@@ U.S. & Iran: Democracy, Terrorism, & Nukes @@
Arash
July 26, 2005
The U.S. and Iran: Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons
Dr. Stephen Zunes
Editor: John Gershman
The election of the hard-line Tehran mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over former President
Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani as the new head of Iran is undeniably a setback for those
hoping to advance greater social and political freedom in that country. It should not
necessarily be seen as a turn to the right by the Iranian electorate, however. The 70-year
old Rafsanjani—a cleric and penultimate wheeler-dealer from the political
establishment—was portrayed as the more moderate conservative. The fact that he had become
a millionaire while in government was apparently seen as less important than his modest
reform agenda.
By contrast, the young Tehran mayor focused on the plight of the poor and cleaning up
corruption.
In Iran, real political power rests with unelected military, economic, and right-wing
ideologues, and in the June 25 runoff election, Iranian voters were forced to choose
between two flawed candidates. The relatively liberal contender came across as an
out-of-touch elitist, and his ultraconservative opponent was able to assemble a coalition
of rural, less-educated, and fundamentalist voters to conduct a pseudopopulist campaign
based on promoting morality and value-centered leadership. Such a political climate should
not be unfamiliar to American voters.
Of course, Washington did not provide the Iranians with much incentive to elect another
relative progressive to lead their country. Since the 1997 election of the outgoing
reformist President Mohammed Khatami, the United States has strengthened its economic
sanctions against Iran and has even threatened military attack.
Although most Iranians would like improved relations with the United States, they
apparently got the message that U.S. hostility toward their country would continue
whomever they chose as president.
Washington’s primary criticisms of Tehran focus on the Iranian government’s suppression of
political freedom, its support for terrorism and subversion, and its nuclear program.
Though all three of these are legitimate areas of concern for the international community,
the DOUBLE STANDARDS exhibited by both the Bush administration and the bipartisan
congressional leadership in pressing these issues have done little to promote individual
liberty, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation in Iran or the region as a whole.
U.S. Criticism of the Electoral Process
The Bush administration has attempted to use the flawed election process in the Islamic
Republic of Iran to further isolate that country and discredit its government. Yet,
despite a call by some U.S.-based exiles for a boycott, more than two-thirds of Iran’s
eligible voters went to the polls during the first round, a higher percentage than in
recent U.S. presidential elections.
Many, though not all, reform-minded candidates were prevented from running, and since
President Khatami was unable to significantly liberalize the political system, unelected
ultraconservative clerics are still capable of dominating Iran. Despite these very real
limitations, however, the election campaign was utilized by the growing pro-democracy
movement to encourage greater political discourse and to deepen popular involvement in the
civic process.
For the first time since Iran became a republic a quarter century ago, a presidential
election was forced into a second round. The disappointment with the choices offered led
to a much lower voter turnout during the runoff, but the majority of Iranians apparently
considered the outcome significant enough to warrant their involvement in the electoral
process. Most Iranians felt they had at least some stake in the system.
Still, President Bush insisted that the Iranian vote failed to meet “the basic
requirements of democracy” and that the “oppressive record” of the country's rulers made
the election illegitimate. [1]
Such comments appear to have actually catalyzed Iranian voters from across the political
spectrum, many of whom recall how the United States engineered the overthrow of their
country’s last genuinely democratic government in 1953
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28) and backed the repressive regime of the
unelected Shah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran) until his
ouster in a popular revolution in 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution).
Efforts by the Bush administration to portray the political situation in neighboring Iraq
and Afghanistan as superior to Iran’s similarly failed to convince Iranian voters.
Although those countries recently experienced relatively fair electoral processes, both
are suffering from bloody insurgency campaigns led by Islamic extremists and even bloodier
counterinsurgency campaigns orchestrated by the United States.
Moreover, Baghdad and Kabul exercise little direct control over much of their respective
countries, and neither of these elected governments has thus far been able to demonstrate
any real independence from U.S. military and economic domination.
A look at most other U.S. allies in the region does not offer much inspiration for those
desiring greater freedom and democracy, either. There are no competitive elections for
president, for prime minister, or for any kind of legislature that can initiate and pass
meaningful laws and make real policy in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait,
Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or Azerbaijan, even though
these autocratic governments are bolstered by U.S. military and economic aid. Indeed, the
majority of U.S.-allied governments in the region are even less democratic than Iran.
At least the ruling Iranian government does not massacre demonstrators by the hundreds or
boil dissidents to death, as does the U.S-backed Karimov regime in Uzbekistan. Nor do
current Iranian leaders usurp most of the nation’s riches and restrict political power to
a single extended family, like the U.S.-backed family dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and
the other sheikdoms of the Arabian Peninsula. And Iranian voters were spared election day
brutalities like those in Egypt under the U.S.-backed Mubarak dictatorship, where police
recently escorted pro-government thugs to attack a group of women who dared to hold a
nonviolent protest in support of greater political freedom.
