Behind the Allegations

Part 2: The U.S. and Iran: A Manufactured Crisis

There’s obviously more than meets the eye to unproven allegations of late September from the U.S. and its allies that Iran’s nuclear program is really intended to result in the clandestine production of nuclear weapons, presumably to attack other countries.

As we proceed with our analysis, here are a few things that should be kept in mind.

• So far there is absolutely no evidence Iran is going to “weaponize” its nuclear power program and build atomic bombs. So far it has been abiding by the NPT, has pledged not to produce nuclear weapons, is under very close scrutiny by the IAEA, and obviously its program is the target of intensive surveillance by the United States. There is no secret way in which it can construct nuclear weapons under such circumstances.

• Israel possesses an arsenal of up to 200 nuclear weapons and thumbs its nose at the IAEA and the NPT, with which it is notoriously non-compliant. If President Obama must sternly castigate Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons, for “breaking rules that all nations must follow … and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world,” why does he protect Israel from international sanction and subsidize its military machine? Pakistan and India are also non-compliant, but they too are allies of Washington and thus have been granted immunity.

• In this connection it must be noted that the far right wing Tel Aviv government appears to be on the verge of launching an attack on Iran and has made this well known to the world. But it receives no censure for such threats from the U.S. and its European allies, or for the horror it inflicted on Gaza a few months ago. Imagine the outcry if Iran threatened to attack Israel, or its army entered the territory of a neighboring society and inflicted terrible cruelties largely upon its civilian population for not submitting to national oppression. And yet Tel Aviv calls Iran an “existential” threat despite Israel’s nuclear weapons, it’s superior military force and its support from the entire American military apparatus, including 2,600 strategic nuclear warheads on hair-trigger readiness. But as we’ve noted before, the only concrete threat to Israel’s existence would be if the U.S. government withdrew its political, military and financial support.

• Washington’s geopolitical interests are key to America’s relationship to Iran and the Middle East in general. The U.S. desires to control — or at minimum to keep out of “unfriendly” hands — the immense oil reserves possessed by Iran and neighboring Iraq. It fears a future alliance between these resource rich developing countries, who also happen to be the only two nations in the world governed by Shi’ite Muslims. The U.S. invaded to overthrow the “unfriendly,” Sunni-backed Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. But it can neither rely totally on its selected successor regime in Baghdad, nor has it yet been able to remove the theocratic government in Tehran, which is conservative domestically but puts forward an anti-imperialist foreign policy that drives the world’s remaining superpower to distraction.

Washington’s objective at the talks beginning Oct. 1 is to coerce Iran to accept extremely intrusive controls on its nuclear development, combining dire threats for refusal with small rewards for agreement. The Tehran government said it will reject demands that it halt uranium enrichment, a main concern of the five members of the Security Council plus Germany, but indicated without elaboration that “Iran is ready to … help ease joint international concerns over the nuclear issue.” (Enriched uranium is required to power nuclear plants for civilian uses. Much greatly enriched uranium is required for weapons.)

Washington wants to confine the seven-party discussions to Tehran’s nuclear project, but the Iranian government put forward it own proposal in early September for “comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations.” The U.S. rejected the proposal, but accepted it with seeming reluctance the next day. (We don’t know what happened to change things.) The Iranian suggestions include hastening global nuclear disarmament, ending nuclear proliferation and working toward world peace. Theoretically, Washington agrees with these goals, but doesn’t really want to discuss them with Iran.

The White House knows that in a broader discussion of nonproliferation issues Iran would draw attention to the three U.S. allies presently defying the NPT and getting away with it, and also show that the U.S. itself is non-compliant because it was supposed to have made more progress by now in reducing the Pentagon’s nuclear arsenal. Further, the U.S. will hardly discuss an Iranian proposal for a comprehensive agreement to achieve “global peace and security based on justice” that includes an inquiry into America’s aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel’s astonishingly disproportionate violence against Gaza and Lebanon.

The Obama Administration wants at minimum to impose stringent sanctions on Iran if no progress is made to its satisfaction in the next few months as demanded by U.S. neoconservatives, the right wing in general and those influenced by AIPAC, which describes itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby.”

