The consensus of those believing Iran either has nukes or will soon have them is that the mullahs will immediately use them. Their long list of actions showing chronic terrorist impulses which prompt their using a nuclear bomb includes but is not limited to:
-holding Americans hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for 444 days.
-issuing a fatwah calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie for publishing The Satanic Verses.
-Iran's support of Hezbollah.
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying in 2005 that "Israel must be wiped off the map."
If anyone forgets Ahmadinejad's comments, Sean Hannity will remind you if you express any doubts that Iran deserves constant demonization.
In case Hannity's translation-challenged interpretation shown in the video above doesn't appeal to you, perhaps his discussing the same issue with Ron Paul in the video clip below might:
Hannity's failure to obtain....well .....an accurate translation of Ahmedinejad's words shows he is little more than a purveyor of propaganda. Hannity's service to the undeclared yet real ministry of propaganda shouldn't weaken your resolve in seeing Iran for all of its evil. If a funny thing like an accurate translation from Farsi to English guts the luster from Hannity's bombasts, Iran still earns its pariah status by referring to us as the Great Satan. And other reasons justify our demonizing Iran. Or maybe not.
Of course the mullah regime is the "largest sponsor of terrorism in the world." Or so the U.S. elite establishment predictably inserts such claims within every discussion about Iran. Only a nation indifferent to much of the world and the complicated and changing geopolitical landscapes could so easily slap the "terrorist" tag on another nation. Legal scholars perform mental exercises attempting to define "terrorism" suggesting it is objectively and universally understood. Their legal constructs notwithstanding "terrorism" is a vacuous or amorphous term invoked by someone who disapproves of someone else's use of violence. The U.S. flexible application of the term "terrorism" exposes its cognitive dissonance, especially when we view its history with the group once deemed terrorist the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK).
For instance, members of this organization (MEK) participated in the seizing of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, and "argued against the early release of American hostages," according to a U.S. State Department report released in 2011 [1]. Its long list of chicanery earned it a spot on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations beginning in 1997. But the U.S. State Department recognized MEK's rehabilitation thereby resulting in their removal from this list. [2]. Prior to their being removed from that infamous List, the George W. Bush administration began covertly supporting MEK [3]. These actions taken to the behest of MEK obviously reminds Iran that they remain a constant target for regime change. This cognitive dissonance incurred from the U.S. support of a former "terrorist" organization whose actions include targeted assassinations of Iranian officials and scientists (not to mention american citizens and military servicemen) [4] could certainly motivate the regime in Tehran to continue developing nuclear technology as a deterrent from regime change.
And, of course, no discussion of Iran as the grand sponsor of terrorism would be complete without referencing its support of Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department published in June 2015 its "Country Reports on Terrorism" wherein it states:
The conflating of Iran and Hezbollah implies that wherever the latter establishes a presence then by association the former is determined to be in control of the subject area. This viewpoint motivates a familiar talking point expressed by Iran's detractors that the Iranian regime controls five capitals. Thus, Hezbollah's presence and influence in Syria and Lebanon means that Iran controls both Damascus and Beirut. Yet such control seems illusive in light of the State Department's revelation in its report that:
The U.S. clings to their well established pattern of identifying Iran first and foremost with the terror motif to reserve an excuse to abandon any diplomatic agreements. This mindset explains why 47 Republican Senators sent a letter to the Iranian regime informing them that U.S. Constitutional provisions empowers the U.S. Senate to preempt President Obama's diplomatic play date with the mullahs. This tactic of applying to Iran the "sponsor of terrorism" label also allows the U.S. to justify subjecting demands on Iran that the U.S. would never allow to be imposed on them. The demonization of Iran fills up discourse that diverts our asking questions about the U.S. Otherwise, we might conclude from honest answers to such questions that the U.S. lacks credibility to serve as the gatekeeper determining who is worthy of enriching uranium. I believe these questions would be relevant regardless whether existing international agreements and institutions created to oversee them remain in force (i.e. IAEA, NPT).
