Fact Sheets of Iran-US Standoff: Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

Introduction

Five years into the US-UK illegal invasion of Iraq and its consequent catastrophe for Iraqi people, peace loving people throughout the world are appalled by the current Iran-US standoff and its resemblance to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The hawks, headed by Dick Cheney in Washington, are now shamelessly calling for a military attack on Iran. The same Israeli lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq is now pushing for a military attack on Iran. The same distortions which were attempted to dupe the western public opinion for the invasion of Iraq, are now used to pave the way for another illegal pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran. As in the case of Iraq, the UN Security Council Resolutions against Iran, extricated through massive US pressure, are meant to provide a veneer of legitimacy for such an attack.

Contrary to the myth created by the western media, it is the US and its European allies which are defying the international community, in that they have rejected negotiations without pre-conditions. They show their lack of good faith by demanding that Iran concede the main point of negotiations: namely, suspension of enrichment of uranium which is Iran’s legitimate right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, before the negotiations actually start.

The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) calls for immediate and direct negotiations between the US and Iran without any pre-conditions.

Here, we debunk the main unfounded accusations, lies and distortions by the US and Israel and their allies while highlighting the main reasons to oppose sanctions and military intervention against Iran.

Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Facts and Lies

1. There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran. The US and its allies pressure Iran to prove that it is not hiding a nuclear weapons programme. This demand is logically impossible to satisfy and serves to make diplomacy fail in order to force regime change. Numerous intrusive and snap visits by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, totalling more than 2,700 person-hours of inspection, have failed to produce a shred of evidence for a weapons programme in Iran. Traces of highly enriched uranium found at Natanz in 2004, were determined by the IAEA to have come with imported centrifuges.

In July 2007, IAEA and Iran agreed on a work plan with defined modalities and timetable to clarify all issues of concerns in relation to Iran ‘s nuclear programme. On 27 th August 2007 IAEA announced that “The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.” The Agreement also cleared Iran ‘s plutonium experiments, which the Cheney Camp had accused of being evidence of Iran ‘s weaponisation programme.

Dr Mohammad El-Baradei, the IAEA Director General, said on 7 th September 2007, “For the last few years we have been told by the Security Council, by the board, we have to clarify the outstanding issues in Iran because these outstanding issues are the ones that have led to the lack of confidence, the crisis,” “We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponisation of their programme.”

Two years earlier, in June 2005, Bruno Pellaud, former IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards, was asked by Swissinfo if Iran was intent on building a nuclear bomb. He replied: “My impression is not. My view is based on the fact that Iran took a major gamble in December 2003 by allowing a much more intrusive capability to the IAEA. If Iran had had a military programme they would not have allowed the IAEA to come under this Additional Protocol. They did not have to.”

2. Iran’s need for nuclear power generation is real. Even when Iran’s population was one-third of what it is today, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, negotiating on behalf of President Gerald Ford, persuaded the former Shah that Iran needed over twenty nuclear reactors. With Iran’s population of 70 million, and growing, and its oil resources fast depleting, Iran may be a net importer of oil in just over a decade from now. Nuclear energy is thus a realistic and viable solution for electricity generation in the country.

3. The “crisis” over Iran ‘s nuclear programme lacks the urgency claimed by Washington. Weapons grade uranium must be enriched at least to 85%. A 2005 CIA report determined that it could take Iran 10 years to achieve this level of enrichment. Many independent nuclear experts have stated that Iran would face formidable technical obstacles if it tried to enrich uranium beyond the 3.5% purity required for electricity generation. According to Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, because of contamination of Iranian uranium with heavy metals, Iran cannot possibly enrich beyond even 20% without support from Russia or China. IAEA director, Dr. Mohammad ElBaradei, too, reiterated in October 2007 that “I don’t see Iran, today, to be a clear and present danger. And our conclusion here is supported by every intelligence assessment I’ve seen that even if Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, it’s still three to eight years away from that.”

4. Iran has met its obligations under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran voluntarily accepted and enforced safeguards stricter than IAEA’s Additional Protocol until February 2006, when Iran ‘s nuclear file was reported, under the pressure from the US , to the Security Council. (The US , by contrast, has neither signed nor implemented the Additional Protocol, and Israel has refused to sign the NPT.)

Iran’s earlier concealment of its nuclear programme took place in the context of the US-backed invasion of Iran by Saddam. Not only the U.S., Germany, and the UK were complicit in the sale of chemical weapons to Saddam which were used against Iranian soldiers and civilians but Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 was treated with total impunity. Iranian leaders then concluded from these gross injustices that international laws are only “ink on paper.”

But the most direct reasons for Iran’s concealment were the American trade embargo on Iran and Washington ‘s organized and persistent campaign to stop civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran from any source. For example, in 1995 Germany offered to let Kraftwerk Union (a subsidiary of Siemens) finish Iran’s Bushehr reactor, but withdrew its proposal under US pressure. The following year, China cancelled its contract to build a nuclear enrichment facility in Isfahan for the same reason. Thus Washington systematically violated, with impunity, Article IV of the NPT, which allows “signatories the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

Nevertheless, Iran’s decision not to declare all of its nuclear installations did not violate its NPT obligations. According to David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, who first provided satellite imagery and analysis in December 2002 [7], under the safeguards agreement in force at the time, “Iran is not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into it.”

5. Iran has given unprecedented concessions on its nuclear programme. Unlike North Korea , Iran has resisted the temptation to withdraw from the NPT. Besides accepting snap inspections under Additional Protocol until February 2006, Iran has invited Western companies to develop Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. Such joint ventures would create the best assurance that the enriched uranium would not be diverted to a weapons programme. Such concessions are very rare in the world, but the U.S. and its allies have refused Iran’s offer.

6. Enrichment of uranium for a civilian nuclear programme is Iran’s inalienable right. Every member of the NPT has the right to enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear programme and is entitled to full technical assistance.

But with the US as the back seat driver and in violation of their assistance obligations, France, Germany, and the UK insisted throughout the three years of negotiations that Tehran forfeit its right, in return for incentives of little value. Some European diplomats admitted to Asia Times Online on 7 September 2005, that the package offered by the EU-3 was “an empty box of chocolates.” But “there is nothing else we can offer,” the diplomats went on to say. “The Americans simply wouldn’t let us.”

7. The Western alliance has not tried true diplomacy and relies instead on threats. Iran refuses to suspend its enrichment of uranium before bilateral negotiations begin, as demanded by the White House, because it suspects Washington will stall with endless doubts regarding verification of suspension.

