G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Averting War with Iran: A Matter of Trust
By John Stanton
Created Mar 27 2008 - 9:29am
With approximately ten months remaining of US President George W. Bush's
second and final term of office, a nervous world wonders whether Bush will
authorize a military strike on Iran to neutralize what he believes to be a
nuclear weapons program camouflaged behind the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. In a March 19, 2008 interview on Radio Farda (Radio Tomorrow)1. Bush
extended New Year's wishes to the Iranian people and took the opportunity to
remind the Iranian people that their government will be prohibited from
developing nuclear weapons. Prohibition may take the form of US conventional
and/or tactical nuclear air-strikes on Iran.2
"And the Iranian people have got to understand that the United States is
going to be firm in our desire to prevent the nation from developing a
nuclear weapon, but reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have
civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium].
And the problem is that they [government] have not told the truth in the
past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest
of the world -- or much of the rest of the world -- to trust the Iranian
government when it comes to telling the truth."
On March 21, 2008 a report by the Islamic Republic Iranian News Agency
(IRNA) noted that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution--Ayatollah
Seyyed Ali Khamenei--signaled that Iran would continue its nuclear program
undeterred. "Bullying powers have done everything in their power, from
imposing economic sanctions to waging war and launching psywar, to paralyze
the Islamic Republic. However, the nation has continued to tread the path of
scientific and social progress..."3
Volatile Environment
Echoing those sentiments, on March 22, 2008 Iran's Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated the same. "...Iran is entitled to peaceful
nuclear technology and will not back-down its stances even one iota...Many
of the enemies broadcast satellite programs to avoid extensive public
turnout in the elections but to no avail. Under present circumstances,
strong presence of people in the elections made the counter more
authoritative."4 Mottaki's comments not only referred to Iran's nuclear
development efforts but recent elections there that saw Iran President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's support among conservatives decline primarily due to
inflationary pressures on the Iranian economy.5 The US dismissed the Iranian
electoral process as "cooked".6
With the notoriously conservative national leadership in Iran and the US
unable or unwilling to find a common ground to establish trust, an
incendiary political and cultural environment has been created providing
ample opportunity for opponents of Iran to instigate for a war between the
two countries and Iran's brand of theocracy. Opportunists abound in this
environment: Iranian exiles hoping to return to Iran and rule once again,
neo-conservatives in and out of government who long for an American empire,
and Israeli government officials and pro-Israel interest groups who are
attempting to convince US policymakers and the public that Iran's possession
of nuclear weaponry is a threat to the world. In such a volatile
environment, sage advice comes at a premium. For example, Martin van
Creveld--professor of military history at Hebrew University in
Israel--believes that the US, Israel and the world can live with a nuclear
armed Iran.7
On March 17, 2008, US Vice President Dick Cheney began a whirlwind, ten day
peace mission to visit leaders of the Middle East/Persian Gulf states.
Coincidently, the vice president's trip began six days after the resignation
of CENTCOM UCC head Admiral William Fallon, a vocal critic of pro-Iran war
elements in the Bush Administration.8 Cheney has been a longtime advocate of
destabilizing and corrupting the Islamic theocratic model of government that
Iran employs. Iran's nuclear program has provided Cheney and his supporters
with a pretext for for US military action. "I've been pretty consistent over
time about Iran. I don't think I've ratcheted up the rhetoric. I felt
strongly for a long time, and a lot of us have, that Iran should not be
allowed to develop nuclear weapons."9
According to China View, on March 23, 2008, Cheney visited with Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "During a meeting with U.S. Vice President Dick
Cheney in Tel Aviv, Barak stressed that Iran's nuclear program posed a
threat to the stability of the region and the entire world...Cheney said his
country would do everything it could to deal with the alleged Iranian
nuclear threat to Israel..."10
During the same visit, Cheney met with Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli
ambassador to the US and leader of Israel's Likud party. According to Ynet
News, Netanyahu claimed, "I spoke to him [Cheney] about the need to remove
the Iranian threat before (the Islamic republic) arms itself with a nuclear
bomb. There are additional Iranian issues which must be prevented, including
the need to prevent Iran from building its main bases in the region, from
Gaza to Lebanon, and particularly in Jerusalem..."11
Crazy Eddie Diplomacy
Reza Pahlavi, exiled Iranian son of the former Shah of Iran believes that
"Iran's clerical regime's continued support for terrorism and
confrontational behaviour, both regionally and beyond, its lack of
transparency on issues such as its nuclear program, its continued repression
of its citizenry, and a host of other issues, has rightfully led the world
to the conclusion that, as such, this regime cannot be trusted."12 Pahlavi
opposes US military action against Iran but believes that a majority of the
Iranian people want a secular government. It is difficult to trust the
sincerity of Pahlavi's antiwar message. The Iranian government survives
still and the throne Pahlavi seeks is becoming ever more distant. Further,
both Pahlavi and Bush appear to believe that the Iranian government cannot
be trusted. If they can't be trusted, the question is, Why negotiate at all?
Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist and expert from Benador Associates--whose
work appears frequently on David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine and
elsewhere--has opined that US and European diplomats who attempt a carrot
and stick approach with Iran are Crazy Eddies.13 There is no point dealing
with the theocratic regime there. The implication is that it must be
eliminated.
"A few years back there was a character on American television advertising
known as Crazy Eddie. Shouting at the top of his voice, he would offer
something, usually a gadget of doubtful utility, for sale at a ridiculously
low price...Reading statements made by the ambassadors of the major Western
powers at the United Nations the other day, one could not help remembering
Crazy Eddie. The diplomats were speaking after a Security Council session
that approved a new resolution, imposing further sanctions on Iran. The
British ambassador spoke of the numerous advantages that Iran could reap by
complying with Security Council resolutions aimed at ending the crisis over
Tehran's nuclear programme.. His French colleague was even more generous.
All that the mullahs had to do was stop enriching uranium to be rewarded
with "access to the latest technology.
However, the US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad came closest to the Crazy Eddie
image. The package of incentives includes active international support to
build state of the art light water power reactors and access to reliable
nuclear fuel, he promised. Iran would also receive spare parts for its
ageing US-made jetliners, credit facilities through the World Bank,
membership of the World Trade Oganisation, and a lifting of the ban on
Iranian exports. However, as Crazy Eddie used to say, that was not all. We
call on Iran to engage in constructive negotiations over the future of the
nuclear programme, the ambassador wrote [in the Wall Street Journal]. Such
negotiations, if successful, would have profound benefits for Iran and the
Iranian people. The message from the US to the people of Iran is that
America respects your great country. We want Iran to be a full partner in
the international community.
Only Crazy Eddie would think that Ahmadinejad...could be bribed with spare
parts for Boeing's or state of the art power stations."14
In a July 28, 2005 press release titled "Opposing Statements of Iranian Jews
on Meeting Ahmadinejad", Pooya Dayanim, President of the Iranian Jewish
Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC), declared that there would be no talks for
peace with the Iranian government. "Please be advised that it is the policy
of IJPAC not to meet or negotiate with terrorists, murderers and
hostage-takers who have the blood of the Iranian, Jewish and American people
on their hands." Dayanim is a staunch supporter of policies advocated by
Michael Leeden and refers to Los Angles, IJPAC's home, as Tehrangeles.15
Dayanim's blunt message lurks in the recent statements made by Bush, Cheney,
Netanyahu and Barak. And it echoes around the globe as proponents of harsh
economic sanctions and US military action mock diplomatic efforts ensuring
that trust will not be an obstacle to war.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By John Stanton
Created Mar 27 2008 - 9:29am
With approximately ten months remaining of US President George W. Bush's
second and final term of office, a nervous world wonders whether Bush will
authorize a military strike on Iran to neutralize what he believes to be a
nuclear weapons program camouflaged behind the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. In a March 19, 2008 interview on Radio Farda (Radio Tomorrow)1. Bush
extended New Year's wishes to the Iranian people and took the opportunity to
remind the Iranian people that their government will be prohibited from
developing nuclear weapons. Prohibition may take the form of US conventional
and/or tactical nuclear air-strikes on Iran.2
"And the Iranian people have got to understand that the United States is
going to be firm in our desire to prevent the nation from developing a
nuclear weapon, but reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have
civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium].
And the problem is that they [government] have not told the truth in the
past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest
of the world -- or much of the rest of the world -- to trust the Iranian
government when it comes to telling the truth."
On March 21, 2008 a report by the Islamic Republic Iranian News Agency
(IRNA) noted that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution--Ayatollah
Seyyed Ali Khamenei--signaled that Iran would continue its nuclear program
undeterred. "Bullying powers have done everything in their power, from
imposing economic sanctions to waging war and launching psywar, to paralyze
the Islamic Republic. However, the nation has continued to tread the path of
scientific and social progress..."3
Volatile Environment
Echoing those sentiments, on March 22, 2008 Iran's Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated the same. "...Iran is entitled to peaceful
nuclear technology and will not back-down its stances even one iota...Many
of the enemies broadcast satellite programs to avoid extensive public
turnout in the elections but to no avail. Under present circumstances,
strong presence of people in the elections made the counter more
authoritative."4 Mottaki's comments not only referred to Iran's nuclear
development efforts but recent elections there that saw Iran President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's support among conservatives decline primarily due to
inflationary pressures on the Iranian economy.5 The US dismissed the Iranian
electoral process as "cooked".6
With the notoriously conservative national leadership in Iran and the US
unable or unwilling to find a common ground to establish trust, an
incendiary political and cultural environment has been created providing
ample opportunity for opponents of Iran to instigate for a war between the
two countries and Iran's brand of theocracy. Opportunists abound in this
environment: Iranian exiles hoping to return to Iran and rule once again,
neo-conservatives in and out of government who long for an American empire,
and Israeli government officials and pro-Israel interest groups who are
attempting to convince US policymakers and the public that Iran's possession
of nuclear weaponry is a threat to the world. In such a volatile
environment, sage advice comes at a premium. For example, Martin van
Creveld--professor of military history at Hebrew University in
Israel--believes that the US, Israel and the world can live with a nuclear
armed Iran.7
On March 17, 2008, US Vice President Dick Cheney began a whirlwind, ten day
peace mission to visit leaders of the Middle East/Persian Gulf states.
