As the crescendo of
hostile anti-Iran rhetoric by the
We also see massive
anti-war demonstrations throughout the country these days, especially in the
Capital, as well as articles and editorials even in some conservative media,
The House and Senate Democrats, as well as many Republican members of Congress, are also opposed to a preemptive strike against Iranian targets and suggest a more aggressive diplomatic approach in defusing the Iranian "problem".
In spite of all the
voices of opposition to a new war, one thing remains quite significantly and, in
my opinion, alarmingly unchanged, they all regard
Apparently, history hasn't taught us anything.
It was only after the
Voices and pens that did address those fundamental questions then, and are doing the same this time around regarding the Iranian "problem", have remained a marginalized few who are not featured in our broadcast or print media and who, had it not been for the internet, would have remained silent cries in the dark. After all, what they said then, and what they are saying now, runs against the grain of the general public's perception of world affairs and, therefore, sounds counterintuitive or conspiratorial.
Even now, after nearly
four years of struggling to find a graceful way out of the disaster we have
created for ourselves and for the Iraqi nation, there are diehard ignoramuses
who actually believe the argument that, with the information or intelligence at
hand at the time, the invasion of
So, how could we be sure that it is any different this time?
To begin, let us look
at a list of accusation against the Iranian regime as reflected in practically
every major media outlet in the
1-Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons for aggressive purposes.
2-If successful in acquiring the ultimate weapon, Iran will become an existential threat to the state of Israel, will attempt to dominate the entire oil-rich Middle East in order to blackmail the industrialized world, will destabilize the moderate Arab regimes, and will be in a position to threaten the security of Europe and the United States.
3-To protect themselves against a potential Iranian nuclear threat, other regional states will insist on exercising their own natural rights to acquire similar deterrent measures, resulting in a potentially catastrophic nuclear arms race.
4-Iran is actively
engaged in supporting terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories,
There are misleading partial truths, distortions and outright lies in all the points listed above.
1-Is Iran, if fact,
out to develop nuclear bombs instead of, or in addition to, its stated
intentions of building nuclear power plants? This has been by far the most
serious accusation against
Regardless of claims and counterclaims, the fact is that the technology that makes the development of peaceful, legal under the NPT, and monitored by the IAEA, nuclear power generation possible, can, at least in theory, be clandestinely extended toward illegal nuclear weapons development. The signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are, therefore, allowed to proceed under the monitoring eyes of the IAEA so that no violations of the NPT agreement take place. To this time, no such violations have ever been detected or confirmed by the IAEA inspectors regarding the Iranian nuclear works, including its quite legal centrifuge cascades intended for the nuclear fuel cycle operations. So far the issue is a no-brainer.
It is important to
mention that the Israeli propaganda line about its security concerns over an
Iranian nuclear bomb project has been shrewdly revised to a concern over
Based on all the
available intelligence, American, Israeli and British,
2-A nuclear Iran,
something that may or may not ever materialize, has been called the greatest
threat to the world peace and security by the likes of the Israeli thug,
Netanyahu, and Israel worshipers here, from the sly fox himself, Senator
Lieberman, to the less timid Zionist cabal in the U.S. Congress. Even Senator
Hilary Clinton has called
The idea is so
ludicrous and the motives behind such claims so transparent that any response
would elevate them from the propaganda garbage heaps to undeserving levels.
Recent alarmist revelation in some Israeli press that
3-The fear that the
regional Arab states might find it imperative to enter a nuclear arms race to
neutralize an atomic-armed
It is interesting
again to note that such arguments actually validate any potential Iranian
ambition to access nuclear arms technology as a reaction to the Pakistani and
Israeli nuclear weapons, not to mention the nuclear-armed American forces that
surround and threaten
4-It is no longer a
The idea that
It shouldn't come as a
shock to anyone if the evidence recently uncovered in
The great majority of insurgent attacks has been and continues to be instigated by the Sunni groups and their Al-Gha'eda supporters and former Saddamists, with the Shi'a militias responding in kind, albeit in muck less intensity, no doubt with material help from Iran.
Considering this kind of effort as an interference and support for terrorism is yet another meaningless accusation trumped up for political reasons.
It is time to cut through the proverbial crap.
Let's not kid
ourselves. The movers and shakers in
No, the intelligence was not faulty, it was deliberately distorted and doctored up in order to rationalize the course of actions for which the events of 9/11 had fortuitously paved the way.