Western Hypocrisy

8. The UN resolutions against Iran, in contrast to the treatment of the US allies, South Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel, smack of double standards. For example, in the year 2000, South Korea enriched 200 milligrams of uranium to near-weapons grade (up to 77%) but was not referred to the UN Security Council.

India has refused to sign the NPT or allow inspections and has developed an atomic arsenal but receives nuclear assistance from the US in violation of the NPT. More bizarrely, India has a seat on the governing board of IAEA and, under US pressure, voted to refer Iran as a violator to the UN Security Council. Another non-signatory, Pakistan, clandestinely developed nuclear weapons but is supported by the US as a “war on terror” ally.

Israel is a close ally of Washington, even though it has hundreds of clandestine nuclear weapons, has dismissed numerous UN resolutions and has refused to sign the NPT or open any of its nuclear plants to inspections.

The US itself is the most serious violator of the NPT. The only country to have ever used nuclear bombs in war, the US has refused to reduce its nuclear arsenal, in violation of Article VI of NPT. The US is also in breach of the Treaty because it is developing new generations of nuclear warheads for use against non-nuclear adversaries. Moreover, Washington has deployed hundreds of such tactical nuclear weapons all around the world in violation of Articles I and II of the NPT.

9. Iran has not threatened Israel or attacked another country. The track records of the US, Israel, the UK, and France are very different. These so called “democracies” have a bloody history of invading other countries. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has declared repeatedly that Iran will not attack or threaten any country. He has also issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and banned nuclear weapons as sacrilegious. Iran has been a consistent supporter of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and called for a nuclear weapons free Middle East.

The comments of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad against Israel have been repeated by some of Iran’s leaders since 1979 and constitute no practical threat. The statement attributed to him that “Israel should be wiped off the map” is a distortion of the truth and has been determined by a number of Farsi linguists, amongst them, Professor Juan Cole, to be a mistranslation. What he actually said was that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Ahmadinejad has made clear that he envisions regime change in Israel through internal decay, similar to the demise of the Soviet Union. Iranian leaders have said consistently for two decades that they will accept a two-state solution in Palestine if a majority of Palestinians favour that option.

This is in sharp contrast to the explicit threats by Israeli and the US leaders against Iran, including aid to separatist movements to disintegrate and wipe Iran off the map, as reported by Seymour Hersh and Reese Erlich. There is considerable evidence of clandestine operations by the US, British and Israeli agents who are arming, training and funding terrorist entities such as Jundollah in Baluchistan, Arab separatists in Khuzestan, and PJAK in Kurdistan. These concrete attempts at disintegration of Iran, as well as the 100 million dollars congressional funding for “democracy” promotion in Iran, constitute aggression and are interference in Iran’s domestic affairs and Iranian people’s rights of sovereignty. They violate the bilateral Algiers Accord of 1981, in which Washington renounced any such actions in the future.

Furthermore, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, former UN ambassador, John Bolton, Senator Lieberman, as well as presidential candidates Guilliani, Romney and McCain are openly advocating and pushing for pre-emptive military attack on Iran. The French President, Sarkozy, and his Foreign Minister, Kouchner, the new recruits to the NeoCons camp, have added their voice to this chorus for war. British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, too has not ruled out the pre-emptive military option against Iran.

Iran is no match for Israel, whose security and military needs are all but guaranteed by the US. Iran is surrounded on all sides by the US Navy and American bases.

Iran has not invaded or threatened any country for two and a half centuries. The only war the Islamic Republic fought was the one imposed by Saddam’s army, which invaded Iran with the backing of the US and its allies. When Iraq used chemical weapons, supplied by the West, against Iranian troops, Iran did not retaliate in kind. When Afghanistan’s Taliban regime murdered eight Iranian diplomats in 1996 and remained unapologetic, Iran did not respond militarily.

10. The US “democratization” programme for Iran is a hoax. Although violations of human rights and democratic freedoms do occur too often in Iran, the country has the most pluralistic system in a region dominated by undemocratic client states of the US. It is sheer hypocrisy for the US, which turns a blind eye to the gross human rights abuses by its allies, such as Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Libya, and Egypt, to misrepresent its agenda in Iran as a “democratization” programme. Washington’s pretensions ring especially hollow when one remembers that in 1953 Iran’s nascent democracy under Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq was overthrown by the CIA, which restored a hated military dictatorship for the benefit of American oil conglomerates.

UN Security Council Involvement Totally Unjustified

11. There are no legal bases for Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council. Since there is no evidence that Iran is even contemplating to weaponize its nuclear programme, no grounds exist for this sidelining of the IAEA.

Michael Spies of the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy has clarified the issue: “Under the Statute (Art. 12(C)) and the Safeguards Agreement, the Board may only refer Iran to the Security Council if it finds that, based on the report from the Director General, it cannot be assured that Iran has not diverted nuclear material for non-peaceful purpose. In the past, findings of “non-assurance” have only come in the face of a history of active and ongoing non-cooperation with IAEA safeguards. The pursuit of nuclear activities in itself, which is specifically recognized as a sovereign right, and which remain safeguarded, could not legally or logically equate to uncertainty regarding diversion.”

IAEA director, Dr ElBradei, has consistently confirmed that there has been no diversion of safeguarded nuclear material in Iran and the recent IAEA-Iran workplan of July 2007 has reconfirmed this. He has also said, under pressure from Washington, that he cannot rule out the existence of undeclared nuclear activities in the country. However, according to the IAEA’s Safeguards Implementation Report for 2005 (issued on 15 June 2006), 45 other countries, including 14 European countries, in particular Germany, are in this same category as Iran. ElBaradei added in September 2007 that in Iran “we have not come to see any undeclared activities … We have not seen any weaponisation of their programme, nor have we received any information to that effect.” He has also repeatedly urged skeptics in Western capitals to help the IAEA by sharing any possible proof in their possession of suspicious nuclear activity in Iran .

Moreover, according to the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, certifying non-diversion of nuclear material to military purposes for any given country takes an average of six years of inspections and verification by the IAEA. In the case of Iran, these investigations have been going on for only about four years now.

Iran’s file, therefore, must be returned to the jurisdiction of the IAEA and the rules of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US and its allies violated the rules by exerting massive pressure on the IAEA to report Iran without any legitimacy to the UN Security Council. For example, David Mulford, the US Ambassador to India, warned the Government of India in January 2006 that there would be no US-India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran at the IAEA. On February 15th 2007, Stephen Rademaker, the former US Assistant Secretary for International Security and Non-Proliferation, admitted publicly that the US coerced India to vote against Iran. Clearly, reporting Iran to the UN Security Council and the subsequent adoption of the Resolutions 1696 and 1737 have been carried out with US coercion and have thus no legitimacy at all.

