If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!

In the chronology of the Bush administration’s record of manipulation and willful distortion of evidence, the apparent revelation – revealed in a recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate – that Iran ceased its nuclear program in 2003 promises to usher in a renewed phase of White House propaganda. While the cautious pundits and news anchors of the television media may predict this new information to initiate a sea-change in Washington’s antagonistic posturing, I am more skeptical. This administration will somehow find a way to interpret the development as “proof” of their wolf-crying.

Leaving aside the obvious outrage we should express at the government’s failure to rely on solid evidence and the colossally ignorant manner in which Bush threatened to launch WWIII based on shoddy intelligence, it would be prudent to review the case Washington has made against Iran thus far…

Before even addressing the question of contemporary nuclear development, the United States accuses Iran of assisting insurgents in Iraq – an accusation which is not likely to disappear any time soon. This reveals something very specific about the kind of moral relativism which permeates the United States. As a world power, the United States has led the pack in assisting insurgencies (however murderous), from the proxy wars of Latin America, to the involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. But apparently some moral line is crossed when others do the same – despite the fact that Iran shares a border with Iraq and should have serious concerns about the unimaginable bloodbath that is occurring in its backyard. Indeed, there is no way to even discuss the meddling of others when our own meddling has been the very cause of this colossal tragedy.

Also, the United States has not been fundamentally opposed to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in principle. In the years following Anglo-American overthrow of the Mossadegh regime in 1953 and the subsequent installation of the Shah, Henry Kissinger remarked that the “introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals”. In fact, while Iran served its role as subservient client-state, the United States encouraged and provided material assistance in the pursuit of an Iranian nuclear program.

The Shah, whose repression was vastly more authoritarian than the Islamic theocratic rule Iran experiences today, was bestowed an honorary degree by Columbia University and generally treated with reverent respect by the American intelligentsia and business elite, who greatly benefited from the “opening” of the Iranian market to Western oil companies. U.S. antagonism towards Iran today has more to do with Iran’s refusal to renew the role of subservience than it does with any of the official reasons promulgated by the liars in Washington.

Despite what Washington has claimed, it is certain the Iranian nuclear program fell within the boundaries of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows for non-nuclear countries to develop nuclear programs for fuel production purposes. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that Iran’s program violated the NPT, we should review Iran’s own willingness to cooperate with Western demands. In 2004, Iran made a bilateral agreement with the European Union to halt its nuclear ambitions in exchange for security guarantees – understood to mean protection from the warmongers in Washington. The E.U., ever-compliant in the face of American policy, abandoned the agreement, to which Iran responded by continuing its nuclear program. In the U.S., this was interpreted to mean Iran willfully caused the agreement to collapse…

When Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency suggested a serious plan in which the production and processing of Iran’s nuclear program would be placed under international control with “assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies“, nothing much was done.

ElBaradei’s proposal was dead in the water. The U.S. political leadership, surely in its current stance, would never agree to this delegation of sovereignty. To date, ElBaradei’s proposal has been accepted by only one state … Iran” <<< more

While the revelation that Iran ended its nuclear program in 2003 is certainly good news to anyone interested in total nuclear abolition, it only reveals the utter hypocrisy of the United States in opposing Iran’s nuclear aspirations, while simultaneously supporting the illegal “nuclearization” of India with the Indo-U.S. pact – a clear violation of the NPT. Yet this is tolerated because the United States alone is allowed to violate international treaties as it pleases – a leisure forbidden to the inferior states unfortunately sharing the planet with us.

As I predicted, Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley had this to say in reaction to the news that Iran ceased its nuclear program in 2003:

Today’s National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons … The bottom line is this: … the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran – with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure – and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution. <<< more

The absurdity of this kind of reasoning should not even be distinguished with a response. As has become clear, the only solution for Iran is total and unconditional capitulation to Washington’s demands – a pattern that has become all too familiar to countries around the world and I fear that military action have only been stalled by the latest news.