The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice said in a statement in front of the House International Relations Committee in early March, "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran, whose policies are directed at developing a Middle East that would be 180 degrees different than the Middle East we would like to see develop."
She also said that
International Relations Committee held its meeting on "U. S. Policy & Iran:
Next Steps", on March 8th. Commission Chair, Henry Hyde, set the
groundwork by reiterating all the dangers that
Carrying the baton
were, first and always foremost, Tom Lantos, the great champion of the Israeli
agendas, followed by the chorus of others of similar affiliations, such as
Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Brad Sherman, Robert Wexler and Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen. The only voice of sanity heard was from the Texas Republican, Ron
Paul, who, in a very short comment questioned the validity of concerns and
The panel of
"experts", quite typical again, included Michael Ledeen of the conservative
think tank, AEI, and Robert Joseph, the Under Secretary of State in charge of
Arms Control, both staunch Neocons and strong advocates of war against
In a meeting like that, conclusions were preordained.
To add to this
background, the new National Security Strategy for 2006 signed by the President,
as well as the President's statements in addressing the war on terror and
A few weeks before that, Vice Pres Dick Cheney had threatened that Iran's non compliance regarding its nuclear activities would result in "meaningful consequences", to which an Iranian official had responded, Yes, America can cause harm and pain upon Iran; but America is also vulnerable to harm and pain.
This was immediately
taken up by the media as a threat by
So, to summarize, we can glean from the American Media and official government statements that:
If we accept these
premises, then our policies are headed in the right directiond deserve
widespread public support. We need, therefore, look no further after listening
to Rush Limbaugh on radio and watching Bill O'Reilly on his "Factor" TV program.
Instead, we can watch CNN and learn about the new satellite images of Noah's
However, for the more inquisitive minds, or those with IQs in triple digits, there are grounds for suspicion and skepticism about these allegations.
This should not be viewed as rising in defense of the Iranian regime and its repressive internal policies, economic failures or its failure in combating corruption that is perhaps more rampant than it ever was before the Islamic Revolution of 1978.
Yes, the new Iranian
President is a highly religious and superstitious man; but so is our own White
House resident. Ahmadinejad is waiting for the Islamic Savior, Mahdi, while
George Bush is carrying out his own messianic mission, starting in the
Yes, the more modern
Iranian women demand freedom from the imposed dress code, even though that dress
code has been easing for many years. But, women in
About freedom of
dissent or freedom of expression? In what "friendly" or "moderate" Islamic state
Yes; there is plenty
room or grounds for improvement; but, the American administration's focus on
So, let's address the allegations from the top:
a- There could be no doubt that
does want to access the technology that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons - just in case. Iran
b- The technology that leads to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes can also potentially lead to weapons development.
c- The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of any nation.
d- Therefore, to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, better policies should be adopted; picking and choosing and showing favoritisms will prove counterproductive.
e- As long as military threats against
Iran, including tactical nuclear weapons, are clear and present, who can blame for wanting to develop its deterrent or retaliatory options? Iran
Yes, if the terror
is defined by the Israeli regime and the
Well, no more than
4- any analyst would see that
To think that Iran could somehow be sidelined from the affairs and the future of the oil rich Persian Gulf and the Middle East is childishly naïve; unless Iran is fragmented into incoherent autonomous states, like the former Yugoslavia, something that is clearly under consideration by the UK, US and of course Israel. There is plenty of evidence for that, and the Iranian regime is actively engaged in quashing any signs that might presage such movements.
But, is there a
danger for the
That is the real question that merits attention at this juncture in modern history.
But, reading off the patented Q cards and reciting baseless allegations against Iran in the public domain, or resorting to FOX media network's Bill O'Reilly style deception and misinformation about Iran, will not be conducive to a mutually fruitful resolution of the differences between the US and Iran; if, indeed, reaching a peaceful détente is the objective. AND, THIS IS A BIG "IF".
The Israeli paper,
Haaretz, reports that Researchers from Harvard and the
When the top echelon of both political parties of the US congress try to outdo each other in pledging allegiance to the Israeli cause during Israeli lobby's annual gathering, and as we observed in the recent proceedings of the House International Relations Committee meeting, the power and influence of the Israeli lobby on America's foreign policy in the Middle East becomes undeniable.
But, when we examine
the progress, or lack thereof, of the euphemistically called "war on terror" in
the Middle East, every one seems to be the loser, expect for one entity,
Ironically, as the authors of the new book by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt have stated, Israel's best interests in the long-term are not being served by the Israeli regime's pursuit of short term advantage seeking at everyone else's expense, including its chief benefactor, the United States of America.
Finally; what should
the goal of
This would be a
hard-sell to the people of the
So, is what Iran wants to see as a future Middle East incompatible with the kind of Middle East that would suit America's interests, as Condi Rice implies?
Yes, if each side insists on pursuing the current collision course. But, is it necessarily so? The answer is No.
Will the Great Satan here and the Chief Terrorist Nation over there be able to de-escalate such counterproductive name callings and work toward a mutually satisfactory resolution of their differences? Will the anachronistic Mullahcrocy on that side, and aggressive neoconservatism on this side yield to sanity, reason, mutual accommodation and acknowledgement of each other's rights?
Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not concepts invented in the modern western industrialized societies. These are human aspirations and desires and not exclusive to a select people. We are all rooted in the same primordial ooze, no matter what color, creed or religion we represent. Let it not happen that one culture's aspirations to pursue its entitlements deny another's of its rights.
... Payvand News - 3/22/06 ... --