One reason for harsh sanctions would be to hasten the downfall of the Ahmadinejad government, if possible, by creating a serious economic crisis, unemployment, and suffering to exacerbate existing social tensions within the Islamic Republic. The last time Washington engaged in deep sanctions was from 1991-2003 when it has been verified that over a million Iraqis, including a huge number of children, died from various deprivations from hunger to unclean drinking water.

If sanctions are the minimum, the maximum response would be unleashing Israel to attack Iran — an action that would backfire as surely as there is water in the Hudson River.

After his Pittsburgh speech Obama told the press he wasn’t “taking any options off the table,” a phrase he has used a number of times in relation to Iran. It means war remains an option for the U.S., even over the relatively petty issue of an empty building still under construction that’s probably intended to produce energy, not violence. This same statement was a favorite of Bush II as well, and he used it repeatedly in relation to Iran. In April 2006, at a time when Dick Cheney, the neoconservatives and their supporters were pushing hard for war against Iran, the BBC reported that “Bush says all options, including the use of force, are on the table.” As they say, the more things change….

Although some in Washington are hopeful that Ahmadinejad will be weakened in the nuclear talks because of opposition claims that he “stole” the June 12 election in Iran, we don’t believe this is a factor. So far, more than three and a half months later, there has not been any concrete evidence to support the opposition allegations of electoral fraud.

While the U.S. mass media depicts Ahmadinejad as being under virtual siege from a majority of Iranians, other information shows this is exaggerated. Inter-Press Service reported the following Sept. 19 in an article by Jim Lobe headlined, “New Poll Finds Strong Domestic Support for Iran Regime.”:

“A new survey of Iranian public opinion released here [today] suggests majority domestic support for both him [Ahmadinejad] and the country’s basic governing institutions. Four out of five of the 1,003 Iranian respondents interviewed in the survey released by, a project of the highly respected Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland, said they considered Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate president of Iran.

“Sixty-two percent of respondents said they had ‘a lot of confidence’ in the declared election results, which gave Ahmadinejad 62.6% of the vote within hours of the polls’ closing Jun. 12 and which were swiftly endorsed by the Islamic Republic’s Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Three of four respondents said Khamenei had reacted correctly in his endorsement.”

No mass demonstrations have taken place from early August until Sept. 18, when thousands of protestors marched in Tehran in an attempt to rival much larger government-sponsored annual rallies in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle on what is called “Jerusalem Day” in Iran. Coming just two weeks before the opening of the nuclear talks, it was obviously intended to convey the impression internationally that Ahmadinejad did not really represent the will of the Iranian people. Police handled the dissenters with kid gloves.

A number of the demonstrators and signs seemed to oppose the Tehran government’s support for the Palestinians as well as Ahmadinejad’s re-election. The Economist reported chants of “Not Gaza, Not Lebanon, I’ll only give my life for Iran,” although Jerusalem Day observances never suggested Iranians should give their lives for either Gaza or Lebanon, both of which have been targets of Israeli military aggression. There were also chants of “Death to Russia” and “Death to China,” evidently a reference to their refusal to join the U.S. and Israel in denunciations of the Tehran government.

In a speech that day, Ahmadinejad in effect pulled the rug from under his own feet in terms of international opinion by once again charging that the Holocaust was a “lie.” Wisely, the Iranian leader did not repeat the preposterous allegation during his 35 minute speech to the UN General Assembly in New York Sept. 23. He mainly discussed building durable world peace and “elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to pave the way for all nations to have access to advanced and peaceful technology.”

He criticized the U.S. and Israel, but seemed somewhat subdued. According to Sarah Wheaton in the New York Times blog that evening, he “said the United States was aiding Israel in ‘racist ambitions,’ called Israel’s attack on Gaza in December ‘barbaric’ and said the economic blockade of Palestinians amounts to ‘genocide’” — comments that provoked the U.S. and 10 other delegations to walk out. Israel didn’t attend in the first place.

Soon after Ahmadinejad’s speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the General Assembly that “The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” and urged the delegates to oppose Iranian “barbarism.”