Sanctions Not a Good Idea

12. Dr ElBradei, the head of the IAEA, has said that more sanctions are counterproductive. Economic sanctions on Iran will harm the people of Iran, as they were devastating to Iraqis, resulting in the death of at least 500,000 children. Sanctions would not however bring the Islamic Republic to its knees. Instead, any kind of sanctions, including the so-called “targeted” or “smart” sanctions, are viewed by the Iranian people as the West’s punishment for Iran’s scientific progress (uranium enrichment for reactor fuel). As sanctions tighten, nationalist fervour will strengthen the resolve of Iranians to defend the country’s civilian nuclear programme.

13. Sanctions are not better than war; they can be exploited as a diplomatic veneer and a provocative prelude to military attack, as they were in Iraq. Thus, countries which support sanctions against Iran are only falling into the US trap in aiding the war drive on Iran.

Strategic Shift to Multi-Focal Targets

14. A US attack on Iran is imminent. The end of George Bush’s presidency in 2009 could be a serious set back for the NeoCons’ hegemonic dreams to control the energy resources in the region. He is unlikely to leave office bearing the legacy of failures in Afghanistan and Iraq and particularly leaving Iran a stronger player in the region. Thus the likelihood of military attack on Iran before Bush leaves office is a reality. Washington insiders have told security analysts that preparations for military attack have been made and are ready for execution.

Since January, in addition to the nuclear issue, the US has also focused its propaganda to falsely implicate Iran in the violence and failures of US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iran-US bilateral dialogue this summer was derailed amidst accusations that Iran aided the killing of American soldiers by providing sophisticated weapons and training to Afghan and Iraqi fighters. As in the nuclear case, Washington has provided no proof.

British Foreign Minister David Miliband admitted in an interview with the Financial Times on 8 July 07 that there was “No Evidence” of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq. Likewise, the British Defence Minister, Des Browne, in August 07 maintained categorically that “No Evidence” existed of Iranian government’s complicity or instigation in supplying weapons to Iraqi militias. The Washington Post, too, reported from Iraq that hundreds of British troops combing southern Iraq for sign of Iranian weapons have come up empty-handed. Furthermore, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and Al-Maleki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, have stated Iran’s positive role in providing whatever limited stability there is in both these countries. Nevertheless, George Bush’s speech on 28 August, authorizing the American military to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities,” and the deployment of British troops to the Iranian border to guard against Iran’s “proxy war” in Iraq, signaled a systematic building towards a casus belli for another illegal pre-emptive war. The Kyle-Lieberman Amendment to the Defence Authorisation Bill, too, accused Iran of killing American servicemen in Iraq and nearly authorized the military to take all necessary action to combat Iran.

A third focus in the US war drive has now been launched by branding Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. This unprecedented move in US foreign policy and international relations is the proclaimed basis for imposing the toughest sanctions ever on Iranian banks, companies and individuals.

These new measures represent a massive escalation in the US war drive, they are a prelude to a military attack on Iran and provide the legal pretext for the US military to wage war on Iran without the prior approval of the US Congress.

Illegality of a Military Attack

15. Foreign state interference in Iran violates the UN charter. According to Seymour Hersch, the US is running covert operations in Iran to foment unrest and ethnic conflict for the purpose of regime change. Unmanned US drones have also entered into Iranian air space to spy over Iranian military installations and to map Iranian radar systems. These actions violate the UN Charter’s guarantee of the right of self-determination for all nations.

The Bush Administration has also confirmed, in the 2006 US National Security Strategy, its long term policy for pre-emptive military action against Washington’s rivals. Former British prime minister Tony Blair supported this policy in his 21 March 2006 foreign policy speech, and his successor Gordon Brown has not rejected the pre-emptive use of military force against Iran. However, unprovoked strikes are illegal under international law. To remove this obstacle, John Reid, the then British Secretary of Defence, in his speech on 3rd April 2006 to the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies, proposed a change in international law on pre-emptive military action.

16. Reports of nuclear attack scenarios against Iran can serve to raise the public’s tolerance for an act of aggression with conventional military means. People of conscience and sanity must not only condemn even contemplation of a nuclear attack, but also denounce any conventional attack.

Unintended Consequences of an Attack on Iran

17. Bombing cannot end Iran’s nuclear programme. Since Iran already has the expertise to enrich uranium up to the 3.5% grade for a fuel cycle, no degree of bombing will halt Iran’s civilian nuclear programme. On the contrary, the resulting mass casualties and destruction would strengthen the voices that argue Iran, like North Korea, should build a nuclear deterrent.

18. An attack on Iran will unite Iranians against the US and its allies. A great majority of the public in Iran support the country’s right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. This has been confirmed by all opinion polls conducted in the country, including polls taken by Western institutions. Therefore, a bombing campaign will not lead to an uprising by the Iranian people for regime change as envisaged by the US. Rather, it would ignite nationalist feelings in the country and unite the population, including most of the government’s critics, against the West.

19. A nuclear attack on Iran would fuel a new nuclear arms race and ruin the NPT. Any military intervention against Iran will lead to a regional catastrophe and expanded terrorism. Senator McCain, the Republican presidential hopeful, who has himself advocated the use of force on Iran, has predicted that an attack against Iran will lead to Armageddon. American or Israeli aggression on Iran, coming on the heels of the Iraq disaster, would inflame the grievance and outrage of Muslims worldwide and help jihadi extremists with their recruitment campaign. The region wide conflagration resulting from an Israel/US attack on Iran would dwarf the Iraq catastrophe.

20. The cause of democracy in Iran will suffer gravely if the country is attacked. President Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric severely undermined the reformist movement in Iran at a time when the country’s president promoted Dialogue Among Civilizations. Bush’s hostile posture strengthened the hands of Iranian hardliners and contributed to the reformist movement’s electoral defeat in 2005. That setback would be dwarfed by the consequences of a military assault on the country.

CASMII is an independent campaign organiZation with the purpose of opposing sanctions, foreign state interference and military intervention in Iran. Read other articles by Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, or visit Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran's website.

31 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 10th, 2007 at 8:40pm #

    BRAVO.

  2. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 10th, 2007 at 8:58pm #

    Absolutely devastating. “Knowledge makes us accountable.”

