“Since the result of any referral of the Iran issue to the Security Council is all but guaranteed, the push by the EU-3 to have the IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council, while rooted in the language of diplomacy, is really nothing less than an act of war.” Scott Ritter; Chief Weapons-inspector
If Washington wants a war with Iran, then there’ll be a war with Iran. That’s the great lesson of the Iraq war; once the decision is made, there’s no turning back. So, why are the main-players; England, France and Germany stumbling over themselves trying to placate Bush as though the conflict can be avoided? Threatening to bring Iran before the Security Council won’t alter the administrations plans one bit. In fact, it will probably only strengthen their case. Bush will use the flimsiest of reasons for initiating hostilities, so, the EU-3 should skip the frantic diplomacy and stop doing Washington’s bidding. Like the Downing Street memo stated, “The facts and intelligence are being fit to meet the policy”. It’s the same here. No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Bush once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The Big-3 would be better off sending arms and ammo to Iran so the people can defend themselves once the bombs start dropping. The implications of a preemptive war against Iran are appalling. The Islamic state has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapons-program, and there’s no proof that it plans to develop nuclear weapons in the future. In other words, the US is planning an attack against a nation that does not even meet its minimal requirements for preemptive war. Iran is no threat to anyone. It does, however, sit on vast reserves of oil and natural gas; a consideration that may have factored heavily into the battle-strategy. There is no moral or legal justification for such a war, just as there was no moral or legal justification for the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, I believe that the decision to attack Iran was made long ago, perhaps even before the Iraq war; and that that will be carried out in the very near future. The last obstacle was the German elections. The German elections? The administration believed that Ms. Angela Merkel would win a hands-down victory; putting a fellow neocon in the drivers-seat of Europe’s largest economy. It would be like having Maggie Thatcher in Bonn. Merkel could be counted on to support the expansion of NATO (which is, to say, the extension of American power), to dismantle the social-welfare system, energize the privatization processes, quash the movement for an independent EU military, strengthen ties with the US and Israel, and disrupt European solidarity. All this fits within the Washington neocon vision of a balkanized, free-market Europe operating as a subordinate to its US overlords. If the US or Israel had attacked Iran before the German elections, Ms. Merkel, who has promised to rebuild ties with America, would have taken a nosedive in the polls. As it turns out, the election results were inconclusive and will probably have no affect the storm clouds that are gathering over Tehran. Events can be expected to move swiftly from this point on. The media has already begun the steady drum-beat of specious charges aimed at the Islamic government. The major news-providers (New York Times, AP, Washington Post, Night Ridder etc) are describing Iran as “defiant” and “thumbing their nose” at the world community, or, worse, “out of compliance” with prior agreements. Their new Iranian president is described as a “hardliner” who is “fiercely anti-American” These claims are normally accompanied by quotes from unidentified sources who refer to a fictional nuclear-weapons program that is just months away from developing the bomb. It’s all 100% bunkum. In fact, the world community is not troubled by Iran’s nuclear program at all. It is only the US who would like to use the allegations that rattle-through the propaganda system to justify another preemptive war. Unlike the US, Iran does not have a history of territorial aggression, is not involved in massively-destabilizing colonial wars, does not abduct civilians from other sovereign nations and torture them in foreign prisons, does not erect monuments to human cruelty (Guantanamo) and fill them with members of a target-religion. Iran has no nuclear weapons program. That is not simply my contention, but the judgment of the foremost nuclear inspections team in the world; the IAEA. (International Atomic Energy Agency) It was the IAEA that consistently disputed the erroneous claims by the Bush administration that Saddam was developing a nuclear weapons capacity. No such program existed and there is considerable proof that the US knew the charges were false. For the last two years, Iran has willingly undergone the strictest regime of “go-anywhere see anything” inspections of any nation in the history of the IAEA. They have consistently received a clean bill-of-health from the chairman of the watchdog agency, Mohammed ElBaradei. Even now Iran is eager to admit the IAEA inspectors to all suspect locations; allowing them to set up their permanent video-cameras, so they can assure the global community that they are complying with the terms of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) What Iran refuses to do, and what every sovereign nation should refuse to do, is accept rules mandated by the United States especially designed for Iran. That is precisely what is happening at present. Iran is IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE NPT.(according to the IAEA) The Bush team is demanding is that they forgo the conversion of nuclear fuel to be used for peaceful purposes in the production of nuclear energy for power plants. (This conversion process does not create Weapons-grade plutonium) This is their right under the terms of the treaty. For Iran to accept less than what they agreed upon destroys the meaning of the treaty, creates an apartheid-system of compliance, and is a national humiliation. Why would Iran accept such an obvious double-standard while the US is busy building a new regime of bunker-busting nuclear weapons and threatening to use them preemptively on Washington’s myriad enemies?
