Every media outlet announced the failure of the EU-Iran nuclear negotiations. While the blame was put squarely on Iran's shoulders, some observers believed that the lack of participation by the U.S., and America's failure to give 'security guarantees' to Iran, derailed the talks. 'Security guarantees'? Surely this translates into the United States being a threat to Iran. Oddly, the world at large is oblivious to the fact that the United States is a security threat to a sovereign nation and will only reduce that threat if the less powerful state forgoes its inalienable right by complying with the intimidator's demand. It is extraordinary that there is no objection to this intimidation, to the fact that the United States can be a security threat, or better stated, can threaten a nation in order to achieve its self-serving goal.
It must be reiterated that Iran was among over one hundred and seventy countries that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing for the use of peaceful nuclear technology, including the enrichment of uranium for its fuel cycle. The United States (party to this Treaty) and the EU-3 acting as America's political arm, in clear violation of an international treaty, are demanding that Iran forgoes its right under international law, and only then, will Iran be safe from attack. Only when Iran has given up its right will it be able to trade, and other rotten carrots that are being dangled in front of it. The bigger question is: Why should the United States be in a position to threaten any country in the first place?
Shrewd maneuvering of facts - In portraying Iran as a state sponsor of terrorists and labeled as "an axis of evil", Iran has been depicted as a security threat to world peace. Co-opting the mainstream media and treacherous, self-serving Iranians who hope to win favors with Washington, its nuclear program is portrayed as a doomsday machine. If indeed Washington had an aversion to terrorists, it would not grant 'protected persons status' to the 3800 MEK members in camp Ashraf when Iraq was invaded.
The actions of the Bush administration with regards to this group, classified as a terrorist group by the State Department for various acts, including but not limited to, partaking in the U.S. embassy hostage crisis, is mind-boggling. The 'protected persons status' enables the MEK members to enjoy protection under the Geneva Convention; however, this protection is only given to individuals, not to groups. The Bush administration's ability to qualify a group of 3,800 is yet another indication of might versus right.
Sudan, a state sponsor of terrorists, is another case in point. Osama Bin-Laden, the mastermind of 9/11 was residing in Sudan up until 1994. In spite of the 9 /11 tragedy, U.S. intelligence is working closely with the Sudanese government and do not consider Sudan as a 'threat' and do feel the need to offer it any 'security guarantees'. It can only be concluded that it is not Iran's alleged sponsorship of terrorism that has caused ill-will in Washington.
It then begs the question why must Iran pay for protection by giving up its sovereign rights? Maybe history is indeed the answer, more specifically, the year 1953.
... Payvand News - 9/8/05 ... --