  3. SamZ said on November 11th, 2007 at 12:01am #

    God forbid that an article such this one would slip through the capable hands of Zionist censors at Main Stream Media, not even in the letters to the editor section.

  4. richard said on November 11th, 2007 at 6:57am #

    Dont fool yourselves with what the media says-such as this article states! Iran will continue its quest for nucular advancement which includes nucular weapons. Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel. Is providing advanced weapons to kill our troops in Iraq (Allready a proxy war), supports radical Islam and its teachings,Teaches hate and death to america starting at the preschool levels, Threatens to use other known terrorist organizations-such as Hezbolla. When you have fanatical Beliefs, mixed in with vast amounts of money and a taught generational hatred mixed in with threats of oblivian-You have yourself a nation that will to do what it says! The world media always seems to present itself with its view and projects that to the sheep of the world who follow it like a lamb to the slaughter.Remember-Media and world opinions are some serious weapons!

  5. Morgan said on November 11th, 2007 at 8:56am #

    Thank you for an eye opening article. We don’t hear this type of reasonable and informative argument from the mainstream corportae owned media especially when all of them start beating the drums of war on cue!
    We saw what the media did for the Iraq war and we’re seeing it again now brainwashing a majority of Americans who get their news from Fox network and affiliates.
    Thank you for fighting political ignorance

  6. Michael Kenny said on November 11th, 2007 at 12:10pm #

    The bright spot in all this is that Bush has no ground forces to attack Iran and no support for such an attack. The Iranians clevery stalled until the US military had been cut to pieces in Iraq and Aghanistan (and the Europeans, both the EU and Russia, took their revenge for being bullied by playing along!). Sarkozy, hyped as the greatest thing since Lafayette, insisted that only diplomatic means should be used against Iran. Merkel has just said the same thing. Bush just had to grin and bear it!

    My guess is that Bush will attack Iran in the dying days of his presidency, just as his father did with Somalia. Late November/early December 2008, I would guess. By so doing, he will in fact get all the disadvantages of the attack without any of the advantages. Iran will not react, waiting to see what the new president does, and the TV pictures of mangled children will destroy the last vestiges of America’s (and its Israeli dog-waggers’) moral standing in the world.

    Things are looking up, therefore!

  7. Blunt Force Trauma said on November 11th, 2007 at 12:45pm #

    To Richard…

    I hope you’re making a point of the way media lies and manipulates; or you’re guilty of the following:

    You completely throw out all the points amd proof made in the preceeding article with the rhetoric and propaganda ridden diatribe you just delivered. Bravo, Richard! You obviously believe, as outlined in lamestream media outlets, all that of which you just spewed in extreme ignorance and with volatility. Just as the news channels you watch do.

    It is becuase of those ignorances, we have facing us now a possibility of World War 3 and you’re helping to ratchet it up.

    By the way, your worst case-in-point is the ultimate in rhetoric and warmongering with regards to the ‘wiping off the map of Israel’. This silly assumption has been made and dished out like the lie that is.

    If I’m wrong in the above, I have misread. I reads as though you support what varying news outlets and governments are doing in support of another illegal murder frenzy. This time it may kill a lot of us even here in North America.

    By the way, for interest; here’s an article’s address to copy about that ‘wiping off the map’ thing;

    http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

  8. Neal said on November 11th, 2007 at 1:53pm #

    The article states:

    The same Israeli lobby which pushed for the invasion of Iraq is now pushing for a military attack on Iran.

    In fact, this is not correct, as Professor Mearsheimer admitted on the radio. In fact, the Israelis only backed the administration position after the administration told the Israelis that the Administration had made up its mind to attack Iraq.

    From the Interview:

    Ashbrook: The argument’s been made that Iran is Israel’s greater fear, so if the Israel Lobby were so powerful, why would the US have gone into Iraq? That’s not the number one Israeli concern. Is there a contradiction then John, in you having described Iraq as the result of Israeli lobby influence?

    Mearsheimer: No, Tom. It’s quite clear that in early 2002 – now remember we went into Iraq in March 2003. In early 2002 when the Israelis caught wind of the fact that we were seriously thinking about doing Iraq, that they came to Washington and told us that they would prefer that we do Iran first. The Israelis very clearly thought that Iran was a greater threat than Iraq. It’s not that they were uninterested in having us effect regime change in Iraq and Syria, it’s just that they preferred Iran.

    But once they came to understand that Iraq would be the first operation, and we would subsequently deal with Iran and Syria, they embraced the idea of attacking Iraq, although they continually reminded us that we had to do Iran and Syria afterwards.

    So what you see from early 2002 up until the war starts in March 2003 is that the Israelis are pushing us very hard, harder than other country outside the United States, to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

    Now, I would not take Professor Mearsheimer’s word on any of this other than to note that the above statement entirely undermines the notion that those who lobby for Israel control US policy. It is, in fact, the other way around: to wit, the US controls Israel in the same manner that a dog controls its tail. And, in this case, the tail obeyed the dog’s command.

    In fact, Professor Mearsheimer exaggerates even when he admits that his own theory is bogus. The Israelis were not pushing to invade Iraq. Rather, the Israelis chose not to stand in the way of the US – which is something quite different. On the other hand, those of Israel’s friends in the US who backed the Administration’s position from the outset did so because they agreed with that position from the outset and not on behalf of the Israelis, who were not looking for the US to invade Iraq. Rather, the Israelis wanted the US to help them contain Iran.

    How much other nonsense is cited in this article? It is hard to tell. But, consider that there are certainly arguments for restraint on Iran. Claiming that Israel and its friends pushed us into the Iraq war is not one of them. It is, rather, a BIG LIE of the very type told by Antisemites throughout the ages.

    Now, it is certainly true that the Israelis want the US to contain Iran’s ambitions. After all, the Iranian regime wants to rid the world of Israel as a state governed by Jews. But, as in all things, the US will do what its government thinks advances the US interest and the Israelis will do what they have to in order to defend what Israel’s leaders perceive to be Israel’s interest.

  9. Richard said on November 11th, 2007 at 4:23pm #

    Neal ,
    Im sorry i dont agree with your point of views. The link trying to explain the meaning of :wiping off the map is at best a save face attempt to say its a mistranslation! More media bs to do a cover up!

    Is this a media lie to?

    Tehran, Iran, May 11 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described Israel on Thursday as an “evil regime” that would soon be “annihilated”, while claiming that the Jewish state was a Western creation to undermine the security of Muslim nations, the official news agency reported.

