THOSE TRICKY IRANIANS ARE NOW THREATENING TO COOPERATE
NEW YORK October 05, 2009
The confusion over Iran’s nuclear program mounts as accusations and denials intensify.
In an effort to browbeat Iran into nuclear submission, the US, Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have  just `discovered’ a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and `long-ranged missiles.’ 
 
In reality, the Qum plant was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community.   Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days.   UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice.  
 
But Iran cast suspicion on itself by hastily alerting the UN’s nuclear agency, IAEA, right after the `revelation’ of the Qum plant and inviting inspection.  Iran may not have been actually guilty of anything, but it looked guilty – in western eyes.   
 
Iran can hardly be eager to reveal the locations of its nuclear sites or military secrets given the steady stream of threats by Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear plants and the beating of war drums in the United States. Iran also recalls Iraq, where half the UN `nuclear inspectors’ were actually spies for CIA or Israel’s Mossad. This may explain some of Iran’s secretive behavior. 
 
The US, Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets. Israel and India reject all outside requests for information.  
 
Iran’s test of some useless short ranged   missiles, and an  inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, one leading North American newspaper printed a picture of a 1960’s vintage SAM-2  antiaircraft missile being launched, with a caption warning of the `grave threat’ Iran posed to `international peace and security.’
 
Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%.  Nuclear weapons require 95%.   Iran’s nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance. 
 
The US, its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: that is has no nuclear weapons.   Iraq was also put to the same impossible test, then attacked when it naturally could not comply.   
 
Now, the US government is again leaking claims that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead for its Shahah-3 medium-ranged missile. Iran says the data supposedly backing up this claim is a fake concocted by Israel’s Mossad. Forged data was also used to accuse Iraq.
 
Israel  is deeply alarmed by Iran’s challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the US is still restraining Israel.
 
The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment – though it has every right to do so under international agreements.   The problem is that Iran has many good reasons for developing nuclear weapons for self-defense even though Tehran insists it is not.
 
More pressure was applied at last week’s meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran. The Iranians then fooled everyone by actually agreeing to ship a good part of their enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping, thus taking the wind out of the sails of the war party in Washington, London and Paris – at least for a while.    
 
You could almost hear the outraged neocons in Washington yelling, `hey you sneaky Iranians, fight fair!’
 
Why does Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when  he should be taking a very low profile?    Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or US attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia?
 
Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, `American Raj,’ Iran’s leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient.   Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions. 
 
In my view, Iran appears to be very slowly developing a `breakout’ capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice - for defensive purposes.   Iraq’s invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defense enjoyed by neighbors Israel, India and Pakistan.  
 
But Iran’s multi-level leadership is also split over the question of whether or not to actually build nuclear weapons.  Iran is just as fearful of an Israeli nuclear attack as Israel is of an Iranian nuclear attack. For the record, President Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be `wiped off the face of the map,’ but quoted an old Imam Khomeini speech calling for Zionism to be wiped away and replaced by a state for Jews, Muslims and Christians.    
 
What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of US efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The US is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the US will be normalized. 
 
As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read 29 September NY Times article about Iran’s nuclear program, détente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by `those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America’s interests in the Middle East…’
 
 
 
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009
 
 
 
 
 
Market Socialist
Monday, October 05, 2009 5:22 PM
There are too many assumptions being made by the players involved in trying to stop Iran’s nuclear development.

Iran has a right to generate nuclear fuel for use in civilian reactors. Thus far any contravention of the NNPT is speculation. The 1981 attack by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear installation can not be duplicated because quite simply that was 1981.Iran is not Iraq and neither are the realities that would ensue by an Iraq type fabricated war.

At issue is that both Russia and China are being consistently cornered in their own back yard by a rather belligerent and energy hungry USA. Losing Iran to US interests would be disastrous for Russian and Chinese interests. These facts alone would call into question the success of an Israeli attack and or US attack on Iranian soil.

But facts as they are may not be enough to prevent events to unfold in such a way that could easily lead to world war. A world war that some argue, the US desperately needs to detract attention from her hegemonic decline but also a world war that the US is ill prepared for.
Musaddiq Virk
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:06 AM
Very well put, I think it's better than Eric!!!!
goodgenie
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:27 AM
At the root of all the posturing, as Eric correctly points out are efforts to contain ANY ambitious foreign policy forays in the Persian or is it the Arabian Gulf region?. The U.S seems to have a life long commitment to the Saudis and the Arab Shia sheikdoms in the region, that were once Britain's colonies. Anglo -American foreign policies are committed to keeping this very important seaway away from any other western or regional power or their surrogates. That's what Iraq was hoping to thwart when they invaded Kuwait. They thought they would be a surrogate of the Anglo Americans policies against Iran. Boy did someone get it all wrong!.
That explains the second invasion of Iraq. It matters not that Saudi Arabia continues to finance the Kafir hate mongering and brainwashing of millions of youth in Pakistan.

