|
Averting war with Iran: A
matter of trust
John Stanton
Online
Journal
Thursday, March 27, 2008
With approximately 10 months remaining of US President George
W. Bush's second and final term of office, a nervous world wonders
whether Bush will authorize a military strike on Iran to neutralize
what he believes to be a nuclear weapons program camouflaged behind
the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
In a March 19, interview on Radio Farda (Radio Tomorrow), Bush
extended New Year's wishes to the Iranian people and took the
opportunity to remind the Iranian people that their government
will be prohibited from developing nuclear weapons. Prohibition
may take the form of US conventional and/or tactical nuclear air
strikes on Iran.
“And the Iranian people have got to understand that the
United States is going to be firm in our desire to prevent the
nation from developing a nuclear weapon, but reasonable in our
desire to see to it that you have civilian nuclear power without
enabling the government to enrich [uranium]. And the problem is
that they [government] have not told the truth in the past, and
therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest
of the world -- or much of the rest of the world -- to trust the
Iranian government when it comes to telling the truth.”
(Article continues below)
On March 21, a report by the Islamic Republic Iranian News Agency
(IRNA) noted that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution,
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, signaled that Iran would continue
its nuclear program undeterred. "Bullying powers have done
everything in their power, from imposing economic sanctions to
waging war and launching psywar, to paralyze the Islamic Republic.
However, the nation has continued to tread the path of scientific
and social progress . . ."
Volatile environment
Echoing those sentiments, on March 22, Iran's Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated the same. “ . . . Iran is
entitled to peaceful nuclear technology and will not back-down
its stances even one iota . . . Many of the enemies broadcast
satellite programs to avoid extensive public turnout in the elections
but to no avail. Under present circumstances, strong presence
of people in the elections made the counter more authoritative.”
Mottaki's comments not only referred to Iran's nuclear development
efforts but recent elections there that saw Iran President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's support among conservatives decline primarily due
to inflationary pressures on the Iranian economy. The US dismissed
the Iranian electoral process as “cooked.”
With the notoriously conservative national leadership in Iran
and the US unable or unwilling to find a common ground to establish
trust, an incendiary political and cultural environment has been
created providing ample opportunity for opponents of Iran to instigate
for a war between the two countries and Iran's brand of theocracy.
Opportunists abound in this environment: Iranian exiles hoping
to return to Iran and rule once again, neo-conservatives in and
out of government who long for an American empire, and Israeli
government officials and pro-Israel interest groups who are attempting
to convince US policymakers and the public that Iran's possession
of nuclear weaponry is a threat to the world. In such a volatile
environment, sage advice comes at a premium. For example, Martin
van Creveld, professor of military history at Hebrew University
in Israel, believes that the US, Israel and the world can live
with a nuclear armed Iran.
On March 17, US Vice President Dick Cheney began a whirlwind,
10-day peace mission to visit leaders of the Middle East/Persian
Gulf states. Coincidently, the vice president's trip began six
days after the resignation of CENTCOM UCC head Admiral William
Fallon, a vocal critic of pro-Iran war elements in the Bush Administration.
Cheney has been a longtime advocate of destabilizing and corrupting
the Islamic theocratic model of government that Iran employs.
Iran's nuclear program has provided Cheney and his supporters
with a pretext for US military action. "I've been pretty
consistent over time about Iran. I don't think I've ratcheted
up the rhetoric. I felt strongly for a long time, and a lot of
us have, that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons."
According to China View, on March 23, Cheney visited with Israeli
Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “During a meeting with U.S.
Vice President Dick Cheney in Tel Aviv, Barak stressed that Iran's
nuclear program posed a threat to the stability of the region
and the entire world . . . Cheney said his country would do everything
it could to deal with the alleged Iranian nuclear threat to Israel
. . ."
During the same visit, Cheney met with Benjamin Netanyahu, former
Israeli ambassador to the US and leader of Israel's Likud party.
According to Ynet News, Netanyahu claimed, "I spoke to him
[Cheney] about the need to remove the Iranian threat before (the
Islamic republic) arms itself with a nuclear bomb. There are additional
Iranian issues which must be prevented, including the need to
prevent Iran from building its main bases in the region, from
Gaza to Lebanon, and particularly in Jerusalem . . ."
Crazy Eddie diplomacy
Reza Pahlavi, exiled Iranian son of the former Shah of Iran,
believes that “Iran’s clerical regime’s continued
support for terrorism and confrontational behaviour, both regionally
and beyond, its lack of transparency on issues such as its nuclear
program, its continued repression of its citizenry, and a host
of other issues, has rightfully led the world to the conclusion
that, as such, this regime cannot be trusted.” Pahlavi opposes
US military action against Iran but believes that a majority of
the Iranian people want a secular government. It is difficult
to trust the sincerity of Pahlavi's antiwar message. The Iranian
government survives still and the throne Pahlavi seeks is becoming
ever more distant. Further, both Pahlavi and Bush appear to believe
that the Iranian government cannot be trusted. If they can't be
trusted, the question is, why negotiate at all?
Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist and expert from Benador Associates
-- whose work appears frequently on David Horowitz's FrontPage
magazine and elsewhere -- has opined that US and European diplomats
who attempt a carrot and stick approach with Iran are Crazy Eddies.
There is no point dealing with the theocratic regime there. The
implication is that it must be eliminated.
“A few years back there was a character on American television
advertising known as Crazy Eddie. Shouting at the top of his voice,
he would offer something, usually a gadget of doubtful utility,
for sale at a ridiculously low price . . . Reading statements
made by the ambassadors of the major Western powers at the United
Nations the other day, one could not help remembering Crazy Eddie.
The diplomats were speaking after a Security Council session that
approved a new resolution, imposing further sanctions on Iran.
The British ambassador spoke of the numerous advantages that Iran
could reap by complying with Security Council resolutions aimed
at ending the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme.. His French
colleague was even more generous. All that the mullahs had to
do was stop enriching uranium to be rewarded with "access
to the latest technology.
However, the US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad came closest to the
Crazy Eddie image. The package of incentives includes active international
support to build state of the art light water power reactors and
access to reliable nuclear fuel, he promised. Iran would also
receive spare parts for its ageing US-made jetliners, credit facilities
through the World Bank, membership of the World Trade Oganisation,
and a lifting of the ban on Iranian exports. However, as Crazy
Eddie used to say, that was not all. We call on Iran to engage
in constructive negotiations over the future of the nuclear programme,
the ambassador wrote [in the Wall Street Journal]. Such negotiations,
if successful, would have profound benefits for Iran and the Iranian
people. The message from the US to the people of Iran is that
America respects your great country. We want Iran to be a full
partner in the international community.
Only Crazy Eddie would think that Ahmadinejad . . . could be
bribed with spare parts for Boeing's or state of the art power
stations. "
In a July 28, 2005 press release titled “Opposing Statements
of Iranian Jews on Meeting Ahmadinejad,” Pooya Dayanim,
president of the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC),
declared that there would be no talks for peace with the Iranian
government. “Please be advised that it is the policy of
IJPAC not to meet or negotiate with terrorists, murderers and
hostage-takers who have the blood of the Iranian, Jewish and American
people on their hands.” Dayanim is a staunch supporter of
policies advocated by Michael Leeden and refers to Los Angles,
IJPAC's home, as Tehrangeles.
Dayanim's blunt message lurks in the recent statements made by
Bush, Cheney, Netanyahu and Barak. And it echoes around the globe
as proponents of harsh economic sanctions and US military action
mock diplomatic efforts ensuring that trust will not be an obstacle
to war.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
