This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
He represented America's imperium. He prioritized key strategic interests. He signaled permanent war on humanity. His thinly veiled anti-Russian/Chinese threats weren't unnoticed.
He called Iran's nuclear program a "threat to the national security of the United States." He said Washington "will stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
He demanded Tehran prove a negative. He wants proof positive it no nuclear ambitions. No evidence suggests it. US intelligence says so annually. Washington and Israeli officials know it. They target Iran anyway.
Iran "evade(s) negotiations," said Singh. "(T)he real question is not whether America should talk to Iran, but how to get the Iranians to talk to us in earnest."
Tehran participated in multiple P5-1 talks in good faith. Washington obstructed them. So did Israel behind the scenes. Resolving the issue equitably is impossible. Iran has no legitimate negotiating partner.
Singh claims otherwise. Engaging Iran diplomatically isn't new, he said. Every US president since Carter tried, he claimed.
Every president vilified Iran. They obstructed good relations. Regime change is longstanding US policy.
According to Singh, failure has "a common thread: Iran shrank from any broad bilateral thaw because it feared engagement with the United States more than it feared confrontation."
Singh claims "resistance" was a "founding principle of Iran's Islamic regime."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).