Is there a case to be made for allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons in the interests of peace? Or has all the air been sucked out of the debate by American and Israeli demagogues who dominate the airwaves?
The case for a nuclear Iran doesn't emerge from fear-mongering or saber-rattling, like the alternate view, but from reason and respect for widely accepted facts; both of which are sadly missing from the analysis appearing in the western media. Any reasonable person can compile the evidence, weigh the facts, and draw the very same conclusions as myself. Regrettably, they will have to swim against a torrent of misinformation broadcast daily by an entire industry devoted exclusively to deception and propaganda.
The problems in the Middle East are clear and indisputable despite 30 years of obfuscation designed to promote the continued occupation of Palestine. Just this week, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on 6 separate items which reinforced resolutions 242 and the 1967 borders of the Palestinian state.
Predictably, Israel and the US voted in the minority obstructing the application of international law and sticking with decades of willful "rejectionist" policies. John Bolton, the US "mad-hatter" who now presides over Israel's interests in the UN, ludicrously called the balloting "irrelevant" because it fell short of the expansionistic ambitions of Israel and jeopardized the further colonization of the region by the US.
No one expected anything different.
Never the less, the media smokescreen has not obscured the brutal realities of life under occupation nor has it concealed where the blame ultimately lies. The language of state-terror,; carefully crafted in Israeli think-tanks ("the generous offer", "partner in peace", "infrastructure of terrorism" and "targeted assassinations") has done little to disguise 30 years of imperial politics supported by a rotating list of toadies operating from the Oval Office.
Do we agree, so far?
Now, Washington has joined the Middle East tussle, flaunting its public relations campaign; "The War on Terror", to justify another century of exploitation, resource-theft, and jack-boot subjugation of the native people.
So, how does this relate to Iran?
Clearly, if things had gone smoothly in Iraq, Dick Cheney would be unfurling the Stars and Stripes in Tehran right now. No serious critic of the Bush administration's Defense Policy Strategy for preemptive warfare would dispute this.
So, how does one discourage American and Israeli aggression and occupation?
Both Bush and Sharon have made it painfully clear that nothing short of nuclear weapons will stop their regional ambitions. The war on terror is just a smokescreen intended to mask the real goals of disarming the world and seizing its resources.
So, how bad would it be to put nukes in the hands of the Mullahs?
Well, first of all we need to establish whether or not Iran has a history of territorial aggression.
Have the Ayatollahs followed a policy of ignoring the UN for 30 years while they occupy an area that (according to the vast majority of sovereign countries) belongs to the indigenous people?
Do the Mullahs have a record of preemptive war on 6 continents, massive, regionally-destabilizing covert activities, coup d'etats, and an archipelago of concentration camps spread across the globe?
Has Iran done anything that would indicate that it would use a nuclear weapon against a civilian population like the United States did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The real issue with Iran is that its leaders have shown the temerity to control their own resources, which the corporate globalists and Washington plutocrats claim as their own.
Isn't that true?
So, if we are serious about peace in the region, and do not want to see Iran degenerate into the dark-winter of American genocide that we see in Iraq; it should be provided with the weaponry to defend itself from foreign aggression.
After all, the policy of "Deterrents" worked for the US and Soviet Union for nearly 40 years, preventing the probability of nuclear holocaust.