Yet only Iran, not these U.S.-backed dictatorships, endures President Bush’s complaints
that power is in the hands of “an unelected few”. [2]
Echoing his selective criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenges the
legitimacy of the Iranian elections, because female candidates were barred from the
presidential race, but she praises the far more restrictive local council elections in
Saudi Arabia, where women, unlike in Iran, were not even allowed to vote. [3]
Such DOUBLE STANDARDS in no way justify the repression, the lack of real choices in the
election process, and the many other failures by Iranian leaders to conform to
international standards of human rights and representative government. They do, however,
indicate that Washington’s bipartisan emphasis on the lack of democracy and human rights
in Iran stems not out of a desire to enhance these ideals but rather from an urge to
punish, isolate, and militarily threaten an oil-rich country that refuses to sufficiently
cooperate with U.S. economic and strategic designs in the Middle East.
Subversion and Terrorism
U.S. hostility toward Iran often follows accusations of subversion and terrorism beyond
its borders. For example, Washington tried to blame Tehran for the popular anti-government
resistance movement in the Arab island state of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, where the
Shia Muslim majority began to resist the autocratic rule of a Sunni Muslim monarchy during
the 1980s. [Island of Mishmahig (Bahrain) is actually Iran's 14th province that has been
occupied by British installed Al-khalifa sheikhs since 1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishmahig ]
The United States also sought to link Iran with acts of terrorism—both through its own
agents and through local groups—and accused Tehran of military threats and acts of
subversion against Arab monarchies in the region. Even Arab states suspicious of Iran’s
intentions, however, have expressed concerned about the U.S. tendency to define
“Iranian-backed terrorist groups” so broadly as to include, for example, Lebanese
guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation forces prior to Israel’s withdrawal in May 2000.
Although Iranian agents have trained, financed, and funneled arms to a number of extremist
Islamic groups, U.S. charges of direct Iranian responsibility for specific terrorist acts
against Israeli or American targets remain dubious.
For example, Washington exerted enormous pressure on the Saudi government to implicate
Iran in the 1996 terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers in Dharan, which killed 19 U.S.
soldiers, even though Saudi investigators found no such link. Iran has challenged the
United States to present evidence in an international judicial forum to prove its
allegations, but Washington has refused. [4] Many now believe this terrorist attack may
have been one of the first strikes by Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.
U.S. State Department investigations reveal that Iranian support for terrorism emanates
almost exclusively from the Revolutionary Guards and the Intelligence services, both of
which are beyond the control of Iran’s president and legislature. Furthermore, most acts
of international terrorism clearly linked to Tehran have been directed at exiled Iranian
dissidents, not against the United States. [5]
Iran’s immediate post-revolutionary zeal to export its ideology was short-lived, as
internal problems and outside threats deflected the attention of its leadership. In
addition, Iranians are culturally and religiously distinct from the Sunni Arabs who
dominate most of the Middle East. The hierarchical structure of the Shia Islam practiced
in Iran limits the revolution’s appeal as a model for other Middle Eastern states.
There is little evidence to support Washington’s warnings of aggressive Iranian designs in
the Persian Gulf, either. Iran has not threatened—nor does it have any reason for
provoking—a confrontation over sea lanes, as several U.S. analysts have feared. Iran is at
least as reliant as its Arab neighbors on unrestricted navigation, so if it closed the
Straits of Hormuz, Iran would be primarily hurting itself. With few pipelines servicing
its southern oil fields, Iran is far more dependent on tanker shipping than any other
country on the Persian Gulf coast.
Iran has dramatically reduced its military spending due to chronic economic problems.
Indeed, in constant dollars, Iranian military spending is barely one-third what it was
during the 1980s, when Washington was clandestinely sending arms to the Islamic Republic.
[6] Mirroring increased Iranian procurement of sophisticated missiles, the Arab sheikdoms
along the Persian Gulf have similar missile capabilities, serving (along with the U.S.
Navy) as an effective deterrent force.
The United States has also cited Iran’s occupation of three small islands claimed by the
United Arab Emirates as evidence of aggressive Iranian designs in the Persian Gulf. [7]
However, Iran originally seized the islands—Abu Musa, Greater Tunbs, and Lesser Tunbs—in
1971 under the Shah and with U.S. and British encouragement. [8] [Iran never seized any
islands, British occupied Iran's islands in the 19th centaury and then left in the 1970,
returning the islands to Iran. Then British installed Al-khalifa sheikhs in what is now
called United Arab Emirates]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates
One litmus test of a country’s aggressive designs on its neighbors is military
procurement. As a country amasses arms, bolsters troops, and acquires training, the chance
that it may initiate war escalates, because the probability of success rises. On this
front, Iran also seems less of a threat. Iran’s military procurement relative to the
Persian Gulf States is far less than it was during the 1970s under the Shah, when the
United States was actually promoting arms sales to Iran. In addition, much of Iran’s naval
capability was destroyed by the United States in the 1987-88 tanker war, and Iran lost
much of its ground weaponry during Iraq’s 1988 offensive. As much as half of Iran’s
inventory of major land-force weapons were destroyed in the course of the war with Iraq.
