nuclear
weapons, as far as I recall it remains in the low single digits,
whereas a percentage in the high 90s is what is required – the US and
various ideologically motivated think-tanks have been saying that Iran
is a year away from the bomb since the mid-90s
That's very odd, since Iran just started enriching uranium last year. It's also strang, considering Iran hid it's nuclear program until September of 2002, and yet you say people have been accusing Iran of "being a year away from the bomb" since the mid 1990s.
Seriously, how do you expect somebody to debate the situation with you, when you say things that appear to be factually incorrect?
Do you think I'm patronizing you by pointing these things out?
Anyway... are you acknowledging that the IRI seeks to make nuclear weapons? Or not? Because further discussion seems pointless if we can't get that out of the way :)
If we accede to your
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:17 AM PDTIf we accede to your warped logic that I am somehow complicit with the IRI – which I am not – I have denounced on many an occasions their terrible human rights record, suppression of individual freedoms, implementation of gender apartheid and general brutalization of the Iranian people – you are, through your support of American imperialism, responsible for the murder of Chileans, Sudanese, Guatemalans, Afghanis, Hawaiians, Iranians, Iraqis, Cubans, Argentineans, Palestinians, Lebanese, Haitians, Grenadines etc… Just be thankful that that is not the case and that your logic when all is said and done totally warped and unbelievably myopic…
0
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 06:21 AM PDT0
No need to patronize - it's
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 05:39 AM PDTNo need to patronize - it's simply rude, but if that's your style, then so be it. Iran is not even remotely close to the percentages needed for nuclear weapons, as far as I recall it remains in the low single digits, whereas a percentage in the high 90s is what is required – the US and various ideologically motivated think-tanks have been saying that Iran is a year away from the bomb since the mid-90s – the truth of course is that they are just blowing smoke – the ‘Iranian nuke’ is a telos which keeps getting forecast later and later, put out a few years later each time the stated deadline for ‘impending doom’ fails to occur.
The IAEA has not provided a shred of evidence that Iran has even ever had a nuclear weapons program. The unanimous conclusion of all 16 US intelligence agencies as relayed in the NIE, which are far from impartial, claims that even if Iran did have a weapons program it was brought to a halt in 2003. I am sure if its findings corroborated your own view of things you would be shouting it from the roof tops. Iran furthermore has voluntarily offered to impose the NPT's additional protocol while the US helps India, a nation not even signatory to the NPT, to procure further nuclear technology. Iran suspended uranium enrichment for 2 years while the US refused to provide security guarantees - why? Because those in Washington with a misguided faith in the beneficence of American Empire are hell bent on the preponderance of Pax Americana. There is just too much booty to plunder to leave it unscathed by US military violence and colonialism.
Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true, although it can certainly dupe the vast majority of people into thinking otherwise. Because you are so desperate to believe Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapons program that again doesn't make it so.
You employ the typical sophism so predominant amongst the warmongers. You invoke a negative criteria which is irrefutable, just as was done in the case of Iraq’s mythical WMDs. 'Saddam could be hiding his nukes in the desert, or in his basement, or perhaps he has mobile weapons factories that can be moved at will in order to elude us'. We know the truth though and Halliburton was paid some $40 million dollars to prove conclusively that the premise of the war was a bold-faced lie.
It is impossible to prove beyond any possible doubt that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful because the ‘mad mullahs’ could always be hiding the program somewhere else where the IAEA is unable to get to - maybe Iran's hitched their nukes to satellites and they're currently whirling around the globe or maybe they are buried in Rafsanjani’s back garden underneath a beautiful patch of red tulips. 24 hours surveillance, dozens of inspections, unscheduled and otherwise, and the rigorous catalogue of all material in order to ensure there are no diversions; I guess these are not enough for you. What other nation has undergone such scrutiny? The US? Israel? India? Pakistan – a nuclear disaster waiting to happen if there ever was one? Musharraf is a US ally however and so is undeserving of such treatment even if his ISI does support and fund the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The truth is that you are the one who is completely disingenuous because despite there not being a shred of evidence to the contrary you talk about how perceptions can be equated with reality – which shows that you are not interested in the truth but just the corroboration of your own prejudices. Spin, propaganda and ideological fabrications are what make your world go round…
'The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.' - Hermann Goering
Ring any bells?
Eskandar
by programmer craig on Mon Mar 10, 2008 03:21 AM PDTShow me the proof that Iran is CURRENTLY pursuing a nuclear weapons
program and I'll be more than happy to concede the point.
What does "currently" have to do with anything and why did you capitalize it? Are you admitting Iran HAD a nuclear weapons project? If so, cvan you "prove" Iran no longer wants to build nuclear weapons. Because Iran is still enriching uranium, and producing the weapons grade fissile material is the HARD PART of making a nuclear weapon. Once the IRI has the fissile material they can produce warheads in short order. It costs them virtually nothing to shut down that portion of their weapons program.
I am against
the Islamic Republic's possession of nuclear weapons, but I am also
against bogus claims being made by warmongers in Washington in order to
justify further barbaric acts of US imperialism. Show me the proof and
I will admit my mistake. Some people are capable of doing so, though we
are few and far between.
I didn't accuse you of making a mistake. I accuesed you of ebing disengenuous:
//dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuou...
dis·in·gen·u·ous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation /ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation–adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.
However, if you are willing to cede the liklihood that the Islamic Republic does intend to make nuclear weapons, perhaps we can discuss the more relevant matters? Because, whether you believe it or not (and even most Iranians appear to belive that IRI wants to build nuclear weapons) it is what most of the world is convinced of, including the US. By dismissing the most pressing concern the US has, you dismiss the whole case. Which is undoubtedly your intent, but it is an unrealistic position for you to take.
