*
Read Part One
Democrats
and Republicans alike claim that Iran is a “terrorist state,” one that
can’t be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
But there is no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, any
more than there was any proof that Iraq was developing one.
Military sources
told journalist Seymour Hersh that the U.S. has no proof at all that Iran
is developing nuclear arms. Hersh has said that, “The intelligence
services of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and even
Israel, have been unable to come up with any specific evidence of what’s
known as a parallel or secret weapons program inside Iran.”
One former senior
intelligence official told Hersh flatly, “People in the Pentagon were
asking, ‘What’s the evidence? We’ve got a million tentacles out there,
overt and covert, and these guys’ (Iran) ‘have been working on this for
eighteen years, and we have nothing? We’re coming up with jack shit.’”
The International
Atomic Energy Agency recently blasted a US Congressional report on Iranian
weapons as “outrageous and dishonest.” It also called the report’s
argument that Iran’s nuclear energy program is geared toward developing
nuclear weapons “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated.”
The IAEA pointed to
five significant errors in the Congressional committee's claim that Iran's
nuclear capabilities are more advanced than either the IAEA or U.S.
intelligence had demonstrated, including a false claim that Iran has
enriched weapons grade uranium.
According to the
London Guardian, the IAEA “said the report was ‘incorrect’ in its
assessment that Iran had made weapons-grade uranium at a site inspected by
the agency. Instead, the letter said, the facility had produced only small
amounts of uranium, which were below the level necessary for weapons.”
In 2004,
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei
said plainly, “I have seen no nuclear weapons program in
Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear
enrichment technology . . . ” Nothing has changed in the IAEA assessment.
This dispute is an
instant replay of the clashes between the IAEA and the US over the
question of whether or not Iraq, under Saddam Hussein,
was trying to develop nuclear arms. The claim that Iraq had or was
developing nuclear weapons was the primary excuse for the US invasion and
occupation of Iraq. The US, of course, was lying. There were no such
weapons anywhere to be found.
US Congressmember Ron Paul cautions that,
“Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry
obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon someday.”
Nonetheless, the
Project for a New American Century claims that Iran is “rushing to develop
ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American
intervention . . .”
While the PNAC claim
about Iranian intentions has no factual basis, it is also an open
admission that, if Iran were developing a nuclear weapons
capability, it would be for Iran’s own self defense in the face of a
pattern of US invasions in the region, including invasions and occupations
of Iraq on its western flank and Afghanistan on its eastern flank.
Iran has an obvious
and legitimate interest in deterring such “intervention.”
The insanity of the
Cold War, with its policies of deterrence and Mutually Assured
Destruction, almost starts looking like the good old days.
To get a picture of
the hypocritical extremity, even the absurdity of the US position on Iran,
imagine if you will an equivalent scenario: A Chinese invasion and
military occupation of Mexico to the south of the US, and of Canada to its
north.
China then,
bristling with military might on the US borders, begins, in this imagined
scenario, to issue threats against the US, demanding it rid itself
immediately of nuclear weapons, calling the US a threat to regional
stability in the Americas.
Polls show, then,
that a majority of Chinese agree: if the US, a known international war
criminal and the only power to launch a nuclear attack against another
nation -- ever -- won’t unilaterally surrender its nukes and suspend
operations of its nuclear power plants, then US nuclear facilities, all of
them, should be taken out in a Chinese nuclear first strike.
The difference in
the two stories should be obvious: there is an absolutely solid historical
and factual basis for the Chinese charges against the US in this scenario:
there is no factual basis whatsoever for US claims against Iran.
Iran, like Iraq
before it, has no nuclear weapons, and there is zero proof that they are
developing them. In Iran, just like in Iraq, there are only US
“suspicions” - the kind based in lies; lies that have already led to one
devastating war. Lies that serve today as the rationale for launching
another.
Coming up in Part III:
Why They “Hate Us”: Bringing “Regime Change” and “Democracy” to Iran
Other Articles by Juan
Santos
*
Iran: The
Unthinkable War Part One: Pretending You Didn’t Know
* The Center
Cannot Hold: The Bush Regime in Crisis
* There is No
War On Terror: Oil, the New Reich and the Coming War on Iran
* Apocalypse
No!: An Indigenist Perspective
*
Race, Class and the Battle for the South Central Farm with Leslie
Radford
* Minutemen
Target Children: Hate Radio and the Attack on Academia Semillas del Pueblo
* Our Lives On
the Line: The Border War Comes Home
*
Immigration
Endgame: May 1st and America’s New Race War
* The Hidden
Terror of HR4437
* Immigration:
A Nation of Colonists and Race Laws
* The Ghost of
George Wallace: Immigration and White Racism
* Brown
Skin/Yellow Star: Turning the Corner Toward Fascism
HOME
|