[9] Although Iran’s defensive capabilities have improved somewhat, there is little to
suggest that Tehran poses any kind of realistic offensive threat to the region. Indeed,
Iranian tanks and planes actually number less than in 1980. [10]
Regarding potential conflicts on the country’s eastern border, Iran came close to
declaring war against Afghanistan’s Taliban government in 1998 in response to repression
against the country’s Shia minority and the killings of nine Iranian diplomats in the
Northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.
Iran accepted nearly two million Afghan refugees during more than 20 years of war in
Afghanistan, a country with which the Iranians have close ethnic ties. Iran also provided
military support for the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. Despite all
this, the Bush administration has warned Iran not to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal
affairs, an ironic admonition coming as it did after months of U.S. interference in
Afghanistan that included heavy bombing, ground combat, the ouster of one government, and
the installation of another.
The Bush administration has also claimed that Tehran allowed al-Qaida members to seek
sanctuary in Iran, though it has been unable to present much in the way of evidence to
that effect. In reality, Iran has strongly opposed al-Qaida and welcomed their ouster from
Afghanistan. Likewise, al-Qaida has been antagonistic toward Iran, in part due to its Shia
Islam, which Osama bin Laden and his Sunni followers view as heretical.
U.S. claims of Iranian support for the Iraqi insurgency are particularly ludicrous, given
the close ties with the Iraqi president, prime minister, and leaders of the majority Shia
coalition in the national assembly. Iran has absolutely no interest in supporting the
Sunni-led insurgency, though—like most Iraqis—it would like the United States to withdraw
its forces as soon as possible and allow the elected Iraqi government greater sovereignty.
Nor, despite claims by the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties,
is Iran a serious threat to Israel. Israel is separated from Iran by over 1000 kilometers,
and the Israeli air force is more than capable of shooting down any Iranian aircraft long
before it could reach Israel’s borders. Israel also possesses a strong defense system
against medium-range missiles. It is highly unlikely that Israel would have clandestinely
armed the Ayatollah Khomeini’s government throughout the 1980s if the Islamic Republic was
considered a threat, particularly since hard-line anti-Israel elements were more prominent
in the Iranian government during that period than they are now.
Iran’s Nuclear Program
Having already successfully fooled most of Congress and the American public into believing
that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration
and congressional leaders of both parties are now claiming that it is Iran that has an
active nuclear weapons program. As with Iraq, the administration does not look too kindly
on those who question its assumptions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is
the United Nations body legally responsible for monitoring compliance with the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran, the United States, and all but a handful of
countries are members. When the IAEA published a detailed report in November 2004
concluding that its extensive inspections had revealed no evidence of Iran pursuing a
nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration responded by attempting to oust the IAEA
director.
For the time being, the Iranians have been able to avert a crisis through negotiations
with representatives of the European Union (EU). Iran agreed to suspend its uranium
enrichment and processing programs until a permanent deal is reached, which the Iranians
hope will also include political and economic concessions from the Europeans.
The Bush administration has not been supportive of the European negotiating efforts,
however. John Bolton (http://www.stopbolton.org), the former undersecretary of state for
arms control and international security and currently the UN ambassador-designate,
declared that the EU’s strategy of negotiating with Iran was “doomed to fail”. [11]
Washington has instead advocated a more confrontational approach of UN sanctions in
response to Iran’s apparent earlier violations of IAEA agreements. Bolton has argued for
“robust” military action by the United States, if the UN Security Council fails to impose
the sanctions that Washington demands. [12]
The Bush administration’s efforts have not received much support, however, in part because
of U.S. DOUBLE STANDARDS. The United States has blocked enforcement of a previous UN
Security Council resolution calling on Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA
trusteeship. Washington has also quashed resolutions calling on Pakistan and India to
eliminate their nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. [13]
Despite accusations from U.S. officials that “there is no doubt that Iran has a secret
nuclear weapons production program” [14], no one has been able to cite any evidence
supporting such a charge. As with the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however,
Democratic congressional leaders have contributed to the Bush administration’s alarmist
rhetoric about a supposed nuclear threat from Iran and have defended White House DOUBLE
STANDARDS that focus on the alleged nuclear weapons program of an adversary while ignoring
the obvious and proven nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies like Israel, Pakistan, and
India.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic
presidential nomination, declared that the prospect of Iran also developing nuclear
weapons “must be unacceptable to the entire world", since it would “shake the foundation
of global security to its very core”. [15]
Similarly, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called for the establishment of “an
international coalition against proliferation” modeled on the multilateral effort to
combat terrorism. She suggested that instead of organizing against nuclear proliferation
in general, such a coalition should focus on Iran, despite the Islamic Republic’s apparent
current cooperation with its NPT obligations. [16] As with the run-up to the U.S. invasion
of Iraq, congressional Democratic leaders appear willing to blindly support the Bush
administration in its exaggerated and highly selective accusations of an imminent threat
from a distant country that just happens to sit on a lot of oil.