Iran is a lot smarter than we give them credit for. They are towing the line the west is throwing out. They have complied with inspections and will continue to. To offset the humiliation they have a propaganda machine flouting anti semitic and anti western taunts for pacification of the Arab nations, and the so called Muslim Umha and financing anti establishment militant groups in the Middle East. Ironically it has increasingly limited domestic value.

Ironically also,besides Hamas,they are the only loud proactive power that continues to deny the existence of Israel. Being a Shia nation, one wonders why this apostate Muslim nation is meddling in Shia Islams march against the west. I thought that was fiercely anti Shia al Kaeda and the Taliban's divine mandate or is it Saudi Arabia's way of keeping the West in check? What an infernal mess. Cannot imagine anyone over 50 will see anything meaningful change in the Middle East, in their lifetime. I wonder what the wise men in India and China have in mind?

Colonialism, neo - colonialism and the nation building efforts in the Middle East are at a cross road. The west just wants the oil to flow freely! The dusty middle east and the oil below is liquid gold. Now that Canada's tar sands is considered dirty oil, their blue eyed sheiks are sulking because of the cheap barrel of oil as American eyes look east.

The funny thing is that the west has had little or no meaningful impact
Michael Lesbowicz
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:06 AM
"...in the Persian or is it the Arabian Gulf region?"

It's Persian Gulf. Anyone who says "Arabian Gulf" has a hidden political agenda up his sleeve.

The only reason you will hear some media organizations, websites and maps saying
"Arabian Gulf", is due to Arab gulf states and wealthy anti-Persian Jewish groups paying big money to have the media use "Arabian Gulf" instead of the correct "Persian Gulf".

Some historical background:

The waterway has been known as the Persian Gulf ever since the 5th century B.C. With the rise of Arab nationalism (Pan-Arabism) in the 1960s, most Arab states started adopting the term "Arabian Gulf" to refer to the waterway. However, this naming has not found much acceptance outside of the Arab world, and is not recognized by the United Nations or any other international organization. The United Nations Secretariat on many occasions has requested that only "Persian Gulf" be used as the official and standard geographical designation for the body of water. Historically, "Arabian Gulf" has been a term used to indicate the Red Sea. At the same time, the historical veracity of the usage of "Persian Gulf" can be established from the works of many medieval historians.

At the Twenty-third session of the United Nations in March-April 2006, the name "Persian Gulf" was confirmed again as the legitimate and official term to be used by members of the United Nations.
Jonathan
Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:17 AM
The policy of full spectrum dominance clearly remains unchanged. However, there does seem to be a major rift developing the advocates of attacking Iran and the advocates of escalation in Afghanistan. The US wants to subjugate resistance in Afghanistan so that it can use that country as a base to destablize the Russo-Chinese consolidation in Central Asia. The US attacked and continues to fight in Iraq in large part to prevent the Russians and Chinese from gaining preponderent influence there once sanctions were lifted. But both campaigns require some degree of secret Iranian cooperation to continue. In the long-run, it is likely that the Iranian leadership thinks it can outfox the US in both countries and emerge as the big winner once US armies are forced out. But in the meantime, any US-Iran competition in these countries has to be restrained and the Israelis told to stand down. The US military high command, including their generals in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be part of this "Afghanistan-First, Greater Eurasia strategy'' faction.

But there is another coalition in the Western centers of power, with less military and more civilian leadership (think Clinton, Biden who is against escalation in Afghanistan but keeps winking at the Israelis to strike Iran), equally ruthless but more unhinged. They also believe in world domination, but are at the same time deadset on quashing Iran, come what may. We can call this the "'Iran-First, Middle East strategy'' faction.

Jonathan
Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:25 AM
A good analogy would be 1930s Imperial Japan, where the military was divided into 1. the radical imperialists, mostly in the Army, who wanted a "Strike North"' land war with the Soviet Union 2. the more establishment imperialists, some in the Army but more in the Navy, who sought a ''Strike South'' invasion of the Western colonies in Southeast Asia. That conflict was settled when the Japanese Army in Manchuria was badly beaten by the Soviets in the Nomohan Incident, eliminating the Strike North option and leaving only the Strike South option.

Let us assume that the US will ultimately be beaten in Afghanistan as looks increasingly likely. Will this debate end and the US leadership rally decisvely around an air assault on Iran?
Imagine the following series of events:
NATO forces evacuate Afghanistan in 2010-2011, handing power to the Afghan Taliban. The Saudis negotiate with the Taliban to help finesse some face-saving exit so that the NATO troops are not (generally) massacred on their way out. The US corporate media shows pictures of a few dead Arabs and says that the Al-Qaeda leadership is now dead and that it is ''mission accomplished''. The US now makes a 180-degree turn and tries to go back to the pre 9-11 policy, offering to arrange aid to the new Afghan regime so as to give succor to the most anti-Shiite takfiri elements among them. Anti-Iran Taliban elements start helping to infilitrate militants into Sistan-Balochistan. As those minority regions became more restive, US-Israeli air forces assemble for a massive assault...
There are currently 6 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category