Perhaps the best
window to peer through to see the machinations behind this bold and ambitious
military intrusion into the Middle East is the
Quite fascinatingly, and not so surprisingly, a parallel set of blueprints were drawn up at almost the same time and by some of the same great minds for the Israeli government of Mr. Netanyahu for "Securing the Realm", with its web site under that name or under "Clean Break", revealing the Israeli regime's ambitions, which dovetail not so coincidentally with the objectives outlined by the PNAC cabal. One contributor whose name is now in the news for his direct involvement in fabricating distorted intelligence information regarding the Iraqi connections with Al-Gha'eda is Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary for Policy under Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.
The PNAC strategists
appear to be motivated, at least on the surface, by a special version of the
neoconservative doctrine that promotes an aggressive drive to reshape the
strategic parts of the globe in such a way that
While one cannot argue against promoting the nation's best interests around the globe, it is the very definition of those best interests that brings this philosophy into question. Yes, we might attribute the leftist liberal live-and-let-live attitude and the visions of a global utopian village to the philosophical naiveté of ideologues who pontificate from the comforts of their well padded armchairs provided for them by the very self-serving conservatives whom they criticize. However, their hypocritical emanations do not automatically vindicate or substantiate the position of their down to earth, "realist" counterparts. The main task is to determine objectively what exactly constitutes the nation's best interests, short-term as well as long.
want to play into and take advantage of
developments that might potentially threaten
As diabolical as all this may sound, that is what has been going on for many decades, resulting in a self-amplifying continuous circle. I did not call it a vicious circle, as the results have been anything but detrimental to the American economic well being and global dominance, thus far, that is.
The same economic
maneuverings have been at work in the global petroleum industry. The super giant
oil corporations have generated astronomic revenues that fuel the economy of the
nation, thanks to all their international manipulations, often with the
Administration's open or covert support, as was the case in the military coup
Based on the foregoing
argument, it would be difficult to conclude that even the CIA and the British
MI6 instigated coup of 1953 in
While it is true that Iranian nationalists, whose democratic and popular aspirations were interrupted by that coup, hold both the American and the British imperialistic designs responsible, there appears no real evidence that the West's economic or strategic objectives were jeopardized as the result.
Today, those who think
that the loss of over three-thousand American lives, and nearly
three-quarter-trillion dollar cost to the American taxpayers in the war in
The deaths of several
thousand soldiers and injuries to tens of thousands more seem almost impossible
to justify under any circumstances short of real and present danger to
Admittedly, there are those who honestly object to the very idea of an American Empire, divinely entitled to rule the planet and control its resources. They are perhaps even ready to accept a much lower standard of living and expectations rather than to support the kind of policies that being a global empire entails. For a great majority of citizens, however, eating the proverbial cake and having it too; in other words, not sacrificing the lifestyles they are accustomed to, while gloating in their delusional sense of self-righteousness and high moral values, has worked quite well up to this point in our modern history.
But, for the pragmatic no-nonsense realists, as well as for the self-deluding hypocritical altruists, it is high time to wake up: the bullet-train of the Empire might now be on the wrong tracks!
Let us not argue whether it is ok to pursue the nation's best pragmatic interests on the global stage at whatever cost to whomever, as long as the costs do not outpace the benefits, even in the long-term. This might entail going to war against real or fictitious adversaries, or against adversaries intentionally created to justify the war effort. Yes, even a morally and ethically well-endowed society is quite capable of accepting self-delusional explanations that rationalize exploitive and even barbaric behaviors in the pursuit of the nation's self interests. After all, ones best interests are always portrayed as noble and just, and those who dare to oppose those interests, as evil or misguided at best.
The only remaining point of argument or objection to the current trends in America's foreign policies, looking at the issues from a pragmatic perspective, revolves around whether staying the current course would deliver the desired objectives for America. If it does, the disaster and mayhem left behind in achieving the desired objectives can be whitewashed and rationalized. This, after all, is nothing new. Don't all wars, even those fought for just causes and noble intents, result in unavoidable collateral damage? Naturally, such wars better be fought over someone else's turf rather than in one's own backyard.
But what if it the carnage, devastation and bloodshed are not aimed at the right targets or for the sake of the genuine self interests of the nation?
Are the movers and shakers behind the Administration's policies since the tragedy of 9/11 genuinely motivated by this nation's best interests, or is there a subversive undercurrent beneath the veneer of pragmatic, zealous, neoconservative patriotism best personified by Vice President, Dick Cheney?
Was it a coincidence that the participants in drawing up "The New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for the Likud regime of Mr. Netanyahu were also involved in strategizing the "Project for the New American Century" in Washington at about the same time?
question: Why is it that the biggest pressure put on the American administration
to go to war against
Are the same forces that were at play dragging the United States into the Iraqi quagmire still at work pushing America into an even bigger hell in Iran? Who are these people, the likes of Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. and Mrs. Wurmser; what are their affiliations and wherein lie their loyalties?
could it be that
this free and open society we call the
... Payvand News - 2/12/07 ... --