It is important to recognize that even if Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, the
enormous expense and environmental risks from nuclear power production make it a poor
choice for developing countries, especially those with generous energy resources. And the
risk of it being used as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons program is certainly real.
However, the United States is still obligated under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
to allow signatory states in good standing to have access to peaceful nuclear technology.
Ironically, this provision promoting the use of nuclear energy was originally included in
the NPT in large part because of Washington’s desire to promote the nuclear power
industry. In any case, whatever the extent of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whatever the
outcome of the ongoing EU talks, the United States is in a poor position to assume much
leadership in the cause of nonproliferation.
Lost in Bush’s current obsession with Iran’s nuclear intentions is the fact that the
United States—from the Eisenhower administration through the Carter years—played a major
role in the development of Iran’s nuclear program. In 1957, Washington and Tehran signed
their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next two decades, the United
States provided Iran not only with technical assistance but with its first experimental
nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile isotopes.
Despite the refusal of the Shah to rule out the possibility of Iran developing nuclear
weapons, the Ford administration approved the sale to Iran of up to eight nuclear reactors
(with fuel) and later cleared the sale of lasers believed to be capable of enriching
uranium. Surpassing any danger from the mullahs now in power, the Shah's megalomania led
arms control advocates to fear a diversion of the technology for military purposes.
The Washington Post reported that an initially hesitant President Gerald Ford was assured
by his advisers that Iran was only interested in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
despite the country’s enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. [17] Ironically, Ford’s
secretary of defense was Donald Rumsfeld, his chief of staff was Dick Cheney, and his head
of nonproliferation efforts at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was Paul Wolfowitz
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/index.php), all of whom—as officials in the current
administration—have insisted that Iran’s nuclear program must be assumed to have military
applications.
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm292a.htm
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm292b.htm
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm324a.htm
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm324b.htm
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nssm219a.htm
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nssm238a.htm
Two documents in particular, dated April 22, 1975 and April 20, 1976, show that the United
States and Iran held negotiations for cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy
and the United States was willing to help Iran by setting up uranium enrichment and fuel
reprocessing facilities.
http://www.hangitonthewall.com/MASTER/AmericanPresidency/NewAdditions/page/image35.html
http://www.hangitonthewall.com/MASTER/AmericanPresidency/NewAdditions/page/image39.html
http://www.hangitonthewall.com/MASTER/AmericanPresidency/NewAdditions/page/image38.html
http://www.hangitonthewall.com/MASTER/AmericanPresidency/NewAdditions/page/image40.html
http://www.hangitonthewall.com/MASTER/AmericanPresidency/NewAdditions/page/image6.html
Same U.S. players sing a different tune on Iranian nukes
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/dd5356feeea95952?hl=en
Iranian Perceptions of Defense Needs
Concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a volatile region, Tehran has
called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East.
All nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up
their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal
by Syria, by U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such
nuclear weapons-free zones have already been established for Latin America, the South
Pacific, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
The Bush administration has rejected the proposition, however. A draft UN Security Council
resolution in December 2003 calling for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East was
withdrawn when the United States threatened to VETO it. The Bush administration, with
bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, insists that the United States has the right to decide
which countries get to have nuclear weapons and which ones do not, effectively demanding a
kind of nuclear apartheid. Not only are such DOUBLE STANDARDS unethical, they are simply
unworkable: any effort to impose a regime of haves and have nots from the outside will
simply make the have nots try even harder.
Since Iranian efforts to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East have been
unsuccessful, it is certainly possible that Iran may someday develop nuclear weapons.
However, Washington errs in assuming that the Islamic Republic would use them for
aggressive designs. Indeed, the Iranians may have good reasons to desire a nuclear
deterrent.
In early 2002, Iran was listed with Iraq and North Korea by President Bush as part of “the
axis of evil”. Iraq, which had given up its nuclear program over a decade earlier and
allowed IAEA inspectors to verify this, was invaded and occupied by the United States. By
contrast, North Korea—which reneged on its agreement and has apparently resumed production
of nuclear weapons—has not been invaded. The Iranians may see a lesson in that.
In addition, soon after coming to office, President Bush decided to unfreeze America’s
nuclear weapons production and launch a program to develop smaller tactical nuclear
weapons for battlefield use. It is important to remember that the only country to actually
use nuclear weapons in combat is the United States, in the 1945 bombings of two Japanese
cities, a decision that most American political leaders still defend to this day.