Will the US attack Iran?
by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on Mon Mar 10, 2008 01:52 AM PDTYES. But it cant. The not any more so greate satan is laying in his death bed, snapping his last air drops.
the best "occasion" for the greate satan to behave respectless against honourable Iranian nation and attack was given during 1978. In that time his majesty sat stil on the Peacock thron, there were his "Generals", there were 8ty-thausand american military "experts" there were weapons, but the satan could not do a damn thing. since then it can do even less. The enemies tried allready whatever they could imagin, everything what they could perform, but they can not get into action. They can only stand outdoor barking and gruntig. That is all. Think on SARRAKHS. The comander, a vietnam "VETERAN", so it was written in Time-magazin, SAT ON the GROUND and CRIED. bevor he escaped in the last stil working warplane and went. Then came Sadam. he could not present any success but demanded rewards for his helping the satan. so he had to die. And now? Who should be sent to the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN? I suggest one makes an end with these kind of questions. The thirty years of powere of the Iranian Nation will go on until reappearing of Mahdi(s). And in the United states of America? They practice the purest modality of westernkind democracy: The president has the right to veto against Lawmakers. Clearly the purest kind of Diktatorsghip. Greeting.
Hezbollah
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Mon Mar 10, 2008 01:05 AM PDTMr. Sadeghi, the Hezbollah, who claimed responsibility for the Beirut bombing, is a branch of the Hezbollah movement in Iran. I don’t think anyone in the world today denies the fact that it was and is created, funded and supported by Iran. It was founded in the early years of the revolution. If I may ask you a question, do you believe that it could be possible, that in the world of politics and intelligence, those regimes who act in mafia like ways such as the IRI, have done the bombing through Hezbollah, but did not leave any evidence? Now clearly this is not a court of law where we should review all evidence, but do you really, seriously, deep in your heart, and just by examining and analyzing IRIs stated and non stated goals, policies, actions, techniques, ….believe that the just because sometimes we are not able to find clear evidence, that we should stop fighting this regime or stop blaming it for what’s it doing to our people? After 30 years of brutal oppression of our people, are you stating that we should be naïve enough to really take things at face value? If we take things at face value Mr. Sadeghi, every government will always get away with murder, because every government justifies its action, they always present some kind of logic (twisted or not) or evidence to justify their crimes. If we take things at face value, labor camps in Russia and China and Cambodia, war crimes by Hitler, human rights violations of countries such as Iran, Burma, North Korea, Sudan, the Iraq war, the September 11 attacks, the daily suicide bombings in Iraq, the Vietnam war, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan…are all justified, so how do you suppose we should analyze these things? Just because Mr. Khamenei said we are not after atomic bomb and just because IAEA is to incompetent or unable (As they stated themselves) to verify that, and just because IRI is saying we represent the people, and we do not support and inspire terrorism, and we are leading “anti-imperialism” (Whatever that word means!) movement, then we should just believe it, because “they said so” and we can’t prove otherwise?
Iranian nationalist, only
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:50 AM PDTIranian nationalist, only one fraction of Iranian opposition, MKO, who is highly unpopular in Iran, went to Iraq. However, it is the actions and the articles like this which empowers the Islamic regime to keep its illegal existence in Iran, which means, people who justify the actions and the existence of IRI, are partners in their crime against the Iranian people. Furthermore, like I’ve said before, it is amazing how some of us put words together. You claimed it was “Uncle Sam” weapons that helped Iraq. Let me ask you this, who started the animosity between the U.S and Iran in 1979? Anti U.S (Not just anti U.S policy, but anti U.S itself) stance has been an integral part of the regime’s existence. Since day of its appalling existence, the IRI has been provoking and bashing and working against U.S interest. Do you believe at all that the U.S should do something about that? Did you or do you expect them to send thank you notes for bashing them 24/7 and burning their flags 24/7 In Iran? When you create enemies, like the IRI did with most of the world, you should expect them to defend themselves or do something about it. so someday that this fascist regime has been overthrown by the Iranian people, despite some of Iranians, like people on this websites, support for them, then, we can be able to witness how a civilized and responsible nation and governments deals with other countries. I guess since it has been 30 years since the creation of the Islamic regime, some of us have been brainwashed to believe that there is not a better world out there.
I suggest you read Mohammad Kamaali's very informative article
by sadegh on Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:08 AM PDT//iranian.com/main/2008/politics-non-proliferation-0
The answer to that is
by sadegh on Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:29 PM PDTThe answer to that is simple: as far as I know the Iran hostage crisis, US support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 (I never said the US shot down the plane intentionally, but you conveniently ignore that fact), and Iran-Contra are hard facts, they happened and have plenty of documentation to back them up.
The bombings in Beirut are not as clear cut - and it is not clear to what extent Iran was involved. There is a thing called the burden of proof afterall. I have heard an ex-member of the CIA's testimony who has said he suspects Iran was involved, but is unable to prove it - they may well be have been - but suspicions are hardly the same as hard facts. If you have any hard evidence, again I will happily concede the point. Thanks for your comment.
Thanks for your pertinent comment
by sadegh on Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:19 PM PDTYou are surely correct - the Islamic republic has always supported armed militants, (we all know the famous check which Khomeini handed over to Arafat and the PLO) and this has always been know and high on the agenda in Washington and Tel Aviv - the reframing of the US's issues with Iran from that of counter-proliferation to counter-terrorism I spoke of was referring to the increased emphasis on Iran's escapades in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine for the benefit of the American public and the international community as a whole. The fact that Iran's 'state sponsership of terrorism' was so high on Bush's visit to the Middle East and perhaps found its culmination in Bush's speech in Abu Dhabi is interesting and I think a change worth noting. Again thanks for your comments.