Institute for Public
Accuracy (IPA), WASHINGTON (July 9) |
Author of The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and
Iran Demonize Each Other Beeman said today: "You have the U.S. funding
groups that are attacking Iran, most recently reported on by Sy Hersh, though
we've known about it for a while; you have Israel conducting exercises that the
U.S. government indicates are against Iran. Now the Iranians respond with these
missile tests -- and the U.S. government comes down like a ton of bricks.
"The current legislation in the House and Senate on Iran -- under discussion in
a House committee today -- was basically written by AIPAC and spoon fed to both
Democratic and Republican Congress people. It's full of half-truths and
exaggerations about Iran. Barney Frank has just pulled out as a co-sponsor.
"A crucial point that's frequently overlooked is that the original UN sanctions
resolution on Iran talked about nuclear enrichment as a concern because of worry
about Iran producing a nuclear weapon. But we know from the most recent National
Intelligence Estimate that Iran is not producing a nuclear weapon. So why the
fetish over nuclear enrichment?"
Professor and chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of
Minnesota, Beeman recently wrote the piece "Will
the U.S. Support Terrorists to Destabilize Iran?"
Currently research affiliate at MIT, Thomson served as the United Kingdom
Ambassador to India and as the Permanent Representative in the United Nations.
He has co-written Iran as a Pioneer Case for Multilateral Nuclear
Arrangements and several other articles about the Iranian nuclear situation.
Thomson said today: "We were the first to propose a multilateral solution to the
Iran situation, though some of the ideas came out of work from the IAEA.
Initially, some people thought our proposal was ridiculous, but that view is
going. The present official policy is not working so people including
governments are looking for alternatives. However, London, Washington and Paris
"Our proposal meets the bottom-line stated demands of both sides. For the
Iranians, they get nuclear enrichment on Iranian soil. On the Western side,
there's a bit of fuzziness, but at minimum the demand is that Iran not be able
to make nuclear weapons. We achieve both of these. The way we do so is by having
an international mechanism deal with the entire nuclear process in Iran. This
solves a number of issues, for example, it would prevent a clandestine parallel
program because it would work with all the Iranian nuclear physicists full time.
"The Iranians have repeatedly said that they would be in favor of a multilateral
approach, but complain they have been met with a resounding silence."
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering has voiced his
support for a multilateral approach; see
video from Just Foreign Policy.
Sahimi just wrote "Deconstructing the Anti-Iran Resolutions," which states: "The
U.S. House of Representatives is considering a resolution (HR 362) that calls on
the Bush administration to take strong action against Iran, including a naval
blockade of its ports. A similar resolution is being considered by the Senate
(SR 580). The two resolutions are supposedly non-binding. They also mention
explicitly that they are not granting the Bush administration any authorization
to stage military attacks on Iran. Their language, however, is warlike."
Sahimi is professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern
California. His articles on U.S.-Iranian relations include "The follies of
Bush's Iran policy," which he co-wrote with Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner
... Payvand News - 07/10/08 ... --
© Copyright 2008 NetNative
(All Rights Reserved)