Furthermore, the United States is allied with Pakistan, which borders Iran on the east and
possesses nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems. The United States is also a
strong ally of Israel, located 1000 kilometers to the west and capable of launching a
nuclear strike against Iran with its long-range missiles in a matter of minutes. Unlike
Iran, neither of these countries has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and both
are in VIOLATION of UN Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear weapons
programs.
However, the Bush administration’s view is that rather than focusing on countries that
actually do have an acknowledged nuclear weapons program, actually do possess nuclear
weapons, and are in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, the focus should instead
be on a country that does not have a confirmed nuclear weapons program, does not yet have
nuclear weapons, and is not in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.
The only realistic means of curbing the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East
is to establish a law-based, regionwide program for disarmament encompassing all countries
regardless of their relations with the United States. Ultimately, the only way to make the
world safe from the threat of nuclear weapons is by establishing a nuclear-free planet.
And the United States—as the largest nuclear power—must take the lead.
Polls show that a sizable majority of Americans do not believe any country, including the
United States, should possess nuclear weapons. [18] Neither the Bush administration nor
the leaders of the Democratic Party, however, appear willing to even broach the subject.
The Issue Is U.S. Hegemony
Iranians are convinced that U.S. hostility toward Iran is not really about nuclear
weapons, terrorism, or anything other than opposition to the very existence of an Islamic
republic in a country once ruled by a compliant, U.S.-installed, absolute monarch. This is
why both “conservative” and “reformist” elements in Iranian politics support their country’s
right to develop a nuclear energy and research program under IAEA supervision. [19]
Besides Iraq, Iran is the only Middle Eastern country with a sizable educated population,
enormous oil resources, and an adequate water supply. Among Middle Eastern nations, only
Iraq and Iran have shown the potential for pursuing domestic and foreign policies
independent of the dictates of powerful Western governments or the international financial
institutions dominated by these governments. In order to control Iraq, the Bush
administration decided it had to take over the country by military force.
There is little question that there were similar plans in store for Iran, until U.S.
difficulties in stabilizing and managing Iran’s once-powerful Arab neighbor made it
apparent that an additional occupation would be unwise. Pentagon troop strength is already
severely stretched, and the financial and political costs of the ongoing war in Iraq are
becoming difficult for the Bush administration to manage.
Iran would also be far more difficult to invade and occupy than Iraq. Iran has more than
three times Iraq’s population and land mass, and the country has far more mountains and
other geographical hindrances to invasion and occupation. Unlike Iraq in the dozen years
prior to the U.S. invasion, Iran has not been under a strictly enforced international arms
embargo and has been able to build up its military defenses.
And as problematic as Iran’s political system may be, Iranians enjoy far more political
pluralism than did Iraqis under the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. As a result,
Iranians harbor more hope that change is possible from within. Although Iran’s population
consists of several different ethno-linguistic groups, there is a very strong sense of
nationalism that would likely result in far more Iranians rushing to defend their country
from foreign conquest and occupation than was the case with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq.
The legal case for military action against Iran is even weaker than it was in regard to
Iraq. Great Britain, Poland, and other allies that supported the United States in invading
Iraq have made it clear they would not take part in a conquest of Iran.
An outright invasion of Iran is therefore unlikely, but this does not mean that military
action is not forthcoming, either directly or through Washington’s client state Israel.
The most likely scenario might resemble the half decade prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq
complete with periodic bombing raids and missile attacks against suspected military,
industrial, and government targets. Though not as calamitous as a full-scale invasion,
such military action would nevertheless constitute a tragic blunder.
Iranians would probably find ways to retaliate against such attacks, including a refusal
to cooperate with the IAEA and an increase in support for terrorist groups. Reaction to
such attacks would almost certainly fan anti-American and anti-Israeli extremism in the
region, even within the pro-Western and anti-Iranian Arab sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, as Iranian human rights lawyer and Islamic feminist Shirin Ebadi
(http://www.shirinebadi.ir) observed, “Respect for human rights … can never be imposed by
foreign military might and coercion—an approach that abounds in contradictions.” The 2003
Nobel Peace Prize winner, jailed by the Iranian government for her dissident activities,
went on to observe that not only would an attack on Iran “vitiate popular support for
human rights activism, but by destroying civilian lives, institutions, and infrastructure,
war would also usher in chaos and instability. Respect for human rights is likely to be
among the first casualties”. [20]
Up to this point, U.S. pressure on Iran has primarily been through strict unilateral
economic sanction. Unlike international sanctions against the former apartheid government
of South Africa or the current military junta in Burma, Washington’s sanctions against
Iran are not predicated on significant legal or moral imperatives. As with similar
extraterritorial efforts regarding Cuba, U.S. attempts to pressure other nations to get
tough with Iran have alienated even America's strongest allies, who consider such measures
to be in violation of World Trade Organization principles.