    “If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled”, Ahmadinejad told a student gathering in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta.

    “As it has lost its raison d’être, Israel will be annihilated”, he said.
    Ahmadinejad had previously described the Holocaust as a “myth” and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.(Or as you suggested a mistranslation-LOL)

    During his address on Thursday, he described Israel as an “unbridled” and “evil” state which did not adhere to “law or logic”.

  10. Tamzin said on November 11th, 2007 at 4:33pm #

    Thank you for putting these facts in such a clear way. Sadly, there will always be people to deny what they read and what they know and what they hear. I lived in Iran many years back and it is not at all the way the media in the West is portraying it. Yes, there is an aspect of fanaticism much like that which exists in certain areas of the US. However, the mullahs are educated people, contrary to popular thought. Some are over the top but most are balanced people. It is not a country that is “evil” because Bush decided it is so. Who threatened whom? I remember George Bush putting Iran in the axis of evil long before Ahmedinejad was a twinkle in the eyes of Iranians and long before the so-called anti-Israel speech. In fact, it was Khomeini who said those words and when he said those words, Israel had no problem selling weapons for the US to Iran (remember Iran Contra affair?). Should Iran even have nuclear weapons ever (which it does not presently) it is highly unlikely it will use them due to the fact that it would be obliterated from the earth if it did. The Iranian Government knows that. If the US, France, Russia, UK all have the right to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves against an attack, so does Iran. The only reason they are not part of the club is because US wants a military base there. All the surrounding countries have many US bases and would like to see the US military leave the region. Iran is the only nation left standing like the last city of Gaul defying the invaders.

  11. sk said on November 11th, 2007 at 6:43pm #

    FYI, review of a book which covers an episode similar to current standoff with Iran, but which is in reality a case study in inducing panic among ordinary people. Here’s an excerpt:

    The point here is surely that Israeli
    generals were not panicked so much as determined
    to induce panic, and that Rabin
    caved in because he was gambling, and the
    stakes were too high. Yet, it was not true,
    even for a moment, that the Egyptian army
    in May 1967 posed a real threat to Israel. It
    was not even stationed on the borders of Israel:
    it was deep in the Sinai that its massive
    forces encountered defeat.
    Anyone who knew the details, including
    the CIA in Tel Aviv and the General Staff of
    Israel, knew that Israel was not facing a
    ‘second Holocaust’, as the Israeli press,
    nourished by the military’s psychological
    operations, insinuated. Segev gives a careful
    description of this dynamic. The real
    dangers the Israeli military faced were
    scarcely minor; even so a very small group
    of individuals floated an exaggerated, cataclysmic
    scenario for the benefit of world
    ‘public opinion’, a key component in Israel’s
    strategy to this day…It was not only Israelis who succumbed
    to the orchestrated panic. ‘The Israeli embassy
    in Washington,’ Segev writes, ‘had already
    begun to implement instructions
    from Jerusalem: “Create a public atmosphere
    that will constitute pressure on the
    administration in the direction of obtaining
    our desired goals, without it being explicitly
    clear that we are behind this public campaign.”‘
    The manipulation of opinion in
    1967 was so successful that the waves of
    sympathy for Israel, even within audiences
    that were supposed to be far more critical –
    on the left in France, in the Italian Communist
    Party – may be one of the reasons that
    Israel is reluctant to solve the conflict in the
    Middle East to this day. Of course the best
    example of the wave of uncritical support
    for Israel is the change within American
    Jewry, which only became blindly, callously
    pro-Israel after the 1967 war.

  12. Ekosmo said on November 12th, 2007 at 6:37am #

    with regard to comment number 4 [above]

    Dont fool yourselves with what PALPITATING FRENZIED HYSTERICS-such as RICHARD states! WASHINGTON will continue its quest for FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE which includes MILITARISING OUTER SPACE. WASHINGTON has threatened to wipe out the US CONSTITUTION. Is providing IMMENSE PILES OF LYING HORSE-CRAP to kill our troops in Iraq (Allready [sic] a proxy war), supports CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM and its ARMAGEDDONIST teachings, Teaches hate and death to ISLAM starting at the preschool levels, Threatens to use other known terrorist organizations-such as THE IDF and THE BRITISH ARMY. When you have fanatical TEXAN Beliefs, mixed in with vast amounts of OUR money and a taught generational hatred mixed in with NEOCON threats of oblivion [sic]-You have yourself a DISTOPIA that will to do what it says! The world media always seems to present itself with its view and projects that to the sheep of the world who follow it like a lamb to the slaughter. Remember-Media and world opinions are some serious weapons! … BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…

    …this discussion may be continued if the species survives World War 3…

  13. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 12th, 2007 at 8:14am #

    sk. Thanks for that incredible found poem. Whoooa! It’s not a found poem? In any case, I’d call it a found poem, and only partly because that gives me an opportunity to post the last poem I found:

    Totality begins
    at the borders of Kazakhstan,
    China, Mongolia, and Siberian Russia.

    The northern
    third of Mongolia
    lies in the 350-kilometer-
    broad path that swings northeast

    through Siberia and grazes
    the northernmost Chinese provinces.

    Continuing out
    across the East Siberian Sea,
    the path ends at sunset near the North Pole.

    “Solar-Eclipse Preview – March 9, 1997”
    Fred Espenak

    I wish I could write advocacy. But I’m not lucky that way. Or had the ability and personality to collaborate like the CASMII folks to produce a work that contains so much true and pertinent political info, it reads like a found political poem, in prose. But I’m not lucky that way either.

    Hey, sk. Have you ever considered, really and I mean really, seriously, the proposition that it’s all luck?

  14. Richard said on November 12th, 2007 at 10:06am #

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

  15. Neal said on November 12th, 2007 at 12:05pm #

    Richard,

    You speak of a mistranslation, as if I were referring to it. Consider: there are literally hundreds of speeches by the Iranian leadership calling for Israel’s destruction. And, not just by Mr. Ahmadinejad.

    But, I would suggest you consider that the Iranian government translates the speech you had in mind differently than you do. Here is what the government of Iran’s news service wrote:

    Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map

    Tehran, Oct 26 – Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.

    “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the President told a conference in Tehran entitled ‘the world without Zionism’.

    “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land,” he said.

    “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.

    You can find that speech here: http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

    I gather you take what he said to be an offer of love.