And, of course, no discussion of Iran as the grand sponsor of terrorism would be complete without referencing its support of Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department published in June 2015 its "Country Reports on Terrorism" wherein it states:
Hizbullah, with considerable support from Iran, remains the most capable and prominent terrorist group in Lebanon, enjoying popular support among Lebanese Shia and some Christians. Hizbullah continued to operate as an armed militia beyond the control of the state and as a powerful political actor that can hobble or topple the government as it sees fit. [5].
The conflating of Iran and Hezbollah implies that wherever the latter establishes a presence then by association the former is determined to be in control of the subject area. This viewpoint motivates a familiar talking point expressed by Iran's detractors that the Iranian regime controls five capitals. Thus, Hezbollah's presence and influence in Syria and Lebanon means that Iran controls both Damascus and Beirut. Yet such control seems illusive in light of the State Department's revelation in its report that:
Lebanon, a country of approximately four million, hosted more than 1.1 million refugees from Syria at the end of 2014. [6].The bloodshed and disruptions resulting from the "civil war" in Syria triggered this refugee crisis. Did either Hezbollah or its sinister benefactors in Iran start this "civil war" that began in 2011? This level of carnage suggests that Iran most likely holds no firm grip on power in both Damascus and Beirut. Instead, the U.S. relies on weak reductionist logic to claim any activity occurring under the banner of the Shia is evidence of Iranian influence.
This may explain the view articulated by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas who served as a de facto spokesman for the other Republican Senators who signed the infamous letter sent to the Iranian regime while their negotiations with President Obama were ongoing. But, I cannot find on what basis Cotton believes Iran controls five capitals (excluding the obvious Tehran). Thus, only his talking points are available to scrutinize. Talking points are no substitute for comprehensive analysis. However, Cotton's reciting of talking points apparently qualifies his being a leader of the loyal opposition consisting of his fellow GOP Senators. But he did go to Harvard.
The U.S. clings to their well established pattern of identifying Iran first and foremost with the terror motif to reserve an excuse to abandon any diplomatic agreements. This mindset explains why 47 Republican Senators sent a letter to the Iranian regime informing them that U.S. Constitutional provisions empowers the U.S. Senate to preempt President Obama's diplomatic play date with the mullahs. This tactic of applying to Iran the "sponsor of terrorism" label also allows the U.S. to justify subjecting demands on Iran that the U.S. would never allow to be imposed on them. The demonization of Iran fills up discourse that diverts our asking questions about the U.S. Otherwise, we might conclude from honest answers to such questions that the U.S. lacks credibility to serve as the gatekeeper determining who is worthy of enriching uranium. I believe these questions would be relevant regardless whether existing international agreements and institutions created to oversee them remain in force (i.e. IAEA, NPT).
Anyone can ask such critical questions and many do except the U.S. elite deems them unworthy of consideration. They point out Iran's chanting "Death to America," but fail to accurately cite how prevalent Iranians chant this phrase and to what degree the regime formally sanctions its meaning. Americans concerns about Iran's continued chanting of "Death to America" are certainly warranted. But, their level of concern over the state of U.S.-Iran relations should prompt their asking other questions. Did Iran's foreign minister deliver a speech to the United Nations in February 2003 showing bogus diagrams of Iraq's non existent stockpiles of chemical weapons?
Or did the Iranian Foreign Minister during that speech hold up prop vials symbolizing Iraq's alleged deadly anthrax attacks?
Did Iran use chemical weapons against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? No but chemical weapons were used. Realpolitick demands nations resort to expedient measures that in retrospect seem morally objectionable. The U.S. "supported" Suddam Hussein,
The official toll was 20,000 killed, 7,000 of whom died instantly, with at least 100,000 people 'severely injured' by the nerve agents sarin and soman as well as the blistering agent mustard gas. Even 20 years after the war's end, 55,000 people were still being treated for their illnesses apparently from chemical weapons. [7].
Could such a tragedy affect Iranian leaders' psyche when considering how much uranium to stockpile and enrich?