Similarly, U.S. efforts to subvert the Iranian government are contrary to international
legal conventions that recognize sovereign rights and principles of nonintervention. They
also directly counter the Algiers Declaration of 1981, under which the United States
unequivocally pledged not to intervene politically or militarily in the internal affairs
of Iran
(http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty/drwcasebook/docs/Algiers%2520Accords.pdf). Still,
even while acknowledging that Iran is a sovereign government, the Bush administration
insists that it has the right to attack governments that do not “exercise their
sovereignty responsibly”. [21]
What neither the Bush administration nor Congress seems to appreciate is that even if
Iranians were free from clerical domination and the electoral process in Iran were
completely fair and open, the result would almost certainly be a government that—though
presumably not as fanatically anti-American as the current hard-line clerics in
power—would never consent to the role of a compliant ally. In Washington’s eyes, Iran’s
most serious offense lies not in the area of human rights, terrorism, nuclear ambitions,
subversion, or conquest but rather in daring to challenge U.S. hegemony in the Middle
East. Iran is the most important country in the Middle East actively opposing U.S.
ambitions for strategic, economic, and political domination over the region. By arranging
for the Iranian government to be overthrown or crippled, American policymakers hope to
acquire unprecedented leverage in shaping the future direction of the Middle East.
And this brings us to the final irony. Serving as an impediment to Washington’s ambitions
gives Tehran a degree of credibility and legitimacy that it would not otherwise receive
from large numbers of Middle Eastern peoples resentful of such foreign domination. This
strengthens the current Iranian government’s grip at home as well as its influence
throughout the Middle East and beyond.
End Notes
[1] Cited in Robin Wright and Michael Fletcher, “Bush Denounces Iran’s Election”
Washington Post, p. A18, June 17, 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601056.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Interview on Fox News Sunday, June 19, 2005.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159824,00.html
[4] Houman A. Sadri, “Trends in the Foreign Policy of Revolutionary Iran” Journal of Third
World Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, April 1998. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sadri.htm
[5] Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State, Patterns of
Global Terrorism—2000, Section I: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism, April 30, 2001.
[6] Anthony H. Cordesman, Trends in Iran: A Graphic and Statistical Overview, Washington:
Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1999, p. 17.
http://www.csis.org/burke/sa/irantrends.pdf
[7] Jamie McIntyre, “Iran Builds Up Military Strength at Mouth of Persian Gulf,” CNN World
News, August 6, 1996, available at http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/06/iran.threat
[8] Hooshang Amirahmadi and Nader Entessar, eds., Iran and the Arab World (New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1993), p.127. http://www.amirahmadi.com/pages/php/Books/Irarab.htm
[9] Anthony Cordesman, “The Changing Military Balance in the Persian Gulf”, Middle East
Policy, vol. VI, no. 1, June 1998, p. 82. http://www.csis.org/features/lessons.cfm
[10] Anthony Cordesman, Trends in Iran, op. cit., p. 31.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/84bb6e2e0a192397?hl=en ,
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/e1b97244357a065e?hl=en
[11] Cited in Scott Ritter, “Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran”, Al Jazeera, March 30,
2005. http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/c541c8220dbfd005?hl=en
[12] Ibid.
[13] See UN Security Council Resolutions 487 (1981) and 1172 (1998).
[14] Ritter, op. cit.
[15] Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee Conference, May 24, 2005, available at
http://clinton.senate.gov/%7Eclinton/speeches/2005524910.html
[16] Remarks by Representative Nancy Pelosi to the 2005 American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee Conference, May 24, 2005.
[17] Dafna Linzer, “Past Arguments Don’t Square with Current Iran Policy”, Washington
Post, March 26, 2005.
http://groups.google.ca/group/soc.culture.iranian/msg/dd5356feeea95952?hl=en
[18] WM Lester, “Most Americans Say No Nations Should Have Nuclear Weapons”, Associated
Press, March 31, 2005.
[19] See Michael Ryan Kraig, “Realistic Solutions for Resolving the Iranian Nuclear
Crisis”, Stanley Foundation Policy Analysis Brief, January 2005, p. 2.
http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/initiatives/gsi
[20] Shirin Ebadi, “Attacking Iran Would Bring Disaster, Not Freedom”, I ndependent (UK),
February 19, 2005. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0219-29.htm
[21] National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, 2005.
* Dr. Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project (FPIF)
and a Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco
http://artsci.usfca.edu/servlet/ShowEmployee?empID=282&deptID=38
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/173
Kavik Kang
news:L4uGe.9913$EP2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF)
> July 26, 2005
>
>
> The U.S. and Iran: Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons
>
>
> Dr. Stephen Zunes
>
> Editor: John Gershman
[Snipped a couple pages of mindless babble]
> Subversion and Terrorism
>
> U.S. hostility toward Iran...
You have that backwards. As always, your kind ignores the facts and reality
of the situation and attempts to advance your aggenda of propaganda and
lies. It is Iran that is hostile to the US, and has publicly stated so many
times in the past. Our being prepared to defend ourselves is not "hostile",
it is a practical reaction to a nation that has been openly hostile towards
us for decades. Any fool can see this obvious truth.