The Pretext for War
Presently, the Bush administration is busy working the diplomacy track to see if they can obtain some fig-leaf of legitimacy for their war plans. Operating behind their allies in the EU-3, the US is using a two-pronged strategy. One the one hand, they are trying to “persuade the 35 member IAEA to adopt a consensus resolution singling out Iran for censure by the Security Council in New York”. On the other hand, they are attempting to persuade the IAEA to endorse an EU draft that Iran is in noncompliance with the NPT. Both “censure” and “noncompliance” have been blocked by a newly formed coalition of Russia, China, India and many of the non-aligned nations that refuse to allow the resolutions to move forward. Washington’s shabby attempt at diplomacy has run into a rock wall and looks to be going nowhere. Whether the administration will continue in this vein is anyone’s guess, but the mad-scramble for international legitimacy has temporarily fallen on hard times.
Mission Objectives The administration’s goals in attacking Iran are simple and straightforward. They hope to control Iran’s vast petroleum and natural gas reserves, disarm a regional rival to Israel, prevent Iran from opening its own market for trading oil in petro-euros, and manage the global energy market to maintain US dominance over rising powers like India and China. These can be achieved by putting the regions’ resources under US control. Whatever strategy the Pentagon has in mind, it certainly won’t duplicate the disaster it created in Iraq. Israel will probably lead the assault taking out the potential nuclear sites with the US close behind in a mop-up role; bombing the 45 chemical, biological and conventional weapons facilities. This will ensure that Iran will be effectively de-fanged well into the future. Needless to say, the margin for error is significant. At the end of the day, the US will need to invade the oil-rich Ahwaz region (perhaps, 90% of Iran’s oil) and create the rationale for a long-term occupation of the area. There’s no plan to deal with the 70 million Iranians who live beyond that region, although there will probably be an attempt to decapitate the leadership via cruise missiles or air-strikes. Time is Running out
There are many signs that the US is drawing closer to a war with Iran. Numerous reports indicate that the military is conducting routine fly-overs of Iran, as well as providing support to the disparate terrorist organizations (MEK) that are fomenting rebellion on the ground. Just this week, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that Iran was behind the street violence that erupted in Basra when two undercover commandos were arrested by Iraqi police. Rumsfeld snappishly opined that Iran’s involvement was “not helpful”. Rumsfeld’s claims are absurd. The riot that broke out when 10 British tanks and armored vehicles crushed the walls surrounding the Basra jail had nothing to do with Iran. It was a purely spontaneous reaction to the misuse of force. Weeks earlier, Rumsfeld made similar allegations about arms that had been captured in house-to-house searches. “It is true,” he said, “that weapons clearly, unambiguously, from Iran have been found in Iraq.” Clear to whom? We don’t need to reiterate the litany of Rumsfeld’s fabrications to acknowledge that his claims are suspect and probably designed to expand the regional war.
Why would Iran want to increase the ongoing chaos in Iraq? Does it help Iran to have an unstable neighbor where, at any moment, the war could spill over its borders? Or do the Mullahs simply have a death-wish and long to be nuked by the United States? Rumsfeld’s is mistaken; Iran does not want a war.