Back in Israel Sept. 26, according to an AP dispatch from Jerusalem, “Netanyahu spoke with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a number of unidentified U.S. senators and told them that now is the time to act on Iran. Israel maintains the Islamic republic is seeking nuclear weapons. ‘If not now then when?’ the official quoted Netanyahu as saying. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak with the media. He did not disclose what kind of action Netanyahu recommended be taken.

“Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said earlier in the day that the Iranian nuclear facility proves ‘without a doubt’ the Islamic republic is pursuing nuclear weapons. ‘This removes the dispute whether Iran is developing military nuclear power or not and therefore the world powers need to draw conclusions,’ Lieberman told Israel Radio. ‘Without a doubt it is a reactor for military purposes not peaceful purposes.’”

Read Part 1.

Jack A. Smith is the editor of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. He can be reached at Read other articles by Jack.

9 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Michael Kenny said on September 29th, 2009 at 11:50am #

    An interesting point in all this is the claim that Iran reported the facility to the IAEA at this moment because they discovered that Obama was about to go public on it. How does the Iranian government, with which the US is in a confrontation, know what the President of the US is about to do even before he does it? Clearly, Iran has some very well placed sources of information!

  2. Shabnam said on September 29th, 2009 at 1:37pm #

    [How does the Iranian government, with which the US is in a confrontation, know what the President of the US is about to do even before he does it? Clearly, Iran has some very well placed sources of information!] Michael Kenny

    Iran does not have any ‘well placed sources of information’ as some uninformed commentators suggest!!

    This information was known to the West but because it is legal for a MEMBER OF NPT, NOT TO REPORTS EVERY SINGLE NEW SITE TO THE AGENCY UNTIL 6 MONTHS BEFORE THE ACTUAL INTROCUCTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL, then Iran was within its legal obligations. The NPT requires its member to notify the agency 6 months ahead of the time before introducing nuclear materials. Thus, Iran had to inform the agency more than 14 months ahead of the legal deadline to neutralize the Zionist’ plot.
    The reason Iran in a pre-emptive act notify the agency much earlier than legal requirement is that Iran reads the international media and found out, by Lemonade, that the Zionist Jew who is leading France, Sarkozy, was putting pressure on Americans and the European on behalf of Israel to use this information, legal site of Qum, for propaganda purposes at the recent United Nations meeting and the meeting held afterwards to fool the international community against Iran, but Iran decided to neutralize Sarkozy and the rest of the ZIONIST CIRCLES at the United by notifying IAEA and the world community of its LAWFUL ACTIVITY AT Qum. Obama did not go with this stupid Zionist conspiracy led by Sarkozy because Obama argued this action is going to hurt a coalition that he is trying to mobilize against Iran.

  3. Annie Ladysmith said on September 30th, 2009 at 12:09am #

    Jack: US’s Terrorizing Iran. Right,right, and right again!
    We need to get more articles like this out before the maniacal US gov. pulverizes Iran like it’s done Iraq. Iran is a conversative nation intent on educating it’s children and keeping it’s culture, in a world gone completely NUTS.

    THIS IS THEIR CRIME; NO CENTRAL BANK, ZILLIONS IN RESOURCES INCLUDING OIL AND WATER, AND A DESIRE TO KEEP THEIR NATIONAL AUTOMONY. In other words they have thumbed their noses at the raving mad globalizers. They don’t need them and they don’t want them and GOOD FOR IRAN.

    Now for anyone who is still sitting on the fence regarding the People’s Republic of America and it’s People’s Army and the utter carnage they are wreaking all over the globe, this would be a good time to WAKE UP! If we take this peaceful nation down it is the American people who will ultimately pay the price, even if it is Israel who pulls the initial trigger.

    They have Iran cowered between the US Armed Forces run by CIA fascist brutes, and the Zionist-Israel Child Killers ready to lead the way into this next NAZI BLITZKRIEG. What can the Iranians do?

    DO NOT think you can let your supposedly elected government incinerate another sovereign nation and that grim reaper will not come knocking on your doorstep next.

    The US and Israel ROGUE-state TERROR governments are working together to take over the entire area of the middle east, it’s all about oil and resources, and i hope there is no-one out there who even remotely thinks it’s about any other reason.

    Iran is the only independent nation left, just a few small fry after that, and then their world government will be practically complete. After that, they will take care of all the dissenters in the West. It is one jack-boot step away.