> Iran's Nuclear Program
>
> Having already successfully fooled most of Congress and the American
> public into believing
> that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, the Bush
> administration
> and congressional leaders of both parties are now claiming that it is Iran
> that has an
> active nuclear weapons program.
Iran and Iraq have nothing to do with each other. Everyone in the world
knows that Iran has a nuclear program, that is not being debated by anybody.
It is a known fact. EVERYONE who knows anything at all about nuclear
weapons knows with absolute certainty that Iran is attempting to build
nuclear weapons. That is also not a subject of debate. You have no point,
the two situations have nothing to do with each other. Iran is very
obviously attempting to build nuclear weapons, and the whole world knows it.
> For the time being, the Iranians have been able to avert a crisis through
> negotiations
> with representatives of the European Union (EU). Iran agreed to suspend
> its uranium
> enrichment and processing programs until a permanent deal is reached,
> which the Iranians
> hope will also include political and economic concessions from the
> Europeans.
No, Iran has not accomplished anything at all. It is Germany, England, and
France that have achieved that, not Iran. Our friends, who know with
certainty that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons and what the US
will do about that, have convinced us to let them have a try at solving the
problem diplomatically. Since there is still plenty of time to allow that
attempt to take place, we have agreed to allow them to try. However, since
the Iranian stance can so far only be described as "childish", this seems
very unlikely to succeed. They can keep playing childish games that fool
nobody until their skies are filled with US planes bombing all of their
anti-air defenses and nuclear facilities, or they can do things our way and
have the nuclear energy that they claim to want. If they continue in their
childish ways, they won't have nuclear energy either, because their entire
nuclear program will be destroyed. These are the only two options available
too them.
I bet you don't even realize that any deal worked out between the EU3 and
Iran will have to be approved by the US, do you? We are completely in
charge of this entire situation. Iran will do things our way or they will
lose their entire nuclear program. That is reality. It is a reality that
nobody can do anything to change. How long will it take Iran to realize
this simple fact?
> The Bush administration has not been supportive of the European
> negotiating efforts,
> however. John Bolton (http://www.stopbolton.org), the former
> undersecretary of state for
> arms control and international security and currently the UN
> ambassador-designate,
> declared that the EU's strategy of negotiating with Iran was "doomed to
> fail". [11]
> Washington has instead advocated a more confrontational approach of UN
> sanctions in
> response to Iran's apparent earlier violations of IAEA agreements. Bolton
> has argued for
> "robust" military action by the United States, if the UN Security Council
> fails to impose
> the sanctions that Washington demands. [12]
Yes we have. If we were not supportive of it, it wouldn't be taking place.
The EU nations would not be wasting their time. Any deal they make will
first need US approval before the EU3 finalizes it, or don't you realize
that. In reality, the US is behind these negotiations, we are leading them,
you moron. And Bolton hasn't "argued" for military action, he may have
mentioned the fact that Iran will lose it's nuclear facilities if it insists
on continuing to play childish games, but no argument is taking place. Iran
will never have a nuclear weapon and everyone in the Allies knows this.
There is no debate about the issue, so nobody is "arguing" anything. We
don't play games when it comes to nuclear weapons, moron.
> The Bush administration's efforts have not received much support, however,
> in part because
> of U.S. DOUBLE STANDARDS. The United States has blocked enforcement of a
> previous UN
> Security Council resolution calling on Israel to place its nuclear
> facilities under IAEA
> trusteeship. Washington has also quashed resolutions calling on Pakistan
> and India to
> eliminate their nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. [13]
None of this has anything at all to do with Iran. And our efforts have
recieved very much support, such as the EU3 who is very clearly supporting
it. This is either pure ignorance or a lie on your part. As for Isreal
turning over control of their nuclear arsenal to the IAES... Hahahahahahaha,
of course that was blocked, it's a stupid idea! Hahahaha.
> Despite accusations from U.S. officials that "there is no doubt that Iran
> has a secret
> nuclear weapons production program" [14], no one has been able to cite any
> evidence
> supporting such a charge.
Yes they have. In fact, EVERYONE has been able to cite that evidence.
EVERYONE who knows anything at all about nuclear weapons knows with
certainty that Iran is attempting to build them. There is no debate about
this point at all, which is why you are going to such great lenghts to make
it appear as though there is. What exactly does Iran intend to do with
their long range missiles? The only practical use of such missiles is to
carry nuclear warheads, they serve NO OTHER FUNCTION. That alone is far
more than evidence. That alone is ABSOLUTE PROOF that Iran is attempting to
build nuclear weapons. It is a Cold War "axiom", a "truism" for which there
is no valid counter-argument. There isn't even any need to go into the
several components of Iran's nuclear program that are ONLY needed to build
nuclear weapons and serve no function in a peaceful energy program. You are
simply lying, there is no debate about Iran's attempt to build nuclear
weapons... the whole world knows with certainty that Iran is attempting to
build them. It is as obvous as a 5 year old with a plan to fool his parents
that any 6 year old can see right through. It literally is exactly like
that.