Cheney’s Nuclear Review
A leaked document from the CIA attracted considerable attention two months ago. Under orders from Vice president Dick Cheney STRATCOM (Strategic Command) drew up contingency plans for a “large scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional an nuclear weapons.” Understandably, the document caused quite a flap leaving many to conclude that the administration was considering a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. Surprisingly, the “leak” never produced the expected recriminations from the White House. Bush and Cheney simply ignored its appearance as though it never happened. Was it a planned leak? Similarly, just last week all the major news outlets ran stories about the Pentagon’s draft of a US nuclear doctrine that spells out conditions under which US commanders might seek approval to “preemptively” use nuclear weapons. The document entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" was prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent shock-waves through the country. Would the Pentagon really execute a first-strike initiative against a non-nuclear country? What country would be the likely target of such an attack? The answer is almost too obvious to mention. Iran. (The document by the way, has been mysteriously “disappeared” from the Pentagon site)
Both of these examples suggest that Washington is trying to send a strong message to Tehran that the US will respond with overwhelming (nuclear) force if Iran retaliates after the upcoming “surgical-strikes”. It is a clever strategy that offers nearby Israel (who will presumably lead the attack) some insurance that Iran will not strike back. But, Iran will strike back; that much is certain. And, of course, Iran has every right to retaliate if it is bombed in an unprovoked act of aggression. The principles involved in an Iranian response are clear enough but they are worth reviewing none the less. Whatever one may think of the repressive Islamic regime, its right to defend itself against unprovoked hostilities cannot be challenged. Thus, Iran will be defending the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, borders, and the right to live in peace with its neighbors without the threat of attack. These principles are the foundation-blocks upon which the current world order rests. They are worth fighting and dying for, as we shall soon discover. I believe that the Mullahs will honor their obligation to defend their people if they are attacked and will act accordingly. The history of warfare is a dismal chronicle of fatal blunders. The administration can avoid this catastrophe, but I don’t think they will
Mike is a freelance writer living in Washington state.
On the Brink of a Neoconservative Nuclear War with Iran
Professor Paul Sheldon Foote
California State University, Fullerton
pfoote@fullerton.edu
September 23, 2005
Mike Whitney’s "The Inevitable War with Iran" provided details of the desperate attempts of the neoconservatives to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack upon Iran. Indeed, before the September 11, 2001 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on America, neoconservatives were writing about the importance in history of “fortuitous events” such as Pearl Harbor in moving Americans from anti-war sentiments to clamoring for war. The absence of new terrorist attacks in America and the resistance to coalition forces in Iraq have slowed the pace of endless wars envisioned by chickenhawk neoconservatives. By now, a majority of Americans understand that the neoconservatives lied about the Iraq War in terms of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, Americans who rely upon the evening television news or the local newspaper remain unaware that the neoconservatives support the MEK (Rajavi Cult), one of the Saddam Hussein-supported terrorist groups President George W. Bush cited in his background paper for his September 2002 remarks at the United Nations and used as a pretext for the Iraq War.
On January 15, 2003, MEK supporters placed a full-page advertisement in the New York Times thanking the 150 members of Congress (approximately half were Democrats and half were Republicans) who signed the Iran Statement of support for the MEK. Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the circulator of the Iran Statement, is now the sponsor of the Iran Freedom Support Act (H.R.282 in the House of Representatives; S.333 in the United States Senate, Republican Senator Rick Santorum, sponsor). Hundreds of members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, want to spend millions of dollars of the American taxpayers’ money to corrupt the political process in Iran. No patriotic Iranian would ever vote for any Iranian candidate who had taken corruption money from the American government. Johnny Chung’s testimony that he had contributed illegally large amounts of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s money to the Democratic National Committee and to Democratic Party candidates became a scandal in America. Yet, America’s neoconservative lawmakers are seeking to corrupt the political processes in other countries.
In the absence of “fortuitous events”, many of the neoconservatives will be voted out of office next year. Neoconservatives are betting that there are enough American dupes who will believe that Iran, lacking any nuclear weapons, is a greater nuclear threat than North Korea. Neoconservatives are betting, also, that the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran will blunder by pushing now for their inalienable rights to nuclear power at any cost. Iranian leaders are betting that Russia, China, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries will defend them in the United Nations. This nuclear brinksmanship could result in hatred, political instability, and a world-wide economic depression.
On December 8, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his Atoms for Peace speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Approximately 50 years ago, America was exporting radioactive isotopes to more than 50 countries and offering to train the technicians of the world on how to generate electricity with atomic reactors. America urged the Shah of Iran to contract with an American company to build a nuclear power plant. After the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini halted work on a nuclear power plant in Iran because he considered nuclear power plants to be contrary to Islam. The current leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are offering to develop nuclear power plants and to export the results of their technological progress at lower prices than Western companies charge. The only immediate problems for the West from Iran’s desire to develop peaceful uses of nuclear power are: (1) loss of work for Western nuclear power plant contractors (2) loss of countries dependent upon the West for nuclear power (3) competition in the nuclear power plant and nuclear materials markets. The only urgent problem for the neoconservatives, the world’s most dangerous terrorists, is that the American voters might vote them out of office before they can bomb or invade any other countries.