    Now, here is what Mr. Ahmadinejad’s own website says:

    Ahmadinejad: Supporters of Israel will face wrath of Islamic ummah

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic ummah and will forever be disgraced. Speaking at a conference dubbed “World without Zionism” here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. Ahmadinejad referred to the Zionist regime’s recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a “trick,” saying Gaza is part of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel. Pointing to the evil attempts of the US and Israel to saw discord among warring forces in Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world, the president said such attempts were aimed at forcing some Islamic countries to acknowledge the existence of Israel.

    That gem can be found here: http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/08/4/index-e.htm#b3

    No doubt, the President of Iran has misunderstood himself.

    Be that as it may, the Israelis have real reason to be concerned about Iran, which is funding people to kill Israelis. It has also paid people to kill Jews indiscriminately, as occurred in Argentina. No doubt you would say that the Argentinian government is making things up as well. Here is what appeared in the New York Times:

    An Argentine judge ordered international arrest warrants on Thursday for a former Iranian president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and eight others in connection with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/americas/10argentina.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/R/Religion%20and%20Belief&oref=slogin

    Real nice guys running Iran over the years. They just are misunderstood – or, to be more exact, you misunderstand them.

  16. Tamzin said on November 12th, 2007 at 3:49pm #

    To Neal,
    Actually I suggest that you go to the original farsi to hear what Ahmedinejad really said, not to any translations. It is like Reuters giving out the news and all other simply copying it. That is what happened to the Ahmedinejad famous (or infamous) speech. That is how journalists function. They do not personally go out and get the information but receive the information from a single source and repeat it. That is why it is called “mainstream” information. Even in Iran, they took the news from one source.
    Still, Ahmedinejad is who he is and one can dislike him alone for many reasons, not least the fact that he held a Holocaust conference when his country was being threatened. Do you know that there were protests in Iran about this? The students at the University of Tehran protested and shouted against what Ahmedinejad did.
    His words are not cause to cause a war. His words, if you re-read even the translations are meaningless rhetoric. People in Iran do not all support him. Otherwise, we might as well make war on the US for what Bush said with his mention of crusades, axis of evil and WWIII. I can also state: “real nice guys running the US over the years”…given the track record of the Vietnam war, Afghanistan, Gulf war, Iraq invasion, military bases all over, the only country to use nuclear weapons, chemical weapons (remember Agent Orange?) etc. Ahmedinejad has far less power than George Bush. Ahmedinejad is no reason to create propaganda against Iran.

  17. Richard said on November 12th, 2007 at 4:30pm #

    I agree with you that there are real nice guys runing Iran.I did a few other post on this subject but for some reason my posting was deleted by the website administraitor. All is well for freedom of speech-LOL!

    Depending on what website-you will get 4 differant versions of the same story. When a man speaks for a country in front of a live audiance and says im going to wipe out Israel. I must take it for what it is. A direct threat !
    The main truth is not betwen the Americans, Israelis its about Iran changing the landscape in which all other countries and neighbors will have to go nucular to . If that is the case-Then it will be that saudia arabia gets 100 nukes, jordan gets 100 nukes, egypt get 100 nukes, kuwait gets 100 nukes, Israel doesnt get any because it has 500 million of them(media statistics-LOl) Lebbanon gets 100 nukes,yemen get 100 nukes, oman gets 100 nukes,sudan gets 100 nukes and somalia gets only 25 nukes because there still currently in civil war. Can you just imaging what would happen?

    A little history lesson:
    America was the first to use nucular weapons against Japan.That is a fact as is what happened during the holocaust against the jews.(Anybody who doesnt agree with the holocost that it did indeed happen is either blissfully ignorant or there are eyes and minds are covered by there own hatred! What i think what many fail to realise is that the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki actually saved far more lives.Because it was estimated the cost to completely take over japan and its islands would cost the americans another million and more deaths of our troops after 1945.
    (Though estimates vary, it was suggested that the early surrender saved 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.) It would have been the biggest bloodbath in mankinds histrory!
    Close to 400,00 japanese lifes were lost to the nucular attack directly and indirectly.That is a tradegy-that is war!

  18. Neal said on November 12th, 2007 at 4:50pm #

    Tamzin and Richard,

    What I cited was the Iranian government’s official news agency. I gather that if the message were really a mistranslation, the story would be out and out retracted. The same for Ahmadinejad’s official website, which I also cited.

    Now, my understanding is that those who say his speech was mistranslated resort to a literal translation. On the other hand, the message he actually did intended, as a read through the entire speech makes clear, is that Islam would triumph over Israel, destroying Israel – i.e. wipe it off the map – and, if you read the rest of the speech, the West, with Iran leading the way. In that regard, Israel’s demise would have great symbolic significance, as Ahmadinejad said. So, I think that the literal translation that some employ is overly cute.

    I note another point. It does not much matter what Ahmadinejad literally or figuratively said. His regime has convinced the Israelis that his regime is a grave, existential danger. So, whatever he meant, he has created a very great danger as the Israelis are not known to sit around waiting to be attacked. Which is to say: if there is a misunderstanding, Ahmadinejad has much fence mending to do. That, you will note, is something he is not trying to do. Instead, his regime has done the opposite, ridding itself of its more conciliatory negotiator in favor of the hardest of hardline lunatic negotiators.

  19. Ekosmo said on November 12th, 2007 at 6:24pm #

    A: — When a man speaks for a country in front of a live audiance and says im going to wipe out Israel. I must take it for what it is. A direct threat !

    B: — When a hard-boiled over-priviledged idiot speaks for a country in front of a live audiance [sic] and says im going to regime change the entire Middle East. the entire world must take it for what it is. A direct threat !

    …more ‘translations’ from hyperventilating gung-ho paranoics coming along as and when required…

  20. Richard said on November 13th, 2007 at 2:55pm #

    Ekosmo,

    Get over your Bush bashing and get one with life-There will be a democrate elected as president next year. Unfortunately-It doesnt matter who is president because they are allready part of the group or shall i say they own all the horses in a horse race. If not this president it will be the next! They just follow whats allready been laid out!

    Im sorry your ignorance and blindness causes you to resort to name calling which says to me that you have much to learn.

    Neal,You are right- The intent is to Get rid of Israel. I would not screw around with Israel-Because they will do premptive because loseing isint an option for the Jewish people.When they said never again-They mean it!

  21. Kim Petersen said on November 13th, 2007 at 4:23pm #

    With all due respect Ekosmo and Richard, you did not read this article well because it also pointed out that words about “wiping Israel off the map” were never spoken by Ahmadinejad.