> As with the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, however,
> Democratic congressional leaders have contributed to the Bush
> administration's alarmist
> rhetoric about a supposed nuclear threat from Iran and have defended White
> House DOUBLE
> STANDARDS that focus on the alleged nuclear weapons program of an
> adversary while ignoring
> the obvious and proven nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies like
> Israel, Pakistan, and
> India.
Those nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons, Iran is not. That's the
difference. There is no double standard, those nations are not openly
hostile toward the US and Iran is. Duh...
> Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the
> 2008 Democratic
> presidential nomination, declared that the prospect of Iran also
> developing nuclear
> weapons "must be unacceptable to the entire world", since it would "shake
> the foundation
> of global security to its very core". [15]
What do you know... She is actually right about something...
> Similarly, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called for the
> establishment of "an
> international coalition against proliferation" modeled on the multilateral
> effort to
> combat terrorism. She suggested that instead of organizing against nuclear
> proliferation
> in general, such a coalition should focus on Iran, despite the Islamic
> Republic's apparent
> current cooperation with its NPT obligations.
What "apparent cooperation"? The entire world knows that Iran is attempting
to build nuclear weapons. The only people they are fooling are morons like
you who don't know anything at all about the subject. You really don't need
to understand much at all about nuclear weapon to know with certainty that
Iran is attempting to build them. This truly is a wild pack of propaganda
that you have posted here. Too bad for you that even a complete idiot can
easily see that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons and there isn't
even a debate about that subject.
> It is important to recognize that even if Iran's nuclear program is
> entirely peaceful, the
> enormous expense and environmental risks from nuclear power production
> make it a poor
> choice for developing countries, especially those with generous energy
> resources. And the
> risk of it being used as a cover for a secret nuclear weapons program is
> certainly real.
>
> However, the United States is still obligated under the Nuclear
> Non-proliferation Treaty
> to allow signatory states in good standing to have access to peaceful
> nuclear technology.
> Ironically, this provision promoting the use of nuclear energy was
> originally included in
> the NPT in large part because of Washington's desire to promote the
> nuclear power
> industry. In any case, whatever the extent of Iran's nuclear ambitions and
> whatever the
> outcome of the ongoing EU talks, the United States is in a poor position
> to assume much
> leadership in the cause of nonproliferation.
No we aren't, we are the world's leaders on the subject. We always have
been, still are, and always will be. We are in the absolute best position
to do that, and always have been. This is definately the most moronic
statement in this entire post. The US and Russia have always been at the
forefront of all nuclear issues, and always will be. Everybody knows that.
As for the NPT, it isn't relevant, all that is relevant is the fact that the
US will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran does not stop trying to
build nuclear weapons. Obviously, the treaty is not relevant to the
situation in any way.
> Lost in Bush's current obsession with Iran's nuclear intentions is the
> fact that the
> United States-from the Eisenhower administration through the Carter
> years-played a major
> role in the development of Iran's nuclear program. In 1957, Washington and
> Tehran signed
> their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next two
> decades, the United
> States provided Iran not only with technical assistance but with its first
> experimental
> nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile
> isotopes.
> Despite the refusal of the Shah to rule out the possibility of Iran
> developing nuclear
> weapons, the Ford administration approved the sale to Iran of up to eight
> nuclear reactors
> (with fuel) and later cleared the sale of lasers believed to be capable of
> enriching
> uranium. Surpassing any danger from the mullahs now in power, the Shah's
> megalomania led
> arms control advocates to fear a diversion of the technology for military
> purposes.
But then forces hostile to the US took over in Iran, so everything changed.
You really are a complete idiot.
> The Washington Post reported that an initially hesitant President Gerald
> Ford was assured
> by his advisers that Iran was only interested in the peaceful uses of
> nuclear energy
> despite the country's enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. [17]
> Ironically, Ford's
> secretary of defense was Donald Rumsfeld, his chief of staff was Dick
> Cheney, and his head
> of nonproliferation efforts at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was
> Paul Wolfowitz
> (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/index.php), all of whom-as officials
> in the current
> administration-have insisted that Iran's nuclear program must be assumed
> to have military
> applications.
None of which is relevant to the obvious fact that, today, Iran is
attempting to not only build nuclear weapons, but a global nuclear arsenal
capable of destroying the entire world. It won't ever happen. Iran can
give up and accept our terms for the nuclear energy that they claim to want
(we know they aren't interested in nuclear energy) or all of their nuclear
facilities will be destroyed. It really is a simple choice.
I snipped the rest of this ten page rant of lies and propaganda, the rest
wasn't worth responding too.