Does Iran invade and help overthrow regimes at some point following their eliminating their weapons? Like Iraq? Like Libya? Did Iran train and arm foreign fighters who still wage war to overthrow Assad, causing over 200,000 deaths since 2011? Not according the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report obtained by Judicial Watch that has earned much attention. So then...who did? Other questions are important to ask when reviewing how history set a precedent for adversarial relations between both nations. Did Iran's secret intelligence service violently overthrow the U.S. elected President in 1953 and install a dictator who oversaw a police state for the next 26 years?
Answers to these questions would justify Iran's skepticism and concerns about negotiating with the U.S. One relevant question here is on what basis does the U.S. believe Iran would deploy nukes? Maybe the U.S. is projecting it's historical behavior on Iran? Who successfully tested an atomic bomb on July 16, 1945 and three weeks later on August 06, 1945 dropped it on mostly civilians?
Such questions presuppose that Iran either has or will soon have nukes. Such presuppositions deserve more scrutiny given other revelations depicting Iran as something slightly less than sinister Shia mullahs on the cusp of launching nukes against the backdrop of seeing visions of the thirteenth imam.
Currently, too many moving parts can impact the actual implementation of the nuclear deal with the U.S and Iran. One of them is U.S. opinion which shows a majority still oppose the plan. Public opinion changes to correspond to their perceptions of conditions in effect when the polls are conducted. For example, in 1945 85% of Americans approved of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, but 70 years later that figure declined to 56%. The current approval level of 56% reveals a generational split on this issue, showing 7 out of 10 Americans ages 65 and older still approve of the U.S. dropping the A-bomb while only 47% of those ages 18-29 still agree. Within the next 25-50 years, its possible then that most Americans will express no support for such actions. But, will more of them express supporting the current deal with Iran? If so, will such increased support convince the power elite to seek improved relations with Iran?
The U.S.-Iran relations still seemingly suffer from a troubled history. Yes both sides can transcend this history. Currently though too many powerful interests oppose this deal who appear willing to seize upon any setback as a pretext for sabotaging it. Politician's speeches filled with rhetorical flourish won't heal historical wounds if others create a pseudo history as a basis for inflicting future wounds.
Currently, too many moving parts can impact the actual implementation of the nuclear deal with the U.S and Iran. One of them is U.S. opinion which shows a majority still oppose the plan. Public opinion changes to correspond to their perceptions of conditions in effect when the polls are conducted. For example, in 1945 85% of Americans approved of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, but 70 years later that figure declined to 56%. The current approval level of 56% reveals a generational split on this issue, showing 7 out of 10 Americans ages 65 and older still approve of the U.S. dropping the A-bomb while only 47% of those ages 18-29 still agree. Within the next 25-50 years, its possible then that most Americans will express no support for such actions. But, will more of them express supporting the current deal with Iran? If so, will such increased support convince the power elite to seek improved relations with Iran?
The U.S.-Iran relations still seemingly suffer from a troubled history. Yes both sides can transcend this history. Currently though too many powerful interests oppose this deal who appear willing to seize upon any setback as a pretext for sabotaging it. Politician's speeches filled with rhetorical flourish won't heal historical wounds if others create a pseudo history as a basis for inflicting future wounds.
1.Masters, Johnathan. Council on Foreign Relations."Backgrounders: Mujahhadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)" July 28, 2014. http://www.cfr.org/iran/mujahadeen-e-khalq-mek/p9158
2. Office of Spokesperson. Media Note. U.S. Department of State. "Delisting of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq" September 28, 2012. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/198443.htm3. Cartalucci, Tony. "American-Killing Terror Cult: U.S. Delists Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. Continuity of Agenda: Neo-cons and Obama adminisration Sponsor Global Terror Against Iran. Global Research. September 22, 2012. http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-killing-terror-cult-us-delists-mujahedeen-e-khalq-mek/5305673
4. Cartalucci, Tony. "U.S. Implausibly Denies Role in Israeli Terror Squads." Land Destroyer Report. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-implausibly-denies-role-in-israeli.html February 10, 2012.
5. U.S. Department of State Publication. Bureau of Counterterrorism. "Country Reports on Terrorism 2014. June 2015. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/239631.pdf
6. Ibid.
7. Porter, Gareth. Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Just World Books. Charlottesville, Virginia. 2014. Kindle Version. location 904 of 6968.
No comments:
Post a Comment