  22. Tamzin said on November 13th, 2007 at 4:44pm #

    Actually Israel itself (in the form of Tipi Livni) stated that Iran was no threat to Israel. Subject: [Fwd: Livni behind closed doors: Iranian nuclear arms pose little threat to Israel]
    http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&attid=0.1&disp=vah&view=att&th=115d7a4f81683713
    Livni: Iranian nuclear arms pose little threat

    Here is an article to read about the media backtracking about Iran being a threat to Israel:
    https://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/caught-red-handed-media-backtracks-on-irans-anti-israel-threat/

    Why does anyone keep on making the excuse that Iran is a threat to Israel, with all its own nuclear weapons?

  23. Neal said on November 13th, 2007 at 6:02pm #

    Mr. Petersen,

    Mr. Ahmadinejad used words which are properly and accurately, but not literally, translated to mean that Israel should be wiped off the map. Such translation is all the more obviously correct because the thrust of the argument he made concerned why Israel’s demise would advance Islam’s agenda against Europeans.

    It is always very cute for people to claim that a speech which asserts in as many ways as can be imagined its intention should be read so narrowly and literally as to be meaningless. It goes along with the parade through Tehran – in front of Ahmadinejad’s eyes, by the way – in which the crowd carried banners, given to them by Ahmadinejad’s government, that said said “Death to Israel.” Somehow, if that is not the message Ahmadinejad does not want to be heard by the world, he is doing a very bad job of things.

    And, as I have said, it is beyond all doubt that the Israeli defense and intelligence establishments – not to mention leading intellectuals in the country – think that Iran poses an existential threat, as in a clear and present imminent danger. If, in fact, Ahmadinejad and those around him who have said repeatedly – and not just in one speech – that they aim to destroy Israel (and not to help the Palestinian Arabs, whom the Iranian leadership, by the way, has said repeatedly they despise for being weaklings, not to mention Sunni and Arab, rather than Persian), but to serve Islam and the Islamist quest to reclaim lands in Europe from infidel powers, they must be the most tone death people on Earth. Even Hitler was not as blunt as the likes of Ahmadinejad in what he intended. And, that says a lot.

    In other words, I take your theory regarding the translation as pure disinformation. Read the speech in question in its entirety. Read the repeated calls for Israel’s destruction and not just that one speech. It is a call to war by the Iranians for the glory of Islam, not a statement of support for Palestinian Arabs. In fact, they would rather sacrifice the Palestinian Arabs on the alter of Islamic glory before helping them.

  24. Richard said on November 13th, 2007 at 6:30pm #

    Kim,

    Yes it wasnt about wipeing Israel off the map. But the point was that it was said to be a mistranslation,But the fact is it is what it is! As the article states it is a fact sheet about sanctions and military options.Remember, You have a right and a left side and with everysbody input coming from world (media) . The fact is this-there will be a coming conflict in the middle east – And this will involve other nations and not just the United States. History seems to always repeat itself ! But the fact is when and if the United States goes to war-The american public cant stop it-Only after the fact can it be ended by political and domestic pressures-thus we end up( united states) either loseing or coming to a stallamate-Depending on ones viewpoint.

    Here is my view and you can all dam me if will:

    I believe that the conflict with Iran will come to an end conclusion. It wont be a pretty one! I also believe we are in the early stages of war(numerous crossborder gunfights involving delta and elite special forces)-Be it proxy by Smugglers, gun runners and the drug trade tribesman and military weapons and training provided by Iran. Iran wants to spread its influence to the middle east to other regions(lebbanon and syria are mostly controlled by Iran).It wants to be the next Regional power in the middle east. Unfortunately there is Israel and its a thorn in Irans side,It will not bow or cater to Iran nor does it believe in its religion and there theology-Now your dealing with issue that Israel must be elimated in order to have the conquest complete-There is no other way because of the differances. With Israel out of the way-you can occupy and control most of the middle east and spread There Religious beliefs and theology and government practises ( Here in the United States you can worship and choose your religion and beliefs) Because we are a free -In Iran you are prosecuted, killed and beating and must hide in secret or be under state control and jurisdiction!

    Sanctions will not work! This has been going for over 2 years and there has not been anychange.More sanctions-less sanctions-no sanctions is irrevelent! They need this techknowledgy to complete there goals and quest because without it -They cant take over the region.
    Military solutions seldom are the best answer but unfortunately its the one solution mankind seems to use and the United States is just one out of many.

    Sooner or later the world as we know it can not sustain its populations, food and resources .Wars seem to be a natural solution because its a partial remedy that can be created over and over.It does create jobs and growth ,More money for research and techknowledgy and advancement in knowledge and health!

  25. Neal said on November 13th, 2007 at 7:13pm #

    Tamzin,

    If you bother to investigate what Israelis say to each other, they think that Iran is a clear and present threat, an imminent danger that needs to be stopped before it destroys Israel. That view pervades Israeli society, from the top to the bottom. And, if there Ms. Livni said something different in public, such does not represent the views her government holds internally, as has been widely reported. Knowing numerous Israelis, I can tell you for a fact that such is the Israeli viewpoint of, say, 85% of all Israelis, regardless of party affiliation.

  26. Ekosmo said on November 14th, 2007 at 6:00am #

    Richard
    Get over your frothing, palpitating Islamophobia and get a life.
    But most of all — get an education. I’m sorry, but your ignorance and blindness indicates you have much to learn. I’d suggest you begin with basic English language grammar and spelling lessons. This may assist you to formulate your thinking more clearly…
    There again, it may not…

    Mr. Peterson – you’re building a fine archive here, marred only by some of your blog’s…er… ‘contributors’ – whether these be out an out Islamophobes on the one hand, or crypto Jew-haters on the other…

    Please do not confuse my posts [as you have above] with ill-educated, warmongering, juvenile delinquents whose lusts to see yet more blood and guts than that currently flowing and spilling is apparently insatiable…

  27. Richard said on November 14th, 2007 at 2:49pm #

    My friend Mr Eskimo,

    I love how you continue to name call by useing names such as with ill-educated, warmongering, juvenile delinquents whose lusts to see yet more blood and guts than that currently flowing and spilling is apparently insatiable…

    You sir are truly an asshole!

  28. Richard said on November 14th, 2007 at 3:21pm #

    Mr Eskimo
    For one thing you are a judgemental individual who doesnt like other peoples responces and then turns to name calling and childish behavior. For a so called educated person (I will assume that because you think people dont have an education like you yourself) You try to belittle people with whom you disagree with.