Since 1988, there has been an Atomic Energy Research Institute at King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis know that their oil resources are limited. While the Saudis are developing plans for nuclear power plants, the neoconservatives are not threatening to drop nuclear bombs on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia still sells its oil for American dollars. Iraq and Iran switched to selling oil for Euros. Iran is planning to open in 2006 an exchange for trading oil. Any country in the world should be able to refuse to sell to any other country or to specify the currency to be used in the sale. American soldiers need to stop volunteering to die to benefit only a few greedy American pigs.
Neoconservatives are betting that the Iranian leaders will provide the fortuitous event of pursuing the peaceful uses of nuclear power at any cost. Of course, the neoconservative totalitarians will not portray Iran’s leaders in the tradition of America’s Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death.” Rather than waiting for Americans to flush America’s political toilet of the neoconservative totalitarians, Iran’s political leaders might regard a nuclear attack on Iran as a fortuitous event to unite the Iranian people for decades, if not centuries, against the corrupt Western political leaders.
The American hostage crisis (November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981) was not in the interests of the people of Iran. However, the hostage crisis was useful to the MEK and to the supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini in eliminating political competition from Iranian, pro-democracy, secular nationalists. While the MEK appealed to the people of Iran to kill the American hostages, the supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini chose to keep the hostages as an embarrassment for President Jimmy Carter and as a political gift for the next American president, Ronald Reagan.
While the MEK lost the power struggle during the Iranian Revolution and has nearly zero support inside Iran today, the MEK has been successful in working with corrupt political leaders in Europe (especially in France) and in America.
For years, American members of Congress have been accepting contributions from MEK supporters. The MEK and the Iranian monarchists (who abolished all political parties in Iran in the 1970’s) are lobbying for the passage of the Iran Freedom Support Act to gain millions of dollars of money for corrupting the Iranian political process. The Iran Policy Committee is promoting actively the MEK (Rajavi Cult), a terrorist organization on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
In Iran, the MEK gained support by being the most anti-imperialist and most anti-American organization. The MEK murdered American military officers and Rockwell International employees. See, for example, this film of a meeting between Massoud Rajavi, supreme leader of the MEK, and Saddam Hussein’s representatives.
The meeting of Rajavi with Taher Aljalil Haboush in the years 1998-99 (film) 14 min.
Vice President Richard Cheney’s desires to develop plans for the use of nuclear weapons, including at the decision level of military commanders, to terrorize and to enslave the people of Iran and of other countries neoconservatives want to bomb or to invade represent the most dangerous and worst time in American history. Americans need to inform President George W. Bush and the neoconservative members of Congress that all American traitors will be voted out of office. As noted by the Progressives for Bush bumper sticker, the most important war crimes tribunals at The Hague might be for American neoconservatives.
This is the best single book available today on the MEK. Unfortunately, no American publisher is promoting this book in America. You must order it from the United Kingdom. The British author and her Iranian husband spent approximately 20 years inside the MEK, including time at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. She included extensive discussions of cult techniques and of why it is difficult to leave the MEK (Rajavi Cult) even in the United Kingdom.
Banisadr, Masoud, Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel, Saqi Books, 2004. ISBN 0863563740
This Iranian author spent nearly 20 years of his life in the MEK, including at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. He described brainwashing and torture of MEK cult members at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Unlike some MEK cult members, he did not die from the punishment. After leaving the MEK (Rajavi Cult), he wrote a lengthy book explaining exactly how the MEK finds new members and how it brainwashes and tortures its members.
Abrahamian, Ervand, The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1989. ISBN 0-300-05267-7
While this book has not been updated since 1989, it contains the scholarly research of an Iranian-American professor who interviewed Massoud Rajavi and other MEK leaders.
Democracy Betrayed: A Response to U.S. State Department Report on the Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance, Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran, B.P. 18, 95430 Auvers-sur-Oise, France.
This is my favorite of the free books the MEK and its front groups have posted online because: (1) this book is an excellent example of how communist groups claim to be democratic. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China are examples of totalitarian countries claiming to be democratic (2) this book contains some of the names of the members of Congress the MEK likes, such as Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Party candidate for President.
This is Anne Singleton’s Web site in the United Kingdom. The content includes extensive documentation about the MEK (Rajavi Cult), stories of cult members who have escaped from the MEK, and a lot of European documents the American neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) do not want Americans to read.
Iran Didban
http://www.irandidban.com/
This Iranian Web site contains massive amounts of documents on the MEK (Rajavi Cult) in English, French, Arabic, and in Persian (Farsi).
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