  4. russell olausen said on September 30th, 2009 at 12:47am #

    I am in Canada and looking at the map of the world shows that all five Security Council members are capable of taking a clear nuclear shot at us with no fly over of a third country.We do not protest this fact because at heart we are not Pollyanna’s. The world is still a Westphalian type setup. Knowing this will help you avoid any idealistic heartbreak, naive readings of the U.N. charter and documents of their ilk will cause. Now you can view the U.N. with your tribal hat on and pick your own white hat and black hats, just like the world of Ambassadors.

  5. Annie Ladysmith said on September 30th, 2009 at 12:53am #

    OLAUSEN: where did you say you are from?? What continent is your country on??

  6. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 30th, 2009 at 8:19am #

    The world appears divided in two parts: one with US and the other against or not on US side.
    Iran is not on rich countries’ side. And it appears not to be against that side.
    But as the rich club had said via bush: u’r w. us or against us, iran, korea, among others, must be either destroyed militarily or severely weakened by sanction and under constant threat of a military attack.
    Israel is now an integral part of the rich club of nations; thus, it can do no wrong as far as her side is concerned.

    The rich side controls only ab. 60-70% of the planet. It won’t do. US by 1800’s had controled, let’s say 60-70% of redlands. And US never said that it wanted all of it.

    Israel `67 controled ab. 80% of palestine. She never said she wants all of it + more. But she got it!
    US side wants now the planet. But it is not saying it wants the entire planet and governed by world plutos. Why say it? When one can do it. Once the greedy side get`s russia onside, only china wld have been left to cope with NEW europe and NEW america.
    The OLD europe, the OLD ameriga are no more. The OLD laws and the OLD ethics remain almost the same.
    If changed, the change wld amount to a minus for lower classes. There is no longer nationalism, wars, diplomacy, americans, iraqis, italians, et al.
    There is no more OLD wars because the NEW ones are not really wars but defensive or protective actions against `terrorists`.

    So, the millennial plutocratic quest for control of the known world since lugalzaggisi`s and sargon`s days wld have been achieved`.
    sargon1 of akkad, btw, had been known as the “ruler of the four quarters of the world“.
    He was also considered devine. So it appears a big minus that the conquistadores do not have a divine biped to lead them as of yet.
    But once clooney or madonna wld be in hiséher 5th term in planetary office in novaya zemya or anchorage, he may be proclaimed “Divine“. tnx

  7. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 30th, 2009 at 8:33am #

    advice to younguns
    as long as mom feeds u and the uncle- funnni or other wise- teaches u, u`ll always be in trouble.
    And the aunt sarah or samuela wld not be much better for u. But if u have to choose between sarah or brunhilda, choose brunhilda!

  8. russell olausen said on September 30th, 2009 at 12:11pm #

    Miss Ladysmith- A key to remember, intercontinental ballistic missiles. Surely you jest or maybe your black hat is pulled down to0 far to see what continent Canada is on. I also point out the true thrust of my comment was not geography, it was tangentially geopolitical but mainly religious. I will leave with a quote by A. Adler from Problems of Neurosis ‘The truth is often a terrible weapon of aggression. It is possible to lie and even murder for the truth’..

  9. balkas b b said on October 1st, 2009 at 8:18am #

    Well, conservatives in canada {ab. 60% of pop} are restive.
    Natives have been subdued. Canadians have never lost a war.
    But the planet is still full of natives.
    So why not take care of the problem? Canada has an army, armaments, money, etc. So, off we go to ‘teach’ natives, protect their women from abuse, build roads, schools, etcetcetc and this is the Last Etc i am going to write because there is another 2k left .

    So, bozh? what is your problem? You are just impeding our progress in gaza, iraq, afpak.
    So, as one can see, it is all my fault. I am causing deaths of both the soldiers and civilians.

    That’s when i call my personal devil to rescue me from my own quagmire. And he tells me: Bozhidarevski {that’s what he likes to call me when s/he’s in good mood; other times it’s brzopoljski}, don’t be dumb and naive; it is like i told u it is. Please, puuulese, believe in me!
    Don’t worry, i’ll take all of the blame for whatever goes wrong because i am the artitecht of all evil.