    Sir,I served in the military and been to Iraq during the first war! Have you been there? Do you know whats going on besides news reports. Do you know what they think and feel? Have you even made a kill in battle? Of cource not-You just spew you mouth with a prethra of words because you dont know what your talking about!

    Mr Eskimo-do us all a favor and live in your Igloo.Your safe because thousands have died for your safety and continue to!

  29. Ekosmo said on November 14th, 2007 at 6:57pm #

    Exhibit A:

    “…Wars seem to be a natural solution because its [sic] a partial remedy that can be created over and over.It does create jobs and growth ,More money for research and techknowledgy [sic] and advancement in knowledge and health!”

    [message ends]
    …………..
    Reading the above…er… sentences…

    that could’ve been torn straight out of the pages of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kamph’ –

    DV readers may wish to gasp in utter astonishment at exactly what “judgementals” US military personnel were/are being indoctrinated with, behind closed US military establishments – and all paid for with US citizen’s tax dollars…

  30. Shabnam said on November 15th, 2007 at 10:26am #

    We must thank CASMII for this paper and also congratulate them, especially Dr. Abbas Edalat for his victory over the Neo-Conservatives in Cambridge Union Society
    http://www.payvand.com/news/07/nov/1117.html
    on “Iran Poses a Serious Threat to the World.” This victory send a message to the forces of destruction which have wiped many countries and civilizations off the face of earth and now they are targeting Iran to increase their influence in the world that GO TO HELL and HANDS OFF IRAN.
    Iran has not threatened Israel, as CASMII has written, or any other county in the world, instead is Iran which has been threaten repeatedly by US, Israel and other former Imperial and colonial countries where their crimes are known to every citizen of the world, Britain and France, and their puppets- Arab head of states. The charge of “wipe Israel off the map”, a microscopic state erected on land of Palestine is absolutely a lie. Those people who insist that Iran wants to destroy Israel and Jewish people in it must be either a Zionist liar or an illiterate deliberately spreading lies to wage a war against Iran.
    What Ahmadinejad referred was “the Zionist regime” to be vanished from the page of time which is desired by billions of people all over the world. Iran with other countries such as India, China and African countries never voted for the partition of Palestine therefore, Iran believes in one country for all.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Wi_Zionism.22_speech
    The Zionists must be more sophisticated to realize that the translation is done by the Iranian who do not have authority over English language, please look at the quote once more and see what it says:

    “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the President told a conference in Tehran entitled ‘the world without Zionism’.
    And now this:
    Tehran, Oct 26 – Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”.
    “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” the President told a conference in Tehran entitled ‘the world without Zionism’.”
    If he is talking about a physical destruction of Israel why does he uses ‘Zionist regime’ repeatedly? If the aim is physical destruction of Israel and not Zionism, as some of the Zionist liars claim, then why do they call the conference: “The World Without Zionism” and not “The World without Israel”?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_page_of_time.22_translation_Zionism.22_speech

    On the contrary, the Zionists and their petty servants who are sitting in the ‘black house’ and the senate and the congress who are determined to destroy Iran to bring about a “map change” of the
    Middle East, to wipe Iran off the map to create new puppet states like Kurdistan to favor Israel as ‘Super Power of the region” and eliminate Israel’s enemies against the fact that Iran had historically been the power of the region and more likely this is going to continue.
    This is a ZIONIST WAR and against the interest of American people, therefore, everyone must make sure the war never starts otherwise those servants of the Zionist interest are the first to be brunt in the fire of their own STUPIDITY.
    In fact Zionists have brought so many lies to convince American people to sacrifice their financial resources and interest in the world to save a racist and illegitimate microscopic state which is a liability to American interest, at least, in the region and since its inception by the colonial power, the world has seen nothing but genocide and destruction.
    To force American and international community into another ZIONIST WAR, they have brought charges such as ‘DRESS CODE’ against Iran which was authored by their Iranian petty servant in the name of Amir Taheri regarding new legislation in Iranian parliament allegedly requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive colored badges which was published in a pro Zionist newspaper, National Post of Canada, which ran alongside the story a 1935 photograph of a Jewish businessman in Berlin with a yellow six-pointed star sewn on his overcoat, as required by Nazi legislation at the time. Through this exhibition, Zionists tried to convince the international community that Iran is Nazi Germany and by manipulation of Ahmadinezad’s speech in his own country with Iranian people on “the world without Zionism” to present the president as a ‘new Hitler’ to warn the ignorant people of an existential danger to the microscopic state so the petty servants of the Zionism in the ‘black house’ use their resources to WIPE IRAN OFF THE MAP.
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3
    http://www.nysun.com/article/33126
    In fact this threat has been so exaggerated that forced the former Mossad into action to downplays Iranian ‘threat’ and said”
    “The Iranian threat to Israel is substantive but not existential,”
    according to former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy.
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914171.html
    Later their lies were exposed: and they had no other choices except to APOLOGIZE:
    Our mistake: Note to readers
    Douglas Kelly, National Post
    Published: Wednesday, May 24, 2006
    “Last Friday, the National Post ran a story prominently on the front page alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law that, if enacted, would require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges that would identify them as such in public. It is now clear the story is not true.”
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6df3e493-f350-4b53-bc16-53262b49a4f7
    The real idea behind the bill which was passed by the Iranian parliament was to encourage Iranian-Islamic pattern, fabric and fashion to limit the influence of western dress code to help the local businesses regarding usage of fabric, design and other related material.
    http://hoder.com/weblog/archives/015264.shtml
    The United States has not used diplomatic channel to solve the manufactured “crisis” yet. They have lied when they implied to have done that. Iran has not even received similar offer as North Korea
    received, North Korea has been given security guarantees. So it is obvious that they are not interested in negotiation rather they have a mission to carry out the ZIONIST AGENDA. If the United States looking for her interest must abandon the Zionist plan and should provide Iran with a legal bindingly document which clearly recognizes THE RIGHT OF IRAN TO ENRICHMENT for its fuel requirement and publishes it widely to be know to the world and then Iran can postpone, for a short time, the enrichment during which the negotiation can
    take place, otherwise US is lying when says we are using the diplomatic channel!!
    Meanwhile, the population of earth should wear an ORANGE color either a coat or pans or whatever is noticeable on NOVEMBER 16, 2007 to send a clear message to the ‘black house’ that the world is against any aggression, military or economic sanction, against Iran and those who start such an aggression are the first to be burnt in the fire of their own stupidity.

  31. Mike McNiven said on December 8th, 2007 at 6:11pm #

    For an anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist position please see:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat12012007.html