Coincidently, the vice president's trip began six days after the resignation
of CENTCOM UCC head Admiral William Fallon, a vocal critic of pro-Iran war
elements in the Bush Administration.8 Cheney has been a longtime advocate of
destabilizing and corrupting the Islamic theocratic model of government that
Iran employs. Iran's nuclear program has provided Cheney and his supporters
with a pretext for for US military action. "I've been pretty consistent over
time about Iran. I don't think I've ratcheted up the rhetoric. I felt
strongly for a long time, and a lot of us have, that Iran should not be
allowed to develop nuclear weapons."9
According to China View, on March 23, 2008, Cheney visited with Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "During a meeting with U.S. Vice President Dick
Cheney in Tel Aviv, Barak stressed that Iran's nuclear program posed a
threat to the stability of the region and the entire world...Cheney said his
country would do everything it could to deal with the alleged Iranian
nuclear threat to Israel..."10
During the same visit, Cheney met with Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli
ambassador to the US and leader of Israel's Likud party. According to Ynet
News, Netanyahu claimed, "I spoke to him [Cheney] about the need to remove
the Iranian threat before (the Islamic republic) arms itself with a nuclear
bomb. There are additional Iranian issues which must be prevented, including
the need to prevent Iran from building its main bases in the region, from
Gaza to Lebanon, and particularly in Jerusalem..."11
Crazy Eddie Diplomacy
Reza Pahlavi, exiled Iranian son of the former Shah of Iran believes that
"Iran's clerical regime's continued support for terrorism and
confrontational behaviour, both regionally and beyond, its lack of
transparency on issues such as its nuclear program, its continued repression
of its citizenry, and a host of other issues, has rightfully led the world
to the conclusion that, as such, this regime cannot be trusted."12 Pahlavi
opposes US military action against Iran but believes that a majority of the
Iranian people want a secular government. It is difficult to trust the
sincerity of Pahlavi's antiwar message. The Iranian government survives
still and the throne Pahlavi seeks is becoming ever more distant. Further,
both Pahlavi and Bush appear to believe that the Iranian government cannot
be trusted. If they can't be trusted, the question is, Why negotiate at all?
Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist and expert from Benador Associates--whose
work appears frequently on David Horowitz's FrontPage magazine and
elsewhere--has opined that US and European diplomats who attempt a carrot
and stick approach with Iran are Crazy Eddies.13 There is no point dealing
with the theocratic regime there. The implication is that it must be
eliminated.
"A few years back there was a character on American television advertising
known as Crazy Eddie. Shouting at the top of his voice, he would offer
something, usually a gadget of doubtful utility, for sale at a ridiculously
low price...Reading statements made by the ambassadors of the major Western
powers at the United Nations the other day, one could not help remembering
Crazy Eddie. The diplomats were speaking after a Security Council session
that approved a new resolution, imposing further sanctions on Iran. The
British ambassador spoke of the numerous advantages that Iran could reap by
complying with Security Council resolutions aimed at ending the crisis over
Tehran's nuclear programme.. His French colleague was even more generous.
All that the mullahs had to do was stop enriching uranium to be rewarded
with "access to the latest technology.
However, the US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad came closest to the Crazy Eddie
image. The package of incentives includes active international support to
build state of the art light water power reactors and access to reliable
nuclear fuel, he promised. Iran would also receive spare parts for its
ageing US-made jetliners, credit facilities through the World Bank,
membership of the World Trade Oganisation, and a lifting of the ban on
Iranian exports. However, as Crazy Eddie used to say, that was not all. We
call on Iran to engage in constructive negotiations over the future of the
nuclear programme, the ambassador wrote [in the Wall Street Journal]. Such
negotiations, if successful, would have profound benefits for Iran and the
Iranian people. The message from the US to the people of Iran is that
America respects your great country. We want Iran to be a full partner in
the international community.
Only Crazy Eddie would think that Ahmadinejad...could be bribed with spare
parts for Boeing's or state of the art power stations."14
In a July 28, 2005 press release titled "Opposing Statements of Iranian Jews
on Meeting Ahmadinejad", Pooya Dayanim, President of the Iranian Jewish
Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC), declared that there would be no talks for
peace with the Iranian government. "Please be advised that it is the policy
of IJPAC not to meet or negotiate with terrorists, murderers and
hostage-takers who have the blood of the Iranian, Jewish and American people
on their hands." Dayanim is a staunch supporter of policies advocated by
Michael Leeden and refers to Los Angles, IJPAC's home, as Tehrangeles.15
Dayanim's blunt message lurks in the recent statements made by Bush, Cheney,
Netanyahu and Barak. And it echoes around the globe as proponents of harsh
economic sanctions and US military action mock diplomatic efforts ensuring
that trust will not be an obstacle to war.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson